Not all calories are equal
Discussion
I was reading an article this week of an interview with a nutritionist at the a university of Cambridge. He was explaining that the calorie content of food (as per food labels) is not the same as the available calories ie the net calories that can be absorbed by the body because some foods are easier to digest than others. The example he gave was that only around 70% of the calories in proteins are digested and that the difficulty in breaking them down was the reason that you feel fuller after eating protein.
My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
I had suspected for a long time that what you eat matters, not just the calorie content. I wonder why this hasn’t been publicised more - unless it is and I have somehow missed it.
I have read a few times recently that ultra processed foods are linked with obesity. Presumably these ultra processed foods are easier to digest, meaning that in comparison with low or non processed food more of the calories in the food are being absorbed. The high fat and sugar content (and all the flavour enhancers) probably play a role too in encouraging us to eat more of them.
My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
I had suspected for a long time that what you eat matters, not just the calorie content. I wonder why this hasn’t been publicised more - unless it is and I have somehow missed it.
I have read a few times recently that ultra processed foods are linked with obesity. Presumably these ultra processed foods are easier to digest, meaning that in comparison with low or non processed food more of the calories in the food are being absorbed. The high fat and sugar content (and all the flavour enhancers) probably play a role too in encouraging us to eat more of them.
Esceptico said:
I was reading an article this week of an interview with a nutritionist at the a university of Cambridge. He was explaining that the calorie content of food (as per food labels) is not the same as the available calories ie the net calories that can be absorbed by the body because some foods are easier to digest than others. The example he gave was that only around 70% of the calories in proteins are digested and that the difficulty in breaking them down was the reason that you feel fuller after eating protein.
My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
I had suspected for a long time that what you eat matters, not just the calorie content. I wonder why this hasn’t been publicised more - unless it is and I have somehow missed it.
I have read a few times recently that ultra processed foods are linked with obesity. Presumably these ultra processed foods are easier to digest, meaning that in comparison with low or non processed food more of the calories in the food are being absorbed. The high fat and sugar content (and all the flavour enhancers) probably play a role too in encouraging us to eat more of them.
The calorific content of plastic can be really high, but it's indigestible so the effect it would have one a creature ingesting it is negligible. Twas ever thus.My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
I had suspected for a long time that what you eat matters, not just the calorie content. I wonder why this hasn’t been publicised more - unless it is and I have somehow missed it.
I have read a few times recently that ultra processed foods are linked with obesity. Presumably these ultra processed foods are easier to digest, meaning that in comparison with low or non processed food more of the calories in the food are being absorbed. The high fat and sugar content (and all the flavour enhancers) probably play a role too in encouraging us to eat more of them.
Calories are measured by burning stuff in a telemetry-laiden oven. What's needed is an objective measure of digestibleness, which is as hard as it sounds like it would be.
I remember having a bit of a debate with a friend in a pub after a pub quiz question of "what's more fattening 100cal of banana or 100cal of chocolate?" The answer given was the they are the same.
Which I disagreed with because of the difference in energy needed for your body to process the food.
My mate had a degree in something like nutrition. Turns out I was right.
Which I disagreed with because of the difference in energy needed for your body to process the food.
My mate had a degree in something like nutrition. Turns out I was right.
The chocolate square would also be pretty tiny, meaning you were more hungry afterwards, spiked further even by the processed sugar.
Provided it’s in moderation though and you don’t breach your daily calorie couldn’t, ideally via less calorifically dense foods, it’s best not to deny yourself.
I’ve been doing a bit of research on shifting my middle age spread which I reckon calculates to over eating a single grape or so in terms of calories every year for 30 years!
100% I can see how obesity rose to be the epidemic it is, circa 8000 calories excess (4 normal days food) and you are a kg heavier.
Switching for a short period to unprocessed foods such as raw carrot and salad brings a lot of energy back with the right protein mix, especially swerving empty fillers such as bread / pasta etc.
Provided it’s in moderation though and you don’t breach your daily calorie couldn’t, ideally via less calorifically dense foods, it’s best not to deny yourself.
I’ve been doing a bit of research on shifting my middle age spread which I reckon calculates to over eating a single grape or so in terms of calories every year for 30 years!
100% I can see how obesity rose to be the epidemic it is, circa 8000 calories excess (4 normal days food) and you are a kg heavier.
Switching for a short period to unprocessed foods such as raw carrot and salad brings a lot of energy back with the right protein mix, especially swerving empty fillers such as bread / pasta etc.
Not-The-Messiah said:
I remember having a bit of a debate with a friend in a pub after a pub quiz question of "what's more fattening 100cal of banana or 100cal of chocolate?" The answer given was the they are the same.
Which I disagreed with because of the difference in energy needed for your body to process the food.
My mate had a degree in something like nutrition. Turns out I was right.
I'm not sure you are. And any difference would tiny as digestion is a standard metabolic process anyway and they're both carbs. Sure there are variables, and a plate of meat would require more energy to digest than two Weetabix...but in your example... .Which I disagreed with because of the difference in energy needed for your body to process the food.
My mate had a degree in something like nutrition. Turns out I was right.
Remember reading an article that indicated even the same food can have different calorific values for the body.
The example was a steak 8oz of rare steak is harder for the body to digest than 8oz of well dome steak
The well done steak the proteins are already partially denatured so easier to finish the digestion process
The example was a steak 8oz of rare steak is harder for the body to digest than 8oz of well dome steak
The well done steak the proteins are already partially denatured so easier to finish the digestion process
Esceptico said:
...
My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
...
I'd have thought it would be the other way around. i.e. evolution over millions of years would have perfected extracting calories from raw food. So cooking food would upset that diagestion mechanism carefully honed by evolution. Clearly that is not the case though.My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
...
This thread has given me pause for thought though as I'm trying to lose weight perpetually and do it by lots of small changes but fundamentally eat less and move more.
Does anyone have a list of foods where the calorie content can't be fully extracted to a significant degree?
Surely people are aware that it takes energy to extract the energy in food?
Funnily enough DD posted a video on one of the nutty keto threads that somewhat covers this topic - worth watching - he gets into this area quite quickly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuds0Y-FPcI&t=...
Funnily enough DD posted a video on one of the nutty keto threads that somewhat covers this topic - worth watching - he gets into this area quite quickly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuds0Y-FPcI&t=...
MikeStroud said:
I'd have thought it would be the other way around. i.e. evolution over millions of years would have perfected extracting calories from raw food. So cooking food would upset that diagestion mechanism carefully honed by evolution. Clearly that is not the case though.
....
My understanding is it meant that nutrition was more accessible, and so less died of starvation and/or achieved more because they were not suffering malnutrition. ....
Nutrition is clearly a very tricky topic, as for something so important, it is so very misunderstood by so many. I'm no expert of course, but you would have thought that we could have definitively solved the question of what to eat, when to eat it and how.
Esceptico said:
The example he gave was that only around 70% of the calories in proteins are digested and that the difficulty in breaking them down was the reason that you feel fuller after eating protein.
Protein takes more energy to break down than carbohydrates due to the chemical complexity. So it takes more time to chemically process in the gut. eg if you chew white bread for long enough it will have broken down to glucose in your mouth. You can't do this to protein and fats. Chewing just breaks them up enough for the rest of the gut to do its work.Protein based food is typically but not exclusively more 'filling'. Baked potatoes and oranges are practically 100% carb but quite filling because of the work of chewing and the fibre content
The time, chewing and sense of being full mean protein gives greater satiety. Thus less likely to stuff extra food in after protein rich rather than carb rich meal.
However we're better off focussing on real, whole foods processed as little as possible rather than singling out a food group. I could eat two steaks but I'd be better off with a side dish of veg or salad.
The gut microbiome story is something else and more difficult to predict calorie absorbtion (gut bacteria eat your some of your food) as everyone has their own gut flora based on what they picked up along the way and their current diet.
Evoluzione said:
I think a huge step backwards in human evolution came when we started eating grain, potatoes and refined sugar.
Absolutely, Methusala live to be 969 years old and I bet he never ate potatoes...
And as for calorific intake and bio availability... I've been drinking petrol for 12 years and I'm as thin as a rake, just don't come near when I'm having a piss.
trowelhead said:
It's called thermic effect of food:
I first read about it in the book Leangains by Martin Berkhan, very interesting
Stephen Fry once told me that if you only ate rabbit meat you'd die of starvation quicker than if you ate nothing. I first read about it in the book Leangains by Martin Berkhan, very interesting
Edited by trowelhead on Friday 25th June 09:12
MikeStroud said:
Esceptico said:
...
My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
...
I'd have thought it would be the other way around. i.e. evolution over millions of years would have perfected extracting calories from raw food. So cooking food would upset that diagestion mechanism carefully honed by evolution. Clearly that is not the case though.My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
...
This thread has given me pause for thought though as I'm trying to lose weight perpetually and do it by lots of small changes but fundamentally eat less and move more.
Does anyone have a list of foods where the calorie content can't be fully extracted to a significant degree?
Major step forward in our progress as a species.
SpeckledJim said:
When we developed the ability to use fire to cook, the advantages in accessing 'easy' calories meant there was a lot more time available for doing other useful civilising work, rather than more hunting/foraging, more eating and more effort digesting.
Major step forward in our progress as a species.
I love statements like this... With absolutely no appeal to any expertise or citation of any expertise some bloke on the internet decides he knows all about something that happened (I don't know when) say ~250,000 years ago to another species, because I'm certain homo sapiens have always used fire and cooked food, and is going to use that information to inform his diet in the 22nd century AD. Major step forward in our progress as a species.
MikeStroud said:
Esceptico said:
...
My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
...
I'd have thought it would be the other way around. i.e. evolution over millions of years would have perfected extracting calories from raw food. So cooking food would upset that diagestion mechanism carefully honed by evolution. Clearly that is not the case though. My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
...
See: the human body and childbirth. That is definitely not a perfect solution.
durbster said:
MikeStroud said:
Esceptico said:
...
My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
...
I'd have thought it would be the other way around. i.e. evolution over millions of years would have perfected extracting calories from raw food. So cooking food would upset that diagestion mechanism carefully honed by evolution. Clearly that is not the case though. My understanding is that a huge leap in human evolution was when we mastered the use of fire and started cooking our food because the cooking process unlocked calories in foods that were harder to digest.
...
See: the human body and childbirth. That is definitely not a perfect solution.
Proof: we're here.
BobsPigeon said:
trowelhead said:
It's called thermic effect of food:
I first read about it in the book Leangains by Martin Berkhan, very interesting
Stephen Fry once told me that if you only ate rabbit meat you'd die of starvation quicker than if you ate nothing. I first read about it in the book Leangains by Martin Berkhan, very interesting
Edited by trowelhead on Friday 25th June 09:12
Edited by markcoznottz on Friday 25th June 10:25
Edited by markcoznottz on Friday 25th June 10:26
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff