Currently viewing the tag: "good calorie"

Carbohydrates – Part 2

By On · 41 Comments

carbohydrates, like potatoes need not be your enemy. These can be good sources of nutritionIn Part 1, we began the process of distinguishing the difference between a food group and a macronutrient. Carbohydrates (Carbs) are probably the most vilified of the macronutrients. This is probably due to the ubiquitous availability of starch foods throughout human history. For the most part, oils, fats, and meats were the food of the rich. Everyone else ate beans, rice and potatoes.

If we listed the many staple foods: grains, rice, beans, squash, quinoa, potatoes and corn we see a high amount of starch. Remember, starch is simply a long chain of glucose. We all need glucose to live and our primary energy is derived from glucose and stored glycogen or fat (more later).

I want you to know that a carbohydrate need not be fattening, nor lead to diabetes.  In fact, Carbohydrates can be very satiating (1) for 4-5 hours after meals. What seems to be the big diversion, where the “bad carbs” come in, is the processing (blending, frying, flouring, pasting, etc) of carbohydrate.  When we break down starch too much in the food preparation process, it leads to lots of simple sugars. These are both easy to overeat and can have other deleterious health effects.

Starch digestion begins in the mouth with the amylase in the saliva. The starch begins to break down to glucose.  A great way to experience this first hand is to take a unsalted cracker and just hold it in your mouth. You will begin to generate a lot of saliva and as you hold it there, begin to taste sweetness as the glucose is formed. Remember, a termite can do exactly the same thing with cellulose in wood.

From an evolutionary biology perspective, the AMY1 gene that is responsible for making amylase is so important  that you have as many as 12 copies of it (2).  It was extremely important to our hunter-gather predecessors. While there’s been much put forward on the “hunting” side of the equation, some of the most recent anthropology suggest that the “gathering” side dominated.  Underground storage organs (USOs – tubers, bulbs, corms, and rhizomes) played a significant role in our energy management of times past.

Men like the idea of beating their chest and running through the woods hunting and they write a lot of the stories, but gathering is actually a better (less sexy) explanation of our survival. It even allows the elderly to participate productively in the group, even grandmothers would have a significant role in the earliest tribes. Anyone can dig up a potato, they aren’t very fast, and they grow in predicable places.

The naked mole rat is found with archeology of hominid population explosions and points to USOs as a gathered food source. click photo for NPR Story

Many of the early tools used to process USOs were probably made of wood and didn’t survive in the archeological records, but the early Hominid starch crystals in teeth have. Also there are also fossilized populations of mole rats that surge with every human population expansion (3). We’ll also learn that the mole rat has some FASCINATING genetics that impacts thermal loading.

I don’t want to get into the Paleolithic debate. What I want everyone to see is that starch IS an important evolutionary part of your fuel system, but at the same time recognize french fries are NOT the starch I am talking about.  Your view of carbohydrate has been jaded since the beginning of diets. In the earliest of diets (Banting) it was simple breads combined with butter/sugar that caused the excess energy to creep in. Processed starch (sugars) of all kinds can lead to excess caloric intake; it’s just easy to digest and pleasurable to overeat, especially when combined with salt and fat.

For today, understand that primary complex carbohydrates: squash, legumes, onions, carrots, whole corn, whole rice, and potato are all good bases of energy. They are satiating ways to make up for caloric deficit, but don’t confuse those items, “items your great grandmother would recognize as food,” Michael Pollan might say, with the “carbs” served at school lunch.

Most importantly understand that many of these “starchy” foods also contain significant proteins with complete compliment of the essential amino acids your body will use to synthesize your own protein. These complex carbohydrates are broken down by amylase to glucose: the fuel for your brain and many cells in the body.  If they aren’t consumed with excessive alternate energy sources (like excessive fat or simple sugar), your body will tap into it’s own fat reserves.  If too much pre-processing is performed, then you might see increased problems managing blood sugar.

Eating carbohydrate is convenient and pleasurable, and know there is room for “carbs” in your diet if you make the correct choices.

So, when we are putting this all together and I say carbohydrate, I want you to think about these whole, starchy food items that enter YOUR kitchen/cooking reasonably resembling how they came out of the ground or off the plant. Sugar, raw, brown…whatever, is refined. I challenge you to eat the 250 lbs of sugar a year  gnawing on sugarcane, however; you might be able to do it with grapes or beets.

