Calorie is NOT a calorie: research
Options
Replies
-
In out of interest...will read later
0 -
And part political.
the nutrition advice given in the 70's and 80's and 90's and 00's and even today is often part research, part theory, and part conjecture. we just don't know for sure yet about much of that stuff, so people make "best guesses" and give that out as advice. sometimes it's shown to be flawed and revised.0 -
At different rates, correct?I have a different question.
Are the molecules for protein, fat, and carbs the same across all foods? My understanding is they are. It doesn't matter if it's a Twinkie or a plum. The molecules for the carbs are the same. Is this accurate?
For carbs, not exactly. Fructose is a carb, but has a different chemical structure than sucrose or glucose (two other carbs). The body breaks them all down to glucose eventually, so they end up all the same in the body.0 -
The above is the primary argument FOR eating complex carbs. Inefficient is what we want. The most efficient diet is all fat. The least efficient is full of fiber and protein.In other words, can I eat foods that quickly are absorbed and utilized rather than forcing my body to constantly work to break down the nutrients into their essential forms? Just a question. I'm wondering if this is the primary argument of those that argue against complex carbs. What this might suggest is that the breaking down of food process is somewhat unhealthful for the body, which I would never ever subscribed to because that's it's function. It's not hard on the body, it doesn't cause it stress. It doesn't care, it just does it. If you would believe that it's hard on the body to process complex carbs, do you think it's hard on the body to workout?0 -
Another interesting and little-discussed component is the likely effect of gut flora on obesity, which could affect everything from hunger signals to breakdown of food (thus determining how many calories you actually get from what you ingest).
This is a hot topic and there is a lot of literature on this out there.
Calories in/calories out, etc. is fine, but there are a lot of things affecting the calories in side of the equation that we still don't know a lot about.
So research is showing that obese people have gut flora that increase their calorie absorption from food?
I think most of the studies are still in animal models, but from what I understand, it has been shown that the efficiency of gut bacteria is variable and can affect nutrient and calorie absorption of the host -- this is among the many other things that gut bacteria affect (including the immune system and many cognitive functions). Differences in gut flora between obese and non-obese people have been shown. It's a really interesting area of research.
http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/upload/month_0909/20090925_419d79ec6710397fb9c2ugICFPvOQqPV.attach.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1241214
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/194662050 -
This is something SO many fitness publications seem to get stuck on to justify their existence - "people that eat this do 20% better" - while in reality the study was horribly compromised and it'll barely make any difference to a normal person doing normal stuff.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.
Indeed; but this doesn't change that if you're eating more protein than the average protein, you'll be getting less calories for the rest of your body and so on. In reality, as above, I don't think it's a big thing to worry about it.I'm suggesting that those difference were already calculated into the number.
And yes, the protein you eat can also be different - casein vs whey for instance; I'm unfortunately intolerant to the former but not the latter.
I BELIEVE how ever, that generally it each ends up pretty much the same when your body sorts it out - carbs are reduced to glucose and so on - not that up on this area, however.
As far as whether the types of carbs matter:
http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
If you're reasonably healthy, probably not.
If you're over weight, then yes, it would seem so.
For things such as endurance events it may matter more, or may not and it may just be 'sports' companies trying to justify very expensive preparations of cheap food
. 0 -
Exactly right - the research is showing that the composition of your gut bacteria is the difference between gaining vs losing on the same number of calories. It may be calories in = calories out, but some people have very efficient bacteria that break down the food completely and turn the excess to fat, whereas others have inefficient gut bacteria that let a lot of the calories be discharged in feces.
Some good easy to read articles on the subject
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120826142843.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-microbes-in-your-gut-may-be-making-you-fat-or-keeping-you-thin/2013/12/06/6f186da2-488b-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/health/studies-focus-on-gut-bacteria-in-weight-loss.html?_r=0
One of the most important research studies on this issue
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1241214
Sorry, need to rush for a plane, don't have time to look up more of the research for you right now...0 -
Fat has 9 calories per gram, vs. 4 for protein and carbs. The 'cost' of processing it is 2-3%, vs. 5-30% for carbs and protein.No kidding? I had no idea. Why is all fat the most efficient source of nutrition for the body?0 -
I'm not an organic chemist, so someone will refine this, but there are different chemical makeups for different kinds of fats made up of different types of lipids (polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, saturated), proteins will be made up of different types of amino acids (creatine, lysine, leucine, phenylalinine, etc.), and carbs are made up of different types of saccharides (glucose, fructose, galactose, maltose, etc.).I have a different question.
Are the molecules for protein, fat, and carbs the same across all foods? My understanding is they are. It doesn't matter if it's a Twinkie or a plum. The molecules for the carbs are the same. Is this accurate?
So, yes, they all break down into the same molecules, eventually.
That makes sense.
