ARE DIETARY SEMANTICS RELEVANT?

Dr. Layne Norton and former professional bodybuilder Dave Palumbo had an hour long conversation about whether macros or calories are more important. At first, I was firmly camped on one side of the debate. As the conversation went on I realized that these guys are achieving the same result for the public in two very different ways. What was preventing them from realizing this was simply semantics.

Layne’s main thesis taken from the conversation is:

“All calories are the same, all sources of calories do not have the same effect on energy expenditure.”

We’ll call this the foundational approach.

Dave’s main thesis taken from the conversation is:

“You can’t really calculate how much energy is in protein because protein packs a much stronger wallop in the body, in the physiological body, than does carbohydrates or fat.”

We’ll call this the actionable approach.

What these two statements show us describe two very different views on the same topic that will yield the same result. Allow me to elaborate to describe when semantics are and aren’t important in a conversation like this as well as the larger conversation on nutritional science.

WHEN SEMANTICS ARE IMPORTANT

Words have meanings, but they are one step removed from results. Between what you say and what you get is what you do. Keep that in mind.

For a scientist like Layne Norton words really have meanings because he spends part of his professional time defining dogma, setting up best practices, and describing in minute detail the physiological functions of the body.

You can see this reflected in his above “All calories are the same…” statement . They are all the same, all calories are literal potential chemical energy waiting to be released when the bonds are broken. That fact is true regardless of whether the caloric “bonds” are in a macronutrient that’s a protein, a carbohydrate, or a fat.

To Layne, or anyone who is defining doctrine or writing foundational literature on a topic, the distinction between components is important. Specifically the distinction between the energy released from the bonds of a macronutrient and the components that were linked by that bond; amino acids in protein, fatty acids in fat, or sugars in carbohydrates.

Those words are important distinctions that deepen our way of understanding the world. Depending on your level of stubbornness or desire for information those words and distinctions may be important to get you to take action.

Not everyone, in fact probably most people, requires that distinction though… Which brings me to my next point.

WHEN SEMANTICS AREN’T THAT IMPORTANT

Even though Dave Palumbo is interested by the semantic distinction between his take and Layne’s take on the topic of calories, as a critic of the literature, he is not nearly as dependent on the doctrinal words as Layne is when wearing his scientist hat.

Dave is primarily concerned with actions. Specifically the actions that the average person takes in order to achieve a result. Coach Layne is also concerned with the actions his clients take, when he’s wearing his coaching hat.

When you’re concerned with actions, semantics are only as important as far as they promote actions.

For fun, let’s look at the actions that each one of these guys would have me take to set my caloric intake for fat loss.

Layne’s take:

1. Calculate daily caloric intake
2. Determine caloric deficit
3. Determine macros: protein first: 1.2- 1.6 g per pound of body weight, then fats: 17–28% of total caloric intake, and finally carbs: whatever is left in your caloric daily intake
4. Lose fat

Dave’s keto specific take:

1. Set macronutrient ratio: 1–1.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight, 0.5 grams of fat per pound, and no more than 50 grams of carbs per day.
2. Determine daily caloric intake
3. Adjust macros to ensure there’s a calorie deficit
4. Lose fat

I encourage you to try out both of these set-ups for yourself and see the difference.

The relevant comparative takeaways when I calculated my macros and calories using both methods are as follows:

• A 200 calorie difference in total caloric intake.
• Overlapping protein requirements.
• Layne’s take has more carbs.
• Dave’s take has more dietary fat.

By my eye these two methods are indistinguishable if you follow either one to it’s complete fruition. Also factor in the fact that neither one of these dietary breakdowns will remain untouched over the course of a diet…that’s just the nature of diets, they require adjustments.

From Layne’s foundational approach he starts his process by starting with the most foundational elements of a diet, the energy released from the macronutrients you’re eating in the form of calories. In his eyes it’s more foundational for you to know your calorie requirement than your macro requirements.

From Dave’s actionable approach he starts with setting protein requirements because he views protein as the most essential element of a diet that a lay person can take action on. In his eyes it’s more useful to know your protein requirement than your calorie requirement.

Both approaches include steps to set both calorie and protein requirements though.

THE SEMANTIC POINT

There are no sides that are worth planting your flag in for us normal people. What method you prefer depends on what population you’re a part of, how you think, and how much information you want.

Even though this conversation was between two people there are actually 4 people to be concerned with; Dr. Layne, Coach Layne, Critic Dave, and Coach Dave.

The debate these two men had was only an argument between Doctor Layne and Critic Dave trying to determine the semantic relevance of these dietary terms.

Coaches Layne and Dave have two different approaches that, if followed fully, will conclude in a very similar result.

It’s perfectly fine to have an interest in conversations like this but it’s imperative that you don’t take personal cheap shots at someone else because they choose a different method than you prefer. Ultimately, the method is irrelevant as long as the results are similar and no undue harm is caused to anyone.

Semantics are important only so far as they affect results. The semantics these men are debating are irrelevant to results because their associated actions are nearly indistinguishable over the course of a complete diet.

Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.