Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 46 of 451 (465410)
05-06-2008 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
05-06-2008 8:24 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
So the three diets aren't actually evidence of much of anything because calories and carbs were not varied independently, and I kept no careful data away.
Well. We can agree that there are age related metabolic changes.
Among those changes are hyperinsulemia, decreased pancreatic -cell function, and increased pancreatic -cell glucagon production. The upshot of this triple punch is weight gain as we age.
Elevated glucagon levels = hyperglycemia by increasing hepatic glycogenolysis = TRANSLATED too much blood sugar is the result of the liver making too much glucose out of glycogen.
Just a moment...
Weight Loss Therapy Improves Pancreatic Endocrine Function in Obese Older Adults, D. Villareal, Obesity, April 2008, online edition.
Please note that insulin resistance (hyperinsulemia) and too much blood sugar (hyperglycemia) are two of the molecular mechanisms by which (according to Taube) EVERYONE gains weight, regardless of age.
And I presume the third diet didn't work because my internal metabolism had changed to the point where the number of calories required to achieve weight loss was now so low that the corresponding hunger became an insurmountable barrier.
You probably lowered your metabolic rate by dropping your caloric intake that low. If you cut your caloric intake too much, your body thinks it's starving and hits the brakes (aka holds onto fat for dear life -- a well established, evolutionarily conserved phenomenon). And it was low to begin with. Didn't your doctor recommend that you do what you're doing now, e.g. 1500/day, instead of 1200/day?
Have you had your % bodyfat measured professionally (near-infrared interactance test + DXA test + water displacement test)? Your doctor could do that. It would be a very useful # to know.
(In-vivo neutron activation is probably the most accurate but I bet that is really expensive.)
I offered myself as an example because I am typical, a true representative of the broad body of data regarding diet and weight loss.
To be accurate, you are a typical 21st century American. Most people (of the 6.6 billion) do not experience this degree of weight gain as they age. Nor did Americans, historically. It started in the 60s and accelerated in the 80s.
...the prevalence of obesity among American adults has risen about 50 percent each decade since 1980, so that today, two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, epidemiologists reported in the March 17 New England Journal of Medicine.
Over the past three decades, its rate has more than doubled for preschool children...and adolescents...and it has more than tripled for children ages 6 to 11 years.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/18/26
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 8:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 6:04 PM molbiogirl has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 47 of 451 (465411)
05-06-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by molbiogirl
05-06-2008 9:57 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
molbiogirl writes:
So we've now established that when Taubes described VLDLs as containing fat in the form of TAGs and not in the form of FFAs that he was correct...
Yes. But just to be absolutely clear: those TAGs come from FFAs derived from dietary fat.
Okay, so far so good.
Yes. But I also mentioned excess carbs are not "normal". Excess carbs = those that exceed the body's need for (1) glycogen stores (2) energy to run things like the brain. Excess carbs trigger a set of 15 known genes that convert carbs to TAGS which are then stored in fat tissue.
But I think "excess carbs" *are* frequent with modern diets. Drink a Coke or eat an ice cream Sunday or a piece of chocolate cake and voil, you get excess carbs, a blood sugar spike, and a flood of insulin to deal with it. Happens all the time.
The fat tissue is stored in the usual places -- gut, thighs, butt, etc. Not the liver.
Of course not the liver. Why on earth would any sighted person believe that a person's fat accumulates in the liver? I've already clarified this point a couple times, but once again, the conversation about the liver had to do with carbohydrates role in heart disease through the production of VLDLs, not with obesity. Blood sugar spikes cause the liver to produce triglycerides which eventually find their way into VLDLs. You've already agreed this happens, we're now just trying to understand if it happens through consumption of carbohydrate products that many people eat everyday, or if it's actually a once in a blue moon kind of thing that only occurs under rare circumstances.
Taube said glucose ’ insulin ’ elevated VLDL production, correct?
No. Once again, here are Taubes' own words as originally quoted in Message 27:
Taubes writes:
After we eat a carbohydrate-rich meal, the bloodstream is flooded with glucose, and the liver takes some of this glucose and transforms it into fat”i.e., triglycerides”for temporary storage. These triglycerides are no more than droplets of oil. In the liver, the oil droplets are fused to the apo B protein and to the cholesterol that forms the outer membrane of the balloon. The triglycerides constitute the cargo that the lipo-proteins drop off at tissues throughout the body. The combination of cholesterol and apo B is the delivery vehicle. The resulting lipoprotein has a very low density and so is a VLDL particle, because the triglycerides are lighter than either the cholesterol of the apo B. For this reason, the larger the initial oil droplet, the more triglycerides packaged in the lipoprotein, the lower its density.
Moving on:
molbiogirl writes:
Percy, come on. I didn't deny that high protein diets work.
A different interpretation of your response that makes sense would be hard to find, but go ahead and try.
And a calorie is a calorie, no matter what its source.
Yes, this is the mantra of the dietary fat crowd. No one denies this is true, but it explains nothing about why two otherwise identical people on identical diets can have such different experiences with their weight. It ignores all the experiments showing that you can genetically create rats that grow fat on near-starvation diets.
If you drink a Coke and cause a blood spike and the fat cells react to the resulting increased insulin levels by sucking up fatty acids in the form of TAGS and the muscle cells fail to absorb much glucose because they've developed some level of insulin resistance after years of blood sugar spikes, then you'll end up watching TV on the couch instead of going out and playing basketball. Exercise, hunger, diet and fat absorption by adipose tissue are not independent variables. If you exercise more you'll eat more because you get hungry more. If you eat less and endure the hunger then you'll exercise less because you have less energy.
Terabytes of evidence, Percy. That's the source of the criticism. The overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Then relax and stop being so shrill. If all the evidence is truly on your side then you're going to win this debate going away.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 9:57 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 6:48 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 48 of 451 (465416)
05-06-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by molbiogirl
05-06-2008 2:32 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
molbiogirl writes:
Please note that insulin resistance (hyperinsulemia) and too much blood sugar (hyperglycemia) are two of the molecular mechanisms by which (according to Taube) EVERYONE gains weight, regardless of age.
That would be incorrect because Taubes doesn't advocate a one-answer-fits-all-obesity-problems approach. Characterization of Taubes' views from the dietary fat crowd may need to be taken with a grain of salt.
I seem to be spending a fair amount of time saying, in effect, "No, Taubes isn't saying that."
But you don't have to make much of a change to render your statement more accurate, e.g.:
Percy editing molbiogirl writes:
Please note that insulin resistance (hyperinsulemia) and too much blood sugar (hyperglycemia) are two of the molecular mechanisms responsible for (according to Taubes) the increasing incidence of obesity in populations that adopt western lifestyles and diets.
Moving on:
You probably lowered your metabolic rate by dropping your caloric intake that low...
You really need to stop this "diagnosis by discussion forum." I offered myself as a typical example, which I am. Do you really want to argue that for the typical case there's an ideal caloric intake that will result in weight loss, but that taking in fewer calories than that will halt the weight loss?
To be accurate, you are a typical 21st century American. Most people (of the 6.6 billion) do not experience this degree of weight gain as they age. Nor did Americans, historically. It started in the 60s and accelerated in the 80s.
Gee, imagine that, it started at the same time that dietary fat was implicated as the primary culprit behind heart disease, diabetes and obesity, and the major health organizations began promoting carbohydrates as a healthy replacement for some proportion of dietary fat and the calories it contained.
Before the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, grains were not a significant proportion of human diets. With the availability in modern western civilizations of cheap calories in the form of sugar and other refined carbohydrates, all the factors fell into place for dramatic increases in heart disease, diabetes and obesity. The greatest burden falls on the poor, who must rely upon cheap carbohydrate calories to survive, and it is why there is a higher incidence of obesity among those least able to afford food or poor health.
...the prevalence of obesity among American adults has risen about 50 percent each decade since 1980, so that today, two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, epidemiologists reported in the March 17 New England Journal of Medicine.
Over the past three decades, its rate has more than doubled for preschool children...and adolescents...and it has more than tripled for children ages 6 to 11 years.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/18/26
Precisely. This evidence makes even more clear just how bad things have become since the dietary fat hypothesis became the accepted explanation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 2:32 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 7:14 PM Percy has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 49 of 451 (465418)
05-06-2008 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
05-06-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
But I think "excess carbs" *are* frequent with modern diets.
Yes. But...
Drink a Coke or eat an ice cream Sunday or a piece of chocolate cake and voil, you get excess carbs, a blood sugar spike, and a flood of insulin to deal with it. Happens all the time.
No. Emphatically, no. This is not "excess carbs" or "excess insulin" or "excess blood sugar".
We should table discussion of this until we get the VLDL thing out of the way, tho.
Of course not the liver.
You said the liver "temporarily stored" TAGs. It does not.
Message 23.
What Taubes is actually saying is that blood sugar spikes encourage the liver to temporarily store fatty acids away as triglycerides, and these are later released into the bloodstream as VLDLs.
Percy writes:
No. Once again, here are Taubes' own words as originally quoted in Message 27...
Message 17. Message 20.
Percy writes:
The problem with refined carbohydrates is that they're rapidly digested and cause blood sugar spikes, which in turn cause an insulin response from the pancreas, which in turn causes the liver to produce LDLs with a high payload of cholesterol.
Because you (and the author) claim that insulin levels are related to elevated LDL levels.
Percy writes:
I don't understand why this is controversial, either. Just a simple Google reveals this in Wikipedia's article on LDL's:
Once I got the LDL straightened out (it's VLDL, not LDL), we moved onto this quote.
After we eat a carbohydrate-rich meal, the bloodstream is flooded with GLUCOSE, and the liver takes some of this glucose and transforms it into fat”i.e., TRIGLYCERIDES”for temporary storage. These triglycerides are no more than droplets of oil. In the liver, the oil droplets are fused to the APO B PROTEIN and to the cholesterol that forms the outer membrane of the balloon. The triglycerides constitute the cargo that the lipo-proteins drop off at tissues throughout the body. The combination of cholesterol and apo B is the delivery vehicle. The resulting lipoprotein has a very low density and so is a VLDL particle, because the triglycerides are lighter than either the cholesterol of the apo B. For this reason, the larger the initial oil droplet, the more triglycerides packaged in the lipoprotein, the lower its density.
Taube's timeline: glucose ’ insulin ’ TAGs ’ apo B ’ elevated VLDL production.
This is pretty straight forward.
If you drink a Coke and cause a blood spike and the fat cells react to the resulting increased insulin levels by sucking up fatty acids in the form of TAGS and the muscle cells fail to absorb much glucose because they've developed some level of insulin resistance after years of blood sugar spikes, then you'll end up watching TV on the couch instead of going out and playing basketball. Exercise, hunger, diet and fat absorption by adipose tissue are not independent variables. If you exercise more you'll eat more because you get hungry more. If you eat less and endure the hunger then you'll exercise less because you have less energy.
I am not going to address any of this right now. We should table it until we get the VLDL thing squared away.
I think it would be useful if you would provide some of the cites that Taube uses to support his insulin/VLDL theory.
Failing that, I will go to the University bookstore and look in the index myself to find the papers.
I wish you would save me the trip, tho.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 3:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 8:28 PM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 50 of 451 (465419)
05-06-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
05-06-2008 6:04 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
Please note that insulin resistance (hyperinsulemia) and too much blood sugar (hyperglycemia) are two of the molecular mechanisms responsible for (according to Taubes) the increasing incidence of obesity in populations that adopt western lifestyles and diets.
I have no problem with this. It's still wrong, but the editing doesn't bother me.
Do you really want to argue that for the typical case there's an ideal caloric intake that will result in weight loss, but that taking in fewer calories than that will halt the weight loss?
It's no secret.
Defense of body weight against chronic caloric restriction in obesity-prone and -resistant rats
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 278: R231-R237, 2000
Study.
Before the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, grains were not a significant proportion of human diets. With the availability in modern western civilizations of cheap calories in the form of sugar and other refined carbohydrates, all the factors fell into place for dramatic increases in heart disease, diabetes and obesity. The greatest burden falls on the poor, who must rely upon cheap carbohydrate calories to survive, and it is why there is a higher incidence of obesity among those least able to afford food or poor health.
Precisely. This evidence makes even more clear just how bad things have become since the dietary fat hypothesis became the accepted explanation.
I think we should leave the anthro/sociological stuff alone for now.
Edited by molbiogirl, : added link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 6:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 8:45 PM molbiogirl has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 51 of 451 (465421)
05-06-2008 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by molbiogirl
05-06-2008 6:48 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
molbiogirl writes:
Taube's timeline: glucose ’ insulin ’ TAGs ’ apo B ’ elevated VLDL production.
This is pretty straight forward.
I guess it *would* be straightforward if Taubes had mentioned insulin, but he didn't. I'm again having to respond to you with a, "No, Taubes isn't saying that."
I think it would be useful if you would provide some of the cites that Taube uses to support his insulin/VLDL theory.
Again, Taubes didn't mention insulin.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 6:48 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 11:56 PM Percy has replied
 Message 55 by molbiogirl, posted 05-07-2008 12:50 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 52 of 451 (465422)
05-06-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by molbiogirl
05-06-2008 7:14 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
molbiogirl writes:
I have no problem with this. It's still wrong, but the editing doesn't bother me.
I already understand that you disagree with Taubes' position. The point was that your statement of Taubes' position was a rather extreme caricature.
Do you really want to argue that for the typical case there's an ideal caloric intake that will result in weight loss, but that taking in fewer calories than that will halt the weight loss?
It's no secret.
Defense of body weight against chronic caloric restriction in obesity-prone and -resistant rats
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 278: R231-R237, 2000
Study.
That's an incredible stretch. First, the study doesn't even come close to supporting your position, which is that people have an ideal caloric intake for weight loss below which they will lose less weight. And second, if there *were* such a thing then you would have to concede either that "a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie", or that exercise, diet, hunger and fat storage are not independent variables. At least one of them would have to give, probably both.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 7:14 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 05-07-2008 12:22 AM Percy has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 53 of 451 (465434)
05-06-2008 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
05-06-2008 8:28 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
I guess I'll have to buy the book.
In the meantime, let me get this straight. Glucose = insulin spike. And glucose = elevated TAGs = elevated VLDLs. But you are saying that Taube is saying that the two have nothing to do with one another?
Dollar to donuts I find evidence to the contrary tomorrow afternoon.
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 8:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 05-07-2008 8:02 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 54 of 451 (465438)
05-07-2008 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
05-06-2008 8:45 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
First, the study doesn't even come close to supporting your position, which is that people have an ideal caloric intake for weight loss below which they will lose less weight.
The body defends it weight when it is starved. No matter what your weight.
Exercise reverses depressed metabolic rate produced by severe caloric restriction.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 21(1):29-33, February 1989.
The effects of caloric restriction and exercise on resting metabolic rate (RMR) were studied in five obese humans. Subjects consumed a 500 kcal-d-1 diet for 4 wk, with the subjects remaining sedentary during the first 2 wk and then exercising 30 min daily at 60% VO2max during the last 2 wk of caloric restriction. After 2 wk of dieting, RMR decreased to approximately 87% of the pre-dieting control value. Over the last 2 wk of dieting with the addition of daily exercise, the fall in RMR was reversed as it returned to the pre-dieting level. In summary, daily exercise reversed the drop in RMR associated with severe caloric restriction
Percy writes:
And second, if there *were* such a thing then you would have to concede either that "a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie", or that exercise, diet, hunger and fat storage are not independent variables. At least one of them would have to give, probably both.
A calorie is a calorie.
You take in 1200/day. Your body adjusts its needs (its metabolic rate) to exactly 1200/day because it thinks it is under stress. Your weight doesn't budge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 8:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-07-2008 8:21 AM molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 55 of 451 (465445)
05-07-2008 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
05-06-2008 8:28 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
FYI.
VLDL levels in the blood are regulated by insulin.
Insulin inhibits (1) VLDL particles (2) VLDL TAGs (3) apo B particles.
Coactivation of Foxa2 through Pgc-1b promotes liver fatty acid oxidation and triglyceride/VLDL secretion, Christian Wolfrum and Markus Stoffel1, Cell Metabolism 3, 99-110, February 2006.
Insulin has been shown to inhibit VLDL output from the liver of rats and humans, and exogenous insulin administration also suppresses the secretion of VLDL triacylglycerol and apoB in humans (Durrington, et al., 1982; Patsch et al., 1983; Patsch et al., 1986).
This inhibition of VLDL assembly/secretion contrasts the regulation of VLDL synthesis by SREBP-1c, as insulin is a known activator of SREBP-1c. Insulin interferes with the maturation phase of VLDL assembly but does not inhibit the overall lipolytic mobilization of hepatic cytosolic TAG.
Instead, insulin signaling mediates the return of TAGs to the cytosolic pool, an effect similar to that of MTP inhibition, which is also required for the efcient production of the TAG-rich VLDL precursors but has no effect on TAG synthesis.
On a cellular level, the metabolic responses to changes in plasma insulin levels are mediated by the insulin/PI3-kinase/Akt signaling pathway, which regulates the activity of several forkhead transcription factors.
We have recently shown that the forkhead transcription factor A2 (Foxa2) is phosphorylated in response to insulin signaling, resulting in inhibition of its transcriptional activity by nuclear exclusion (Wolfrum et al., 2003; Wolfrum et al., 2004).
The forkhead box A family of transcription factor in mammals include three genes designated as Foxa1, Foxa2, and Foxa3 (Kaestner et al., 1994).
Foxa2 plays a central role in maintaining lipid and glucose homeostasis by regulating gene expression of rate-limiting enzymes in response to insulin inactivation (Wolfrum et al., 2004).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 05-06-2008 8:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 05-07-2008 8:53 AM molbiogirl has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 56 of 451 (465467)
05-07-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by molbiogirl
05-06-2008 11:56 PM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
molbiogirl writes:
In the meantime, let me get this straight. Glucose = insulin spike. And glucose = elevated TAGs = elevated VLDLs. But you are saying that Taube is saying that the two have nothing to do with one another?
You don't have to take my word for it because I've quoted Taubes' very own words, and here they are again for a third time:
Taubes writes:
After we eat a carbohydrate-rich meal, the bloodstream is flooded with glucose, and the liver takes some of this glucose and transforms it into fat”i.e., triglycerides”for temporary storage. These triglycerides are no more than droplets of oil. In the liver, the oil droplets are fused to the apo B protein and to the cholesterol that forms the outer membrane of the balloon. The triglycerides constitute the cargo that the lipo-proteins drop off at tissues throughout the body. The combination of cholesterol and apo B is the delivery vehicle. The resulting lipoprotein has a very low density and so is a VLDL particle, because the triglycerides are lighter than either the cholesterol of the apo B. For this reason, the larger the initial oil droplet, the more triglycerides packaged in the lipoprotein, the lower its density.
The word insulin does not appear in that passage.
If Taubes is wrong, it isn't because he said "insulin causes this," because, as I seem to have to keep repeating, Taubes really and truly didn't say this, at least not here.
No one is perfect and correct in everything they say, including you, me and Taubes. But in order to rebut someone's position you have to rebut the positions they've actually taken. You can rebut the claim that insulin causes this until the cows come home, and you might be absolutely right, but it would have nothing to do with anything Taubes said in that passage.
I guess I'll have to buy the book.
I think that's a good idea if you're really interested, but it takes a while to get through.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by molbiogirl, posted 05-06-2008 11:56 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by molbiogirl, posted 05-07-2008 12:37 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 57 of 451 (465468)
05-07-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by molbiogirl
05-07-2008 12:22 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
molbiogirl writes:
You take in 1200/day. Your body adjusts its needs (its metabolic rate) to exactly 1200/day because it thinks it is under stress. Your weight doesn't budge.
Uh, yes, of course, I've been promoting this point throughout this thread. Exercise, diet, hunger and fat storage are not independent variables. If you eat more you'll have more energy, will exercise more, and will maintain weight. If you exercise more you'll be hungrier, will eat more, and will maintain weight.
But most important of all to obesity discussions is that if someone's metabolic processes are balanced too much toward the storage of fat in adipose tissue, then that comes at the expense of available energy and they will exercise less. Fat people eat too much and are too sedentary not because they are lazy and slothful gorgers, but because the tendency of their bodies to overemphasize the storage of fat making it unavailable as energy to the rest of the body leaves them feeling hungry and unenergetic.
And this study still doesn't support your position that there's an ideal calorie intake level below which people will cease losing weight, certainly nothing applicable to normal diet situations.
I've beginning to develop Molbiogirl citation resistance. You can't just keep throwing irrelevant citations at people hoping, well, I don't know what you hope, but if you're going to offer citations and excerpts then you have a responsibility to make sure they're apropos and actually support your position, otherwise people will eventually stop listening to you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 05-07-2008 12:22 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by molbiogirl, posted 05-07-2008 12:39 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 58 of 451 (465470)
05-07-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by molbiogirl
05-07-2008 12:50 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
This is another citation which doesn't support your position that the liver does not convert glucose to triglycerides as part of any common process of VLDL production.
What your citation does focus on is insulin, which Taubes didn't mention as part of the process.
Why don't you make some claim that you can actually support, like maybe that Taubes' description is incomplete or lacks sufficient detail and so can't really be analyzed as to whether it is correct or not, or that we can't really tell what specific metabolic process he's attempting to describe, or at least something else. The only things you can seem to find to rebut so far are things that Taubes never said.
You can't disconnect the research from reality. I trust my doctor, but his obesity information did not jibe with reality. He in effect said, "It's not possible for you to live on 1200 calories/day, you must be cheating." This is the recourse of much obesity advice: When the advice doesn't work, blame the victim.
So I eventually had to ignore my doctor's advice. While Taubes' book gave me specifics to focus on, I had already arrived at his general conclusions based upon my own experiences. I definitely accept that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, the problem is that this is usually cited only as a way of ignoring that the process is not one of simple intake/outgo because the variables are interdependent, and a major factor is the degree to which anyone's metabolism encourages the storage of fat in adipose tissue. These issues seem to be recognized in the research, for instance one of your recent citations is consistent with the position that reduction in calorie intake causes a corresponding decline in energy levels, but they don't filter up to diet advice for the general population, who are only told "a calorie is a calories is a calorie."
I think one could create an excellent diet based on the simple rule of eating only foods that were available more than 10,000 years ago (within practical limits, of course - for instance, it wouldn't be practical to only consume vegetable species available to stone age man, so you'd have to eat the contemporary versions of the vegetables that are available in supermarkets). This would eliminate soda, candy, bread, pasta, refined rice and potatoes. It would also unfortunately eliminate milk and cheese, so an exception would have to be made for these since they are definitely consistent with a low carbohydrate diet.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by molbiogirl, posted 05-07-2008 12:50 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by molbiogirl, posted 05-07-2008 1:32 PM Percy has replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 59 of 451 (465488)
05-07-2008 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
05-07-2008 8:02 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
If Taubes is wrong, it isn't because he said "insulin causes this," because, as I seem to have to keep repeating, Taubes really and truly didn't say this, at least not here.
At least not here. Exactly.
The book is 640 pages long. The index is 60 pages long. I sincerely doubt that these 6 sentences are the only time Taube mentions the formation/regulation of VLDL particles.
The book is on order. The bookstore's distributor has it in stock. I will have it next Wednesday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 05-07-2008 8:02 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 60 of 451 (465489)
05-07-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
05-07-2008 8:21 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
And this study still doesn't support your position that there's an ideal calorie intake level below which people will cease losing weight, certainly nothing applicable to normal diet situations.
Percy. It does.
You can't just keep throwing irrelevant citations at people hoping, well, I don't know what you hope, but if you're going to offer citations and excerpts then you have a responsibility to make sure they're apropos and actually support your position, otherwise people will eventually stop listening to you.
They are not irrelevant. They are on point. And I think you stopped listening 2 days ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 05-07-2008 8:21 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 05-07-2008 1:44 PM molbiogirl has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024