If the body does it's job and breaks them down into their essential elements, 1) does any of this banter matter, 2) is there a more efficient way to eat to eliminate the breaking down process? In other words, can I eat foods that quickly are absorbed and utilized rather than forcing my body to constantly work to break down the nutrients into their essential forms? Just a question. I'm wondering if this is the primary argument of those that argue against complex carbs. What this might suggest is that the breaking down of food process is somewhat unhealthful for the body, which I would never ever subscribed to because that's it's function. It's not hard on the body, it doesn't cause it stress. It doesn't care, it just does it. If you would believe that it's hard on the body to process complex carbs, do you think it's hard on the body to workout?
Just a bunch of rhetorical questions.
It's definitely more complicated than that. Yes, all fats are ultimately broken down into fatty acids and glycerol; however unsaturated fats and saturated fats have different structures that impact the body differently. Saturated fats don't have any double bonds in the fatty acid chains, and this detail leads to saturated fat increasing chances of heart disease, diabetes, etc. Monounsaturated fats (one double bond), polyunsaturated fats (many double bonds) are actually associated with good heart health and reduced risk of diabetes.
Point is, although the broken down components are the same, the full components are different.
Sugars are a even more complicated. Our body needs glucose, it's important for our cells. We can get glucose from almost any carbohydrate, but we can't always break the carbohydrate down effectively (lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb). Similar to fats, a lot of it's about how the full component affects us, and how the break down process works. Sucrose (table sugar, a simple sugar) will give a fast glucose spike followed by a crash, while a whole wheat pasta, a complex carb, will give a slow and steady blood glucose spike with a less severe crash. And therefore simple sugars are linked more highly with diabetes (and also tend to impact people with diabetes more severely). In this case, the slow break down is essential for keeping blood glucose from spiking. If you just ate straight glucose constantly you'd probably be sick. The more complex carb digests more slowly, and therefore better.
Protein, on the other hand, doesn't really have 'good' or 'bad' versions. It's mostly just whether or not you're getting the essential amino acids you need--we produce some amino acids in our body, but other amino acids we cannot produce so we need to get it from the protein we eat (essential to the diet). So some proteins are better because they have a better balance of the essential amino acids, but the others aren't really bad.0 -
When you're back, it would be nice to have some research to show this, as I'm afraid what you've provided is anecdotes, mice and some correlation, NOT causationExactly right - the research is showing that the composition of your gut bacteria is the difference between gaining vs losing on the same number of calories..
I am fine with lactose, but have problems with casein. Surely by your definitions this would make Casein 'bad' and lactose fine?(lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb).
I don't think a subset of people being intolerant or worse should make something 'bad'.0 -
Another interesting and little-discussed component is the likely effect of gut flora on obesity, which could affect everything from hunger signals to breakdown of food (thus determining how many calories you actually get from what you ingest).
This is a hot topic and there is a lot of literature on this out there.
Calories in/calories out, etc. is fine, but there are a lot of things affecting the calories in side of the equation that we still don't know a lot about.
So research is showing that obese people have gut flora that increase their calorie absorption from food?
I think most of the studies are still in animal models, but from what I understand, it has been shown that the efficiency of gut bacteria is variable and can affect nutrient and calorie absorption of the host -- this is among the many other things that gut bacteria affect (including the immune system and many cognitive functions). Differences in gut flora between obese and non-obese people have been shown. It's a really interesting area of research.
http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/upload/month_0909/20090925_419d79ec6710397fb9c2ugICFPvOQqPV.attach.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1241214
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19466205
Very interesting, thank you. I had no idea. So then the question becomes, why? Genetics, epigenetics? Cause or effect? Can you catch obesity like the flu? I have IBS, which I know effects nutrient absorption, and I have fewer attacks if I take a good probiotic. I know some can have it so badly it causes weight loss due to decreased time of food in the gut.0 -
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 am fine with lactose, but have problems with casein. Surely by your definitions this would make Casein 'bad' and lactose fine?(lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb).
I don't think a subset of people being intolerant or worse should make something 'bad'.0 -
The thermodynamic differences they discuss are too small to be meaningful, and the differences in outcome they cite are too small to be statistically significant.well I am not well educated on this, but especially this study http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9 suggest that you can achieve different results on 2 diets consisting of same amount of calories, but different macro composition.
For someone exploring the outer edges of physical performance, these things might make a small difference in the margins. For the vast majority of dieters, the difference between Calorie A and Calorie B is smaller than the error on nutritional labels, and is therefore lost in the mathematical noise.
It is possible to be both technically correct and practically irrelevant. Even the authors ended with this...The analysis above might be said to be over-kill although it is important, intellectually, not to invoke the laws of thermodynamics inappropriately.0 -
Fat has 9 calories per gram, vs. 4 for protein and carbs. The 'cost' of processing it is 2-3%, vs. 5-30% for carbs and protein.No kidding? I had no idea. Why is all fat the most efficient source of nutrition for the body?
You also have to take into account the caloric cost of "capturing" and preparing the food.0 -
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.
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 am fine with lactose, but have problems with casein. Surely by your definitions this would make Casein 'bad' and lactose fine?(lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb).
I don't think a subset of people being intolerant or worse should make something 'bad'.0 -
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........
I'm not an organic chemist, so someone will refine this, but there are different chemical makeups for different kinds of fats made up of different types of lipids (polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, saturated), proteins will be made up of different types of amino acids (creatine, lysine, leucine, phenylalinine, etc.), and carbs are made up of different types of saccharides (glucose, fructose, galactose, maltose, etc.).I have a different question.
Are the molecules for protein, fat, and carbs the same across all foods? My understanding is they are. It doesn't matter if it's a Twinkie or a plum. The molecules for the carbs are the same. Is this accurate?
So, yes, they all break down into the same molecules, eventually.
That makes sense.
If the body does it's job and breaks them down into their essential elements, 1) does any of this banter matter, 2) is there a more efficient way to eat to eliminate the breaking down process? In other words, can I eat foods that quickly are absorbed and utilized rather than forcing my body to constantly work to break down the nutrients into their essential forms? Just a question. I'm wondering if this is the primary argument of those that argue against complex carbs. What this might suggest is that the breaking down of food process is somewhat unhealthful for the body, which I would never ever subscribed to because that's it's function. It's not hard on the body, it doesn't cause it stress. It doesn't care, it just does it. If you would believe that it's hard on the body to process complex carbs, do you think it's hard on the body to workout?
Just a bunch of rhetorical questions.
It's definitely more complicated than that. Yes, all fats are ultimately broken down into fatty acids and glycerol; however unsaturated fats and saturated fats have different structures that impact the body differently. Saturated fats don't have any double bonds in the fatty acid chains, and this detail leads to saturated fat increasing chances of heart disease, diabetes, etc. Monounsaturated fats (one double bond), polyunsaturated fats (many double bonds) are actually associated with good heart health and reduced risk of diabetes.
Point is, although the broken down components are the same, the full components are different.
Sugars are a even more complicated. Our body needs glucose, it's important for our cells. We can get glucose from almost any carbohydrate, but we can't always break the carbohydrate down effectively (lactose is a carb that a lot of people can't break down properly and this causes problems, making it a bad carb). Similar to fats, a lot of it's about how the full component affects us, and how the break down process works. Sucrose (table sugar, a simple sugar) will give a fast glucose spike followed by a crash, while a whole wheat pasta, a complex carb, will give a slow and steady blood glucose spike with a less severe crash. And therefore simple sugars are linked more highly with diabetes (and also tend to impact people with diabetes more severely). In this case, the slow break down is essential for keeping blood glucose from spiking. If you just ate straight glucose constantly you'd probably be sick. The more complex carb digests more slowly, and therefore better.
Protein, on the other hand, doesn't really have 'good' or 'bad' versions. It's mostly just whether or not you're getting the essential amino acids you need--we produce some amino acids in our body, but other amino acids we cannot produce so we need to get it from the protein we eat (essential to the diet). So some proteins are better because they have a better balance of the essential amino acids, but the others aren't really bad.0 -
Another interesting and little-discussed component is the likely effect of gut flora on obesity, which could affect everything from hunger signals to breakdown of food (thus determining how many calories you actually get from what you ingest).
This is a hot topic and there is a lot of literature on this out there.
Calories in/calories out, etc. is fine, but there are a lot of things affecting the calories in side of the equation that we still don't know a lot about.
So research is showing that obese people have gut flora that increase their calorie absorption from food?
I think most of the studies are still in animal models, but from what I understand, it has been shown that the efficiency of gut bacteria is variable and can affect nutrient and calorie absorption of the host -- this is among the many other things that gut bacteria affect (including the immune system and many cognitive functions). Differences in gut flora between obese and non-obese people have been shown. It's a really interesting area of research.
http://download.bioon.com.cn/view/upload/month_0909/20090925_419d79ec6710397fb9c2ugICFPvOQqPV.attach.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1241214
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19466205
Very interesting, thank you. I had no idea. So then the question becomes, why? Genetics, epigenetics? Cause or effect? Can you catch obesity like the flu? I have IBS, which I know effects nutrient absorption, and I have fewer attacks if I take a good probiotic. I know some can have it so badly it causes weight loss due to decreased time of food in the gut.
Good questions, don't know. The fact that transplantation of obese human intestinal flora into a mouse can induce obesity goes a little way to addressing Koch's postulates and establishing some causation, but I think a lot is still unknown.
The relationship between IBS and gut flora is really interesting, especially in regards to the gut-brain connection. From what I have read, not only can emotional stress trigger changes in the gut population, but changes in the GI flora can affect mood, behavior, and other brain functions. Fascinating stuff.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 927 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions