Hi, Guys!
I've spent my summer so far in checking out and into some nutritional biochemistry
points for the purpose of clarifying issues in my mind. While doing so, I have
found some info that my fellow Cathe Forum friends might find interesting, so here goes.
Background here...did you know that high carbohydrate foods that are high in fiber
list an erroneous calorie count on their labels? The carbohydrate content includes
both fibrous (soluble and insoluble) and non-fibrous sources and counts both fibrous
and non-fibrous in their total calorie count per serving. But, fiber isn't
digested, nor absorbed, so the calories consumed in the form of fiber don't count at
all, meaning that all those "eat clean to lose" are, to an extent, missing
a point. People are not losing weight on the clean eating plans because they don't
eat cookies and white flour, they lose weight because the net absorbable calories
from the high fiber foods they eat is lower than what they think.
Example here--a piece of white bread that has no fiber has 22 grams of
carbohydrates,
all of which are absorbable, yielding 88 calories per serving. A piece of whole
grain bread may have 22 grams of carbohydrates, but 7 grams of those carbs are
fibrous, therefore, only 15 grams/60 calories are available for absorption. But the
nutrition label will list both products as having the same number of calories. At
first, it doesn't sound like much, but in a day's time, it can add up.
My point here, and I do have one, is that it isn't passing on eating processed foods
that makes a difference, but the net number of calories available for absorption.
Since processed foods have virtually no fiber, in essence they have more calories.
So two foods with the same number of grams of carbs per serving (protein and fat
content being the same for both) should have the same number of calories, right?
Gross calories, yes. Net absorbable calories, no. For each gram of fiber present
in the food, deduct 4 calories from the total per serving to get the net absorbable
calories. So the reason for losing weight on the "no processed food/clean
eating" plan is due to it being lower in net absorbable calories--not because
sugar
and processed foods are demons or work some kind of evil magic.
Now, on to the high protein thing a la Atkins et al--there is something known as the
thermic effect of food. Basically what it boils down to is the number of calories
required to do the work of digestion and storage of a particular nutrient.
Approximately 8% of the caloric value of a carbohydrate is expended, approximately
3% of the caloric value of a fat is expended, and a whopping 20-40% of the caloric
value of a protein is expended in digestion and storage.
Given that diets like Atkins are typically a fairly low calorie diet to begin with,
when you consider that the eating plan gets at least 50% of its calories from
protein and of that 50%, 20-40% will be burned in the digestion process, it becomes
even more evident as to why people lose weight on the plans. Ain't no hocus-pocus
or magic ketogenesis here--it's a diet even lower in net calorie totals than we
thought! Say a person on a 1200 calorie a day diet (typical Atkins plan amount)
eats 600 of those 1200 calories from protein, you have to subtract another 120-240
calories from their daily total to account for the high rate of thermic effect of
protein vs carbs and fats. So, what was a low calorie diet to begin with becomes
even more so. No wonder people lose weight! That combined with the water lost due
to the low carb thing is where the answer lies! It ain't some miracle, it ain't the
marvels of ketogenesis, what it is, is the old calories in vs calories expended that
makes the difference in these funky eating plans. This is what educated
nutritionists and exercise scientists have been saying all along.
And, as for insulin stopping the body from using fat to fuel exercise as a reason
to exercise on an empty stomach or to avoid carbs in the morning, uh-uh--exercise
causes a release of catecholamines, which block/negate the effects of insulin,
therefore allowing the body to utilize fat even if carbs have been consumed and
insulin levels at the onset of exercise are somewhat elevated.
Now, there is something to avoiding wildly fluctuation blood sugar and the hunger
response associated with it, but the key is to eat combinations of foods that slow
absorption. The slowing of absorption will keep blood sugar levels on an even keel.
And, for those people with chronically high insulin levels, the circulating
catecholamine effect may not be enough to block insulin sufficiently to allow much
fat to be used to fuel exercise. Chronically high insulin levels could also prevent
fat from being utilized at rest also--more stuff I can post later on this if
anyone's interested.
I know I went off here, but my research project this summer has been nutrition, fad
diets and performance. Again, not to minimize the importance of a healthy diet, but
so much of the mythology propagated as gospel in the fitness world totally confuses
people as to what the facts are. Bottom line is net absorbable calories in vs
calories expended--regardless of what you eat, if you take in more than you expend,
you gain fat.
Thanks for reading!
Maribeth
I've spent my summer so far in checking out and into some nutritional biochemistry
points for the purpose of clarifying issues in my mind. While doing so, I have
found some info that my fellow Cathe Forum friends might find interesting, so here goes.
Background here...did you know that high carbohydrate foods that are high in fiber
list an erroneous calorie count on their labels? The carbohydrate content includes
both fibrous (soluble and insoluble) and non-fibrous sources and counts both fibrous
and non-fibrous in their total calorie count per serving. But, fiber isn't
digested, nor absorbed, so the calories consumed in the form of fiber don't count at
all, meaning that all those "eat clean to lose" are, to an extent, missing
a point. People are not losing weight on the clean eating plans because they don't
eat cookies and white flour, they lose weight because the net absorbable calories
from the high fiber foods they eat is lower than what they think.
Example here--a piece of white bread that has no fiber has 22 grams of
carbohydrates,
all of which are absorbable, yielding 88 calories per serving. A piece of whole
grain bread may have 22 grams of carbohydrates, but 7 grams of those carbs are
fibrous, therefore, only 15 grams/60 calories are available for absorption. But the
nutrition label will list both products as having the same number of calories. At
first, it doesn't sound like much, but in a day's time, it can add up.
My point here, and I do have one, is that it isn't passing on eating processed foods
that makes a difference, but the net number of calories available for absorption.
Since processed foods have virtually no fiber, in essence they have more calories.
So two foods with the same number of grams of carbs per serving (protein and fat
content being the same for both) should have the same number of calories, right?
Gross calories, yes. Net absorbable calories, no. For each gram of fiber present
in the food, deduct 4 calories from the total per serving to get the net absorbable
calories. So the reason for losing weight on the "no processed food/clean
eating" plan is due to it being lower in net absorbable calories--not because
sugar
and processed foods are demons or work some kind of evil magic.
Now, on to the high protein thing a la Atkins et al--there is something known as the
thermic effect of food. Basically what it boils down to is the number of calories
required to do the work of digestion and storage of a particular nutrient.
Approximately 8% of the caloric value of a carbohydrate is expended, approximately
3% of the caloric value of a fat is expended, and a whopping 20-40% of the caloric
value of a protein is expended in digestion and storage.
Given that diets like Atkins are typically a fairly low calorie diet to begin with,
when you consider that the eating plan gets at least 50% of its calories from
protein and of that 50%, 20-40% will be burned in the digestion process, it becomes
even more evident as to why people lose weight on the plans. Ain't no hocus-pocus
or magic ketogenesis here--it's a diet even lower in net calorie totals than we
thought! Say a person on a 1200 calorie a day diet (typical Atkins plan amount)
eats 600 of those 1200 calories from protein, you have to subtract another 120-240
calories from their daily total to account for the high rate of thermic effect of
protein vs carbs and fats. So, what was a low calorie diet to begin with becomes
even more so. No wonder people lose weight! That combined with the water lost due
to the low carb thing is where the answer lies! It ain't some miracle, it ain't the
marvels of ketogenesis, what it is, is the old calories in vs calories expended that
makes the difference in these funky eating plans. This is what educated
nutritionists and exercise scientists have been saying all along.
And, as for insulin stopping the body from using fat to fuel exercise as a reason
to exercise on an empty stomach or to avoid carbs in the morning, uh-uh--exercise
causes a release of catecholamines, which block/negate the effects of insulin,
therefore allowing the body to utilize fat even if carbs have been consumed and
insulin levels at the onset of exercise are somewhat elevated.
Now, there is something to avoiding wildly fluctuation blood sugar and the hunger
response associated with it, but the key is to eat combinations of foods that slow
absorption. The slowing of absorption will keep blood sugar levels on an even keel.
And, for those people with chronically high insulin levels, the circulating
catecholamine effect may not be enough to block insulin sufficiently to allow much
fat to be used to fuel exercise. Chronically high insulin levels could also prevent
fat from being utilized at rest also--more stuff I can post later on this if
anyone's interested.
I know I went off here, but my research project this summer has been nutrition, fad
diets and performance. Again, not to minimize the importance of a healthy diet, but
so much of the mythology propagated as gospel in the fitness world totally confuses
people as to what the facts are. Bottom line is net absorbable calories in vs
calories expended--regardless of what you eat, if you take in more than you expend,
you gain fat.
Thanks for reading!
Maribeth
