https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-produ...
Found in humans, they are bio markers for quite a few diseases, including diabetes (type 2 = insulin resistance).
Food sources are animal products.
Wiki says vegetarians have been shown to have more than non-vegetarians, discounting dietary reasons for high levels in humans. This study suggests otherwise.
Hmm, I wonder if the propensity to poach, velvet or steam meats aligns with some of the discrepancies we see in diabetes and longevity among otherwise similarly-eating populations.
Interesting, why can't all of chemistry not provide a better formulation for darkening Coke? is there something difficult to mask in there?
"Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) form when proteins and fats (lipids) in the body react with sugar (glucose) and become glycated and oxidized."
So, maybe it's not so much the Maillard reaction but that sweetened brioche bun used in your fancy hamburger.
> AGEs can also be ingested from food, especially food cooked at high temperatures and with little moisture, like grilled meats, fried foods, and baked goods.[23] The Maillard reaction is the main nonenzymatic reaction known to form AGEs in cooking and is famously known for the distinct browning color and complex flavor and aroma of roasted coffee, French fries, seared meat, and other favorites.
An example they use is eggs: Pan-fried eggs are listed as high in AGEs, whereas scrambled eggs aren't. Admittedly my diet isn't the best, but I wouldn't have expected a meaningful difference between ordering my eggs scrambled vs sunnyside-up.
Or for meat, stewed meat would be healthier than roasted meat.
I'm suddenly curious about coffee, now that they mention it...
Ain't greater modern cargo cult than "healthy food".
You could drink your body's caloric needs in gasoline each day, but you'd quickly find out that WHAT you consume affects your body's response too. Biology is surprisingly complex.
There can be some edge cases around water retention, foods an individual happens to metabolize more/less effectively than average, & practical considerations like negative-satiety foods (things like candy or beer that contain calories but end up making you more hungry after a short while). Metabolic & activity level changes are another confounding variable one might need to track. But overall the CICO model gives accurate predictions for weight change in most cases as far as I know. I pay attention to my diet & weight & it's been perfectly reliable for me (although maybe that makes me biased to think it's a better model than it really is -- sorry if that's the case)
Anyway, you'll need to provide some evidence other than a straw-man/non-sequitur about drinking gasoline if you want to convince me CICO is a "myth"
But ok, there is a problem with "CICO": Although true, it does psychologically put "CI" and "CO" on an equal footing -- whereas 90% of your attention really needs to be on "CI". The body is very efficient; exercising doesn't burn much. It's more for the purpose of maintaining some muscle mass as you drop weight. But junk food companies like to skew perception ("balance what you drink and do") to make it seem like a Big Gulp would be ok if only you ran more. Yeah, they're happy to shame and mislead overweight people, so long as they keep buying.
Stop the war on Maillard. Start the war on sugar.
1: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/to-lose-weight-focus...
Perhaps, if you are a vegetarian that eats lots of fried, sauteed, or roasted vegetables (chasing umami), you might be no better off than a non-vegetarian who is consuming predominantly raw, steamed, or boiled animal products.
Anecdotally, this would correlate with the many obese or poorly nourished vegetarians I have known, despite their "healthy" diet.
In any event, we should all be eating more fiber.
As far as the link to diet goes, I'm not an expert but look at pretty much every report with suspicion unless there is a lot of independent confirmation.
From the outside "meta-analysis" seems like fishing for signal and then jumping on results as causal. But I honestly don't know if these things proceed via scientific method (I have a theory, I've devised this test, etc) or are digging up possible relations between data and then making a story to match whatever pops up.
People only needed to live long enough to reproduce, and that’s what our bodies are optimized for. Most people would prefer to live longer, though. ;)
There is nothing condescending about that. No-one is really claiming that all calories are equal e.g. you can replace 500 kcals of chicken with 450 kcals of olive oil and that be some sort of blockbuster great idea.
CICO does have an implicit "your diet isn't completely batshit insane" attached to it.
It is a foundation to work from. Far better than believing that you can cheat thermodynamics, which is generally the alternative.
There are some fringe cases and nuances, but I have never heard of one that was relevant. Do you have a use case where deviations would matter?
Absorbed calories don't match label calories, but weight loss and gain are studied in terms of label calories, so it is irrelevant unless you are doing chemistry or particle physics.
Labels could be in terms of arbitrary moon units instead of calories and it would still be true. Weight loss is a function of moon units in and moon units out.
Everything in moderation.
Then you're getting heated plastic?
What people love about sous vide is that you can cook a steak to 135 or whatever exact temperature you desire then sear it. To do that you need both circulating water (to make sure the water bath is exact everywhere) and plastic (so half the meat flavor doesn't leach out into the water bath.