Mangiare pulito serve?
 

Volevo trattare questo particolare argomanto: la qualità dei cibi che consumiamo.
Ho trovato piu' studi che motrano, come a partià di kcal introdotte i risultati di mangiare pulito o sporco siano i medesimi.
In pratica, una volta garantito un sufficiente apporto proteico e quantita di EFA, il resto delle calorie per arrivare alla quota stabilita puo' provenire da "qualsiasi" cosa; la differenza è appunto fatta dal computo calorico.
Volevo discutere su questo, magari tralasciando il discorso salute del corpo/intestino e soffermarsi più sul fattore risultati.
Cosa ne pensate?

io sono sempre stato del parere che le fonti di chos fat e pros debbano essere pulite sono ignorante in materia
ma sono certo che per sicurezza tra 10 g di carboidrati di zucchero e 10 g di carboidrati da riso sceglierò sempre il riso ;)

Hormonal Responses to a Fast-Food Meal Compared with Nutritionally Comparable Meals of Different Composition – Research Review

Title and Abstract
Bray GA et. al. Hormonal Responses to a Fast-Food Meal Compared with Nutritionally Comparable Meals of Different Composition. Ann Nutr Metab. 2007 May 29;51(2):163-171 [Epub ahead of print]
Background: Fast food is consumed in large quantities each day. Whether there are differences in the acute metabolic response to these meals as compared to ‘healthy’ meals with similar composition is unknown. Design: Three-way crossover. Methods: Six overweight men were given a standard breakfast at 8:00 a.m. on each of 3 occasions, followed by 1 of 3 lunches at noon. The 3 lunches included: (1) a fast-food meal consisting of a burger, French fries and root beer sweetened with high fructose corn syrup; (2) an organic beef meal prepared with organic foods and a root beer containing sucrose, and (3) a turkey meal consisting of a turkey sandwich and granola made with organic foods and an organic orange juice. Glucose, insulin, free fatty acids, ghrelin, leptin, triglycerides, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were measured at 30-min intervals over 6 h. Salivary cortisol was measured after lunch. Results: Total fat, protein and energy content were similar in the 3 meals, but the fatty acid content differed. The fast-food meal had more myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0) and trans fatty acids (C18:1) than the other 2 meals. The pattern of nutrient and hormonal response was similar for a given subject to each of the 3 meals. The only statistically significant acute difference observed was a decrease in the AUC of LDL cholesterol after the organic beef meal relative to that for the other two meals. Other metabolic responses were not different. Conclusion: LDL-cholesterol decreased more with the organic beef meal which had lesser amounts of saturated and trans fatty acids than in the fast-food beef meal.
My Comments
For a couple of decades, there has been an ongoing argument regarding the issue of ‘is a calorie a calorie’ in terms of changes on body composition and other parameters. I discuss this topic in Is a Calorie a Calorie?
Fundamentally, my belief is that, given identical macro-nutrient intakes (in terms of protein, carbs, and fats) that there is going to be little difference in terms of bodily response to a given meal. There may be small differences mind you (and of course research supports that) but, overall, they are not large. And certainly not of the magnitude that many make it sound like.
It’s worth nothing that there are a couple of built-in assumptions to my argument, all of which are detailed in the article I linked to above but I want to briefly reiterate them here.
A tediously typical argument of the ‘a calorie isn’t a calorie’ types is usually something along the lines of “Clearly eating 3000 calories of jelly beans isn’t the same as eating 3000 calories of chicken breast and vegetables.” Well…no shit.
But at that point, the argument is about more than food quality, it’s also about the macro-nutrient content. And of course the diet containing zero protein will be bad. But, again that has zip to do with it being clean and everything to do with there being no protein.
My basic assumptions in this argument are that both protein and essential fatty acid requirements are being met. Beyond that, I find most of the obsession over food quality to be pretty pointless. Again, this is discussed in more detail in the article linked above so I won’t get into it here.
Now it’s worth noting that a great deal of the difference seen between ‘eating clean’ and ‘eating unclean’ has to do with caloric intakes. I’ve pointed out repeatedly that, and this is especially true when people are not counting their calories, certain eating patterns tend to make people eat more than others. It’s easier to overeat donuts than broccoli.
Clearly, someone eating a 2000 calorie fast food meal will obviously get a different response than someone eating a 500 or even 1000 calorie clean meal. But as with the argument above, at this point there is more than one variable changing; it’s not just about clean vs. unclean, you’re comparing meals of drastically different caloric value.
A far more logical comparison would be to look at ‘unclean’ vs ‘clean’ meals containing the same caloric value and the same macro-nutrient content; by controlling those two variables, the only thing being examined will be the quality of the food (rather than the total quantity or the macro-nutrient profile).
Especially when you’re talking about bodybuilders and athletes who are typically controlling their caloric content. Under those conditions, I argue that there will be no significant difference between the two; given identical macros and calories, there is simply no real-world difference in a clean vs. unclean meal in terms of its effects on body composition (health and other effects such as hunger control are separate, albeit important, issues).
However, even there the clean freaks will make the counter-argument: they contend that even if the macros and calories are identical, the unclean meal will still be worse. This is usually based on an assumed difference in hormonal response (usually insulin).
So who’s right?
Unfortunately, very little research has actually examined this topic in any sort of controlled way (there are at least two studies showing that high sucrose diets generate identical weight and fat losses as lower sucrose diets). At least until this paper came along
The study’s explicit goal was to see if the metabolic response to a fast-food meal would differ to a ‘healthy’ meal of similar macro-nutrient and caloric value.
Towards this end six overweight men and two women were recruited to take part in the study although the data in the women was excluded due to the low number and possible gender effects.
Each subject consumed each of the three test meals on different days with one week in between trials. A standard breakfast was provided at 8am and the test meal was given at exactly 12pm and blood samples were taken every 30 minutes for the first 4 hours and every 60 minutes for the next two hours. Blood glucose, blood lipids, insulin, leptin, ghrelin and free fatty acids were measured.
The test meals consisted of the following:.

