low carb diets, not necessarily
in [Low-Carb]
|
Prev: High protein diet and low eGFR (estimated kidney function below 60)
Next: The Best Weight Loss and Nutritional Products worldwide
From: Kaz Kylheku on 6 Aug 2008 18:21 On 2008-08-05, Susan <nevermind(a)nomail.com> wrote: > x-no-archive: yes > > Kaz Kylheku wrote: > >> Though it's ultimately about calories, I've never seen anyone with a halfway >> wortwhile body advocate ad lib high-fat eating. >> >> Fat is the most calorie-dense, least filling food. In food, fat is usually >> found in its dense form. A tiny quantity of fat has an astonishing number of >> calories, yet you would hardly notice consuming it. >> >> Among protein, carbs and fat, the processing of fat incurs the smallest energy >> cost, too; dietary fat converts to adipose fat more easily than carbs of >> protein. >> >> If you can control your caloric intake on a high fat diet, and maintain a >> nicely defined beach body, kudos to your superhuman self-discipline. > > Boy, did you get that wrong, metabolically speaking. I don't think so. > Fat is not efficiently stored as fat, first, and second, it stimulates You probably just don't understand ``efficiently''. The thermic effect of various macronutrients is well established. Fat has the lowest thermic effect. Efficient doesn't mean ``expedient'' or ``fast'' in this context; rather, it refers to energy efficiency. Storing food energy as fat incurs an energy cost overhead. Dietary fat incurs the smallest overhead. I could dig up citatations, but it's not worth my time, since this is not even remotely controversial. The storage overhead can be subtracted from the calorie value of various macronutrients, which gives them a smaller effective value than their calorimetric value. Protein incurs the greatest overhead (has the greatest thermic effect). > neither glucagon nor insulin, so doesn't elicit a fat storage favorable > hormonal response. That is debatable. There are many stimuli which trigger insulin, not only blood glucose. According to the Wikipedia page: ``In addition some insulin synthesis and release takes place generally at food intake, not just glucose or carbohydrate intake, and the beta cells are also somewhat influenced by the autonomic nervous system. The signalling mechanisms controlling these linkages are not fully understood.'' [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin ] If you know better, please fix it. ] Protein causes more insulin release than carbs do, with fish causing the ] highest amount, but not in a spike the way carbs do, but rather over a ] longer, more prolonged period, which is why it won't spike blood glucose or ] insulin. You know, maybe insulin doesn't have to be released in a spike to cause fat storage? Maybe a prolonged, slow and steady insulin release can also create the conditions for fat storage. Perhaps slow and steady might even be worse than fast and fizzy. Here is a plausible story: after a large meal of protein and fat, the slowly-processed protein bumps up the insulin level, albeit gently, putting you into an anabolic state, in which fat cells pick up some of the the slowly-processed fat. The big picture is that all chemical systems are ruled by the conservation of energy. Food energy coming into the body is either burned, stored, or mechanically removed. Energy cannot just disappear into another dimension. I remember taking a physics exam back in university, where a particular question could be easily answered by applying the conservation of energy principle. But it was presented in such a way as to lead the less astute students into working out the same answer from the detailed principles underlying the mechanisms of the system, wasting some ten to fifteen minutes of exam time. You're googling up pointless details which you don't understand properly in the context of the big picture. > Second, calories aren't the single most important factor, though they Right. I am not so convinced that you could pass a grade eight science test.
From: Susan on 6 Aug 2008 19:01 x-no-archive: yes Kaz Kylheku wrote: > You probably just don't understand ``efficiently''. The thermic effect of > various macronutrients is well established. Fat has the lowest thermic effect. > > Efficient doesn't mean ``expedient'' or ``fast'' in this context; rather, it > refers to energy efficiency. Storing food energy as fat incurs an energy cost > overhead. Dietary fat incurs the smallest overhead. I could dig up > citatations, but it's not worth my time, since this is not even remotely > controversial. > > The storage overhead can be subtracted from the calorie value of various > macronutrients, which gives them a smaller effective value than their > calorimetric value. Protein incurs the greatest overhead (has the greatest > thermic effect). You're ignoring the roles of insulin and cortisol in stimulating fat response. A high carb load will ultimately lead to higher cortisol secretion to overcome cortisol binding globulin lowering by high insulin levels. > > >>neither glucagon nor insulin, so doesn't elicit a fat storage favorable >>hormonal response. > > > That is debatable. There are many stimuli which trigger insulin, not only > blood glucose. According to the Wikipedia page: > > ``In addition some insulin synthesis and release takes place generally at food > intake, not just glucose or carbohydrate intake, and the beta cells are also > somewhat influenced by the autonomic nervous system. The signalling mechanisms > controlling these linkages are not fully understood.'' > > [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin ] > > If you know better, please fix it. You're ignoring the effects of high insulin levels on HPA axis feedback and function. > > ] Protein causes more insulin release than carbs do, with fish causing the > ] highest amount, but not in a spike the way carbs do, but rather over a > ] longer, more prolonged period, which is why it won't spike blood glucose or > ] insulin. > > You know, maybe insulin doesn't have to be released in a spike to cause fat > storage? Maybe a prolonged, slow and steady insulin release can also create > the conditions for fat storage. Perhaps slow and steady might even be worse > than fast and fizzy. Slow and steady doesn't provoke insulin resistance nor beta cell damage, so no, I wouldn't say so. > > Here is a plausible story: after a large meal of protein and fat, the > slowly-processed protein bumps up the insulin level, albeit gently, putting you > into an anabolic state, in which fat cells pick up some of the the > slowly-processed fat. > > The big picture is that all chemical systems are ruled by the conservation > of energy. Food energy coming into the body is either burned, stored, or > mechanically removed. Energy cannot just disappear into another dimension. You're ignoring the extreme variability of metabolic function, which explains why some folks can become exceedingly obese on very low calories, for example, and some can pig out and remain slim. More hormones and reactions than we can count. > > I remember taking a physics exam back in university, where a particular > question could be easily answered by applying the conservation of energy > principle. But it was presented in such a way as to lead the less astute > students into working out the same answer from the detailed principles > underlying the mechanisms of the system, wasting some ten to fifteen minutes of > exam time. We're not machines, we're dynamic and much more variable. A calorie isn't just a calorie, and it's not just calories in, calories out where humans are concerned. Susan
From: jcderkoeing on 6 Aug 2008 19:58 "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20080806125116.237(a)gmail.com... > On 2008-08-06, jcderkoeing <jcderkoenig(a)ibm.com> wrote: >> >> "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:20080806075702.155(a)kkylheku.gmail.com... >>> On 2008-08-06, jcderkoeing <jcderkoenig(a)ibm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:20080805173929.763(a)gmail.com... >>>>> On 2008-08-05, jcderkoeing <jcderkoenig(a)ibm.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:20080805121729.324(a)gmail.com... >>>>>>> On 2008-08-05, molecule12(a)gmail.com <molecule12(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Mostly short-grained >>>>>>> white >>>>>>> Japanese >>>>>>> rice, with some genmai (Japanese brown rice) mixed in. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So why are you participating in a low carb newsgroup? >>>>> >>>>> This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion, >>>>> provided it is on topic. >>>>> >>>> Rice is not low carb, and thus not on topic. >>> >>> Low carb diets may include some carbs. >>> >> >> Rice is not low carb, and rice is the bulk of your diet. > > The statement made in the right-hand clause of this sentence is not > supported > by any information I have given. It was therefore produced by something > other than an intelligent, rational thought process. > >>>> That's why you're still fat, between the ears. > > From the quote marks, it appears as if I had quoted this line in my > earlier > followup, but in fact the original line that I quoted was different. > You figured that out all by yourself? >>> LOL! DOH!! > > Similarly, this line is attributed to me by the quoting level, but I > didn't > write it. The original line reads only ``LOL!''. > > Editing the content of quoted material, other than for brevity (and with > clear > indications) is, to me, an unacceptable breach of Usenet etiquette. You really care about Usenet etiquette? How about taking your non-low carb rhetoric to another newsgroup?
From: Cheri on 6 Aug 2008 20:17 jcderkoeing wrote in message ... >You really care about Usenet etiquette? > >How about taking your non-low carb rhetoric to another newsgroup? +1 Cheri
From: john on 6 Aug 2008 23:02
>This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion, >provided it is on topic. Read the title of the group, if you can. It says alt.SUPPORT.diet.low-carb, Not alt.lets.debate.diet.low-carb. You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to breathe. |