4 ms·
It's calories in, calories out, only if you stick to specific foods. It's well proven that raw foods, despite being slightly higher calorie content than their
by Cacti 12y ago
It's calories in, calories out, only if you stick to specific foods.
It's well proven that raw foods, despite being slightly higher calorie content than their cooked version, contribute significantly less calories because FAR less is digested and absorbed.
And it's equally well proven that weight gain is significantly due to the consumption of processed sugars (most carbohydrates that people eat these days), as they contribute far more sugar far quicker to the blood (and hence kick off an insulin reaction to lower the blood sugar by storing the sugar as fat). 1000 calories of white rice will contribute far more to weight gain than 1000 calories of, say, plain chicken.
So we _know_ that it's not just calories in, calories out. It just seems that way sometimes, because most studies don't really change the fundamental type of food (that is, it's almost assuredly cooked food still, and at least somewhat similar in the processing done (e.g. no candy bar but they're still eating white bread)). Everyone's just repeating the same study over and over, not realizing they weren't fundamentally changing the inputs.
- nkozyra 12y ago> And it's equally well proven that weight gain is significantly due to the consumption of processed sugars (most carbohydrates that people eat these days), as they contribute far more sugar far quicker to the blood (and hence kick off an insulin reaction to lower the blood sugar by storing the sugar as fat). 1000 calories of white rice will contribute far more to weight gain than 1000 calories of, say, plain chicken. Not to get into a pissing match, but I think "well proven" needs some citation here. The role of insulin does not bypass thermodynamics.
- bluecalm 12y agoThermodynamics have nothing to do with it. Human bodies can vary when it comes to efficiency of converting food to energy. It may also depend on hormonal situation or genetics or w/e else. It may also well be that "calorie out" part depends to some extent of what is eaten. It's not like human bodies are perfect 100% efficient engines of converting food to energy and that rest of the body doesn't take into account what's "in the tank" at any given moment. Thermodynamics argument just doesn't mean anything. It's probably the most silly way to end sensible discussion on this topis.
- nkozyra 12y agoActually, thermodynamics and the conservation of energy is absolutely a factor - the questions you're bringing up have to do with the way we measure that energy usage and potential, not with the fact that energy is either used (stored) or expelled. The efficacy of metabolism is in my opinion very much the big question mark here, and why I think relying on one-size-fits-all concepts like "a carbohydrate translates to 4 kilocalories" is simplistic and in all likelihood flawed.
- iopq 12y agoNo, actually carbohydrates are extremely easily digested and used as energy directly by your muscles and other tissues. Fats are also easily digested and used as energy primarily when you sleep. It's protein that's hard to quantify (how much is converted to glucose? how much does it cost to generate 1 gram of tissue? how many calories does it take to digest?)
- nkozyra 12y agoI'm confused, where did I say carbohydrates are not easily digested?
- spudlyo 12y agoHuman bodies can vary when it comes to efficiency of converting food to energy. I do not doubt this, but is there any evidence that these variances are significant? Treating human bodies as 100% efficient food to energy converters is useful for practical reasoning about weight loss; unless these factors are significant, focusing on macronutrients, genetics, or the "hormonal situation" is just getting lost in the weeds.
- trustfundbaby 12y ago> Not to get into a pissing match, but I think "well proven" needs some citation here. It just has to do with the way the body deals with sugar. Sugar produced from the digestive process goes straight to your bloodstream as glucose if your body needs it, but if you already have enough ... it is sent to your liver where it is converted to glycogen. The rub is, your liver can only store so much glycogen (about 100mg of it I think), after that ... any sugar that hits your liver is converted to straight fat.
- nkozyra 12y agoI've heard all of this before and frankly a lot of it seems anecdotal and poorly supported. First, we do know that simple sugars lead to insulin spikes, that's measurable and repeatable. All carbohydrates (save cellulose) are processed into the monosaccharide glucose at some point. And the finite amount of glycogen the liver can store probably also could use some attribution or citation. I haven't heard of that and I'm always very leery about these hard-and-fast #s in terms of measurements that kick off some process that we should expect in all humans.
- iopq 12y agofructose does not lead to an insulin spike and goes directly to the liver
- nkozyra 12y agoFructose spikes insulin, most macronutrients do. Even protein spikes insulin. Fructose has produced less of a spike than other simple sugars.
- iopq 12y agoIt doesn't really spike it, it barely moves it. Its glycemic index is 18, I can't find its insulin index, but it's low. Dietary fat does not have any effect on insulin, btw.
- spmurrayzzz 12y ago
- letstryagain 12y agoCalorie counting already takes this into consideration. When we say '100g of raw tomato has X calories' we are talking of what your body gets out of it when you eat it, not the calories theoretically in the tomato.
- dllthomas 12y ago"not the calories theoretically in the tomato." There goes my plan to weigh the tomato and multiply by the c^2.