2 ms·

Caloric restriction worked great pre-1980's. If you could stick to 'simple foods', like the author advocates, it still works. The reason why so many people dis

Caloric restriction worked great pre-1980's. If you could stick to 'simple foods', like the author advocates, it still works. The reason why so many people dismiss it is that from the 1980's onward food was starting to get designed for overeating, and labeling requirements were starting to be gamed so the calories listed on these designed foods (and that includes nearly everything today) no longer have as high straightforward correlation with the 'calories' measured in 'simple' foods of old.

RikNieu 6y ago
Exactly. And that's where I suspect the "not all calories are equal" thing comes from. I don't trust labels much, especially in my part of the world.
- maqp 6y ago
  It has more to do with the glycemic index of the food, that is now satient it is. 300kcal of rye bread (low GI) keeps your blood sugar much more even much longer than 300kcal candy bar (high GI). Both are "processed foods" but one is much more healthy than the other. Whole foods like fruits, vegetables etc. have almost always low GI: https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce...
PaulKeeble 6y ago
It goes back a lot further than that. The moment we started tinning food and making long life carbohydrates the equation completely changed. They take so much less energy to digest than their counterparts but its even deeper. Have a read into the difference in flour making over the past century and how industrial processes and wheat variants have gone hand in hand to remove all the fiber from bread. We have been adjusting our food to increase calory density and reduce the cost of digestion for thousands of years but it really accelerated in the past 120. A Kilo Calory is the energy extracted in burning it, our body doesn't burn fuel it chemically converts it into different substances, the processes are so different since one conserves mass and the other does not. It is a terrible measure given plant fibre burns well and produces lots of energy and hence has lots of calories but plant fibre generally goes right through us since we can't digest a lot of it. The entire thing is a bit rotten from a science point of view. Reducing how much we eat sort of works, for some people, changing to more natural foods works for others, changing to fats and protein exclusively for others etc etc. Few studies show the majority of people loosing fat long term. All this to me points to the fact we don't have this figured out at all yet.

RikNieu 6y ago

Exactly. And that's where I suspect the "not all calories are equal" thing comes from. I don't trust labels much, especially in my part of the world.

maqp 6y ago
It has more to do with the glycemic index of the food, that is now satient it is. 300kcal of rye bread (low GI) keeps your blood sugar much more even much longer than 300kcal candy bar (high GI). Both are "processed foods" but one is much more healthy than the other. Whole foods like fruits, vegetables etc. have almost always low GI: https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce...

PaulKeeble 6y ago

It goes back a lot further than that. The moment we started tinning food and making long life carbohydrates the equation completely changed. They take so much less energy to digest than their counterparts but its even deeper. Have a read into the difference in flour making over the past century and how industrial processes and wheat variants have gone hand in hand to remove all the fiber from bread. We have been adjusting our food to increase calory density and reduce the cost of digestion for thousands of years but it really accelerated in the past 120. A Kilo Calory is the energy extracted in burning it, our body doesn't burn fuel it chemically converts it into different substances, the processes are so different since one conserves mass and the other does not. It is a terrible measure given plant fibre burns well and produces lots of energy and hence has lots of calories but plant fibre generally goes right through us since we can't digest a lot of it. The entire thing is a bit rotten from a science point of view. Reducing how much we eat sort of works, for some people, changing to more natural foods works for others, changing to fats and protein exclusively for others etc etc. Few studies show the majority of people loosing fat long term. All this to me points to the fact we don't have this figured out at all yet.