The context of calories

hpsnickers1

Food for thought. Who knows, maybe I just feel like being punished today.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-context-of-calories/

“What’s that in the road ahead?”

vs.

“What’s that in the road!? A head!?”

Context is important.

Many people think weight loss is simply about cutting calories. But context counts here, too. Calories do have context and that’s what I want to explore today. Is a calorie from fat the same as a calorie from protein or carbohydrate? Depends on the context. Does day-to-day calorie monitoring make any difference if your week-to-week weight and energy expenditure are dialed in? Maybe not.

Most people (even many scientists) believe that the body composition challenge is a relatively simple equation: to lose weight you must reduce calories (either eat less or burn more), to gain weight you must add calories, and to maintain weight you keep calories constant. Calories in over calories out.

The truth is, it’s more like a complex equation where you have to factor in many other very important variables: Do I want to lose weight or just body fat? Do I want to gain weight or just muscle? How much muscle do I want to put on and how fast? What is my personal genetic “range” or limit for body fat or muscle? These are all different contexts. And these are further affected by supply (types and quantity of foods as well as frequency of meals) and metabolic demand (your relative immediate need for either energy, repair, or building). In the short-term, they are rate-limited by hormones (insulin, glucagon, epinephrine, nor-epinephrine, cortisol etc). And in the long-term the range (or limits) of possible outcomes is determined by gene expression (5’8” ectomorphs simply can’t become 275-lb body-builders, but they can be well-proportioned 165-lb men or 135-lb women.). The context can also change day-to-day. That’s where you come in as the director.

Fat burning, glucose burning, ketone burning, glycogen storage, fat storage, gluconeogenesis, and protein turnover. All of these energy-related processes are going on simultaneously in each of us at all times. But the rate at which each of these processes happens is different in each of us and they can increase or decrease (sometimes dramatically) depending on the context of our present circumstances and our long term goals. All of these contexts utilize the same gene-based principles of energy metabolism – the biochemical machinery that we all share – but because they all involve different starting points as well as different goals or possible outcomes, they often require different action plans. We can alter the rate at which each of these metabolic processes happens simply by changing what and when we eat. We can change the context.

The RD’s will tell you that protein has four calories per gram, so when you figure your daily intake, budget calories accordingly. But protein is used by the body mostly for maintaining structure and function. Yes, it can be burned as fuel, but really only as a secondary source, and even then, it must be converted to glucose to be utilized. So, depending on the need within the body, the first 10, 20 or 30 grams of protein might go towards repair and growth – not energy. Do we therefore discount those first 30 grams when we “count calories?” Depends on the context. If you don’t exercise much and eat frequently and copiously all the time, maybe most of the protein you eat will count more towards your calorie budget (since your structural protein turnover is relatively less). On the other hand, if you run yourself ragged, are under a great deal of stress (lots of catabolic hormones) and generally don’t get much protein, maybe most of that one high-protein meal goes toward repair and won’t be called upon as fuel for days or weeks. Or maybe you’re coming off an IF day. Does it really count as calories today if it isn’t burned or stored as fat? If those protein calories today go to adding lean mass (muscle) that is retained for years, do those calories count today? Then again, as muscle it does offer a potential long-term stored source of energy when gluconeogenesis is increased. See what I mean? Depends on the context.

Fats aren’t just for fuel either. They can be integral parts of all cell membranes and hormones and can serve as critical protective cushioning for delicate organs. At what point do the fats we consume stop becoming structural and start becoming calorically dense fuel? Depends again on the context. If there’s a ton of carbohydrates accompanying the fat on a daily basis, it’s pretty certain that that fat will be stored as adipose tissue sooner rather than later. That’s nine calories per gram in the tank for future use (if ever). And that’s what adds up over time when you weigh yourself. OTOH, if you’ve withheld carbs for a few days and your insulin remains low, the fats from this meal might be used quickly to provide fuel for normal resting metabolic processes.

Keep your carbs low enough long enough and you get into ketosis, a fat-burning state that creates what many now refer to as the “metabolic advantage.” In this context, fats are fueling most of the body’s energy demands either directly as fatty acids or as the fat-metabolism byproducts called ketones. To the delight of those looking to burn off unwanted fat, it gets better. The body balances the acidic effect of any excess ketones by either excreting them in the urine (in today’s $5 a gallon economy, isn’t that wasting fuel?) and by using ketones and fatty acids to create a bit more glucose for the brain via gluconeogenesis in a fairly “energy inefficient” process.

Finally, let’s look at the lowly carbohydrate and its four calories per gram. All carbs are broken down into simple sugars, and eventually (and almost always) into glucose. The primary use of glucose from all carbohydrate food is as fuel, whether burned immediately as it passes by different organs and muscles or whether stored for later use. The brain, red blood cells, and nerve cells prefer glucose as primary fuel (but don’t absolutely require it – they can use ketones). Muscles that are working hard will prefer glucose if it is available, but don’t absolutely require it unless they are working very hard for very long. If it is not burned immediately as fuel, excess glucose will be first stored as glycogen in muscle and liver cells and then, if or when these glycogen storage depots are full, it will be converted to fatty acids and stored in fat cells as fat. The things to remember about carbs and to put into context: Carbs are not used as structural components in the body – they are used only as a form of fuel; glucose in the bloodstream is toxic to humans UNLESS it is being burned immediately as fuel. (For reference, “normal” blood sugar represents only about one teaspoon of glucose dissolved in the entire blood pool in your body). That’s why insulin is so critical to taking it out of the bloodstream and putting it somewhere FAST, like muscle cells or fat cells. Moreover, humans can exist quite easily without ever eating carbs, since the body has several mechanisms for generating glucose from the fat and proteins consumed, as well as from proteins stripped from muscle tissue. For all these reasons, in the PB-style of eating, carbs are lowest priority. Unless your context includes lots of endurance activities (or storing fat) there’s little reason to overdo the carbs (USDA and RDs’ recommendations notwithstanding).

So what’s the take home message from all this? To be honest, I thought maybe you could tell me! Maybe it’s that by understanding how these metabolic processes work, and knowing that we can control the rates at which each one happens through our diet (and exercise) we needn’t agonize over the day-to-day calorie counting. As long as we are generally eating a PB-style plan and providing the right context, our bodies will ease into a healthy, fit, long-lived comfort zone rather effortlessly.

rachmaree

I quite enjoyed reading this I just try to think that everything I put in my body is going to have an effect, and I want to try to make the effects positive. Thanks for posting!

joejccva71

The basis of this article is just plain wrong. Calorie counting IS the answer, not just the context. The type of food does NOT matter. You dont HAVE to eat 5-6 meals a day, you can eat 1 a day. Calorie intake and getting your required minimum protein and fat macros are what matters.

Thanks for posting this OP.

But see the problem with articles like these is, people start to think that they can eat how much they want as long as it's healthy such as fruits and vegetables.

If your TDEE is 2000, and you eat 2500 calories of nothing but fruits and vegetables...you are going to gain weight and it WILL be mostly fat.

rachpiper720

The basis of this article is just plain wrong. Calorie counting IS the answer, not just the context. The type of food does NOT matter. You dont HAVE to eat 5-6 meals a day, you can eat 1 a day. Calorie intake and getting your required minimum protein and fat macros are what matters.

Thanks for posting this OP.

But see the problem with articles like these is, people start to think that they can eat how much they want as long as it's healthy such as fruits and vegetables.

If your TDEE is 2000, and you eat 2500 calories of nothing but fruits and vegetables...you are going to gain weight and it WILL be mostly fat.

Anyone that can eat 2500 calories of just fruit and vegetables has probably got some SERIOUS fiber intake. That is a LOT of fruits and veggies.

OP- Awesome article! One day people will figure out fat/carbs/protein are all metabolized differently and can have serious health effects on the body. It isn't all about calories/calories out!

Acg67

and unlike the article states, there is no metabolic advantage to keto diets

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.

Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.

Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood ß-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum -glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet.

Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

rdmchugh

Thanks for posting this! Very interesting read. I would have to agree, a calorie is a calorie, but how our bodies process calories differs. 500 calories from lard (I'm from the south where my Grandmother did not think it was possible to cook vegetables without lard) is very different than 500 calories from steamed asparagus or broccoli.

I lost about 50 lb several years ago doing Adkins and went into a severe depression that way outlasted my diet and my weight loss. I have been clean eating since April, am losing weight and feel SOOOOO much better than I have felt for years. Yes, I have restricted calories on both methods, but the results in how I feel and think overall are very different.

Yes, you can lose weight eating 1500 calories of burgers and fries and "diet" soda every day or eating 1500 calories of veggies, fresh fruit, lean meats and water. But how does your body respond to high fat, sodium and man-made chemicals? How do you FEEL? I know I feel healthier than I have for years even though I still have much weight to lose. I feel good enough to get up and and move! Very different than when I did Adkins!

A calorie is a unit of measure for how much energy it takes to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. How your body processes those calories is vastly different depending on the source!

hpsnickers1

and unlike the article states, there is no metabolic advantage to keto diets

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.

Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.

Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood ß-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum -glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet.

Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

I wonder where they got their carbs from and their fat from. I don't consider 40% carb low carb. And as far as LDL, there are two types. One type is large and fluffy - it's beneficial. The other type is small and dense - and bad. So the total number really doesn't tell a lot.
Grain carbs create inflammation. Grain/seed oils also create inflammation. What I want to see is what their diet consisted of.
I trust no study done by today's conventional wisdom and my guess is the diet was based on the Dietary Guidelines and the Standard American diet and that diet wreaks inflammation havoc in the body. The diet was probably based on whole grains carbs and those nasty industrially process oils (canola, sunflower, safflower, vegetable, soybean). Sorry, these results say nothing.

hpsnickers1

Thanks for posting this! Very interesting read. I would have to agree, a calorie is a calorie, but how our bodies process calories differs. 500 calories from lard (I'm from the south where my Grandmother did not think it was possible to cook vegetables without lard) is very different than 500 calories from steamed asparagus or broccoli.

I lost about 50 lb several years ago doing Adkins and went into a severe depression that way outlasted my diet and my weight loss. I have been clean eating since April, am losing weight and feel SOOOOO much better than I have felt for years. Yes, I have restricted calories on both methods, but the results in how I feel and think overall are very different.

Yes, you can lose weight eating 1500 calories of burgers and fries and "diet" soda every day or eating 1500 calories of veggies, fresh fruit, lean meats and water. But how does your body respond to high fat, sodium and man-made chemicals? How do you FEEL? I know I feel healthier than I have for years even though I still have much weight to lose. I feel good enough to get up and and move! Very different than when I did Adkins!

A calorie is a unit of measure for how much energy it takes to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. How your body processes those calories is vastly different depending on the source!

If how your body processes calories differs than a calorie is not a calorie. My body has responded very well to high-fat and I don't touch man made chemicals - I get about 70% of my calories from fat but not entirely sure - I don't have to worry about calories or portions anymore - I eat unlimited fats and I get them from meats, poultry, fatty fish, coconut oil and olive oil - not from chemically processed "vegetable"/seed/grain oil. I have been low-carb (under 50g) since the end of April. My depression and anxiety are gone. My digestive issues and skin issues are gone. If you were depressed and tired all the time then you weren't eating enough fat - mainly from saturated fats.

I would be cooking that asparagus or broccoli in lard, not steaming them.

hpsnickers1

The basis of this article is just plain wrong. Calorie counting IS the answer, not just the context. The type of food does NOT matter. You dont HAVE to eat 5-6 meals a day, you can eat 1 a day. Calorie intake and getting your required minimum protein and fat macros are what matters.

Thanks for posting this OP.

But see the problem with articles like these is, people start to think that they can eat how much they want as long as it's healthy such as fruits and vegetables.

If your TDEE is 2000, and you eat 2500 calories of nothing but fruits and vegetables...you are going to gain weight and it WILL be mostly fat.

Anyone that can eat 2500 calories of just fruit and vegetables has probably got some SERIOUS fiber intake. That is a LOT of fruits and veggies.

OP- Awesome article! One day people will figure out fat/carbs/protein are all metabolized differently and can have serious health effects on the body. It isn't all about calories/calories out!

With this Primal lifestyle the more I eat the more energy I have and WANT to expend. I actually get kind of hyper. I have to get up and move. I get plenty of the good carbs - veggies and occasional berries and nuts. And within the first week of removing the grain carbs, my depression and anxiety went away. I no longer get sleepy during the day. I wake up and am immediately awake. I am no longer "hungry" every couple of hours. I did the weight loss thing both ways: 6 months of low-calorie, low-fat conventional style: 9.6lbs - 120.4 - 4 to 5 days of exercise - mostly cardio. 4 months primal: 9.8lbs loss; ALL BODY FAT - maintained lean muscles mass - a few hours of exercise a week - very little cardio because I don't have to "burn off the carbs" before getting to burning stored fat. Keep insulin levels low and the body will burn fat all day. Can't burn fat - even at rest - when the body has to process and take care of the excessive glucose in the blood and you are eating high-carb every few hours. The body never gets a chance to burn fat for fuel. Carbs drives insulin drives fat storage.

A calorie is a unit of measure. But the body doesn't see calories. The body sees fuel and macronutrients and processes each one differently. Protein and fats are used by the body for repair and maintenance so I don't see how all the calories from them can possibly count towards that bogus "3500 calories = 1 pound of fat storage." I know plenty of people who don't overeat yet are gaining weight or can't lose weight. I see people losing weight doing tons of chronic cardio but are losing muscle mass along with fat mass. And as you get to healthier weights the body will eat up more muscle mass while holding onto fat mass. But this didn't happen to me with Primal. My belly went away and my muscle definition showed up. My metabolism has yet to 'slow down' and I am at the lowest weight I have been since before puberty.

My research led me here and nothing will change my mind. So, people, keep your oatmeal and your whole grains. I would rather eat my cage-free eggs and natural uncured bacon without worrying about portion control and calories. Now that's a breakfast!!

gianna42

I don't believe that I can eat 2800 calories on a primal diet (exercise aside) and lose weight - your body still uses food as fuel, even if it processes it differently. My body can only use so much fuel before it stores the excess.
I agree that carbs produce insulin spikes which in turn causes hunger, but I also believe that when combining complex carbs with proteins and fats that insulin levels do not "spike" (like after a bagel, let's say) due to slowed absorption/breakdown of the sugars.
Primal is great for people who choose to eat this way, but portions do play a role at some point.