Calorie is NOT a calorie: research

neanderthin

I disagree with your remarks on fat. There's a reason studies show that when replacing saturated fat for carbohydrates that the incident of heart disease goes up, so we have to be careful when referring to a diet that recommends a reduction of saturated fat. Keep in mind that trans fats have always been categorized as a saturated fat along with regular saturated fat, when in fact it's an unsaturated fat that has been molecularity manipulated. Also when we replace the foods that have saturated fat that HDL is reduced and particle size of LDL is reduced which leads to a more atherogenic environment. Basically what they are recommending is to reduce the amount of refined foods and to distance ourselves from the SAD diet as much as possible......most of the saturated fats are found in refined bread and pastry products, so yeah, that will make a big difference, but if someone is reducing saturated fat in an otherwise healthy diet where whole food and minimally processed foods are consumed and replace those calories for carbs.........we're worse off health wise........

Keep in mind that I was just comparing fats to fats, not fats to carbs. It's a complex system, and if I were to get into every comparison, every in depth interaction, we could be here for hours upon hours! They have full courses just on the simple interactions after all!
Saturated fats aren't as bad as trans fats (IMO) but they aren't good. You don't need to obsess over removing them if you eat an otherwise healthy diet, but if you eat a high saturated fat diet, with low unsaturated fats, you will see a negative trends. The point is that if you're in a situation and need to choose between a food high in saturated fats and a food high in unsaturated fats (like choosing a cooking oil) you should probably go for the one higher in unsaturated fat

Who eats a high saturated fat diet? Even if we eat a high fat diet saturated fat is lower considerably than the amount of unsaturated fat that would be in the foods of that high fat diet. And what does these diets consist of in high saturated fat diets that apparently show these negative trends? curious, seriously I am always trying to find research to keep my opinion as balanced as possible.

QueenBishOTUniverse

AHHHHHHH flashbacks of animal environmental physiology. LD50! Q10!

Seriously, as fascinating as it is to get in to minutiae of some of these topics (I the work being done with epigenetics and gut flora) most people just don't have the science background necessary to understand that IRL for THEM all of this stuff is basically statistically insignificant, and unfortunately it just makes it very easy for quacks to manipulate a scientifically uneducated public.

Also, background in evolution and ecology, not nutrition, so how much are the people working in nutritional fields incorporating understanding of evolutionary context? I've always based my personal nutritional goals on evolutionary context, but that's my training. However, given that evolutionary context is what has driven nutritional adaptation, I would think that this would be an important factor to consider when discussing modern human nutrition.

Fullsterkur_woman

You are misinterpreting the quote, but even taking it at face value that is still 250g of carbs/day, and we are still talking about not being in the same galaxy as Planet Ketosis.

And we'll ignore the fact that he's having the worst season of his professional career...

:drinker: Show me somebody who is strong without carbs, and I'll show you somebody who would be stronger with carbs.

fruttibiscotti

I disagree with your remarks on fat. There's a reason studies show that when replacing saturated fat for carbohydrates that the incident of heart disease goes up, so we have to be careful when referring to a diet that recommends a reduction of saturated fat. Keep in mind that trans fats have always been categorized as a saturated fat along with regular saturated fat, when in fact it's an unsaturated fat that has been molecularity manipulated. Also when we replace the foods that have saturated fat that HDL is reduced and particle size of LDL is reduced which leads to a more atherogenic environment. Basically what they are recommending is to reduce the amount of refined foods and to distance ourselves from the SAD diet as much as possible......most of the saturated fats are found in refined bread and pastry products, so yeah, that will make a big difference, but if someone is reducing saturated fat in an otherwise healthy diet where whole food and minimally processed foods are consumed and replace those calories for carbs.........we're worse off health wise........

Keep in mind that I was just comparing fats to fats, not fats to carbs. It's a complex system, and if I were to get into every comparison, every in depth interaction, we could be here for hours upon hours! They have full courses just on the simple interactions after all!
Saturated fats aren't as bad as trans fats (IMO) but they aren't good. You don't need to obsess over removing them if you eat an otherwise healthy diet, but if you eat a high saturated fat diet, with low unsaturated fats, you will see a negative trends. The point is that if you're in a situation and need to choose between a food high in saturated fats and a food high in unsaturated fats (like choosing a cooking oil) you should probably go for the one higher in unsaturated fat

Who eats a high saturated fat diet? Even if we eat a high fat diet saturated fat is lower considerably than the amount of unsaturated fat that would be in the foods of that high fat diet. And what does these diets consist of in high saturated fat diets that apparently show these negative trends? curious, seriously I am always trying to find research to keep my opinion as balanced as possible.

When you ask the question "who eats a high saturated diet?", what context are you referring to? As in those living in societies eating high fat diets within a "westernized, modern diet", or native peoples, like Inuit that eat nothing but foods like whale blubber all year long without any carbs at all.

Mylolamia

Loving this thread...not understanding all of it but will reread again later! Thanks all for your input.

WhyLime113

(lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb).

I am fine with lactose, but have problems with casein. Surely by your definitions this would make Casein 'bad' and lactose fine?
I don't think a subset of people being intolerant or worse should make something 'bad'.

I should have worded that better: it's a bad carb for the individual. It's not a bad carb universally. That's a huge part of the reason carbs are more complicated than fat, because it's signifigantly more personal.

I read between the lines and got this. But since you mention it, I wanna throw you another curve-ball. I seem to have "won" the genetic lottery in that my total cholesterol is super-low no matter what my diet, and whether I am overweight or not (my HDL is normal for a regularly heavy exerciser). What about the link between saturated fat (and/or cholesterol) and heart disease and diabetes? Can I just eat sticks of butter (IIFMyM, of course!) without worrying because my LDL is on par with that of the average infant? I tend to eat quite low fat anyway, because I want lots of protein and I like my carbs, but I'm still intellectually curious.

Your personal risk of heart disease and diabetes would probably increase, since you are still increasing your cholesterol and your unhealthy habits, but how you'll compare to other unhealthy eaters I'm not sure. I suspect your HDL would go down and you VLDL would go up. That said I'm not sure on the science of this one! It's really just what I would expect with my understanding, but I'm still a student; I may have a more concrete answer about that in another semester as I take more advanced courses on nutrition and health.

Thanks for your response, but I think you may have missed the part where I said that my cholesterol does not increase no matter whether I'm obese or "normal" weight range, and no matter what diet I follow. My total cholesterol has never been above 120, and my LDL has never been higher than 40, over the course of 15 years. I don't have genetic testing, but my hypothesis is heterozygous familial hypobetalipoproteinemia. I have pet theories about the effects on mental health, connective tissues and hormonal systems, but it's such a rare thing there's very little research on it. Also, why would my HDL go down if I maintain my athletic schedule? I'll check back with you in another semester. There's no shortage of mysteries about the human body!

Yeah, my knowledge definitely stops at the no cholesterol increase! I've never heard of that! Still, it was a fun question

WhyLime113

I disagree with your remarks on fat. There's a reason studies show that when replacing saturated fat for carbohydrates that the incident of heart disease goes up, so we have to be careful when referring to a diet that recommends a reduction of saturated fat. Keep in mind that trans fats have always been categorized as a saturated fat along with regular saturated fat, when in fact it's an unsaturated fat that has been molecularity manipulated. Also when we replace the foods that have saturated fat that HDL is reduced and particle size of LDL is reduced which leads to a more atherogenic environment. Basically what they are recommending is to reduce the amount of refined foods and to distance ourselves from the SAD diet as much as possible......most of the saturated fats are found in refined bread and pastry products, so yeah, that will make a big difference, but if someone is reducing saturated fat in an otherwise healthy diet where whole food and minimally processed foods are consumed and replace those calories for carbs.........we're worse off health wise........

Keep in mind that I was just comparing fats to fats, not fats to carbs. It's a complex system, and if I were to get into every comparison, every in depth interaction, we could be here for hours upon hours! They have full courses just on the simple interactions after all!
Saturated fats aren't as bad as trans fats (IMO) but they aren't good. You don't need to obsess over removing them if you eat an otherwise healthy diet, but if you eat a high saturated fat diet, with low unsaturated fats, you will see a negative trends. The point is that if you're in a situation and need to choose between a food high in saturated fats and a food high in unsaturated fats (like choosing a cooking oil) you should probably go for the one higher in unsaturated fat

Who eats a high saturated fat diet? Even if we eat a high fat diet saturated fat is lower considerably than the amount of unsaturated fat that would be in the foods of that high fat diet. And what does these diets consist of in high saturated fat diets that apparently show these negative trends? curious, seriously I am always trying to find research to keep my opinion as balanced as possible.

It's a matter of relativity. Butter is high in saturated fats compared to foods with other saturated fats. If you eat a lot of deep fried food, buttery food, etc. you're eating a diet high in saturated fat. Is there more saturated fat in this diet than unsaturated? Probably not, but it's still high in saturated, and in comparison to a healthier diet, probably quite low in unsaturated fats.
I think most people would agree that there are negative trends with diets consisting of a lot of deep fried, buttery, processed foods. It's not that all foods with saturated fats will kill you or all foods with unsaturated fats will promote good health, but you want to achieve a balance with more unsaturated than saturated in order to reduce risk of heart disease and similar illnesses while improving longevity.

geebusuk

Also, background in evolution and ecology, not nutrition, so how much are the people working in nutritional fields incorporating understanding of evolutionary context? I've always based my personal nutritional goals on evolutionary context, but that's my training. However, given that evolutionary context is what has driven nutritional adaptation, I would think that this would be an important factor to consider when discussing modern human nutrition.

If you have a background in evolution, surely you must also appreciate that natural selection doesn't always evolve the very 'best'; merely enough to have offspring that can also survive to have offspring and so on.

While I'd agree evolution may give some hints as to 'why' some things are the way they are, I wouldn't take it as a starting point - more a side point that explains.
Further, just because something has evolved in a certain way to work with certain things doesn't mean we want to do the same now.
The sickle cell trait is an oft-used example. It has an excellent evolutionary advantage for some. But that doesn't mean we'd choose it now.

fruttibiscotti

I disagree with your remarks on fat. There's a reason studies show that when replacing saturated fat for carbohydrates that the incident of heart disease goes up, so we have to be careful when referring to a diet that recommends a reduction of saturated fat. Keep in mind that trans fats have always been categorized as a saturated fat along with regular saturated fat, when in fact it's an unsaturated fat that has been molecularity manipulated. Also when we replace the foods that have saturated fat that HDL is reduced and particle size of LDL is reduced which leads to a more atherogenic environment. Basically what they are recommending is to reduce the amount of refined foods and to distance ourselves from the SAD diet as much as possible......most of the saturated fats are found in refined bread and pastry products, so yeah, that will make a big difference, but if someone is reducing saturated fat in an otherwise healthy diet where whole food and minimally processed foods are consumed and replace those calories for carbs.........we're worse off health wise........

Keep in mind that I was just comparing fats to fats, not fats to carbs. It's a complex system, and if I were to get into every comparison, every in depth interaction, we could be here for hours upon hours! They have full courses just on the simple interactions after all!
Saturated fats aren't as bad as trans fats (IMO) but they aren't good. You don't need to obsess over removing them if you eat an otherwise healthy diet, but if you eat a high saturated fat diet, with low unsaturated fats, you will see a negative trends. The point is that if you're in a situation and need to choose between a food high in saturated fats and a food high in unsaturated fats (like choosing a cooking oil) you should probably go for the one higher in unsaturated fat

Who eats a high saturated fat diet? Even if we eat a high fat diet saturated fat is lower considerably than the amount of unsaturated fat that would be in the foods of that high fat diet. And what does these diets consist of in high saturated fat diets that apparently show these negative trends? curious, seriously I am always trying to find research to keep my opinion as balanced as possible.

It's a matter of relativity. Butter is high in saturated fats compared to foods with other saturated fats. If you eat a lot of deep fried food, buttery food, etc. you're eating a diet high in saturated fat. Is there more saturated fat in this diet than unsaturated? Probably not, but it's still high in saturated, and in comparison to a healthier diet, probably quite low in unsaturated fats.
I think most people would agree that there are negative trends with diets consisting of a lot of deep fried, buttery, processed foods. It's not that all foods with saturated fats will kill you or all foods with unsaturated fats will promote good health, but you want to achieve a balance with more unsaturated than saturated in order to reduce risk of heart disease and similar illnesses while improving longevity.

Whylime, eating saturated fats does not increase risk of cardiovascular disease. This has been debunked, refer below to studies published in medical journals.

1) Siri-Tarino PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010.

2) Mente A, et al. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2009.

3) Dreon DM, et al. Change in dietary saturated fat intake is correlated with change in mass of large low-density-lipoprotein particles in men. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1998.

neanderthin

I disagree with your remarks on fat. There's a reason studies show that when replacing saturated fat for carbohydrates that the incident of heart disease goes up, so we have to be careful when referring to a diet that recommends a reduction of saturated fat. Keep in mind that trans fats have always been categorized as a saturated fat along with regular saturated fat, when in fact it's an unsaturated fat that has been molecularity manipulated. Also when we replace the foods that have saturated fat that HDL is reduced and particle size of LDL is reduced which leads to a more atherogenic environment. Basically what they are recommending is to reduce the amount of refined foods and to distance ourselves from the SAD diet as much as possible......most of the saturated fats are found in refined bread and pastry products, so yeah, that will make a big difference, but if someone is reducing saturated fat in an otherwise healthy diet where whole food and minimally processed foods are consumed and replace those calories for carbs.........we're worse off health wise........

Keep in mind that I was just comparing fats to fats, not fats to carbs. It's a complex system, and if I were to get into every comparison, every in depth interaction, we could be here for hours upon hours! They have full courses just on the simple interactions after all!
Saturated fats aren't as bad as trans fats (IMO) but they aren't good. You don't need to obsess over removing them if you eat an otherwise healthy diet, but if you eat a high saturated fat diet, with low unsaturated fats, you will see a negative trends. The point is that if you're in a situation and need to choose between a food high in saturated fats and a food high in unsaturated fats (like choosing a cooking oil) you should probably go for the one higher in unsaturated fat

Who eats a high saturated fat diet? Even if we eat a high fat diet saturated fat is lower considerably than the amount of unsaturated fat that would be in the foods of that high fat diet. And what does these diets consist of in high saturated fat diets that apparently show these negative trends? curious, seriously I am always trying to find research to keep my opinion as balanced as possible.

It's a matter of relativity. Butter is high in saturated fats compared to foods with other saturated fats. If you eat a lot of deep fried food, buttery food, etc. you're eating a diet high in saturated fat. Is there more saturated fat in this diet than unsaturated? Probably not, but it's still high in saturated, and in comparison to a healthier diet, probably quite low in unsaturated fats.
I think most people would agree that there are negative trends with diets consisting of a lot of deep fried, buttery, processed foods. It's not that all foods with saturated fats will kill you or all foods with unsaturated fats will promote good health, but you want to achieve a balance with more unsaturated than saturated in order to reduce risk of heart disease and similar illnesses while improving longevity.

Thanks. I just chalk this up to belief then, because the science doesn't agree with you.

QueenBishOTUniverse

Also, background in evolution and ecology, not nutrition, so how much are the people working in nutritional fields incorporating understanding of evolutionary context? I've always based my personal nutritional goals on evolutionary context, but that's my training. However, given that evolutionary context is what has driven nutritional adaptation, I would think that this would be an important factor to consider when discussing modern human nutrition.

If you have a background in evolution, surely you must also appreciate that natural selection doesn't always evolve the very 'best'; merely enough to have offspring that can also survive to have offspring and so on.

Well of course not, this is after all why the squid get much better eyeballs than those of us from a different evolutionary lineage. That being said, given the HUGE amount of selective pressure involved, combined with the fact that basic components were established fairly early in our evolutionary history....hell it could be argued that the entire course of evolutionary history has been an arms race to develop better systems for grabbing and using the available building blocks, I would say that the adaptations for obtaining, absorbing and incorporating macronutrients need to be pretty damn good.

While I'd agree evolution may give some hints as to 'why' some things are the way they are, I wouldn't take it as a starting point - more a side point that explains.

I would argue that if you can't EXPLAIN how it works, then you don't KNOW how it works. To me that's like trying to understand the workings of a machine you've never seen before without having an understanding of what that machine is supposed to do. Understanding WHY we have specific adaptations might make it significantly easier to elucidate HOW those systems are set up to work.

Further, just because something has evolved in a certain way to work with certain things doesn't mean we want to do the same now.
The sickle cell trait is an oft-used example. It has an excellent evolutionary advantage for some. But that doesn't mean we'd choose it now.

Maybe, but you're going to have a hard time changing how those systems work. Also, sickle cell evolved within a specific and relatively isolated sub population under a specific set of selective pressures. There have been MANY isolated subpopulations of humans and all of them have had their own unique set of selective pressures which may have effected that population's specific adaptations to diet and nutrition. How big of an effect? How wide spread?

While the big picture stuff probably works as a general rule of thumb for most people, I would still say it's important to consider that these isolated subpopulation *MAY* still cause significant variation within modern human populations despite the counterbalance of current levels of genetic mixing. This certainly not my area of research, that's why I was wondering how much these nutritional studies take concepts like this in to consideration. For instance, another post mentioned the Inuit populations. How would the results of some of these general studies change if conducted on an entirely Inuit sample group? It's an extreme example, and I wouldn't try to postulate on an outcome, but that's one of the things I would wonder about.

Myhaloslipped

This topic again...I can't.

Trechechus

gertudejekyl

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

Right, so as geebusuk states just after you, those authors are playing with semantics. The reality is "a calorie is a calorie"; it's just that some engines (metabolic pathways) are more efficient than others.

Yeah, this is like the debate over whether muscle weighs more than fat. one lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat, however one lb of muscle takes up less room.

A calorie is a unit of heat, so in that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But it takes more energy to burn a gram of protein than it does to burn a gram of Carbohydrate, so result on weight loss or gain may be different. And how our individual bodies process the nutrients differently, can have a different effect.

the difference is negligible.

and considering the error margins allowed in package labeling, those inherent in using an activity calculator or incorrectly calibrated HRM, and the statistical nature of BMR calculations, the difference becomes essentially invisible.

this is why it's not worth discussing. it has literally no discernible impact on your weight loss results.

people who get hung up on the fact that there are tiny little variables like these in the calculations that don't really affect the results are not seeing the forest through the trees.

YEAH!!

QueenBishOTUniverse

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

Right, so as geebusuk states just after you, those authors are playing with semantics. The reality is "a calorie is a calorie"; it's just that some engines (metabolic pathways) are more efficient than others.

Yeah, this is like the debate over whether muscle weighs more than fat. one lb of muscle weighs the same as one lb of fat, however one lb of muscle takes up less room.

A calorie is a unit of heat, so in that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But it takes more energy to burn a gram of protein than it does to burn a gram of Carbohydrate, so result on weight loss or gain may be different. And how our individual bodies process the nutrients differently, can have a different effect.

the difference is negligible.

and considering the error margins allowed in package labeling, those inherent in using an activity calculator or incorrectly calibrated HRM, and the statistical nature of BMR calculations, the difference becomes essentially invisible.

this is why it's not worth discussing. it has literally no discernible impact on your weight loss results.

people who get hung up on the fact that there are tiny little variables like these in the calculations that don't really affect the results are not seeing the forest through the trees.

YEAH!!

Because as scientists WE CAN'T HELP IT :laugh:

I do agree though, general pop REALLY does not need to be worrying about this.

I'm reading that and realizing that is sounds sort of "trust me, I'm a scientist", which is why half the general pop doesn't trust science at all, and the other half is trusting quacks claiming to be scientists because they can't differentiate.....ugh, bashes head against wall.....

QuietBloom

If any of you didn't read the gut microbiome study posts, you should (scientifically minded geeks that we are here).

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1241214

In thinking about this, I realized that this MAY be the reason that previously obese people cannot maintain on the same number of calories that never obese people can. The previously obese have a gut microbiome that is ultra efficient at extracting the maximum number of calories from food eaten.

geebusuk

hell it could be argued that the entire course of evolutionary history has been an arms race to develop better systems for grabbing and using the available building blocks, I would say that the adaptations for obtaining, absorbing and incorporating macronutrients need to be pretty damn good.

But, I'd suggest it doesn't have to be "pretty damn good". Plenty of animans can eat a much wider range of food than we can - if I could eat what most dogs get nutrition from (my dog is quite picky, actually, but most aren't in my experience), then I would have a considerable evolutionary advantage those many years ago.
Similarly, I'm sitting here (no heating in my work unit) wearing a t-shirt, two sweat shirts and a proper sheepskin bomber jacket. My dog is fine without any extra layers (he is half St Bernard.)
Evolution hasn't made my body anywhere near 'the best'. It's merely left it good enough that my ancestors could produce off spring.
In this case, because our minds became more capable, we were able make up for other characteristics that may be considered 'negative'.

Understanding WHY we have specific adaptations might make it significantly easier to elucidate HOW those systems are set up to work.

We know exactly what gravity will do, but have pretty much no idea how it does what it does.
That doesn't mean can't very accurately design systems that make use of it.

Rather than sickle cell, perhaps I should have discussed Human vestigiality - parts come about through Evolution, but no longer of use.

QueenBishOTUniverse

But, I'd suggest it doesn't have to be "pretty damn good". Plenty of animans can eat a much wider range of food than we can - if I could eat what most dogs get nutrition from (my dog is quite picky, actually, but most aren't in my experience), then I would have a considerable evolutionary advantage those many years ago.
Similarly, I'm sitting here (no heating in my work unit) wearing a t-shirt, two sweat shirts and a proper sheepskin bomber jacket. My dog is fine without any extra layers (he is half St Bernard.)
Evolution hasn't made my body anywhere near 'the best'. It's merely left it good enough that my ancestors could produce off spring.
In this case, because our minds became more capable, we were able make up for other characteristics that may be considered 'negative'.

Being more generalized in your consumption is no "better" than being more specialized. It is entirely based on context. Oversimplification here, but if you're in an environment where there is a single plentiful food source that provides all your nutritional needs, even though there are other food sources available, the organism which is specialized to most efficiently gather that food source will have an adaptive advantage over an organism with a more generalized diet. HOWEVER if that environment were to start changing, and that single food source became scarce, the specialized organism would now be at a disadvantage to the generalized organism.

One of the things that is commonly thought to be a reason for the human species being as "successful" as it is from an evolutionary standpoint is the fact that we are sort of the ultimate generalizers. No, we're not the fastest, or the strongest, or the best at doing anything, but we're adaptable, and in a rapidly changing environmental context, that seems to have given us a significant advantage, but still, not "better".

Oh, and we lost the hair a. because we didn't need it any more so it was a waste of resources to continue producing it, and b. the ability to sweat allowed for a more efficient mechanism of maintaining homeostasis.

All of this proximal to the point I was trying to make however (my students love pulling me off topic like this...). It could be said that evolution started when the first self replicating RNA molecule figured out that it could make more copies of itself if it horded resources inside a lipid bilayer some 3.5 BYA and the entire rest of history is a game of one upsmanship to be the better self replicating RNA (I'm waiting to get b-slapped by a molecular evolutionary biologist for that statement). That was the start of nutrition, these two issues are INHERENTLY linked, but somehow in research it seems they get isolated out and treated separately, they are not, and I can't help but think we could make better progress in the field as a whole if we stopped doing this.

We know exactly what gravity will do, but have pretty much no idea how it does what it does.
That doesn't mean can't very accurately design systems that make use of it.

Yes, in general, just like with nutrition. But when you start delving in to finer points and detail things quickly become murky, because we DON'T understand what gravity really is. Works great for big picture though.

Rather than sickle cell, perhaps I should have discussed Human vestigiality - parts come about through Evolution, but no longer of use.

Yes, and this is certainly the case with human nutrition, adaptations to gather and store vital energy and nutrients earlier in our history have certainly lost some of their advantage in our current environment, but understanding why we have those adaptations, where they came from etc. would probably help in isolating out how to deal with them.