Many people in the nutrition blogosphere firmly believe calories are meaningless when it comes to weight control.It is their belief that weight is simply affected by diet composition (ie: 3,000 calories of a low-carb diet do not cause weight gain, while 2,000 of a higher-carb diet do).
Carbohydrates usually take the fall as causing weight gain and obesity.
Please riddle me this, then.
How do you explain anorexia nervosa?
These people -- including the runway model you see pictured here -- are severely underweight as a result of cutting total calories.
The majority of people living with anorexia have diets that, while extremely low in calories, consist mainly of carbohydrates (typical intake includes a large proportion of vegetables, fruits, and low-calorie foods like ricecakes and fat-free Jello).
In fact, the majority of clinical anorexia cases involve people on very low calorie diets that have virtually no fat or protein.
Don't just take my word for it.
A report by the American Dental Hygienists' Association states that "individuals with anorexia tend to ingest a lower than normal amount of food. However, the proportion of carbohydrates to protein and fats is higher than in the normal population."
Posts
12 comments:
Andy, the photo that accompanies your post just scares me.
That is partially why I chose it -- it clearly demonstrates the ravaging toll an eating disorder like anorexia takes on a person's body.
The most disturbing part of it all is that rather than be in a treatment program, this woman is on a runway.
Andy wrote, "...the majority of clinical anorexia cases involve people on very low calorie diets that have virtually no fat or protein."
With no fat or protein the risk of mineral deficiencies increases. Here's a quote from healthyplace.com.
"A deficiency of the mineral zinc in eating disordered patients has been reported by several researchers. It is a little-known fact that a deficiency in the mineral zinc actually causes loss of taste acuity (sensitivity) and appetite. In other words, zinc deficiency may contribute directly to reducing the desire to eat, enhancing or perpetuating a state of anorexia. What may start out as a diet motivated from a desire, whether reasonable or not, to lose weight, accompanied with a natural desire to eat, may turn into a physiological desire not to eat, or some variation on this theme."
David,
Vitamin and mineral deficiencies aren't necessarily about fats and protein.
Some vitamins (ie: vitamin C) are not found in proteins or fats.
The risk of deficiencies increases, very simply, with very low calorie diets.
While Vitamins A, D, E, and K are fat soluble, no minerals are (thereby, fat intake has nothing to do with mineral deficiency).
You're talking about two separate things here in regards to weight gain versus weight loss.
If you cut calories below maintenance, no matter what the composition, people lose weight.
On the other hand, if you are eating mostly protein and fat, you can eat more and not gain weight (because insulin is low).
Michael Eades just wrote about this...
That doesn't make sense.
When you talk about opposite reactions, the variables need to be similar.
For instance, the more water you put in a pot, the longer it takes to boil.
The time for a rolling boil to be reached, assuming the same temperature is used at all times, depends on how much water is in the pot.
Similarly, it's only logical that if consuming too few calories results in weight LOSS, then consuming too many calories results in weight GAIN.
Andy,
The human body does not work like a pot of boiling water. You are trying to dismiss the idea through a poor analogy.
Overfeeding and underfeeding do not work the same way, though I know this seems illogical on the surface. But don't take my word for it. If you actually look at the overfeeding research studies and read Taubes, Eades, etc., you can see this.
If you want a quick look at the science of how this works, here's a good paper:
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9
Matt,
How does that explain the fact that we are eating the same amount of carbohydrates now as we did in 1909?
The main difference between our present diet and one in 1909? More calories.
I also direct you to this literature review by Dr. Glenn A. Gaesser, published last year in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B758G-4PSK6FG-K&_user=30681&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000000333&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=30681&md5=37e1d5575166a00c91613ff1ba000ff0
I know you and your fellow low-carbers will very likely automatically dismiss it since it comes from the ADA, but thought I would share it anyway.
Andy,
I am not a "low-carber", whatever that is.
I agree that more calories are behind the obesity problem, but you missed my point completely. Let me try again:
Overeating in a low-insulin state does not necessarily lead to weight gain.
Overeating in the form of a typical American diet (high-insulin state) leads to weight gain.
Matt,
Thank you for the clarification. From your earlier statements, it appeared that you supported low-carb lifestyles.
I don't think the insulin state someone is overeating in matters.
The one connection I can make regarding what you say is that, usually (not always,) foods that significantly spike up insulin levels do not tend to promote satiety, thereby leaving people more vulnerable to the consumption of additional calories.
When your superscary supermodel wakes up in the morning, she weighs the same every day. She starved herself to look like that most likely, but her maintenance level has probably adjusted to 1,000 calories per day. Is that really what we want? Should we really be cutting calories to lose weight, or does that just bring our maintenance level down lower?
Besides, I am leaner than she is, as evidenced by visible abdominal muscles, and I eat well over 3,000 calories per day without restricting any food group with very moderate amounts of physical activity.
In other words, creating a calorie deficit only changes the maintenance level. So it doesn't seem like a good strategy, but in fact the worst possible strategy one could use to lose weight.
"If eating well makes you gain weight, then you have a damaged metabolism and you need to heal."
-Diana Schwarzbein, M.D.
To this she recommends eating more food, more often than "someone with a healhty metabolism."
Schwarzbein, despite being 20 years older and formerly overweight, is also leaner than the supermodel, but with far more muscle mass, and no signs of emaciation or malnutrtion -- more like a fitness model (and she, like myself, is anti strenuous exercise). Can you explain this?
I don't understand the point you are trying to make, Matt Stone.
What you explain about cutting calories changing the maintenance level is why very-low calorie diets fail (no one can sustain 800 calories for the rest of their life).
I don't understand all these conspiracy theories about calories.
It's very simple. Cut them out and lose weight, add them and gain weight.
In terms of bodybuilders... they can eat 3,000+ calories because they burn thousands in their workouts and also need extra calories to sustain muscle growth.
If those bodybuilders stopped working out for 2 months and just sat in front of the TV eating 3000 calories, their body fat percentages would increase.
Post a Comment