Being a minimalist, including with my diet, (Before eating consider, your body needs to process everything you shove down its throat.)
I’ve never worried about calories, but still found this article quite interesting and it seems to explain why calorie counting doesn’t seem to help many who are trying to lose weight.
Science Reveals Why Calorie Counts Are All Wrong
Digestion is far too messy a process to accurately convey in neat numbers. The counts on food labels can differ wildly from the calories you actually extract, for many reasons
By Rob Dunn | Aug 20, 2013
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/
Almost every packaged food today features calorie counts in its label. Most of these counts are inaccurate because they are based on a system of averages that ignores the complexity of digestion.
Recent research reveals that how many calories we extract from food depends on which species we eat, how we prepare our food, which bacteria are in our gut and how much energy we use to digest different foods.
Current calorie counts do not consider any of these factors. Digestion is so intricate that even if we try to improve calorie counts, we will likely never make them perfectly accurate.
What they are saying is true but, also long known and unfortunately not particularly practical information for the most part. The variables they discuss are difficult to measure and assess on an individual basis. They change over time, and they may cancel each other out when you add them all up. Anyone who says they know how to use this information to help you lose weight is likely trying to sell you a book along with a load of c*^p.
Lack of information about these factors is not why people fail on their diets. Its genetics and lack of will power. Everyone is always looking for a magic way to lose weight but in the end it always comes down to calories, calories, calories, and some exercise.
What they are saying is true but, also long known and unfortunately not particularly practical information for the most part. ... Anyone who says they know how to use this information to help you lose weight is likely trying to sell you a book along with a load of c*^p.
Lack of information about these factors is not why people fail on their diets. Its genetics and lack of will power. Everyone is always looking for a magic way to lose weight but in the end it always comes down to calories, calories, calories, and some exercise.
:ohh: … where did all that come from? What do you think the author was trying to sell?
Seemed to me the article was full of pretty dang practical background information that didn't hint at any of what you are railing against.
I found it was a fascinating explanation to some complications regarding foods and the way we digestion them that most (lay people) are totally unaware of. It wasn't selling any diet or any other silver bullets, if anything it explained why "magic" diets don't work.
OK the closing paragraph does draw some conclusions, but they seem fairly practical as opposed to the magic bullet variety.
Even if we entirely revamped calorie counts, however, they would never be precisely accurate because the amount of calories we extract from food depends on such a complex interaction between food and the human body and its many microbes. In the end, we all want to know how to make the smartest choices at the supermarket. Merely counting calories based on food labels is an overly simplistic approach to eating a healthy diet—one that does not necessarily improve our health, even if it helps us lose weight.
Instead we should think more carefully about the energy we get from our food in the context of human biology. Processed foods are so easily digested in the stomach and intestines that they give us a lot of energy for very little work. In contrast, veggies, nuts and whole grains make us sweat for our calories, generally offer far more vitamins and nutrients than processed items, and keep our gut bacteria happy. So it would be logical for people who want to eat healthier and cut calories to favor whole and raw foods over highly processed foods. You might call it the way of the emu.
In other words, it is next to impossiblle to control our weight if we have a tendency to gain because we don’t have enough information about how our bodies process foods. My weight stays the same no matter what kind of diet I try. I was on a four week trip during which I ate very little–one main meal, low fat, low sugar no snacks. I did more walking and activities than I usually do at home. When I returned home I weighed exactly the same as before the trip to the last ounce. After returning I have gone back to my usual way of eating and exercise, which is still relatively low fat, low sugar diet, and a decent amount of regular exercise. My weight is exactly the same, about 20 pounds over my best body mass index, which has been the case for several years.
Lois
In other words, it is next to impossiblle to control our weight if we have a tendency to gain because we don't have enough information about how our bodies process foods. My weight stays the same no matter what kind of diet I try. I was on a four week trip during which I ate very little--one main meal, low fat, low sugar no snacks. I did more walking and activities than I usually do at home. When I returned home I weighed exactly the same as before the trip to the last ounce. After returning I have gone back to my usual way of eating and exercise, which is still relatively low fat, low sugar diet, and a decent amount of regular exercise. My weight is exactly the same, about 20 pounds over my best body mass index, which has been the case for several years.
Lois
I have been casually studying this issue for many years, I say casually because I do not have a problem with weight, I'm one of those people that over weight people tend to hate. However I have encountered several theories about weight loss or gain and I believe there are more factors than many diets give credit to. Most diets focus on calories or one particular nutritional element but I propose that there are many factors. Calories and activity are just the most obvious, there is also the bodies own determination of how much weight should be carried and this is an automatic reaction by the body that people don't seem to have any conscious control over. One factor is the reaction to perceived starvation where the bodies automatic reaction to a seeming lack of food, is to store more fat, just in case. Complicating this is the quality of the food and I believe that calories are one of the main factors in the bodies assessment of how good the food is. Another factor is stomach size, and this can shrink or grow over time, with the effect that a smaller stomach will feel full with less food, and my thought is that when the smaller stomach is full the body will be fooled into the idea of having enough. I'm sure there are other factors and all of these will combine to determine the weight that one particular body will carry. Years ago I read about "Set Point Theory" where each body would determine what was the best weight for that body to carry given the prevailing conditions. One point that was made was that when fewer calories were available in the food, the body would be more efficient in the performance of it's activities, and this was an unconscious reaction by the body, that the person was not aware of.
In other words, it is next to impossiblle to control our weight if we have a tendency to gain because we don't have enough information about how our bodies process foods. My weight stays the same no matter what kind of diet I try. I was on a four week trip during which I ate very little--one main meal, low fat, low sugar no snacks. I did more walking and activities than I usually do at home. When I returned home I weighed exactly the same as before the trip to the last ounce. After returning I have gone back to my usual way of eating and exercise, which is still relatively low fat, low sugar diet, and a decent amount of regular exercise. My weight is exactly the same, about 20 pounds over my best body mass index, which has been the case for several years.
Lois
Looking back at your example about hiking there is a factor that I haven't heard much about, and that is, there is no reason to assume that the digestive system always works at the same level of efficiency. In other words, you were eating less and walking more, (fewer calories in and more calories out), so your digestive system absorbed more of the available calories and other nutrients than it does now. To put it crudely, your shit is more nutritious now than it was when you were walking more and eating less. Your digestive system was absorbing the amount of nutrients your body had determined it needed, to preform the activities you were engaged in, everything excess was just eliminated.
Citizen I did not intend to ‘rant’. The article is written by a good writer in a respectable publication. My only point was that this is nothing new and really changes nothing. There is no practical way to determine if your metabolism has changed nor is there any practical way to evaluate most of the things that affect how efficiently you will absorb calories. Everyone has a dramatically different microbiome and those microbiome said change over time. In addition the calories you absorb from food are affected by your activity level and also by other foods you consume at the same time. The whole situation is very complex and while it’s certainly very interesting, it is nearly impossible to employ this information in any practice way.
Some things are easy to implement like corp summing more fiber with your meals but that is not a new recommendation.
My rant if you want to call it that refers not to the scientists who are researching these factors but to the army of authors and media doctors who try to convince the public that they have mastered this complexity, and that they now have the secret to weight loss. I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims that these differences are the reason why someone can’t lose weight and even more suspicious if they claim that they can tell you how to use this information to lose significantly more weight.
Some things are easy to implement like corp summing more fiber with your meals but that is not a new recommendation.
Speaking of fiber, I noticed a while a go that people in general seem to shy away from fiber-rich foods, at least here in the U.S. It's not just buying things like cheaper processed bread, but buying pulpless juices which are NOT any cheaper than pulped juices; the theory being that juice pulp retains much more fiber than the rest of the juice. Same thing with beers; when do you see actual pulpy beer?
Some things are easy to implement like corp summing more fiber with your meals but that is not a new recommendation.
Speaking of fiber, I noticed a while a go that people in general seem to shy away from fiber-rich foods, at least here in the U.S. It's not just buying things like cheaper processed bread, but buying pulpless juices which are NOT any cheaper than pulped juices; the theory being that juice pulp retains much more fiber than the rest of the juice. Same thing with beers; when do you see actual pulpy beer?
And therein lies a serious problem, how many of you in a western culture, (the US and most of Europe) are familiar with diverticulitis, it is a condition very common because of the low fiber diet common in the west. Fiber tends to add bulk to the material in the large intestines, reducing the tendency to this condition. In third world countries, where the diet is high in fiber, the incidence of this condition is low. If you have the condition adding fiber to the diet can reduce the possibility of an episode, my last was mild and dealt with by a prescription of anti-biotics, the previous attack put me in the hospital for 3 days, and resulted in other complications.
PUBLIC RELEASE: 11-MAY-2015
Ease of weight loss influenced by individual biology
NIH study finds varied responses to calorie restriction in obese adults
NIH/NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES
For the first time in a lab, researchers at the National Institutes of Health found evidence supporting the commonly held belief that people with certain physiologies lose less weight than others when limiting calories. Study results published May 11 in Diabetes.
Researchers at the Phoenix Epidemiology and Clinical Research Branch (PECRB), part of the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, studied 12 men and women with obesity in the facility's metabolic unit. Using a whole-room indirect calorimeter - which allows energy expenditure to be calculated based on air samples -
…
"When people who are obese decrease the amount of food they eat, metabolic responses vary greatly, with a 'thrifty' metabolism possibly contributing to less weight lost," said Susanne Votruba, Ph.D., study author and PECRB clinical investigator. "While behavioral factors such as adherence to diet affect weight loss to an extent, our study suggests we should consider a larger picture that includes individual physiology - and that weight loss is one situation where being thrifty doesn't pay."
Researchers do not know whether the biological differences are innate or develop over time.
…
"The results corroborate the idea that some people who are obese may have to work harder to lose weight due to metabolic differences," said Martin Reinhardt, M.D., lead author and PECRB postdoctoral fellow. "But biology is not destiny. Balanced diet and regular physical activity over a long period can be very effective for weight loss." … http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/niod-eow050815.php
Those side bars full of other stories can be sooo distracting.
Now back to what I was actually looking at. ;-P
Same thing with beers; when do you see actual pulpy beer?
Isn’t that pulp usually yeast?
Reminds me, way back in da day had some friends firmly convinced that drinking up the yeasty sediment prevented hangovers.
Though I remain skeptical.