5 ms·

Experts like Dr Giles Yeo would disagree with you on the subject. Processed food contributes more to weight-gain than would the same amount (in terms of calori

by Pooge 2y ago

Experts like Dr Giles Yeo would disagree with you on the subject. Processed food contributes more to weight-gain than would the same amount (in terms of calories) of a non-processed one. Increasing physical activity has NOT shown that it's a good way to lose weight. Being mindful of what you eat, on the other hand... A friend told me he wouldn't eat nuts because they are too caloric... ????

CharlieDigital 2y ago
> Processed food contributes more to weight-gain than would the same amount (in terms of calories) of a non-processed one It's all calories. There is no mechanism by which the body gains mass without an excess of calories. It does not matter the source; the chemistry and physics do not exist by which the human body gains mass without an excess of calories. We are not plants; we do not gain mass via carbon dioxide + sunlight. Mass gain can only occur via caloric intake. The type of food and additives (ultra processed vs raw) can affect factors like satiation, water retention (not body mass), energy levels (and thus affect expenditure), etc. But for your body to gain cellular mass ("gain weight"), you necessarily have to have an excess of calories (calories consumed > calories expended).
- Pooge 2y ago
  > It's all calories. Except that it is not. X calories of refined food would contribute more to weight-gain than would X calories of almonds. Taking directly from Dr Giles Yeo's book: I’m not asking anyone to count calories at all, because the number of calories, simply taken in isolation, and out of context from whence they came, is not a particularly useful piece of information. Don’t get me wrong, calorie information does of course have its place. For one thing, calories are useful in quantifying portion sizes, so a 200-calorie portion of French fries will have twice the energy as a 100-calorie portion of fries. [...] [We] now know that the Atwater factors, both general and specific, are inaccurate, because they don’t take into account diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT), which is the energy, given off as heat, that is required for the metabolism of food. Fat has a DIT value between 0 and 3 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of fat, it will cost between 0 and 3 calories to process. The DIT value for carbohydrates is between 5 and 10 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of carbs, it will cost between 5 and 10 calories to process. While protein has the highest DIT value at 15 and 30 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of protein, it will cost between 15 and 30 calories to process.
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    You're completely reading this wrong. Yeo and most nutritionist would agree that certain foods provide "higher quality" calories and certain foods provide "lower quality" calories that affect things like your perceived satiation and energy levels. But at a chemical level, the fat, protein, and carbohydrates function exactly the same way because at the cellular level, there are only so many chemical pathways to produce energy. So yeah, eating the equivalent caloric amount of almonds vs fries leaves you feeling different levels of energy and satiation. Your body may even absorb the calories at different rates. It'll receive more proteins and fats from the almonds and more carbohydrates from the fries. But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass.
    - Pooge 2y ago
      > But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass. Yes, I agree with this. This is called Net Metabolisable Energy[1] and is something mentioned in the book. I think I said it badly, because I still think calories matter. Just that it matters more what kind of food you're eating rather than just reading the food label. [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/
      - ltbarcly3 2y ago
        You are incorrect and there is an almost endless amount of evidence that you are incorrect. In one study they fed rats 90% of their calories from HFCS and they had no health consequences so long as the total calories were controlled to be the same as thr non HFCS group. The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging. Meanwhile people on ozempic lose weight while eating junk. Your body doesn't care where the calories come from, all that matters is that you don't eat too much.
        Pooge 2y ago

by Pooge 2y ago

CharlieDigital 2y ago

> Processed food contributes more to weight-gain than would the same amount (in terms of calories) of a non-processed one It's all calories. There is no mechanism by which the body gains mass without an excess of calories. It does not matter the source; the chemistry and physics do not exist by which the human body gains mass without an excess of calories. We are not plants; we do not gain mass via carbon dioxide + sunlight. Mass gain can only occur via caloric intake. The type of food and additives (ultra processed vs raw) can affect factors like satiation, water retention (not body mass), energy levels (and thus affect expenditure), etc. But for your body to gain cellular mass ("gain weight"), you necessarily have to have an excess of calories (calories consumed > calories expended).

Pooge 2y ago
> It's all calories. Except that it is not. X calories of refined food would contribute more to weight-gain than would X calories of almonds. Taking directly from Dr Giles Yeo's book: I’m not asking anyone to count calories at all, because the number of calories, simply taken in isolation, and out of context from whence they came, is not a particularly useful piece of information. Don’t get me wrong, calorie information does of course have its place. For one thing, calories are useful in quantifying portion sizes, so a 200-calorie portion of French fries will have twice the energy as a 100-calorie portion of fries. [...] [We] now know that the Atwater factors, both general and specific, are inaccurate, because they don’t take into account diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT), which is the energy, given off as heat, that is required for the metabolism of food. Fat has a DIT value between 0 and 3 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of fat, it will cost between 0 and 3 calories to process. The DIT value for carbohydrates is between 5 and 10 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of carbs, it will cost between 5 and 10 calories to process. While protein has the highest DIT value at 15 and 30 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of protein, it will cost between 15 and 30 calories to process.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  You're completely reading this wrong. Yeo and most nutritionist would agree that certain foods provide "higher quality" calories and certain foods provide "lower quality" calories that affect things like your perceived satiation and energy levels. But at a chemical level, the fat, protein, and carbohydrates function exactly the same way because at the cellular level, there are only so many chemical pathways to produce energy. So yeah, eating the equivalent caloric amount of almonds vs fries leaves you feeling different levels of energy and satiation. Your body may even absorb the calories at different rates. It'll receive more proteins and fats from the almonds and more carbohydrates from the fries. But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass.
  - Pooge 2y ago
    > But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass. Yes, I agree with this. This is called Net Metabolisable Energy[1] and is something mentioned in the book. I think I said it badly, because I still think calories matter. Just that it matters more what kind of food you're eating rather than just reading the food label. [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/
    - ltbarcly3 2y ago
      You are incorrect and there is an almost endless amount of evidence that you are incorrect. In one study they fed rats 90% of their calories from HFCS and they had no health consequences so long as the total calories were controlled to be the same as thr non HFCS group. The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging. Meanwhile people on ozempic lose weight while eating junk. Your body doesn't care where the calories come from, all that matters is that you don't eat too much.
      - Pooge 2y ago