Thought some here may find this an interesting article
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Thought some here may find this an interesting article
You mean to tell me that food is more than just calories?
Could the chemicals contained in our food as well as how they are physically altered (by cooking digestion, etc) affect the way we use those calories contained in them?
Seems legit.
Good find JF, thanks for sharing
Even the smart raw-foodies admit that its good for me to steam my vegetables in order to increase the overall volume of consumption.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I liked it.
This is the first article I have read which linked ancestry to intestine length, anthropological things like that always fascinates me.
That was crazy. So, theoretically, if one could find out what foods their body can digest and assimilate most efficiently (based on their ancestry) they could maximize body composition, strength/mass gains and health simultaneously.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
That was crazy. So, theoretically, if one could find out what foods their body can digest and assimilate most efficiently (based on their ancestry) they could maximize body composition, strength/mass gains and health simultaneously. [/quote]
I would think that before we concern ourselves with ancestry, we just be aware of the little signs our body gives off as digestion occurs. How energetic do we feel after consuming a particular item? How much gas or digestive distress is occurring? Are we experiencing crazy stools? Things like that.
Great article, JF! Makes me want to just eat when hungry, as well as not be so nit-picky over every damn macro and morsel!
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
That was crazy. So, theoretically, if one could find out what foods their body can digest and assimilate most efficiently (based on their ancestry) they could maximize body composition, strength/mass gains and health simultaneously. [/quote]
I would think that before we concern ourselves with ancestry, we just be aware of the little signs our body gives off as digestion occurs. How energetic do we feel after consuming a particular item? How much gas or digestive distress is occurring? Are we experiencing crazy stools? Things like that.
Great article, JF! Makes me want to just eat when hungry, as well as not be so nit-picky over every damn macro and morsel!
[/quote]
I completely agree, just thought it’d be cool if there were some way to determine what we respond best to through science as opposed to trial and error. I can’t eat anything with gluten without getting crazy gas and feeling like it’s automatic nap time, so I generally avoid it. Took me YEARS to make the connection though.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
just thought it’d be cool if there were some way to determine what we respond best to through science as opposed to trial and error…
[/quote]
Science is trial and error.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Took me YEARS to make the connection though.
[/quote]
It’s kind of sad when you consider that many people have dealt with the symptoms for so long, they assume it’s normal.
Very cool find.
Really interesting read. Thanks for posting.
I’ve long suspected that almonds don’t get fully digested, even when you chew them into dust. One look at the toilet bowl the day after tells the tale…
To say a calorie is not a calorie is equivalent to saying a kilo of feather doesn’t weigh the same as a kilo of lead. It always irritates me when articles use “a calorie is not a calorie” because it is… always. The definition of a calorie is the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 °C. Full stop.
I won’t argue with the fact that the net energy absorbed from different types of food and macro’s varies but that’s a different matter.
EDIT: but the article was very interesting 
[quote]winkel wrote:
To say a calorie is not a calorie is equivalent to saying a kilo of feather doesn’t weigh the same as a kilo of lead. It always irritates me when articles use “a calorie is not a calorie” because it is… always. The definition of a calorie is the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 Ã?°C. Full stop.
I won’t argue with the fact that the net energy absorbed from different types of food and macro’s varies but that’s a different matter.
EDIT: but the article was very interesting :-)[/quote]
A calorie derived from carbohydrates is different than that of protein or fat in how it affects the chemistry of your body.
A calorie in this sense is not just a calorie - because you don’t necessarily get all the energy out of it.
Food is information.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]winkel wrote:
To say a calorie is not a calorie is equivalent to saying a kilo of feather doesn’t weigh the same as a kilo of lead. It always irritates me when articles use “a calorie is not a calorie” because it is… always. The definition of a calorie is the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 Ã??Ã?°C. Full stop.
I won’t argue with the fact that the net energy absorbed from different types of food and macro’s varies but that’s a different matter.
EDIT: but the article was very interesting :-)[/quote]
A calorie derived from carbohydrates is different than that of protein or fat in how it affects the chemistry of your body.
A calorie in this sense is not just a calorie - because you don’t necessarily get all the energy out of it.[/quote]
What he is saying is that a calorie is a calorie because it is a unit of measure. For example, a cup of water is a cup of water. The calorie(or in this case cup)is the unit of measure(volume), regardless of what the actual material is. “A calorie is/isn’t just a calorie” is just a communication platform we use to discuss whether food has a greater metabolic impact beyond it’s given measure of energy. It really has nothing to do with calories itself, but what we have attached to the phrase. 1 calorie of ice cream is the same as one calorie of plutonium, it’s simply a unit of measure and nothing more.
[quote]i_am_ketosis wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]winkel wrote:
To say a calorie is not a calorie is equivalent to saying a kilo of feather doesn’t weigh the same as a kilo of lead. It always irritates me when articles use “a calorie is not a calorie” because it is… always. The definition of a calorie is the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 Ã???Ã??Ã?°C. Full stop.
I won’t argue with the fact that the net energy absorbed from different types of food and macro’s varies but that’s a different matter.
EDIT: but the article was very interesting :-)[/quote]
A calorie derived from carbohydrates is different than that of protein or fat in how it affects the chemistry of your body.
A calorie in this sense is not just a calorie - because you don’t necessarily get all the energy out of it.[/quote]
What he is saying is that a calorie is a calorie because it is a unit of measure. For example, a cup of water is a cup of water. The calorie(or in this case cup)is the unit of measure(volume), regardless of what the actual material is. “A calorie is/isn’t just a calorie” is just a communication platform we use to discuss whether food has a greater metabolic impact beyond it’s given measure of energy. It really has nothing to do with calories itself, but what we have attached to the phrase. 1 calorie of ice cream is the same as one calorie of plutonium, it’s simply a unit of measure and nothing more.[/quote]
x2… it’s all about what the message implies… but hear the guy above, irks me when people say muscle weighs more than fat, as this is not true unless we’re talking 2#s of muscle and 1# of fat 
Ok, I guess what I am saying is that the unit of measure, calorie, is not useful for talking about the biochemical machine that is our body.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ok, I guess what I am saying is that the unit of measure, calorie, is not useful for talking about the biochemical machine that is our body.[/quote]
You’re probably right. Unfortunately, that’s the best tool we have to measure our energy intake. As flawed and misguided as it is.
anyone changing their line of thinking on the obesity epidemic, or in general the idea of calorie counting?