Stomach enzymes increase calories in meat and starch?
Options
Orphia
Posts: 7,097 Member
A chef is telling me stomach enzymes increase calories in cooked meat and starch.
Is this true, and if so, what percentage would it increase calorie counts?
Is this true, and if so, what percentage would it increase calorie counts?
5
Replies
-
A chef is telling me stomach enzymes increase calories in cooked meat and starch.
Is this true, and if so, what percentage would it increase calorie counts?
Did he explain the mechanism for how that might happen? If I'm understanding you correctly, he's saying that stomach enzymes create more energy than the food ingested. I don't see how that's possible, unless I'm misunderstanding the whole thing.
4 -
I'm thinking maybe this chef should stick to chef'ing.
Or maybe if he's found a way to defy the physical laws of energy balance, he should put in for his Nobel Prize.
12 -
I mean if you squint really hard and turn it upside down you might be able to see a hint of truth in there but it is a stretch. Without a lot of added detail suffice to say that the practical answer is in terms of diet it is an irrelevant point and it certainly does not turn the 100 calories written on the package into 150 calories...that is impossible. It also isn't somehow specific to just meat and starch.
I can get into it if you want but maybe when I'm not on my phone.6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I mean if you squint really hard and turn it upside down you might be able to see a hint of truth in there but it is a stretch. Without a lot of added detail suffice to say that the practical answer is in terms of diet it is an irrelevant point and it certainly does not turn the 100 calories written on the package into 150 calories...that is impossible. It also isn't somehow specific to just meat and starch.
I can get into it if you want but maybe when I'm not on my phone.
But isn't there a waste factor that would offset it with the breakdown of the protein and fat?
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I mean if you squint really hard and turn it upside down you might be able to see a hint of truth in there but it is a stretch. Without a lot of added detail suffice to say that the practical answer is in terms of diet it is an irrelevant point and it certainly does not turn the 100 calories written on the package into 150 calories...that is impossible. It also isn't somehow specific to just meat and starch.
I can get into it if you want but maybe when I'm not on my phone.
But isn't there a waste factor that would offset it with the breakdown of the protein and fat?
Are you thinking of the TEF (Thermic Effect of Food)?3 -
Without the enzymes, there is no digestion. Without the enzymes, the calories are 0.
With the enzymes, there is digestion. With the enzymes, the calories are similar to those listed on the USDA food database.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I mean if you squint really hard and turn it upside down you might be able to see a hint of truth in there but it is a stretch. Without a lot of added detail suffice to say that the practical answer is in terms of diet it is an irrelevant point and it certainly does not turn the 100 calories written on the package into 150 calories...that is impossible. It also isn't somehow specific to just meat and starch.
I can get into it if you want but maybe when I'm not on my phone.
But isn't there a waste factor that would offset it with the breakdown of the protein and fat?
Are you thinking of the TEF (Thermic Effect of Food)?
No. I am thinking of straight up waste. My human biology is a little out of date but from what I remember the body is not 100 percent efficient in converting food to energy.
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I mean if you squint really hard and turn it upside down you might be able to see a hint of truth in there but it is a stretch. Without a lot of added detail suffice to say that the practical answer is in terms of diet it is an irrelevant point and it certainly does not turn the 100 calories written on the package into 150 calories...that is impossible. It also isn't somehow specific to just meat and starch.
I can get into it if you want but maybe when I'm not on my phone.
But isn't there a waste factor that would offset it with the breakdown of the protein and fat?
Not quite sure what you mean and on phone so can't post a lot but maybe I will say this.
Food box says 100 calories. That amount is determined by how much thermal energy would be released if you fully oxidized that amount. Basically if you put it in a box with oxygen and burned it 100 calories of heat would be generated. So 100 calories is the maximum amount you could ever get from it, but you could get less.
Your body uses acid to dissolve the food and enzymes to metabolically oxidize it. Those enzymes couple that oxidation reaction to an energy storage molecule that can be used to do work. That process is unlikely to be 100% efficient...not all the food will be completely digested and of that that is not all will be captured as usable energy. So you might get 80 calories of usable energy from that 100. Perhaps someone else or you at a different time would eat the same meal and that time get 85 calories and perhaps that could be related to whether or not your body produces a certain enzyme or not and at what level. So yeah squinting you can sort of make up a scenario where that statement is true but the differences are small and 100 food calories will never be 110 digested calories.
Lactase would be a real world example. Some people make it and some people dont. A person who makes lactase probably gets more calories from 100 calories of milk than someone who doesn't make lactase. That said a person who doesn't make lactase probably isn't drinking milk.
Still not sure why the focus was put exclusively on meat and starch though.5 -
Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc1 -
Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc
I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?2 -
Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc
I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc
I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?
Being a veteran of the raw vegan community (not the Freelee subtype) I can assure you that it's a well-trodden path. It was one of the reasons I tried eating that way. I will say that I really enjoyed eating that way -- very much so -- but it wasn't sustainable simply because it was so labor intensive and I happened to be doing it just when fuel prices skyrocketed and food costs went up as well. Our food budget couldn't handle that much fresh produce for me on top of the family's meals.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc
I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc
I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?
Being a veteran of the raw vegan community (not the Freelee subtype) I can assure you that it's a well-trodden path. It was one of the reasons I tried eating that way. I will say that I really enjoyed eating that way -- very much so -- but it wasn't sustainable simply because it was so labor intensive and I happened to be doing it just when fuel prices skyrocketed and food costs went up as well. Our food budget couldn't handle that much fresh produce for me on top of the family's meals.
Yeah, I was pretty sure it was already well-studied. Probably by people who didn't have to hang out with the chimps to get that particular brainstorm.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc
I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc
I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?
Being a veteran of the raw vegan community (not the Freelee subtype) I can assure you that it's a well-trodden path. It was one of the reasons I tried eating that way. I will say that I really enjoyed eating that way -- very much so -- but it wasn't sustainable simply because it was so labor intensive and I happened to be doing it just when fuel prices skyrocketed and food costs went up as well. Our food budget couldn't handle that much fresh produce for me on top of the family's meals.
Yeah, I was pretty sure it was already well-studied. Probably by people who didn't have to hang out with the chimps to get that particular brainstorm.
I have to say that particular point of time during my kids' development *felt* like hanging out with chimps. Does that count for anything?8 -
Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc
Gotta say that reads like the writings of an inventor who just had a breakthrough in his garage with the help of his friend where they discovered how to generate propetual motion despite what all those naysayers in the scientific community said.
Call me skeptical...especially given none of the links in the article seem to go to any actual study and it was published in the blog section of an online magazine. Discovery magazine is not a scientific publication in case there was any confusion there and I doubt their blog page has any vetting at all.3 -
Back in the day, many moons ago when I took chemistry, I was led to believe that calorie counts were calculated by incinerating the foods in question. Is that not the case? Wouldn't that count as cooking?0
-
concordancia wrote: »Back in the day, many moons ago when I took chemistry, I was led to believe that calorie counts were calculated by incinerating the foods in question. Is that not the case? Wouldn't that count as cooking?
Depends how long you like your steak on the grill I suppose.
They use a bomb calorimeter. Companies can also use standardized data for the ingredients in their recipes instead of lab testing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorimeter#Bomb_calorimeters3 -
Food energy can increase after cooking and it's due to cooking making certain things more bioavailable; in fact some research papers suggest that we have genetically evolved to get more energy from cooked foods.
E.g.
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/8/4/1091/2574082
I suspect that the 2 studies below led to the focus being on meat and starches. They basically say (summarised by the article above):
Cooking enhances nutrient digestibility and reduces diet-induced thermogenesis, thereby substantially increasing the energy gained from important hominin foods like meat and tubers
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19732938
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/48/19199.short
0 -
I'm wondering whether these people are confused about how the same weight of cooked food has more calories than the same weight of uncooked food due to the water content in the uncooked food.0
-
Okay on a computer now.
