Posted On:1/24/2010 8:40am
Originally Posted by Mindspider
Haha, yes, "legit" isn't the best way to describe what I was thinking. I'll provide an illustrating example to describe what I mean:
I want to eat 3000 calories in a day. To do this, I can eat X amount of pasta, lean chicken breast, peanut butter, tuna, milk, etc. Or I can eat one triple cheeseburger. The cheeseburger has the same amount of calories as all of these other foods combined, but it's clearly going to be lacking in every other category compared to the other foods. If I wanted to add 3000 calories to my daily diet, though, would a cheeseburger do the trick?
This is purely theoretical, I'm planning on getting my calories through healthier foods. I was just curious, since I work around this food so often.
3000 calories is 3000 calories even if its pure lard or something similar.
is badder than you
Posted On:1/24/2010 1:04pm
I think the source of confusion is along these lines:
When we eat something, it releases chemical energy in a particular amount and pattern. The amounts and patterns of different foods are... not well-understood, but understood to some extent. This is how "a calorie is (basically) a calorie" - once we've got chemical energy, it's basically fungible - convertible between locations and forms.
But food that we eat can also do a bunch of other things, such as:
-provide micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc.) or antinutrients (lectins)
-be chemically transformed by gut microflora (fibers and resistant starches)
-affect hormone levels (insulin, leptin, testosterone)
-modulate the paracrine and autocrine systems (eicosanoids)
Reasoning about the latter are where claims of "good calories" and "bad calories" come from. Most of these claims are based on woefully-incomplete understandings, though.
Originally Posted by Emevas
Downstreet on the flip-flop, timepants.
Posted On:3/05/2010 10:44pm
Here's a bit of follow-up.
Mensink and Katan, "Effect of dietary fatty acids on serum lipids and lipoproteins. A meta-analysis of 27 trials" broke down the influence of various fat-carbohydrate substitutions on lipid profile. They couldn't split omega-3 and omega-6, but they did exclude studies involving long-chain omega-3s, so it's reasonable to assume that their PUFA numbers are all omega-6. Here's the results of replacing a percentage of energy intake from carbohydrates with various types of fat (in mmol/L):
HDL = 0.012x(sat) + 0.009x(mono) + 0.007x(poly)
LDL = 0.033x(sat) - 0.006x(mono) - 0.014x(poly)
Total = 0.039x(sat) - 0.003x(mono) - 0.015x(poly)
Triglycerides = -0.025x(sat) - 0.022x(mono) - 0.028x(poly)
HDL:LDL = 0.000x(sat) + 0.003x(mono) + 0.005x(poly)
So that's an interesting set of results. Odd how they never mention the last two lines in discussions on the subject.
Surprisingly, our regression equation would predict that replacement of saturates by carbohydrates yields little if any improvement in coronary risk. This is in obvious disagreement with a large body of epidemiological evidence that shows that low-fat diets are associated with low risk for coronary heart disease.
Most likely because the epidemiological evidence fails to control for omega-6 intake.
Last edited by TheRuss; 3/05/2010 10:50pm at .
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info