Cycling UK Forum

An article on calories and why they are not all equal

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ie-problem

gbnz wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 6:07am

pjclinch wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 6:02am
I would suggest that "muscle development" and "recovery" aren't entirely the same thing. Also, if you do want to build muscle then gym work looks to be a more effective exercise component than cycling.

Well yes, I've used a gym 4-6 times a week for the past 31 years. Can't say I've any need to build muscle, though recovering from 4 weeks in a NHS hospital last year, when blocked from sleep, protein, fruit, vegetables, exercise and a healthy lifestyle, action had to be taken

Quite, though getting back from a month of being a blob would be a rather different recovery process than recovering from a long ride - more structural rebuilding than touching up the paint!

Pete.

gbnz wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 5:57am

Jdsk wrote: ↑16 May 2022, 10:04pm

gbnz wrote: ↑16 May 2022, 9:56pm
Have to admit I'd naively assumed for 20 years that missing amino acids in "incomplete" proteins (I.e. lentils, beans etc), would be balanced out via the full range in complete meat / fish / dairy protein s. Packing the proteins in via dairy products for "cheapness/ease of preparation" in the last ten months has proved it's not the case - muscle development via the complete proteins in dairy products has been notably quicker

The key concept is whether proteins have enough of the essential amino acids, the ones that we can't make ourselves.

I don't know what "balancing out" would mean.

"Balancing out?" Well if you're consuming 1.8g protein per kg of body weight, with a 144g protein intake daily, "balancing out" refers to obtaining perhaps 100g from complete proteins, with the remaining 44g protein originating from incomplete proteins in lentils/beans/flours etc. On the basis that the missing amino acids from that 44g component, will be compensated for (Balanced) via excess missing amino acids originating from complete proteins.

The concept of balance is that if you have more of one component you need more of the other. Think of a mechanical weighing balance or a seesaw.

The situation with amino acids is the opposite of this. If you eat more protein which contains essential amino acids then you need less protein that doesn't (for any given objective).

The relevant concept here is adequacy not balance.

Jonathan

PS: It's extremely common to hear balanced diet when what people mean is sufficiently varied to avoid deficiencies.

PPS: The concept of balance seems to be very deep in human thinking. It was the dominant theory of medicine for a few thousand years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism
and, rather differently, is fundamental in yin/ yang philosophies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang.

David2504 wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 7:58am An article on calories and why they are not all equal

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ie-problem

While I respect the Guardian's reporting, this seems like a typically muddled article on nutrition. Unfortunately, it's hard to find anything else these days

The main gist is that 'not all calories are equal', but it mixes up 2 concepts. One is that 100 calories of, say, sugar does not provide as much of what your body needs as, say, 100 calories of vegetables. I think that's non-contentious. The other is that your body absorbs less of the calories from some food than from others, and I'd like to see a link to research on this.
The article says things like "Our bodies are much better at absorbing the energy from a calorie of low-fibre, processed food (like a potato chip) than they are at taking in calories from whole foods, like an apple.". It's the sort of statement I often see these days, but I've never seen anyone point to a study or research that supports it. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'better' - perhaps they mean the calories are absorbed faster from crisps, which may affect blood sugar level, but not how much energy you absorb in total. If the latter, then evolution didn't do a great job on optimising our digestive systems.
It also says "for every 100 calories in protein, we can actually only take in 70", and the only source of that information seems to be Dr Giles Yeo. It may be correct, but I always like to see supporting evidence of statements like that from someone who is trying to sell a book (and I'm not buying the book to find out!)
The article also appears to be trying to sound more authoritative by referring to a couple of external articles and talking to a dietician. Unfortunately, one external article merely shows that the ultra processed food (UPF) term frequently used in the Guardian piece is poorly defined or understood, and the other simply says that UPFs tend to be higher in calories and lower in fibre, which is not exactly a surprise (and irrelevant to the main point of the article). The info from the dietician is odd, as they are merely saying that different people need different numbers of calories per day - again, hardly surprising, and completely irrelevant to the points being made in the Guardian article.
Overall, I give it 2/10, and that's generous

I've seen this crop up quite often over the last few years - articles or documentaries saying that you can't determine if someone will gain weight simply by comparing 'calories in' to 'calories out'. Unfortunately, all of them simply seem to repeat that statement in many different ways, without referring to genuine research on the subject. I'm not saying that 'calorie counting' is right or wrong, but I'd love to see something that's more than a trendy 'the traditional view is wrong - read this article to find out why!!!!!!' opinion piece.

