Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Net Calories and TEF (thermic effect of food)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Net Calories and TEF (thermic effect of food)

    Consider these 2 diets:

    Diet A: 227 g carbs, 70 g fat, 119 g protein

    Diet B: 279 g carbs, 100 g fat, 0 g protein


    Both diets are about 2000 calories. I know that protein has the highest TEF amongst all the macronutrients. So would Diet A actually be slightly less than 2000 calories? In other words, on average, the TEF is 10% of your daily calorie intake. So the TEF of diet B would be (0.10)(2000 kcal) = 200 kcal, and the TEF of diet A would be say (0.15)(2000 kcal) = 300 kcal (for argument sake)?

  • #2
    Diet A has more than 2000 calories. The thermic effect of food does not decrease the amount of energy in food; it represents an increase in your metabolic rate. You can subtract that from the energy content of the food if you want, but to be thorough you would need to account for all other effects on your metabolic rate. For example, the thermic effect of carbohydrates is dependent on the type (glucose vs fructose) and on your own insulin sensitivity. Carbohydrates tend to raise thyroid function while unsaturated fats inhibit thyroid function, so you would need to account for that, too. But free fatty acids promote uncoupling. Insulin inhibits the release of free fatty acids. Glucose promotes insulin secretion. Saturated fatty acids do to a much smaller extent.

    Predicting the net effect of a meal on your total energy balance is extremely complicated and no one really knows how to do it completely.
    My opinions and some justification

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Elliot View Post
      Diet A has more than 2000 calories. The thermic effect of food does not decrease the amount of energy in food; it represents an increase in your metabolic rate. You can subtract that from the energy content of the food if you want, but to be thorough you would need to account for all other effects on your metabolic rate. For example, the thermic effect of carbohydrates is dependent on the type (glucose vs fructose) and on your own insulin sensitivity. Carbohydrates tend to raise thyroid function while unsaturated fats inhibit thyroid function, so you would need to account for that, too. But free fatty acids promote uncoupling. Insulin inhibits the release of free fatty acids. Glucose promotes insulin secretion. Saturated fatty acids do to a much smaller extent.

      Predicting the net effect of a meal on your total energy balance is extremely complicated and no one really knows how to do it completely.
      So would fruits like apples increase TEF? What about fiber? And both diets are approximately 2014 calories.

      Comment


      • #4
        The thermic effect of glucose is higher if you are insulin sensitive but the thermic effect of fructose is always higher than that of glucose, so sugary fruits would probably promote a higher thermic effect than starches.
        My opinions and some justification

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Elliot View Post
          The thermic effect of glucose is higher if you are insulin sensitive but the thermic effect of fructose is always higher than that of glucose, so sugary fruits would probably promote a higher thermic effect than starches.
          What is your opinion about "natural" sugars from fruits and "added" sugars? Are they the same thing?

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't have a problem with sugar itself. But it needs to be accompanied by the appropriate nutrients, especially magnesium. Fruit tends to provide those nutrients. Processed foods with refined sugar do not.
            My opinions and some justification

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Elliot View Post
              I don't have a problem with sugar itself. But it needs to be accompanied by the appropriate nutrients, especially magnesium. Fruit tends to provide those nutrients. Processed foods with refined sugar do not.
              What would happen if you have a diet that was 400 g protein, 0 g carbs, and 0 g fat. Is such a diet even possible? Is this basically a PSMF (protein sparing modified fast) with more calories? Is it healthy?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ifguy12 View Post
                Is it healthy?
                No! Look up "Rabbit starvation"
                My opinions and some justification

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                  No! Look up "Rabbit starvation"
                  But would you advocate a 200 g fat, 0 g carb, 0 g protein diet for ketogenic purposes? Is this better than the PSMF described above?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would advocate a diet with protein, carbohydrates, and fat in appropriate proportions.

                    Why do you want ketosis? Are you epileptic?
                    My opinions and some justification

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                      I would advocate a diet with protein, carbohydrates, and fat in appropriate proportions.

                      Why do you want ketosis? Are you epileptic?

                      No just wondering. But do you agree that calorie cycling may work in theory but not practically? For example, an alternate day fasting of 2000 kcal every other day is 8000 kcal per week (Sun: 2000 kcal, Tues: 2000 kcal, Thurs: 2000 kcal, Sat: 2000 kcal). But this is not equivalent to to eating 1142 kcal per day? There will be some differences (e.g. BMR goes up in short-term fasting which)? Also do you count alcohol as a macronutrient?
                      Last edited by ifguy12; 10-20-2014, 06:56 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ifguy12
                        But do you agree that calorie cycling may work in theory but not practically?
                        It can work but I don't see the benefit.
                        Originally posted by ifguy12
                        Also do you count alcohol as a macronutrient?
                        Yes. I don't advocate drinking it.
                        My opinions and some justification

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                          It can work but I don't see the benefit.

                          Yes. I don't advocate drinking it.
                          There have been articles claiming that diet soda is associated with obesity. In my opinion, diet soda has no effect on body composition or weight because it has 0 calories. What is your opinion? Would you say that diet soda (e.g. one 12 oz. can per day) can cause an insulin spike or affect body composition?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ifguy12 View Post
                            There have been articles claiming that diet soda is associated with obesity. In my opinion, diet soda has no effect on body composition or weight because it has 0 calories. What is your opinion? Would you say that diet soda (e.g. one 12 oz. can per day) can cause an insulin spike or affect body composition?
                            An "association" is basically meaningless.

                            The effect of diet soda depends on the artificial sweetener used. I have seem some evidence suggesting it is bad but nothing I found conclusive. I dislike diet soda for three reasons:
                            First, I want to maintain a high metabolic rate. That involves eating. If I intend to ingest something sweet, I would rather get real sugar and experience its benefits.
                            Second, artificial sweeteners may have effects we have not yet observed. I don't want to take the risk with under-tested drugs, especially when the supposed benefit of artificial sweeteners is so pointless.
                            Third, I don't like the idea of being so addicted to the sweet taste I need to ingest chemicals to satisfy my addiction.
                            My opinions and some justification

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                              An "association" is basically meaningless.

                              The effect of diet soda depends on the artificial sweetener used. I have seem some evidence suggesting it is bad but nothing I found conclusive. I dislike diet soda for three reasons:
                              First, I want to maintain a high metabolic rate. That involves eating. If I intend to ingest something sweet, I would rather get real sugar and experience its benefits.
                              Second, artificial sweeteners may have effects we have not yet observed. I don't want to take the risk with under-tested drugs, especially when the supposed benefit of artificial sweeteners is so pointless.
                              Third, I don't like the idea of being so addicted to the sweet taste I need to ingest chemicals to satisfy my addiction.
                              I would argue that diet soda contains a relatively high amount of caffeine (e.g. 56 mg/12 fl oz). This would increase metabolic rate slightly. Although some diet sodas with stevia and no caffeine don't seem to have a benefit on BMR. Taking caffeine on an empty stomach enhances lipolysis? Would you say its better to take a 200 mg caffeine pill or drink coffee (on an empty stomach)?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X