Trying again: how calories are like money

(WARNING: super-long and slightly rambly)

This is a highly over-simplified explanation but I figured I'd write it out. I was thinking of our dear LJ when composing this but I suppose anyone could benefit from understanding this.

There are two ways I think money analogies work for understanding caloric intake: metabolism and satiety.

Metabolism

So metabolism seems to trip people up a lot. And it is complex. Way more complex than what I'm about to explain but this may help give a general idea of why it is important to EAT in order to lose weight.

Ok so think of your body like your general life situation. Caloric intake = income (like from a job or some other variable source of income). Fat = saved money (like long term savings in the bank).

If you are big, that is analogous to being very rich with a lot of money in the bank.

If you are very thin, that is analogous to being poor with very few resources.

As is the case with money, many of us are somewhere in the middle of that continuum.

So if calories are your money, your body wants to use that money wisely. So think about IF you've ever had a good amount of money in the bank and your general life situation is stable. You don't really have that big of a problem making semi-frivolous purchases becasue you know you have money to get by if need be.

But let's say...you lost your job and with it that variable income. Now you're in a different situation. Now you aren't so apt to make a frivolous purchase because you don't want to run down your savings because you don't 100% know when you'll have a regular source of income again. And if you are unemployed for a prolonged period, you try to stretch those dollars even further as your savings dwindles.

This is the same logic the body works on. When you restrict your calories, but your body is getting fed regularly (less calories, but regular intervals of food) it is more apt to burn fat. When you make the deficit too big, your body freaks out, doesn't know when it's going to get any regular caloric intake again and so it starts to burn calories more slowly. Restrict it too much and for too long and your body will burn extremely slowly in self preservation.

Many experts tell us the answer to this is to eat in regular intervals if you are active and trying to lose weight. While you should take in less calories than you are burning, you have to eat regularly or else your body won't get the memo that you shouldn't be in panic mode.

For me, I think I have OK metabolism. While I don't tend to lose great amounts of weight anymore (4.5 years post op) I've maintained my weight despite the fact that, yes, there have been times where my caloric intake warranted gains. But I'm active, my body gets food on a regular basis and MOST of the time there is a deficit so my body tends to burn off excess and keeps me at what many might call my "set point" or the natural weight of my body. It is possible to get under this weight. I thus far have not desired to put forth the effort needed to make that happen.

Anywho...

Satiety

You all might have to follow me on this one.

With satiety (the feeling of satisfaction) I personally look at calories as investments. Like the stock market. Calories are the money that you'd invest, and the actual food are the stocks.

So, I see this mistake time and time again as post-ops get further out in their journeys. They become so obsessed with calories that they forget about satiety. Satiety is important. While a food may hold you right this moment, if it is insufficient to keep you satisfied for very long, you're going to eat again. And again. And again. Until your body is satiated. Either that or you'll feel hungry and miserable and, if nature has its say, you'll eventually cave and go way overboard.

So to me, sometimes the higher caloric food item is the better investment. Take protein for instance. Chicken is higher in calories and fat than, say, a light fish like tilapia. But at 4.5 years out, tilapia holds me about half the time the chicken does. So if I were only considering calories, the 90 calorie tilapia is a way better choice than the 150-200 calories of chicken I'd eat. BUT if the tilapia leaves me hungry 90 minutes later and I eat something that's 200 calories and THAT doesn't satisfy me so I eat something else that's 200 calories now I've eaten close to 500 calories when that 200 calorie chicken would have held me for the same amount of time. Does that make sense?

I also see this come into play with people who work out hard core (Paul, I am looking at YOU!). I told a friend I eat a banana before running. She (a newer post-op) was horrified. Bananas have so much sugar! she proclaimed. Yes they do. And sugar are carbs. Bananas can be upwards of 100 calories and higher calorie bigger ones can have 40+ grams of carbs. BUT when I eat one I can get through a HARD work out no problem.

So let's do the math on that. I've invested 100 calories 30 some grams of carbs. In hard workouts I typically burn 600-750 calories (per my Body Media Fit). So by eating the 100 calories, I got a return on investment of 500-650 calories. That banana all of a sudden doesn't seem so horrific, now does it?

ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY THE FOLLOWING: Just like you can't just think of your weight loss in terms of JUST the BMI or JUST the number on the scale, neither too should you simply consider calories, protein or carbs in food choices. You do have to put things in perspective. I know a lot of us don't like to think about our food or journal it. This is how not paying attention to those things can bite you in the butt though. As you get further out the way you make food decisions has to be fluid. Your body will change and you have to change right along with it.

I know some folks who paid a lot of attention to this in the beginning and so now it's second nature. They automatically know to switch to a denser protein if a lighter one isn't filling them. They automatically know how to fuel their bodies for hard workouts. Until you know, it takes some practice.

To me it's another form of mindful eating.

((Nik)), I love, love, love, your money-calorie analogy!  I will be appropriating it for use with clients, LOL (but will, of course, let them know that it was not MY genius that came up with it).

As far as the satiety issue... Being 5 years out next month, I often find myself considering the OVERALL "value" of a food item.  For me, value is a combination of nutritional content (protein, calories, and fat or sugar), satiety (how filling it is borh immediately and for how long), and the "pleasure quotient" (how much pleasure/enjoyment will I get from this food and for how long?).  As you know, I don't eat anything that I don't really like no matter how good a nutritional choice it may be (I make exceptions with protein bars as "emergency sustenance" because of the hypoglycemia... even the Quest bars are marginal because of that nasty protein bar texture, but they are a handy and nutritionally sound way to raise my blood sugar when necessary). Some things, of course, taste better than others and some things are higher in calries and fat.  I don't count calories, but I am generally aware of them and know that there is a significant difference in the calories and fat if I choose filet mignon rather than grilled fish.  A filet at dinner, however, will keep me full until bedtime whereas grilled fish will keep me full only for about 2 hours, and I get far more pleasure from a properly grilled and seasoned filet than from ANY kind of fish.  The combination of the satiety and pleasure usually cause me to choose the beef instead of the fish.  Choosing the beef, though, means needing to be more conservative about what I can choose to eat with it (whereas if I choose fish, I can splurge a little on a side dish with higher calories and some fat).

Excellent post!

Lora

I've been reading this book about nutrients in foods and find that that's another aspect (didn't want to confuse this post by adding it in). The more nutrient dense a food is, the more nutrients it gives that the body needs, the more satiating.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Ok ok!



I have been aiming for the 1500 calories my RD suggested and I have split them up into many mini meals like you suggested. So far so good. Also, my counselor wants me to email him each day this week and let him know how the day went mood / physical feelings / eating etc.

The satiety is my issue now. Accepting that all proteins are not created equal at this point.... yikes.


Glad to see Paul was called out as well lol

 I'm always so damn broke.

If you're broke I am freaking bankrupt many times over.

 Loooove the analogies!

These are great analogies!

Nik i'm nosey - what book are you reading?

It's called "21 Pounds in 21 Days" (The Martha's Vineyard Detox Diet) I'm not doing the diet but a friend of mine is thinking of doing it and I picked up the book. There is like 175 pages of introduction before she gets to the diet (the eating plan is mainly high nutrient veggie juices, anti-oxidant teas, etc. NO PROTEIN allowed which is why I would not attempt it, and also things like colonics and enemas). Her explanations of how our cells can get gunked up with toxins, how nutrient rich food works in our bodies and how for some the toxicity thing causes them not to lose weight despite their best efforts fascinates me.

But having just done that poverty challenge, I want to eat normally for a bit. I don't think three weeks with little protein would kill me but...I just don't wanna do it.

The book was good for educational value though.

Good stuff, as always, Nik!