MetabolicTrash
Member
I was wondering others thoughts on this (unsure if this specific question in this tone has been asked here before).
Basically, lots of vitamin waters, vitamin drinks, and other products are manufactured in what seems to be a super-density of vitamins/minerals of certain sorts in few/no calories. The nutrient density can be many things micro and macro (from thiamine to protein/carbs). My concern is that you're getting so few calories, but very high amounts of nutrients. Isn't this unnatural and not necessarily in a good/advanced way? It seems a bit iffy to me on how this'd play out.
We require a pretty high number of calories in many cases to operate -- thousands for the most part. Wouldn't there be downsides to hyper-utilizing tons of nutrients and stuff in the least amount of calories? Then we're getting tons of nutrients but missing calories, AKA we need to keep eating anyways and might be tempted to use more "filler" or empty calories (if this makes sense). Also, this could introduce excess vitamin intake because you could get all of vitamins with little of your calories.
For example, one could get all of their carb needs met with less than 1,000 calories even. If one is going low fat and has sufficient carbs with some protein, they could still be low on calories (like in my case -- getting low calories to avoid PUFA or indigestion/etc. but supplementing vitamins).
I mean time ago before the modern world we couldn't buy and utilize tons of nutrients with zero/low calories like we can now. How does this process work? Do calories matter in relation to total nutrients, aminos, vitamins, salt, etc.?
Because only now in our time can we easily get all of our nutrients with low/subpar calories thanks to fortification, supplementation and etc. Also, if we tried to get all of our nutrients purely and from straight natural sources (like fruits and meats) we might end up doing the flipside -- getting possibly enough vitamins and such but too many calories as opposed to plentiful vitamins with insufficient calories like what's probably likely in the diet obsessed cultures we see today.
Basically, what's the connection/correlation between nutrients and total calories, or vice-versa? Should we try to space/even them out somewhat (calories:micros/etc.)?
Basically, lots of vitamin waters, vitamin drinks, and other products are manufactured in what seems to be a super-density of vitamins/minerals of certain sorts in few/no calories. The nutrient density can be many things micro and macro (from thiamine to protein/carbs). My concern is that you're getting so few calories, but very high amounts of nutrients. Isn't this unnatural and not necessarily in a good/advanced way? It seems a bit iffy to me on how this'd play out.
We require a pretty high number of calories in many cases to operate -- thousands for the most part. Wouldn't there be downsides to hyper-utilizing tons of nutrients and stuff in the least amount of calories? Then we're getting tons of nutrients but missing calories, AKA we need to keep eating anyways and might be tempted to use more "filler" or empty calories (if this makes sense). Also, this could introduce excess vitamin intake because you could get all of vitamins with little of your calories.
For example, one could get all of their carb needs met with less than 1,000 calories even. If one is going low fat and has sufficient carbs with some protein, they could still be low on calories (like in my case -- getting low calories to avoid PUFA or indigestion/etc. but supplementing vitamins).
I mean time ago before the modern world we couldn't buy and utilize tons of nutrients with zero/low calories like we can now. How does this process work? Do calories matter in relation to total nutrients, aminos, vitamins, salt, etc.?
Because only now in our time can we easily get all of our nutrients with low/subpar calories thanks to fortification, supplementation and etc. Also, if we tried to get all of our nutrients purely and from straight natural sources (like fruits and meats) we might end up doing the flipside -- getting possibly enough vitamins and such but too many calories as opposed to plentiful vitamins with insufficient calories like what's probably likely in the diet obsessed cultures we see today.
Basically, what's the connection/correlation between nutrients and total calories, or vice-versa? Should we try to space/even them out somewhat (calories:micros/etc.)?
Last edited:
