A correlation study by Gross et al. published in the May 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition revealed that the average per capita total carbohydrate intake in the United States consisted of 500 grams per day in 1909 and 500 grams per day in 1997. Fiber intake, meanwhile, was 40 percent lower in 1997.
Fascinating, don't you think?
In essence, we are eating the same amount of carbohydrates today as we did 100 years ago (carbohydrate intake reached its lowest point in the 1960s and has risen steadily since then).
Obesity rates have certainly skyrocketed since 1909, though.
So how can we truly place the blame for the increasing weight problem in this country on carbohydrates?
Let's consider a few things.
We know that total caloric intake per capita has increased since 1909 (and it can certainly be argued that the average person leads a much more sedentary lifestyle), but this study throws in another interesting factor -- fiber consumption has decreased by almost half since then.
Remember, one of fiber's weight-loss advantages is that it helps promote satiety (the feeling of fullness).
It is easy to overeat (consume more calories of) refined fiberless grains like muffins, cookies, and bagels because they aren't very filling.
Try out a simple experiment at home. Have nothing but two plain slices of toasted white bread for breakfast one morning, and two plain slices of whole grain toast the next.
You will find that the whole grain toast -- at 3 grams of fiber a slice -- leaves you feeling fuller longer than the white toast (less than 1 gram of fiber per slice) despite the two being equal in caloric value.
Truth is, a large percentage of today's carbohydrate intake comes in the form of fiberless and nutritionally void sources like added sugars and refined flours.
The last "numbers game" post revealed that 40 percent of adults in the United States do not consume a single serving of whole grains each day.
Consider this. A large soda at a fast food restaurant contributes approximately 85 grams of carbohydrate to the diet, every single one in the form of sugar.
These calories (approximately 300) are not filling, so you can bet that twenty or thirty minutes after you finish that last sip your body is demanding more calories.
Another reason to focus on fiber.
Fascinating, don't you think?
In essence, we are eating the same amount of carbohydrates today as we did 100 years ago (carbohydrate intake reached its lowest point in the 1960s and has risen steadily since then).
Obesity rates have certainly skyrocketed since 1909, though.
So how can we truly place the blame for the increasing weight problem in this country on carbohydrates?
Let's consider a few things.
We know that total caloric intake per capita has increased since 1909 (and it can certainly be argued that the average person leads a much more sedentary lifestyle), but this study throws in another interesting factor -- fiber consumption has decreased by almost half since then.
Remember, one of fiber's weight-loss advantages is that it helps promote satiety (the feeling of fullness).
It is easy to overeat (consume more calories of) refined fiberless grains like muffins, cookies, and bagels because they aren't very filling.
Try out a simple experiment at home. Have nothing but two plain slices of toasted white bread for breakfast one morning, and two plain slices of whole grain toast the next.
You will find that the whole grain toast -- at 3 grams of fiber a slice -- leaves you feeling fuller longer than the white toast (less than 1 gram of fiber per slice) despite the two being equal in caloric value.
Truth is, a large percentage of today's carbohydrate intake comes in the form of fiberless and nutritionally void sources like added sugars and refined flours.
The last "numbers game" post revealed that 40 percent of adults in the United States do not consume a single serving of whole grains each day.
Consider this. A large soda at a fast food restaurant contributes approximately 85 grams of carbohydrate to the diet, every single one in the form of sugar.
These calories (approximately 300) are not filling, so you can bet that twenty or thirty minutes after you finish that last sip your body is demanding more calories.
Another reason to focus on fiber.
Posts
4 comments:
What do you know about fiber and unabsorbed calories? If fiber is an important factor in weight control, then part of it's effect may have to do with the slowing of absorption of calories into the blood stream. Another effect may be the prevention of the absorption of some calories altogether. The fact that there's a considerable amount of bacterial metabolic activity in the gut should lead us to conclude that calorie excretion accounts for differences in response to caloric intake. In some cases it would partially account for failure to gain weight with increased caloric intake.
David,
I think it's simply due to satiety. Fiber-rich foods keep you full longer, thereby decreasing total caloric intake.
A filling meal might have you jonesing for some food 2 hours later, not 30 minutes later like a non-filling meal.
Thereby, low fiber intake usually results in more total consumption of calories.
Remember, too, that a meal rich in fiber satiates with less calories (ie: it takes more pretzel calories to make you feel full than calories from nuts or oatmeal).
Actually, there's evidence that calorie excretion occurs. A study, published in the "Annals of Internal Medicine" 119(2):7 (1993): 694-697, reported calorie excretion rates ranging from 20 to 60 percent depending on the amount of soluble fiber contained in the food.
David,
I'm not denying the existence of such journal articles; however, I think the satiety-lending effects of fiber play a most significant role.
Post a Comment