Sorry about the rant

gcogger wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 9:27amThe main gist is that 'not all calories are equal', but it mixes up 2 concepts. One is that 100 calories of, say, sugar does not provide as much of what your body needs as, say, 100 calories of vegetables. I think that's non-contentious. The other is that your body absorbs less of the calories from some food than from others, and I'd like to see a link to research on this.

I think that I know what you mean, but there's no way of getting round the need for using precise defined terms if we're going to understand what's going on and communicate with each other about it.

For example:

The other is that your body absorbs less of the calories from some food than from others...

The body doesn't absorb calories. It absorbs chemicals. The chemicals can be metabolised. The metabolism makes energy available for other chemical and mechanical processes. The energy can be measured in calories.

... 100 calories of, say, sugar does not provide as much of what your body needs as, say, 100 calories of vegetables.

Sucrose and other sugars are chemicals and need to be measured in mass or molar units. To say "100 calories of sugar" implies something about available energy that may not be valid in its absorption and metabolism of sucrose by humans. (This is one of the topics of the article.)

"... as much of what your body needs" could mean many different things.

etc

I know that this is a tough message, and I'm not saying that there can't be useful lay discussions of diet and health.

Jonathan

gcogger wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 9:27amIf the latter, then evolution didn't do a great job on optimising our digestive systems.

Cultural and technological changes in diet are very rapid compared to evolutionary adaptation. Examples include adult milk drinking and lactase nonpersistence, vitamin D deficiency in northern Europeans, alcohol dehydrogenase haplotypes and alcohol intolerance in some Asian populations. And many vitamins were first discovered because of migrations and cultural changes that happened much too fast for evolutionary adaptation to catch up.

Jonathan

gcogger wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 9:27am
While I respect the Guardian's reporting, this seems like a typically muddled article on nutrition. Unfortunately, it's hard to find anything else these days

The main gist is that 'not all calories are equal', but it mixes up 2 concepts. One is that 100 calories of, say, sugar does not provide as much of what your body needs as, say, 100 calories of vegetables. I think that's non-contentious. The other is that your body absorbs less of the calories from some food than from others, and I'd like to see a link to research on this.

I don't mean to rubbish what you're saying, but I often wonder how useful this sort of comment is.

When you learned about gravity, did you ask to see the research papers??

I've got quite a high-falutin' science degree, and I've read a few papers over time ... but when it comes to understanding the world, and the science that effects me, sometimes life is too short to read the original research. There are professionals out there who get paid for cross-checking research, I've got bikes to ride

p.s. I tried a quick google to see what might be out there. Fill yer boots:

https://www.google.com/search?q=absorb+ ... nt=gws-wiz

I was going to respond individually, but there are too many posts now, so I'll just make general points. No problem with the criticism, I don't think I expressed myself very well!

What I struggle to find solid information on is questions like:

• If you consume 3000 calories per day of 'processed food' (whatever that means), will you gain more weight than if you consume 3000 calories per day of 'whole foods'? Let's assume we use the normal way of measuring calories in the food.
• Have there been studies done on this, i.e. how confident are we that it's a significant effect?
• If there is a difference in weight gain/loss, how do different foods compare (without using poorly defined terms such as 'processed food')?

There are many sources saying that we should throw away the old rule of thumb about calories in vs calories out, but I've not seen anyone refer to relevant research on that. It's not that I'd want to read the studies in detail, but I'd like to know that they exist. Things like "for every 100 calories in protein, we can actually only take in 70" sound like a great start. A google search shows up some websites talking about it, but there is so much rubbish about nutrition on the internet that I'm not sure what to believe. I'd hope that a science article from the Guardian would at least point to where the figure comes from. (Unless it's a widely accepted figure that I'm simply ignorant of? That's certainly possible).

I don't agree with the comparison to learning about gravity, as that's a globally accepted theory, and the modern world wouldn't work if it was wrong. The study of nutrition and weight gain/loss, on the other hand, seems to spawn many contradictory theories, so I'd just like to know which are supported by research and which are just people trying to have their 5 minutes of fame. I'm not trying to put down the genuine experts in the field, I'm just trying to work out who they are - that's not helped by the media that would give much more airtime to someone like Gillian McKeith, than to real dieticians.

