The war on fat

[slkinsey]

Actually, I think that the word Calorie -- a unit of heat to raise water one degree (or whatever), has little meaning in this debate.

Certainly it does have meaning. It is a fact that you will gain one pound of fat if, over a certain period of time, you consume 3,500 more calories than you burn. What else could possibly have more meaning than that. Anyone who tells you that you can consume excess calories of certain "special" foods without gaining weight is lying and probably trying to sell you something.

Take a look at this page and this page for a good explanation of how these things work.

But if you intake 500 "calories" of bacon, compared with 500 "calories" of steamed broccoli, your body will process and store it differently.  The bacon will have more of an "adverse" effect in terms of putting on weight.

No. This is a common mistake, but you are absolutely and completely wrong on this.

If you burn 2,000 calories a day and cosume 2,500 calories of broccoli a day, you will gain one pound of fat for every week you continue this behavior. If you burn 2,000 calories a day and consume 2,500 calories of bacon a day, you will also gain one pound of fat for every week you continue that behavior.

Of course, eating the bacon calories may have other adverse health effects if you eat enough of it, but it will not behave any differently than the broccoli calories in terms of weight gain. What makes broccoli supposedly more "good for you" than bacon in terms of weight gain is that you have to eat a shitload more broccoli to reach 2,500 calories than you do bacon -- bacon has a much higher density of calories. Since less calorie-dense foods take up much more room in your stomach on a per-calorie basis, it makes it much more difficult to consume excess calories from eating these foods.

[Fat Guy]

Are there different treatments for "addiction" as opposed to "compulsion"?

If there aren't, there should be, because they're two different things.

And what the fuck does "healthful" mean?

It is most accurate to refer to a person, animal, etc., as "healthy." In other words, "Boy, that guy sure is healthy. He never calls in sick to work. I wish all our employees could be so healthy."

Whereas, when you speak of the inherent property of something you're going to consume, it is most accurate to use the word "healthful." For example, "Broccoli is healthful." If you were to refer to a head of broccoli as "healthy," you might mean that it's a robust specimen -- a physically fit head of broccoli. Using "healthful" eliminates that ambiguity.

The words are to an extent interchangeable (if you go down to the lower-ranking definitions of each, you'll find the other), but I prefer to maintain the above distinction. Webster's, healthy, "1 : enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit : WELL" -- healthful, "1 : beneficial to health of body or mind."

"Healthy is one of the most incorrectly used words in the English language. We've all heard time and time again the importance of eating healthy foods, but what we really need to be eating are healthful foods. Healthy essentially means to be free from sickness. Only living things can be sick; likewise, only living things can be healthy. Healthful is the word to use to refer to anything that promotes health, such as food, exercise, etc." http://grammarguide.port5.com/wordmeanings.html

Note American Heritage disagrees with me: 'Some people like to maintain a distinction between healthy and healthful. Healthy, they say, should be used to mean “possessing good health,” and only healthful should mean “conducive to good health.” People who hold this view are swimming against the tide of history'

[slkinsey]

But if you intake 500 "calories" of bacon, compared with 500 "calories" of steamed broccoli, your body will process and store it differently.  The bacon will have more of an "adverse" effect in terms of putting on weight.

Do you also think a pound of lead weighs more than a pound of feathers?

Let me paraphrase myself: If you eat a spoon of lard that contains 500 calories and a bowl of kale containing 500 calories, how many of those calories will actually be digested? Some of this is dependent on idiosyncratic physiological differences between individuals, the extent that the food is chewed, and other factors. I know that if I swallow 500 calories of corn without chewing, tomorrow's potty will serve as evidence that I didn't digest/absorb many of those.

Any meaningful comparison of the relative caloric composition of kale and lard would have to take into account the bioavialability of the calories in those two different foods. Thus, your point is moot. For the purposes of this fork of the discussion, 500 calories digested is 500 calories digested. I think we all understand that you have to eat a lot more kale to get 500 calories than you do lard.

[Stone]

But if you intake 500 "calories" of bacon, compared with 500 "calories" of steamed broccoli, your body will process and store it differently.  The bacon will have more of an "adverse" effect in terms of putting on weight.

No. This is a common mistake, but you are absolutely and completely wrong on this.

I know some people with letters after their name that disagree with you.

bioavialability of the calories in those two different foods

What does "bioavailability" mean?

Edited June 26, 2003 by Stone (log)

[Fat Guy]

I know some people with letters after their name that disagree with you.

Would those letters happen to be ", idiot"?

[slkinsey]

But if you intake 500 "calories" of bacon, compared with 500 "calories" of steamed broccoli, your body will process and store it differently.  The bacon will have more of an "adverse" effect in terms of putting on weight.

No. This is a common mistake, but you are absolutely and completely wrong on this.

I know some people with letters after their name that disagree with you.

I know some people with letters after their name who agree with me. So?

bioavialability of the calories in those two different foods

What does "bioavailability" mean?

Bioavailability refers to the extent to which the calories or other nutrients in the food are available for digestion.

Edited June 26, 2003 by slkinsey (log)

[Pan]

Another example is wheat bread versus white bread.  Everyone knows that wheat bread is more nutritious, right?  Wrong.  There are actual documented cases where cultures which subsisted mainly on bread developed widespread diseases of nutritional deficiency due to a switch from white to wheat bread.

Seriously? What nutrients are in white bread and not in whole wheat bread? And could you please elaborate on the instances of malnutrition due to a changeover from white bread to whole wheat bread? Times and places would be most welcome.

[Pan]

Obesity is a major problem in poor nations as well. Famine, of course, will prevent obesity, but short of that the poor are more likely to be obese.

I read the link to the study, but I wonder whether the problem is a recent one. When I lived in rural Malaysia in the 70s, there were very few fat people, indeed. The people in the village I lived in were mostly poor and engaged in a lot of manual labor. They tended to be slim and muscular. There was enough food to go around, by the way, and almost no-one was malnourished (an exception was a young girl who refused to eat anything but cake ).

Post-script: Malaysia is a much more affluent society today, and obesity-associated problems like diabetes, heart disease, and so forth are major health problems there today.

[FathyrJack]

i did not write the original post but I also read in Harold Magee`s book. On food and cooking. that due to the amount of undigestable fiber in wheat bread , a lot of the nutrients in bread pass right through the body never actually being absorbed. Where as white bread which is fortified is absorbed much more readily into the system.

[slkinsey]

Another example is wheat bread versus white bread.  Everyone knows that wheat bread is more nutritious, right?  Wrong.  There are actual documented cases where cultures which subsisted mainly on bread developed widespread diseases of nutritional deficiency due to a switch from white to wheat bread.

Seriously? What nutrients are in white bread and not in whole wheat bread? And could you please elaborate on the instances of malnutrition due to a changeover from white bread to whole wheat bread? Times and places would be most welcome.

Not every nutrient that is present in a given food is capable of being utilized by the human body. For instance, the oxalic acid in raw spinach binds up the iron so that we are not able to absorb it. As it so happens, some of the nutrients in whole wheat flour complex with the indigestible carbohydrates from the bran and pass through the system without being absorbed.

There have been epidemics in Dublin, Egypt, and Iran which have been tied to nutritional deficiencies brought about by a switch from white bread to brown bread.

My source for the above was McGee's "On Food and Cooking." I don't have my copy with me at work, but I can give you the page numbers later on if you like.

[nerissa]

A Double Whopper, which has, what, 2500 calories?, is unhealthy -- it has too much salt, and too much fat. It is unhealthy even if it is the only source of calories for the day. In fact, it is really unhealthy especially if it is the only source of calories for the day. It is not a question of quantity.

Yes I would consider this unhealthy but as long as you burned 2500 calories a day through activity . You would not gain weight. You would be malnurished but not fat.

Show me a day (besides hiking in the mountains on snowshoes or a marathon runner) when you burn 2500 calories.

The point is that no one has this degree of activity. Running for an hour burns an average of 500 calories.

Stone, excellent posts.

I have On Food and Cookiong around. What page ?

The thing about white bread is that it takes a lot to fill you up. And while the grain may be fortified, the unhulling or whatever process is that strips the grain, removes the bran which is necessary for healthy colon. I read a study on yahoo yesterday that bran may also reduces Type 2 diabetes.

[NeroW]

I know some people with letters after their name that disagree with you.

Would those letters happen to be ", idiot"?

[Fat Guy]

Show me a day (besides hiking in the mountains on snowshoes or a marathon runner) when you burn 2500 calories.

Doesn't a person burn 1200+ calories a day just by being alive?

Certainly, I burn more than 2500 calories most days. I haven't gained any weight in awhile, in fact I've lost a little, and I can assure you I eat more than 2500 calories most every day. Therefore, I burn more than 2500 calories a day. And no I don't run or snowshoe or do much of anything except walking, sex, and other typical fat-guy activities.

[EJRothman]

Show me a day (besides hiking in the mountains on snowshoes or a marathon runner) when you burn 2500 calories.

Nerissa, you are only calculating "Active" calorie burn. The human body burns calories by moving, thinking, pumping blood, etc. A 5'1", 118 pound female (my gf, in this case) burns appx. 1600 calories just through normal bodily activity, i.e. if she sat in bed all day staring at the wall. Add normal daily activities plus moderate exercise and getting up to 2500 is not hard for her - she routinely burns many more due to her job.

I personally estimate that I burn around 3500 calories a day based on my body composition and activity level.

-Eric

[slkinsey]

A Double Whopper, which has, what, 2500 calories?, is unhealthy -- it has too much salt, and too much fat. It is unhealthy even if it is the only source of calories for the day. In fact, it is really unhealthy especially if it is the only source of calories for the day. It is not a question of quantity.

Yes I would consider this unhealthy but as long as you burned 2500 calories a day through activity . You would not gain weight. You would be malnurished but not fat.

Show me a day (besides hiking in the mountains on snowshoes or a marathon runner) when you burn 2500 calories.

The human body burns around 12 calories per pound per day at rest. Take myself, a 200 pound male. 200 pounds X 12 calories/day = 2400 calories burned per day just keeping my bodys metabolism going. Walking around every day burns at least an additional 100 calories. There we have 2500 calories.

The point is that no one has this degree of activity.  Running for an hour burns an average of 500 calories.

Maybe for you it does. I burn right around 500 calories in 1/2 an hour on the stairmaster. When you weigh more, you burn more calories doing the same task.

I have On Food and Cookiong around. What page?

I don't have the book in front of me, as per the above post. Will provide page number in ~2 hours, if someone doesn't beat me to the punch

The thing about white bread is that it takes a lot to fill you up.  And while the grain may be fortified, the unhulling or whatever process is that strips the grain, removes the bran which is necessary for healthy colon. I read a study on yahoo yesterday that bran may also reduces Type 2 diabetes.

We're not talking about colon health or diabetes... we're talking about nutrition and weight gain. There may be many good reasons to eat whole wheat bread (it's delicious, for one) and some of them may be health-related in certain circumstances. However, it seems clear that white bread is more nutritional and if I were in a situation where I had to rely on bread as my main source of nutrition, I would definitely choose white bread. That said, and as I pointed out earlier, none of us are exactly in a position where we are in danger of not getting enough nutrition -- quite the opposite, in fact.

[nerissa]

Is it around p 282? I just read it a couple of minutes ago.

Ok, right, I forgot about daily goings about. I can never be bothered to figure out how many calories I should be eating. But, still, so many people are sedentary--it is easy to be active if you live in NYC and walk everywhere, but not if you drive to work, take the elevator up, and have a desk job, where you work for 8-9 hours a day, eating your lunch at your desk.

Edited June 26, 2003 by nerissa (log)

[slkinsey]

Is it around p 282?  I just read it a couple of minutes ago.

If you read the section on bread, I'm pretty sure you'll find it all there.

Ok, right, I forgot about daily goings about. I can never be bothered to figure out how many calories I should be eating. But, still, so many people are sedentary--it is easy to be active if you live in NYC and walk everywhere, but not if you drive to work, take the elevator up, and have a desk job, where you work for 8-9 hours a day, eating your lunch at your desk.

Keep in mind, however, that the 12 calories/pound/day counts whether or not you do any activity whatsoever. You burn those calories every day, even if you spend the whole day in bed.

Edited June 26, 2003 by slkinsey (log)

[slkinsey]

As promised, relevant excerpts from On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee, pp 282 = 284.

...the popular view today is that whole grain bread, because it comtains the vitamin-rich germ and fiber-rich bran, is more nutritius and better for our general health than refined flour breads.  This, in turn, is a relatively recent reaction against centuries, even millennia, of a rather unreflective preference for lighter breads.

...as for whole wheat in particular: it is true that whole grain flour contains more protein, minerals and vitamins than refined flour, including as it does the nutritionally valuable germ and aleurone layer, as well as the mostly indigestible bran.  But it is also true that most of these nutrients pass through the digestive tract unabsorbed because the indigestible carbohydrates complex with them and speed their passage out of the system.  The nutrients in white bread do not suffer such losses.

...the epidemic of rickets that struck the children of Dublin after three years of wartime rations of dairy products and whole wheat bread.  The combination of marginal supplies of calcium and vitamin D and the calcium-complexing activity of phytic acid, which is concentrated in the aleurone layer, was enough to tip the balance from health to serious disease.  Similar problems with iron and zinc have been studied among the poor in Egypt and Iran.

The irony is that following the Dublin outbreak and other efvidence that mineral and vitamin deficiencies can cause disease, the nutritional fortification of bread became manditory in several countries, including the United States: but only white bread is affected, because whole grain breads are considered a specialty product.

American consumers of brown bread are no longer the poor who cannot afford the price of refining, but rather a middle-class interested in pure "natural" products.

[Fat Guy]

Who needs fancy proof? Just eat the stuff and see what comes out. Clearly, the body utilizes white bread more efficiently than it does whole wheat.

[slkinsey]

Who needs fancy proof? Just eat the stuff and see what comes out. Clearly, the body utilizes white bread more efficiently than it does whole wheat.

Hmmm... Does that mean that my body utilizes spicy Indian food incredibly efficiently? Because it certainly seems to come out completely digested in about 1/10 the normal amount of time...

[fresco]

We may not see it in our lifetime, but the one thing short of rationing that might actually reduce obesity rates is an end to cheap energy, encouraging more walking and making it prohibitive to shift meat, oils and other foodstuffs over great distances.

Some of the other implications are less pleasant to contemplate.

[enthusiast]

My first post on eGullet and i came to look for advice about cookers!

i published some research on the obesity issue for an investment bank last year. i then marketed it to clients around the world. my background is as a financial analyst - no nutritional expertise - and my research is ultimately not interested in what is true or not but what the impact will be on quoted stocks. i have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to add a few observations...

fat tax

very difficult politically to get through, so unlikley to happen as a deterrent (as opposed to a way to raise some extra revenue from, say, a penny on a soda can). but the mistake people make in this argument is to assume we start from a neutral basis. one of the major problems in the (food) world is the existing distortions from subsidies (esp corn syrup), trade restrictons and existing taxes.

ignorance

Fat Guy argues that he is not ignorant but is still fat (though not getting fatter). this is beside the point. the proponents of intervention/education are not attempting to restrict freedom of choice but attempting to give people the chance to make a real choice by being in possession of as many objective facts as possible. this can make a huge difference. the best example of this is the Karelia project in Finland where, through education, heart disease mortality was reduced by 65%.

yes people still smoke but many many fewer than used to before people knew about its dangers and before restrictions on advertising.

corporate behaviour

response to my report from large corporations was not positive. inevitably. the only rational answer to the obesity epidemic is to persuade people to consume less (or exercise much more). this does not of course mean people should necessarily spend less but they probably would. this is not an argument that goes down well with capitalists. mind you if it's possible to persuade people to buy all that bottled water...

addiction?

i can't believe food manufacturers have not investigated making their products "addicitive" - at least in the sense of leaving you with a craving for more. it is their job to make us buy more and if its not illegal they should be (are?) doing it. markets are great and efficient but they need regulating - there is an enormous amount that should be done on education/labelling/advertising standards to give people a chance of making an informed choice.

(sorry about length - about that cooker - i'm interested in something available here in the UK)

[Jinmyo]

Welcome to eGullet, enthusiast.

Probablt best to post the cooker question as its own thread here and on the UK board.

[fresco]

"What this country really needs is to appoint Harvard professor Walter Willet - one of the most pragmatic and learned nutrition experts currently around - to head the FDA."

He might make an inspired, if unconventional subject for an eGullet Q and A.

[Fat Guy]

My first post on eGullet and i came to look for advice about cookers!

You may have set the new record for eGullet addiction: one post!

(Welcome.)