"Yahoo's The Truth About Calories" - MUST READ

Options
tssa
tssa Posts: 93 Member
This is an article I read on Yahoo a few minutes, insightful.

What are your thoughts?


http://health.yahoo.net/rodale/MH/the-truth-about-calories

You can't go anywhere without being confronted by calories. Restaurants now print calorie counts on menus. You go to the supermarket and there they are, stamped on every box and bottle. You hop on the treadmill and watch your "calories burned" click upward.

But just what are calories? The more calories we take in, the more flab we add—and if we cut back on them, then flab starts to recede too, right? After all, at face value, calories seem to be the factor by which all foods should be judged. But if that were true, 500 calories of parsnips would equal 500 calories of Double Stuf Oreos.

Not quite. There's nothing simple about calories. Learn the distinctions and lose the lard.

Myth #1: Calories Fuel Our Bodies

Actually, they don't

A calorie is simply a unit of measurement for heat; in the early 19th century, it was used to explain the theory of heat conservation and steam engines. The term entered the food world around 1890, when the USDA appropriated it for a report on nutrition. Specifically, a calorie was defined as the unit of heat required to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius.

To apply this concept to foods like sandwiches, scientists used to set food on fire (really!) and then gauge how well the flaming sample warmed a water bath. The warmer the water, the more calories the food contained. (Today, a food's calorie count is estimated from its carbohydrate, protein, and fat content.) In the calorie's leap to nutrition, its definition evolved. The calorie we now see cited on nutrition labels is the amount of heat required to raise 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Celsius.

Here's the problem: Your body isn't a steam engine. Instead of heat, it runs on chemical energy, fueled by the oxidation of carbohydrates, fat, and protein that occurs in your cells' mitochondria. "You could say mitochondria are like small power plants," says Maciej Buchowski, Ph.D., a research professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University medical center. "Instead of one central plant, you have several billion, so it's more efficient."

Your move:

Track carbohydrates, fats, and protein—not just calories—when you're evaluating foods.

Myth #2: All Calories Are Created Equal

Not exactly

Our fuel comes from three sources: protein, carbohydrates, and fat. "They're handled by the body differently," says Alan Aragon, M.S., a Men's Health nutrition advisor. So that old "calories in, calories out" formula can be misleading, he says. "Carbohydrates, protein, and fat have different effects on the equation."

Example: For every 100 carbohydrate calories you consume, your body expends 5 to 10 in digestion. With fats, you expend slightly less (although thin people seem to break down more fat than heavy people do). The calorie-burn champion is protein: For every 100 protein calories you consume, your body needs 20 to 30 for digestion, Buchowski says. Carbohydrates and fat give up their calories easily: They're built to supply quick energy. In effect, carbs and fat yield more usable energy than protein does.

Your move:

If you want to lose weight, make protein a priority at every meal. Adding them to snacks—especially before you exercise—can help too.


Try these 5 perfect protein-packed gym-ready snacks.


Myth #3: A Calorie Ingested is a Calorie Digested

It's not that simple

Just because the food is swallowed doesn't mean it will be digested. It passes through your stomach and then reaches your small intestine, which slurps up all the nutrients it can through its spongy walls. But 5 to 10 percent of calories slide through unabsorbed. Fat digestion is relatively efficient—fat easily enters your intestinal walls. As for protein, animal sources are more digestible than plant sources, so a top sirloin's protein will be better absorbed than tofu's.

Different carbs are processed at different rates, too: Glucose and starch are rapidly absorbed, while fiber dawdles in the digestive tract. In fact, the insoluble fiber in some complex carbs, such as that in vegetables and whole grains, tends to block the absorption of other calories. "With a very high-fiber diet, say 60 grams a day, you might lose as much as 20 percent of the calories you consume," says Wanda Howell, Ph.D., a professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Arizona.

So a useful measure of calories is difficult. A lab technician might find that a piece of rock candy and a piece of broccoli have the same number of calories. But in action, the broccoli's fiber ensures that the vegetable contributes less energy. A study in the Journal of Nutrition found that a high-fiber diet leaves roughly twice as many calories undigested as a low-fiber diet does. And fewer calories means less flab.

Your move:

Aim to consume at least 35 to 40 grams of fiber every day. That being said, not all fiber is created equal.

Read "The Truth About Fiber" to find out even more need-to-know facts about this nutrient.


Myth #4: Exercise Burns Most of Our Calories

Not even close

Even the most fanatical fitness nuts burn no more than 30 percent of their daily calories at the gym. Most of your calories burn at a constant simmer, fueling the automated processes that keep you alive—that is, your basal metabolism, says Warren Willey, D.O., author of Better Than Steroids. If you want to burn fuel, hit the gas in your everyday activities.

"Some 60 to 70 percent of our total caloric expenditure goes toward normal bodily functions," says Howell. This includes replacing old tissue, transporting oxygen, mending minor shaving wounds, and so on. For men, these processes require about 11 calories per pound of body weight a day, so a 200-pound man will incinerate 2,200 calories a day—even if he sat in front of the TV all day.

And then there are the calories you lose to N.E.A.T., or nonexercise activity thermo-genesis. N.E.A.T. consists of the countless daily motions you make outside the gym—the calories you burn while making breakfast, playing Nerf football in the office, or chasing the bus. Brandon Alderman, Ph.D., director of the exercise psychophysiology lab at Rutgers University, says emerging evidence suggests that "a conscious effort to spend more time on your feet might net a greater calorie burn than 30 minutes of daily exercise."

Need more suggestions? Here are 4 ways to harness the power of N.E.A.T.


Your move:

Take frequent breaks from your desk (and couch) to move your body and burn bonus calories.

Myth #5: Low-Calories Foods Help You Lose Weight

Not always

Processed low-calorie foods can be weak allies in the weight-loss war. Take sugar-free foods. Omitting sugar is perhaps the easiest way to cut calories. But food manufacturers generally replace those sugars with calorie-free sweeteners, such as sucralose or aspartame. And artificial sweeteners can backfire. One University of Texas study found that consuming as few as three diet sodas a week increases a person's risk of obesity by more than 40 percent. And in a 2008 Purdue study, rats that ate artificially sweetened yogurt took in more calories at subsequent meals, resulting in more flab. The theory is that the promise of sugar—without the caloric payoff—may actually lead to overeating.

"Too many people are counting calories instead of focusing on the content of food," says Alderman. "This just misses the boat."

Your move:

Avoid artificial sweeteners and load up your plate with the bona fide low-calorie saviors: fruits and vegetables.
«1

Replies

  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    Options
    Very good article.

    I 100% agree with this.
  • mynameiscarrie
    mynameiscarrie Posts: 963 Member
    Options
    i totally read this this morning!!
  • sarah307
    sarah307 Posts: 1,363 Member
    Options
    wow. crazy. i dont really know what to say! LOL

    haha, but i do agree!!
  • srp2011
    srp2011 Posts: 1,829 Member
    Options
    Great article - thanks for posting!
  • LikeNoOneElse84
    LikeNoOneElse84 Posts: 475 Member
    Options
    A good read,very informative. Thanks for posting it.
  • Micheller1210
    Micheller1210 Posts: 460 Member
    Options
    I agree great article thanks for posting
  • dumb_blondes_rock
    dumb_blondes_rock Posts: 1,568 Member
    Options
    wow....definantly makes sense
  • Missevanston
    Missevanston Posts: 361 Member
    Options
    BUMP!
  • IrishChick71
    IrishChick71 Posts: 311 Member
    Options
    This almost looks like an excerpt from Jillian Michael's Master Your Metabolism.

    Good info though.
  • CaptainMFP
    CaptainMFP Posts: 440 Member
    Options
    There's some good and some questionable in this article...I don't take terribly seriously any articles about health/physiology in popular media. For example, extrapolating two studies on artificial sweeteners into a general rule about them without detailing the studies is scientifically irresponsible. You need a minimum of three data points for a proper statistical comparison.... (Note I'm not defending artificial sweeteners...I'm pointing out that this article's conclusion is not scientifically valid. Consider how many people still fear a connection between autism and vaccination because of one study that has since been recanted and never replicated...Yahoo is not my first choice for sound scientific information!)
  • sarahbear1981
    sarahbear1981 Posts: 610 Member
    Options
    Great article! Thanks for sharing. I had never heard of N.E.A.T. before. I mean, I knew about BMR but didn't know the actual terminology behind it.
  • dracobaby82
    dracobaby82 Posts: 380 Member
    Options
    Wow... thanks for posting this!
  • TLC1975
    TLC1975 Posts: 146 Member
    Options
    Good read, thanks for sharing!
  • Oishii
    Oishii Posts: 2,675 Member
    Options
    I might send this to my dad. He's a strict believer in calories in v. calories out, and while this article purports to dispell this as a myth, I feel what it really illustrates is why the calories in may be different from you think and ditto the calories out.

    Very useful. Thanks.
  • misssmiles
    misssmiles Posts: 207 Member
    Options
    great info!!
  • maygans
    maygans Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    Very interesting!
  • kr3851
    kr3851 Posts: 994 Member
    Options
    And this is why WW Points didn't work for me... I'd use all of mine on high fat high carb foods, and wonder why I wasn't losing. Now that I have MFP - I can track all the nutrients to make sure my diet is not only within cals, but also within carbs, protein, fat and sodium. I struggle with the sodium... but getting better!!
  • lizzys
    lizzys Posts: 841 Member
    Options
    fat matters carbs count but calories ar king. it all come down to the caloire that your watching
  • tssa
    tssa Posts: 93 Member
    Options
    And this is why WW Points didn't work for me... I'd use all of mine on high fat high carb foods, and wonder why I wasn't losing. Now that I have MFP - I can track all the nutrients to make sure my diet is not only within cals, but also within carbs, protein, fat and sodium. I struggle with the sodium... but getting better!!


    Yea, I did WW and had the same issue plus I loathed tracking my points. MFP is way better since I can see carbs, fiber, protein, etc. I struggle with sodium too, lol. I'm eating so much healthier with MFP than what I did with WW.

    Good luck to you. :smile:
  • CoachMaritova
    CoachMaritova Posts: 409 Member
    Options
    Informative article... thanks!