So here is my thoughts on this in general. I think there is some truth to it (the cooking part at least) but I think it being relevant to weight loss is being way overemphasized.
When you eat something it goes into your stomach where it is mixed with both acids and some basic enzymes for digestion such as peptidases and carboxylases. It sloshes around until it dissolves before passing through into your small intestine where molecules that have dissolved enough are absorbed into your blood stream. Food that isn't digested enough to be absorbed then passes into your lower intestine which is full of bacteria which further digest and break apart the food. The bacteria have a lot of digestive enzymes we do not and we rely on them to help us breakdown food. The breakdown products are in part utilized by the bacteria but are also absorbed into the blood for distribution to cells. That microbiome builds up over time and as you know if you have ever fed a baby a piece of broccoli or a bean without that microbiome a lot of that digested material is going to just going to come out the other end looking the same. Processed molecules in your blood distribute to your cells which convert the molecules to energy storage in the form of ATP or convert and store them in the form of triglycerides and glycogen.
Now if you cook your food a couple things are going to happen. The food is going to lose water content becoming lighter for the same number of calories...so most certainly it is true that cooked potatoes have more calories than raw potatoes per pound just for this reason alone. Second it is going to break up some of the bonds between molecules kind of predigesting things. This is going to actually drop the total amount of calories present in the food because some of it has already oxidized but it will also break things apart and make it more easy to digest making more of it available. How much is pre-oxidized and how much is made more available...who knows, probably really really variable dependant on food, cook time, you, etc etc.
When food is labeled as containing calories it is based on bomb calorimeter measurements whereby the food is fully oxidized (by burning it) and the total heat released measured by seeing how much it heats up a set volume of water. 1 food calorie (kcal) is the amount of energy required to heat 1 liter by 1 degree celsius...that is the definition. If not directly measured by a bomb calorimeter it can be simply estimated by how much protein, fat and carbohydrate is present. Keep in mind this printed value on the box is the maximum possible yield of energy and it is very likely your body doesn't actually get that much because your body isn't 100% efficient (same as anything in this world).
Okay so lets just accept and run with the idea that cooking food substantially increases the amount of calories you can get from food compared to eating it raw. What does that mean for dieting to lose weight?
Well lets say Person A wants to lose weight and they set their calorie goal at 2000 calories a day planning for a 500 calorie daily deficit. They eat 2000 calories of cooked potatoes which really their body only gets 1800 calories from. Thing is all the calculators telling you how much to eat to lose weight are based on studies that are based on people eating cooked foods so really when it says to eat 2000 calories (written on a label) it has already taken into account that you are only going to get ~1800 calories from that on average and that is what you need. ie that is already build in. As a result they lose about 1 pound a week and given that was their target they can get by on that without feeling that deprived week after week.
Now Person B wants to lose weight and they set their calorie goal at 2000 calories a day planning for a 500 calorie daily deficit. They eat 2000 calories of raw potatoes which really their body only gets 1550 calories from because they aren't digesting all of it. They aim for 1 pound loss per week but what is this, they end up losing 1.5 pounds per week but week after week they start feeling a bit hungry and deprived because they are actually undershooting their goal by a good amount. The reason being they are literally crapping out some of the food they ate which means it isn't actually providing them with any nutrition, calories or satiation. This person could have gotten the exact same result and feeling of gaiety by simply cooking their potatoes and eating less of them, saving themselves some money and not wasting food.
That is assuming the difference between cooked and raw foods is substantial, which I am skeptical of. But even if it is true I don't see why eating raw food would be anything other than just wasteful. In addition if it truly made a big difference then presumably chewing your food more would also mean you got more calories relative to someone who just swallowed their food in huge pieces. Is anyone advocating for a don't-chew diet? Actually don't answer that, someone probably is.20 -
Fantastic reply, Aaron. Thank you very much.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 979 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions