Food calorie RIP

Food, recipes, fashion, sport, education, exercise, sexuality, travel.
Post Reply
User avatar
tyro
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:46 pm

Food calorie RIP

Post by tyro »


The information (or misinformation if you think so) that I provide here represents an opinion that I have held for more than 30 years. I have frequently discussed this with people and on only one occasion did I get a full endorsement. Most people remain skeptical, but not one can tell me where my thinking goes wrong, or even tell me that the conclusion is wrong.


Pretty much everyone is on, or has been on, a diet. We have all heard about calories and many prepared foods are required to reveal how many calories are contained in some definition of a portion.

But the calorie is not a unit of potential weight gain nor is it an accurate indicator of any information really useful if you want to lose weight.

The calorie is a unit of heat. Scientist use it to compare the energy levels of different compounds. If you knew the caloric contents of sugar and ethanol, then you could calculate the energy released when yeast converts one to the other.

Scientist determine the caloric value of a substance by burning it inside a flask and measuring the increase in temperature that results. The energy needed to ignite and completely combust the substance can be calculated (volts x amps = watts) and subtracted from the results.

For some reason the caloric content of foods were measured. But and this is a very important but, our bodies do not digest food by burning it.

Substances that are simultaneously high in calories but provide no nutrition - and therefore would not cause you to gain weight regardless of how much you ingested – include wood, coal, gasoline, kerosene, paraffin, alcohol and paint thinner.

Similarly, proteins are flammable and thus indicate a high caloric value and yet proteins do not cause you to gain weight, rather the digestive process breaks protein down into its composite amino acids and your body selects which ones it wants for growth and cell repair. The surplus will find its way into your urine.

If you are overweight, it is because you ingested more fat than your body required. It really is that simple.

And if you are trying to lose weight, obviously you need to cut back on the fats and oils but you also need to cut back on carbohydrates (or more specifically, those carbohydrates that are sugar or are digested to make sugar. This is because, as long as there is sugar circulating in your blood, your body doesn’t need to break into its fat reserves.

You can help yourself to lose weight by exercising because that is exactly what will use up the sugar. In short, you need to burn more sugar than you eat.

The build up of all this is that even if you are on a diet, you don’t need to forgo alcohol. The calories in alcohol are from neither fat nor carbohydrate. Quite simply, alcohol burns very well and thus is high in calories, but it contains nothing that your body will retain and it doesn’t supply energy to your muscles. Fact of the matter is, your body expends energy converting alcohol into something it can dispose of.

So there you have it. Even though you are on a diet, you don’t have to suffer through small portions of plain food with just a glass of water.

Of course, mixed drinks contain whatever was added and that needs to be considered and beer is about 5% sugar. But dry wine is about 1%. The only real drawback to enjoying wine with your meal comes if it causes you to lose your self-control and you start nibbling on the cheesecake.
A sufficiently copious dose of bombast drenched in verbose writing is lethal to the truth.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14068
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by Joe Guy »

I see a flaw in your reasoning.

The body uses calories from alcohol for energy instead of using the stored energy in fat calories, which is what you want to do when you're trying to lose weight. So, if you want to lose weight, you need to cut your intake of calories from all sources, including those from alcohol.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by Rick »

Food Calorie vs Calorie
Food energy is the amount of energy obtained from food that is available through cellular respiration.

Like other forms of energy, food energy is expressed in calories or joules. Some countries use the food calorie, which is equal to 1 kilocalorie (kcal), or 1,000 calories. In the context of nutrition, and especially food labeling, the calories are large calories approximately equal to 4.1868 kilojoules (kJ). The kilojoule is the unit officially recommended by the World Health Organization[1] and other international organizations. In some countries only the kilojoule is normally used on food packaging, but the calorie is still the most common unit in many countries.
From Wiki...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by tyro »

The body uses calories from alcohol for energy instead of using the stored energy in fat calories
How?

Are you suggesting that the human body was designed to metabolize alcohol in some productive way?

Besides, as I maintain, our bodies don’t use calories. Our bodies use food, and alcohol is not a food.
A sufficiently copious dose of bombast drenched in verbose writing is lethal to the truth.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by tyro »

Keld, the “food calorie” is simply 1,000 calories, or more accurately, a kilo calorie.

However, the means by which they are measured remains the same. Which is to say, they measure the heat given off when the substance is burned. This is not how human metabolism works.
A sufficiently copious dose of bombast drenched in verbose writing is lethal to the truth.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14068
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by Joe Guy »

tyro wrote:
Are you suggesting that the human body was designed to metabolize alcohol in some productive way?
Yes. The body uses the calories in alcohol for energy.
tyro wrote:Besides, as I maintain, our bodies don’t use calories. Our bodies use food, and alcohol is not a food.
Most of the alcohol we drink is made from food.

It's not a difficult concept if you accept that calories are energy and that calories that go into our bodies are either used or they are stored as fat. The calories in alcohol don't disappear once they are consumed.

However, we cannot agree on this subject because you don't believe the human body uses calories, which is contrary to the laws of science and nutrition.

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by tyro »

However, we cannot agree on this subject because you don't believe the human body uses calories, which is contrary to the laws of science and nutrition.
I take exception to the use of the word “law” in that response.

Furthermore, you are doing exactly what everyone else did, you are failing to tell me where I am wrong.

Don’t just say I am wrong, tell me why.
A sufficiently copious dose of bombast drenched in verbose writing is lethal to the truth.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14068
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by Joe Guy »

You are wrong because you don't accept that calories are energy that are used by the body. And you don't believe that when you ingest alcohol you are taking in calories that the body will either use or store as fat.

That's why I said that we will never agree.

User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33642
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by Gob »

Alcohol calories
According to conventional wisdom, the infamous "beer belly" is caused by excess alcohol calories being stored as fat. Yet, less than five percent of the alcohol calories you drink are turned into fat. Rather, the main effect of alcohol is to reduce the amount of fat your body burns for energy.

Some evidence for this comes from research carried in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [4]. Eight men were given two drinks of vodka and sugar-free lemonade separated by 30 minutes. Each drink contained just under 90 calories. Fat metabolism was measured before and after consumption of the drink. For several hours after drinking the vodka, whole body lipid oxidation (a measure of how much fat your body is burning) dropped by a massive 73%.

Rather than getting stored as fat, the main fate of alcohol is conversion into a substance called acetate. In fact, blood levels of acetate after drinking the vodka were 2.5 times higher than normal. And it appears this sharp rise in acetate puts the brakes on fat loss.

A car engine typically uses only one source of fuel. Your body, on the other hand, draws from a number of different energy sources, such as carbohydrate, fat, and protein. To a certain extent, the source of fuel your body uses is dictated by its availability.

In other words, your body tends to use whatever you feed it. Consequently, when acetate levels rise, your body simply burns more acetate, and less fat. In essence, acetate pushes fat to the back of the queue.

So, to summarize and review, here's what happens to fat metabolism after the odd drink or two.

A small portion of the alcohol is converted into fat.
Your liver then converts most of the alcohol into acetate.
The acetate is then released into your bloodstream, and replaces fat as a source of fuel.
The way your body responds to alcohol is very similar to the way it deals with excess carbohydrate.

Although carbohydrate can be converted directly into fat, one of the main effects of overfeeding with carbohydrate is that it simply replaces fat as a source of energy. That's why any type of diet, whether it's high-fat, high-protein, or high-carbohydrate, can lead to a gain in weight.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by tyro »

Source
Scientists have not been able to tie alcohol consumption consistently to weight gain. Some studies have found that drinking beer or spirits, for instance, increases waist-to-hip ratio, while some have found no relationship at all. One study showed that among female twins, body fat actually decreases with increasing alcohol consumption. Other researchers have also found that heavy drinking reduces body fat, but still others point to evidence that it raises the risk of becoming overweight or obese

There may never be a simple answer, since there are so many variables. For example:
· Genes affect how the body processes alcohol.
· What you eat is important—if you consume a lot of cheese or other high-calorie snacks while drinking, you’ll most likely gain weight.
· People who drink a lot may gain weight whether they drink beer, wine, or spirits.
· But if you drink a lot and the alcohol replaces food and other beverages, you may lose weight, as some alcoholics do.
· People in studies are prone to under-report how much they drink, rendering many findings unreliable.

Sounds like they don't know
A sufficiently copious dose of bombast drenched in verbose writing is lethal to the truth.

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14068
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by Joe Guy »

How much would you like to bet that studies showing alcohol reduces body fat, etc. were funded by the alcohol industry?

User avatar
tyro
Posts: 414
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:46 pm

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by tyro »

This place explains rather conclusively that a simple attention to calorie counting is not a way to predict weight control.
The author shows how to groups of people consuming the exact same number of calories experienced very different results.
The difference was in what was eaten; one group had a higher fat diet and the other a higher carbohydrate intake; but I stress, the same total calories.

My point in referencing this work is that it shows that the relationship between calories and weight control is not as clear-cut as people think. It underscores my point that calories are an inappropriate measure of weight control.
A sufficiently copious dose of bombast drenched in verbose writing is lethal to the truth.

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11285
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by Crackpot »

tyro wrote:Source
Scientists have not been able to tie alcohol consumption consistently to weight gain. Some studies have found that drinking beer or spirits, for instance, increases waist-to-hip ratio, while some have found no relationship at all. One study showed that among female twins, body fat actually decreases with increasing alcohol consumption. Other researchers have also found that heavy drinking reduces body fat, but still others point to evidence that it raises the risk of becoming overweight or obese
...But studies did show that they became more attractive the more beer the researchers consumed.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18440
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by BoSoxGal »

:lol:
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 3875
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:12 am
Location: Arkansas

Re: Food calorie RIP

Post by Rick »

tyro wrote:This place explains rather conclusively that a simple attention to calorie counting is not a way to predict weight control.
The author shows how to groups of people consuming the exact same number of calories experienced very different results.
The difference was in what was eaten; one group had a higher fat diet and the other a higher carbohydrate intake; but I stress, the same total calories.

My point in referencing this work is that it shows that the relationship between calories and weight control is not as clear-cut as people think. It underscores my point that calories are an inappropriate measure of weight control.
OK I kinda see where yer goin with this.

As far as total CALORIC intake exclusively I buy into the premise that you present.

I count calories however I also take into consideration fat grams (1gram=9 calories) but there are different types of fat also.

Yer right there's more to consider than just "I consume 2,000 calories per day"...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is

Post Reply