effects of equal cal/macro meals "clean vs dirty"

chrisdavey

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html


This study basically backs up what I’ve been saying for years: a single fast food meal, within the context of a calorie controlled diet, is not death on a plate. It won’t destroy your diet and it won’t make you immediately turn into a big fat pile of blubber. And, frankly, this can be predicted on basic physiology (in terms of nutrient digestion) alone. It’s just nice to see it verified in a controlled setting.
It’s not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as ‘unclean’ (never mind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast cooked at home) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet. This is in addition to the fact that apparently eating fast food makes you morally inferior as well. Well, that’s what bodybuilders and other orthorexics will tell you anyhow.
Except that it’s clearly not. Given caloric control, the body’s response to a given set of nutrients, with the exception of blood lipids would appear to be more determined by the total caloric and macro content of that meal more than the source of the food.
In terms of the hormonal response, clean vs. unclean just doesn’t matter, it’s all about calories and macros.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along

Sidesteal

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html


This study basically backs up what I’ve been saying for years: a single fast food meal, within the context of a calorie controlled diet, is not death on a plate. It won’t destroy your diet and it won’t make you immediately turn into a big fat pile of blubber. And, frankly, this can be predicted on basic physiology (in terms of nutrient digestion) alone. It’s just nice to see it verified in a controlled setting.
It’s not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as ‘unclean’ (never mind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast cooked at home) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet. This is in addition to the fact that apparently eating fast food makes you morally inferior as well. Well, that’s what bodybuilders and other orthorexics will tell you anyhow.
Except that it’s clearly not. Given caloric control, the body’s response to a given set of nutrients, with the exception of blood lipids would appear to be more determined by the total caloric and macro content of that meal more than the source of the food.
In terms of the hormonal response, clean vs. unclean just doesn’t matter, it’s all about calories and macros.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along

Good stuff Chris. Completely agree with this thread.

mamitosami

This *is* what you've been saying all along... for those who've been listening...

sweet110

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all

I'll see you and raise you ten. Apparently, *other* studies suggest that a "calorie isn't a calorie" after all. A quote from the researchers:

"This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”

Not saying I'm right. I just feel like being an *kitten*.

Discuss.

Coyla

Great post!

One can live in the real world of fast food and restaurant eating and still lose weight. *Clean eating* is great, but everything should be done in moderation.

Sidesteal

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all



Discuss.

The studies quoted in the above article are associative. If you click into the studies referenced in that particular article, they were not comparing a controlled calorie environment so the conclusion being made by the author doesn't seem to be at all supported by the studies attached. (Edit: At least, this one for example: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC&#t=articleTop)

EDIT: This would be another all too common case where the data being presented is used to reach a conclusion that is not supported by the data. In some cases there is a correlation and maybe there is in this case but there's nothing scientifically based in the attached studies to suggest that "the kind of calorie matters". The author is making that leap but his data doesn't suggest it. His data suggests that there's an association with calorie dense foods such as french fries, and being obese. This is trivial and obvious but to make the claim that the obesity would still be present under a controlled calorie environment is erroneous and almost Taubes-like.

sweet110

And I'll raise you 20. Your study looked at the hormonal response after ONE meal. ONE. For 6 people.

Both studies have problems. Mine has the pro of being longitudinal.

Discuss.

onefitdiva

And this is why Chris, when ever you give me a tip, I follow it. Thanks for this!!!

Silverkittycat

Thanks Chris!

Sorry sweet110, I've already ripped the potato chip study apart and I'm just not up to it tonight.

secrets_out

Bump

Sidesteal

And I'll raise you 20. Your study looked at the hormonal response after ONE meal. ONE. For 6 people.

Both studies have problems. Mine has the pro of being longitudinal.

Discuss.

Sure, but at least its' a controlled study and not an analysis of data followed by nonsensical conclusions.

I'm not bashing you for posting it, I appreciate you sharing. I think it's crap.

JennieAL

Just read it... interesting stuff! Thanks for posting.

catelabow

There's clean, healthy eating... and then there's orthorexia.

Coyla

Discuss.

I'll throw another curve ball into the mix. I have a bevy of food intolerances, which makes me unable to eat large quantities of whole wheat, any nuts, very few beans, and all those good-for-you-foods mentioned in that article.

I'd been following a diet rich in whole grains, fiber, protein, fruit, and nuts only to gain 20lbs in the process, that's while counting calories and exercising. Once I removed those foods from my diet, I'm seeing some light at the end of the plateau tunnel, this while eating potatoes (lots of potatoes), refined flour, white rice, and food I'd consider nutritionally empty, such as Rice Chex.

No one is advocating each junk day in and day out, but counting calories first and worrying about the foods later is a great start. Counting calories makes you learn pretty quickly what kind of foods you should be eating.

Acg67

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?pagewanted=all

I'll see you and raise you ten. Apparently, *other* studies suggest that a "calorie isn't a calorie" after all. A quote from the researchers:

"This study shows that conventional wisdom — to eat everything in moderation, eat fewer calories and avoid fatty foods — isn’t the best approach,” Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview. “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”

Not saying I'm right. I just feel like being an *kitten*.

Discuss.

The foods that contributed to the greatest weight gain were not surprising. French fries led the list: Increased consumption of this food alone was linked to an average weight gain of 3.4 pounds in each four-year period. Other important contributors were potato chips (1.7 pounds), sugar-sweetened drinks (1 pound), red meats and processed meats (0.95 and 0.93 pound, respectively), other forms of potatoes (0.57 pound), sweets and desserts (0.41 pound), refined grains (0.39 pound), other fried foods (0.32 pound), 100-percent fruit juice (0.31 pound) and butter (0.3 pound).

Now could it be that the people who ate those foods also moved around less (lower NEAT), worked out less and generally had worse habits then those that abstained from such foods? Remember correlation =/= causation

sweet110

The research is not nonsensical. It just has limitations. It used 121,000 people and followed them for 12 to 20 years. That is how observational science works. And its a pretty well powered study. Probably well powered enough to deal with systematic error...but probably not bias.

You do that to justify a multi-million dollar clinical trial. Because the alternative is to do research on 6 people, testing 3 or 4 biomarkers an hour after one meal. If the difference between the two groups wasn't huge, that kind of study isn't sufficiently powered to find a result. But, if you did find a difference, it would tell you that the difference would be huge.

Neither of these are stupid studies. But neither is more "proof" or scientific than the other. They just "suggest" different things. And that's how science gets done.

JennieAL

The research is not nonsensical. It just has limitations. It used 121,000 people and followed them for 12 to 20 years. That is how observational science works. And its a pretty well powered study. Probably well powered enough to deal with systematic error...but probably not bias.

You do that to justify a multi-million dollar clinical trial. Because the alternative is to do research on 6 people, testing 3 or 4 biomarkers an hour after one meal. If the difference between the two groups wasn't huge, that kind of study isn't sufficiently powered to find a result. But, if you did find a difference, it would tell you that the difference would be huge.

Neither of these are stupid studies. But neither is more "proof" or scientific than the other. They just "suggest" different things. And that's how science gets done.

The small # of people in the 1st study did make me question, I mean... really? Why not make a much larger control group?

Silverkittycat

but probably not bias.

Precisely.

sweet110

But, since you like small lab studies, try this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/

"Ingestion of the particular PF (process food) meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF (whole food) meal. This reduction in daily energy expenditure has potential implications for diets comprised heavily of PFs and their associations with obesity"

WHich is to say, if you eat processed food, you burn fewer calories. FIfty percent less. Same calories. Same macronutrient ratios. A lab trial. Of 17 people.

Doesn't invalidate your study. But, like I said, the evidence is NOT iron clad. Depends on the outcome and the magnitude of the effect. And whether you are looking at short and long term studies.

Yeah. Science is hard. Especially within something as complex as the human body. It ain't easy.

Acg67

The research is not nonsensical. It just has limitations. It used 121,000 people and followed them for 12 to 20 years. That is how observational science works. And its a pretty well powered study. Probably well powered enough to deal with systematic error...but probably not bias.

You do that to justify a multi-million dollar clinical trial. Because the alternative is to do research on 6 people, testing 3 or 4 biomarkers an hour after one meal. If the difference between the two groups wasn't huge, that kind of study isn't sufficiently powered to find a result. But, if you did find a difference, it would tell you that the difference would be huge.

Neither of these are stupid studies. But neither is more "proof" or scientific than the other. They just "suggest" different things. And that's how science gets done.

Here's the study that the article quoted on refined grains lowering metabolism in animals ( i couldn't find the human study they said he did)

Long-term effects of dietary glycemic index on adiposity, energy metabolism, and physical activity in mice. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Nov;295(5):E1126-31. Epub 2008 Sep 9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584816/?tool=pubmed

Now the question i pose to you, are mice metabolic pathways the same as humans, particularly in regards to DNL?

Newfiedan

There have been several well established studies that clearly outline that a calorie is not a calorie in terms of what the body does with it and how much usable energy the body can derive from said calories. How much energy the body gets from 1 calorie of protein is very different than the a calorie of fat or carbs, however for the general public they are not going to hit the point where they are going to experience the difference. It is not until you get leaner that this really starts to come into play. I hit that point and now I am having to play with it to get things moving in terms of just fat loss and not losing any muscle. This is why I stopped cutting calories and turned to other methods to shed the remaining fat. I am living proof that the cals in vs cals out model is flawed. According to that formula I should not be losing any weight but I am shedding fat at a rapid rate now.

musicgirl88

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html


This study basically backs up what I’ve been saying for years: a single fast food meal, within the context of a calorie controlled diet, is not death on a plate. It won’t destroy your diet and it won’t make you immediately turn into a big fat pile of blubber. And, frankly, this can be predicted on basic physiology (in terms of nutrient digestion) alone. It’s just nice to see it verified in a controlled setting.
It’s not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as ‘unclean’ (never mind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast cooked at home) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet. This is in addition to the fact that apparently eating fast food makes you morally inferior as well. Well, that’s what bodybuilders and other orthorexics will tell you anyhow.
Except that it’s clearly not. Given caloric control, the body’s response to a given set of nutrients, with the exception of blood lipids would appear to be more determined by the total caloric and macro content of that meal more than the source of the food.
In terms of the hormonal response, clean vs. unclean just doesn’t matter, it’s all about calories and macros.
Which is what I’ve been saying all along

I am not really disagreeing here, and I have not read the study..but I seriously question if eating a grilled chicken breast at Mickey D's is the same as eating a grilled chicken breast at home LOL they add so much crap to them and it doesn't even look like chicken half the time LOL but that's just my personal observation LOL

sweet110

but probably not bias.

Precisely.

Yeah. Science is so easy. And SIMPLE. Because eliminating all sources of bias is easy peasy. We just take 10,000 people, randomise them, and lock them in a lab, for the next 25 years. And measure everything.

Or, we'll take 6 people. For an hour. Looking at a couple of outcome measures. Same thing, right? It invalidates all observational work, everywhere. Because that kind of work is completely useless. USELESS I tell you! I have no idea why people are still doing it!

sweet110

Look at the other link to the study I posted above....

Deipneus

"This study basically backs up what I’ve been saying for years: a single fast food meal, within the context of a calorie controlled diet, is not death on a plate. It won’t destroy your diet and it won’t make you immediately turn into a big fat pile of blubber."

Did anyone ever state that it did or are we refuting a misconception that no one had? I personally don't eat fast food because dollar for dollar, I get better value by eating my own cooking. But if pressed to join someone for lunch, I never thought it would kill me to join in.

sweet110

There have been several well established studies that clearly outline that a calorie is not a calorie in terms of what the body does with it and how much usable energy the body can derive from said calories. How much energy the body gets from 1 calorie of protein is very different than the a calorie of fat or carbs, however for the general public they are not going to hit the point where they are going to experience the difference. It is not until you get leaner that this really starts to come into play. I hit that point and now I am having to play with it to get things moving in terms of just fat loss and not losing any muscle. This is why I stopped cutting calories and turned to other methods to shed the remaining fat. I am living proof that the cals in vs cals out model is flawed. According to that formula I should not be losing any weight but I am shedding fat at a rapid rate now.

Look at the study I posted above. It doesn't address macronutrients, because in the study design, that was held constant. But it looked at calories. And, this particularly lab study (small n, one study, all the usual caveats), showed a difference.

Silverkittycat

I have no idea why people are still doing it!

$

stayxtrue

Couldnt agree more Chris! Great topic!

I mean oops I just ate half a takeaway chicken for lunch

questionablemethods

And, just for funsies, since we're talking about how hard and painstaking it can be to move our scientific understanding forward, I'm going to throw another paper into the mix: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

sweet110

Here's the study that the article quoted on refined grains lowering metabolism in animals ( i couldn't find the human study they said he did)

Long-term effects of dietary glycemic index on adiposity, energy metabolism, and physical activity in mice. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Nov;295(5):E1126-31. Epub 2008 Sep 9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584816/?tool=pubmed

Now the question i pose to you, are mice metabolic pathways the same as humans, particularly in regards to DNL?

Look at the link I posted above to the human study. Its pretty cool. AND, for all you science purists, its a LAB study.

Acg67

Here's the study that the article quoted on refined grains lowering metabolism in animals ( i couldn't find the human study they said he did)

Long-term effects of dietary glycemic index on adiposity, energy metabolism, and physical activity in mice. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Nov;295(5):E1126-31. Epub 2008 Sep 9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584816/?tool=pubmed

Now the question i pose to you, are mice metabolic pathways the same as humans, particularly in regards to DNL?

Look at the link I posted above to the human study. Its pretty cool. AND, for all you science purists, its a LAB study.

It doesn't hold macros constant as you allege

The meals selected for this study were standardized for overall energy content, which resulted in a small discrepancy in the macronutrient composition. Protein is generally accepted to require the greatest energy expenditure in DIT (20–30%), followed by carbohydrates (5–10%), and fats (0–3%) (9). Taking this into account, the significant findings of this study could be influenced by the 5% greater protein content of the WF meal (Table 2).