Yes, I do understand interconversion. However, what the body does for survival and achieving optimal health are two different things.

Your body also has the ability to fight off disease. Doesn't mean it's optimal to subject yourself to it on a daily basis.

Bottom line, if what you do works for you and the people you work with...great. I'm just voicing what has worked for me.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret this as a response. Your body does this on a day to day basis, all the time, 24hours a day. Not just when its in "survival mode".

You said eating 2,000calories of nothing but fat is different than 2,000calories of protein in terms of weight gain/loss. I explained why it is virtually the same thing. You respond by saying survival and optimal health are two different things...I'm lost lol...

If you do than I'm still curious as to why you had that train of thought in the first place...

John Berardi - Lean Eatin' Part I

Haha - You still haven't shown how a calorie is not a calorie.

No duh, calories from protein function differently than calories from fat. They go though different metabolic processes with an end result that would be different. Not a single thing in that whole article showed that a calorie is not always "a calorie". It showed a calorie from protein can have different reactions on the body than a calorie of fat or carbs(wellknown). Two completely different things.

Protein has a higher thermic affect on the body than both fats and carbs. Thats well known. That article shows this, along with years of research. But, your argument is that, and I quote, .
You have yet to show how this to be true. A calorie is a unit of measurement as a pound is and as a gram is. A pound of muscle weighs the same as a pound of fat. A calorie of fat is always equal to a calorie of protein and or carbs. Its just a measurement.

Had you sad, clearly all calories do not have the same affect on the body. Then, I could agree with you to some degree. But, you didn't. Yet, you haven't presented anything to back up what was originally stated. Maybe you simply worded it wrong, no? I think that is what has happened here.

I think I did say that (and you quoted it yourself):

"If you consume 2000 calories/day and it all comes from fat it will not have the same effect as consuming 2000 calories/day that all comes from protein. If it did, then it wouldn't matter how much protein, carbs, or fat you consumed on a daily basis as long as you took in the same number of calories."

I understand the calorie as a unit of measure and that is not what I am referring to.

I'm very aware of JBs stuff.

I'm more a fan of Lyle McDonald's when it comes to nutrition researchers to be honest. He tends to be more truthful and unbiased with the research from my experience.

Calories are always calories.

However, the available energy provided by each macronutrient is different. Even within macronutrients, the energy they provide per gram is differnet. A short chain fatty acid provides different energy to a long chain fatty acid.
Per gram one amino acid will provide different energy to another amino acid.

But 1 calorie is always 1 calorie.

The difference is the nutrients, which you obviously know. But when you say not all calories are equal, you are wrong.

Yeah, I know what you're saying Steve. In the literal definition of a calorie, saying that 1 calorie is not the same as 1 calorie is wrong no matter where the calorie comes from...same as 2 miles is 2 miles. But 2 miles of uphill running is far different than 2 miles of downhill running. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

In other words, the composition of the calories matters.

Nonetheless, I understand what you're saying and you understand what I'm saying...no reason to beat a dead horse.