Is a Calorie Just a Calorie?

 

shutterstock_132337193Many of us agree that experts generally cause more trouble than they are worth. The views they espouse often have more to do with ideology than with the subject matter about which they are expert. At the same time their expert status, often being based on some species of “science,” gives them a form of immunity to criticism, and immediately identifies their critics as Neanderthals (or worse, conservatives). Sooner or later, however, though it is often very much later, experts who base their views on ideology are defeated by actual facts, and if they are not entirely routed they will at least have to fall back into a more rearward trench.

The Progressive experts who in the 1970s foisted upon Americans the new dogma that low-fat diets are the means to prevent heart disease and cancer have been driven for a decade from their forward positions, and back into less substantial breastworks. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the latest rationale our dietary experts offer for insisting we continue avoiding at least saturated fat (if not all fat) is to fight global warming. (You may think this is not a very defensible position to be fighting from, but it is not as astounding as it first may seem, global warming being ultimately responsible for all of mankind’s ills.)

I would now like to point out another aspect of our dietary experts’ battle against dietary fat which you may not think can possibly have an ideological aspect, but which nonetheless does: The idea that a calorie is just a calorie.

A calorie is just a calorie, and whether we gain or lose weight is simply determined by the number of calories we eat compared to the number we burn off. So if we want to lose weight all we need is our Fitbit or Apple Watch to track calories in and out, and a bit of willpower.

Our national dietary experts (and not coincidentally, companies like the ones that make Fitbits and Apple Watches) very much like the idea that a calorie is a calorie. This idea has two virtues. First, it is true. Net calories, when you account for caloric intake, metabolism and exercise, determines whether we burn or store fat.

Second, it supports the idea of low-fat diets. Since fat contains 9 calories per gram compared to 4 calories per gram for carbs and protein, it is obvious that to maintain a healthy weight we should avoid fat. This rationale, in fact, was the original fall-back position of the McGovern Dietary Panel in 1977 when it was pointed out to them that there really wasn’t any evidence that a strict low-fat diet would improve cardiovascular outcomes. Well, the panel decided, while we’re proving we’re right about heart disease at least people will stop gaining weight by cutting back on fat.

To reiterate, the “all calories are alike” position is as follows: All we have to do to maintain a good weight is assure that, on average, we are taking in no more calories than we burn. Calories in, minus calories out, equals calories stored or lost. It’s a simple equation, simple thermodynamics. And this simple fact dictates that fat, with its high caloric density, should be avoided. Case closed.

But here’s the thing. While a calorie is indeed a calorie when it comes to how much energy you get when it’s burned, the form in which we take in our calories still makes a big difference in the outcome of that simple equation.

Human physiology interposes itself on straightforward thermodynamics. We might even consider that a chief characteristic of life itself is to rearrange straightforward thermodynamics (in particular, by reducing local entropy). So we are not simply absorbing the fat, protein and carbs we eat, burning what we must and storing the rest. Our bodies treat the food we eat not simply as a source of energy, but also as a source of information about our environment. And thus, our physiology changes and adjusts according to what we are putting into our mouths. These changes, again caused by what kind of food we’re eating, have a significant impact on how much fat we store, and how much we end up weighing.

Here are just a few examples:

  • It costs more energy to digest protein than fat or carbs – this is the thermal effect of metabolism – so protein yields fewer usable calories per gram.
  • Foods with a high glycemic index (generally, simple carbs) cause a large spike-and-drop in insulin levels. The insulin spike assures that lots of calories get stored as fat. The subsequent precipitous drop in insulin causes ravenous hunger a couple of hours after a high-carb meal. So we eat a bag of Oreos, and repeat the entire cycle.
  • Some foods cause satiety much more than others. It is much easier to consume lots of calories by eating cookies, donuts and chips than it is by eating lots of eggs, meats, beans, and whole fruit.
  • Eating protein suppresses the appetite (over and above any effect on immediate satiety). This is probably why people on low-carb diets often end up eating fewer calories without really trying to.
  • Eating fructose (even as opposed to glucose) tends to stimulate the appetite, possibly by stimulating the hunger hormone ghrelin.

These illustrations make it clear that, while net calories indeed equals what we take in minus what we burn, what kind of food we choose to eat effects this simple equation in far more ways than merely the calorie count contained in that food. Food is data, and our bodies adjust to the data we give it by suppressing or stimulating our appetite, adjusting food absorption, and altering our metabolism.

Our national food experts have fought this idea because it implies that (and indeed helps explain why) a low-fat, high-carb diet is not good for us, and leads to obesity and heart disease – the opposite of what they have promised. “A calorie is just a calorie” on the other hand indicts fat, and justifies the increasingly bankrupt position that we should avoid it at all costs.

Who would have thought that “a calorie is a calorie” is just another Progressive slogan?

Published in Science & Technology
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 52 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. radicalbiochemist Inactive
    radicalbiochemist
    @radicalbiochemist

    Thanks for the post, DrRich!

    DrRich: Foods with a high glycemic index (generally, simple carbs) cause a large spike-and-drop in insulin levels. The insulin spike assures that lots of calories get stored as fat. The subsequent precipitous drop in insulin causes ravenous hunger a couple of hours after a high-carb meal. So we eat a bag of Oreos, and repeat the entire cycle.

    I teach an upper-level undergraduate course on enzymology and metabolic pathways. We get down into the gory details of reaction and regulatory mechanisms. A major underlying theme of the course connects insulin secretion, mechanisms of insulin signaling, and their impact on the key players of the major metabolic pathways.  The direction of carbon flow when insulin is up is unmistakable — conversion of carbohydrate-derived metabolites to lipid precursors, fatty acid/triglyceride synthesis, cholesterol synthesis, and on and on. I enjoy watching students connect the dots and wrestle with the low-fat diet dogma they’ve always believed.

    • #31
  2. TempTime Member
    TempTime
    @TempTime

    DocJay:Worthy!

    Say it again!

    • #32
  3. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    radicalbiochemist:I teach an upper-level undergraduate course on enzymology and metabolic pathways. We get down into the gory details of reaction and regulatory mechanisms. A major underlying theme of the course connects insulin secretion, mechanisms of insulin signaling, and their impact on the key players of the major metabolic pathways. The direction of carbon flow when insulin is up is unmistakable — conversion of carbohydrate-derived metabolites to lipid precursors, fatty acid/triglyceride synthesis, cholesterol synthesis, and on and on. I enjoy watching students connect the dots and wrestle with the low-fat diet dogma they’ve always believed.

    It must be uncomfortable teaching a college course on human physiology whose content flies in the face of settled government science.

    I’m curious. What kind of trigger warning do you give to your students before exposing them to such disturbing information?  Do you provide fainting couches? Smelling salts?  Counselors?

    Or perhaps students in an upper level biology course will already have been exposed to (and survived) politically incorrect scientific information (such as, in most cases gender is determined by biology and not environment). Perhaps the weenies will have been weeded out, and you’re dealing with sturdier stuff. I hope for your sake that is the case.

    • #33
  4. radicalbiochemist Inactive
    radicalbiochemist
    @radicalbiochemist

    DrRich: It must be uncomfortable teaching a college course on human physiology whose content flies in the face of settled government science. I’m curious. What kind of trigger warning do you give to your students before exposing them to such disturbing information?

    #1) No trigger warnings.  We just work our way through the contributing pieces, and as we go, we see how the pieces integrate to form the larger picture.  I let them draw their own conclusions as far as that is concerned.  It’s not uncommon to get a question from students about some diet or supplement they’ve heard about.  If it hits on areas we’re covering, we work through it in a back-and-forth and just simply apply what we’ve learned to this new situation.  In fact, exam questions frequently come to them in that form. Something like: “Here’s a disease we haven’t talked about.  It’s linked to this enzyme deficiency, and here are the symptoms that go with it.  Based on what we’ve covered, explain why this deficiency would give rise to these symptoms.”

    Frankly, I think they’re more focused on and overwhelmed (at first) by the volume of information we’re covering and for which they will be responsible. So far, I am pleased to see that most of them accept that challenge head-on.

    • #34
  5. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Great post.

    “Foods with a high glycemic index (generally, simple carbs) cause a large spike-and-drop in insulin levels. The insulin spike assures that lots of calories get stored as fat. “

    One interesting point I’ve learned about the relative metabolism of glucose versus fat:

    Etcetera paribus, your body actually stores 100% of fat consumed.  It will not store 100% of carbohydrate consumed.  Part of the excess carbohydrate is actually burned off by your body raising its metabolic rate.  Since excess glucose is toxic, your body is desperate to get rid of it, whatever the method.

    “However, these effects are small compared with the autoregulatory power of carbohydrate because the increased fat oxidation disposed of only 18% of the excess intake, whereas for carbohydrate the value was 74%. This weak, but nonetheless present, autoregulatory influence of fat strengthens the results of earlier studies by others.”

    (Some of the conclusions in that study don’t follow, btw, in light of the research below.)

    This may explain why people who go on low-carb diets spontaneously reduce calorie consumption: they’re getting calories they don’t need to burn off, and therefore need less.

    I think the Taubes model is missing a few points, it’s not quite as simple as he describes, although as a rough-and-ready guide his observations are very useful.

    • #35
  6. radicalbiochemist Inactive
    radicalbiochemist
    @radicalbiochemist

    DrRich: Or perhaps students in an upper level biology course will already have been exposed to (and survived) politically incorrect scientific information (such as, in most cases gender is determined by biology and not environment). Perhaps the weenies will have been weeded out, and you’re dealing with sturdier stuff. I hope for your sake that is the case.

    #2) We actually tack into this from the chemistry side.  The prerequisites for the course are a full year of General Chemistry, a full year of Organic Chemistry, and the preceding semester of Biochemistry.  These are pretty dedicated and focused students.  The large majority of them have aspirations for medical/dental/graduate school.

    I tell them up front that my expectations for them are high–I won’t insult them by setting the bar low.  I tell them that I want them to succeed, and at the same time, I want their success to actually mean something. As much as it is in my power to do so, I  try to captivate their interest with the material itself — it’s amazing stuff, and I don’t mind showing them that at every opportunity.

    My experience with most of these students is that they work hard, and as a result, they get a lot out of the class.  It occupies a great place in the curriculum in that it allows them to see the connections to so many other subjects they’ve studied and to the professions they’re pursuing.

    • #36
  7. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    radicalbiochemist:…I teach an upper-level undergraduate course on enzymology and metabolic pathways. We get down into the gory details of reaction and regulatory mechanisms. A major underlying theme of the course connects insulin secretion, mechanisms of insulin signaling, and their impact on the key players of the major metabolic pathways. The direction of carbon flow when insulin is up is unmistakable — conversion of carbohydrate-derived metabolites to lipid precursors, fatty acid/triglyceride synthesis, cholesterol synthesis, and on and on. I enjoy watching students connect the dots and wrestle with the low-fat diet dogma they’ve always believed.

    Great that you’re participating!

    OK, I’m going to set myself up for a beating.  I’d love if you could review this post (comments in that or here) and let me—and us—know what you think.

    • #37
  8. radicalbiochemist Inactive
    radicalbiochemist
    @radicalbiochemist

    Tuck: OK, I’m going to set myself up for a beating.  I’d love if you could review this post (comments in that or here) and let me—and us—know what you think.

    I’ll take a look and try to get back to you on it.

    • #38
  9. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    radicalbiochemist:

    Tuck: OK, I’m going to set myself up for a beating. I’d love if you could review this post (comments in that or here) and let me—and us—know what you think.

    I’ll take a look and try to get back to you on it.

    Thank you.

    • #39
  10. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    radicalbiochemist:

    My experience with most of these students is that they work hard, and as a result, they get a lot out of the class. It occupies a great place in the curriculum in that it allows them to see the connections to so many other subjects they’ve studied and to the professions they’re pursuing.

    Speaking as someone who was a chemistry major himself many decades ago (back far enough that the role of insulin in fat metabolism was only just being elucidated), and who needed to learn stuff like this to get into medical school, and whose professors were not nearly as dedicated and enthusiastic as you clearly are, your students are very lucky to have you.  And I am happy for you that the rigorous prerequisites for this course, coupled with the single-mindedness of your students, likely frees you from needing to concern yourself with any PC implications of the course material.

    Rich

    • #40
  11. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    Tuck:I think the Taubes model is missing a few points, it’s not quite as simple as he describes, although as a rough-and-ready guide his observations are very useful.

    I agree with you on that. Taubes’ synthesis of why we get fat is not complete.  But he has done our society a valuable service by spreading the word (in a very understandable and compelling way) that the experts have been and still are wrong.  He had a big hand in waking everyone up.

    • #41
  12. DrRich Inactive
    DrRich
    @DrRich

    Tuck:

    I’d love if you could review this post 

    This wasn’t addressed to me (I’m no biochemist), but I like your post very much, and highly recommend it.

    Your assertion that dietary omega-6 is a big problem has lots of merit. There are some big clinical studies that support that idea.  This is too bad since high levels of omega-6 are nearly ubiquitous in the American diet.

    Our dietary experts, however, having just recently abandoned their low-fat diet mantra, and recently being reduced to invoking global warming to justify a continued restriction on saturated fat, are entirely dug in on the unsurpassed merits of polyunsaturated fats – including omega-6. This may be their last stand regarding dietary fat, and we should expect them to fight.

    Notably, omega-6 likely does more than just keep us fat. There’s decent evidence that, because omega-6 is readily oxidized to free radicals, eating this stuff can actually hasten heart disease and cardiovascular death (not to mention increasing breast and prostate cancer, and some other nasty problems).

    While waiting for the experts to end their snit and actually look at the evidence on the potential harms of omega-6, anyone who wants to can conduct the same kind of experiment you did (with an N of 1 and serving as your own control), to see whether restricting dietary omega-6 at least helps with weight control.

    Again, my friends, read Tuck’s post.

    • #42
  13. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    DrRich:

    Tuck:

    I’d love if you could review this post

    This wasn’t addressed to me (I’m no biochemist), but I like your post very much, and highly recommend it.

    Thank you very much for that, and for the feedback.

    Notably, omega-6 likely does more than just keep us fat. There’s decent evidence that, because omega-6 is readily oxidized to free radicals, eating this stuff can actually hasten heart disease and cardiovascular death (not to mention increasing breast and prostate cancer, and some other nasty problems).

    I’m enough of a nerd that I’ve dug into this pretty deeply.  To severely over-summarize: Over consumption of omega-6 actually changes the structure of mitochondria, causing overproduction of free radicals, which then oxidize the omega-6, damaging the mitochondria and leading to mitochondrial dysfunction and, if you’re lucky, cell death.

    One of the distinguishing traits of the Metabolic Syndrome diseases is mitochondrial dysfunction.  Perhaps there’s a link?

    I’ve made my bet… ;)

    • #43
  14. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    DrRich:

    …Notably, omega-6 likely does more than just keep us fat. There’s decent evidence that, because omega-6 is readily oxidized to free radicals, eating this stuff can actually hasten heart disease and cardiovascular death (not to mention increasing breast and prostate cancer, and some other nasty problems)….

    This is interesting, there’s a link to a similar paper from 2007 at the page.

    “Israel has one of the highest dietary polyunsaturated/saturated fat ratios in the world; the consumption of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is about 8% higher than in the USA, and 10-12% higher than in most European countries. In fact, Israeli Jews may be regarded as a population-based dietary experiment of the effect of a high omega-6 PUFA diet, a diet that until recently was widely recommended. Despite such national habits, there is paradoxically a high prevalence of cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and obesity-all diseases that are associated with hyperinsulinemia (HI) and insulin resistance (IR), and grouped together as the insulin resistance syndrome or syndrome X. There is also an increased cancer incidence and mortality rate, especially in women, compared with western countries. Studies suggest that high omega-6 linoleic acid consumption might aggravate HI and IR, in addition to being a substrate for lipid peroxidation and free radical formation. Thus, rather than being beneficial, high omega-6 PUFA diets may have some long-term side effects, within the cluster of hyperinsulinemia, atherosclerosis and tumorigenesis.”

    • #44
  15. radicalbiochemist Inactive
    radicalbiochemist
    @radicalbiochemist

    Tuck: OK, I’m going to set myself up for a beating.  I’d love if you could review this post (comments in that or here) and let me—and us—know what you think.

    I enjoyed reading your post.  It was well laid out, and I particularly appreciate a realistic mechanistic connection between linoleate and obesity.  I agree with your assessment that “carbohydrates are a necessary but not sufficient idea to explain our obesity problem.”. I add the emphasis on necessary because it’s not even on the radar screen for most of the students entering the course I cited above. The lipid hypothesis and calorie counting are at the core of their understanding of what constitutes a proper diet, and importantly, the extent to which they are “eating right” or bearing guilt about not doing so. The mechanisms we cover in the class refute the lipid hypothesis (and the dietary recommendations that come from it) at almost every point.

    I’ll second DrRich’s comment (#41) that Gary Taubes has done much to change the landscape in this respect.  He has helped encourage a questioning of much of the dogma in diet/nutrition (e.g., saturated fat = evil). Your post on linoleate very effectively hits that point.

    In the course itself factors related to regulation by way of appetite don’t come up much, not because they’re unimportant, but because…well…I have a hard time getting through everything that’s on the syllabus already.

    • #45
  16. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    radicalbiochemist:

    Tuck: OK, I’m going to set myself up for a beating. I’d love if you could review this post (comments in that or here) and let me—and us—know what you think.

    I enjoyed reading your post….

    Thank you very much for taking the time.  I’m a hobbyist, and it’s an insanely complicated subject, so I’m always appreciative of feedback!

    …I’ll second DrRich’s comment (#41) that Gary Taubes has done much to change the landscape in this respect. He has helped encourage a questioning of much of the dogma in diet/nutrition (e.g., saturated fat = evil). Your post on linoleate very effectively hits that point.

    Many people commented on how Good Calories, Bad Calories was a tough read.  I found it to be a page-turner.  He’s done terrific work, and his NuSi project should bear real fruit.

    • #46
  17. radicalbiochemist Inactive
    radicalbiochemist
    @radicalbiochemist

    DrRich: Notably, omega-6 likely does more than just keep us fat. There’s decent evidence that, because omega-6 is readily oxidized to free radicals, eating this stuff can actually hasten heart disease and cardiovascular death (not to mention increasing breast and prostate cancer, and some other nasty problems).

    Yes! The free radical connection is a critical one. The easily oxidizable issue would apply to most polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) be they omega-6 or omega-3.

    (Heading down into the weeds or back to your chem major roots) the bis-allylic arrangement of the double bonds (=/\=) as opposed to conjugated double bonds makes hydrogen atom abstraction, radical rearrangement, and subsequent reactions with oxygen facile for the PUFAs we make or encounter in our diets.  The sheer abundance of linoleate in the typical US diet would make it a prime target for initial oxidation, and it would facilitate subsequent propagation of free radical reactions. (Never thought that would be even close to relevant to a discussion on Ricochet)

    Given that chemical propensity, it has never made sense to me why PUFA-rich vegetable oils would be pushed so hard relative to saturated fats which are virtually inert in this regard.

    • #47
  18. radicalbiochemist Inactive
    radicalbiochemist
    @radicalbiochemist

    Tuck: Thank you very much for taking the time.  I’m a hobbyist, and it’s an insanely complicated subject, so I’m always appreciative of feedback!

    Don’t come by many who have this as a hobby. It always does my heart good to come by others with a passion for these subjects.  What brought you to it?

    Tuck: Many people commented on how Good Calories, Bad Calories was a tough read.  I found it to be a page-turner.

    Like crack…with lots of references :)

    Tuck: He’s done terrific work, and his NuSi project should bear real fruit.

    I think this is probably the thing I admire most about his efforts.

    • #48
  19. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    radicalbiochemist:
    (Heading down into the weeds or back to your chem major roots) the bis-allylic arrangement of the double bonds (=/\=) as opposed to conjugated double bonds makes hydrogen atom abstraction, radical rearrangement, and subsequent reactions with oxygen facile for the PUFAs we make or encounter in our diets. The sheer abundance of linoleate in the typical US diet would make it a prime target for initial oxidation, and it would facilitate subsequent propagation of free radical reactions.

    Okay.  I have no idea what this means or how to parse it.  But I’m going to memorize  it by rote and whip it out next time I’m chatting with a Cross Fit hooligan.

    • #49
  20. radicalbiochemist Inactive
    radicalbiochemist
    @radicalbiochemist

    Boss Mongo: Okay.  I have no idea what this means or how to parse it.  But I’m going to memorize  it by rote and whip it out next time I’m chatting with a Cross Fit hooligan.

    Yeah.  I probably could have left that out.  Put on your best Cliff Clavin and open it with, “It’s a little known fact…”  Also good for people who approach you with clip boards.

    • #50
  21. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    radicalbiochemist:

    Don’t come by many who have this as a hobby. It always does my heart good to come by others with a passion for these subjects. What brought you to it?

    Blind dumb luck.

    I had a number of health problems, detailed in part at the end of this post, which resolved immediately upon “fixing” my diet.  A friend had sent me a link to a blog by a fellow who’s now an obesity research, and I read that for six months prior to taking action.

    The first fix I made was drastically reducing my omega-6 intake.

    • #51
  22. Luke Thatcher
    Luke
    @Luke

    A paraphrased thought from Dr. Eades.
    We are not what we eat. We are what our body does with what we eat.

    • #52
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.