Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-25-2012, 11:33 AM   #1  
Member
Thread Starter
 
coffeebrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 36

Default Why Calories Count - From Science to Politics

I am reading a new book that came out this year, titled Why Calories Count - From Science to Politics by Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim.

I am really enjoying this - Marion Nestle is a Nutrition Professor and she really explains that no matter what diet you follow, in the end it all comes down to lowering calories.

I found this to be so true - low carbing, South Beach never worked for me, and I never could understand why. When an acquaintance gained 20 lbs. on South Beach (I'm not kidding) just by overeating on the list of "accepted" foods, I finally had to confront that the only diets that ever worked for me were ones that truly limited calories - be it counting calories, Weight Watchers points, food exchanges, etc.

This is such a good book for those of us who know that lowering calories is the only way. It explains EVERYTHING you'll ever need to know about calories. It's a shame it's not a more popular book; I found it by accident.

Just thought I'd share!
coffeebrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 09:47 PM   #2  
Junior Member
 
NateC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 24

Default

Sounds interesting!

I'm just reading "Why we get fat" by Gary Taubes which seems to have another perspective on calories - fatloss and source of calories, genetics, hormone changes, etc.

Think I'll be reading "Why calories count" soon! thanks for sharing
NateC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 09:57 PM   #3  
onedayatatimer
 
luckymommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,277

S/C/G: 224/ticker/145-155

Height: 5'9.5"

Default

I completely agree that it comes down to calories but I think many people need to incorporate certain lifestyle changes in order to maintain those lower calories. For example, people who are sensitive to sugar surges will often do better cutting down on sugar/starch/carbs. We are all different but we are all human so ultimately, it is about calories in vs. calories out. Simple and yet somehow very complex.
luckymommy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 10:40 PM   #4  
Senior Member
 
tdiprincess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,238

S/C/G: 190/155/135

Height: 5'3"

Default

That sounds like a very interesting book. I will keep it in mind to take a look at! (and I agree! )

Last edited by tdiprincess; 06-25-2012 at 10:40 PM.
tdiprincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 12:31 AM   #5  
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

I agree that it all boils down to calories - but calories out as well as in. Too often "a calorie is a calorie" is taken literally to mean that all calories are equal for weight loss and that anyone will lose exactly the same weight on 1500 calories of low-carb, whole foods and 1500 calories of Twinkies.

Calories are a measure of heat, or in essence "burnability." If you throw an apple into the fire and burn it to ash - the campfire burns every one of the apple's calories. But the human metabolism isn't a fire or a furnace, some of the calories leave the body unprocessed.

Fiber calories do not "burn" in the human body. If you're a cow, hay will proide more calories for your metabolism to burn than if you're a human.

And yet, calorie counting resources and nutrition labels are not required to subtract these unaccessable calories from the label - and worse, whether they do or don't, they generally do not provide information on how the math was done. So for high-fiber items, you're left wondering "are the fiber calories counted or not."

Since calorie resources are meant for human diets generally, it seems ridiculous that calories we can't digest would be included in the calorie counts, but there are some foods that we're not completely digesting, but how can we measure how much of the food calories are being made available to the body. For example, some research suggests that sugar alcohols (the sweeteners ending in -ol) may be degested more completely by some folks than others - so a sorbitol sweetened popsicle may provide me with more calories than the same popsicle might provide you (and vice versa).

Some people may have more efficient digestive systems than others (for famine situations, efficient is good - for weight loss, it's not).

For almost 35 of the 41 years of dieting, I thought all calories were equal - not only for weight loss, but for most purposes, and yet I wasn't a big fan of what most people considered junk food.

I've always eaten a lot (and I really mean a lot) of fruits and veggies, and primarily whole foods. When people asked me (and they did so often, that I was sick of it) "how can you be overweight when you eat so healthfully," and I would say "healthy food still has calories, and too much is too much even if the calories are coming from healthy food."

I still stand by that statement, BUT (and it's a really, really big BUT) I've also since learned that not all calories (even fiber and sugar alcohols aside) are created equally. 1500 calories of high-carb eating does not yield the same results for me as 1500 calories of low-carb. And that's even when water weight is figured in.

What I mean by water weight taken into account. When you switch from a high-carb diet, to a low-carb diet, your body releases a lot of water - because your body needs more water to digest/process carbs.

Likewise, when you switch from low-carb to high-carb, your body will take-up and hold onto more water, for the same reason. As a result, you can't really "count" the first week to two weeks of weight loss when you're trying to compare a low-carb plan with a high-carb plan.

Otherwise, if your body does process all calories similarly, you might conclude that you lose more weight, and more rapidly on low-carb, when it's really only the first week (and the water weight) that makes you think so.

When I was younger, I think I did process carbs differently than I do now (probably due to endocrine issues I now have). I didn't notice big differences (except in the first two weeks) between 1500 calories of healthy, lower-glycemic eating and 1500 calories of high-carb whole food (I couldn't really compare with junk food, because I never did have much of a taste for stereotypical junk food).

When I proved to myself (by not counting or comparing the transition weeks) that I lost more weight on 1500-1800 calories of low-carb than on the same calories of high-carb, you could have knocked me over with a feather.

I repeated the experiment over and over and over again, because I just didn't believe it. Most of my life, I've believed that where weight loss is concerned, "a calorie is a calori " (at least when fiber and sugar alcohols aren't involved).

I also discovered something else interesting though. On low-carb, low-grain diets, I felt better and had more energy (to burn more calories, perhaps?) And even stranger, my body temperature is about a full degree higher on low-carb than on high-carb (my "normal" temperature on high-carb eating is often in the low 97's and is only in the 98's when I'm very ill. It took me a long time to convince doctors that 98 was my "fever" - until I got pneumonia and my temp was still barely 98).

Now, on low-carb, my body temp is much closer to 98.6. Under most (virtually all) circumstances, the body uses more energy (and therefore calories) to maintain a higher body temperature. So, the higher low-carb body temp, reflects that my body is probably burning more calories on low-carb and that's why I lose more weight on 1500 calories of low-carb than the same calories of high-carb.

Calories are still the bottom line, but people often forget the "calories out" part of the equation and how what we eat could affect what/how we burn.

The "calories out" is a black box - we can onlly infer it from our weight loss. Because I lose more weight on low-carb (even when not counting the transitioning weeks), I can conclulde that something about low-carb allows me to burn more calories. Is it just the body temperature difference? Is it also having more energy encourages and enables me to exercise more?

I'm not sure, but what I do know is that a calorie isn't just a calorie, because some calories a person takes in, seem to be able to affect the out (calories burned) part of the equation (there's no other explanation for my experience of losing more on low-carb).

I have no idea whether my current metabolism is typical for most people, typical only for people of my age and health issues, or whether it's completely atypical and I'm some sort of freak.

Since some studies have found weight loss advantages to low-carb diets, and others have not, I suspect there might be some individual differences (especially since there are other studies finding some of those differences). I suspect (but it would have to be researched to be proven or disproven) that the studies that find no difference between the low and high carb diets, used a very homogenous subject pool (probably young, healthy college students - because that's often the subject pool for university research).

The studies that find differences might be those that use a more diverse (or at least an older, sicker) subject pool.

It still all boils down to calories in/calories out - the calories out portion is a just harder to measure/control for - except in hindsight (measuring calories in, and weight lost/gained to deduct mathematically the calories out).

Still the fact that some peopel do seem to lose better on some types of diets than on different but calorically equivalent diets suggests strongly that what goes in, can affect what/how much comes off.

Last edited by kaplods; 06-26-2012 at 01:46 PM.
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 02:07 AM   #6  
Member
 
Sonia Banana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 59

S/C/G: 143/136/105

Height: 5'3

Default

Could it be the the low-carb diet makes it easier for you to use the energy in your food? I'm still trying to figure out what works for me, but I have noticed that fruits and vegetables make me feel energetic, while heavier foods, like bread, meat, and dairy, give me a "food coma." So I've been eating mostly fruits and vegetables, a high-carb, low-fat, low-protein diet. I'm thinking I should probably add some protein and fat to balance it out, because the weight is coming off slowly although I'm eating low-cal and exercising every day. Very helpful post!
Sonia Banana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 04:04 AM   #7  
Senior Member
 
tammay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: West Texas, US
Posts: 259

S/C/G: 197/185/123-125

Height: 5'1"

Default

Thank you for alerting me to this book. I LOVE Marion Nestle (for those who might remember, she's the woman with extremely frizzy hair that Morgon Spurlock talks to in his documentary "Supersize Me"). She lays it on the line in a way that makes things very clear but she's objective (as objective as someone can be about food in America). I'm thrilled to hear she has a new book out. I ordered it, even though the Kindle version is quite pricey.

I've been debating a lot lately about what to eat, how to eat. The last few years I've read up a lot on vegan, very low fat (less than 10% of calories from fat) diets, tried them, and just seem to go back to eating dairy. So I'm starting to read up more on CRON and calorie restriction and calorie counting, especially because I really need to lose weight and start getting fit. I'm also starting to come more to the realization that it's not just about what you eat but how much you eat and that if you stick with whole foods, how you divide carbs, protein, and fat might not matter as much as keeping your calories in check.

Tam
tammay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:16 AM   #8  
Leveling Up
 
sontaikle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,651

S/C/G: 200+/115/115

Height: 5'3"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaplods View Post

Still the fact that some peopel do seem to lose better on some types of diets than on different but calorically equivalent diets suggests strongly that what goes in, can affect what/how much comes off.
If there's anything that 3FC has taught me, it's that every person is different and has different ways of losing weight.

I'm one of those people that regardless of what I eat, I will lose weight. I've found no difference in the macronutrient breakup when it comes down to speed or how much weight I lose.

How I feel is an entirely different story.

I've never liked "junk" food either and ate pretty healthy food, but like you I ate too much of it. Still, I was conditioned to eat healthy things. If I ate a day full of fast food and other processed things I would feel like crap and sometimes get sick. I have even less toleration for these things now.

Then again there are others that take things out of their diets and then put them back in and feel ill. I removed grains from my diet for a period of time and when I reintroduced them I felt no ill effects at all.

It's a marvel how the human body works and how different we all are. It sucks that the diet industry has pretty much tried to make us forget that.
sontaikle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 08:14 AM   #9  
Senior Member
 
freelancemomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,213

S/C/G: 195/145/145

Height: 5'11"

Default

Fascinating stuff, Kaplods.

F.
freelancemomma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 12:35 PM   #10  
Member
Thread Starter
 
coffeebrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 36

Default

I agree that I can eat anything and lose weight as long as I keep the calories down, but nutrition does count. That's why I returned to Weight Watchers. They really force you to eat "healthy" by following their "good health guidelines", and I needed that.

Also, I'm losing by NOT counting fruits and vegetables, which are "free" on Weight Watchers. I never thought it would, but it's working for me.

Marion Nestle does talk about the importance of eating healthy, but still, in the end weight loss (not necessarily good health) does come by lowering those calories.

I'm just sorry I wasted a good 20 years drifting from one crazy diet to another, thinking I found the holy grail in each one in my "search."
coffeebrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:48 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.