Weight loss is not this simple - this kind of article enrages me. Everyone wants it to be an easy equation. Low carbohydrate/high fat diets are wildly successful despite not having to monitor calories. All calories are not created equal and simply eating less does not lead to long term weight loss, it leads to hunger.
I know many have talked about this idea on HN before, but in case you missed it, an excellent, eye-opening read is Gary Taubes' book, Good Calories Bad Calories - http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Scienc...
Whenever I feel unsympathetic, I imagine trying to "breath less" for several years.
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, or it wouldn't be called a calorie. Put less gasoline in your car, you will run out of gas sooner. Eat 0 calories? Better believe you are gonna loose weight. Eat less than you burn? You cannot NOT burn your reserves
> simply eating less does not lead to long term weight loss, it leads to hunger
And what's wrong with hunger? I personally feel if we tolerated a little hunger we'd be better off. So long as it's not the shooting knives of starvation, you can come to grips with it. I know I have.
A calorie in the form of serum glucose stimulates insulin secretion, which shifts the equilibrium of fatty acid transfer across fat cells walls by increasing the flow into the cell and reducing the flow out.
A calorie in the form of serum fatty acids does not stimulate the secretion of insulin.
Therefore, all calories are not the same. QED
I think the big difference between getting your calores from carbs vs fat and protein is that it is exceedingly EASY to consume vast quantities of carbs, whereas consuming the same amount of calories in the form of fat and protein would be much more expensive and satiating.
A carbohydrate is NOT a protein and neither of the two are fats. Carbohydrates, proteins and fats are different. They even have, conveniently for discussion, different names! Guess what - they also have different uses and impacts on your body.
Semantics is important when you're discussing chemistry. I wish people would stop making this stupid argument.
A calorie is unit of heat... not a unit of nutrition.
You can say there are calories in wood, particularly in the context of combustion (though it's more common to talk about that sort of thing in terms or BTUs or joules).
Exercise is very important, but body composition changes come from nutrition.
(After changing how I ate, I lost 70# in 6 months and have kept that same weight for 2 years, more info for the curious: http://emphaticsolutions.com/2009/01/12/clean-eating-how-I-m...)
How young were you when you had seventy pounds that you could afford to lose?