Believe 'A Calorie Is a Calorie'?

auntiebabs

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lustig-md/sugar-toxic_b_2759564.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2928504,b=facebook

A long article, but worth reading...

Here are some excerpts. Do check out the article for a clearer context....

Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

Protein. When it comes to food, you have to put energy in to get energy out. You have to put twice as much energy in to metabolize protein as you do carbohydrate; this is called the thermic effect of food. So protein wastes more energy in its processing. Plus protein reduces hunger better than carbohydrate. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

Fat. All fats release nine calories per gram when burned. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

Sugar. This is the "big kahuna" of the "big lie." Sugar is not one chemical. It's two. Glucose is the energy of life. Every cell in every organism on the planet can burn glucose for energy. Glucose is mildly sweet, but not very interesting (think molasses). Fructose is an entirely different animal. Fructose is very sweet, the molecule we seek. Both burn at four calories per gram. If fructose were just like glucose, then sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would be just like starch. But fructose is not glucose. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

....For instance, the increase in sugar consumption over the past 30 years paralleled the increase in obesity, diabetes and heart disease.... But correlation is not causation. Which direction do the data go? Does sugar cause obesity and metabolic disease? Or do obese people with metabolic disease drink soda?

"What in the world's food supply explains diabetes rates, country-by-country, over the last decade?" ...
...We assessed total calories; meat (protein); oils (fat); cereals (glucose); pulses, nuts, vegetables, roots, and tubers (fiber); fruit excluding wine (natural sugar); and sugar, sugarcrops, and sweeteners (added sugar). We controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, and most important, obesity and physical activity.

Bottom line -- only changes in sugar availability explained changes in diabetes prevalence worldwide; nothing else mattered.

Total caloric availability was unrelated to diabetes prevalence; for every extra 150 calories per day, diabetes prevalence rose by only 0.1 percent. But if those 150 calories per day happened to be a can of soda, diabetes prevalence rose 11-fold, by 1.1 percent (and Americans on average consume the added sugar equivalent of 2.5 cans of soda per day, so that's 2.75 percent!). And this effect of sugar was exclusive of obesity; controlling for body mass index did not negate the effect. Even more important, we showed that the change in sugar availability preceded the change in diabetes (that's cause, not effect); and we showed directionality -- those countries where sugar availability rose showed increases in diabetes, while those where sugar availability fell showed decreases in diabetes. This is a very robust signal, with little noise. While epidemiology can't prove scientific causation, the data allow for objective inference. Sugar drives diabetes worldwide, and unrelated to its calories.

The food industry has contaminated the American food supply with added sugar to "sell more product" and thereby uphold their Wall Street mandate to increase profits. Of the 600,000 food items in the American grocery store, 80 percent have been spiked with added sugar; and the industry uses 56 other names for sugar on the label. They know when they add sugar, you buy more. And because you do not know you're buying it, you buy even more.....

SideSteel

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Carolstone1959

Outstanding info. Thank you!

mmapags

Lol, this the third time someone is posting a Lustig link today! He is an extremist quack. Just because someone can be controversial enough to get publicity doesn't mean thier data is good.

stonetodrop

Thanks for the article. Before even reading this I've been well aware of added sugar in almost everything we eat. So even if the data were off the main point is clear, too much sugar in Americans' food and lots of sickness and disease that is related to this sugar.

SideSteel

Thanks for the article. Before even reading this I've been well aware of added sugar in almost everything we eat. So even if the data were off the main point is clear, too much sugar in Americans' food and lots of sickness and disease that is related to this sugar.

Too many calories is the issue.

billsica

a calorie is a calorie, it is a unit of heat or energy.

That is like saying there is a difference between lighting up 1000 btu of candles and one butane torch that puts out 1000 btu.

There might be other stuff, the butane might smell horrible or shoot up and burn your ceiling, but the heat generated is the same.

mmapags

Thanks for the article. Before even reading this I've been well aware of added sugar in almost everything we eat. So even if the data were off the main point is clear, too much sugar in Americans' food and lots of sickness and disease that is related to this sugar.

Too many calories is the issue.

Correct. There is no added sugar in a steak or chicken or fresh veggies or fruits. If you want to choose prepacked foods with a ton of additives, you take your risks. Common sense. I didn't Lolstig to tell me that.

DavPul

OP, Thanks for posting. It makes it that much easier to put you on IGNORE now. I love it when the alarmists make themselves easily identifiable.

etoiles_argentees

volume77

Good info. Sugar is seriously in everything. It's hard to avoid. It can be done though. I always wonder if all the scientific theories combined would really explain the obesity epidemic.

Timshel_

I've been following the "calorie is a calorie" and the calorie in/caloire out science the last few years. Lots of good studies coming out now that will eventually tweak those premises, I think.

Here is one article I saw on PBS the end of last year. Nothing concrete, but interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

As they summerize, I still think the acutal issue of being overweight or considered obese isn't found in this nuances of a few hundred calories here and there, but in the fact we eat too much and move too little. I'll say that until someone proves otherwise.

carajo

Thanks for posting!

lunnay

"A calorie is not a calorie" is getting really old. A calorie is a calorie, like it's been mentioned, it's a unit of energy.
Yes, the quality of what you eat matters, sure, some things are more easily digested than others, but whether you eat 1000 calories of sugar or 1000 calories of big macs, or 1000 calories of carrots, you're eating 1000 calories.

gboybama

Bro-science disagrees with this post.

lunnay

As they summerize, I still think the acutal issue of being overweight or considered obese isn't found in this nuances of a few hundred calories here and there, but in the fact we eat too much and move too little. I'll say that until someone proves otherwise.

This.

tommygirl15

Thanks for the article. Before even reading this I've been well aware of added sugar in almost everything we eat. So even if the data were off the main point is clear, too much sugar in Americans' food and lots of sickness and disease that is related to this sugar.

Too many calories is the issue.

Correct. There is no added sugar in a steak or chicken or fresh veggies or fruits. If you want to choose prepacked foods with a ton of additives, you take your risks. Common sense. I didn't Lolstig to tell me that.

^ Yup

MsLilly200

Correct. There is no added sugar in a steak or chicken or fresh veggies or fruits. If you want to choose prepacked foods with a ton of additives, you take your risks. Common sense. I didn't Lolstig to tell me that.

Changing his name to Lolstig is really redundant... Lustig means funny in Swedish.

Sabine_Stroehm

Whatever the truth, I know I feel better when I eat less sugar and less processed crap. So I'll keep doing that. It's been working for me all these years. I'll choose the breads and tortillas without the frankensugars.

Folks can tell me it's just "calories in versus calories out" and for sheer math, sure. But I know how I feel and what works for me.

KenosFeoh

I think "a calorie is a calorie" is up for debate. I noticed while on Weight Watchers that two foods could have an identical calorie count, but one would cost me more points than the other.

cwolfman13

a calorie is a calorie, it is a unit of heat or energy.

That is like saying there is a difference between lighting up 1000 btu of candles and one butane torch that puts out 1000 btu.

There might be other stuff, the butane might smell horrible or shoot up and burn your ceiling, but the heat generated is the same.

Yup....

I think this article confuses the energy aspect of a calorie vs the nutritional value of a particular calorie. As a unit of energy, a calorie is indeed a calorie...however, from a nutritional standpoint, not all calories are created equal.