LitttleBig said:
Yes I did read it all. I should have expounded more like Silent did. I just have always figured this ever since I played with carbs and calories.
LB--
I missed cmtuggl's response to you.
cmtuggl states: "...but the amazing thing about this study is they're saying that maybe it's possible that some calories act differently (metabolize faster or slower) than other calories. By scientific standards that's impossible though...since 1 calorie should be the same amount of energy as another calorie."
What you write seems logical enough. The truth is that the measure we use for food energy is simply a poor one. As I said, to get that measure we simply stick the nutrient in question into a can and light it on fire, measuring the heat produced. Thus, the measure we get in only good in terms of energy relesed via heat energy activation.
Things react a little differently in the body. We use all manner of chemical reactions to harvest the energy stored in food. Heat plays only a minute role in the equation in regard to harvesting stored food energy.
Add to that the dynamics of the inumerable macronutrient and particle combonations the actual meals we consume as well as the inumerable variables involved in human phsyiology and it becomes easy to see that the 3 very differently composed chemical macronutrients yield differing amounts of energy during metabolization.
In addition, net energy yield is only one factor involved in "weight loss" or gain. Hormonal factors are certainly involved. The dynamic effects of given macronutirent ratios vary. Many factors play into this. Protein is a natural diuretic - up protein while lowering the other macronutrients and you will carry less water. The list of contributing variables goes on and on and on.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
