September 30, 2012

Calories: Even Sneakier Than We Thought

So it's old news to many of you that all calories are NOT created equal. (Equal? Equally? Hmm, any English teachers or editors wanna help out here?)

Good Calories, Hooray!

This means there are obvious limitations to the traditional model of counting calories to achieve weight loss.

And yet, using calories a measurement is still one of the handiest tools we have for assessing the relative dietary impact of various foods and serving sizes.

For example, when you are contemplating a "healthy smoothie" at some new takeout place you've never heard of, does it make a difference if the smoothie comes in at 175 calories versus 935 calories? Well, for many of us: F--ck yeah! We may still reject the 175 calorie version if it's full of Bad Things, but I don't care how much seaweed or spirulina or other virtuous antioxidant-rich secret sauce is in the 935er, I ain't going there.

But sadly, even though many of us have had reasonable success in the past counting calories to lose weight, it turns out it's way more complicated than keeping a fastidious record of Ins and Outs. And new research has turned up even more reasons why that reassuring number on your Lean Cuisine lasagna or your Skinny Cow treat or your Expensive Organic Exotic Granola Bar may be full of crap.

On the other hand, it's not all bad news: there may be other stuff in your kitchen that you feel guilty about that you could be scarfing up gleefully.

Let's look at some interesting specifics, shall we?


I was recently alerted to some surprising new research in Scientific American (thanks Solarity!) about how we process calories.  Plus, a while back I did a review of The Smarter Science of Slim which had some fascinating info--and now the Fit Bottom Girls have reminded me of it with their own great review. (Plus they also have a poll on whether you give a sh-t about calories or not, if you want to "weigh in.")

So let's toss all these little tidbits together, plus haul out some leftovers from an old Calorie Counting article by Jane Brody in the New York Times, reheat, and serve!
Did People Really Eat this Sh-t On Purpose?
Let's start with a reminder of the some of the old stuff from the Times article:

  • Some foods are associated with more weight gain that their calorie counts would suggest.   These include French fries, potato chips, sugar-sweetened drinks, red meats and processed meats, other forms of potatoes, sweets and desserts, refined grains, fried foods, 100-percent fruit juice, and butter.  In other words, tasty stuff you already know can be Trouble.
  • Conversely, there are "good" foods that don't seem to contribute their fair share of calories bulging waistlines: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, yogurt, and nuts, including peanut butter. 
And echoing that, but with a little more detail and a few different conclusions, Jonathan Bailor who wrote the Smarter Science of Slim has a bunch of specifics on the different ways your body handles different kinds of foods, and the impact this has on weight gain.  Bottom line:

Regardless of calories, you just won't gain weight the same way from Virtuous Foods Like:
  • Non-starchy vegetables (leafy greens, mushrooms, peppers, broccoli, asparagus)
  • Nutrient-dense proteins (seafood, grass-fed beef, organ meats, free-range poultry, plain Greek yogurt)
  • Whole-food natural fats (nuts and seeds) and
  • Low-sugar fruits (strawberries, blueberries, oranges, grapefruits)

While you're screwed if your diet consists of:
  • corn and white potatoes and other forms of starch
  • oil
  • refined and even whole grains, and
  • sweets.
So what's the latest wrinkle?

Well it seems that clever scientists are finding more and more reasons why the calorie count on a label can be totally misleading. Here are some highlights taken from the Scientific American calorie article by Rob Dunn as totally butchered and distorted translated by Crabby.

  • The more a food is processed, the more calories we get from it.  This is obviously true of the stuff you get off the candy aisle, but also comes into play when you take a virtuous whole food and cook, grind, chop, or pound it.
  • Nuts are hard to digest, so whole peanuts, pistachios and almonds yield less protein, fat, carbohydrates and fiber than you'd think. A USDA study headed up by Janet Novotny found that when an “average” person eats almonds she receives just 128 calories per serving rather than the 170 calories on the label.
  • Proteins can require ten to twenty times as much heat-energy to digest as fats.
  • Cooked hamburger or other ground meat requires less energy to digest than equally sized slabs o' steak.
  • In order to fend off evil pathogens, our immune system needs to get involved during digestion of certain foods. No one knows how many calories this takes, but it could be substantial.  Thus a somewhat raw piece of meat could take more energy to digest, and yield fewer calories, especially if it ends up killing you... the ultimate weight loss plan!
  • Plus, bonus for folks who flirt with foods that can contain possibly poisonous pathogens: even if our immune system does not actually attack any, it uses up energy to distinguishing good bugs from bad ones.  (As someone who likes my meat on the rare side and frequently invokes the "5 second rule," but has not yet died, I appreciate this).
  • The friendly microbes that live in our gut also need to be fed and this takes up calories!  Complex foods that need help getting digested (like the aforementioned almonds) have to hook up with friendly bugs in our colon--which is apparently sort of like happy hour at a singles bar down in there. (Though I can't say I'd be diggin' the ambiance myself).  But anyway, the complex food's nutrients and calories are then shared liked platters of half-priced appetizers between our bodies and the trillions of greedy microbes that live within.  But the "official" calorie count you look up doesn't care about those hungry microbes and assumes you ate all those calories yourself.
  • An example: at study showed it took twice as much energy to digest a serving of whole wheat bread with nuts and seeds and cheddar cheese than the same calories in  white bread and “processed cheese product,” resulting in 10% fewer calories for the Real Food.
  • And peoples bodies are different!  Check this out: Russian intestines are about five feet longer than Italian intestines, so Russians eating the same amount of food as the Italians likely get more out of it.


Seems like lots of studies lately are reinforcing the notion that calories aren't handled the same by everyone. For example, I just saw one that showed overweight kids 9-17 years old actually consumed fewer calories per day than their healthy weight peers, which seems totally unfair, doesn't it? It was the reverse for younger kids.

And now, a quick quiz to see if you've been paying attention!

After reading this blog post, it is now clear you should:
  1. Eat lots of whole, unprocessed foods
  2. Gnaw on raw meat whenever you can
  3. Throw at least some of your food on a dirty floor before consuming it
  4. Check the black market for harvested organs to see if there are any Italian intestines to be had for cheap
  5. Starve your children if they're under 9 years old; when they're older hire zombies to chase them around.

Answer: if you take every word Cranky Fitness publishes seriously, then all of the above!  But if you're that easily persuaded, you've got a lot more than the accuracy of calorie counting to worry about.

 What do you guys think about calories, and the idea of counting them?

Photos: Apple FreeDigitalPhotos; Reheat and Serve lileks

64 comments:

  1. It was so fascinating to find that article reinforcing my intuitive feeling about calories. My "gut instinct" so to speak. (And are you sure we should consider our pet microbes as distinct from our bodies? Mitochondria, after all, are part of our cells even though they can act somewhat independently.)

    Mary Anne in Kentucky

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait, mitochondria act independently? Our pet microbes are "us" too? You obviously know way more about biology than I do! I just rehash and probably misunderstand and misinterpret popular science articles, you seem to actually know about this stuff!

      Delete
    2. No, I don't. I just parrot misunderstood concepts from My Friend the Doctor (who, you may remember, got an MA in nutrition before she went to med school), and when she was talking about mitochondria, she was mainly talking about tracing mitochondrial DNA in the female line, and it has sloshed around in the bottom of my brain with who knows what pop-sci writings until it's lost all authenticity.

      Mary Anne in Kentucky

      Delete
    3. Your brain sounds very much like mine! Wish that were a compliment...

      Delete
  2. I've learned through my own experience that calories in and calories out do not necessarily mean weight loss. Which, to me, proves just how sneaky they are.

    Also to put this another way: 17 years ago when WW introduced "points" counting, I was a leader. One of my biggest frustrations was getting members to understand that yes, indeed one could eat a whole day's worth of points in candy but that if one did that, they probably would not lose weight.

    No matter how you count, nutritional value is more important!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree Helen!

      WW is awesome for some things, like support, but I think their line of fake foods that are low cal/low points has them a bit in league with the devil!

      Delete
    2. thats sooo true! i did ww for 18 months and lost 20 kilos with the plan. now i quit because i just feel so sick of their marketing strategies! more and more i focus on clean food with less carbs... i wish there was a counting/diary-system that reflects what we now by now about "good and bad" calories...! for now im using sparkpeople....

      great article, crabby!
      puja

      Delete
    3. I hear great things about Sparkpeople, glad it's working for you Puja!

      Delete
  3. I'm way too lousy at math to count calories, Crabby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw that soup pot on your stove... homemade soup stock is NOT lazy!

      Delete
    2. (Yes, it is...the stove does all the work.)

      Mary Anne in Kentucky

      Delete
    3. Those turkeys don't fly themselves in there, nor do they strain out all the inedible parts... unless you've got unusual fowl in your vicinity!

      Delete
    4. But you've already done all that work, in order to eat the turkey. The stock is just a bonus. Pick the remains out of the roasting pan, add water and heat, hang around to make sure it doesn't burn and enjoy the smell. Definitely a recipe for the lazy.

      Mary Anne in Kentucky

      Delete
    5. Wish you were closer, I'd invite you over to my house to be "lazy!"

      Delete
  4. Hummm..

    I can't readily admit to agreeing with all of this, so I'll offer a simple opinion from one who has watched a lot of people play the diet game.

    We look (weight wise) like what we do! If we do not look the way we want, what we are doing is leading to what we are getting. Lousy foods build lousy bodies!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beg to differ as I know people who struggle with obesity who eat as well as I do and much smaller amounts at that. Sometimes Lousy DNA builds lousy bodies, but it's still better to eat healthy and exercise and do one's best even if the results in terms of appearance are pretty unfair sometimes.

      Delete
  5. Pretty interesting stuff. It's so hard to figure out what to eat and not. I have to just listen to my body and not all the studies. Whole grain bed in moderation is not the devil for me, ice cream however.....ya.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I'm a bit skeptical about this "no grains" stuff! And not willing to ever give up ice cream completely either!

      Delete
    2. Only gave up ice cream when I was allergic to cow's milk. Well, no, I didn't, I only gave up store-bought ice cream, but freezing a mixture of goat's milk and mashed fruit by stirring it every fifteen minutes in a shallow pan in the freezer is Just Not the Same. Plunged head first back into the ice cream carton as soon as I tested negative for cow's milk.

      Mary Anne in Kentucky

      Delete
  6. There are far too many (ever-changing) "rules" to follow whether it's counting calories, fat grams, carbs.. etc. I know when I'm eating right and when I'm not. I just have to make a more determined effort to avoid the latter. This is not to say that I never read labels. I still want to avoid excess of any of the above when indulging in the not so healthy choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You avoid excess? You're way ahead of me!

      Delete
    2. I can't say I'm anything close to an expert on weight loss or diets, but I will say that I cut down on portion size, increased my fruit, vegetable and whole grains intake, drank more water, cut out pretty much all candy and the bad for you stuff like that, I used sparkpeople.com to track my calorie intake and exercise (calories burned) and began walking on my treadmill (at first dedicating about 2 hours a day to exercise - now about an hour a day) and I lost 36 pounds in 6 months. At present time, I am maintaining what I have lost, but I'm still thinking about shedding another 15 pounds. Take it for what it is, but it worked for me.

      Delete
    3. Hey that's great! And I hear yet another vote for whole grains as part of a healthy weight loss plan. Thanks anon!

      Delete
  7. You know what - this is a damn good post. Even if you know these things,it is good to have all the disparate facts brought together for contemplation and decision making or tweeking... especially since we have food coma season approaching.

    But a side note: I could and did gain a pile of weight from eating lots and lots of whole foods - grains and meat and piles of veggies. If there is a will, there is a way. Oinkalicious. Once again I defy the odds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, oinkalicious is right! I can manage to eat too much of anything however healthy it might be! But I have a decent metabolism, so it has to get pretty egregious if I'm eating healthy before I get in too much trouble. Some folks put on weight just LOOKING at food.

      Delete
    2. Munchberry, you are almost as funny as Crabby! Oinkalicious indeed!

      Delete
    3. Muchberry is twice as funny as Crabby, be sure to visit her blog!

      Delete
  8. You practically have to become a nutritionist these days to be really good at knowing what to eat for weight loss. The advice I give is simple: If it's made by nature and you can pick it from a tree or pull it from the ground, you can eat it and not worry about the calorie content. If it comes in a wrapper, bag, or box, you're pretty much screwed. I know there is a lot you can do to pick this theory apart, but it works as general advice for choosing the right foods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the best rule of thumb I think! Though my 70% dark chocolate bars have a wrapper, and I doubt I'm going to stop unwrapping them at a pretty brisk clip any time soon.

      Delete
  9. This was interesting. I've got to think, though, that the differences mentioned are kind of drowned out by the fact that nobody absorbs all of the calories from ANYTHING they eat. I mean, there's a reason dogs treat the cat box as a vending machine -- there's food in them thar poops! I saw some museum exhibit once noting that the sub-saharan African diet, which is very high in fibre, results in absorption of only 50% of calories, while the North American diet results in absorption of 75%. It all varies based on how much time it hangs out in our intestines. Oh, goody. Another reason to eat celery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cracked me up with the vending machine litter box, but yeah, good point! But sounds like there's a huge difference in absorption that standard calorie charts aren't catching, and they tend to hide some of the real calorie costs of processed foods. (And I dont wanna ask how they determined the 50% and 75% given the litter box observation...)

      Delete
  10. This is why i eat whole, unprocessed foods. It's something my body told me a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  11. At the moment, I'm not counting calories. I am tracking my macronutrients, so I know that in a way I'm concerned about the calories - but only a small way.

    I eat low carb most of the time. Allow myself something sweet if I notice my lifting is being effected. Eat plenty of good protein and LOTS of fiberous veggies. Welcome the healthy fats.

    Not really losing the weight that I need, but I suspect that it's because I need to EAT MORE FOOD. I suspect lots of others who have weight to lose need to do so too.

    But that's a whole nother blogpost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh. Wish the Need to Eat More Food were my problem! But then I'm not nearly as badass as you when I work out.

      Delete
  12. Crap these stupid studies & things always changing! ;-) Saying that, I do know my bod looks different on the same calorie count if I eat healthy vs. not so healthy or just not the right combo for MY BODY! We are all different so we have to find what works for us. I have always had to know around how many calories I eat since I lost the weight & also PORTION CONTROL. As you know Crabby, the older we get, the more important this is. I have found what works for me right now & I am not changing t no matter what a study says! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you've found something that works, hooray!

      I'm still tweaking to find that magic combination of foods that allows me to eat delicious meals and snacks all day long in vast quantities without gaining weight.

      Oddly enough, this is proving to be a challenge!

      Delete
  13. I know for a fact that calories in do not equal weight lost for me, even making healthy choices. I have tracked every bite eaten & expended & the scales have not reflected the weight loss that should have occurred. I also know heavy people who cannot lose, even when they restrict calories, exercise & make healthy choices.

    Loved that you made me laugh & that you wrote such an interesting article on a subject that has often frustrated me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is SO UNFAIR and I get annoyed every time I hear people who are trying really hard and doing way more than 99% of slim people getting judged by their weight rather than by their efforts. Bodies are all different!

      I think the consolation prize is that the health benefits happen with the good behavior, even if the scale is stubbornly resistant.

      Delete
  14. I used to have an eating disorder and can approximate in a fairly accurate manner how many calories are in a dish/meal. Falling into the trap of the "numbers game" which is so prevalent in anorexia and bulimia is very easy, and I avoid it at all costs. So I never (honestly never) weigh myself or count calories... those two measurements especially are either very incomplete (body weight not taking into account body composition, or the fact that I've lifted weights since I was 13 and am extremely dense from the neck down) or easily leads to an obsessive relationship with food as one begins to calculate grams of protein and carbs and ends up eating food mechanically while not really tasting it.

    This is only in regards to me, so while I know that counting calories works for some, I am not remotely a fan of that method. What I eat impacts my body just as much as how much of it I consume, and my body already tells me whether or not how much I have eaten is enough. When I work out consistently and eat good, healthy food, if I am not losing fat I simply eat a bit less or work out a bit more.

    This numbers game that so many people play is not always sustainable (for many) over the long term, and MAINTAINING the body one has earned through exercise and good food is more difficult than losing weight, at times. Also, restricting your calories to 1500 per day and then eating a candy bar or soda may be following your diet plan but will still give you a blood sugar spike and make you feel like crap afterward. Moderation, "real" food and common sense (not eating anything that has a longer shelf life than a human being, for instance) is what has won out for me in the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like you are coming from a very healthy place! And yeah, there's a big difference between what one is willing to do for weight loss vs maintenance.

      I'm kinda one of those "body hacker" types you mention below, yet even I can't sustain calorie counting for more than an occasional portion control correction method. I do find that my portions get out of control, so periodic accountability, whether via calories or other methods, comes in handy, but I can totally see why that would be triggery and counterproductive in anyone with an ED hx.

      Delete
  15. P.S. Oh! Also, it depends on what one's goals are, of course! Most people want to be healthier, more in shape and/or to improve the aesthetics of their body - most people I've met or helped get "in shape" do not wish to continue counting calories for the rest of their lives, but once they are done dieting or bodyhacking have difficulty maintaining the body they've so thoughtfully earned!

    Those who enjoy bodyhacking or manipulating the input-output of their body in various ways are not those I was speaking about.

    ReplyDelete
  16. it all is a CRAZY MAKER huh?
    seriously.
    I had no idea simply intuitively eat was saving me so much brain power and math.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey, Yes I agree that not all calories are created equal, and in addition counting calories to lose weight may not result in the most effective weigh tloss. I recommend being aware of emotional eating too. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Emotional eating is a huge factor, great point Nico!

      Delete
    2. Oops, wrong email address, that was me!

      Delete
  18. Really interesting post. Personally I find if the weight starts creeping on that a food diary can sort me out - however it may be the act of being accountable for what I put in my mouth that helps rather than actual calories ingested.

    Weight loss is so complicated and there are so many factors that contribute to why we lose/gain weight.

    When I initially lost weight the plan I followed used the principles of eating less, making healthy choices, and doing a bit of exercise, which worked for me. I think calorie counting is a good place to start just to make yourself aware of how much you are eating.

    I have a tendency to get hung up on calories when I would probably do better to focus on making healthy food choices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calories are so concrete, it's really hard not to get caught up and overemphasize their importance. But sounds like you're trying to balance accountability with common sense, a really healthy approach!

      Delete
  19. EXCELLENT POST!

    Counting calories in the very beginning was helpful in terms of providing a framework, but what was more helpful was understanding nutritional macronutrients (fat, protein, carbs). And once I understood that, and became aware of what the "food" industry does to food, it became more about eating whole foods. Then came understanding mindful/intuitive eating and listening to my body. All of that being said, none of it really mattered until I started addressing my faulty thoughts about myself that things really started to change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, those faulty thoughts, that's where the real challenge lies. I'm still a work in progress on that myself... as well as on the "mindful" front. Glad to see your perspective is so sane!

      Delete
  20. I wonder if I get a bonus because of the cat/dog germs on food that hits the floor. :)

    The desserts will get me every time!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too, I have a sweet tooth!

      And yeah, wonder if interspecies sharing of germs should gets you extra bonus bugs that need to be fed? I figure what doesn't kill ya makes ya stronger... one of my favorite old cliche's since I'm so sloppy about food hygiene.

      Delete
  21. Read this post the other day and have been mulling it over along with thinking back to how I was eating last winter/spring when I was actually losing weight. It wasn't that long ago, so you'd think I should be able to repeat the experience, wouldn't you?

    Anyway, I do think there is something to the idea that what we eat is just as important as how much. However, during that utopian time period where I was gradually dropping pounds without even noticing, I can say for sure that I was eating Organic Tostitos, corn tortillas, corn pasta, brown rice pasta, soba noodles and brown rice crackers, so it doesn't seem like the grains were doing me any harm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting... and encouraging for those of us who love carbs but keep hearing we should steer clear!

      I do get the feeling there's a lot of individual variation; some do best avoiding carbs and other thrive with them. Since whole grains have a lot of health benefits, sounds like skipping them would make no sense at all for you!

      Delete
  22. I count calories on MFP however I definitely watch my macros. I keep my sodium, carbs and protein all within the limits and I try to go over on my fiber. If I do that I'm always full feeling and losing weight.

    However, I may never eat again after looking at that nasty picture you posted of something that supposedly was "food" at one time in history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love "macros"--though somehow I'd missed hearing the new nomenclature before and thought at first it had something to do with computers.

      And loved your post on other disgusting "food" choices.

      Delete
  23. I agree that counting calories is not something you should do. Everything has calories in it.
    It's more important to look at fat grams and the amount of vitamins in your diet. Also it's important to remember that exercise can balance a high calorie intake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really, fat grams? I thought the national obsession with fat grams had been replaced by a growing distinction between KINDS of fat?

      But whatever works for you. And I'm sure not gonna argue against exercise!

      Delete
  24. Yeah for an excuse for my rare steak and the 5 second rule! :)

    Love this post. You seem too be a bit psychic. How did you know I just committed myself to 90 days of avoiding processed crap? I know it's what I should always do, but somehow the crap just sneaks back in. (Can I blame the carpet crawlers?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carpet crawlers must make it hard to stock nothing but wild salmon and kale and carrots in order to banish temptation!

      Good luck on the 90 days, wow, I'm impressed!

      Delete
  25. Love how you've summarised the article, but I just can't find any of those Italian Intestines anywhere! : ) Very interesting read, and I'm glad I've found your blog!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wait, does the "possibly poisonous pathogens" rule apply to raw cookie dough? XP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooh, excellent point! I say we get to count it as "diet" food, right? :)

      Delete
  27. This post brings up some really good points. Smoothie places are the most deceiving because most people assume everything on the menu is healthy but the amount of sugar packed into most of these makes them extremely fattening!

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting, Cranky Fitness readers are the BEST!

Subscribe to comments via RSS

(Note: Older Comment Threads Are Moderated)