The TRUTH About Calories
StephenNesbit
Posts: 77 Member
0
Replies
-
I'm confused - was this the mice's long term diet at maintenance, or was this a diet that had the mice losing weight? What kind of fats were they fed? Does anyone have a link to the actual study?0
-
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00065-5
ETA: FWIW, Cell Metabolism has an impact factor of over 14 and is one of the highest ranking journals in its category.
I suspect that many people will write it off as another animal study that doesn't apply to humans, but I think it's very interesting. Thanks OP!
This is the graphical abstract.
0 -
So, the study shows us that more protein makes [mice] eat less, and more carbohydrates makes [mice] eat more?
Wow.
:P0 -
“We have shown explicitly why it is that calories aren't all the same. We need to look at where the calories come from and how they interact.”
No you didn'tFood intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate, and not by the number of calories consumed.
So they say Calories are not all the same but yet they are not monitoring calories? Not very Scientific if you ask me.0 -
It would have been interesting to see also the high protein, low fat combination.0
-
poorly done study if you ask me0
-
Why? Did you read the original article?poorly done study if you ask me0 -
You know what also isn't scientific? Calling something non-scientific without even looking at the original article.“We have shown explicitly why it is that calories aren't all the same. We need to look at where the calories come from and how they interact.”
No you didn'tFood intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate, and not by the number of calories consumed.
So they say Calories are not all the same but yet they are not monitoring calories? Not very Scientific if you ask me.0 -
Well i see no sources in the article nor any really number of test subjects or how long the study/test were done. Unless i miss the real article.0
-
You know what also isn't scientific? Calling something non-scientific without even looking at the original article.“We have shown explicitly why it is that calories aren't all the same. We need to look at where the calories come from and how they interact.”
No you didn'tFood intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate, and not by the number of calories consumed.
So they say Calories are not all the same but yet they are not monitoring calories? Not very Scientific if you ask me.
I commented on the information provided. I saw no link to the full study, only the article provided and from that i made my observation.0 -
Well i see no sources in the article nor any really number of test subjects or how long the study/test were done. Unless i miss the real article.
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00065-50 -
I would not put much weight into this study because, well, mice.. Many animal studies are just starting points to gauge certain things before moving on to the more expensive and demanding human studies.
That said, wasn't there a study done on mice that showed a low caloric intake is positively associated with longevity? I would be interested to see what kind of macro breakdown that study had.0 -
I commented on the information provided. I saw no link to the full study, only the article provided and from that i made my observation.
You know what also isn't scientific? Calling something non-scientific without even looking at the original article.“We have shown explicitly why it is that calories aren't all the same. We need to look at where the calories come from and how they interact.”
No you didn'tFood intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate, and not by the number of calories consumed.
So they say Calories are not all the same but yet they are not monitoring calories? Not very Scientific if you ask me.Well i see no sources in the article nor any really number of test subjects or how long the study/test were done. Unless i miss the real article.
Charlotte linked to it above (thanks Charlotte!). Also, Cell is a highly esteemed publication, so they don't accept just anything.
OP linked to a piece of news from the university. A research article usually consists of an abstract which you can read even when you don't have a subscription to a particular publication or access via a university. PubMed is my go-to place for both original articles, review articles, etc. Furthermore the article consists of sections such as Method, Results, and Conclusion, none of which was to be found in the piece of news.0 -
So, the study shows us that more protein makes [mice] eat less, and more carbohydrates makes [mice] eat more?
Wow.
:P
Is that all you took away from the study?0 -
They observed that certain macro breakdowns made mice overeat. Some of them a lot. And then they went on to blame the food for them getting heart problems and dying earlier?
You know what also isn't scientific? Calling something non-scientific without even looking at the original article.“We have shown explicitly why it is that calories aren't all the same. We need to look at where the calories come from and how they interact.”
No you didn'tFood intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate, and not by the number of calories consumed.
So they say Calories are not all the same but yet they are not monitoring calories? Not very Scientific if you ask me.0 -
It looks like low-moderate protein (15-20%) and high carbohydrate is the best. Here are the tidbits I found interesting
From the http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00065-5
"Chronic exposure to high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets resulted in the lowest food intakes, but elevated both mTOR and insulin, with reduced lifespan."
"Diets that were low in protein and high in carbohydrate (i.e., those that promoted longest life) were associated with lower blood pressure (Figures 5C and 5D), improved glucose tolerance (Figure 6A), higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDLc; Figure 6B), reduced levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDLc; Figure 6C), and lower triglycerides (Figure 6D)."
"On the other hand, epidemiological studies have shown that low-protein, high-carbohydrate diets are associated with improved health in humans (Floegel and Pischon, 2012, Lagiou et al., 2012), which is consistent with our overall conclusions."
From OP's link:
"In terms of practical advice, the researchers predict that a diet with moderate amounts of high quality protein (15-20 per cent of total calorie intake) that is relatively low in fat and high in good quality complex carbohydrates will yield the best metabolic health and the longest life." - I would have liked to have seen a percentage of carb intake. I am guessing somewhere between 40-60%0 -
I suspect that many people will write it off as another animal study that doesn't apply to humans, but I think it's very interesting. Thanks OP!
This is the graphical abstract.
To clarify, I find the study interesting as well. What I hate is the way the media spins the studies (and science in general but that's another argument): "The Truth about Calories". The OP even capitalized Truth.
Maybe it is the "TRUTH about Calories...and Mice" but IMO it's just one single, interesting study that may (or may not) have relevance to humans.
I appreciate and found the study interesting though - thanks for linking directly to it.0 -
Just so y'all know, mice studies are used all the time across academic disciplines, because mice are way easier to control. People (especially when it comes to nutrition studies) are downright unreliable. Mice studies are incredibly important and the backbone of a lot of scientific research. And physiologically speaking, mice operate in some pretty similar ways to humans. Don't dismiss animal research.0
-
From the Article...
"A high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet resulted in reduced body fat and food intake but also led to a shorter lifespan and poor cardiometabolic health."
From the Study...
"Reduction in calorie intake was achieved by diluting the food with nondigestible cellulose, which allows ad libitum feeding but restricts total energy intake when compensation for dilution by increasing food intake is incomplete."
At first glance you are led to believe that low carb high protein led to decreased food intake but this is clearly not the case. The article clearly tries to mislead by telling us high protein low carb led to reduced food intake. The study (which most people won't read) clearly states that "Reduction in calorie intake was achieved by diluting the food with non digestible cellulose..."0 -
Just so y'all know, mice studies are used all the time across academic disciplines, because mice are way easier to control. People (especially when it comes to nutrition studies) are downright unreliable. Mice studies are incredibly important and the backbone of a lot of scientific research. And physiologically speaking, mice operate in some pretty similar ways to humans. Don't dismiss animal research.
Mice are used because they are cheap, can be bred in large numbers, and have a relatively short lifespan. Not because they are all that similar to humans and make great models for human disease, metabolism, or behaviour.
In many ways, mice behave completely differently from humans. This is part of why there is so much difficulty translating disease treatments from a mouse model to humans - enough difficulty that labs spent millions of dollars to create mice with an immune system that is similar to humans' - only to find that didn't work out so great either.
Basic rule of thumb - animal studies should be used for testing specific biochemistry and genetics questions, and to form hypotheses. Not really for much else.
As for the journals, Cell, Science and Nature are highly political. The difference between getting into one of these journals and, say, PNAS is flashy figures and who you know. You can look at any of these journals and find poorly designed studies. Don't forget Woo Suk Hwang published fraudulant data in Science before being forced to recant. The journals are not infallible - something to always keep in mind when you read papers.0 -
Just so y'all know, mice studies are used all the time across academic disciplines, because mice are way easier to control. People (especially when it comes to nutrition studies) are downright unreliable. Mice studies are incredibly important and the backbone of a lot of scientific research. And physiologically speaking, mice operate in some pretty similar ways to humans. Don't dismiss animal research.
Mice are used because they are cheap, can be bred in large numbers, and have a relatively short lifespan. Not because they are all that similar to humans and make great models for human disease, metabolism, or behaviour.
In many ways, mice behave completely differently from humans. This is part of why there is so much difficulty translating disease treatments from a mouse model to humans - enough difficulty that labs spent millions of dollars to create mice with an immune system that is similar to humans' - only to find that didn't work out so great either.
Basic rule of thumb - animal studies should be used for testing specific biochemistry and genetics questions, and to form hypotheses. Not really for much else.
As for the journals, Cell, Science and Nature are highly political. The difference between getting into one of these journals and, say, PNAS is flashy figures and who you know. You can look at any of these journals and find poorly designed studies. Don't forget Woo Suk Hwang published fraudulant data in Science before being forced to recant. The journals are not infallible - something to always keep in mind when you read papers.
I think we agree more then we disagree...I never said mice are perfect models of human behavior. They are useful and easy to control (what I said) because of the reasons you said (cheap, short lifespans.) I never said that mice studies are the best or better compared to human studies, I said they are the backbone of a lot of research - and a lot of research straight up can't be done (ethically) on humans.
I'm not sure you're addressing me regarding the journals but I never said anything about journals. I'm well aware of how political (and elitist) the academic publication world is and how rampant corruption is.0 -
But what about bacon?0
-
But were the mice on the high protein diet eating at a deficit and trying to maintain muscle mass? Did they even lift?0
-
Just so y'all know, mice studies are used all the time across academic disciplines, because mice are way easier to control. People (especially when it comes to nutrition studies) are downright unreliable. Mice studies are incredibly important and the backbone of a lot of scientific research. And physiologically speaking, mice operate in some pretty similar ways to humans. Don't dismiss animal research.
Mice are used because they are cheap, can be bred in large numbers, and have a relatively short lifespan. Not because they are all that similar to humans and make great models for human disease, metabolism, or behaviour.
In many ways, mice behave completely differently from humans. This is part of why there is so much difficulty translating disease treatments from a mouse model to humans - enough difficulty that labs spent millions of dollars to create mice with an immune system that is similar to humans' - only to find that didn't work out so great either.
Basic rule of thumb - animal studies should be used for testing specific biochemistry and genetics questions, and to form hypotheses. Not really for much else.
As for the journals, Cell, Science and Nature are highly political. The difference between getting into one of these journals and, say, PNAS is flashy figures and who you know. You can look at any of these journals and find poorly designed studies. Don't forget Woo Suk Hwang published fraudulant data in Science before being forced to recant. The journals are not infallible - something to always keep in mind when you read papers.
No journal is infallible but there is more to publishing in high IF journals than just flashy figures and who you know. If that's your experience, it must have been very disappointing. It certainly hasn't been mine.
I acknowledge that this is a rodent model and I don't want to argue the pros and cons, it is what it is. My take is that the study was well designed and carefully carried out.
The researchers were looking at feeding, aging, and age-related cardiometabolic health in 858 mice feed one of 25 diets that differed in macronutrients and energy. They were particularly interested in mTor, a protein that integrates cellular messages and has been implicated in human conditions as well as aging in animal studies.
The interesting things that stood out for me were.
1. Protein intake influenced feeding but fat did not. (Nothing new with the protein, but fat was a surprise)
2. Old mice ate the same amount of food regardless of energy. Younger mice ate to reach a protein target regardless of energy. (confirms the protein leverage hypothesis)
3. Chronic exposure to high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets resulted in the lowest food intakes, but elevated both mTOR and insulin, with reduced lifespan.
Results showed that healthy aging is not achieved in mice fed high-protein diets and/or diluted diets to reduce calorie intake, but rather by low-protein diets (especially those low in BCAAs), where additional energy requirements are met by dietary carbohydrates rather than fats.
The researchers conclude: A priority is to establish whether the same applies for humans, especially considering that high-protein diets are widely promoted for weight loss and health. An additional priority is to consider the makeup of lipids in the diet and the quality of carbohydrates. Given the profound effects of the balance of macronutrients on energy intake, health, and longevity, it is clear that dietary interventions aimed at influencing health or aging outcomes must be considered in the context of the underlying dietary landscape.0 -
I would not put much weight into this study because, well, mice.. Many animal studies are just starting points to gauge certain things before moving on to the more expensive and demanding human studies.
That said, wasn't there a study done on mice that showed a low caloric intake is positively associated with longevity? I would be interested to see what kind of macro breakdown that study had.
Yes there is, and in monkeys, too, with one recent monkey study seeming to indicate low calorie intake does correlate with longevity.
However, I just read today that monkeys don't go into ketosis. I wonder if mice do? Seems to me that if mice don't and it's true monkeys don't, we have an issue. Not that it won't necessarily work for people, but who knows?0 -
Thanks for the voice of sanity in all the noise!No journal is infallible but there is more to publishing in high IF journals than just flashy figures and who you know. If that's your experience, it must have been very disappointing. It certainly hasn't been mine.
I acknowledge that this is a rodent model and I don't want to argue the pros and cons, it is what it is. My take is that the study was well designed and carefully carried out.
The researchers were looking at feeding, aging, and age-related cardiometabolic health in 858 mice feed one of 25 diets that differed in macronutrients and energy. They were particularly interested in mTor, a protein that integrates cellular messages and has been implicated in human conditions as well as aging in animal studies.
The interesting things that stood out for me were.
1. Protein intake influenced feeding but fat did not. (Nothing new with the protein, but fat was a surprise)
2. Old mice ate the same amount of food regardless of energy. Younger mice ate to reach a protein target regardless of energy. (confirms the protein leverage hypothesis)
3. Chronic exposure to high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets resulted in the lowest food intakes, but elevated both mTOR and insulin, with reduced lifespan.
Results showed that healthy aging is not achieved in mice fed high-protein diets and/or diluted diets to reduce calorie intake, but rather by low-protein diets (especially those low in BCAAs), where additional energy requirements are met by dietary carbohydrates rather than fats.
The researchers conclude: A priority is to establish whether the same applies for humans, especially considering that high-protein diets are widely promoted for weight loss and health. An additional priority is to consider the makeup of lipids in the diet and the quality of carbohydrates. Given the profound effects of the balance of macronutrients on energy intake, health, and longevity, it is clear that dietary interventions aimed at influencing health or aging outcomes must be considered in the context of the underlying dietary landscape.0 -
The researchers conclude: A priority is to establish whether the same applies for humans, especially considering that high-protein diets are widely promoted for weight loss and health. An additional priority is to consider the makeup of lipids in the diet and the quality of carbohydrates. Given the profound effects of the balance of macronutrients on energy intake, health, and longevity, it is clear that dietary interventions aimed at influencing health or aging outcomes must be considered in the context of the underlying dietary landscape.
Most animal studies on "longevity" are fairly useless and this study is no exception. We already know that consuming certain amounts of fruits, veggies, fiber, etc., is beneficial for human longevity. So it's no surprise that a study on mice with a "low carb" diet demonstrated reduced longevity.
It's not surprising that the longevity results are useless given that the researchers were trying to measure multiple different outcomes. They should have conducted the study with the aim of soley measuring obesity and then attempted to examine longevity with diets that are actually realistic.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions