“You can’t see the forest for the trees” is an old idiom that roughly means you are looking at the small details so closely you are missing the bigger picture. Do you ever do that?
One such issue that fits in this category is the discussion about calories. “A calorie is a calorie” is often the opening salvo. The sides in the conversation tend to be dieters and scientist-types. It seems that positions get entrenched about whether a calorie is a calorie, or if they are “different kinds” of calories.
Let’s step back a moment. Are they talking about the trees, or the forest?
If the subject is calories — or the trees — that’s one kind of discussion. But, if the subject is more involved than calories, then the forest conversation is what’s at hand. Realizing which conversation is the focus will help keep everyone on the same page. Sadly, few of the participants in this often heated debate are aware that they are having two different conversations. That means progress isn’t made, and understandings aren’t reached.
Calories are important to you because they are the fuel, in more than one way, that give you energy and keep you going through your day.
I’d like to talk about the calorie forest today.
My purpose in looking at the forest is to urge you to keep your energy strong through proper nutrition. You can do that better when you understand it “takes a forest” to be properly energized.
First, on a tree-to-tree basis, I agree that a calorie is a calorie. The caloric content of a deep-fried donut is the same as the caloric content of a raw rutabaga: 4.184 joules of energy, the energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. (Though for food, “big” calories are the measuring stick, so technically a kilojoule is being discussed, which is equal to 1,000 “little” calories.)
Here’s Wikipedia’s summary of the difference: Calories are units of energy. Various definitions exist but fall into two broad categories.
1. The small calorie, or gram calorie (symbol: cal), is the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere.
2. The large calorie, or kilogram calorie (symbol: Cal), also known as the food calorie and similar names, is defined in terms of the kilogram rather than the gram. It is equal to 1000 small calories, or 1 kilocalorie (symbol: kcal).
So, a calorie isn’t necessarily a calorie, and it’s definitely not a Calorie!
What about the nutrition that some people are really discussing when they talk about calories? There’s clearly more to the discussion than the caloric content of your food than the calories alone. Otherwise, you could live quite well on donuts and candy bars and soda and all those other delicious things you want to justify in your diet.
The forest part of this conversation is actually the nutritional factor of the food we eat. In that case a deep-fried donut is not the same as a raw rutabaga. Issues to be considered include the micro- and macro-nutrients of the food source, how and where the food is metabolized in your body, dietary fiber, and the quality of the food.
There was a time people didn’t consider calories, they considered food. Highly processed foods weren’t readily available years ago and people ate whole, locally grown, organic foods — for the most part. Our ancestors ate healthier than we do.
When we quit looking at the whole food and started looking at the elements of the food, we got into trouble. That change of perspective was aggravated by the various food industry counsels: beef, dairy, sugar, wheat, corn, vegetable, etc. When an industry has the influence to encourage people to eat more of its product because “it’s good for you”, and the government backs that information, you and I start getting confused.
When food is broken into individual components and pushed as the “best” thing to eat, you start looking at trees in the forest instead of the forest. You start losing diversity in your nutrition. You start introducing potential for disease and ill-health, and obesity. And the smaller the component, the worse the resulting outcome!
Then journalists and doctors get into the discussion and confuse things, at least for me, even more! How much of these discussions are based on real science versus studies that can be mis-designed and mis-construed? How much of the discussion is pushing the author’s personal agenda and product? Even when you know how to read and evaluate the studies and resulting reports can you really understand the big picture — have a clear understanding of the whole, big forest? And if you don’t know how to sift through the wealth of nutrition and health reports, you feel really lost.
If you are like me, you’ll select the food theory that appeals to you most. It’s more appealing either because it supports your dietary habits, or is contrarian to them and you are looking for a change. Are you going to going to subscribe to a vegan, vegetarian, paleo, or “opportunivore” diet? Which is your favorite diet regime: low-carb, low-fat, South Beach, Atkins, Mediterranean, Ornish, or chocolate (ok, that’s not a real diet, but it does support my husband’s joke that when he eats a pound of See’s Candy he loses two pounds)? Which food pyramid do you subscribe to: college (based on free food at the bottom and working its way up through carbs, fast food, alcohol, healthy stuff, and well-balance meals), USDA (a foundation of grain, and then going up the pyramid you have fruits and veges, dairy and protein, and fats/oils/sweets at the top), vegan, American Diabetes Association, anti-inflammatory, or my personal favorite — the color pyramid (eat foods from the different colors for better balance)?
I’m intentionally inserting levity here because it’s gotten to be so funny with all the options. Each pyramid or diet plan has its passionate supporters, or deniers. When you laugh you can relax, and that’s what’s needed right now.
During an Energize Me! workshop I urged the attendees to use their body as a research lab and listen to what it tells them about their energy levels to figure out what works for them. If you have a steady and strong energy supply, you must be doing the right things — or at least most of the things right.
The same goes for the food you consume — be your own research lab and test what works for you. Oh, and let me inject here, think of your lifestyle and not your diet; consider the foods you eat, the movement you incorporate, and your balance of work and play into your health approach. If your lifestyle has created a healthy person — good weight, healthy blood test results, strong energy, no cancer or disease, no aching muscles or joints, no gurgling or fuming stomach — then you are eating well. Then you have a healthy lifestyle.
But, if any of those factors are off, it’s time for you to make a change. And here’s my advice: reduce the animal fats and proteins you have abundantly consumed, thinking it’s good for you, and love the flavor of. Eat a plant-based diet. You may choose to get your protein from animal products (meat, eggs, and dairy), or you may choose to eat plant-based protein. Eat limited sugar and alcohol.
Let me stress: if it’s not working for you, change it. Do yourself a favor and quit arguing for what you are doing with your lifestyle choices if you aren’t energetic and as healthy as can be.
The bottom line from all the food books, reports, documentaries, and studies I’ve read or watched is that humans are healthier when they consume mostly — or exclusively — plants. The less fat and animal-based protein you eat the healthier you’ll be. The more processed foods you avoid the healthier you’ll be. The more you move the better your health too.
It’s a wild, beautiful forest out there. Enjoy your stroll through the calorie forest — in good health. Calorie-forest calories are what give you a strong, steady supply of energy.