The Context of Calories
200 Calories is 200 Calories. Right?
“What’s that in the road ahead?”
vs.
“What’s that in the road!? A head!?”
Context is important.
Many people think weight loss is simply about cutting calories. But context counts here, too. Calories do have context and that’s what I want to explore today. Is a calorie from fat the same as a calorie from protein or carbohydrate? Depends on the context. Does day-to-day calorie monitoring make any difference if your week-to-week weight and energy expenditure are dialed in? Maybe not.
Most people (even many scientists) believe that the body composition challenge is a relatively simple equation: to lose weight you must reduce calories (either eat less or burn more), to gain weight you must add calories, and to maintain weight you keep calories constant. Calories in over calories out.
The truth is, it’s more like a complex equation where you have to factor in many other very important variables: Do I want to lose weight or just body fat? Do I want to gain weight or just muscle? How much muscle do I want to put on and how fast? What is my personal genetic “range” or limit for body fat or muscle? These are all different contexts. And these are further affected by supply (types and quantity of foods as well as frequency of meals) and metabolic demand (your relative immediate need for either energy, repair, or building). In the short-term, they are rate-limited by hormones (insulin, glucagon, epinephrine, nor-epinephrine, cortisol etc). And in the long-term the range (or limits) of possible outcomes is determined by gene expression (5’8” ectomorphs simply can’t become 275-lb body-builders, but they can be well-proportioned 165-lb men or 135-lb women.). The context can also change day-to-day. That’s where you come in as the director.
Fat burning, glucose burning, ketone burning, glycogen storage, fat storage, gluconeogenesis, and protein turnover. All of these energy-related processes are going on simultaneously in each of us at all times. But the rate at which each of these processes happens is different in each of us and they can increase or decrease (sometimes dramatically) depending on the context of our present circumstances and our long term goals. All of these contexts utilize the same gene-based principles of energy metabolism – the biochemical machinery that we all share – but because they all involve different starting points as well as different goals or possible outcomes, they often require different action plans. We can alter the rate at which each of these metabolic processes happens simply by changing what and when we eat. We can change the context.
The RD’s will tell you that protein has four calories per gram, so when you figure your daily intake, budget calories accordingly. But protein is used by the body mostly for maintaining structure and function. Yes, it can be burned as fuel, but really only as a secondary source, and even then, it must be converted to glucose to be utilized. So, depending on the need within the body, the first 10, 20 or 30 grams of protein might go towards repair and growth – not energy. Do we therefore discount those first 30 grams when we “count calories?” Depends on the context. If you don’t exercise much and eat frequently and copiously all the time, maybe most of the protein you eat will count more towards your calorie budget (since your structural protein turnover is relatively less). On the other hand, if you run yourself ragged, are under a great deal of stress (lots of catabolic hormones) and generally don’t get much protein, maybe most of that one high-protein meal goes toward repair and won’t be called upon as fuel for days or weeks. Or maybe you’re coming off an IF day. Does it really count as calories today if it isn’t burned or stored as fat? If those protein calories today go to adding lean mass (muscle) that is retained for years, do those calories count today? Then again, as muscle it does offer a potential long-term stored source of energy when gluconeogenesis is increased. See what I mean? Depends on the context.
Fats aren’t just for fuel either. They can be integral parts of all cell membranes and hormones and can serve as critical protective cushioning for delicate organs. At what point do the fats we consume stop becoming structural and start becoming calorically dense fuel? Depends again on the context. If there’s a ton of carbohydrates accompanying the fat on a daily basis, it’s pretty certain that that fat will be stored as adipose tissue sooner rather than later. That’s nine calories per gram in the tank for future use (if ever). And that’s what adds up over time when you weigh yourself. OTOH, if you’ve withheld carbs for a few days and your insulin remains low, the fats from this meal might be used quickly to provide fuel for normal resting metabolic processes.
Keep your carbs low enough long enough and you get into ketosis, a fat-burning state that creates what many now refer to as the “metabolic advantage.” In this context, fats are fueling most of the body’s energy demands either directly as fatty acids or as the fat-metabolism byproducts called ketones. To the delight of those looking to burn off unwanted fat, it gets better. The body balances the acidic effect of any excess ketones by either excreting them in the urine (in today’s $5 a gallon economy, isn’t that wasting fuel?) and by using ketones and fatty acids to create a bit more glucose for the brain via gluconeogenesis in a fairly “energy inefficient” process.
Finally, let’s look at the lowly carbohydrate and its four calories per gram. All carbs are broken down into simple sugars, and eventually (and almost always) into glucose. The primary use of glucose from all carbohydrate food is as fuel, whether burned immediately as it passes by different organs and muscles or whether stored for later use. The brain, red blood cells, and nerve cells prefer glucose as primary fuel (but don’t absolutely require it – they can use ketones). Muscles that are working hard will prefer glucose if it is available, but don’t absolutely require it unless they are working very hard for very long. If it is not burned immediately as fuel, excess glucose will be first stored as glycogen in muscle and liver cells and then, if or when these glycogen storage depots are full, it will be converted to fatty acids and stored in fat cells as fat. The things to remember about carbs and to put into context: Carbs are not used as structural components in the body – they are used only as a form of fuel; glucose in the bloodstream is toxic to humans UNLESS it is being burned immediately as fuel. (For reference, “normal” blood sugar represents only about one teaspoon of glucose dissolved in the entire blood pool in your body). That’s why insulin is so critical to taking it out of the bloodstream and putting it somewhere FAST, like muscle cells or fat cells. Moreover, humans can exist quite easily without ever eating carbs, since the body has several mechanisms for generating glucose from the fat and proteins consumed, as well as from proteins stripped from muscle tissue. For all these reasons, in the PB-style of eating, carbs are lowest priority. Unless your context includes lots of endurance activities (or storing fat) there’s little reason to overdo the carbs (USDA and RDs’ recommendations notwithstanding).
So what’s the take home message from all this? To be honest, I thought maybe you could tell me! Maybe it’s that by understanding how these metabolic processes work, and knowing that we can control the rates at which each one happens through our diet (and exercise) we needn’t agonize over the day-to-day calorie counting. As long as we are generally eating a PB-style plan and providing the right context, our bodies will ease into a healthy, fit, long-lived comfort zone rather effortlessly.
Disease Proof via Wisegeek Photo
Further Reading:
Definitive Guides to:
Insulin, Blood Sugar and Type 2 Diabetes
Stress, Cortisol and the Adrenals
Subscribe to Mark’s Daily Apple feeds
Posted By: Mark Sisson
(
Great post, guys. I have long thought that the “black box” theory of calories in, calories out doesn’t make much sense in the real world. I always tried to put it in environment context though. I’d never really thought about the metabolic context. I feel much educated. What’s my takeaway message? The thing that I have learned most from you guys over the past year: you should tailor your food not just to your goals but to your activities as well. It sounds so simple when I type it out like that but for me it was a revelation. Thanks!
Really great post. It all depends what you want and its so important to be keeping healthy and making the good choices- and to figure out what kind of fuel our bodies need for what we require of them.
I just started using the food log on fitday.com, as suggested by Mark a few months ago. I believe I am pretty active and eat well, well, not according to you all, as I do eat some carbs. It has been an eye opener to see what the breakdown of my diet really is. I’m happy to say that I’m usually pretty well covered nutritionally, but i want to take off the ten pounds I put on accidentally.
So, Mark, what percentage of one’s diet should be appropriated to proteins, fats, and carbohydrates?
BTW, I find the info fitday fascinating and it has been keeping me more attentive to the quality of my meals. I do wish they listed in line skating as one of their activities though! It’s one of my staples.
Pat
Pat,
The point I was trying to make here is that there is no set percentage formula. It all depends on your “context” and what you are trying to achieve. It’s almost never about percentages of Fat/Pro/Cho, but rather figuring your exact “average” requirements of each individual nutrient. It’s different for everyone. I guess I’ll do a follow-up post to go into the “math” of figuring out your daily needs with some examples.
I do 65% fat 30% protien and 5% carbs just because i want to lose weight as fast as i can.
I wrote Mark awhile back and as part of that exchange I identified my carb intake as being 60-80 grams a day. I thought I was closer to 60 most days than 80s. Well here’s the numbers over the last couple of weeks according to Fitday:
Average Calories
grams cals %total
Total: 1674
Fat: 92 831 50%
Sat: 29 262 16%
Poly: 15 136 8%
Mono: 31 278 17%
Carbs: 95 345 21%
Fiber: 8 0 0%
Protein: 95 380 23%
Alcohol: 15 106 6%
If you told me that I would average 1674 calories, I would think that I’d be dropping weight pretty fast. But it’s coming off slow at this point, and that carb count probably has a lot to do with that.
I didn’t jump on the Challenge because I thought I was already living by the BP. But I’m eating a lot more fruit than Grok probably did.
Dave, you’re trying to burn fat but eating 831 calories of fat a day. You want to see why you are not losing fat faster, look at that.
Joe,
I’m not sure that is necessarily true.
You need to get your calories from somewhere.
According to the PB, Grok’s diet consisted mostly of fat and protein. If Dave cuts out all those healthy fat calories, how will he replace them?
I wouldn’t mind hearing what Mark S. has to say about it.
Marc
you’re trying to burn fat but eating 831 calories of fat a day. You want to see why you are not losing fat faster, look at that.
That flies in the face of everything I’ve come to believe over the last year of reading this blog, several others, and Gary Taubes’ book. One of the mantras I’ve repeated in discussing diet in other forums is that “eating fat doesn’t make you fat.” My fat consumption has stayed pretty constant over the last 11 months, including a three month period where I dropped 30 pounds. I’m still losing but it’s been a bit of a roller coaster in that after steady losses, I’ll have a spike where I put back three or four pounds. Those spikes correlate directly with carb binging. Case in point: I stepped on the scale on the morning of July 3rd and weighed 199. That’s the first time I’ve been under 200 in maybe 17 years! I was going to post a “breaking the Mendoza line” entry on my blog but I decided to hold off. Good thing. On the 4th of July I chased my grilled t-bone with five pieces of pistachio creme pie and four bottles of Shiner Bock. I was afraid to get on the scale Saturday but I finally did on Sunday and it read 205! It seems I pay dearly for carb binging (my attempts to find an oral surgeon who does sweet tooth extractions has been futile). I have cut back on fats somewhat recently but only because of the calorie content it was adding. I used to bathe my salads in olive oil and vinegar dressing, and I ate a lot of almonds. When I first started using Fitday was the first time I realized how calorie dense that dressing was. So now I only use a couple of tablespoons and I don’t munch on almonds.
My plan going forward now is to cut back a little on the fruit, especially the tropical stuff that I love (mango & pineapple). I’m still going to have my daily apple (to not do so sounds sacrilegious). As long as I avoid the binging, the weight will come off. I’m just a little surprised that my total calorie intake is as low as it is. It’s probably a testament to the satisfying nature of good fats that I can eat this way and not feel hungry!
Eating fat dosn”t make you fat,but if you eat to many carbs with that fat it will.I tried adding in berries iam to carb sensitive,i stick with fat mostly saturated,meat,and a little veggies.As soon as i cut the beer out i started lossing again.
Guys, don’t forget that the scale isn’t the best thing to look at sometimes. Depending on your hydration levels and whether you’ve excreted your bowels that day, I’d give or take 5 lbs.
Overnight, I lose around 5 lbs, after I wake up and pee.
I’d say go for bodyfat % measurements to see how much leaner you are.
And a mirror doesn’t lie, as long as your brain is willing to not lie to you about how you feel about yourself!
Arthur: Yep, that’s true. That’s why I gave up my weekly “Tale of the Scale” on my blog. If it just happened I was a little “backed up” on Fridays, then it looked like I wasn’t making any progress. But I assure you that I’ve had enough “carb events” to be convinced there is a correlation that goes beyond a liquid/waste variance.
Perfect discussion to reflect upon the post. When Dave (or anyone) has a great couple of days or weeks of low carb eating, the body gets into a fat-burning mode. Doesn’t matter that he gets 831 calories from fat because he does need a minimum number of calories to cover his daily needs and it has to come from somewhere if not from carbs (or else he would burn muscle off as well as fat). As long as his daily protein is high enough to repair and build muscle and a little extra to offer up as glucose through gluconeogenesis, everything is working according to his plan. Where the plan changes (OK, the context changes), is when he adds the 5 (count’em, 5) pieces of pie. With the insulin spike here, most of what he eats will try to get stored: sugar as glycogen first, then fat; fat as adipose fat; aminos from the steak as muscle first, then glucose, then fat.
I suspect that some of the overnight weight gain is muscle glycogen, which carries an extra 4 grams of water weight with each gram of glycogen. In this one evening’s indiscretion, not much damage is done in the way of excess fat storage. Some, but not so much that getting back on the program the next day can’t start to reverse it again. Furthermore, if Dave were to decide to do a longer, harder workout the next day, he could deplete the glycogen (and water with it) and find that he’s pretty much right back to normal weight. No harm from that minor foul. That’s why it’s not cool to beat yourself up after a bad day or two. As long as you get back on track and stay PB 80% (or more) of the time, you’ll move towards your ideal genetic expression, which is lower body fat, higher muscle/power, etc. Of course, if you live PB most or all the time, you’ll get there a little sooner and be able to maintain it easier.
I’ve known for a long time that a 100 calorie piece of candy is processed differently than a 100 calorie apple.
But it’s only within the past few months that I figured out (largely with the info from Mark’s Daily Apple) that grains have a huge effect on my body composition. When I knock off the grains for a week, I’m visibly leaner and harder. A couple days back on the grains and boom!, I’ll start looking and feeling squishy around the middle. I believe it goes beyond the water retention that comes with carbs.
On the other hand, my body really responds well to fruit. I can eat massive quantities of fruit (watermelon! plums! strawberries!) and it revs me up like a hummingbird so that I burn off the extra calories it provides. One of those individual differences that I had to figure out by paying attention.
Informative and helpful post (and comments). Thanks!
I haven’t figured myself out quite yet (you’d think by now…). It’s part of my 30 day challenge to do that (or at least start paying a little more attention). I plan and plan, but don’t always follow-up with a little day-to-day observation.
Well, then, I guess I’m a failure:(
I’m pretty well finished eating for the day here on the East Coast and my breakdown is as follows:
1509 Calories
61 Grams Fat (little Saturated)
140 Grams Carbs (whoops, but mostly fruit and veggies
108 Protein
I move around on a daily basis, skating, biking, walking rounds of golf and lift weights twice a week.
Just excluding alcohol and sweets from my diet has made my clothing looser in a few days.
I am sucked into watching fluctuating numbers on the scale.
BTW, I’m 5′ 4″ and weigh 134, but my Body Fat is higher than it should be, while still within “healthy” numbers. Unfortunately, I am fighting the menopause pudge at 56.
To commit to excluding grains would be tough.
Pat,
Trust me, excluding grains isn’t too tough. Once you get past the three weeks phase of excluding them, you don’t crave them anymore. Keep your resolve high! You can do it.
Pat, slice off some of those carbs (dare I say atleast half of them) and I think you weight will start going downwards.
Good stuff. From a diabetic perspective I found this paper covers much of 21st century dietary theory
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/31
more excellent stuff on that site.
I don’t have to bother with weight reduction as I’m generally a skinny bastard anyway, the only thing that made me put on weight was the Healthy High Carb Low Fat diet and IMO it’s a toss up between the high carbs and the low fat as to which had most effect in worsening my BG and lipids. There’s no doubt in my mind that metabolism is several orders of magnitude more complicated than the soundbytes you get fed over the media, and all too many “medical professional” sites, certainly with my family’s genes Taubes & co. are right
So, not sure if this discussion is still active, but I’m curious: do I count calories overall or not? And further, is it possible too have too few calories?
I’ve been doing PB for a while, segued into it from more general low-carb. I turn those ketostix a lovely shade of purple, but just don’t seem to be losing any weight. I’m working out (turbulence training), and I track everything I put in my mouth. Keep calories to about 1800 or so a day. Help!
If you truly eat “Primally” there’s no need to count calories. But I ‘d need more info, like where are you at in weight and body fat? where do you want to be? are you sprinting ever? etc.
I’m hovering around 200. 42 years old, 5′9″, probably around 17 or 18% bodyfat.
I do HIIT 3-4 times a week on an eliptical trainer. Bad feet, so running/sprints not really an option.
Not sure if it’s the fish oil, PB, vitamin D or what, but I feel great. I really even notice a lot of mental fog has disappeared (didn’t even know it was there until it was gone), but the fat loss just doesn’t seem to be happening. Could I actually need to bump UP calories?
I’ve even been doing a fast once a week, thinking of going to two. The first few weren’t fun, but after a few under my belt, it’s not so bad.
I wouldn’t bump the calories up. Just keep doing what you’re doing and IF once or twice a week. May take a while to draw down your extra fat stores
Mark,
I hate to be so picky, but just wanted to point out that Carbohydrates are used structurally. Many post-translational proteins and membrane lipids are glycosylated in order to become biologically active. And what about the extremely prevalent carbohydrate ribose? It is found in every cell as a component of RNA, DNA, ATP, etc! The point being, the food we eat, even carbohydrates, are much more than just sources of energy. And, I agree with you, we are fools to think that we can over simplify such a complex phenomenon such as cellular biochemistry to help us lose a few pounds. It is not as simple as Calories in vs Calories out.
Hi Guys, appreciate any advice people can offer…Im 5′8, 143 pounds (about 120 pounds lean BW). I train 4-5 times a week, mostly following crossfit workouts. I’ve been working on my food log, but somedays the calories Im consuming seem low around 1800, with the highest day around 2350. Do I need to be consuming more food if I want to increase my muscle mass? My protein intake is already over the suggested 1 pound per pound lean BW, and my fat intake is around 50% of my calories, and my carbs are around 110g a day. So do I need anymore calories to add some muscle mass? and if so where should I be getting then from?
Sorry for the long post! Thanks for the help
Sorry guys, I mean 1g/pound of bodyweight for my protein!