The FastDay Forum

The 5:2 Lab

15 posts Page 1 of 1
A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 05:18
An interesting read I thought I would share...

Food calories affect the body very differently depending on their source and the overall context in which they are consumed....

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... lorie.aspx
:geek:
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 06:43
Some misinformation in there. True that a calorie is not a calorie but some out of date info. Here is a more detailed explanation from Peter Attia http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 07:01
Sorry, tried to get my brain round it but couldn't get rid of the thought that those who never have enough to eat would be astounded by this obsession! I follow 5:2 to improve my health and hopefully drop a few pounds. I know some love this data but I do not want to devote my life to this. It is why I have stopped counting points! Each to their own I guess! I will duck now and wait for the missiles!
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 10:51
I just wanted to go a bit further to explain why I think the TrainingPeaks article is misleading.

The thing that is missing from the article is that they have failed to understand that, to quote Peter Attia:
Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat.


He explains how our insulin response to food is key:
Insulin is the most important hormone in our body when it comes to fat mobilization (breakdown) and fat storage. This is a fact. There is not one person who studies the endocrine system who will not acknowledge the following quote from Lehninger’s Principles of Biochemistry (the “bible” of biochemistry).

“High blood glucose elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues and favors the storage of fuels as glycogen and triglycerides, while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization in adipose tissue.”

In other words, eating glucose (carbohydrates) increases insulin levels in our body. Insulin drives glucose into liver and muscle cells as glycogen (in small, finite amounts) and into fat cells as triglycerides (in unlimited amounts). Insulin also inhibits the breakdown and utilization of fat, as shown here.

Insulin does not act alone, and the story of fat storage and breakdown is complex if you want to understand every single detail, but the “first order term” is insulin. I will spend time in the future writing about insulin’s “dance partner,” leptin. But insulin is probably the General when it comes to determining how the body partitions fat.

So, insulin is sort of like gravity. It’s in your body whether you know about it or not. It’s acting on your cells whether you like it or not. It’s playing a major role in determining your ability to mobilize versus store fat if you believe me or not.

Does this mean insulin has the same effect on everyone? Does this mean insulin has the same effect on any given person over time? Of course not. Contrast me and my wife. I look at carbohydrates and start to store fat. If you want a reminder of what I looked like on an “athlete’s diet” of complex carbs and little saturated fat, coupled with 3 to 4 hours of exercise a day, look here, here, and here. On the other hand, my wife can eat a bag of Oreo cookies for dinner every night, coupled with all the pasta, bread, and rice the world has to offer and not put on one pound (she has weighed about 110 pounds her entire adult life). How is this possible? Does this mean insulin doesn’t control fat metabolism? No, it means we have an entirely different genetic make-up. Her grandmother is 86 years old, eats bread all day long, is healthy as a horse, and weighs 100 pounds. Conversely, I come from a family where every single man has died of heart disease and looked like the Pillsbury Dough Boy prior to doing so. I’m genetically programmed to lean towards metabolic syndrome, but I’ve been able to reverse it through strict attention to my eating habits.

This isn’t unique to me and my wife. There is an entire spectrum – a distribution across the population – of people with varying degrees of susceptibilities to the effects of carbohydrate on insulin levels and the commensurate effects of insulin levels on fat storage and breakdown.

And like gravity, the effect of insulin on our metabolism of fat changes over time at the individual level, usually for the worse.

Consider, again, my example: When I was 16 years old I weighed 160 pounds, had between 4 and 5% body fat, a 28-inch waist and a 44-inch chest. Breakfast consisted of a box (not a bowl) of cereal. Lunch consisted of 7 turkey and tuna sandwiches (yes, 14 pieces of bread), a gallon of apple juice, and a plate of fries and gravy. Dinner was a pound of pasta and half a chicken. Despite eating over 1,000 gm of carbohydrate per day, I was quite resistant to them (i.e., I was very insulin sensitive) and remained exceptionally lean.

Fast forward to three years ago, at the age of 36, I weighed 200 pounds, had 25% body fat, a 36-inch waist and a 44-inch chest. What changed over 20 years? I was actually eating considerably less – in both absolute amounts and total carbohydrates – and yes, I was exercising a bit less (3 to 4 hours per day at 36 versus 6 hours per day when I was 16). But, is that the only thing that changed? What changed in me, and what changes in most people over the same period of their lives, is that I became progressively more insulin resistant. Most people casually observe that their “metabolism slows down” as they age, but what really happens?

I wish I could definitively tell you why this happens. I can’t. What I can tell you is how it happens. There are many factors, and they certainly vary by person and by individual significance. The list below is a bit simplified and by no means complete.

Over time, endogenous production of sex hormones (e.g., testosterone, estrogen) becomes altered, and this seems to play a role in fat metabolism. In addition to sex hormones, other non-sex steroid hormones (e.g., cortisol), which have a strong effect on fat metabolism, may be altered for a variety of reasons including sleep reduction and stress.
Perhaps (at least partially) related to this, the cellular distribution and density of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) also changes. [Recall, LPL is a very important enzyme on the surface of muscle cells and fat cells. On muscle cells, it fosters fat oxidation (good). On fat cells, it fosters fat accumulation (bad).] As we age, we tend to have less LPL on muscle cells and more LPL on fat cells, both of which contribution to fat accumulation rather than fat oxidation.
The membranes of our cells tend to change in fatty acid composition, which may result in more difficulty getting the GLUT-4 transporter into cell membranes to foster glucose flux into cells. I describe this process in this video. The more difficult it is to get glucose into cells, the more insulin the pancreas must secrete to exert its eventual effect, the more exposure all cells have to circulating insulin levels. Higher levels of insulin also exacerbate the phenomenon of more LPL on fat cells and reduced fat oxidation.
These changes are all linked, and probably play a different role of importance in different people at different times in our lives.


The TrainingPeaks article claims that:
What this means effectively is that a 2,500-calories-a-day high-protein diet adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-carb diet, which in turn adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-fat diet.

Sadly, we know from studies examining the link between IGF-1 and cancer that if you followed this principle and ate a high protein, high carb diet you would be at much higher risk of cancer (and diabetes) than if you ate a low carb, low protein diet.

They are right, however, that cutting calories causes a slow-down in metabolic rate. While this, sadly, means that you need to cut calories further as you lose weight, there is one theory that the reason animals live longer when they eat fewer calories is because of this very slow down in metabolism (see this excellent [quote=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23924667]review[/quote])...perhaps we should embrace our more efficient bodies that need fewer calories rather than bemoan the fact that we can't eat as much as we might like? Just a thought...

Lastly, they quote a study that is used as the rationale behind the idea that you need to eat constantly to keep your metabolism revved up:
a Japanese study found that boxers placed on a six-meals-a-day weight-control diet lowered their body fat percentage significantly more than boxers who ate exactly the same number of calories in just two meals.

What is important about this study is that the subjects ate the same number of calories on the 2 meals a day as the 6 meals a day regimen. However, if you go for the 6 meals a day option most people end up eating more calories! Also, the constant input of food keeps insulin high and as Peter Attia describes above, keeping insulin high leads to fat accumulation.
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 10:59
Bobshouse, no missiles from me, you echo my thoughts EXACTLY!!! I know the technical side of this is fascinating and I'm glad that there are some that know all about it as the knowledge eventually filters down into the basic form that I can get my head around (i.e. 500 cals 2 days a week). I like that this forum has a place where those that like to talk about the science side of it can really get to the nuts and bolts of thing, but it's not for me.

Each to their own though!!
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 11:55
Thanks Caroline. I think your signature says it all about the calorie argument, it is more complicated than you might at first think! :lol:

I for one have benefitted greatly from the info posted on here and the fact that theres usually someone in the nerdy corner to explain what I don't understand. I find it hard to retain info so the fact that I get it in small bites rather than trying to trawl through whole articles myself is a big help. I get the important bits and less of the waffle! :lol:
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 11:57
Thanks @caro. Really interesting read. First time I have visited his site but could not find the answer to a question I have. Hope it's not too tangential to this thread but I wonder if you have a pov or another article you can point me to about optimal fat intake? I picked up the protein quotient of .8g per kg of body weight, and if carbs are low, the gap has to be filled with fat. I wondered though if there was a danger level? I'm eating good quality fat like MCT and olive or rape.
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 12:30
Barry Groves formula is 10 to 15% of cals as carb, 20 to 30% as protein and 60 to 70% as fat. That seems on the low side compared to some of the LCHF disciples. Most go for at least 75% of cals as fat. I don't have any links but hopefully Caro will.

Once you get over 70% I find it all gets a bit unpleasant. I did once try the Atkins Fat Fast which is 90% fat. To be fair they do suggest only 3-5days at that level but its not the sort of diet I would want to live with!
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 12:44
miffy49 wrote: Barry Groves formula is 10 to 15% of cals as carb, 20 to 30% as protein and 60 to 70% as fat. That seems on the low side compared to some of the LCHF disciples. Most go for at least 75% of cals as fat. I don't have any links but hopefully Caro will.

Once you get over 70% I find it all gets a bit unpleasant. I did once try the Atkins Fat Fast which is 90% fat. To be fair they do suggest only 3-5days at that level but its not the sort of diet I would want to live with!


Thank you Miffy. I don't feel as guilty now. I had been up to 68 pct and was worried I might be putting myself at risk. But now I see he died age 77 :shock: do you know what the cause was?
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 12:54
My POV is that you keep your carbs down to whatever is right for you depending on your sensitivity to carbs (could be under 50g/day or up to 150g/day), you keep your protein down to under 0.8g/kg (i.e., if you weigh 70kg you eat up to 56g of protein) and then make up the rest of your calorie requirement with fat.

The Phinney/Volek video the-5-2-lab-f10/topic6811.html is worth watching as they describe this kind of thing as far as I recall.
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 13:07
A point of order is that protein grams are not the same as protein rich food in grams. I made this mistake and ended up only allowing myself only 50 odd grams of protein rich foods a day (only a chicken breast and nothing else that could count as high protein). A 100g chicken breast only has a little bit more than 30g of protein.
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 13:36
Thanks for posting that article Carorees
Im in the middle of reading Gary Taubes "why we get fat and what do to about it" and a lot of what the article says supports what im reading in his book
After being on the longest plateau of my life it looks like I'll have to address the carb situation if I want to lose weight.
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 20:30
Rawkaren - if you mean Atkins, he died at 72 from a heart problem that was not apparently related to blocked arteries. See Wikipedia; there were attempts by anti-atkins journalists etc to discredit his diet on the basis of his weight at the time of death but he put on loads during his time in hospital, supposedly water retention.
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
16 Oct 2013, 20:36
Hi Pete. No. It was Groves who died. Not got around to getting bloods done yet so still interested in pov of other forum members.
Re: A Calorie Is Not a Calorie
17 Oct 2013, 00:15
CreakyPete wrote: Rawkaren - if you mean Atkins, he died at 72 from a heart problem that was not apparently related to blocked arteries. See Wikipedia; there were attempts by anti-atkins journalists etc to discredit his diet on the basis of his weight at the time of death but he put on loads during his time in hospital, supposedly water retention.


Nope - he died from a fall at age 72: http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/04/17/ob ... =PM:HEALTH
15 posts Page 1 of 1
Similar Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

START THE 5:2 DIET WITH HELP FROM FASTDAY

Be healthier. Lose weight. Eat the foods you love, most of the time.

Learn about the 5:2 diet

LEARN ABOUT FASTING
We've got loads of info about intermittent fasting, written in a way which is easy to understand. Whether you're wondering about side effects or why the scales aren't budging, we've got all you need to know.

Your intermittent fasting questions answered ASK QUESTIONS & GET SUPPORT
Come along to the FastDay Forum, we're a friendly bunch and happy to answer your fasting questions and offer support. Why not join in one of our regular challenges to help you towards your goal weight?

Use our free 5:2 diet tracker FREE 5:2 DIET PROGRESS TRACKER & BLOG
Tracking your diet progress is great for staying motivated. Chart your measurements and keep tabs on your daily calorie needs. You can even create a free blog to journal your 5:2 experience!

cron