The TRUTH About Calories

Options
«1

Replies

  • weightliftingdiva
    weightliftingdiva Posts: 522 Member
    Options
    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?
  • Charlottesometimes23
    Charlottesometimes23 Posts: 687 Member
    Options
    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.

    fx1.jpg
  • Dewymorning
    Dewymorning Posts: 762 Member
    Options
    So, the study shows us that more protein makes [mice] eat less, and more carbohydrates makes [mice] eat more?

    Wow.

    :P
  • Railr0aderTony
    Railr0aderTony Posts: 6,804 Member
    Options
    “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't
    Food 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.
  • AglaeaC
    AglaeaC Posts: 1,974 Member
    Options
    It would have been interesting to see also the high protein, low fat combination.
  • mikevandewetering
    mikevandewetering Posts: 155 Member
    Options
    poorly done study if you ask me
  • AglaeaC
    AglaeaC Posts: 1,974 Member
    Options
    poorly done study if you ask me
    Why? Did you read the original article?
  • AglaeaC
    AglaeaC Posts: 1,974 Member
    Options
    “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't
    Food 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.
    You know what also isn't scientific? Calling something non-scientific without even looking at the original article.
  • mikevandewetering
    mikevandewetering Posts: 155 Member
    Options
    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.
  • Railr0aderTony
    Railr0aderTony Posts: 6,804 Member
    Options
    “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't
    Food 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.
    You know what also isn't scientific? Calling something non-scientific without even looking at the original article.

    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.
  • 126siany
    126siany Posts: 1,386 Member
    Options
    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)00065-5
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    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.
  • AglaeaC
    AglaeaC Posts: 1,974 Member
    Options
    “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't
    Food 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.
    You know what also isn't scientific? Calling something non-scientific without even looking at the original article.
    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.
    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.
  • Charlottesometimes23
    Charlottesometimes23 Posts: 687 Member
    Options
    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?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    “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't
    Food 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.
    You know what also isn't scientific? Calling something non-scientific without even looking at the original article.
    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?
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    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%
  • tedrickp
    tedrickp Posts: 1,229 Member
    Options

    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.

    fx1.jpg

    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.
  • weightliftingdiva
    weightliftingdiva Posts: 522 Member
    Options
    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.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    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..."
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories