Podcast Summary
Challenging Misconceptions About Calories and Their Impact on Health: Calories are a complex and often misunderstood measure of energy. While the UK mandates calorie labeling on restaurant menus, the science behind how calories work in the body is still not fully understood. This episode explores the misconceptions and complexity surrounding calories and seeks to shed light on their true impact on health.
In this episode of the Maintenance Phase podcast, hosts Aubrey Gordon and Michael Hobbes discuss calories and their misconceptions.They define a calorie as the energy needed to raise a specific amount of water by one degree, but note that there are different ways of measuring them.They also address the UK's mandate for calorie labeling on restaurant menus and dive into the science behind how calories really work in the body.Overall, the episode challenges common assumptions and sheds light on the complexity of calories and their impact on health.
Understanding Calories and Their Measurement: Calories are units of energy measurement used in various fields, including nutrition. There are small calories and kilocalories, and food calories are measured using a bomb calorimeter. Since the late 19th century, food calories have been widely used to indicate the energy value of food.
Calories are a unit of energy measurement used in science, commerce, and food.There are two types of calories: small calories, which measure the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius, and kilocalories, which measure the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one liter of water by one degree Celsius.The most widely used tool to measure the number of calories in food is a bomb calorimeter, which ignites the food in a sealed container filled with pure oxygen and measures the heat it generates in water.The term calorie was coined in the 1800s in Europe to measure heat and became part of the original metric system.Food calories started being widely used in the late 19th century.
The Oversimplification of "Calories in, Calories out: While it's true that weight loss or gain depends on calorie intake and burn, there is more complexity to nutrition than the oversimplified phrase "calories in, calories out". Other factors, like how different foods affect the body or genetics, play a crucial role in weight management as well. It's important to go beyond the catchphrase and examine these nuances for a healthy lifestyle.
The phrase "calories in, calories out" is a popular meme in the dieting world, but it overlooks the complexity of nutrition science.While it is technically true that weight gain or loss depends on how many calories are consumed versus burned, this oversimplification is often used in bad faith or without proper context.When discussing health and nutrition, it is crucial to look beyond this catchphrase and examine the nuances of how different foods affect the body and the role of genetics and other factors in weight management.
The Controversy Surrounding "Calories in, Calories Out" Approach: While the "Calories in, Calories Out" approach is based on the concept that to lose one pound of fat, a person must burn 3,500 more calories than they consume, it may not entirely hold true as our bodies are not closed systems. Instead of just depending on this rule, one should focus on having a balanced and healthy lifestyle.
The concept of "calories in, calories out" comes from an analysis of existing literature on weight loss published in 1959 by an MD named Max Wishnofsky.It is sometimes referred to as Wishnofsky's rule.He concluded that each pound of fat gained or lost contains 3,500 calories.However, this concept may not be entirely accurate, as our bodies are not closed systems and constantly interact with the environment.Therefore, we should be cautious about blindly relying on this rule and instead focus on having a balanced and healthy lifestyle.
The Flaws in the "Calories In, Calories Out" Theory for Weight Loss: Weight loss is not just about calorie counting, as the "calories in, calories out" theory doesn't take into account the complexities of our bodies and metabolism. Genetics, hormones, lifestyle habits, and muscle mass all play significant roles in weight loss, and a holistic approach is necessary for sustainable and effective weight loss.
The idea of "calories in, calories out" is based on the theory that cutting 3,500 calories from your diet will lead to the loss of one pound of fat tissue.However, this theory fails to take into account the complexities of the human body and metabolism.As such, weight loss is not a linear process and it eventually becomes harder and harder to lose weight, and cutting calories can even result in losing muscle mass, which burns calories.Instead of focusing solely on calorie intake and expenditure, it's important to consider a variety of factors that affect weight loss, such as genetics, hormones, and lifestyle habits.
Challenging the Common "Calories in, Calories out" Equation for Weight Loss: The "calories in, calories out" equation for weight loss is oversimplified and inaccurate. Weight loss is influenced by factors such as hormones, genetics, and environmental changes. Additionally, calorie restriction can lead to metabolic downshift and fewer calories burned over time. It also fails to consider the impact of hormones, and there is still uncertainty about the impact of alcohol calories on weight gain.
The commonly used "calories in, calories out" equation for weight loss is not very accurate or useful.It does not account for the many factors that influence our ability to lose or gain weight, such as hormones, genetics, and environmental changes.Additionally, it overpredicts weight loss by 100% due to metabolic downshift and the fewer calories burned over time with calorie restriction.It also fails to consider the energy expended in digesting food, and the impact of hormones like cortisol, ghrelin, and insulin.Furthermore, the debate continues on whether alcohol calories are even usable or contribute to weight gain.
Calorie Restriction and Individual Weight Loss: Calories work differently for different people. Genetics control 75-80% of an individual's BMI variability, and bodily systems conserve energy, making it harder to lose weight despite cutting calories. Recent studies suggest the brain plays an essential role in controlling weight. Long-term weight loss may require ongoing calorie restriction and regular exercise.
Counting calories and restricting them might not work for everyone.People have different biological differences and factors that affect their weight loss, including genetics and bodily systems working to conserve energy.Thus, universal models of calorie intake cannot predict individual weight loss or gain.Even if a person cuts their calories, their body will adjust to conserve energy, making it harder to continue losing weight.Additionally, recent studies suggest that the brain plays a significant role in controlling weight, and genetics contribute to around 75-80% of an individual's BMI variability.Long-term weight loss may require ongoing calorie restriction and regular exercise.
Challenging Assumptions about Weight and Weight Loss: Long-term weight loss is challenging, and most people can only sustain a weight loss of 10-20% of their body weight. Calorie counts on food labels and menus may not accurately reflect how our bodies use those calories. Instead of focusing on weight loss as the ultimate goal, it is important to prioritize individual health and challenge assumptions about weight and weight loss.
Long-term weight loss is difficult and rarely sustained, with most people only able to maintain a weight loss of 10-20% of their body weight.There is little data on long-term weight loss success, and the National Weight Loss Registry is self-reported and not entirely reliable.It is rare for people who have been overweight for their whole life to become and remain thin.The assumption that calories in, calories out is the key to weight loss is wrongheaded, and calorie counts on food labels and menus may not accurately reflect how our bodies use those calories.It is important to challenge assumptions about weight and weight loss and focus on individual health instead of weight loss as the ultimate goal.
Why Calories In vs. Calories Out is Not a Simple Math Equation: Our body's digestion process is intricate and involves chemical reactions. It's not just about calories in and calories out. The commonly used numbers for calories were developed over 120 years ago by a chemist named Wilbur Atwater. Atwater also ran controversial experiments on the caloric value of liquor.
The way our bodies digest food and extract calories is more complex than just a simple math equation of calories in and calories out.Our digestion is a slow process involving chemical reactions, and our bodies may not extract all the calories from a given food.The commonly used numbers for calories in fat, protein, and carbohydrates were developed by a chemist named Wilbur Atwater over 120 years ago.Atwater was a professor of chemistry and the USDA's first chief of nutrition investigations.He published the first guidebook to nutritional values of different foods that we eat.But, Atwater also ran controversial experiments on the caloric value of liquor.
The Limitations of Calorie Counting in Weight Management: Traditional methods of calculating calorie availability do not take into account all factors that affect calorie counts. Relying solely on caloric counts may not be the best way to manage weight loss or gain. Outdated methods and guidelines influence the diet industry and our cultural understanding of body weight and shape.
Early scientists worked to understand calories and how they are utilized in the body.However, the methods used to calculate caloric availability, such as the Atwater factors, do not account for all the factors that affect calorie counts, such as the heat released during metabolism and the amount of fiber in the food.These factors are significant in how the body processes and utilizes calories.As a result, relying solely on caloric counts may not be the best way to manage weight loss or gain.Additionally, these outdated methods and guidelines influence the diet industry and our cultural understanding of body weight and shape.
The Problem with 2,000 Calories a Day as a Nutritional Guideline: The 2,000 calorie-a-day rule isn't a reliable or authoritative nutritional guideline. The calorie counting system is a helpful way to manage weight but it's important to remember that the way we perceive food and weight can have negative psychological effects. Not all calories are created equal, and there are important nuances to consider when it comes to nutrition.
The idea that we should all aim for 2,000 calories a day is not a reliable or authoritative nutritional guideline, despite being used as one.The nutrition label with its calorie counts is a recent development, having only been introduced in 1994.The FDA did not intend for the 2,000 calorie figure to be a specific nutritional standard, but rather a general education tool for consumers.While calorie counting can be a helpful way to manage weight, it's important to remember that not all calories are created equal, and the way we talk to ourselves about food and weight can have negative consequences.
Why the 2,000 Calorie Label on Foods May Not Apply to Everyone: The 2,000 calorie recommendation on food labels was chosen for easy comparison, but is not a one-size-fits-all rule. It is based on self-reported calorie intakes and not backed by medical research. People should seek personalized nutritional advice from a healthcare provider to determine their individual calorie needs.
The 2,000 calorie per day recommendation on food labels was not based on medical best practices or scientific research, but rather on self-reported calorie intakes through USDA surveys.The FDA aimed for the middle of the self-reported calorie range and initially proposed a recommendation of 2,350 calories per day, but settled on 2,000 calories per day as a more easily understood and rounded value.The recommendation was designed to allow for easy comparison of the nutritional value of different foods, but it is not a hard and fast rule for individual calorie intake.People should still consult with their healthcare provider for personalized nutritional advice.
The Misconception of 2,000 Calories: The recommended daily calorie intake of 2,000 is not scientifically based, but rather a tool to raise awareness about obesity. Restricting calorie intake through dieting can be harmful, and information about food and nutrition can have cultural implications. Understanding the flaws in this common recommendation is crucial for a healthy relationship with food.
The recommended daily calorie intake of 2,000 calories is not based on solid science but rather a communication tool designed to raise awareness about obesity.However, it has become so entrenched in public policy that it is now considered a standard.The number is arbitrary and based on bad data, leading people to eat more or less than they should.Diets that restrict calorie intake can have serious repercussions on metabolism and should be approached with caution.It is important to understand that even seemingly benign information about food and nutrition can be culturally influenced and have implications for body image and attitudes towards food.
Addressing Biases in Scientific Institutions and Professionals: It is crucial to recognize that professionals and institutions in the scientific industry can be influenced by societal biases towards fatness and fat people, which can negatively impact the interpretation of scientific studies. Acknowledging and addressing these biases is necessary to achieve a more objective interpretation of scientific research.
The belief that scientific institutions and professionals are unbiased and immune to societal biases is wrong.Researchers, public health officials, and bureaucrats can also be influenced by cultural ideas and judgments towards fatness and fat people.This bias can affect their interpretation of scientific studies and lead them to twist the science to achieve a certain outcome, such as promoting weight loss.It is important to acknowledge and address these biases to achieve a more objective understanding of the issues at hand.
