Is a calorie just a calorie?

It all depends on how you do the math

By Alison Arnett, Globe Staff, 3/17/2004

http://www.boston.com/ae/food/artic...just_a_calorie/

In the comic strip "Arlo and Janis," Arlo offers his wife a piece of toast. A shocked Janis recoils in the next panel, shouting, "No!"

"Carbohydrates," she sniffs.

By the time something hits the daily comics, you know it's everywhere. Carb phobia is a national phenomenon, and manufacturers are flocking to cash in. What some analysts see as a $25 billion market in reduced carbohydrate foods -- breads, chips, candy, even ice cream -- is being snapped up by the public. Consumers spent the last two decades checking food labels for fat content and supporting a low-fat, no-fat industry. Now that the industry has decided to respond to a different culprit, questions arise: What exactly is being done to a loaf of bread or a glass of milk to lower the grams of carbohydrates -- and is it good for you?

A nation raised on milk has many choices in the refrigerator case. The latest, however, is not called milk. Last December, Chelsea-based HP Hood Inc. introduced the Atkins-approved Hood Carb Countdown Dairy Beverage. According to Hood spokesperson Lynne Bohan, the natural sugars in milk are reduced using "proprietary technology"; Splenda No Calorie Sweetener is added for sweetening. Since real sugar is a pure carbohydrate and Splenda has only a trace of carbohydrates, the result is lower carbs, therefore fewer calories. Hood is marketing the drink nationally, Bohan says, and sales are good.

Reducing carbs in baked goods -- after all, what are breads and cakes but mostly carbs and fat? -- is more complex. The process usually involves substituting soy protein or wheat gluten for flours and then adding fiber. Andrew Siegel of When Pigs Fly bakery in York, Maine, explains the company's low-carb loaf. Their regular bread has 20 to 25 grams of carbohydrates. With wheat gluten substituted for some whole wheat flour, the low-carb bread comes out at 8 grams of carbs per slice. Since added fiber passes through the human digestive system without being absorbed, it is subtracted from the carb count on labeling; the company mixes both wheat bran and flax seeds into the dough. Now each slice has 6 grams of carbohydrates.

Some manufacturers understand these baking nuances because they were already making products for diabetics, who have to watch carbohydrate and sugar intake. Synergy Diet, a West Coast-based company that sells about $5 million of products a year over a website, began marketing their low-carbohydrate, sugar-free products in 1997. Now sales are primarily to those looking for lower carb products, says president Jason Butcher. The company's breads get their high protein and fiber values by substituting wheat gluten, soy flour, oat flour, and almond and other nut meals for white flour.

Many commercially made cakes, such as Entenmann's butter loaf, come to a lower carb count by subtracting sugar alcohols, which are mainly sugar-free sweeteners, from the total count. Elizabeth Braithwaite, database manager of ESHA Research in Salem, Ore., explains that in this country, "total carbohydrates are determined by subtraction." For each product, she says, fat, protein, ash, and water are subtracted from the total gram weight of the food; the remainder is counted as carbohydrates. By this definition, the total carb value would include sugar alcohols and fiber, as well as sugar and starch, she says. But according to a recent newsletter from the consumer watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest, manufacturers are using the nomenclature of the low-carb diets and subtracting fiber and sugar alcohols claiming they have "minimal impact on blood sugars."

The tricky part of this is that the Food and Drug Administration has not yet defined "low carb" in the same way that the federal agency has decided what determines "low fat" or "low calorie" on labeling. Late last week as part of a broad antiobestity campaign, the FDA announced that the agency will start defining what can be labeled "low" or "reduced" carbohydrates. However, no timetable was announced. Ellen Haas, founder of Foodfit.com and former undersecretary of agriculture, applauds the recognition of the problem. "I can't see it happening for a couple of years," she says. "At least [they're] acknowledging there is a serious problem in consumer information." But there are ways to get things done quickly, she adds, and the agency does not seem to be doing that.

Currently manufacturers are making their own calculations. This is a red flag for some nutritionists. Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition for CSPI, sees danger here. "Net carb declarations should be banned," Liebman says, "because they undermine the trust people have in the nutrition facts panel." In her article in the Nutrition Action Healthletter, she takes issue with net carbs, saying the science "isn't there" to prove low net carbs will mean weight loss. "Minimal impact on your blood sugar doesn't mean minimal impact on your hips," she says.

"Doesn't this give you a feeling of deja vu?" asks Haas. A boom in low-fat products 20 years ago led to the FDA's stepping in with standards and instituting nutrition labeling. "The industry has a free rein on formulating new products," she says, but if people find they aren't losing or maintaining weight eating those products, "high skepticism" will follow.

Both Haas and Liebman see some benefits. "Some breads have more fiber," says Liebman, "which can't be wrong." Adds Haas: "It does make sense to be carb aware, to minimize sugars."

Some experts worry that teaching the public just a little nutrition can't be a good thing. For instance, Atkins, South Beach, and other diets highlight such concepts as glycemic levels (blood sugar levels) that are little understood by laymen. Judy Phillips, nutritionist for the South End Community Health Center's childhood obesity program and a consultant to Au Bon Pain, says the low-carb diets tend to presume "everyone is insulin resistant, which isn't true.

"People think that high-protein, low-carb diets have magical effects," she says, when the reality is that water loss in the first few weeks of these programs is what leads to good news on the scale. Phillips, Haas, and Liebman are all concerned that the reduced-carb products will encourage consumers to add more goodies to their diets -- with little regard for calories. Many are "refusing to accept the simple mathematics of calories," says Phillips.

And so the old dieting logic comes into play: A calorie is a calorie. It doesn't matter where it comes from. Balance and moderation are still key, says Haas.

As for a dairy beverage made with Splenda -- which is approved by the FDA and accepted by CSPI as safe -- Haas thinks "there's a need for a limit in what kind of liberty we take with a natural product with nutritional benefits. Is it necessary to substitute the little bit of sugar with an artificial product?" she asks. "Wouldn't it be better to limit your Krispy Kreme intake?"

Perhaps. But -- memo to dieters -- Krispy Kreme just announced plans to develop a low-sugar doughnut.

Ha ha, I can just see someone ordering a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts and saying "and a glass of that low-carb milk please".

Come on, if you are going to pay extra $$$ for low-carb milk, you aren't stuffing your face with Krispy Kremes. That was a completely asinine comment. It's even more pointless than buying a supersized Big Mac with fries and a diet coke, even though in that case you at least save some calories and a load of fructose.

Anyway apart from that boring "a calorie is a calorie comment" (and the earth is flat dontyaknow), I do agree with her about taking liberties with natural products. There is entirely too much of that going on.

"It's even more pointless than buying a supersized Big Mac with fries and a diet coke"


Puhleeze! Comments like this send me up the wall. I was one of the people doing this, NOT because I thought the diet coke would help me loose weight but because I find drinking regular coke to be like drinking syrup, I can't stand it.

Some of us simply prefer the taste of DC.

/agree Mandra

Not only that but why compound a dietary mistake with another dietary mistake? Getting a diet coke you're probably saving a lot of calories and carbs, in the form of high fructose syrup more than liekly, than you would otherwise. Not to mention, once you get used to it, regular soda tastes nastily sweet.

that's why I moderated my comment with "even though in that case you at least save some calories and a load of fructose."

A little point on the Cola...A 44 oz 7-11 Slurpee has 150g of Sugar [only a few grams more than a regular 44 oz. Cola] and 600 Calories. Between 1997 and 2002, I had on average one a night. The other day I calculated out how much effect not having that ONE 44 oz. Beverage a day would've had on my weight.

Based on my calculations, if I had not had that Slurpee [or had a Diet Slurpee - which they didn't offer until last mid-2003 anyways,] I would've been 180-190 pounds in December of 2002. But, compounded over half a decade that ONE Cola every night added up to an extra 130-150 pounds. Not exactly irrelevant if you ask me.

Every time this topic comes up I have to bring up my old standby....

A calorie does not exist in a vacuum. Water will boil at different temperatures under different atmospheric pressures, after all. Therefore it stands to reason that there are many different factors which will affect the use of calories, including metabolism, genetics, activity level, and a whole host of other things.

That's what people who have not read in depth about what lc'ing is about fail to understand. Yes there is a metabolic advantage. Is it huge? probably not--I think it's about 200-300 calories per diem on average, I'm sure it varies from person to person, but it IS significant enough to keep a big eater much more happy than on any other weight loss program.

And yes, the other advantage is a reduced urge to binge when you fill up on good protein and fat. I think that is by far one of the advantages that is always neglected when a 100 calorie soda is compared to a 100 calorie piece of cheese (which of course will have very different effects on the body).

Personally I believe that colas are a leading factor in the obesity crisis, it's about the worse thing you can consume. It's right up there with cigarettes in my mind. So there is no doubt in my mind about the evils of cola.

But I was thinking that if you are having a 800 calorie meal (or whatever a BigMac and fries is these days), wether you add a real coke or diet coke isn't going to make much of a difference.

Now if you are going to have a BigMac and fries everyday, well real Coke vs Diet Coke might make a difference, I don't know. Thinking about the effect of eating that much junk food is just too scary to contemplate.

Think about it this way, there's 410 kcal in a Super Size Drink. Even more if you scrimp on the Ice.

410 kcal/day x 365 days/yr = 149,650 kcal/yr
149,650 kcal/yr / 3500 kcal/lb = 42.76 lbs/yr

If you are at exactly Maintnance Calories and add ONE Super Size Drink a day for a year, you could gain up to 42.76 pounds in 1 year. Fortunately, our bodies aren't 100% efficient at storing Sugar as fat, so the amount you gain will be a bit less than that. Now, let's assume you are in a 200 kcal/day deficit. That would mean you would lose 10 pounds a year. But, add a Super Size Coke, and instead of losing 20 pounds in the following year, you'll put on 20 pounds.

As for the 800 Calories, that may be alot for some folks, but its not for others. If your normal intake is 1500 kcal/day, it probably is too much for one meal. But, there are folks out there who need more Calories. For example, based on my own estimates I burn about 3,000-3,400 kcal/day. So, 800 kcal at a meal, especially if it was a Low-Carb meal, wouldn't be excessive if I was trying to maintain my weight at this level. 800 kcal/meal x 3 meals/day = 2,400 kcal/day. Assuming you don't snack during the day or night, 2,400 kcal is entirely acceptable for an active adult male whose not trying to lose weight.

Also, unlike the Cheeseburger, a Cola provides ZERO Satiation and ZERO Nutritional Value. My personal opinion is that if we could somehow get everyone to give up All Cola tomorrow, that Obesity rates would decrease significantly. There are a good portion of Obese persons, who could lose weight simply by giving up their Sodas, because there are so many out there who drink 1/2 Gallon (800 kcal) to 1 Gallon (1,600 kcal) a day.

One thing that always kind of disturbs me is that most everyone considers Cola evil. Not all sodas are evil, some are quite neutral. I.e. the sugar free variety. (Discussion about the rumours of artificial sweetners aside). So when I hear about schools banning soda sales it irritates me because I know they're banning the sugar free ones too. Frankly, I like SF bubbly drinks because those little bubbles make me feel full!

I think there is a lot of blame to be put on the door step of fruit juices and fruit drinks as well. Face it, it's like 10% fruit and the rest is water and HFCS. And people drink it like crazy because it is non-fat and all those crazy nutritionists are pushing it like mad.

I know, it has the same effect on me. But so does mineral water, and it can be a good source of magnesium which is something we don't get enough of.

I rather avoid those articifical sugars, and the chemicals in soda myself.

And I believe kids need them even less than we do.

As for Fast Food, it ranks as Evil No 2 in my book. That stuff is poison. In my example above I was refering to the "traditional" BigMac, fries and coke combo. Maybe some people can actually not gain weight from eating it everyday, but even then, all those refined carbs, chemicals, sodium, sugar, trans-fat and God knows what else they put in there just can't be good for you. I wouldn't even eat a low-carb meal there. I just don't trust MacDonald (or any big fast food franchise). The food is factory made and is a veritable chemical cocktail.



I agree 110 percent