Others have commented on fructose, a simple sugar in fruit, and I think there is merit to the issues that come from too many simple sugars, especially highly processed. This likely includes high fructose corn syrup, apple juice, sucrose, agave nectar, etc…).  Fruits are not found in nature year round, but USOs are. Similarly, think about what is easily stored (beans vs beets).  It’s amazing to hear people rave about “natural agave nectar” (inulin/fructose squeezed from agave) and then begin to lambast the food industry for high fructose corn syrup (fructose squeezed from corn). Yes there are some differences, but we’ll debate it in 5-10 years.  It’s all simple sugar  to me and best avoided.

These simple sugars are energy without the fiber or micronutrients. Others, like Robert Lustig, have covered the issue of fructose in far better detail than I will, but likely our problem as a nation is probably more related to drinking, for example, too much apple juice, rather than eating too many apples. The same is true of french fries vs potatoes. The larger group health statistics just don’t separate the issues (e.g. apples vs apple juice or fries vs potato) with enough granularity and it is all complicated with saturated fats and other compounding, synergistic concoctions we now call food.

Many energy dense foods are now available year round (like fruits or avocados) and so we must be careful with these foods.  We’ll see a similar trend with fats, oils, and nuts.

Starch is a wonderful molecule and has been around for millions of years. Starch is just one bond different from wood.  You are designed to eat starch, with back ups systems in place (AMY1).  We can identify paleolitic starch in teeth, even knowing the plants that produced it, and so there is nothing wrong with carbohydrate as a food – it highly processing it and combining with other energy-rich processed product that causes much of the issues.

You will inevitably hear more about the amazing work anthropologist, Nathaniel Dominy is doing with starch and USOs.  I personally believe the depth and thoroughness of his work will have an impact on what many, like Loren Cordain, believe to absolute. Nate has a very uncanny ability to see past the obvious. For the record, he’s a meat eater, despite what he’s uncovered in the last few years about starch in anthropology.

In terms of the thermodynamics, most natural starches come with a compliment of other micronutrients that are beneficial.  These are “energy foods” and so we absolutely CAN lose weight by eliminating them from your diet.  I am not suggesting diets higher in fat or protein (atkins, paleolithic, slow carb) cannot be used to lose weight – I am diet agnostic. What I can explain is on whole the overall management of energy, heat (not temperature), that is responsible for your success.

If we stop isolating these foods based on our perceived/suggested notations of macronutrient content and return to simple food, A calorie will be a calorie.  Once you learn to recognize what you are consuming at every meal (and snack) you’ll see the results you’ve been after. It doesn’t even take discipline once you understand the underlying principles.

Gauging on the comments/questions, I might dig in a little more (Part 3) on carbohydrate. Eventually I will post the overall biochemistry and some have written asking me to explain the TCA cycle (that complex part in the middle of a Lustig presentation if you’ve seen one).  Otherwise, I will move onto fat and catch sugars in the wrap up.

Next week is TEDMED in San Diego. It’s hard to believe a year has past.  I’ll probably have at least one update on what I learn there, but will *try* to write two posts on fat before I leave so they can post next week.

(1)  Carbohydrates and human appetite, Blundell, JE, et al.,Am J Clin Nutr 1994;59(suppl):728S-34S.

(2) Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy number variation, Perry, G.H., et al., Nature Genetics 39, 1256 – 1260 (2007)

(3) Communication/presentation with Dr Nathaniel Dominy, Dartmouth University Dept of Anthropology

**************
Do you like these blogs and want to help me? Please take a minute to scroll up on the right side of the screen consider making a monthly donation to this program. You can also make a one time donation here:

 

Thanks!
Ray

Carbohydrates – Part 1

By On · 17 Comments

carbohydrates slow carb diet, thermogenex, thermal loading As we have been discussing, macronutrients are the basic energy, or fuel, our bodies need for all biological processes. This can be used for exercising, thinking or synthesizing the many biological molecules that keep the system smoothly operating.

Micronutrients are the building blocks – the stuff our body uses to create the many cells, tissues, and hormones.  Like we discussed in our car analogy, macronutrients are the gas and micronutrients are the routine maintenance service for the car .

Today we are going to begin the discussion of Carbohydrates. What I hope to do, is change your reaction to that word.  I don’t want you to say “carb” or think french fries, potatoes, or rice.  I don’t want you to think about ANY food group.  Forget glycemic index.  Those are all useful bits of information for diet schemes, but not to understand how your body works.  When we are done, we’ll move onto the other macronutrients: fat and protein.

So, do we have a deal? No discussion of FOOD for the conceptual understanding of carbohydrates, but I will give examples carbohydrates contained food so that we can understand the bigger picture.

Thermodynamics is the study of heat and energy and how these systems interact. We derive energy from the basic three macronutrients.  Later, there will be detail of this complex process, but for now, it’s just a game of “pass the electron.”  Every whole food you eat contains some amount of the three macronutrients. We call something a Protein or a Carb in response to its greatest portion of macronutrient by weight.

Now, we are discussing energy, the thermodynamics, and really weight has nothing to do with energy other than some means of quantifying the amount you eat.  We’ll see that this macronutrient/weight is extremely useful for food labels, but not very indicative of either the amount energy or macronutrient you might derive from a given amount of food.Telt

Let’s dive into what a carbohydrate is and why we need it.

A Carbohydrate is a Carbohydrate

We’ll see that all this fuss about calorie a calorie is going to be a simple accounting issue, but if you have a negative reaction to the word carbohydrate, if you think that there are good carbs and bad carbs, if you’re worried about blood sugar, then fret no more.  We aren’t going to discuss any of that here.  Not going to even take questions on it.

Instead, I want you to return to 4th grade and think about that simple view of the world. You breath in oxygen, it’s combined with fuel (“burned”)  to give energy and then you exhale carbon dioxide.  That is in turn used by plants in photosynthesis, to yield sugars and other biologically active compounds and they return the oxygen.

See it?

We are all confused about the breathing oxygen and burning part, remember, a calorie isn’t a calorie? So, let’s start with the plant side of the circle. There aren’t many obese plants, maybe they’ve figured something out.

Plants take in carbon dioxide and form sugars, fats, complex carbohydrates (e.g. starch) and structural cellulose. With the exception of venus fly traps and pitcher plants, they just don’t eat.  They also take in Nitrogen from the soil (fertilizer) creating proteins and even even psychoactive alkaloids, like mescaline (peyote buttons). It seems plants are a trip.

In fact plants synthesize every single protein, fat and carbohydrate you need to live.  We eat them or we eat animals and bacteria that eat them and here we are. Perhaps this is what they didn’t tell us in 4th grade. Food and Macronutrients are somehow separated at birth of the concept, but we are here to discuss Carbohydrates, like starch and really understand what they are and how they work.

We all know the word sugars. There are natural sugars, bad sugars, processed sugars, and high glycemic sugars, but really, a sugar is just the simplest molecule that makes up the long chains of stored energy in plants.  It’s their way of saving for a rainy day (literally).  They all named to end in “ose” – glucose, galactose, lactose, fructose, maltose, etc.  Once ingested, you extract energy from them to fuel ATP/ADP through electron transport chain.

For now, just know that your body MUST have glucose. That’s what we measure when we measure “blood sugar” and that is what your brain runs on as a fuel.  It’s chemical formula, C6H12O6 is the building block of two very familiar compounds: Starch and Cellulose. Both of these “polysaccharides” (poly = many, saccharide = sugar) are simply long chains of the EXACT same sugar: Glucose.

House of Potatoes

cellulose, glucose, starch

Starch and Cellulose are made from the same building block, Glucose. They have a different saccharide bond that holds them together. Since many animals don't make the enzyme to break down cellulose, the fiber passes through. If you ever wondered how hippopotamus, rhinoceros, cows, and giraffes grow lean and muscular as herbivores, here's your answer.

That’s right, a baked potato and a wood are essentially the same thing.  So why aren’t we whipping a wonderful Mahi-Mahi dusted in a fine pepper-birch sawdust and parchment-baked? It’s because we happen to be protein deficient.  Yes, it’s true, a polysaccharide like cellulose or “poly-glucose” must be broken down by enzymes, proteins, into glucose so we can use them.

Cellulose is put together in just a slightly different way and we can’t break it down. To a termite, or the bacteria in the rumen (a stomach) of a cow, that piece of wood or grass fiber works as food JUST like a baked potato does for you.  These bacteria and insects create  the protein, cellulase, to extract glucose from cellulose.  We create another protein, amylase, that breaks down the starch.  You have as many as 4-12 copies of the gene that creates amylase enzyme, because it’s so genetically important for your survival.

Carbohydrate, fats, and proteins all enter the electron transport chain to deliver energy to your body in a set of reactions designed around glucose, the building block of carbohydrate.

What do I want you to take away? first, “Carbs” aren’t food groups and neither are proteins and fats. Theses very defined terms in organic/biochemistry, but have been popularized in order to help you “eat healthy.  The irony is we’ve never been more unhealthy as a world.  Proteins aren’t meat; there are also other bioactive proteins, for example enzymes like amylase or cellulase, that participate nearly every metabolic process keeping you alive.

We will eventually come back to food, and calories, and see that nearly every food you eat is a combination of these. You don’t “need a complete protein” and can’t “avoid carbs.”  The truth is that what you need is energy to run the process, fuel. You  probably have a few weeks (months?) supply of fuel you’ve been lugging around for some time. We need to find creative ways to burn it.  None of them involve schemes of putting MORE energy in your mouth. You’ll never run empty if you fill up three times a week.

For today, here is what I want you to take away: carbohydrates are polysaccharides ( “many” “sugars”) that provide the basic energy currency precursor of your body, glucose.  We’ll discuss some of the other (evil – lol) simple carbohydrates in the next blog.  We use and need carbohydrate in our diet.  There is a big difference between starches, like rice, squash and potatoes and donuts. Fruits, on the other hand, contain simple sugars as well and those come with their own issues.  It is key to separate carbohydrates, especially complex carbohydrates, from simple sugars.

We’ll then turn to the other macronutrients, fat and protein, to fill in the basic metabolism energy cycle.

You shouldn’t feel uncomfortable with the idea that ultimately, cows eat grass, gain glucose and amino acids, and grow tasty, “grass-fed” beef. That beef is laden with amino acids.  When you eat it, you can in turn use the amino acids (no significant glucose in beef) to create insulin or pus in pimples (also a protein), whatever protein you need,  and metabolize the left over to supplement your daily energy requirements. You can even store it for “later.”

Perhaps,  it’s not as simple as the CO2->Sun->O2 symbiotic respiration we learned in 4th grade, but it is plenty understandable.  When you no longer see protein, carbohydrate or fat as food groups, your mind will be opened to lots of different options.

Equally important, we’ve all learned the hard way, you can’t out-exercise your mouth.  It is simply put, impossible.

Until next time…

**************
Like these  blogs and want to help me? Please take a minute to scroll up on the right side of the screen consider making a monthly donation to this program. You can also make a one time donation here:

 

Thanks!
Ray

Pyramid Schemes

By On · 33 Comments

Personal perspectives are always plagued with some set of bias.  For example, there are those that look at the great Egyptian pyramids as incredible acts of engineering prowess and still others that see the same building as representing a society that built with diminishing ambition (psssst, a joke). There is always an absurd way to categorize things and any time you base a theory, concept, or idea on a false premise, eventually that idea will crumble.

People can sell “snake oil” for a while, but eventually it will catch up with them and the facts (not opinions, perceptions, or feelings) will rule the day.

My Plate or Theirs?

I think it is certainly clear that the USDA Food Pyramid Scheme, is just that – a scheme and not a particularly good one.  Recently we were presented with a “My Plate.” It’s certainly a step in the right direction. Not Earth-shattering innovation, but it at least it can serve as a foundation for a wide range of nutritional dialog. It’s got catchy colors, cool design, but take a look at it closely…

it doesn’t say meat.

ChooseMyPlate.gov - Is it Industry or Health Promotion?

Look at that. Most everything else on the plate is now in plain English: Grains (not breads), Fruits (not juice), Vegetables (not low glycemic carbs).  Then there is Dairy (liquid meat – check out the nutritional labels and compare beef to milk or cheese) and Protein.

Does anyone REALLY know what a “protein” is? Isn’t that a Chicago song?  Can you distinguish between a hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acid or understand how these might affect proteins folding? If you could, would you care?  The level of detail in macromolecular science is so incredibly complex today and yet we have many walking around with sound bites cashing in on the latest techno buzz-phrase pandering to the unknowing masses. Meanwhile, those trying to get funding for the basic research fueling this culinary renaissance struggle.

Saying protein is synonymous with meat, is like calling all rectangles squares. The good news is that there is now the foundation to separate this century old belief.

Rational Decisions

As people who know me will clearly defend. I am not AGAINST meat. I love the taste of meat, don’t have a personal issue with eating animals, nor do I focus on carbon footprints of steak.  I am not trying to discount anyone that believes these things, but rather to put out clearly that I am simply not motivated by the politics or ethics of meat.

Yet I did live on a vegan diet for a little over a year. I did it as a “radical” self-experiment; you would have thought I was attempting to join a terrorist plot or cult by the reaction of some friends and family. There were those that thought it an unthinkable personal deprivation – akin to a prison sentence. Still others were overly concerned with how I would “get my protein,” yet none of them could really tell me what protein was or more importantly, how a rhinoceros, giraffe, or even <gasp> a beef-laden steer get’s protein when they are all herbivores.

Whatever protein is, the government wants to be sure you get some and make sure you get a little dairy too – all of the industry interest at the USDA need a “little help from their friends.” Sadly, I happen to LOVE sushi and chicken wings. I’m confident neither the mercury, saturated fat, nor animal protein are all that good for me, so I’ll significantly limit these from here on out.

And yet on my last few years of self reflection and intense study, there are many of the top ailments – Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes, pulmonary hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, rheumatoid arthritis…the list goes on, which are all radically affected by diet and nutrition. I can’t IMAGINE having one of these and not giving this a try. I don’t understand the “I’d rather be dead then give up cheese” mindset. That sounds more like a heroin addict and less like a rational, or free decision.

My sensitivity and motivation was rooted in a looming trend towards Type II diabetes when I gave it a try. I used to have (and can more or less still induce with diet) bouts of hypoglycemia that was absolutely tied to my meal. It hit me within an hour or so and my friends saw it first hand. I was far more safe driving a car after doing four Jäger bombs, than eating a slice of cheesecake.

New World Order

Gary Taubes presents an interesting history of the media/medical PR machine in Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007) along with the political, socio-economic, scientific debates of Cholesterol-Heart Disease relations and ultimately Eisenhower’s own struggles to his nutritional-based death.

I want to change this thought by asserting two things:

1)  a calorie IS absolutely a calorie in thermodynamics and

2)  a “dietary calorie” is a very loosely determined set of averages related to a “kilocalorie” and isn’t necessarily exact.

Why this distinction? I have spent the better part of the last three years reading vociferously on food, diet, and exercise. Before that I spent a great part of the previous 15 years struggling with my weight. If you are overweight now,  I get it and really do understand. What I have also learned is that a lot of people have made a lot of money on ideas they don’t really understand that well.  Part of the issue is in the quest to make things “understandable” or generalized, it can often lead to further summaries that end up failing.

I believe that a dietary calorie is one of those things that is asserted with exacting detail when in fact it should be viewed more as an approximation.

The Art of Self Misdirection

Let’s take a quick diversion to something I am CERTAIN about, and then let’s see how these same steps might complicate the concepts around the dietary calorie.  Certainly one of the best parts of the internet is that one doesn’t have to be a multi-million dollar corporation or famous spokesperson to get a message out.  On the other hand, if you are viewed as a “reliable source,” you can unknowingly infect millions of people with incorrect information with a simple tap on the return key.

Here is a recent news piece from CBS MIami – Can “Chilling Out” On Ice Diet Help Lose Weight?

The actual news report (video) is quite accurate, even though they focus on the extreme, it covers the point made by both Tim and me. Clearly we have told everyone that these techniques are desinged to ENHANCE diet and exercise, not replace them. We point out, as do many, that “burning calories” (there’s those words again) isn’t that easy when compared to consuming them.

Having watched the video, read the story on the page. See the difference?  Despite the credentials, Dr. Stacey Ingraham, is just wrong.  In fact, this is the very point I made in my TEDtalk and unfortunately she isn’t alone.  It is surprising just how many people confuse the body’s need to dump excess waste heat resulting from exercise as the cause of the energy consumption when in fact it’s a result of the body maintaining a core homeostasis. I tried to comment, but they were all rejected accept the one post asking that a comment be posted.

Not sweating it… Just know that many people that might be help will be confused. This doesn’t just happen with the media – it’s also common when science is summarized and generalized, which brings us back to the calorie.

First, we must look at thermodynamics with great respect. The laws have worked well and while they can be disproven if there is data to do so, no one has ever found any evidence to the contrary. This is the difference between science and dogma. So this is where I can state unequivocally that within thermodynamics a kilocalorie is the amount of energy to raise 1 kg of water 1 degree Celsius. It’s a simple definition and it does not change, nor can it be avoided.  In thermodynamics, Heat (not temperature) = energy.  It’s repeatable, measurable and observable.

Where we do have good reason to doubt is that 1 “dietary calorie” = 1 kilocalorie as it was defined over a century ago.  I’ve participated in the past, and many of you still participate in nearly certain indisputable discussions about X calories of protein vs Y calories of carbohydrate. No matter what mental image you might have about a calorie of this or that, what each conversation, idea, and method involves is a basic estimate on digestibility and absorption of those macronutrients in order that it may be used, stored or excreted by the body.

This is the point where thermodynamics and food split paths. This is where I was able to achieve a thermodynamic advantage. This is where good calories/bad calories, body for life, sugar busters, slow carb, and Atkins all tweak and twist to make us all believe a “calorie is not a calorie.”

So is this all about semantics?  I don’t think so. I am not going to take issue with any of these diet schemes; I’ve used all of them and they all worked for me to restrict calories. I was the one that ultimately couldn’t stick to them or make them a lifestyle.

A Plate Full of Schemes

The My Plate scheme is probably the best the USDA has ever done in helping people move towards a good balance. I think people can lose weight with either choice of protein: plant or animal.  Plant will get you there much faster and my blood work suggests a much healthier landing.

Dairy? I think it’s seen it’s better days and yet I REALLY love cheese. When I look at the label and try to rationalize eating it, but giving up “red meat,” the rational debate goes right out the door. Liquid beef seems a better way to couch it for my mental process.

Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men

Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men. Bars to the right indicate these food tend to cause this weight gain over each four year period. Bars to the left are weight loss associated with that category of food.

I think most people are in fact trapped by what they THINK or are TOLD is healthy and the sales and marketing on the package, ESPECIALLY THE NUTRITION LABEL. It’s a sad case where in order to label the widest range of food, we have distilled down the categories and quantities until the point where the labels are not very meaningful.   Take for example this: “Zero Calorie Olive Oil” I have in my pantry (hint ALL oil has calories and NO ONE sprays it for 1/3 of a second).

That’s all just plain dishonest and our children are suffering because of it.

Now looking at the chart to the right is anyone REALLY surprised by the results? This study published in last week’s New England Journal of Medicine tracked 120,000 men and women during a 20 year period (1986-2006), my fat years (1).  During that same time I picked up an extra 50 lbs – go figure. Ok, don’t just rationalize your favorite junk food (cheese and yogurt looking good), but take in the entire picture. Bars to the right create a tendency to gain weight eating those foods and bars to left tend to lose. The length of the bar tells you how much on average.

Sure, you are not surprised, but what are you doing to change the trend in your life?

The Hot Points

Simply put – without some way to generate internal heat, you would assume whatever the temperature of your immediate surroundings. We don’t and it requires energy to create this heat in everyone and the energy source is food. If you control the food going in (nutrient dense, calorically poor foods – like plants) and exercise to strengthen your cardiovascular system and create excess waste heat, you’ll lose weight.

If you further expose your body to COOLER surroundings: swimming, cold showers, less layers, morning/evening walks, or just turning down the thermostat, your body MUST burn more or drop in temperature.

The resistance to change in temperature, the external thermal load on your body, depend on how large the temperature difference between your body and the environment and how fast heat (energy) is leaving your body. 40F water is a lot more drastic than 40F air, due to the increased heat capacity and thermal conductivity of water. A change of only 2-3 degrees down in water is equal to many more in air.

Swimming WILL positively effect your body’s heat loss and as such, will also trigger hunger. Resist the urge to eat and you’ll lose faster, guaranteed.

No amount of discussion changes these scientific facts; what is up for debate is how we might effectively and comfortably add these thermal loads to our lives. We don’t have to guess about calories in thermodynamics, maybe we should stick to words and food groups in diet schemes that people truly understand.

1) Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men,  Mozaffarian D et al. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2392-2404.