• Fast food meal: A Big Mac, french fries and root beer sweetened with high fructose corn syrup purchased at the restaurant itself.
• Organic beef meal: this meal used certified organic rangefed ground beef; cheddar cheese; hamburger bun made with unbleached all purpose naturally white flour, non-iodized salt, non-fat powdered milk, natural yeast, canola oil, and granulated sugar; sauce made from canola mayonnaise and organic ketchup; organic lettuce, onion and dill pickles; French fries made from organic potatoes and fried in pure pressed canola oil; and root beer made with cane sugar.
• Organic turkey meal: this consisted of a turkey sandwich made from sliced, roasted free-range turkey breast with no antibiotics or artificial growth stimulants; cheddar cheese; 60% whole wheat bread made with whole wheat and unbleached all-purpose naturally white flours, non-iodized salt, non-fat powdered milk, yeast, vital wheat gluten, canola oil, and granulated sugar; pure pressed canola oil and canola mayonnaise, stone ground mustard; organic lettuce; accompanied by a granola made with Blue Diamond whole natural almonds, Nature’s path organic multigrain oatbrain flakes, wholesome sweeteners evaporated cane juice, Spectrum Naturals pure pressed canola oil, clover honey, Sonoma organically grown raisins and dried apples. The beverage was an organic orange juice.

So the study was comparing a commercial fast food meal to two carefully designed organic meals (one beef, one turkey) from the above list of ingredients.
The composition of each meal was as follows:


Meal Calories Protein Carbs Fat Fast Food 1044 28.2 151 53 Organic Beef 1154 28 163 60.2 Organic Turkey 1260 34 170 49

It’s important to note that while the meals were similar, they were not identical in composition; it would have been better if the meals had been completely identical.
The biggest difference between meals had to do with the fatty acid composition: the fast food meal contained twice as much saturated and nearly 8 times as much trans-fatty acids with half of the oleic acid compared to the organic beef meal (which is no surprise). Interestingly, the fast food meal actually contained more linoleic acid than the organic beef meal. The turkey meal had less saturated fat but similar amounts of linoleic and linolenic acid to the fast food meal, with the lowest amount of trans fats.
So what happened?
In terms of the blood glucose and insulin response, no difference was seen between any of the meals and this is true whether the data was presented in terms of percentage or absolute change from baseline. The same held true for the ratio of insulin/glucose, no change was seen between any of the meals. Please read those sentences again: the blood glucose and insulin response were identical for all three meals despite one being a fast food ‘unclean’ meal and the other two being organic ‘clean’ meals.
Fatty acid levels showed slight differences, dropping rapidly and then returning to baseline by 5 hours in the beef meals but 6 hours in the turkey meal. Blood triglyceride levels reached a slightly higher peak in the organic beef and turkey meals compared to the fast food meal but this wasn’t significant.
Changes in leptin were not significant between groups; ghrelin was suppressed equally after all three meals but rose above baseline 5 hours after the fast-food lunch but returned only to baseline in the other two meals.
The only significant difference found in the study was that LDL cholesterol decreased more after both of the organic meals compared to the fast food meal, HDL and total cholesterol showed no change after any of the meals. This was thought to be due to differences in the fatty acid content of the meals (saturated fat typically having a greater negative impact on blood lipid levels than other types of fat).
However, beyond that, there were no differences seen in the response of blood glucose, insulin, blood fatty acids or anything else measured.
Now, the study does have a few limitations that I want to mention explicitly.

1. The study only looked at a single meal. It’s entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects.
2. The sample size was small: 6 overweight men and two women. It’s possible that differences would have shown up with more subjects. A related question is whether lean individuals would respond differently. Perhaps but I doubt it. As I discussed in The Influence of the Subjects’ Training State on the Glycemic Index, GI and insulin response are even less relevant in trained individuals.

However, with that said (along with the fact that the meals weren’t exactly identical), the basic fact is this: the metabolic response between the three meals was essentially identical. There were no differences in either insulin or blood glucose, the fatty acid profile makes perfect sense given the composition of the meals and blood lipids showed basically no change.


Application
This study basically backs up what I’ve been saying for years: a single fast food meal, within the context of a calorie controlled diet, is not death on a plate. It won’t destroy your diet and it won’t make you immediately turn into a big fat pile of blubber. And, frankly, this can be predicted on basic physiology (in terms of nutrient digestion) alone. It’s just nice to see it verified in a controlled setting.
It’s not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as ‘unclean’ (never mind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast cooked at home) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet. This is in addition to the fact that apparently eating fast food makes you morally inferior as well. Well, that’s what bodybuilders and other orthorexics will tell you anyhow.
Except that it’s clearly not. Given caloric control, the body’s response to a given set of nutrients, with the exception of blood lipids would appear to be more determined by the total caloric and macro content of that meal more than the source of the food.
In terms of the hormonal response, clean vs. unclean just doesn’t matter, it’s all about calories and macros.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

Lyle mcdonald

Mah...

Ammettiamo che sia la stessa cosa.

La salute va preservata prima di tutto.

La questione è comunque interessante, però uno studio su 6 persone non ha alcun significato.
Resta che se si esclude un discorso di salute (anche se vedo difficile scinderlo), nel breve periodo calorie sono calorie per quel che riguarda il...
come dici tu.

però nel lungo periodo non si piò scindere il discorso salute dal discorso risultati

Bhe,
direi che c'è una bella differenza tra un singolo pasto
e un piano nutritivo a base di Junk food.
Magari sul breve termine la differenza non si riscontra,
ma sono convinto che sul medio e lungo termine ci sarebbe stata
una netta differenza tra i 3 gruppi.

Per quanto 2 piani nutrizionali possano essere identici sotto il punto di vista di calorie e macronutrienti, vi può essere un abisso a livello di micronutrienti (n.b. non solo minerali e vitamine) e questo si può certamente tradurre in differenti effetti sul benessere fisico.

lo stato di benessere porta a un prestazioni psico-fisiche certamente superiori, quindi a migliori risultati.

ma sono cose che, sul brevissimo tempo, non sono riscontrabili.

tralasciando il discrso sulla salute, anche nel breve periodo la qualità del cibo fa la differenza a parità di calorie... basti pensare all'indice glicemico per i carboidrati. oppure al tipo di grassi introdotto. 1000 kcal da grassi idrogenati penso siano assimilati ed utilizzati diversamente dal corpo nel medio periodo rispetto a pari kcal da grassi monoinsaturi...

l'unica cosa che prova, questo studio,
è che non è certamente un singolo pasto a compromettere la propria salute.

e questo infatti è verissimo, sia a livello estetico che di salute.

almeno che non ti mangi del cianuro..

che la variabile eliminata è quella che fa la grossa differenza tra McDonald e il ragù della nonna.

Io non mi sono spremuto le meningi nel tradurre tutto il malloppo...però a priori, a prescindere dall'esito di uno studio di cui non ho letto NULLA... ma non vi risulta una boiata assurda? ma che domanda è, dai...

Io invece, da buona mangiatrice di "schifezze", mi sono letta tutto l'articolo e devo dire che a me la sua teoria pare perfino ovvia.
Se il totale sia di calorie che di macronutrienti è il medesimo, mi sembra plausibile che l'effetto sia lo stesso, e anche i risultati.

Il problema del junk food è che le condizioni dell'esperimento ben difficilmente sono riproducibili nella vita quotidiana, a maggior ragione perchè quel tipo di cibi spesso non lo prepariamo noi e ha un sacco di ingredienti che neanche conosciamo per cui è pressochè impossibile gestirlo in un piano alimentare che preveda un certo totale calorico e una certa suddivisione dei macronutrienti.

Il discorso salute è diverso, ma anche su quello credo francamente che il peso del mangiare "pulito" vada molto ridimensionato.

Bene, adesso lapidatemi pure! :D

Ma non è possibile ridurre tutto a calorie, carboidrati, grassi e proteine.
Gli alimenti non sono fatti solo di questo.
E' una visione estremamente semplicistica che riduce il tutto alla semplice questione energetica.

Puoi dirmi che assumere della frutta, a parità di calorie e apporto di macroelementi, a gli stessi effetti di mangiare del pane bianco?

O del pesce grasso può essere tranquillamente snobbato in favore di un hamburger di dubbia origine?

Ovviamente intendo sempre e cmq sul medio e lungo termine (non un pasto singolo per intenderci).

bho,
io non capisco come si possano discernere il fattore "salute"
dal fattore "prestazione".

Se contassero solo le calorie totali allora potrebbero vendere il burro con lo stecco tipo ghiacciolo.

Esistono anche i micronutrienti...

Quindi è vero? cmabia solo a livello di salute?

Esistono anche i multivitaminici :D

Ovviamente avete ragione... e meno male che avevo chiesto se si poteva parlare piu' di risultati che salute :D!

Ho altri link da postare, mi sembra di aver visto un 50enne che si allena coi pesi fare definizione mangiando solo da mcdonald, dovrebbe aver fatto una spece di documentiario :eek:

http://chazzweaver.com/projects/mcd/conclusion.html

Losing weight in the Twinkie of an eye - thestar.com

quindi mangiare sano serve solamente per la salute?

non ha fini estetici nel lungo periodo..bello!

Riprendendo un vecchio adagio dell'alimentazione, ai tempi del vecchio Udo Erasmus, che dice:"non tutti i grassi sono uguali", questo per dire che c'è una differenza tra ALIMENTAZIONE e NUTRIZIONE.
Ti alimenti anche se vai da McDonald, ma non è NUTRIZIONE.
Perdonate i giochi di parole, forse non del tutto corretti, ma è per esprimere dei concetti quali, biodisponibilità, assorbimento dei nutrienti, micronutrienti, risonanza, intolleranze, allergie, risposta immunitaria, indice glicemico, indice insulinico...ecc.
L'evoluzione nel tempo del concetto di nutrizione, è proprio la scoperta degli effetti su ormoni, sistema nervoso, sistema immunitario, del cibo.
Queste "scoperte" ci portano a concludere con un altro adagio:"non tutte le calorie sono uguali!".

Chi volesse sperimentare non ha che da accomodarsi: provi a dimagrire con una ipocalorica da 1600 kcal a base di brioches, per esempio, e ci faccia sapere.

scusate,
ma mi sembra ovvio che una persona sovrappeso che segue una dieta a restrizione calorica, a prescindere da cosa mangi, perda peso.

Molto più sensato sarebbe confrontare gli effetti di una dieta "pulita" e di una dieta "sporca" sulla composizione corporea piuttosto che sul solo peso.


Aggiungo che anche una dieta a base di carne rossa grassa può portare benefici sul rapporto HDL-LDL e del colesterolo totale se è ipocalorica, ben diverso è il discorso in ipercalorica.

Inoltre il valore del colesterolo non è l'unico parametro che stabilisce la salute di un corpo.

Per qualche strana ragione a qualcuno piace riscoprire l'acqua calda...

hai già toppato.
BIsogna garantire prima PROTEINE ed EFA. Il resto delle calorie puo' anche venire dalle brioches.

Aggiungo un'altro spunto sempre di McDonald

Is a Calorie a Calorie?

In addition to the endless Protein Controversies and Carbohydrate and Fat Controversies in the area of nutrition, another long-standing argument has to do with the question of: Is a calorie a calorie?
Simply put, the debate comes down to this: is all that matters is caloric balance (calories in versus calories out) or do the source of those calories matter? The short and simple answer, of course, is ‘No’.
The longer answer is what this article is about.
As usual, both sides of the argument can bring lots of data to the table in support of their contentions. Frequently, as you’ll see below, they end up arguing slightly different issues. In looking the topic, I want to look at three distinct data sets, each of which generates slightly different results and answers to the question. Basically, this is where a big part of the confusion comes from: people are trying to comparing data from dissimilar sets of studies and are reaching bogus conclusions because of it.
Studies Varying Protein Intake
Most commonly, when folks want to argue that ‘a calorie is not a calorie’, they will use studies comparing higher and lower protein intakes. With very few exceptions, dietes providing adequate protein intake (for dieters 1.5 g/kg lean body mass or higher would be a minimum) to lower intakes find better results than diets with lower protein intakes. This is especially apparent under dieting conditions with any number of studies support the need for higher protein intake to support muscle growth.
That is, given an identical caloric intake, the group that gets sufficient protein will generally show better muscle mass maintenance than the lower-protein group. As well, since weight losses are typically similar, that means that slightly more fat is lost. Other studies show that protein blunts hunger better (meaning it’s easier to reduce calories) than carbs or fats and a recent study showed better blood glucose maintenance in the diet containing higher protein. Aha, folks say, the source of the calories do matter!
Tangentially, I suspect that folks reporting better results from low-carb diets compared to higher-carb diets is related to this. Because of the reliance on meat, it’s nearly impossible NOT to get sufficient protein intake on a low-carbohydrate diet; folks on high-carbohydrate diets frequently overemphasize carbs to the extent that protein intake gets shorted.
The above is, honestly no surprise. Anyone who has read my books, my other articles or my forum postings knows that after setting calories properly, ‘Getting adequate protein’ is by far and away the single most important factor in setting up a proper diet. There’s just really no argument about this.
But for that reason, I tend to consider studies out of this set to be meaningless. I consider sufficient protein intake (which may be 0.8-1.5 g/lb depending on the specifics) to be assumed in any diet I’m interested in looking at. Arguments about studies comparing the inadequate RDA to what I consider appropriate amounts of protein simply don’t matter to me.
Given that built-in assumption, the question then changes slightly: given adequate protein intake to begin with, does the source of the other calories (carbohydrates versus fat) affect anything or is it simply a calorie in versus calorie out issue. In adressing this, I want to describe two other data sets.

Studies Where Calories are Rigorously Controlled
The first set of studies, which tend to be in the minority are those studies where subject’s caloric intakes are strictly controlled. These are usually the studies that the ‘a calorie is a calorie’ folks use to support their argument.
These studies are typically done by locking subjects in a hospital type of situation and measuring their food intake or by giving them pre-made food packets to use at home. Sometimes, studies are done in hospital patients being fed through a feeding tube. As you might imagine, these studies are hellishly expensive (especially if they are done over more than a few days) and, for that reason, aren’t being done as often anymore.
There is also the question of whether or not they have relevance to the real-world but that’s a separate issue. I should also mention that frequently very short-term studies (looking at a single meal or a day or two of intake) sometimes find differences for different diets but these have no bearing in the real-world where you’re looking at intakes over weeks or months.
However, in those studies, you generally see minimal (if any) differences in terms of the amount or composition of the weight lost when you vary the different nutrients. Studies have compared high to low-carbohydrate diets and even varying low-carbohydrate diets. With minor variation (maybe a pound or two here or there), any differences in the total amount of weight loss or the composition of the weight lost (again this assumes adequate protein intake in the first place) are very minor. Rather, the majority (easiliy 90% or more) of the change can be attributed directly to the caloric intake of the diet. Macronutrient composition makes a tiny, approaching negligble difference.
I’d note that recent research is suggesting that the interaction of diet with genetics may play a role here. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I examine recent research showing an interaction between carbohydrate intake and insulin sensitivity. However, this data doesn’t support that any single diet is de facto superior; only that a given diet might or might not be better for a given individual (depending on their individual genetics and such).
I should mention that studies comparing high to low-carbohydrate diets typically show greater weight losses in the low-carbohydrate group but this can generally be attributed to greater water losses. One or two studies have shown a slight trend towards greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate group but it’s rarely huge and is invariably confounded by the issue of hugely varying protein intake. Without exception, the ‘low-carbohydrate’ group ends up eating more protein; this raises the question of whether the benefit is due to the diet being lower in carbohydrate, or higher in protein.
Of course, athletes and bodybuilders will retort that few studies are done in very lean individuals and this is very true. It’s possible that an athlete trying to get to single digit bodyfat levels might find a given diet to produce superior results but it’s poorly studied.
On that note, I have had the benefit of receiving endless feedback from athletes and bodybuilders who have compared various diets at the same calorie level. In general, differences in terms of fat loss (or muscle mass maintenance) tend to be small and highly variable.
Occasionally, you’ll find someone who loses 2-3 lbs more fat (and thus keeps 2-3 more pounds of muscle) on a cyclical ketogenic diet compared so something like the Isocaloric diet (moderate carb/moderate fat) but you can just as readily find folks who report the opposite: more muscle loss and less fat loss on the ketogenic compared to the carb-based diet. It could be genetic difference or something else causing the difference. As you’ll learn in the chapters on partitioning, factors unrelated to diet or training control the majority of what you lose on a diet in the first place.
I want to mention that relatively fewer studies have been done comparing different sources of carbohdyrates or fat. There are studies looking at the impact of sucrose (table sugar) vs. starch within the context of strictly controlled caloric intakes and they usually show no difference in fat loss or anything else. That is, given an identical caloric intake, the source of the carbohydrates shows minimal differences. Similar studies have been done with dietary fat, typically showing similarly small differences. This is especially true when calories are restricted.
Unfortunately, overfeeding hasn’t been examined in as great a detail in humans. There are studies comparing overfeeding of fat to carbohydrates (in the form of glucose, sucrose, or fructose) and, over the long-term gain in bodyfat are pretty much identical. The mechanism of the fat gain is different but, when the same number of calories are overfed, the same amount of fat is gained. I’d note that these studies rarely if ever include activity and that has the potential to impact on where calories ‘go’ quite significantly. Calorie Partitioning is its own complicated topic.
Studies looking at overfeeding of medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) or some newly developed dietary fats (diglycerols) also show some benefits in terms of decreased fat gain but the difference is typically small as well.
It’s also conceivable that at the extremes of obesity, where all manners of metabolic problems are occurring, a difference might be seen for different macronutrient composition diets. Even there, studies where calories are rigorously controlled generally show little to no difference for varying macronutrient composition in terms of weight loss or body composition. I’d note again that recent research is suggesting an interaction with diet and insulin sensitivity; given that insulin sensitivity often accompanies obesity, differential results might be seen.
I should probably mention that, in studies of weight changes, there is quite frequently a large degree of variance in weight loss or weight gain given an identical number of calories. As it turns out, and I discuss in Metabolic Rate: Overview, this ends up being more an issue of individual metabolism and how it adapts than the diet itself. That is, some people’s metabolic rate goes up (or down) more in response to over (or under) feeding. There is no evidence that the composition of the diet affects this to any significant degree; rather it’s a genetically based metabolic effect.
Summing up this mini-section: for the most part, studies where protein is adequate (or at least close to it), varying carbs and fats within the context of an identical caloric intake tends to have a minimal overall effect. What effect is occasionally seen tends to be small and highly variable (some subjects do better with one diet than another but there’s no consistent advantage). With the possible exception of extreme conditions (folks looking for super-leanness or folks who are super-obese), caloric intake is the greater determinant of results than the macronutrient composition.

Studies Where Calories are not Rigorously Controlled
As you might have guessed, these are generally the studies that the ‘a calorie is NOT a calorie’ folks refer to. In actuality, there are two different sets of studies in this group. The first is studies which are looking at nutrient intake on various diets. In such studies, subjects are simply given dietary guidelines (such as reduce fat to below 30% or reduce carbohydrates to 50 g/day or less) and intakes are examined.
Another data set of relevance to this discussion is studies comparing different diets (for example, recent studies have compared low-carbohydrate diets to the American Heart Association diet) under more real-world free-living conditions. Generally, in those studies, the subjects are given recommendations for the diet and let go. They typically report back to the researchers at some interval and frequently food intake is determined by means of self-reporting (which I’ve mentioned can be notoriously misleading). I want to look at each since both are illuminating to this discussion, as well as to how to choose a given diet.
The studies that look at average intakes given various recommendations are important because they often point to the real reason that a given diet works. For example, in studies where folks are told to reduce fat intake below 30% (or some other value), there is frequently an initial reduction in total caloric intake. That is, when they reduce dietary fat, their total energy intake generally goes down (at least initially). This is accompanied by weight loss. But this is not because of some magical effect of dietary fat, it’s simply because they are eating less calories. Of course, longer term studies show that most people end up compensating, eating more of other foods, so the result is pretty short lived.
Studies of low-carbohydrate diets tend to show similar results. Tell folks to reduce (or even remove) all of the carbohydrates from their diet and they tend to eat less automatically without thinking about it. Usually a lot less. What typically happens in such studies is that folks keep their protein and fat intakes roughly the same. So, by removing a food category that might make up 50% or more of total calories, they can’t help but eat less. Of course, this causes weight loss. But it’s not because of the carbs (or lack thereof) per se; rather it’s because they are eating less. There are other reasons, of course, such as decreased hunger (which not everyone experiences) and stable blood glucose that contribute to the reduction in calories but the removal of an entire food group is the main effect.
As I discuss in detail in Introduction to Dieting, many, many, many diet books rely on the rather simple prescription of ‘reduce or remove food X’ to lose weight. With X being something that contributes a lot of calories to the body, such as fat, sugars or highly refined carbohdyrates. But while such diet books typically use all kinds of pseudo-physiology to explain the effect, it’s really quite simple: if food X contributes a lot of calories to your diet and you remove food X, you’ll eat less total calories and lose weight. No magic, simple caloric restriction.
So let’s look at the second set of studies within the context. As I mentioned above, typically such studies look at the effect of different diets under free-living conditions. Similar to the results above, such studies frequently find that a given diet approach generates greater weight (or fat loss) but the effect is almost always due to differences in caloric intake.
For example, a study comparing a low-fat (but calorie uncontrolled) diet to a higher fat (calorie uncontrolled) diet will frequently see more weight/fat loss in the low-fat trial becuase the subjects ate less calories. The same goes for other comparisons. And while a few studies have shown drastically differential effects (such as greater weight loss at higher caloric intakes for a given type of diet), the methodology leaves a good bit to be desired. As I mentioned above, most use self-reporting of food intakes which tend to be notoriously inaccurate.
I should mention that, very frequently, the variance in weight loss tends to be humongous, as do reported caloric intakes. What this would tend to suggest is that, sometimes a certain diet type will reduce (or increase) food intake and sometimes it won’t. Individuals variance and food preferences can play a role as much as anything else.
Explaining the Discrepancy
So now, perhaps, we have a little bit better handle on why two totally different arguments about whether or not ‘a calorie is a calorie’ can come out of the resarch. The problem is that, most commonly, folks are referring to different data sets in making their argument.
As mentioned in the first section, there’s no doubt that studies comparing varying protein intakes almost always find better results with the higher protein intake. As you’ll see next chapter, all of the diets described in this book are based on adequate protein intake so these studies, have no relevance here. From the standpoint of anything I’ll ever write about or talk about, the real debate comes out of studies which keep protein constant and vary carbohydrates and fat and there are two data sets in this regards.
On the one hand are the studies were calories are rigorously controlled, where the subjects are provided their daily food intake. In those studies, differences in weight loss or body composition changes tend to be small and highly variable (some people do slightly better on one diet versus another but there’s no consistent pattern). This is the pattern I’ve observed in the real-world as well: some people do report slightly better results on one diet versus another but there’s no consistent superiority of a given approach.
Simply put, different diets are better under circumstances as discussed in Comparing the Diets.
On the other hand are studies examining spontaneous food intakes on various diets, typically examining a single diet such as low-fat or low-carbohydrate. Such studies frequently find that spontaneous food intake goes down or up given certain macronutrient intakes. For example, when fat intake is reduced below a certain point, claoric intake frequently goes down. The same occurs when carbohydrate intake goes below a certain point. Diets high in both fat (40% of total calories) and carbs frequently show higher spontaneous caloric intakes.
There is also a set of studies looking at changes comparing different diets to one another, using self-reported intakes to estimate caloric intake. While such studies frequently show differences in terms of weight loss, it’s generally related to caloric intake: if a given diet causes people to reduce calories more than another (through whatever mechanism), those people lose weight.
Is A Calorie a Calorie?
So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this:

1. A sufficient protein intake will always beat out an insufficient protein intake, no matter what you do. Since all of the diets described in this book are based around sufficient protein, this is a non-issue.
2. Assuming caloric intake can be controlled (and protein is adequate of course), shuffling of carbs and fats tends to have a minor, approaching negligble effect.
3. There might be exceptions at the extremes (folks going to single digit bodyfat or extreme obesity) but that doesn’t apply to the majority of folks.

In this respect, given adequate protein, it seems to matter very little what diet is chosen. From a weight or bodyfat standpoint, high carb should be as good as low-carb. Right? Well, no. The problem is that there’s a HUGE assumption built into statement #2 above: that calories can be controlled under a given set of conditions. As has been found repeatedly in the real-world, this simply isn’t a safe assumption.
Put a little bit differently, it might very well be possible to lose all the weight/fat you wanted on a calorie controlled junk-food diet with some high quality protein source. The problem that would probably arise is that most people wouldn’t be able to control their hunger or appetite on such a diet and they’d probably end up eating more in the long run. In eating more, they’d either lose less weight/fat or even gain it. Even if a given dietary approach appears optimal for some reason, if you can’t control your caloric intake, and end up eating more because of it, it won’t produce results.

Meaning this: you’ll frequently see folks make comparisons along the lines of ‘well, it’s easier to eat 300 calories from food X than from food Y, therefore a calorie isn’t a calorie’. They may be generally correct but this criticism is tangential to the main issue. This is why I divided the data sets into studies where calories are controlled (usually in a highly artificial fashion) and where they are not (having more real world application).
It’s obviously easier to overconsume calories from jelly beans or candy than from vegetable just as it’s easier to eat 3000 calories from butter than from celery (no human alive could eat enough celery to get 3000 digestible calories). That matters hugely under conditions where folks are allowed to eat whatever they want. Quite in fact, many many diets are based around this simple fact: make people eat less of the foods that are easy to overconsume and/or make them eat lots of those foods that are tough to overeat and they will lose weight because they automatically reduce their caloric intake. I’ll discuss that topic more in the next chapter.
But that only applies to the situation where calories aren’t being monitored. When calories are being controlled rigidly, the source of calories (whether you’re comparing carbs to fat, or even different sources of carbs and fat) matters to a much smaller degree.
Once again, my point is that if calories are being strictly controlled, the source doesn’t appear to make a humongous difference in terms of body composition changes. As well, once you get protein intake to proper levels, fooling around with carbohydate and fat ratios (within the context of identical caloric intakes) don’t seem to make a huge amount of difference either. The bottom line still comes down to calories in versus calories out; it’s simply that it may be easier to affect calories in (food intake) or calories out (through activity) with different macronutrient breakdowns.
As well, the source of calories can affect other aspects of physiology beyond body composition. Health, energy levels, hunger/appetite and all the rest interact here. So while a calorie controlled diet of jelly beans, butter and protein powder might very well work to lose weight/fat, it probably wouldn’t be as healthy compared to a diet of low GI carbohydrates, healthier oils and lean protein sources.
Understand me here? Issues such as hunger control, long-term adherence, individual variance, athletic performance, and a few others all go into the determination of what food might or might not be a better choice under a given set of circumstances. So while a calorie might be more or less a calorie under somewhat artificial conditions (where calories are or can be strictly controlled), it’s a little more complex than that in the real world. Other issues interact. The next few chapters will adress those other issues.

chiarmanete su questo hai ragione...
Ma per quanto riguarda i risultati estetici? su questo volevo soffermarmi...

Poi o si fa per discuterne, io sono il primo a mangiare pulito e a farmi le ciode per farlo il piu' spesso possibile

Pero' questi studi spiegami come parecchi dotati geneticamente, mangiante porcate a gogo abbiano tutto l'anno addome in fuori e forma da paura. Semplicemente sono dotati di un metabolsimo da paura e raramente riescono a superare i propri fabbisogni...questo potrebbe essere uno tei tanti motivi assieme a p-ratio ecc

Fatti una dieta high pro/low carb a base di schifezze e facci sapere.:rolleyes:

per me con questo post hai detto tutto.... i fattori elencati influiscono anche dal punto di vista estetico......


poi che sul breve periodo non cambi moltissimo probabilmente è vero, masul lungo periodo cambia eccome.

poi se uno è gia portato geneticamente e in più si aiuta con la chimica tutto può essere. però di sicuro le conseguenze si pagano alla lunga

ma perchè hai sempre questi modi del tipo fai, prova, facci sapere...provala tu :rolleyes:
Io ho postato studi su cui discutere, se uno è scettico o non è d'accordo puo' anche fare a meno di postare...

COmunque, chi ha detto che la dieta deve essere low carb?

Questo post mi ha fatto molto ridere perchè si deduce che se assumiamo 2000kcal da una dieta corretta e pulita sarebbe lo stesso se assumiamo tali calorie ma da fonti dolci,fritture e schifezze varie.....Innanzitutto è falsissimo questo concetto, perchè la massa la metterai questo è poco ma sicuro, ma quella grassa non magra, poi quando andrai a definirti, non eccendoci muscoli sottocutanei, sarà tutto inutile....poi il muscolo per crescere ha bisogno di proteine,grassi e carboidrati, non certo di schifezze e grassi saturi che fanno anche male e aumentano l'LDL...

Piano, piano, lo studio non dice esattamente questo.
I presupposti sono chiaramente enunciati:
Is A Calorie a Calorie?
So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this:

1. A sufficient protein intake will always beat out an insufficient protein intake, no matter what you do. Since all of the diets described in this book are based around sufficient protein, this is a non-issue.
2. Assuming caloric intake can be controlled (and protein is adequate of course), shuffling of carbs and fats tends to have a minor, approaching negligble effect.
3. There might be exceptions at the extremes (folks going to single digit bodyfat or extreme obesity) but that doesn’t apply to the majority of folks.

La quota di proteine deve comunque essere adeguata per salvaguardare massa magra ecc.. Posta questa condizione, se l'apporto calorico è controllato in maniera rigorosa, prendere il resto delle calorie da carbo o grassi, e da quali carbo e grassi, ha effetti trascurabili sul dimagrimento.
Alcuni individui possono reagire meglio a un approccio e altri a un altro, ma la variabilità è minima e distribuita in modo tale da non poter affermare che un approccio dia risultati superiori in assoluto.

Al punto 3 scrive anche gli effetti di un approccio o dell'altro possono variare maggiormente agli estremi, cioè per gli obesi da una parte e per chi ha una bodyfat sotto il 10%, ma per la maggioranza della popolazione le differenze sono minime.

Come ho già detto i problemi sono altri, e lui li specifica entrambi:
1) se si mangia junk food è difficilissimo trovare una formula che abbia entrambi i requisiti: essere ipocalorica ma al contempo garantire le proteine necessarie (e personalmente lo so molto bene!)
2) non esiste solo il fattore estetico ma quello di energie, salute, prestazioni, umore ecc. sul quale la scelta di un cibo o dell'altro può influire, e questo non viene affatto messo in dubbio dallo studio

Comunque, io concordo perfettamente con McDonald (Lyle, non quello dei fast food, che però non disdegno! :D)

Vi posso anche confermare per esperienza, che, tenuto fisso un certo totale calorico, la fonte dei carboidrati è ininfluente sul dimagrimento, sia che si mangi wasa o biscotti. E il magico olio EVO, è senz'altro molto più salubre per le mie arterie, ma sulla mia ciccetta non fa nè meglio nè peggio del più schifido grammo di lardo, a parità di peso: sono sempre 9 kcal al grammo.

Lo studio postato è quasi del tutto privo di significato. quindi il modo migliore è testare certi assunti sulla propria pelle.
Io non ho bisogno di farlo.

Esiste anche una qualità dei macro:

Valore biologico delle pro
indice glicemico dei chos
qualità dei grassi

e dei micro: vits e sali minerali tra cui il famigerato cloruro di sodio.

Fatevi una dieta a base di fritto e salato e venitemi a dire che anche a breve ha gli stessi effetti estetici di una dieta pulita, a parita di cal.

Veleno, nessuno dice "a parità di calorie" e basta, quello è scontato.

Però io credo che la qualità dei grassi sia importante per altre cose, più che per la linea, e che l'indice glicemico abbia un'influenza davvero trascurabile sul dimagrimento rispetto a quella del bilancio calorico complessivo.
Quanto al cloruro di sodio, mi risulta che favorisca la ritenzione idrica e basta, e quello è un peso di cui ci si sbarazza in tempi brevi.

Poi è ovvio che una dieta a base di fritto sarà dura che funzioni, con tutto l'olio che prevede.

Ma il concetto di fondo dell'articolo di McDonald non è "mangiate quel che volete tanto a parità di calorie è la stessa cosa". E' che certe distinzioni sono sottigliezze, probabilmente utili se uno deve passare dall'8% al 4% di grasso, ma non per la maggioranza della popolazione che vuole solo dimagrire un po', compresi tutti quelli che fanno sport diversi dalla palestra.

dipende quello che si mangia
quindi bisogna stare attenti a junk food, cibi che inalzino troppo l'indice glicemico, troppi grassi saturi ecc
mangiare pulito e di qualità serve oltre che per la linea anche per la salute
sicuramente anche le quantita varieranno, se confrontiamo lo stesso livello calorico in un pasto

Dal mio piccolo posso sicuramente dire che se sgarro troppo me ne accorgo subito, in termini estetici, e una BF pressoche' costante per circa 2 anni non la mantieni con il junk food (idem per la salute....).

Avete parlato di estetica: dunque una dieta ricca di sodio e grassi saturi tu pensi che dia gli stessi risultati in termini estetici di una pulita a parità di calorie? Pensi che siano solo "sottigliezze?
Pensi che il grasso sia solo quello cutaneo?

E pensi che l'aspetto del muscolo in low carb sia lo stesso del muscolo in low fat?

Parliamo di composizione corporea non di perdere o mettere peso, attenzione.

Prima di postare in un thread sarebbe indicato leggerne i contenuti...

Sì, infatti...sarebbe opportuno leggersi almeno le conclusioni.
Fermo restando che poi non si vuole convincere nessuno a rimpinzarsi solo di cheeseburger, patatine fritte e merendine.
Se uno si trova bene a mangiare sempre "pulito", e non gli pesano più di tanto le rinunce, meglio per lui.

Ma bisogna anche riconoscere che certe diete si presentano come "l'unica dieta che funziona davvero" sulla base di assunti che non sono falsi o scorretti, ma sopravvalutati rispetto all'importanza del totale calorie.
Per fare un esempio, se io mi metto a seguire la dieta zona con gli 11 blocchi che mi competono in base alla mia massa magra, sono sicura di dimagrire, ma sarà merito del controllo dell'insulinemia o sarà merito del fatto che comunque devo assumere solo 1000kcal al giorno?
Io direi la seconda...;)

Su questo non sono molto daccordo in quanto l'influenza che i grassi ed i carboidrati hanno sulla produzione ormonale influenza e come la composizione corporea. credo anche che spesso noi demoniziamo grassi saturi e colesterolo quando questi invece sono importanti per l'organismo e bisogna mangiarli.
I veri junk food sono quelli che contengono grassi e zuccheri raffinati... e quelli non si può dire che non influenzino la composizione corporea, se non altro alterando i livelli di energia!!

questo invece secondo me è vero e sacrosanto... a volte ci focalizziamo troppo su dei dettagli che diventano importanti oltre un certo livello, perdendo di vista l'essenziale. Se uno vuol semplicemente dimagrire e non cerca il picco della forma anche secondo me le calorie bastano, ma basarsi su cibi "naturali e puliti" permette di tenere un livello di energia e sazietà (soprattutto) che ti permette di affrontare anche psicologicamente la restrizione calorica, senza farti mancare fibre vitamine e minerali che sono altrettanto importante nella composizione del fisico...

Secondo me ognuno dovrebbe imparare a conoscere meglio il proprio corpo e capire quali cibi sono da preferire, solo in questo modo piu' raggiungere gli obbiettivi che ci si e' prefissati e nel coltempo stare bene fisicamente/psichicamente. Io per esempio sgarro tutti i giorni a colazione, pero' negli altri pasti "viaggio sui binari", e tieni conto che io le calorie non le conto neppure se non a grandi linee ;)

Continua a sfuggirti il concetto di composizione corporea.