"Why The Calorie is Broken" or Why Calories In - Calories Out Isn't As Simple As Some of You Think

[Upward Journey]

Degrading (or breaking down) histamine is good for allergic people.  We react to the histamine so less is better.

 

ETA: Histamine is an important part of the immune system and not all bad.  It has a function.  It just causes a problem in overabundance or with sensitive people.

 

 

Degrading histamine would help your allergies.  It would reduce the build up of histamine that causes the reaction symptoms, and make you less sensitive to reactions.

 

 

Good to know, thanks!

 

I had never heard of Culturelle before this thread.  I don't have a weight problem but I have extreme allergies in the form of OAS.  It is so bad that the ONLY raw thing I can tolerate is lettuce, occasionally  :tongue_smilie: So no fruits, no nuts, no seeds, no veggies.  If it can lower my histamine levels enough to eat even some things again, that would be amazing!  

[wapiti]

My best guess is inflammation is an issue when things are bad - still working on figuring out the common denominator as to why though.  I remain doubtful about both allergies and stress - esp the latter - because of days like today, but who knows?

 

It is extremely complex.  Inflammation and allergies are the immune system in action.  A large portion of the immune system is located in the gut.  80% of the serotonin in the body is produced in the gut.  Histamine is connected to methylation.  There are over-methylators with low histamine, undermethylators with high histamine, etc. though I can't remember how histamine fits into the methylation cycle.  Genetics can play a huge role in all these connected processes.   (see e.g. this link - trying to make the link work  http://www.heartfixer.com/AMRI-Nutrigenomics.htm this link doesn't even get into the microbiome).  Science has a long way to go but there is interesting info out there :)

Edited January 29, 2016 by wapiti

[wapiti]

I had never heard of Culturelle before this thread.

 

FWIW, Culturelle is a mass-market brand that has been widely available for years (Target, the grocery, etc.).  There are many, many other types of probiotics available.  It just so happens that the one in Culturelle, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, has been studied more than some others.

[Upward Journey]

FWIW, Culturelle is a mass-market brand that has been widely available for years (Target, the grocery, etc.).  There are many, many other types of probiotics available.  It just so happens that the one in Culturelle, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, has been studied more than some others.

 

Yes.  I've been doing some research :)  

 

I'm going to buy Culturelle so that I can get some LGG and use it to culture yogurt.  Seems to be the most sensible/economical approach for this experiment.  

[Katy]

Yes.  I've been doing some research :)

 

I'm going to buy Culturelle so that I can get some LGG and use it to culture yogurt.  Seems to be the most sensible/economical approach for this experiment.  

 

Ohhh, let us know if it works!

[Bluegoat]

The older I am, the less bothered I get by something being fixed via the placebo effect.  Whatever works... 

 

I think the problem comes when someone charges you an arm and a leg for it, or it stops working or doesn't actually fix the real problem, or in the case of fad diets causes other health problems because it is so restrictive or is unbalanced/

 

You also see a lot of people who end up going through fad after fad - every new thing is great and solves all their problems for a while, they feel better than ever, and so on.  But that in itself often causes health issues, and can even get into eating disorder territory.

[Bluegoat]

Just one article of many. From Scientific American, not some hippie granola journal. Our bodies have more bacterial cells than human cells in them. It makes sense that those bacteria would influence us in many ways. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mental-health-may-depend-on-creatures-in-the-gut/

 

 

Yeah, this doesn't in any way convince me that people who claim their diet will fix everything that is wrong with you are anything but snake oil salesmen.  Thetre are all kinds of things that can cause the listed issues that have nothing to do with gut bacteria, it's reductionist.  And I do not trust dietary advice to people who make those claims - they are generally selling something.

 

Also - I don't consider SA all that reliable generally.

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Katy]

nm

Edited July 22, 2016 by Katy

[Bluegoat]

Except she's not charging for it.  You can pay if you want to buy her book to support her, or you can get the same information for free on her website. 

 

The only thing you're really putting into it is time, because traditional foods are cheap but it takes advance planning and preparation to do things like make sure everyone has a cup of bone broth soup every night.  Sure, it's the most bioavailible form of certain minerals, like magnesium and calcium that calm inflammation, and probably has nutrients that haven't even been discovered yet, but it takes a lot more time to roast, simmer, and strain bones over and over until they're soft than it does to drop some bouillon or canned stock in your soup, if you bother to soup yourself at all. And then there's the fermented vegetables.  I've tried to make homemade sauerkraut.  I just ended up with a moldy mess.

 

Websites are income sources, and advertisments.  The point being, she only makes money if she has something to sell people.

[Joyofsixreboot]

FWIW, Culturelle is a mass-market brand that has been widely available for years (Target, the grocery, etc.). There are many, many other types of probiotics available. It just so happens that the one in Culturelle, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, has been studied more than some others.

Two of my girls have had weird tummy symptoms so I purchased L. Rhamnosus GG (Walgreens brand chewable). I chose to buy Kefir, some kombucha ( which I like but usually don't splurge on) and even more fiber rich food than usual. I've been reading and reading....I don't think anything is a silver bullet but it seems really improving your gut health can't hurt.

[creekland]

I think the problem comes when someone charges you an arm and a leg for it, or it stops working or doesn't actually fix the real problem, or in the case of fad diets causes other health problems because it is so restrictive or is unbalanced/

 

You also see a lot of people who end up going through fad after fad - every new thing is great and solves all their problems for a while, they feel better than ever, and so on.  But that in itself often causes health issues, and can even get into eating disorder territory.

 

I get your point, but honestly, when something is wrong and hasn't been able to be fixed via conventional matters - or one isn't keen on the conventional fix due to drawbacks - it sure helps to have something work.

 

Not getting time when things are going well also can lead to significant problems both mentally (and probably) physically.

 

Who's to say which is worse?

 

Then couple that with the knowledge that many of our conventional ways of fixing things were once dissed by the then conventional way.  (Ulcers anyone?)

 

There's a lot of unknowns out there.  We can't necessarily wait until they are all knowns before making decisions.  We each have to make our best guesses.

 

'Tis the way the real world works.

[Joyofsixreboot]

A final bit about calories. This study http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01577-8seems to find that moderate exercise burns about the same number of calories as extensive working out. Humans from across cultures burn pretty much the same number of calories.

Here is the article in synopsis http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/28/exercise-energy/?smid=fb-nytwell&smtyp=cur

[ktgrok]

A final bit about calories. This study http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01577-8seems to find that moderate exercise burns about the same number of calories as extensive working out. Humans from across cultures burn pretty much the same number of calories.

Here is the article in synopsis http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/28/exercise-energy/?smid=fb-nytwell&smtyp=cur

 

Wow. Thank you. That actually totally explains my experience, or fits with it anyway. 

[creekland]

Never underestimate the wisdom of a good teacher with medical knowledge.

 

My issue isn't going to be fixed by gut bacteria no matter how good they are at lowering histamine.  This isn't to say they won't help with weight loss or some other issues for those of you considering them for that.  I just don't need help with weight loss as lack of hunger makes it easy for me.

 

I still have the problem in how to fix it though.  (sigh)  Will give the medical antihistamines a go to see if they work.  If not, there's a different cause, but at least now I know what's happening and where.  (Also found out I can't keep my balance easily with my eyes closed... not sure I needed to know that!)

[wapiti]

 lowering histamine

 

In reading about something else (supplemental methionine) I just came across something in an article that I thought I might as well throw in here:

 

Besides these factors, methylation deactivates histamine, an amino acid intimately involved with the allergic response. If methyl group production is compromised and histamine cannot be deactivated, excessive allergic reactions result.

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by wapiti

[regentrude]

A final bit about calories. This study http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01577-8seems to find that moderate exercise burns about the same number of calories as extensive working out. Humans from across cultures burn pretty much the same number of calories.

Here is the article in synopsis http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/28/exercise-energy/?smid=fb-nytwell&smtyp=cur

 

So then why does one lose weight on a backpacking trip where one carries an amount of food that would suffice for normal days under moderate exercise? Everybody who does long distance hiking, i.e. extensive workout for many hours a day, is ravenous. I do not believe that that burns only the same amount of calories as a stroll around the block. Why else the food fantasies?

Or why do athletes who train intensively for several hours a day can, and need to, eat thousands more calories than a regular person - without gaining weight? (I am the mom of a teen athlete who consumes 4,000 calories a day.)

 

Edited January 30, 2016 by regentrude

[happi duck]

As an overweight, anxious person this all intrigues me but my brain is overwhelmed so my takeaway is: culturelle!

[Joyofsixreboot]

So then why does one lose weight on a backpacking trip where one carries an amount of food that would suffice for normal days under moderate exercise? Everybody who does long distance hiking, i.e. extensive workout for many hours a day, is ravenous. I do not believe that that burns only the same amount of calories as a stroll around the block. Why else the food fantasies?

Or why do athletes who train intensively for several hours a day can, and need to, eat thousands more calories than a regular person - without gaining weight? (I am the mom of a teen athlete who consumes 4,000 calories a day.)

I have no idea, I just found it interesting in relation this thread. I myself thought of Michael Phelps and his enormous calorie intake. I think nothing is simple. Human bodies are more than a thermodynamic energy in/energy out mechanism. That may be the overarching process but the devil may be in the details. I eat pretty much the same whether I'm running 15 miles/week or 30 miles/week. I am perfectly capable of believing others get hungrier. I can eat as many carbs as I want but I believe others who tell me they can't. Why does it happen? I have no earthly idea but I love food and nutrition, thus the reason I became an RD. Edited January 30, 2016 by joyofsix

[creekland]

In reading about something else (supplemental methionine) I just came across something in an article that I thought I might as well throw in here:

 

I started reading this, but will have to get back to it in the morning when my brain is actually turned on.  It tends to turn off in the evenings between 8:30 - 9pm.   :coolgleamA:

 

Around 4 - 4:30am it will switch back on... but then is on autopilot to get dressed and take care of cat needs, etc.  Not too long afterward I get on the computer.

[flyingiguana]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35193414

I lost track of what got posted so I hope this isn't a repeat.

 

"Foods that make some of us put on weight can have little effect on others, according to research being carried out in Israel. It might be time to rethink the way we diet, writes Dr Saleyha Ahsan.

 

...Foods have, therefore, been traditionally classified by how much of a blood sugar spike they cause - with "high GI" (Glycaemic Index) foods being thought of as bad for us, and "low GI" as good. Every nutritionist would tell you this. But the Israeli research, led by Dr Eran Segal and Dr Eran Elinav, suggests that it is simply not so."

[Joyofsixreboot]

For your light Sunday reading

http://commonfund.nih.gov/hmp/sciencenews

[Katy]

nm

Edited July 22, 2016 by Katy

[purplejackmama]

Well there are problems with glycemic indexes - the first being that they were measured by weight rather than typical serving size. That's why glycemic load was invented. Though this is definitely true for me. I don't know why, but dark chocolate covered dried blueberries lower my blood sugar, and carrots raise it more than eating gluten free cake.

As someone who abhors carrots, this is VERY GOOD NEWS!!

[purplejackmama]

Well this is interesting. After almost 6 months of constant weight loss attempts, I haven't made much (any?!) progress so I hired a nutritional consultant. I emailed her my week long food journal and this is the reply, "way too little food. You need to be eating substantially more." We have a face to face meeting soon and I can't wait to hear what she says. Clearly she's not a proponent of the CICO nonsense.

[nevergiveup]

Well this is interesting. After almost 6 months of constant weight loss attempts, I haven't made much (any?!) progress so I hired a nutritional consultant. I emailed her my week long food journal and this is the reply, "way too little food. You need to be eating substantially more." We have a face to face meeting soon and I can't wait to hear what she says. Clearly she's not a proponent of the CICO nonsense.

What have you been eating?  Inquiring minds want to know.....

[Bluegoat]

So then why does one lose weight on a backpacking trip where one carries an amount of food that would suffice for normal days under moderate exercise? Everybody who does long distance hiking, i.e. extensive workout for many hours a day, is ravenous. I do not believe that that burns only the same amount of calories as a stroll around the block. Why else the food fantasies?

Or why do athletes who train intensively for several hours a day can, and need to, eat thousands more calories than a regular person - without gaining weight? (I am the mom of a teen athlete who consumes 4,000 calories a day.)

 

It might be that in cases like you mention, it is because it is not the normal level of activity - the body hasn't had time to adjust itself to the higher output.

 

I'm not sure about the athletes.  But not all consume really large amounts, and I think there are significant difficulties in figuring out how to measure what they eat vs what they burn, and how they are related.  They tend to assume for example that an athelete who consumes many calories must be in balance vs his output or he would get fat.  But there seems to be an assumption there that the activity would burn the same amount of calories if there were fewer calories available.

 

The information seems to have been based on studies of people's regular levels of activity though.  If you are a hunter-gatherer who goes out every day and walks great distances and brings home our own food, or if you only walk  few km in a day and are otherwise sedentary, your body adjusts to that output.

 

I can see why that would make sense.  It isn't like being very active means it is goinfg to be possible to consume many more calories.

[Luckymama]

Well this is interesting. After almost 6 months of constant weight loss attempts, I haven't made much (any?!) progress so I hired a nutritional consultant. I emailed her my week long food journal and this is the reply, "way too little food. You need to be eating substantially more." We have a face to face meeting soon and I can't wait to hear what she says. Clearly she's not a proponent of the CICO nonsense.

  

What have you been eating?  Inquiring minds want to know.....

I am in almost the same position as purplejackmama, though I was not following any weight loss program. I have increased my working out substantially in the past twelve months (including lifting/bodyweight four times a week) yet had not lost a single pound. I gained obvious muscle at the same time, so there's that.

 

I met with a registered dietician at the gym who said the same thing to me. I has been eating 1200-1600 calories per day, tracking with MyFitnessPal. She said I need at least 1800, but more importantly, I need to increase my protein intake from an average of 40-50g to more than 100g.

 

I am getting closer to 1800 calories by increasing amounts, not by changing foods. I eat chicken, eggs, fish, and pork/beef from local farmers. I eat all kinds of fruits and veggies (banana, citrus, berries, peaches I froze last summer, homemade applesauce, lettuces, sweet peppers, tomatoes, broccoli, green beans, broccoli rabe, bok choy, winter squashes------this week's list). I use olive oil, canola oil, amd butter. I use 1% milk in smoothies, lattes, and homemade hot cocoa (my treat on cold days). I eat extra sharp full-fat cheddar cheese and full-fat plain Greek yogurt. I eat plain whole almonds a few times a week. I bake baguettes and focaccia, I eat commercial wholegrain sliced bread, pasta, and various rices. I might have some chips once a week. I enjoy adult beverages on weekends.

 

I have added a smoothie made with whey protein powder (I tried all kinds of protein powder samples from a local store), milk, and fruit(s) every day for breakfast.

 

I have lost one pound in a week (I have weighed myself every Monday at the gym for a year) so we are hopeful this is just the start :)

 

Btw I am 49 and perimenopausal. I am 5'2" and (currently) weigh 151 lb. I gained 15 pounds during the four years between my mother's diagnosis with ovarian cancer and the date I settled my parents' estate. My goal for this year is to get back to 135 lb. I would love to see 120s again.

[Jaybee]

When people talk about taking probiotics, do they mean taking them for a certain time period, or indefinitely? Reasoning behind one or the other?

[creekland]

When people talk about taking probiotics, do they mean taking them for a certain time period, or indefinitely? Reasoning behind one or the other?

 

Having just bought Culturelle, I can say that the box assumes one will be taking these indefinitely - one per day in general - twice per day if having stomach issues or traveling.

 

I just started taking them yesterday.  I'm not sure how long I'll continue, but I bought a 50 day supply, so at least that long unless hubby chooses to join me in the experiment (shortening my supply).  I'm figuring by the end of 50 days I ought to know if they seem to be doing anything or not.  Or if not then, shortly after stopping them I might be able to figure it out.

 

It's possible we'll end up merely using probiotics when we have issues (antibiotics/illnesses) rather than daily.  

 

I'm not committed either way.  I'll just see what happens.   Shouldn't hurt.  Might help.

 

At this point, not even the Flonase is working super well at clearing up my ear issues - fortunately, no side effects I can feel from it, but it's only taken the edge off after 5 days of use - pretty akin to how it felt with Sudafed, so I'm back to being willing to more or less try anything.  Having had a deeper discussion with our anatomy teacher at school (who also teaches college anatomy and has nifty models to demonstrate with), my concern level with this one has increased significantly over mere frustration - but I'm at the usual spot of not really knowing what to do.  Maybe checking with a different ENT will help.

[hepatica]

It might be that in cases like you mention, it is because it is not the normal level of activity - the body hasn't had time to adjust itself to the higher output.

 

I'm not sure about the athletes.  But not all consume really large amounts, and I think there are significant difficulties in figuring out how to measure what they eat vs what they burn, and how they are related.  They tend to assume for example that an athelete who consumes many calories must be in balance vs his output or he would get fat.  But there seems to be an assumption there that the activity would burn the same amount of calories if there were fewer calories available.

 

The information seems to have been based on studies of people's regular levels of activity though.  If you are a hunter-gatherer who goes out every day and walks great distances and brings home our own food, or if you only walk  few km in a day and are otherwise sedentary, your body adjusts to that output.

 

I can see why that would make sense.  It isn't like being very active means it is goinfg to be possible to consume many more calories.

 

I think there is something to this. I have done a fair amount of long distance backpacking. When I start a trip, I lose 10-12 lbs in the first two to three weeks, then nothing after that. The initial weight loss makes sense. I am hiking 10-12 hours a day, between 15-30 miles. But my body definitely adjusts.

 

On the other hand, my purely anecdotal, non-scientific experience tells me there is a female component to this as well. I live in New England, and spend many hours hiking in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. So every summer I meet AT thru-hikers who are nearing the end of their 2000+ mile journey. With few exceptions, the women I meet look fit and trim and strong. Almost all the men look gaunt, emaciated, and essentially starving. The men (and some women, although I am never able to eat enough to make those places worthwhile) go into town every 3-4 days and eat enormous amounts of calories at the all-you-can-eat places that cater to hikers. Even so, by the NH and Maine, their bodies are essentially consuming themselves.

[ktgrok]

I think there is something to this. I have done a fair amount of long distance backpacking. When I start a trip, I lose 10-12 lbs in the first two to three weeks, then nothing after that. The initial weight loss makes sense. I am hiking 10-12 hours a day, between 15-30 miles. But my body definitely adjusts.

 

On the other hand, my purely anecdotal, non-scientific experience tells me there is a female component to this as well. I live in New England, and spend many hours hiking in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. So every summer I meet AT thru-hikers who are nearing the end of their 2000+ mile journey. With few exceptions, the women I meet look fit and trim and strong. Almost all the men look gaunt, emaciated, and essentially starving. The men (and some women, although I am never able to eat enough to make those places worthwhile) go into town every 3-4 days and eat enormous amounts of calories at the all-you-can-eat places that cater to hikers. Even so, by the NH and Maine, their bodies are essentially consuming themselves.

 

This fits with my observations too. I know marathon runners that train constantly but are still overweight/obese. In my own experience going from a very sedentary job to a job that required constant walking/lifting heavy animals/moving 9-12 hours a day I lost weight the first week or two, and then totally stabilized. I've always said my body figures it out and then adjusts. Same with when I took up running, zumba, etc. Same when I worked at a summer camp, hiking daily and barely eating because the food was gross and meal times were limited with no snacks. 

[TravelingChris]

I just ordered Culterelle today.  Thanks to the OP for posting the original article and to others for their supplementary postings.  It is all very interesting.  I take some of the drugs that cause weight gain, including steroids, but have thankfully just been having no weight gain even though I am eating more carefully and less nowadays.  I am looking forward to June when my doctor says I will probably be able to go off one of those weight gaining medications.  I am very interested in the gut flora and mental health issues because I have depressives in my family and also anxiety issues in myself and others,.  

[Katy]

nm

Edited July 22, 2016 by Katy

[Joyofsixreboot]

"But for participants whose activity levels ranged from moderate to intense, the number of calories shed stopped rising even as fitness levels soared, showing that overall energy expenditures tend to be constrained."

 

"You see the body works pretty hard to keep energy expenditures in check,†Pontzer said.

This helps explain why energy usage tends to be the same across populations, experts said. People living similarly to traditional hunter-gatherers in African countries, for example, burn roughly the same number of calories as desk jockeys hunched over keyboards for 12 hours a day."

This is from the synopsis of the article I posted from Cell.

 

It seems the initial jolt from couch potato to casual moving more ups calorie burn but then the body fights mightily to keep that in check as much as possible. I assume that might be a survival mechanism.

 

I upped my fiber (40 g/day from about 25 usually),added kombucha and kefir. I expected some intestinal distress or change but my body, the temple of homeostasis, is chugging along as usual. Fiber seems to be key to healthy happy gut bacteria. We shall see if anything happens with that irritating 5-10 pounds. I'm doubtful but it can't hurt.

[Guest]

my body, the temple of homeostasis,

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  f'real