Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sat 03 Jan 2015, 13:39:28

British Medical Journal editorial
Are some diets “mass murder”?
15 December 2014
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')eading these books and consulting some of the original studies has been a sobering experience. The successful attempt to reduce fat in the diet of Americans and others around the world has been a global, uncontrolled experiment, which like all experiments may well have led to bad outcomes. What’s more, it has initiated a further set of uncontrolled global experiments that are continuing. Teicholz has done a remarkable job in analysing how weak science, strong personalities, vested interests, and political expediency have initiated this series of experiments.3 She quotes Nancy Harmon Jenkins, author of the Mediterranean Diet Cookbook and one of the founders of Oldways, as saying, “The food world is particularly prey to consumption, because so much money is made on food and so much depends on talk and especially the opinions of experts.”31 It’s surely time for better science and for humility among experts.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby WildRose » Sun 04 Jan 2015, 14:41:53

I've found that cutting out sugar from my diet as much as possible, controlling portions (especially of carbs - just small amounts of pasta, rice, bread, etc.), and a good amount of exercise works for me. Hiking is my mainstay for exercise these days, including a bit of hill work and stairs in our river valley. I do need to do some overall toning though, so my plan is to start swimming again regularly to tone up better. Getting older certainly has its challenges!
User avatar
WildRose
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby careinke » Sun 04 Jan 2015, 16:11:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', 'I')'ve found that cutting out sugar from my diet as much as possible, controlling portions (especially of carbs - just small amounts of pasta, rice, bread, etc.), and a good amount of exercise works for me. Hiking is my mainstay for exercise these days, including a bit of hill work and stairs in our river valley. I do need to do some overall toning though, so my plan is to start swimming again regularly to tone up better. Getting older certainly has its challenges!


I like to combine my exercise with work. Splitting and stacking wood, hand digging swales, beach and wood walks while checking out the property, turning the crank on the cider press, etc. etc.

Just seems a waste to pay for a gym membership, getting in the car to drive there, making schedules and time for exercise etc. etc.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby WildRose » Sun 04 Jan 2015, 16:18:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', 'I')'ve found that cutting out sugar from my diet as much as possible, controlling portions (especially of carbs - just small amounts of pasta, rice, bread, etc.), and a good amount of exercise works for me. Hiking is my mainstay for exercise these days, including a bit of hill work and stairs in our river valley. I do need to do some overall toning though, so my plan is to start swimming again regularly to tone up better. Getting older certainly has its challenges!


I like to combine my exercise with work. Splitting and stacking wood, hand digging swales, beach and wood walks while checking out the property, turning the crank on the cider press, etc. etc.

Just seems a waste to pay for a gym membership, getting in the car to drive there, making schedules and time for exercise etc. etc.


And your hard work is just as effective, I have no doubt about that. I wish I had enough hard work around my home to keep me that busy but during the winter there is only shoveling, and we've only had 2 good snowfalls this winter so far! Spring is good for gardening, but I still don't have the kind of work you're describing here. To top it off, my paid work is totally sedentary. I used to do gym workouts regularly but grew bored with it last year and quit going. I would much rather do my exercising outside, and I never get bored with hiking. Swimming is something I've done off and on over many years but want to give it a go again, as it's very relaxing while still being a good workout. I think I'd like your kind of work, careinke.
User avatar
WildRose
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 08:08:12

Harvard metastudy has confirmed that carbohydrate intake is the largest factor in weight loss of people who eat real food. Diets based on meal replacement shakes or quick fix diet pills to suppress appetite were excluded.

Many more details at link below quote.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')size=150]Cut out carbs, not fat if you want to lose weight, Harvard study finds[/size]
A study of more than 60,000 dieters finds those who cut back on bread, pasta and potatoes lost more weight than those who cut back on butter and cheese.

The analysis of 53 studies, involving 67,000 dieters found who cut back on fat were two and a half pounds heavier after a year than those who embraced a “low carb” approach.

For decades, there has been debate over the merits of a low fat diet, which was endorsed as the best route to weight loss in the 1970s.

Now major research, published in the Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, backs a low carbohydrate approach as a more effective diet.

The study by Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health looked at all previous studies from clinical trials that compared the effect of low-fat diets versus other approaches, at least one year later.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... finds.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby AgentR11 » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 08:31:49

As an addenda, it really is calories in vs calories out. People simply eat so many carbs that they are in a hyper caloric diet, even while thinking they aren't overeating. A soda, an orange juice, a bag of chips; are huge amounts of calories that provide no sense of fullness, and very little hunger suppression; chips are usually so salted that they completely overpower that hungry/not-hungry until you're in the 1000-2000 kcal range of chips. When people eat a higher fat, lower carb thing, they stay not-hungry for longer; reducing calorie intake, even though the individual food item is more calorie dense.

A lot of studies also get overwhelmed by the impact of hypo-caloric diets; in that, if you eat a hypo caloric diet, you can eat the most hideously bad food sources and still have benchmark numbers that look quite awesome. So someone concocts a hi-carb weight loss program; and tests it at -250 kcal, hypocaloric; and poof, everyone that complies ends up losing a little weight, having great lipid numbers, and blood sugar improvements. But it wasn't the carb ratio that did it; it was the modest calorie deficit, simply because it creates a situation where all the metabolically active bits, had somewhere to go and be metabolized, as opposed to building up signfiicant fat stores.

So when you look at the studies they surveyed, you'll see the ones claiming this or that diet are great (buy my book), tend to include studies that involved hypo-caloric conditions.

There are of course other factors involved, but they are only visible if you survey studies that are isocaloric with consequently no weight change; which is hard, because folks want to know what diet will help them lose weight.

Final note: low-carb diet absolutely does not imply high-protein diet. Humans (without hormone/anabolic supplements) have a fairly low cap on the amount of protein they can put to use; and past that, it just gets turned into really expensive sugar. Somewhere around the perversely unit'ed 1g/lb of bodyweight. (1.8g / kg for sane people), past that, its a complete waste. And for normal activity levels its barely even half that level before its pointless.

Low carb diets are all about butter, cream, nuts, oils, and fats. Not giant slabs of red meat.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby davep » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 08:57:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ow carb diets are being studied for cancer treatment as well because cancer cells can not use ketones, they only use glucose.


It's not quite as simple as that. The Warburg effect showed that nearly 3/4 of cancers' respiration is via aerobic glycolysis (like anaerobic respiration, but even in the presence of oxygen). However, a recent study showed that if they are in a more acidic environment they can use oxygen-based respiration. While a low-carb diet is useful, it isn't necessarily always going to help as tumours may adapt in a more acidic environment.

What would appear to be effective is something like moving to a ketogenic diet to ensure ketosis and a lack of blood sugar, and slowly injecting a sodium bicarbonate solution into the tumour to ensure a more alkaline environment without being too aggressive overall. I've seen both mentioned separately as potential cures but they would appear to work better together in ensuring the cancer stays using aerobic glycolysis but without the presence of mono-saccharides (essentially strangling it).

This paper discusses the interaction of pH and Warburg effect in more detail, but comes to different conclusions as to how to treat it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303887/ as they don't address the ability to remove blood sugar via ketogenic diets (or fasting if you're still able to).
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby davep » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 09:03:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s an addenda, it really is calories in vs calories out. People simply eat so many carbs that they are in a hyper caloric diet, even while thinking they aren't overeating.


That's too simplistic. Calories are measured by burning stuff. We aren't a 100% efficient burning machine but use different biochemical pathways for dealing with fatty acids, sugars and proteins. To cut a long story short, in a state of ketosis, ketone bodies are released and used by the body. Our bodies cannot reassimilate some ketone bodies (acetone IIRC) and any excess is lost via urine or the breath.

The only truth to the calories in vs calories out argument is that we can't use more calories than we consume (over our lifetimes). However, we don't have to store or use all calories that we consume.

Also, it's worth noting that insulin is not only used to remove blood sugar, but is also needed in the active uptake of lipids in adipose tissue. So, without eating carbs, we tend to actively store less fat as there isn't enough insulin around even if the fatty acids are present. The role of insulin also explains that when we eat too many carbs (and over time we develop insulin resistance), we put on more weight (due to the higher levels of insulin) than when we were younger and needed less insulin to remove blood sugar.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 09:22:36

I agree with much of what you wrote, but there is little evidence a high protein diet gets turned into sugar. What actually happens in most cases is your metabolism gets slammed with a combination of lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, organic acids and organic alcohols plus minerals in any meal you eat. Organic acids like Vitamin C and Vinegar are in theory 3 kcal per gram, but if you are Vitamin C deficient it gets absorbed and if you are in surplus it gets purged by your kidneys into your bladder. Vinegar is on the other hand absorbed almost instantly by your mitochondria and metabolized into CO2 and H2O. Next on your metabolic priority list are organic alcohols because they can do damage to your cells, some of your cells like those in your brain can absorb organic alcohols and use O2 to convert them into Pyruvate and then metabolize them to CO2 and H2O but the process removes oxygen from brain tissue giving you the feeling of being drunk. Other cells in the liver and kidneys can use Ethanol as the starting point for gluconeogenesis and use it to manufacture glucose and/or glycogen storage. In fact it is so much of a poison that your liver will shut down all of its other filtering tasks to remove ethanol as rapidly as possible, which is why you have to keep drinking to get and stay drunk for more than about 40 minutes, the liver clears out about 70 percent of the ethanol before it can effect your brain.

Once you take care of the organic acids and alcohols your body works through the protein. The first thing it does is circulate protein so that any cells than need to repair or grow have a supply to do so. Your skin, hair and nails are all complexes of protein that are constantly growing and your muscle tissue wears out and has to be rebuilt constantly. However once your cells all have adequate protein for their needs you liver looks at the surplus in your circulation and compares that to your then current blood sugar demand. If you have adequate blood sugar and your glycogen stores are not deeply depleted your liver does not turn protein into sugar because doing so is very metabolically expensive. Instead your liver will strip the Amine groups off the excess protein converting the amine groups into Urea and the protein into metabolizable fragments that your cells will then rapidly convert into energy, CO2 and H2O. Protein doe not lead to high blood sugar no matter how much you eat, but if you have a low water intake it can lead to kidney problems from all the resulting Urea and free amines the kidneys have to filter out of your blood.

After all those things are consumed your cellular metabolism moves on to carbohydrates.

Also the whole concept of calories in calories out is far to simplistic, that is like saying a room is crowded because there are too many people in it. It doesn't tell you anything about WHY there are too many people in the crowded room or WHY your fat cells are storing so many lipids. It has also been shown in dozens of studies that a hypocaloric diet results in a slower metabolism because your cells are only willing to give up lipids under the correct hormonal conditions. If your insulin is high for any reason at all your metabolism slows significantly on a hypocaloric diet. If your insulin is low your metabolism only slows by a small amount because your fat cells will easily release lipids to provide energy. The reason low carb diets work better is they reduce the insulin levels in the blood stream and that in turn promotes lipid release and burning by your cellular metabolism.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby davep » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 09:29:10

I've never looked in detail at high protein diets, as they're meant to be dangerous (stripping muscle tissue, including heart muscle). That's why low-carb diets tend to be more high-lipid rather than high-protein, apparently.

I was aware that ethanol was metabolised before carbs, but didn't know much about the rest (so thanks!).
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby AgentR11 » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 09:46:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s an addenda, it really is calories in vs calories out. People simply eat so many carbs that they are in a hyper caloric diet, even while thinking they aren't overeating.


That's too simplistic. Calories are measured by burning stuff. We aren't a 100% efficient burning machine but use different biochemical pathways for dealing with fatty acids, sugars and proteins. To cut a long story short, in a state of ketosis, ketone bodies are released and used by the body. Our bodies cannot reassimilate some ketone bodies (acetone IIRC) and any excess is lost via urine or the breath.


Not really. You're just being to restrictive in your definition of calories out. Calories out is properly defined as all sinks for energy; which includes inefficiencies, ketone processes, losses, etc.

Calculating what the "calorie out" level is, can be tricky, but not impossible to get a reasonable estimate. And it is certainly true that "calories out" is influenced by the make up of the food consumed.

But, in the end, get a good number for calories in, and for calories out, you'll end up with a 3500 delta equivalent to one pound of fat loss or gain.

This is seriously confounded for the public, because they tend to trust exercise machine readouts, ball park estimates in fitness apps; even some that are incredible overestimations. I've seen some fitness apps suggesting an output of 1200kcal/hour for some activities; when the point of fact is that only extremely fit, top of the line athletes can sustain 1200kcal/hour for an hour. That is the energy output level of running a 2 hour marathon.

Also problematic is calorie input estimation. Even if you weigh every last thing you eat, you're still in the error range of 10-20%; and for an active person at 3000 kcal/day; thats enough to create a 1lb/week change in fat stores. And that error goes nuts if you try and weigh things that have large variation in fat content, like a regular steak might have.

Its very, very hard to know the "calorie in" and "calorie out" numbers. Thus the assertions that "in/out" is not true. It most certainly is true; but people trying it usually fail anyway. But its not "in/out" that failed; it was rather that the computation of "in" and "out" did not even remotely reflect reality.

I do know that for a six month stretch, I meticulously weighed every single thing I ate; eating only things that I could have high confidence in the accuracy of weight->calorie conversion; and I wore and recorded off of a heart rate monitor calibrated to a vo2max spreadsheet for anything more strenuous than making coffee. My weight change over that period matched the 3500/kcal per pound number within a 10% error margin.

Basically, my response to the "ketone" folks, is that, in/out is still ruling, but they are failing to calculate "out" correctly. Thermodynamics rules this equation at the macro level. Humans are not magic.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby davep » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 10:01:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')asically, my response to the "ketone" folks, is that, in/out is still ruling, but they are failing to calculate "out" correctly. Thermodynamics rules this equation at the macro level. Humans are not magic.


My response to that is the only element relevant to thermodynamics is that we can't use more energy than we ingest. The chemical processes involved mean that calories are not equal as far as our bodies are concerned. You don't develop diabetes and become obese eating the same number of lipid calories as someone who drinks soda and eats junk food, because you don't develop insulin resistance (and insulin is integral to putting on fat).
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 10:11:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I')'ve never looked in detail at high protein diets, as they're meant to be dangerous (stripping muscle tissue, including heart muscle). That's why low-carb diets tend to be more high-lipid rather than high-protein, apparently.

I was aware that ethanol was metabolised before carbs, but didn't know much about the rest (so thanks!).


You might be interested to know that the whole theory that acetone is just excreted has been disproven. Some is excreted, but between 70 and 90 percent is converted from Acetone into Pyruvate and either used for Gluconeogenesis or metabolized into CO2 and H2O. See
http://www.bioline.org.br/request?np10002www.bioline.org.br/request?np10002

If you cut and paste the link above it will take you to the paper that shows you the biochemical chain of reactions that take place to convert Acetone into Pyruvate. Original research on this was done by the EPA and OSHA over 30 years ago because of the effect of acetone exposure concerns for workers in both manufacture and use of Acetone in industry. They discovered much to their surprise at the time on the study that people with exposure to Acetone which absorbs via skin contact or by inhalation and ingestion metabolize 70 percent of the absorbed dose, and those with chronic exposure adapt to metabolize up to 95 percent of the absorbed dose.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n adage is supposed to be a vehicle of wisdom or
truth. But not all adages, no matter how old or how
many times they are repeated, are necessarily correct.
Following are two examples of adages you will find
in most textbooks of biochemistry and physiology
that cover human metabolism but which happen to be
incorrect: The first states that even-numbered fatty
acids cannot be converted into glucose; the second
that acetone is not metabolizable, that it is a dead-end
metabolite which can be eliminated from the body
only through the urine or lungs. Such assertions are
not hard to find in textbooks used by medical students
or undergraduates and graduate students in the
biomedical sciences.
For example, in a textbook on human metabolism
in health and disease, you will find a statement
asserting that: “(H)umans can convert glucose into
long-chain fatty acids, but they cannot convert even carbon-
numbered long-chain fatty acids into
glucose.” (Rosenthal and Glew, 2009). Another
example can be found in the recently published,
seventh edition of Devlin’s widely popular Textbook
of Biochemistry which states that “Glucose can be
synthesized from fatty acids with an odd but not an
even number of carbon atoms.” (Harris, 2010) This
same comprehensive 1204-page textbook asserts a
few pages later that “Various amino acids, lactate,
pyruvate, propionate, and glycerol are sources of
carbon for the pathway of gluconeogenesis.”, and that
”Since acetyl-CoA and other intermediates of evennumbered
fatty acid oxidation cannot be converted to
oxaloacetate or any other intermediate of
gluconeogenesis, it is impossible to synthesize
glucose from fatty acids.” The Devlin textbook does
not mention whether or not acetone is a substrate for
gluconeogenesis. However, a recent publication about
isopropanol intoxication (Vujasinovic et al., 2007)
does state emphatically that “2-Propanol is
metabolized via ADH (alcohol dehydrogenase) to
acetone (ketone) which permits no further oxidation
or metabolism (italics added).
In fact, these claims about the metabolism of fatty
acids and acetone in humans are incorrect.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby davep » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 10:19:18

Interesting. Still, even if it isn't a metabolic dead-end the point still stands that it can and does get excreted. The point was that not all usable calories are inevitably used.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby AgentR11 » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 10:23:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')asically, my response to the "ketone" folks, is that, in/out is still ruling, but they are failing to calculate "out" correctly. Thermodynamics rules this equation at the macro level. Humans are not magic.


My response to that is the only element relevant to thermodynamics is that we can't use more energy than we ingest. The chemical processes involved mean that calories are not equal as far as our bodies are concerned. You don't develop diabetes and become obese eating the same number of lipid calories as someone who drinks soda and eats junk food, because you don't develop insulin resistance (and insulin is integral to putting on fat).


1. I didn't say they were equal, the type effects the calculation of "out", thus, they can not be equal.
2. type also effects which metabolic pathways are used, how much insulin is in the system, etc.
3. I said nothing about diabetes or blood sugar.
4. You are way to focused on being able to calculate "in". The composition of "in" is a factor in calculating "out". You are not calculating "out" correctly. 3000 cal of 100% carb, and 3000 cal of 100% will not produce the same weight loss/gain result, because they will create differing numbers for "out".

fwiw, I have quite high insulin resistance, and can choose to fail a glucose tolerance test, at will. I choose not to, by manipulating my insulin sensitivity via substantial amounts of exercise; both cardio(75%+hrmax 1-3hr intervals) and resistance. Works like a champ.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby AgentR11 » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 10:26:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I')nteresting. Still, even if it isn't a metabolic dead-end the point still stands that it can and does get excreted. The point was that not all usable calories are inevitably used.


They are not burned.
They are still part of "out".

