'The Thermal Effect of Food': What about the "adherence effect" of convenience?

Those who would blast the 'meal ready to eat' (MRE) industry will often site a phenomenon called 'the thermal effect of food' in order to make their case against the use of liquefied meal intake. Their argument goes something like this:

"The body creates heat and burns calories when digesting a solid meal. Therefore, you should take advantage of this 'thermal effect of food' by avoiding the use of liquefied meals - such as smoothies."

Although the first sentence of the two above might be true, I have an objection by way of a question that arises from the evaluation of these statements as a whole:

Is 'the thermal effect of food' within solid meals a real benefit? Probably. But like any 'benefit', it should be weighed against potential costs within the bigger picture.

"In the larger picture of creating and maintaining a leaner body - how much should "the thermal effect of food" be balanced with the "adherence effect" of convenience?"

What do I mean? Quite simply this: If you're a busy person (who isn't?) and you don't always have time to prepare a solid meal that's not calorie-packed and nutrient deficient, what are the odds that you might eat fattening foods for the sake of their being 'solid' - and thus allegedly in possession of a "thermal effect"? You'd be tempted to wolf down something more likely to expand your waistline than your pectoral girth. And if you did wolf that down in the name of "convenience", you'd have been better off taking in a nutritious smoothie - "thermal-effect-deficient" as it might be.

'The thermal effect of food' refers to the energy and calories required to digest, process, and utilize the food calories we eat. Protein uses a lot of energy in being processed by the body. Dietary fat uses very little energy in being processed. Carbohydrates vary widely - depending on whether they're sugary (like soda), starchy (like mashed potatoes), or fibrous (like broccoli). As you could guess, the sugary and starchy carbs burn few calories in digestion/processing. The fibrous types burn more.

So what happens if we use high protein and low glycemic, healthy carbohydrate ingredients to make a convenient smoothie? Well, the consensus is that we're missing out on some of the 'thermal effect of foods'. The meal's not solid, thus, it's bypassing some of the energy expenditure of full digestion.

But how many more calories could the solid meal burn over the liquid meal? Maybe one hundred? Possibly not even that.

And if a busy lifestyle leaves you devoid of the time it takes to daily prepare five or six nutritious and solid meals, how tempted might you be to eat more than those hundred calories by way of junk food in the name of "burning calories with solid food?" Your adherence to better eating would be sacrificed for miniscule amounts of "thermal calorie burning."

These are the questions to consider before writing off the replacement of a couple daily meals with smoothies; before forgoing the "adherence effect of convenience" for "the thermal effect of food."

Comments

[David Ben Efraim]

Hey I just want to say how happy I am when I hear about the importance of nutrition. I find too many people these days place emphasis on supplements and training routines that they forget about feeding themselves properly.

In any case, I look forward to reading more of your article because from what I see, you have a ton of knowledge to share and a great writing style. Rock on!

[Recepti]

Protein foods uses a lot of energy in being processed by the body.but Dietary fat uses very little energy in being processed. so nice....

[Truth about Abs]

'The Thermal Effect of Food': What about the "adherence effect" of convenience? <-- Wonderful to read!

[the truth about six pack abs review]

Hey I love your style, would you consider doing a guest post on my blog in return for a link maybe? Please email me back Loving your stuff once again.