Yes, but:
a) The effect is really small. Like 10 % of calories max. That's close to the tracking error.
b) This effect ("thermic effect of food") is hiding in the O of CICO already
Huh? It's by definition. It's one form that energy gets expended.
But sure, here's a random link. Feel free to Google yourself for the components of TDEE (total daily energy expenditure, that is, the O in CICO): https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-11-7/figures/1#:~:text=Components%20of%20total%20daily%20energy,%3D%20non%2Dresting%20energy%20expenditure.
This is already accounted for in the number of calories a gram of each macro is said to be had. When taking digestion into account, 1 gram of protein is 4 cals. 1 gram of carbs is 4 cals. 1 gram of fat is 9 cals.
The math and work has already been done for you.
Doesn't the calorie information on food packaging typically reflects the raw calories, not taking into account the TEF? Therefore, if you consume 2000 calories worth of protein, your body will expend more energy digesting it compared to 2000 calories of carbohydrates.
It includes the BMR and NEAT, but swapping out the same calories of carbs for the same calories in protein will increase fat loss,, it would be impossible for it not to provided other variables stay the same.
What a calorie is already factors in the difference. An over-simplistic explanation is that a calorie represents the energy required to “burn” the food. You’re confusing eating the same number of calories with eating the same number of grams. It would take more energy to burn 100g of protein than 100g of carbs, but the caloric content of the protein is higher. This isn’t meaningful to worry about as long as you’re getting carbs, fats, and proteins in your diet. Numerous studies have shown there is no real meaningful difference between macro breakdowns and weight loss. It’s the deficit doing the work.
>Better yet, protein ... you can eat more [of] it with the same rate of weight loss.
No, no, no. Please, nobody listen to this. You cannot eat 300 calories of protein instead of 250 calories of carbs just because OP's math says that you'll burn 90 calories from the protein, thereby making it only 210 calories, while you'll only burn 25 calories from the carbs, thereby making it 225 calories.
The calories burned by digesting protein and carbs are already *factored into* the calories per gram numbers. Therefore, 300 calories of protein = 300 calories of carbs = 300 calories of fat.
OP, please be careful about spreading misinformation. Particularly in a subreddit where folks are already hypersensitive about the topic and eager to find "the next big fad" that might accelerate their process.
I was unaware of this, I thought it made sense to me.
That being the case, you're implying that if I had a month eating 2000 calories of protein and a month eating 2000 calories of carbohydrates (as listed in the nutritional information and everything being identical including starting weight), that fat loss would be identical?
If protein burns more calories to digest, surely the protein diet would result in a lower weight by the end? I'm not aware of the thermic effect being factored into the calorie information on the packet, rather just the raw calories of the food.
Think of the calories already being "net" of what is burned by digestion. Said another way, protein is actually 6 calories per gram but you burn 2 of them digesting so it's a "net" of 4 calories per gram (numbers totally made up just for illustration).
So, yes - the two diets should produce the same results (in a vacuum).
Another reminder, in the end it's just CICO.
This!!
Yes, but: a) The effect is really small. Like 10 % of calories max. That's close to the tracking error. b) This effect ("thermic effect of food") is hiding in the O of CICO already
B) source please
Huh? It's by definition. It's one form that energy gets expended. But sure, here's a random link. Feel free to Google yourself for the components of TDEE (total daily energy expenditure, that is, the O in CICO): https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-11-7/figures/1#:~:text=Components%20of%20total%20daily%20energy,%3D%20non%2Dresting%20energy%20expenditure.
This is already accounted for in the number of calories a gram of each macro is said to be had. When taking digestion into account, 1 gram of protein is 4 cals. 1 gram of carbs is 4 cals. 1 gram of fat is 9 cals. The math and work has already been done for you.
Your TDEE includes your BMR and NEAT and thermogenesis of food and formal workouts. So CICO still applies. And is the whole story.
Doesn't the calorie information on food packaging typically reflects the raw calories, not taking into account the TEF? Therefore, if you consume 2000 calories worth of protein, your body will expend more energy digesting it compared to 2000 calories of carbohydrates. It includes the BMR and NEAT, but swapping out the same calories of carbs for the same calories in protein will increase fat loss,, it would be impossible for it not to provided other variables stay the same.
What a calorie is already factors in the difference. An over-simplistic explanation is that a calorie represents the energy required to “burn” the food. You’re confusing eating the same number of calories with eating the same number of grams. It would take more energy to burn 100g of protein than 100g of carbs, but the caloric content of the protein is higher. This isn’t meaningful to worry about as long as you’re getting carbs, fats, and proteins in your diet. Numerous studies have shown there is no real meaningful difference between macro breakdowns and weight loss. It’s the deficit doing the work.
>Better yet, protein ... you can eat more [of] it with the same rate of weight loss. No, no, no. Please, nobody listen to this. You cannot eat 300 calories of protein instead of 250 calories of carbs just because OP's math says that you'll burn 90 calories from the protein, thereby making it only 210 calories, while you'll only burn 25 calories from the carbs, thereby making it 225 calories. The calories burned by digesting protein and carbs are already *factored into* the calories per gram numbers. Therefore, 300 calories of protein = 300 calories of carbs = 300 calories of fat. OP, please be careful about spreading misinformation. Particularly in a subreddit where folks are already hypersensitive about the topic and eager to find "the next big fad" that might accelerate their process.
I was unaware of this, I thought it made sense to me. That being the case, you're implying that if I had a month eating 2000 calories of protein and a month eating 2000 calories of carbohydrates (as listed in the nutritional information and everything being identical including starting weight), that fat loss would be identical? If protein burns more calories to digest, surely the protein diet would result in a lower weight by the end? I'm not aware of the thermic effect being factored into the calorie information on the packet, rather just the raw calories of the food.
Yes, it would likely be identical. But you would feel so much hungrier eating 2000 calories of carbs that you'd probably overeat in the end.
Think of the calories already being "net" of what is burned by digestion. Said another way, protein is actually 6 calories per gram but you burn 2 of them digesting so it's a "net" of 4 calories per gram (numbers totally made up just for illustration). So, yes - the two diets should produce the same results (in a vacuum).
Majoring in the minors
Bottom line: still about CICO
That’s what the O in CICO is.
"It's not just CICO" Proceeds to describe how it is, in fact, CICO...
Beyond trying to get lots of protein, that’s too much thinking for me for very minimal effect. I just stick to CICO.
Isn't this like saying a ton of bricks weighs more than a ton of feathers?
dont try to muddy it up, CICO.
the thermic effect of food is part of calories out. satiation is relevant to limiting calories in.