Stomach enzymes increase calories in meat and starch?

I mean if you squint really hard and turn it upside down you might be able to see a hint of truth in there but it is a stretch. Without a lot of added detail suffice to say that the practical answer is in terms of diet it is an irrelevant point and it certainly does not turn the 100 calories written on the package into 150 calories...that is impossible. It also isn't somehow specific to just meat and starch.

I can get into it if you want but maybe when I'm not on my phone.

mph323 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

mph323 wrote: »

Orphia wrote: »

Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc

I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?

mph323 wrote: »

Orphia wrote: »

Thanks. As I thought. The chef posted this link.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.WvOVdpx_WEc

I'm having a little trouble getting past the notion that he's the first person ever to have done a deep dive into the potential calorie difference between cooked and raw food. I mean, really?

Being a veteran of the raw vegan community (not the Freelee subtype) I can assure you that it's a well-trodden path. It was one of the reasons I tried eating that way. I will say that I really enjoyed eating that way -- very much so -- but it wasn't sustainable simply because it was so labor intensive and I happened to be doing it just when fuel prices skyrocketed and food costs went up as well. Our food budget couldn't handle that much fresh produce for me on top of the family's meals.

Yeah, I was pretty sure it was already well-studied. Probably by people who didn't have to hang out with the chimps to get that particular brainstorm.

I have to say that particular point of time during my kids' development *felt* like hanging out with chimps. Does that count for anything?

Okay on a computer now.

So here is my thoughts on this in general. I think there is some truth to it (the cooking part at least) but I think it being relevant to weight loss is being way overemphasized.

When you eat something it goes into your stomach where it is mixed with both acids and some basic enzymes for digestion such as peptidases and carboxylases. It sloshes around until it dissolves before passing through into your small intestine where molecules that have dissolved enough are absorbed into your blood stream. Food that isn't digested enough to be absorbed then passes into your lower intestine which is full of bacteria which further digest and break apart the food. The bacteria have a lot of digestive enzymes we do not and we rely on them to help us breakdown food. The breakdown products are in part utilized by the bacteria but are also absorbed into the blood for distribution to cells. That microbiome builds up over time and as you know if you have ever fed a baby a piece of broccoli or a bean without that microbiome a lot of that digested material is going to just going to come out the other end looking the same. Processed molecules in your blood distribute to your cells which convert the molecules to energy storage in the form of ATP or convert and store them in the form of triglycerides and glycogen.

Now if you cook your food a couple things are going to happen. The food is going to lose water content becoming lighter for the same number of calories...so most certainly it is true that cooked potatoes have more calories than raw potatoes per pound just for this reason alone. Second it is going to break up some of the bonds between molecules kind of predigesting things. This is going to actually drop the total amount of calories present in the food because some of it has already oxidized but it will also break things apart and make it more easy to digest making more of it available. How much is pre-oxidized and how much is made more available...who knows, probably really really variable dependant on food, cook time, you, etc etc.

When food is labeled as containing calories it is based on bomb calorimeter measurements whereby the food is fully oxidized (by burning it) and the total heat released measured by seeing how much it heats up a set volume of water. 1 food calorie (kcal) is the amount of energy required to heat 1 liter by 1 degree celsius...that is the definition. If not directly measured by a bomb calorimeter it can be simply estimated by how much protein, fat and carbohydrate is present. Keep in mind this printed value on the box is the maximum possible yield of energy and it is very likely your body doesn't actually get that much because your body isn't 100% efficient (same as anything in this world).

Okay so lets just accept and run with the idea that cooking food substantially increases the amount of calories you can get from food compared to eating it raw. What does that mean for dieting to lose weight?

Well lets say Person A wants to lose weight and they set their calorie goal at 2000 calories a day planning for a 500 calorie daily deficit. They eat 2000 calories of cooked potatoes which really their body only gets 1800 calories from. Thing is all the calculators telling you how much to eat to lose weight are based on studies that are based on people eating cooked foods so really when it says to eat 2000 calories (written on a label) it has already taken into account that you are only going to get ~1800 calories from that on average and that is what you need. ie that is already build in. As a result they lose about 1 pound a week and given that was their target they can get by on that without feeling that deprived week after week.

Now Person B wants to lose weight and they set their calorie goal at 2000 calories a day planning for a 500 calorie daily deficit. They eat 2000 calories of raw potatoes which really their body only gets 1550 calories from because they aren't digesting all of it. They aim for 1 pound loss per week but what is this, they end up losing 1.5 pounds per week but week after week they start feeling a bit hungry and deprived because they are actually undershooting their goal by a good amount. The reason being they are literally crapping out some of the food they ate which means it isn't actually providing them with any nutrition, calories or satiation. This person could have gotten the exact same result and feeling of gaiety by simply cooking their potatoes and eating less of them, saving themselves some money and not wasting food.

That is assuming the difference between cooked and raw foods is substantial, which I am skeptical of. But even if it is true I don't see why eating raw food would be anything other than just wasteful. In addition if it truly made a big difference then presumably chewing your food more would also mean you got more calories relative to someone who just swallowed their food in huge pieces. Is anyone advocating for a don't-chew diet? Actually don't answer that, someone probably is.