Interesting article on why calories aren't as important as what they're made of - or, why a calorie isn't just a calorie.
http://www.gnolls.org/3374/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie-to-your-body/#.UUxxmMD7ghw.facebook
Synopsis:
There is no biochemical system in our bodies whose input is a "calorie".
The food we eat has many possible fates, only one of which approximates the definition of a dietary "calorie".
The fate of a "calorie" of food depends completely on its specific molecular composition, the composition of the foods accompanying it, and how those molecules interact with our current metabolic and nutritional state--our satiety.
Therefore, the concept of the "calorie", as applied to nutrition, is an oversimplification so extreme as to be untrue in practice.
Therefore, the concept of "calories in, calories out", or CICO, is also unhelpful in practice.
The health-supporting fates of food involve being used as raw materials to build and repair tissues; to build enzymes, cofactors, and hormones; to build bile, mucus, and other necessary secretions; to support "good" gut bacteria, while discouraging "bad" bacteria; and, once all those needs are taken care of, providing energy sufficient to perform those tasks (but no more).
Therefore, we should eat foods which are made of the raw materials we need to perform and support the above functions.
Biochemical individuality means that the optimum diet for different people will differ--as will their tolerance for suboptimal diets.
However, eating like a predator--a diet based on meat, fish, shellfish, vegetables and fruit in season, and just enough starch to support your level of physical activity--is an excellent starting point.
Hence why I suck at low calorie diets - I eat all the wrong things. And the optimum diet for me personally seems to be pretty low carb - though not for everyone.
All stuff I knew but interesting to see it laid out in a more sciencey way.
I do wish I was smart enough to really understand though. Calorie restriction obviously works, but I can lose as fast / sometimes faster on a low carb diet eating above what should be my calorie burn rate - because the protein calories are put to better use than the carb calories? I think that may be the gist of why it works for me.
I do also know now that higher carb (as in 100g +) diets and especially wheat and sugar are bad for me - they make me feel ill - crampy, bloated, sluggish, digestion problems. I feel healthier the lower carb I eat - so why am I still even tempted by carbs? Is it just social conditioning. Is it feeling deprived. Is it wanting to feel 'normal'.
It's ridiculous - even with unpleasant side effects I still choose to eat high carb and 'off plan' here and there. What's going on in my brain that it doesn't get that it's not worth the side effects.
Sugar addiction, maybe. Though I've been low carb the better part of a year now, maybe it's like all other addictions and will forever be 'one day at a time'
I think I must be lucky in that I do at least seem able to get myself back on track after my planned indulgences. Just puzzled as to why my body, knowing carbs make it ill, won't stop being interested in eating them.
