Tag Archive: nutrition

“Negative Calorie” and “Zero Calorie” foods don’t exist

That’s right. Water is the only *real* zero calorie food item (unless you consider air a food, then…well…my bad)

What about Diet Soda/zero calorie sweetener/etc.?

The FDA allows the label of “zero calories” as long as there are less than 5 calories per serving. Go buy a 24 oz diet anything and look at the side. Zero calories per serving, 2.5 servings per bottle. Why not just put one serving? Because the serving size is figured to where it has just shy of 5 calories, allowing it to be labeled as zero calorie. Should you be worried? Not really. Say each of these diet items has 4 calories per serving. That’s 875 servings before you reach 3,500 calories (calories in a pound of weight gained OVER maintenance).

What about -insert vegetable or fruit here-?

These foods are good for you, which is why most diet plans/lifestyle changes/etc. advocate eating them in as much excess as you’d like. Most people cite celery for being extremely low calorie, and it is. However, it still has calories. Bananas have .89 calories per gram, so if you’re ignoring the fact that you eat 300 grams of bananas a day you’re adding almost 300 unaccounted for calories. The same is said of ALL food – just because it is a fruit or vegetable does not mean it is calorie free. 99% of the time, however, it is low calorie and packed with vitamins, minerals, etc. This makes it healthy: not calorie free.

But it takes more energy to chew celery than it gives you!

You don’t think this is accounted for in its calorie count? Or our BMR? Just because celery is primarily cellulose (which humans cannot digest) and water doesn’t mean it is zero calorie, or even negative calorie.AnswerFitness has a great sciency article on why negative calorie foods do not exist, especially not the way we think they do.

July 4, 2012 Fat Loss, Myths, Nutrition, , Read more >

Should you count the calories in fruits and vegetables?

This question comes to you from my mother, and a lot of people who send me asks. My mom WAS a yo-yo dieter, and every diet she’d ever been on recommended fruit and vegetables in excess…except some diets swore off “high carb” vegetables. She wanted to know what the deal was with this, so I thought I’d beak it down.

1. There is no such thing as a zero calorie or negative calorie fruit/vegetable/food/etc.

All things have calories. When people say, “Eat all the celery you want, it’s a negative calorie food!” they are wrong. Celery has negligible calories, however, so eating those 5 calories of celery a few times a day isn’t going to set back your weight loss. You gain a pound of weight by eating 3,500 calories over your maintenance calories for the day. This can come from fruit, vegetables, bagels, ice cream, lean meat, etc. One food isn’t going to do you in, the calories will.

2. Why the veggie/fruit free-for-all?

Think about who most diet plans are tailored to: overweight individuals looking to shed 20+ pounds of body fat. Most people who buy into these diet plans/weight loss plans may not have the most balanced meals in the first place. I cannot remember a time growing up when we had fresh spinach for dinner, but rather Cream of Mushroom lathered asparagus that we slugged through together. Most people who go on diet plans don’t eat fruits and veggies in the first place, or they eat one type of fruit (apple) once or twice a week. Giving people “free range” to eat all the fruits and veggies they want will make them fill their gaps of hunger with these cheat foods. Why is this good?

3. Veggies and fruit are super healthy

They pack carbs, fats, protein, micro and macro nutrients in a solid punch. Look at my good food posts – 1 cup of collard greens has almost 400mg of calcium (35 calories)? Artichokes can carry 10 mg of fiber (76 calories)? Carrots are high in vitamin A (52 calories in one cup)? Compared to the calories you’re getting a lot of bang for your buck.

4. It’s harder to OD on calories from veggies/fruit than Honey Buns, bags of chips, etc.

Veggies and fruits come with the solid advantage of being pre-portioned. When you want to eat an apple, you eat one apple. When you want to eat chips, it’s rare that someone portions them out and counts how many chips they eat. When a cup of spinach has 5 calories but a glass of soda can have 160 calories, it makes sense why you’d point someone in the direction of fruits and veggies instead of anything else.

5. “Empty calories” vs. nutritious foods

If you’re filling your hunger void with veggies and fruits instead of diet sodas, chips, etc. there’s an increased likelihood that you’ll be fuller longer. Why? Fiber, protein and healthy fat are touted to keep you fuller longer. Without going into the reasoning behind stretch receptors, signals of hunger, the mental aspect of hunger, we can accept that this is true. Some people will disagree, and that’s fine, no two bodies are the same. In general research shows that if you eat something nutrient dense, like say spinach or an avocado, then the protein, fiber and healthy fat found in it will keep you full longer. Mindless snacking aside, that means less dips into the potato chips in an attempt to fill the void.

So should you count the calories in fruits and vegetables?

Why you shouldn’t

  • Your focus is on incorporating healthy food choices into your lifestyle
  • You’re lacking in nutrients in a certain department and are trying to supplement that with fruit and vegetables
  • Calorie counting and weight loss are not important to you

Why you should

  • If you are stalled for weight loss and haven’t been counting calories from fruit/veggies
  • You eat fruit/veggies 4-5x a day and are trying to lose weight by counting calories
  • You’re interested in learning about portion sizes and want to be able to eyeball what a standard carrot size is, and what that means calorie wise

It’s a complex issue that’s highly individualized. Fruits and veggies are wonderful food that can add lots of micro and macro nutrients to your diet. No one single food group is causing you to gain weight or not lose weight, it’s the excess calories from your overall eating that is doing this. As long as you know your goals you should be able to answer this question for yourself.

July 4, 2012 Fat Loss, Nutrition, , Read more >

How do low carbohydrate diets work?

Diets low in carbohydrates, or “low carb diets”, have been making their way back into the mainstream due to special recognition of Keto, Atkins and Paleolithic diet lifestyles. Like all “diets” (by “diet” I do not mean “what I eat every day,” but rather “what I’m doing to lose weight now”) they are not recommended for life. Why? Science 🙂

What is a carbohydrate?

A carbohydrate is a molecule that gives the body energy. Carbohydrates have many different functions, but for the argument of this article: carbohydrates derived from food give our body the energy it needs to function (see: Krebs Cycle). They are broken down into glucose, ketones, etc. for use by the entire body. The brain and neurons can only use glucose and ketones (that can pass the blood brain barrier) from carbohydrates for energy.

How does this apply to my diet?

When a carbohydrate is broken down it is used for energy. The most common form of this is glucose in humans. If your body needs energy, it’s more likely to use the carbohydrates/glucose circulating in your blood first for energy. Secondarily, it moves to your liver to extract stored glucose. Muscles can also access stored glucose in muscle cells. Next it removes stored glucose from fat cells. Lastly, it will enter a state of gluconeogenesis, where it creates glucose from non-carbohydrate sources. This is why carbs give great short term energy. If they’re available and the body needs energy they’ll use them preferentially. Excess carbohydrates that are not used stimulate insulin, which takes that glucose and puts it places in your body, such as your liver and fat cells.

So why are carbs important if we can just get energy from fat or our livers?

Your brain can only use glucose for energy. If your body doesn’t have glucose regularly circulating it has to get it from somewhere. First, it will dip into whatever is stored. Glycogen is the stored form of glucose. Remember how I said extra glucose gets stored? It’s stored as glycogen. If your body needs energy and there’s none there, it opens the cabinets and grabs some glycogen. The first place it gets this from is the liver. Some glycogen is also stored in your muscles so your muscles can have immediate access to it if needed – but ONLY to your muscles.

What happens when you run out of glycogen?

Ever heard of runners “hitting a wall” around mile 20? They’ve used up all of their glycogen. Symptoms include fatigue to the point of almost being unable to move. They have to counteract this by consuming different types of carbohydrates before and during their races.

So now we’re out of glycogen and glucose…what happens?

Your body has to make glucose from somewhere, so it makes it from non-carbohydrate carbon substrates. This creates ketone bodies that must be used for energy instead. Ketone bodies are made from fat during lipolysis, or “fat cutting.” However, the brain cannot use this for energy because ketone bodies cannot cross the blood-brain barrier to feed the brain. Very few ketone bodies do pass and can be used, but not at nearly the high volume of glucose.

What does this has to do with low carb diets?

The idea is that low carb diets decrease your levels of insulin. Since insulin drives glucose into storage cells, you store less fat. Since you have less carbohydrates, when your body needs energy it goes to glycogen in your liver and muscle. When that’s exhausted it has to start looking for other sources of energy. This leads to ketosis, where the body has a high level of ketone bodies. Theoretically, then, if you don’t have carbohydrates (or are low carb) and need energy your body instead burns fat. This is highly debated amongst scientists, as long term studies have shown that after a year on Atkins the average weight loss is 4%.

Is ketosis bad?

This is the big debate. What about cultures that don’t consume a lot of starches, or cultures that are much more active than ours? They spend more time in ketosis than we do. The argument can come from a standpoint of “what is normal?” Some studies have shown that periodic ketosis is normal and may actually have surprising benefits. Others have shown that ketosis predisposes you to heart disease (in this case, high protein diets), liver damage, and other health problems.

What about ketoacidosis? Isn’t that what diabetics get?

Yes. If you have a high level of ketone bodies and your body cannot get rid of them, the blood becomes acidic. This can be fatal. Healthy people with a working pancreas should not have to worry about this – your pancreas secretes enough insulin to prevent this high of a build up. Another concern arises from alcoholics, who dehydrate themselves so much they block the first steps of gluconeogenesis, and then get ketoacidosis. This is not a concern amongst normal, healthy individuals.

So is low-carb good or bad? Effective or not effective?

Calories are king, so avoiding carbohydrates without counting calories will do nothing for your weight loss and may make you feel weak or easily irritated. As for its effectiveness? Here are some studies…

The Effects of Low-Fat and High-Carb diet on the physiological and biochemical indices in healthy youth with different BMIs (no big difference between the two)

Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweigh premenopausal women (Atkins group lost 4.7 kg in 12 months, Zone lost 1.6 kg, LEARN 2.6 kg and Ornish 2.2 kg)

BUT

Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease reduction (Each popular diet modestly reduced body weight and several cardiac risk factors. OVERALL DIETARY ADHERENCE RATES WERE LOW. Atkins lost 4.8 kg (21 of 40 participants completed) Zone lost 3.2 kg (26 of 40 completed) 3 kg for Weight watchers (26 out of 40 completed) and 3.3 kg for Ornish (20 of 40 completed) )

On the same vein…

Dietary adherence has been implicated as an important factor in the success of dieting strategies

and

Initial 6-month reduction in weight is the main predictor of both long-term retention and success in weight loss. Special attention is needed for women, current smokers and during holidays. Physical activity is associated with subsequent reduction in energy intake.

July 4, 2012 Fat Loss, Nutrition, , , Read more >

Egg Yolks vs. Egg Whites

Why do people skip the yolk?

-Egg whites are lower in calories

-Taste/texture – some people find the yolk disgusting, especially if not fully cooked

-Perceived threat of high cholesterol

-Concerns about high fat

Why You Should Keep the Yolk

The threat of high cholesterol from egg yolks is greatly a myth. Studies have shown that dietary animal based cholesterol does not directly raise blood cholesterol. Blood level cholesterol is made in the liver and pumped into the blood when it’s needed. Studies have indicated that the response to dietary cholesterol is highly individualized and complex, and reports of increased LDL (the “bad cholesterol”) have been reported as few and far between. Additionally, these increases were not large enough to cause a concern. Cholesterol is also a building block for our steroid hormones – such as sex hormones.

The egg yolk contains all of the fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) in the egg. These hormones are important in boosting immune function, keeping your bones strong, healthy teeth and hair, thyroid, etc. Other nutrients found almost entirely in the yolk include zinc (99%), calcium (90%) and folate (95%). The yolk also contains 43% of the total protein in the egg.

Lutein and zeaxanthin are high in the yolk as well, and have been toted to lower the incidence of cataracts and age-related macular degeneration.

If you like the taste, don’t say no to the egg yolk! If you’re counting calories, make sure you’re taking into consideration the micronutrients you’re losing when you skip the yolk. If you are still on the fence and want to stick to egg whites alone, don’t buy them prepackaged. You save money by buying a carton of eggs and tossing the yolks.

*Values in the picture are based on 1 large egg (55g whole egg, 30g egg whites)

July 4, 2012 Myths, Nutrition Read more >

Liquid food vs solid food and hunger

How many people have woken up, slurped down a high protein, high fiber, high fat breakfast shake and felt full for hours? How many people have done the same thing with a high protein, high fiber, high fat breakfast omelet and felt full longer, or hungry sooner?

Oh you betcha, I’m going to throw some science atcha!

This nasty-ass study gave people the same amount of calories in either solid chicken breast or as a liquified chicken breast shake and tried to see which group was hungry first.  They didn’t skimp on this – they measured glucose, insulin, ghrelin, etc. Turns out the curves for those three hormones (glucose is sugar, insulin tells your body to store said sugar, and ghrelin says you’re hungry) were the same…yet those who ate solid chicken breasts felt full longer.

But let’s look at some other stuff. I mean, liquified chicken breast? Vomit.

This one is less nasty, but less precise. The first one kept density the same for both the liquid and solid, this one didn’t. It just took solid and liquid meal replacements of the same nutrient content and measured peoples hunger responses over time. Those who ate solid foods were full longer than those who ate the liquids, despite having the same amount of protein/carbs/fats/etc.

I’ll save you a snooze fest and just tell you that majority of these studies found the same thing. Google it.

Basically, these studies showed that people felt fuller longer when they ate solid vs. liquid food. Did the hormones show the same? Eh.

Ghrelin is the “I’m hungry” hormone. The more this hormone you have, the more signals go to your brain to say, “feed me!” The first study found that in both cases ghrelin levels were about the same. The second study showed the ghrelin levels started lower and stayed lower over time with the liquid food versus the solid food, until about 200 minutes after the meal, in which they increased above the levels of the solid food. Leptin has the reverse, it’s the “I’m full” hormone. Same story – it started off being slightly higher in the liquid versus the solid food, was exactly the same 120 minutes out, and remained slightly higher in the liquid 240 minutes out.

So does this mean solid food makes you feel full longer? Research shows it does, despite the hormones that signal basic hunger/satiety saying otherwise. Is this your mind playing tricks on you? I invite you to do this study yourself before you decide to ditch your protein shake in favor of a solid breakfast.

July 4, 2012 Nutrition Read more >