190
submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/science@mander.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AnaGram@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 year ago

Our bodies absolutely do not treat all calories equally

[-] livus@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This.

It's crazy, the science on processed fructose vs glucose is clear
but people still cling to old ideas about all calories all being the same.

[-] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

I think you’re arguing different things, or you don’t understand the top comment. They are explaining that gaining weight is a function of net calories. The article you linked is effectively explaining glycemic index, or the rate at which food can be converted into energy by the body. Both of these are compatible. It’s wise to eat low GI food so that you feel sated for longer, but you don’t have to. You can eat exclusively white bread and lose weight if your net calories are negative.

[-] livus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

@JasSmith hmm maybe I linked to the wrong thing. I was trying to find one that pointed out the difference between glucose metabolism and fructose metabolism, as an illustration of how calories are not all treated the same way by the body, but I was in a hurry. This might be better.

[-] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

This intra-hepatic lipid will promote the production and secretion of very low-density lipoprotein 1 (VLDL1) leading to an increase in post-prandial triglycerides. A vicious cycle occurs effecting insulin resistance as well. The lipid in the liver will increase insulin resistance resulting in increases in circulating diacylglycerol. Additionally, the insulin resistance will lead to further lipid deposit in the liver with sugar having a greater propensity to turn to fat (3). A downstream effect of increased apoCIII and apoB will lead to muscle lipid accumulation, and end in whole body insulin resistance. All of this metabolic dysregulation results from the direct route fructose initially takes to the liver.

Thanks for the link. If proven this would definitely be a bad outcome, but it doesn’t mean that a calorie deficit becomes a calorie surplus depending on the nutrient. If one is burning more than they’re consuming, the above is irrelevant insofar as weight gain is concerned. It’s relevant either way for diabetes.

[-] Bizarroland@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

And for a very short summation of the small novella I've written in other comments, not every calorie has the same amount of nutrition in it.

There are non caloric nutrients in food that are absolutely vital for human health and happiness and when you are deficient in those nutrients your body will compel you to continue eating until you have met your baselines.

Solve the nutritional problem and you will most likely go a long long way towards solving the obesity problem.

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

I've had the theory that people in the US are a lot more malnourished than we realize. All that low quality food means they're probably missing something essential, or only getting it alongside a ton of sugar (aka HFCS).

[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago

HFCS is evil and outlawed in a lot of the civilized world. It's a known cause of cancer and tricks the brain into eating more.

It has such a high caloric density, a survival instinct inside the human brain kicks in. It says: wow this is really good, we don't get many opportunities to eat something this good, eat as much of it as you can. This makes sense in a cave man survival scenario, where you happen on some honey or sugary fermented fruits. Then you have a bigger chance of surviving if you eat as much of it as you possibly can. But in modern life where we have an infinite supply of these things it's a killer.

[-] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 5 points 1 year ago

They don't, there's a million little things that depend on what you eat, but regarding weight this is how it works.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, the key word there is "calories out" -- as in, not all calories get absorbed equally well by the body, so some get excreted. "Calories out" does not just mean burning them with metabolism and exercise. "Eat less and exercise more" is a gross oversimplification.

[-] Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Less efficient calorie conversion means you'd lose weight even easier . . .

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Right: skinny people might have less efficient calorie conversion than fat ones.

[-] Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

. . . . but 99% of the time they just eat less

[-] Aux@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

In terms of weight - yes, they do.

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
190 points (92.0% liked)

Science

3072 readers
47 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS