Frito-Lay as Health Food

This is one of those things that will lead to a lot of confusion, and will cause people to think that these grain and sugar items are healthy.

Kinda like the new KFC ads...no trans fats, so it must be healthy!

Brian

Junk food is junk food no matter how you look at it. if it doesn't come from the ground sliced thin and fried in whatever kind of oil; then its a heart attach waiting to happen. by nature, humans are supposed to have natural fats, good ones. does anyone else see fried potato chips as natural regardless of the label? i've had them, they are actually really good. but, i have to say, i still felt just as greasy as i had eating regular lays.

This is one of the reasons people have problems dieting. You guys seem to have this need to label foods as "healthy" or "unhealthy". It's a misunderstanding of food.

First, labeling foods as "unhealthy" is misinformation. They aren't poisonous. Yes, they are undesirable in large amounts, but so are "healthy" foods (though the undesirable amount may differ). And you end up telling people they should never eat the foods they like. This is a big reason diets fail. There's no reason people can't eat a serving or two a day of these so-called "unhealthy" foods. More if they are active.

Secondly, labeling foods as "healthy" is also misinformation. They don't cure anything. Nuts are supposed to be "healthy", but they are full of calories. Other "healthy" foods will also make you fat. It depends on how much of them you eat. Many nutrients that you need are actually toxic in large amounts. The "healthy" food becomes "unhealthy" when the amount is wrong.

The key to diets is the amount of calories used vs. eaten. A "healthy" food calorie is precisely equal to an "unhealthy" food calorie.

Diet choices shouldn't be simplified to the point of misinformation. And each individual choice isn't very important anyway. It's the whole diet that matters.

The FDA better get their act in gear, before OMEGA-6 fats kill everyone and then I'm the "Omega Man" (last human alive)...

But they won't, because they're in the pocket of the grains lobby.

Ben said:
Diet choices shouldn't be simplified to the point of misinformation.

Very true! So junk food (omega-6, starch and chemical flavors/colors) shouldn't be labelled as being a better choice than health food (saturated fat, cla, animal protein). But, then, the corporate tools can't patent nature.

You seriously believe that it's the calories alone that make a person fat or thin? How about those who eat less and are fatter and less healthy than those who eat more?

Hormones. Nutrient partitioning. Insulin and cortisol. Growth hormone and testosterone. That's why I can thrive on 3,500 calories of whole, healthy foods while a tub of lard cries themselves to sleep on 1,800 calories of M&M Mars and Frito Lay.

This is all about Marketing, not nutrition... Always remember that those companies are here because of business, not because of their will to make America a healthier country .

Kailash said:
You seriously believe that it's the calories alone that make a person fat or thin?[...]

Yes. Calories used vs. calories eaten is what matters.

Thin people who eat a lot simply use more calories (or overestimate the amount of calories they eat). The contrary is true for obese people who eat sparingly.

Ben said:
Yes. Calories used vs. calories eaten is what matters. [...]

I have to agree with Kailash here. When I eat clean, I can lose weight on around 500 calories more a day than when I eat different kinds of foods. I didn't suddenly start underestimating just because I am eating different foods, and my hormone makeup didn't change either. So that is an example of how just nutrient partitioning makes a huge difference on metabolism.

Ben said:
Yes. Calories used vs. calories eaten is what matters. [...]

While there is some energy balance always going on, there are some kinks in it. First of all, the way we determined that carbs and protein are 4 calories per gram and fats are 9 calories per gram seems to have nothing to do with how they're metabolized. I don't even know why we use this measure.

Next up, not all macronutrients are used in the same way. Carbs are only energy. You eat carbs, you eat energy. Protein and fat though affect tissue building, hormone levels, etc. Your hormone levels affect how much energy you use.

Third, the energy used in digesting and using different macronutrients varies. Protein takes much more energy to digest than anything else. Some metabolic pathways are more efficient than others too.

So, it does come down to energy in vs energy out, but that simple thing can get so very complicated. Tell any bodybuilder that's competed though that cutting down carbs doesn't matter.

Ben said:
Yes. Calories used vs. calories eaten is what matters.

You're wrong. The body has physiological mechanisms for lipolysis and lipogenesis which are activated by hormones; hormones released as much by the quality and timing of what is eaten as by the quantity.

What's more, anabolism and catabolism are as affected by the body's environment as much as they are by nutrient intake. Do glycogen stores need to be replenished? Is there cellular damage that needs to be repaired?

"A calorie is a calorie" falls short even in explaining a bonfire! Because you need to account for flux in the atmospheric oxygen content and the combustion of differing fuels. Not all logs are shaped the same. And so energy leaks into the environment at differing rates, and blows in different directions. Let's call north "fat" and south "muscle". West is "energy expended" and East is "shitted out".

Does knowing more about the limitations of physiological processes help you to understand why a calorie isn't a calorie? How about the analogy of a bonfire?

Neither is a simple algebraic equation. It's not even a compendium of multiple equations. We're dealing with a chaotic system, and as in life, the more you know the greater your chance of success.

Good luck.

Then you're using more calories. You are more-or-less saying that when you mention making a "difference on metabolism".

Practically though, calories can be counted. So-called "healthy" foods making a "difference on metabolism" can't be. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, and there's really no way for the average person to accurately guess how much.

But it's fairly straightforward to count calories eaten and there are formulas and devices (scales, pedometers, treadmills, etc.) to give you a number for calories used. If the number used is more than the number eaten, weight loss occurs over time.

Over time, calories are calories.

All the other stuff matters for an hour or a day or a week. It matters if you want to be a marathon runner or athlete and need to keep up your energy. It matters if you have a very strange diet or eating disorder or other serious health condition.

Proteins vs. fat vs. carbs matters if you're on an extreme diet like Atkins. But if you get more than enough of all three, you get fatter. And all three can be converted into energy, so their calories matter. The precise balance doesn't matter for losing weight if you keep the calories used higher than the calories eaten and just eat normal food.

If an average person wants to lose weight over a period of time (say 2-6 months or longer), using more calories than are eaten is the only important thing.

Telling them they can't have the food that they like and confusing them with all kinds of physiology talk about glycogen stores is not helping them lose weight over 2-6 months. It discourages people.

Someone who is 60 pounds overweight doesn't need to know how to be perfectly healthy. They need to know how to lose weight without being unhappy about their life during the process. So they actually do it.

By trying to be the smartest people in the room, you're helping people stay fat.

The effect that the type of food you eat has on your metabolism is insignificant as far as weight-loss is concerned.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is A) trying to sell you something or B) repeating something they heard someone else say.

If you really believe weight loss has to do with something other than calories I urge you to publish your findings in a scientific journal because you will be up for the nobel prize becaue you will have just undermined everything we know about physics.

As I've mentioned on my site, calories are a measure of energy, your weight is a function of your mass, the speed of light is constant.

E=MC(squared)

In other words, calories(energy) and weight(mass) are directly related, they're essentially the same thing.

You can try to get around that but the laws of physics are sadly not on your side.

Go ahead and lose all your glycogen, water and muscle then. Hell, demineralize your skeleton, while you're at it. Because that's all energy too.

Energy is more than just fat. Intelligent people know that the body is more than a blob of fat. Intelligent people are more than a blob of fat.

Show me your picture. If you're not a tub of lard, then you're a Calvin Klein model if you're anything.

Nobody's gotten in good shape by eating stupid. Cheester Cheetah resembles a 9 iron, Lucky Charms suffers from dwarfism and The Noid is a pencil neck with a pizza-belly.

Meanwhile, whole people eat whole food.

If your only focus is on "weight loss", rather than glycolysis, then prepare to lose weight until there's just nothing left.

Kailash, you just cracked me up!

This is an interesting discussion. I have often wondered if someone has done a study that tracks the difference between people of similar activity levels who eat 2,000 calories of, say, nothing but donuts and others who eat 2,000 calories of fruit, vegetables, meat, nuts and whole grains.

The "calorie is a calorie" belief would hold that there would be no difference in weight loss or gain between the two groups. I'm not so sure.

Back in grad school, I was worried about my weight and didn't have a lot of time to cook. I used to buy those bags of Lean Cuisine meals (I think they're called "Skillet Sensations," but I called them "Crap in a Pan.") It was white pasta, some kind of salty sauce, frozen veggies and potatoes. The ingredients list is about a paragraph long. I could measure exactly how many calories I was getting. Five days a week I worked out in a fitness bootcamp environment with a former Marine.

Since marrying my husband, he has helped me eliminate frozen meals and diet soda in favor of natural (or what some here call "clean" foods). I have gone from 153 pounds to 145, eat 500-800 more calories per day and work out more moderately than I used to. And now I'm pushing 30, so the ol' metabolism ought to be slower.

I have no idea why there is a difference, but I'm convinced there is one.

Kailash,

I don't know if your willfully setting up straw-man arguments or if you literally don't know what you're talking about. Nobody who goes on a diet and eats Lean Cuisines instead of whole foods is going to lose all their glycogen, water, and muscle. That's not how the body works.

I think you would be better off just arguing from your heart as to why you think people should eat whole foods because when you try to use the language of science and nutrition you sound silly because you're using the words and concepts incorrectly.

Ben said:
Proteins vs. fat vs. carbs matters if you're on an extreme diet like Atkins.[...]

Atkins is still healthier most other diets I've seen out there.

The Faddist said:
The effect that the type of food you eat has on your metabolism is insignificant as far as weight-loss is concerned.[...]

Oh, so the high thermic effect of protein has no importance at all?

E. said:
I have no idea why there is a difference, but I'm convinced there is one.

Yes, there is a difference indeed. I've had the same experience as you. It is what Dr. Atkins called a "calorie advantage" when he refered to ketosis, and what we experience even while eating carbs if we eat the right amounts of the right foods at the right times.

It is not to say that calories don't matter, but your calorie expenditure changes.

No one is arguing for only eating donuts and potato chips. The point is that you can eat any kind of normal diet in an amount such that you will lose weight.

When I say "normal" I mean take a survey of 100 random people and eat what they eat, keeping the number of calories below what you use. Do it for a month or two. You'll lose weight. Assuming you needed to lose weight, you'll be healthier by virtue of the weight loss, regardless of whether the food is "healthy" food or "unhealthy" food.

Ben said:
No one is arguing for only eating donuts and potato chips. The point is that you can eat any kind of normal diet in an amount such that you will lose weight.[...]

Yes, and I agree with you there, but a lot of people find that when eating healthier foods, to use that word, they can eat considerably more than they could eating "unhealthier" foods. So while it may all boil down to calories in calories out, if you can easily change the calories out by eating different types of foods, then a calories is not a calorie is not a calorie.

Ben said:
No one is arguing for only eating donuts and potato chips. The point is that you can eat any kind of normal diet in an amount such that you will lose weight.[...]

If that amount is zero, then all diets are the same :)

Ben said:
You guys seem to have this need to label foods as "healthy" or "unhealthy".[...]

Health is intimately tied to dietary choices. Weight management and health are two different issues (although tied together to some degree).

Those KFC commercials are so stupid..."no trans fat!" Whoopdedoo...it still has a ton of calories and fat.

I have noticed that I don't really have to measure out serving sizes of "clean" foods...lean protein, raw veggies, fresh fruit, etc. Other, more processed foods are a lot more dangerous. I think fiber helps with the "actual" calorie count. Fiber reduces how much of the calories can actually be used, so it makes sense that unprocessed foods are better for you and have a lower caloric value than say, chips or cake.

Ben
May 29, 2007 1:06 PM

No one is arguing for only eating donuts and potato chips.

I know, this was my hypothetical scenario. I've been thinking about this a lot when I see strict calorie counters who live off frozen diet dinners but seem to never lose weight.

If a calorie is a calorie, and weight loss will always occur when there is a calorie deficiency, then it shouldn't matter if my hypothetical dieter eats an occasional donut or their diet consists entirely of donuts.

However, our bodies use fats, carbs, and proteins for different biological processes (I'm a little hazy on what nutrients do what). If you eat a diet laden with foods that have calories but little to no nutrients (like donuts), BUT still achieve a calorie deficiency every day, will your body lose weight? Or, if you are actually depriving your body of nutrients, will your body not drop excess weight?

I think we need to study this. Any volunteers for the all-donut eating group? :-)

Weight loss is a ridiculous goal anyways. As I mentioned previously, weight can be anything: muscle, bone, joint material, water, glycogen

If in calorie restriction a person makes poor nutritional choices, they will lose the vital bits of themselves. For example, a positive nitrogen balance and sufficiently intense activity are needed to preserve muscle, in a caloric deficit. Without these, you will lose the vital you, rather than fat.

With weight loss as a goal, be prepared to lose anything.

But, with entering and maintaining a PHYSIOLOGICAL STATE OF GLYCOLYSIS as a goal (aka, fat loss) not only will you be achieving what dieters really wanted in the first place, but you will be more successful at it!

So it's really about activating those pathways and processes, rather than depriving oneself of nutrition.

Final word: Better define your goal. Eat, exercise and rest appropriately for that goal. GLYCOLYSIS. That is all.

The Faddist said:

I don't know if your willfully setting up straw-man arguments or if you literally don't know what you're talking about. Nobody who goes on a diet and eats Lean Cuisines instead of whole foods is going to lose all their glycogen, water, and muscle. That's not how the body works.

Kailash is saying that if you focus only on reducing calories, then you probably aren't going to be healthier. The way a body cannibalizes calcium from the skeleton and the reasons the risk of heart attacks increase after losing a lot of weight too quickly are well known and understood; no one is going to win a Nobel for these.

E. said:

However, our bodies use fats, carbs, and proteins for different biological processes (I'm a little hazy on what nutrients do what). If you eat a diet laden with foods that have calories but little to no nutrients (like donuts), BUT still achieve a calorie deficiency every day, will your body lose weight? Or, if you are actually depriving your body of nutrients, will your body not drop excess weight?

I like the idea of a tee-shirt that says "It's All About Glycolysis".

Imagine one sugar cube packaged and sold (100% sugar). Then imagine that the company introduces a "New & Improved!" sugar cube that is half the size of the original and is sold with the advertising slogan, "50% Less Sugar!" Hey, this new "healthier" product has less calories. Frito-Lay is simply practicing more dishonest marketing, using reframing.

The one where it suffer in the CONSTIPATION, trying one time my KOMBUCHA, how is? Kombucha is the healthy beverage
which has been popular with New York. My kombucha is 100%kombucha. Part is different from kombucha of wikipedia.
When drinking, incerting in cola or juice, please drink. Drinking kombucha, it seems that you can defecate
after 4-5 time. How to make is detailed e-mail to me. address: barasusi-oyaji@paw.hi-ho.ne.jp