PDA

View Full Version : A Calorie is NOT a Calorie on Low Carb Diets


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



bsheets
Sun, Oct-16-05, 22:59
A Calorie is NOT a Calorie on Low Carb Diets

About.com - http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/healthconcerns/a/metabolism.htm


Eating a diet rich in protein and lean on carbs may burn more calories according to a new study published in the Nutrition Journal. It's all about the laws of thermodynamics, you know, those silly little equations that claim energy is never lost, except when it comes to exchanging heat. Researchers Richard Feinman and Eugene Fine claim that "a calorie is a calorie" actually violates the second law of thermodynamics, which predicts that various sources of energy will lose more heat when burned. So what does this mean when it comes to dieting?

Plenty. Protein and carbohydrates are processed differently in the body. Protein has the thermodynamic edge, because more energy is released as heat than is converted into chemical energy or glucose. So although a chunk of steak and a bowl of noodles carry equal calories, the amount of energy the body scours from them to fuel movement or store as fat is quite different.

This would explain, according to Feinman, why two studies in the New England Journal of Medicine found that those on a low carb, high protein diet shed three times as much weight as those on a low fat diet after six months.

Further evidence for this argument can be found in a study done by Dr. Astrup in Denmark, Copenhagen. He studied 12 men in a room and measured scientifically how much energy each man burned when fed a diet high in protein or carbs. Men who ate lean protein, such as pork, put out 4% more heat than those on a high carbohydrate diet, not to mention they lost more weight.
All this is good news for people enjoying a low carb lifestyle, but don't expect the diet world to embrace Feinman's opinion with open arms. Experts still claim the main reason people lose weight on a low-carb diet is because they eat fewer calories. But could there be another reason?

Unlike high carbohydrate diets, protein triggers a response in the stomach that affects motility and stimulates the release of glucagon, a hormone that helps us to burn previously stored fat. In normal people, within thirty minutes of eating a small amount of protein, glucagon starts to rise, peaking at two hours. In fact, glucagon can stay elevated in blood for several hours after a protein rich meal. This gives your body plenty of time to use the fat stored around your waist and hips for fuel. Combine this with Feinman=s argument regarding the second law of thermodynamics and high protein/low-carb eating should have the metabolic advantage over low fat and calorically restricted diets when it comes to losing weight.

Diet choices are like hats - not all fit or look good on everyone. But if you suffer from heart disease or diabetes, choosing a lifestyle that emphasizes a diet rich in lean protein, moderate amounts of fats and low glycemic carbohydrates can go a long way towards cheating the Grim Reaper.

ValerieL
Mon, Oct-17-05, 10:00
I do think calories are important, I find I lose faster when I keep my calories lower. But, this reinforces my other belief that a calorie is not just a calorie. Different types of food would require different levels of energy to digest and burn and process in the body, a lab measurement of calories in each food would not account for this fact. If your body requires an increase of (hypothetically, I have no idea about actual numbers) 10% more energy to digest a low carb diet rather than a high carb diet, then absolutely someone eating more calories and a low-carb could lose as well or better than someone on less calories on a high-carb diet.

So, does anyone know if my ideas are worthwhile scientifically? How do they measure calories? Do they take into account how much energy the body uses to digest foods when reporting calorie counts for various foods?

LC FP
Mon, Oct-17-05, 14:40
Valerie

I think the energy used in digestion is just a part of the equation. I have a huge chart of biochemical pathways from Roche Labs on my office wall. In our mitochondria, where most of our ATP is generated by the "burning" of fuel (2-carbon fragments from glucose or fat) in the electron transport chain, part of that chain is an uncoupling protein. This protein, when turned on, "uncouples" oxidative phosphorylation, which means although the carbon atoms get oxidized (burned), no ATP is formed. This protein is under the control of some metabolic substances and maybe hormones also (insulin? I'm really not sure). Apparenly our metabolic process can be fine-tuned to produce the maximum number of ATP per glucose molecule, or perhaps something less.

tigersue
Mon, Oct-17-05, 14:55
They keep forgetting, that not all food is used for energy. Protien and fats are not completely broken down to glucose but are used for all the major building blocks in the body, that is the biggest reason why a calorie is not a calorie, why fat doesn't cause a rise in insulin. Our bodies are not test tubes, but working functioning organisms with needs more that just energy from glucose which is the only thing a carb can give us.
Tanya

LC FP
Mon, Oct-17-05, 15:50
Protien and fats are not completely broken down to glucose but are used for all the major building blocks in the body, that is the biggest reason why a calorie is not a calorie

This is definitey a third reason ACINAC.

Dodger
Mon, Oct-17-05, 17:10
A Calorie (or kJ) is a unit of energy. A pound (or kg) is a unit of mass. Mixing units always creates problems.