The FastDay Forum

EAT QUALITY CALORIES!!! ... dont just count those calories!!!! even on 5:2

Those 500 calories (or thereabouts) you celebrate eating on fast days... what kind of calories were they?

Radio program about calorie counting worth listening to, particularly as we all count what calories we are eating when following 5:2 (either accurately or broadly)

.. and they are looking for weight loss trial participants.

This is a good program about very low calorie/low energy diets and what calories really mean.. Intermittent fasting diet is spoken of positively by obesity expert from Sydney University.

I heard it Sunday morning on Radio National program "Blueprint for Living" last weekend. I posted this the other day but the headline made you think i was posting something about calories in walnuts.. So attempting to post it again to get you to listen.

5:2 is all about calorie consumption and calorie counting (limiting on 2 days not limiting on 5 other days). It is worth considering that not all calories are the same ...

Don't just look at calories of food (per those nutrition guides of calories in food)

Some points I summarise here after listening to it a few times (I hope I said it accurately but please correct me if needed.) .

- A calorie measures maximum energy from the food but you don't consume all the energy of that food.

- A calorie is only a guide for food, particularly processed foods.

- You excrete the calories that you eat in some foods.. they have less calories than the food you consume.

- Different people metabolise calories in different ways.

- Calories are useful for comparing foods - dont get too fixated on the numbers.

- The quality of the calories count the most.. eat whole, minimally processed plant based foods for your weight loss!

- Long term low calorie diets does not increase risk of binge eating (per short term studies)

click listen now on ...

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... es/7138934

Thoughts?

...Thoughts?

Thanks for the post.

Digestion has never been 100% efficient. Just ask anyone that has ever changed a diaper about the frequency of raisins and bits of corn.

As was mentioned recently in the "Oh Nuts!" thread; it's wise to consider the source of studies financed by an industry. Points to consider: Would they have reported a negative finding? Or buried it? The risk/cost of a self-experiment is obviously very low with nuts. If you like them (I do) and they counter a tendency to eat something much less healthful, go for it.

If body weight remains within established measurement guidelines (also with their own set of issues) and blood test numbers such as blood pressure and cholesterol and triglyceride ratios all in the normal to ideal range, then the relative inefficiency of digestion and the averaged numbers of food values listed on packaging don't matter very much.

The too-often quoted sound-bites of "eat less, exercise more" and the blanket generalization of a "calorie (kilojoule) is only a calorie (kilojoule)" hides information that'd be far more useful to someone looking to correct a weight issue.

There are substantial and dramatic biological differences to carefully consider when carbs, fats, and protein are digested. Learn these and weight control becomes much easier.

Related to the original link (by content) and resonant on a number of points:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/01/calorie ... ronts.html

...Thoughts?

Thanks for the post.

Digestion has never been 100% efficient. Just ask anyone that has ever changed a diaper about the frequency of raisins and bits of corn.

As was mentioned recently in the "Oh Nuts!" thread; it's wise to consider the source of studies financed by an industry. Points to consider: Would they have reported a negative finding? Or buried it? The risk/cost of a self-experiment is obviously very low with nuts. If you like them (I do) and they counter a tendency to eat something much less healthful, go for it.

If body weight remains within established measurement guidelines (also with their own set of issues) and blood test numbers such as blood pressure and cholesterol and triglyceride ratios all in the normal to ideal range, then the relative inefficiency of digestion and the averaged numbers of food values listed on packaging don't matter very much.

The too-often quoted sound-bites of "eat less, exercise more" and the blanket generalization of a "calorie (kilojoule) is only a calorie (kilojoule)" hides information that'd be far more useful to someone looking to correct a weight issue.

There are substantial and dramatic biological differences to carefully consider when carbs, fats, and protein are digested. Learn these and weight control becomes much easier.

Thank you for your insights @ADFnFuel. What are your thought too, specific to intermittent fasting, either 5:2, 4:3 or 16:8 in relation to calories, digestion and metabolism.

In the case of the Sydney University trial and the original radio program, they concluded you need to eat whole foods and less processed so i breath a sigh of relief that it is not tinged by industry profit objectives.

Apart from the link you followed with what are your 3 most comprehensive and accurate readings I should do to enlighten us in your last statement..
"There are substantial and dramatic biological differences to carefully consider when carbs, fats, and protein are digested. Learn these and weight control becomes much easier."

Thanks again

@Juliana.Rivers

What are your thought too, specific to intermittent fasting, either 5:2, 4:3 or 16:8 in relation to calories, digestion and metabolism.

These are method variations intended primarily to fit the core ideas of intermittent fasting into an individual's life style.

Apart from the link you followed with what are your 3 most comprehensive and accurate readings I should do to enlighten us in your last statement..

"There are substantial and dramatic biological differences to carefully consider when carbs, fats, and protein are digested. Learn these and weight control becomes much easier."

The central idea behind it is that food types are treated differently when metabolized, and that there are inherent limits and side-effects for each one. A "calorie is a calorie" is absolutely not true when you learn how carbs, fats and proteins effect body chemistry.

If I were to recommend only one book that covers the majority of what should be known by everyone regarding weight loss, I'd suggest reading "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. Being an early book, it includes both how we got there and who to blame for the growing obesity crisis. Ignore the latter.

Blame uselessly stirs the emotion pot making no more sense than being regretful and self-loathing after eating something detrimental to your longer term goals. Both are much too late and do nothing to produce an effective change. Understanding how the biology gears mesh at a variety of levels and learning what to do differently the next time does.

A second, slightly more challenging choice that gets deeper into important biology would be the book "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living" by Phinney/Volek. It addresses many common issues and objections with explanations and solutions covering a very wide range of topics. If nothing else, take some time at the book store to read Chapter 18, "10 Clinical Pearls".

A third option - particularly for the cholesterol and fat phobic reader - would be Mary Enig's "Know your Fats". While it is still the authoritative source, it too is a bit dated with its circling of the trebuchets around the evils of trans-fats. It includes a broadly revealing explanation of why trans-fats were deemed necessary by the food industry. The book is also a must-read when it comes to understanding the absolute necessity of cholesterol to life.

Finally, as a forth recommendation, a totally fascinating book about food, the food industry and why things are as they are is the book "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. A delightfully informative, entertaining, even-handed read for everyone.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

@Juliana.Rivers

What are your thought too, specific to intermittent fasting, either 5:2, 4:3 or 16:8 in relation to calories, digestion and metabolism.

These are method variations intended primarily to fit the core ideas of intermittent fasting into an individual's life style.

Apart from the link you followed with what are your 3 most comprehensive and accurate readings I should do to enlighten us in your last statement..

"There are substantial and dramatic biological differences to carefully consider when carbs, fats, and protein are digested. Learn these and weight control becomes much easier."

The central idea behind it is that food types are treated differently when metabolized, and that there are inherent limits and side-effects for each one. A "calorie is a calorie" is absolutely not true when you learn how carbs, fats and proteins effect body chemistry.

If I were to recommend only one book that covers the majority of what should be known by everyone regarding weight loss, I'd suggest reading "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. Being an early book, it includes both how we got there and who to blame for the growing obesity crisis. Ignore the latter.

Blame uselessly stirs the emotion pot making no more sense than being regretful and self-loathing after eating something detrimental to your longer term goals. Both are much too late and do nothing to produce an effective change. Understanding how the biology gears mesh at a variety of levels and learning what to do differently the next time does.

A second, slightly more challenging choice that gets deeper into important biology would be the book "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living" by Phinney/Volek. It addresses many common issues and objections with explanations and solutions covering a very wide range of topics. If nothing else, take some time at the book store to read Chapter 18, "10 Clinical Pearls".

A third option - particularly for the cholesterol and fat phobic reader - would be Mary Enig's "Know your Fats". While it is still the authoritative source, it too is a bit dated with its circling of the trebuchets around the evils of trans-fats. It includes a broadly revealing explanation of why trans-fats were deemed necessary by the food industry. The book is also a must-read when it comes to understanding the absolute necessity of cholesterol to life.

Finally, as a forth recommendation, a totally fascinating book about food, the food industry and why things are as they are is the book "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. A delightfully informative, entertaining, even-handed read for everyone.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Thank you so much @ADFnFuelfor your reading recommendations and detailed review of each. We are very lucky to have you here to help.

On the strength of the opening comments on walnuts, i got stuck into a bag of cashews while I was preparing my Monday fast dinner!
And you might get more readers if you mention that Amanda Salis is the obesity expert because she has quite a following on the forum - She wrote the Don't Go Hungry Diet.

I am awaiting my copy of "The Obesity Code" by Dr Jason Gung.