A nutrition professor lost 27lbs eating Twinkies: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...

Calories are calories. There are other mechanisms involved as far as general health and satiety, but at the end of the day CICO is king.

The steak allows for MPS (muscle protein synthesis) which means your body will have protein available to repair muscle mass which regularly breaks down throughout the day. If your diet has no protein a much higher part of the weight you lose will be muscle mass instead of fat mass, which is why two people on the above diets will look very different.

You're not going to feel the same, but I don't think anyone's ever shown that there's a meaningful difference in energy content in calories of different types.

So I think they'd have the same effect for weight loss, but maybe not health, and probably not quality of life (I think the person eating candy bars would feel pretty lousy).

Overall health, of course not. You'd probably feel like shit just eating chocolate bars (and also feel hungry all the time). Weight loss? Pretty much the same.

You can look up stories of people losing weight by counting calories and eating nothing but candy bars.

Hmm, I think what OP might be getting at is that there is a difference in digestive efficiency when breaking down different foods and converting them to energy. A calorie is a calorie, except when it isn't.

And what I'm saying is that is a micro optimization that doesn't matter too much. It over complicates weight loss.

I don't know if its micro or not, I still remain open to the idea. For e.g. I have work friends (with similar activity levels to mine) who can eat tons of rice and remain skinny and if I do that I know for a fact that I'm gonna put on 10lbs. Our ethnicities are different, but I don't know if that explains it.

You don't understand that different people will burn different amounts of calories as a base?

I'm not and have never said that if two people eat the same amount, it'll impact them the same.

I said that you need to burn more calories than you consume.

You're claiming variance in basal metabolic rate (for people with similar activity levels/lifestyles) is potentially significant, but also variance in digestive efficiency is negligible?

I don't know if either is false/true, but its interesting to consider. Maybe someone from that domain can shed some light. Happy to look at anything you or others link to.

BMR variance is significant. It's like the core to any weight loss story.

What I'm trying to say is that trying to change your BMR through some diet is a fool's errand. Just figure out your BMR and consume fewer calories than that. It's very very simple (though I won't say it's easy).

>and also feel hungry all the time

That's basically how low-carb works for me, if I eat fewer carbs I'm less hungry and miserable all the time so I eat less calories too.

Weight loss wont be the same. In one csse you will feel tired and passive most of day and wont be able to be active.

It honestly feels like most of the people here are being purposely obtuse. Why in the world would you think you need to reply with this?

I CLEARLY meant, all activities the same, 2000 calories is 2000 calories. I even mentioned that you'll feel like shit just eating chocolate. What more do you people want from me?

the point of measuring that in calories is that it should be roughly equivalent amount of energy intake for both things. the biggest difference is going to be you need less chocolate to reach 2000 calories