Excreted is part of loss, loss is part of out, and out is every bit as important when someone says calories in / calories out.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby davep » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 10:26:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')asically, my response to the "ketone" folks, is that, in/out is still ruling, but they are failing to calculate "out" correctly. Thermodynamics rules this equation at the macro level. Humans are not magic.


My response to that is the only element relevant to thermodynamics is that we can't use more energy than we ingest. The chemical processes involved mean that calories are not equal as far as our bodies are concerned. You don't develop diabetes and become obese eating the same number of lipid calories as someone who drinks soda and eats junk food, because you don't develop insulin resistance (and insulin is integral to putting on fat).


1. I didn't say they were equal, the type effects the calculation of "out", thus, they can not be equal.
2. type also effects which metabolic pathways are used, how much insulin is in the system, etc.
3. I said nothing about diabetes or blood sugar.
4. You are way to focused on being able to calculate "in". The composition of "in" is a factor in calculating "out". You are not calculating "out" correctly. 3000 cal of 100% carb, and 3000 cal of 100% will not produce the same weight loss/gain result, because they will create differing numbers for "out".


That's all pretty sensible but has more to do with biochemical pathways than thermodynamics.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby davep » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 10:28:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I')nteresting. Still, even if it isn't a metabolic dead-end the point still stands that it can and does get excreted. The point was that not all usable calories are inevitably used.


They are not burned.
They are still part of "out".

Excreted is part of loss, loss is part of out, and out is every bit as important when someone says calories in / calories out.


The problem is that a large number of the people who quote the calories in / calories out mantra do so as part of dietary advice based solely on calories consumed, which is a hugely reductionist and ultimately incorrect approach.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby AgentR11 » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 10:49:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'T')he problem is that a large number of the people who quote the calories in / calories out mantra do so as part of dietary advice based solely on calories consumed, which is a hugely reductionist and ultimately incorrect approach.


They are religious and/or selling a book. Or are justifying to themselves why they spent so much money or suffering on a particular method. I don't find them at all interesting or persuasive.

"In" is hard to compute by itself, and subject to 10-20% error even with trained people doing it.
"Out" is even harder, and a real pain in the butt to calculate. (or maybe I should say pain in the side, those monitor straps gave me constant rashes and abrasions...)

Both are doable. Neither can be hand-waved successfully.
If you do both, with diligence and accuracy, then, and only then, can you accurately predict fat mass loss.

in - out = fat loss/gain.

I'll tell you another problem.
Glycogen is heavy as heck for its energy content.
Salt intake and loss radically impacts the amount of water your body stores.
Your body itself tries to hold set points at a weight by adjusting water held.

Thus, you get diets that say, "lose 10 pounds in 10 days." They are actually true. They also imply absolutely nothing about change in fat mass.

Heck, I can, and have "lost 10 pounds" in a day. It was water + glycogen bound water, along with about a half pound to a pound of fat, expended on a hot day, biking 80 miles. (80 miles on bike = 4000 kcal energy expenditure; for scale).

So to confound the problem even further...

not only do common people lack the ability to calculate in, and out for calories; they also lack the ability to calculate change in fat mass.

The closest I've ever come, was during that test interval, I weighed every morning, at the same time, after bladder void, and charted it; then used a 7 day moving average. That came fairly close to reality, as far as I could tell.
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: THE Obesity Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 30 Oct 2015, 11:37:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I')nteresting. Still, even if it isn't a metabolic dead-end the point still stands that it can and does get excreted. The point was that not all usable calories are inevitably used.


They are not burned.
They are still part of "out".

Excreted is part of loss, loss is part of out, and out is every bit as important when someone says calories in / calories out.


Only 10 to 30 percent of Acetone is excreted, the remainder is burned depending on your individual enzyme efficiency. This has been known for 30 years and still has not been incorporated in most biochemistry textbooks or classes. Yes that 10 to 30 percent of acetone calorie value is lost, but the 70 to 90 percent that is burned is definitely used by your metabolism for biochemical energy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron