One of the most confusing aspects of understanding calories is that what we see on food labels doesn’t always reflect the true biologically available energy content of a food. For the most part, calorie values are relatively accurate but there are some exceptions and nuts happen to be one of them. The discrepancy lies in the fact that not all of the calories in a protein can be fully used by our bodies.
This inability to digest all the calories from nuts comes from the resistance of the parenchymal cell walls of nuts to the gut enzymes and bacteria that break down our foods.
Nuts aren’t like processed snacks that are designed to be easily eaten as they do require some degree of chewing to crush them into pieces small enough for us to swallow. While pure peanut and nut butters are listed as a healthy additions to a wholesome diet, as we have mentioned previously, there is something to be said about the mechanics of chewing to help us get the most benefits out of eating nuts. One of the most important, if not the most important aspects of any diet is sustainability, as results can only occur if you are consistently able to adhere to an energy reduced diet.[23,24] Weight loss regimes that center only around bland and unpalatable foods are always doomed to eventual failure as we are by nature designed to enjoy the foods we eat. Add to these five important weight loss factors, the bad cholesterol (LDL) lowering effects of nuts and it is clear that nuts should indeed be an integral part of any diet designed for optimal health and weight management.
Please note that all material is copyrighted and DMCA Protected and can be reprinted only with the expressed authorization of the author.
Featured everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to network TV, Kevin Richardson is an award winning health and fitness writer, natural bodybuilding champion, creator of Naturally Intense High Intensity Training and one of the most sought after personal trainers in New York City. 4.Penny M Kris-Etherton, Shaomei Yu-Poth, Joan Sabate, Hope E Ratcliffe, Guixiang Zhao and Terry D Etherton. As you can see in my poorly drawn diagrams, controlling your weight is just a matter of making sure the battle between "calories in" and "calories out" is won by the right side. Now that you have a pretty good understanding of why calories are the key to controlling your diet and are therefore the key to weight control, it's finally time to learn how you can control your own weight and reach your specific goal through a little thing called calorie counting.
Add up all of the calories in everything you consumed and get your grand total for the day. Counting "calories out" is a bit weirder than counting "calories in." You can't just search for "stood up" or "scratched my head" or "walked my dog" or "drove to the store" or "kept my organs functioning properly" and see EXACTLY how many calories were burned. The above form will calculate your estimated Basal Metabolic Rate, which is the number of calories your body burns at rest. You can make a small decrease to your daily calories in so that it ends up being below your daily calories out. Instead of reducing your calorie intake, you can just as easily increase the number of calories you burn per day by exercising. If your "calories in" were pretty much equal to your "calories out," then by now you should know exactly what you'd need to do. For general health purposes, you never want to make large or fast changes to your calorie intake.
So, that's everything you need to know to use calorie counting to control your diet, which will control your weight, which means you'll be able to make your body do exactly what you want it to do. There are several layers to this and, frankly, there are some things we can’t fully explain – I’ll always acknowledge this. Take a look again at the figure below, which shows you how many calories folks are consuming on each diet and, more importantly, where those calories come from. You’ll note that people on these diets, including the strictest low-fat high-carb diets, significantly reduce their total amount of carbohydrates (therefore reducing the amount of insulin they secrete).
The reason, I believe, most of these diets have some efficacy – at least in the short-term – is that they all reduce sugar and highly refined carbohydrate intake, either explicitly or implicitly.
Someone made a great point in response to my post on why fruits and vegetables are not actually necessary for good health. I know a lot of people who eat this way and, I’ve got to say, these folks do not eat a lot of sugar or a lot of highly refined carbohydrates. While I do plan to write an entire post on this topic of what one can and cannot conclude from an experiment, I do want to at least make the point here: The biggest single problem with nutrition “science” is that cause and effect are rarely linked correctly.
I am, to be clear, not implying this is the case for this trial, but I want you to understand why it’s important to read papers fully. This trial, The Lifestyle Heart Trial, prospectively randomized a group of not-so-healthy patients into two treatment groups: the control group and the experimental group (or what we’d call the “treatment” or “intervention” group).
First off, and perhaps most importantly from the standpoint of drawing conclusions, compliance was reported to be excellent and the differences between the groups were statistically significant on every metric, except total average caloric intake.
Take a moment to look over the rest of the table (or just skip reading it since I’m going to keep talking about it anyway).
Though not shown in this table, the experimental group also reported less chest pain severity (though chest pain frequency and duration were not statistically different).
Let’s take a leap of faith and hypothesize that the dietary intervention (rather than, say, the social support) had the greatest impact on the measured parameters in the subjects. It’s certainly the most likely factor in my mind. But what, exactly, can I conclude? People don’t like to be hungry, and if they are reducing their caloric intake by reducing fat intake, they seldom find themselves satiated. Semi-starvation reduces basal metabolic rate, so your body actually adjusts to the “new” norm and slows down its rate of mobilizing internal fat stores. I argue that reduction of fat intake has nothing to do with it and that the reduction of total calories has a transient effect.
It’s *really* tough to study this stuff properly, especially compared to studying things blood pressure lowering pills, which are complex in their own right, but MUCH easier to control in a study. A nutrition department of a university accepts funds from a company that makes confectionery.
Do you think the Academy’s supporters want to hear that if you eliminate their products you will no longer need to rely on the products provided by the biggest supporters of the Diabetic Association? Pretty much solely because of their report, Suzuki was forced to eventually withdraw the Samurai from production in the US although they later won the lawsuit that was filed as a result of the forged report by showing videos from the actual testing of the car conducted by CR.
Ironically, the fact that CR had to admit it was faked somehow wasn’t plastered all over their magazines and the front pages of a bunch of newspapers. At that point, everything they publish became suspect and may as well line a birdcage somewhere. Peter, I have a coworker who has recently lost 80lbs over the course of a year on weight watchers.
Looking forward to your next post, and of course people's comments for the current one!
I will discuss all of this in great detail, hopefully in the coming month, when I do a post on PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids). Anyway, it’s nice to discover someone who takes the Taubes viewpoint on things, and also takes the time to actually post online about it with some frequency, so thanks! Oh absolutely, I was mostly referring to the fact that most of the excess carbs we eat are converted to palmitic acid, which is a SFA. There was an (1) average protein, low fat group (65% CHO), (2) High protein, low fat group , (3) Average protein, high fat, and (4) high protein, high fat (35% CHO). Thanks very much, Bob, both for the kind comments and for sharing the other data with folks.
On the livestrong website, it says that male athletes should consume about 23 calories per 1 lb. There is so much to consider and it’s good to use a site such as myfitnesspal to figure out how many calories you are taking in a day compared to how many your body actually needs. All The Calories From Nuts Don’t CountHow Nuts Help You Lose Weight- 2.The More Nuts You Eat The Less You EatHow Nuts Help You Lose Weight- 3. Easier said than done for a mountain of reasons, but this concept of striving for a negative energy balance is nonetheless the key rationale behind most weight loss endeavors. Recently, nuts have been recognized as an invaluable source of health promoting and heart friendly nutrients such as monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, protein and fiber.
The calorie values we use today are direct results from the work of Wilbur Atwater, arguably the father of nutritional sciences here in the United States. Proteins contain high levels of nitrogen, which is not oxidized and instead is converted mostly into urea and excreted in urine.
So assuming you needed 2,500 Calories to maintain your body weight and regularly ate let’s say 300 Calories above your metabolic requirements. Chewing activates mechanical nutrient and sensory signaling systems that appear to significantly affect our appetite.
This applies to many foods that are processed as well, since processing can remove some of the important properties of foods we have evolved to eat over the past several thousand years. Far too often we focus on the numbers- how many calories need to be consumed and what foods are best to reach that quota efficiently. Nuts and their bioactive constituents: effects on serum lipids and other factors that affect disease risk. Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. Tuker KL, Hannan MT, Chen H, Cupples LA, Wilson PW, Kiel DP, Potassium, magensium and fruit and vegetable intakes are associated with greater bone mineral density in elderly men and women.
Ma J, Folsom AR, Melnick SL, Eckfeldt JH, Sharrett AR, Nabulsi AA, Hutchinson RG, Metcalf PA. More specifically, it will explain how to make your weight do exactly what you want it to do through the very simple process of calorie counting. By doing some simple first grade level math (3000 - 2500 = 500), you can see that there are 500 left over calories that are taken in but NOT used by the body. When you find each food, adjust the serving size to approximately the amount you ate of it. For example, if you want to lose weight and are consuming 3000 calories per day and burning 2800 (just an example), try reducing your calorie intake to 2500 calories per day instead of 3000. Sticking with the same example, you'd continue consuming 3000 calories per day, but you can burn off an additional 500 each day through some form of exercise.
If you want to gain weight and were consuming 2000 calories per day and burning 2300, just make a small caloric increase to something above 2200 (like 2500, for example). To lose weight, either decrease your calorie intake by a small amount, increase your activity so that you burn more calories, or do a combination of both.
Keep a log of your weight somewhere so you can keep track of exactly what your body is doing. Reduce your daily calorie intake by 250-500 calories (or burn an extra 250-500 calories per day through exercise) and monitor what your weight does for the next couple of weeks. That means if you are 500 calories under per day, you will lose a perfectly fine 1 pound per week. Join over 5000 subscribers getting free tips and updates to help you lose fat, build muscle and be healthy.
That said, many of the successes (at least weight-wise, though hopefully by now you realize there is much more to health than just body composition) of popular diets can be explained by a few simple observations. You can argue that those who are overweight probably consume an even greater amount of carbohydrates.
Even the Ornish diet, which is the most restrictive diet with respect to fat and most liberal with respect to carbohydrates, still reduces carbohydrate intake by about 40% from what people were likely eating pre-diet. No one on the Ornish Diet or Jenny Craig Diet is eating candy bars and potato chips, at least not if they are adhering to it.
The point was, essentially, that telling people to eat 5-6 servings per day of fruits and vegetables can hopefully drive a beneficial substitution effect.
I have no intention of engaging in a battle with proponents of plant-based eating or no-saturated-fat diets. Stated another way, it’s one thing to observe an outcome, but it’s quite another to conclude the actual cause of that outcome. In other words, for every intended difference between the groups a difference existed, except that on average they ate the same number of calories (though obviously from very different sources), which was not intended to be different as both groups were permitted to eat ad libitum – meaning as much as they wanted. Ornish’s study? I think the reduction in sugar and simple carbohydrates played the largest single role in the improvements experienced by the experimental group, but I can’t prove it from this study any more than one can prove a low-fat vegetarian diet is the “best” diet. We can only conclude that it’s better than eating Twinkies and potato chips which, admittedly, is a good thing to know.
And, the majority of the benefit folks receive comes from the reduction of sugars and highly refined carbohydrates. Case in point…they recently reported that olive oil is not good for you because it does not contain omega 6. 3, has a good point about some plans (including WW) having the advantage of group support, which I think is a very major confounder.
It is wonderful to watch these people glow once they have found some sort of solution to their weight problem. One of my favorite things to say to people who are scared of saturated fat is that even on an entirely plant based diet, (ala Ornish Diet), if they are restricting their caloric intake, their bodies will be running on the saturated (animal) fat that they have stored on themselves.
For example the degree of unsaturated fatty acids in our membrane bilayer probably plays a role in our insulin sensitivity, just as one example. A calorie measures the energy in food and beverages we take in and we need energy for everything we do in our daily lives. So if your calorie needs are 1800 calories per day, you would want to only take in 1300 calories per day. So then you’d want to eat very little calories if you want to lose weight, right? To that end, it makes sense to eliminate or restrict the intake of high calorie and high fat foods like nuts. Who created the caloric standards that we use today in the early years of the 20th century to measure the energy yield of our foods.
Thus some of the calories found in protein foods cannot be absorbed by our bodies and Atwater’s calorie values take this into account. If those calories came from regular foods you would, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics see an increase in your body weight over time. The act of chewing (mastication) breaks the parenchymal cell walls of the nut and liberates some (but not all) of the fats and proteins they encase.
Bear in mind that the human genome hasn’t changed much changed since the emergence of behaviorally modern humans some 150,000 years and so we are still genetically adapted to eat the foods consumed by our remote ancestors [17,18,19,20,21] and in their minimally processed or unprocessed forms as they have been eaten for countless generations. In so doing many experts in the field forget that long term compliance to an uneventful but calorically correct diet is unlikely for the overwhelming majority of the population. The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be a paradigm for contemporary nutrition?
Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications.
A randomized controlled trial of a moderate-fat, low-energy diet compared with a low fat, low-energy diet for weight loss in overweight adults. Associations of serum and dietary magnesium with cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, insulin, and carotid arterial wall thickness: the ARIC study. While they are three completely different goals, they are just three different types of weight control.
You will then see the full nutritional information (and most importantly, calories) for the specific amount you ate of that food. Your activity level is also factored in to help guess how many other calories you burn per day in addition to your BMR. Doing so would mean you are now taking in more calories than you are burning, and this is what will make you gain weight. HOWEVER, if there is some form of error in the calorie counting of either your calories in, your calories out, or even both, then obviously it becomes possible for something to not work correctly.
It is recommended that weight should be gained or lost at a rate of about 1 or 2 pounds per week. All you need to do now is put this information into effect, stay consistent and enjoy the results. But for the purpose of simplicity, let’s assume even the folks who go on these diets are consuming the national average of approximately 450 grams of carbohydrate per day (in compliance with governmental recommendations, as a percent of overall intake). If you tell someone who eats Twinkies, potato chips, and candy bars all day to eat more fruit (and they do), you’ve almost guaranteed an improvement in their health if they eat bananas and apples instead of the aforementioned junk food. I’m reasonably confident that the proponents of these diets are good people who really want to help others and have nothing but the best intentions. Ornish was the principle investigator on a trial published in the journal The Lancet in 1990. In other words, there were not enough subjects in the study to determine a difference in these “hard” outcomes, so we can’t make a conclusion about such events, only the changes in “soft” outcomes.
Good science, bad interpretationGravity and insulin: the dynamic duoIf low carb eating is so effective, why are people still overweight?
His clinical interests are nutrition, lipidology, endocrinology, and a few other cool things.
Eg, the criticism of the Ornish Lifestyle Heart Trial is excellent (and I LOVED the kitten-stroking quip), and really could and should have stood alone.
After short diologue with her on the particulars of her daily intake I quickly realized her consumption of carbohydrate was significantly reduced and eliminated almost all fructose. A logical step since it would appear to be all too easy to go over your daily calorie limits by eating several handfuls of these tasty but high energy snacks. Some of the nutritional concepts behind why nuts don’t contribute significantly to weight gain can seem to be somewhat involved and are seldom fully explained in the media.
These values are well known by most with any familiarity with nutrition: Proteins and carbohydrates are estimated to have 4 Calories per gram, while fat, which is higher in energy yield has 9 Calories per gram.
That’s why the calorie estimates for protein foods are set at 4 Calories per gram and not 5.65 as it measures the biologically available calories. However, if those extra calories came from eating nuts you wouldn’t gain weight since all the listed calories from nuts don’t count.
These nutrients promote the release of appetite related peptide hormones in the intestines such as cholecystokinin (CKK) and glucagon-like protein 1 (GLP-1) which in turn increases our feeling of satiety and prompts us to eat less.[18-20] Anyone who appreciates eating nuts can also attest to the fireworks that seem to go off in your mouth when you eat them. That being said, for optimal weight management it is always wise to eat foods like nuts in as natural a form as possible- and while eating shelled nuts may be more convenient, it is a better practice to eat nuts that are still in their shells.
Studies have shown, however that including nuts as a staple in weight loss diets increases long term adherence and augments overall weight loss.[25,26] It makes perfect sense since having nuts in your diet allows for a tasty and calorie rich food while watching your calories otherwise. Weight loss, weight gain, and weight maintenance are just the three things you can do once you reach this goal. This should give you a very clear picture of why calorie counting is the key to weight control. If you just wanted to maintain weight, then for this example you'd increase your calorie intake to an equal 2200. Because 500 calories below each day, multiplied by 7 days in a week, equals 3500 total calories under for the week.
Popularity, of course, was determined by a number of factors, including compliance with current government recommendations (sorry Atkins), number of people who have tried the diet, and reported success on the diets.
That doesn’t mean bananas and apples are “good for you” – it just means they are less “bad for you.” Here’s the kicker, though. But that doesn’t mean we can or should overlook the errors being made in drawing their conclusions. I’m not discounting soft outcomes, only pointing out the distinction for folks not familiar with them. They never factor in that the chicken was breaded or that when someone ate steak or fish they had a large amount of bread of potatoes along with it. You can’t survive without them, but too many can make you overweight and in some cases even obese.
If you eat too little calories, you will put your body into starvation mode, and that isn’t good. However reviews of all the studies on the matter clearly demonstrate that in this case you can indeed have your cake and eat it as they say. That being said, here are five of the ways that nuts can help you lose weight- attributes that hold true for all varieties of nuts.
A corrective estimate is added to calorie values to compensate not just for proteins, but for all foods, as our digestive system never uses 100% of any food that we consume. Apparently the sensory properties from the taste of nuts stimulates our salivary glands, digestive system and increases metabolism. Perhaps as a way our body prepares to get the most out of the nutrients it can derive from the foods we eat. The form in which nuts are available is a very real factor in regards to our overall appetites, as the extra preparation time required slows down our rates of consumption. A much needed break that serves not only to reduce the cravings for unhealthy high calorie snacks, but also increases the likelihood that you will stay on your diet.
Foods that have been part of our diet as human beings for millennia- and in a form that is as raw an unprocessed as possible.
However, it's the general ability to control your weight that allows you to make these things happen.
Forget carbs, forget fat, forget protein, forget every single thing you've ever heard about diet and nutrition. Like I mentioned before, the calorie counting for "calories in" can be fairly exact, but "calories out" can only be estimated.
If you only wanted to maintain weight, in this example you would just reduce your calorie intake to an equal 2800.
We’re led to believe that the reason such folks get leaner and more healthy is because they are eating more fruits or more vegetables or more grains or more [fill-in-the-blank], rather than because they eliminated the most egregious offenders from their diet. Ornish personally, and I can only assume that he is a profoundly caring physician who has dedicated his life to helping people live better lives. But as always, I STRONGLY encourage folks with access (or folks who are willing to purchase it) to read the paper in its entirety.
However they don’t necessarily tell the whole story, especially where nuts and plant proteins are concerned. Thus any calories contained in undigested particles don’t count towards our overall energy intake and this is accounted for in the calorie values of most foods to give an accurate assessment of how much energy our body can obtain by consuming them.
A rather controlled clinical study found that chewing almonds 25 times (which is the average number for most people who eat almonds without trying to choke) elicits the strongest reduction in hunger and increased feeling of fullness two hours after eating, compared to chewing 10 or 40 times. Which leads us to believe there is no need to exaggerate chewing in order to reap the appetite suppressing attributes of nuts since regular chewing seems to do the trick.
That it takes longer to eat nuts when they must be first removed from their shells increases the metabolic signals of satiety- which can thus reduce the amount of calories we consume in a sitting. An invaluable side effect for anyone trying to control their eating habits.
Your body actually uses a ton of calories every single day even when you aren't doing anything. For people who don’t want to read the study completely, or who may not have much experience reading clinical papers, I want to devote some time to digging into this paper. The end conclusion is the whole thing must be bad and therefore needs to be reduced or outright expunged from the diet.
I recall hearing Gary talking about his discussion with a participant from the Biggest loser on Larry King and the rapant weight gain after the show.
A somewhat puzzling and counter-intuitive happenstance but in this article we will take a look at the mechanisms behind this phenomenon and explore five ways that eating nuts can help you lose weight and stay on track with your diet.
It might be a surprise to some to learn that according to Atwater’s measurements, most protein foods have a true calorie yield of 5.65 Calories per gram. It’s hard to tell if this change was statistically significant by inspection, so you glance at the p-value which tells you it was not. That is one big difference I’ve noticed between studies cited by writers who want to condemn the entire diet consumed by Americans vs those who look at it with a more in depth eye and realize that certain components are the problem not the whole diet across the board. Because these are the calories your body is burning and using up, they are nicknamed calories out.
Why did the people in the China Study who ate more plants do better than those who ate more animals (assuming they did)? Well, for starters, reading abstracts, hearing CNN headlines, or reading about studies in the NY Times doesn’t actually give you enough information to really understand if the results are applicable to you. Parenthetically, if you actually want the answer to this question, beyond my peripheral address, below, please read Denise Minger’s categorically brilliant analysis of the study.
Beyond this reason, and let me be uncharacteristically blunt, just because a study is published in a medical journal it does not imply that is worth the paper it is printed on.
Steve Rosenberg, once told me that a great number of published studies are never again cited (I forget the exact number, but it was staggering, over 50%). Translation: whatever they published was of such little value that no one ever made reference to it again. The thing is, it is possible to eliminate wheat and still eat way too many carbs (can we say ice cream?). I’m now happily in ketosis, and the best part is, I know the WHY of weight loss now, how totally liberating and hope giving.
Easy low fat dinner for one|
Diet meal plan to lose weight fast overnight