I stand by my criticism of the Guardian article, though. I think it's muddled, mixes several concepts together, and most of the external sources it refers to are either irrelevant to the article or even weaken it's message.

Jdsk wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 9:47am

gcogger wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 9:27amIf the latter, then evolution didn't do a great job on optimising our digestive systems.

Cultural and technological changes in diet are very rapid compared to evolutionary adaptation. Examples include adult milk drinking and lactase nonpersistence, vitamin D deficiency in northern Europeans, alcohol dehydrogenase haplotypes and alcohol intolerance in some Asian populations. And many vitamins were first discovered because of migrations and cultural changes that happened much too fast for evolutionary adaptation to catch up.

Jonathan

Sorry, just to respond to this point specifically. As I said, I clearly didn't express myself well I wasn't trying to make a point, I just thought it was genuinely interesting. I took the comment in the article as meaning that we are unable to make use of all the energy in something natural like an apple (that we evolved to eat), whereas we could with more processed foods (that we didn't).

gcogger wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 11:29amWhat I struggle to find solid information on is questions like:

• If you consume 3000 calories per day of 'processed food' (whatever that means), will you gain more weight than if you consume 3000 calories per day of 'whole foods'? Let's assume we use the normal way of measuring calories in the food.
• Have there been studies done on this, i.e. how confident are we that it's a significant effect?
• If there is a difference in weight gain/loss, how do different foods compare (without using poorly defined terms such as 'processed food')?

It's nutrition, so in addition to the frank rubbish there are deep difficulties with doing the studies. There aren't many good long-term interventional studies on just about anything. So we fall back on short-term interventional studies, population comparisons, questionnaires and surveys, animal models and biological plausibility.

How about this as an *amuse-gueule":

"Eating highly processed foods linked to weight gain":
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-res ... eight-gain

based on:
"Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake":
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fu ... 19)30248-7

with correspondence:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fu ... 19)30307-9
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fu ... 19)30309-2

Jonathan

* It does include behavioural changes, which is not what you asked. But with the correspondence it touches on many of the factors which need to be included in any discussion.

Edit: can't spell!
Thanks for digging that out Jonathan. I managed to get through the bulk of the main article, and read the correspondence.
As you suggest, they're careful to point out that it doesn't account for long term effects, but is interesting nonetheless. They use the NOVA system to classify foods, with group 4 being ultra processed food, i.e. UPF (it's still a little vague IMHO, but better than most uses of the term).
The results show that those who ate a UPF diet consumed an extra 500 calories per day, on average, over those on an unprocessed diet, and that "Body weight changes were highly correlated with diet differences in energy intake". From those results (small group, short term) it looks like the food type affects how much people eat, but doesn't suggest that the 'calories in vs calories out' rule of thumb is broken. Both groups consumed about the same amount of protein, which is a shame, as it says nothing about the "for every 100 calories in protein, we can actually only take in 70" statement.
It's clearly a very difficult thing to study, which I guess is why I get so wound up when people definitively say to 'stop calorie counting', or that 'calories don't matter'.
Anyway, sorry, I've taken this thread rather off topic

gcogger wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 1:47pmAnyway, sorry, I've taken this thread rather off topic

No problem here... and we need to get to gravity and apples... as someone once didn't observe. : - )

Jonathan

gcogger wrote: ↑17 May 2022, 1:47pmIt's clearly a very difficult thing to study, which I guess is why I get so wound up when people definitively say to 'stop calorie counting', or that 'calories don't matter'.

How about:

"Role of Energy Excretion in Human Body Weight Regulation":
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 602030134X

"Food intake and energy expenditure are the typical determinants of body weight. Yet, recent observations underscore that a third and often-neglected factor, fecal energy loss, can influence energy balance. Here, we explore how macronutrient excretion modulates human energy homeostasis and highlight its potential impact on the propensity to gain weight."

It's a discussion piece, not a study or review, but again it exposes a lot of the relevant factors and concepts.

Jonathan

I guess they're still talking about 'calories in vs calories out'. It's just some of the 'calories out' bit is ... less pleasant than we normally think of

I wonder if that's an approach to at least partially answering my questions without needing to undertake massive and long term (difficult!) studies. Wouldn't fancy the research assistant's job, though!