Fat Storage

Rob said:

Is fat as easily stored, compared with carbohydrates, as I'm led to
believe?

Yes

Quoted message said:

From the information I've managed to find it seems that fat is
quite easily stored as body fat while the process of excess carbs being
stored as fat requires more "work". Do we require less fat in our diets
today, given our generally sedentary lifestyle, as opposed to 50, 75,
100, etc, years ago?

Yes

"Rob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is fat as easily stored, compared with carbohydrates, as I'm led to
believe? From the information I've managed to find it seems that fat is
quite easily stored as body fat while the process of excess carbs being
stored as fat requires more "work". Do we require less fat in our diets
today, given our generally sedentary lifestyle, as opposed to 50, 75,
100, etc, years ago?

Thanks.

Rob

What kind of carbs are we talking about, complex or simple? Sugar will
convert to fat very quickly from what I understand.

Well I was referring to primarily complex carbohydrates such as fruits,
vegetables and whole grains.

Rob

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rob said:

Well I was referring to primarily complex carbohydrates such as fruits,
vegetables and whole grains.

Rob

Fruits may or may not be that complex...

Fructose has been known to seriously contribute to Insulin resistance.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

Farmers have known for decades that highly polyunsaturated fats get
stored up a lot better into the animals' tissues than highly saturated
fats, so to say "fat" really means nothing. It is misleading, and it
is the creation of "nutritional science experts" who sought to
establish their own discipline ("nutrition"😉, when in fact it should
just be a "little brother" of biochemistry. Interestingly, some on
this NG have cited studies about how "great" highly polyunsaturated fat
sources are, when in fact they are a major cause of the "obesity
epidemic." As to the fructose issue, few fruits are high in fructose.
Avoid eating a lot of raisins at one time, for example, but otherwise,
fruit is something that is great except for its lack of high quality
protein (assuming it's organic, etc.).

In any case, you can do an experiment, on yourself or on animals: load
their diet up with plenty of corn or safflower oil and see what
happens, then load their diet up with fresh coconut oil. Assuming they
get good quality protein, basic vitamins/minerals, etc., you should see
quite a difference in their weight.

Fat is stored with great efficiency; carbohydrates much less so. There
is a finite capacity for storing carbs as carbs (basically repackaging
glucose into glycogen and storing in muscles and liver). There is an
unlimited capacity for storing fat. Sugar conversion to fat is
metabolically inefficient, compared to fat storage as fat, and there is
relatively little such conversion which actually occurs. What does
occur with a surfeit of carbs in the diet (beyond the daily energy
needs) is that fat doesn't get mobilized and burned.

Fat storage comes from excess dietary caloric intake. Macronutrient ratios
appear to be involved in the regulation or mis-regulation of dietary caloric
intake, while eating ad lib.

IMHO: Fat is a critical nutrient and the efforts to cut fat induce excess
eating. Eating complex carbs like rice, pasta, bread, and potatoes is the
same thing as preparing a meal with a large pile of sugar on your plate.
Low carb may be out as a fad, but avoiding excess carbohydrates is a
critical part of surviving in a society with an improper food supply.

Dave
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/LowCarbHighFat/

"Rob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is fat as easily stored, compared with carbohydrates, as I'm led to
believe? From the information I've managed to find it seems that fat is
quite easily stored as body fat while the process of excess carbs being
stored as fat requires more "work". Do we require less fat in our diets
today, given our generally sedentary lifestyle, as opposed to 50, 75,
100, etc, years ago?

Thanks.

Rob

Dave LCHF said:

Fat storage comes from excess dietary caloric intake. Macronutrient ratios
appear to be involved in the regulation or mis-regulation of dietary caloric
intake, while eating ad lib.

In other words eating a lot of fat makes you fat.

Quoted message said:

IMHO: Fat is a critical nutrient

Fat is a necessary nutrient but stops being so very quickly, defiantly
when exceeding 10% of calories.

Quoted message said:

and the efforts to cut fat induce excess eating.

Talking about yourself?

Quoted message said:

Eating complex carbs like rice, pasta, bread, and potatoes is the
same thing as preparing a meal with a large pile of sugar on your plate.

Let me guess you have Type 2 diabetes and blame carbs. Yawn

Quoted message said:

Low carb may be out as a fad,

losing weight, being healthy etc

Quoted message said:

but avoiding excess carbohydrates is a critical part of surviving in a society

I have a diet of 70%-80% carbs and am doing just fine. Though fat and
protein are necessary so I would have to say going much higher than
80% would be excessive. Of course with everything quality does count
and there are healthy sources of carbs and unhealthy sources.

Quoted message said:

with an improper food supply.

Hydrogenated oils, high fructose corn syrup etc are the real causes of
type 2 diabetes not carbs. The places you find these things are of
course in the cookie aisles, snack foods aisles, fast food french
fries etc which also happen to have lots of carbs and sugar.

Children are not going to have much of a chance developing type 2
diabetes eating whole grains and fruit.

In a nutshell eat natural foods and not highly processed [censored] which is
made not with nutrition in mind but with shelf life and cheapness.

Dave LCHF makes the entirely untenable argument that there is a one
size fits all diet approach which applies to everyone.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fat storage comes from excess dietary caloric intake. Macronutrient ratios

appear to be involved in the regulation or mis-regulation of dietary
caloric
intake, while eating ad lib.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMHO: Fat is a critical nutrient and the efforts to cut fat induce excess

eating. Eating complex carbs like rice, pasta, bread, and potatoes is
the
same thing as preparing a meal with a large pile of sugar on your
plate.
Low carb may be out as a fad, but avoiding excess carbohydrates is a
critical part of surviving in a society with an improper food supply.

Dave, You are making arguments based on population studies, in a world
where no one is (or should want to be) "average."

In the first place, I could argue with your statements (in a population
sense).

I could provide references to carbs (save for fructose) producing
satiety, while fats do not. I could provide references to studies
where fat content was adjusted sereptitiously in ad libitum situations,
and higher fat intakes led to higher caloric intakes.

I could talk about how, in a situation where human beings are getting a
sufficient amount of NATURAL exercise, the glycogen depleted muscles
will produce hunger cravings, which are only satisfied when glycogen
has been repleted. When one attempts to deal with these cravings with
high fat, post-exercise feedings, one must take in more total calories
to replete glycogen than when one repletes with a high carb, post
exercise feeding.

I could point out (again) to the U of Pittsburgh registry of people who
lost 15 Kg and kept it off for 5 years, and note that they did it with
a diet averaging 60% carbs, combined with exercise.

And so on.

But, all of this is not all that definitive at the level of an
individual person.

Choosing a diet is not like choosing a cancer drug. In the latter
case, you've got one shot to get it right. With diet, you've got your
whole life.

Determine your goals:

Weight loss. Serum lipoprotein improvement. Control of hypertension.
Management of diabetes. Just great taste. Whatever. It's your body;
your goals; your food.

So you read the diet books. Read the journal articles. Read the
arguments on the internet. And make your choice. Give it some time.
Lots of people tried Pritikin and Atkins and Zone and South Beach and
Weight Watchers and Ornish and whatever. Some stayed with one or the
other. Many did not, for a variety of reasons. There isn't any reason
at all why a particularly motivated person couldn't try all of them.

Someone suggested the "Seasonal Diet." Maybe like paleolithic humans.
Atkins (mastadon) in the winter. Pritikin (roots and fruits) in the
summer. Or even and odd years. Find out what works for you and for
your goals.

If Atkins (or whatever) works for you, then great.

If Pritikin (or whatever) works for me, then great also.

Don't follow any particular diet, though, just because someone claims
that it is the best diet for the average person (the lowest common
denominator theory of diet).

I'm not a lowest common denominator, and neither should you be.

- Larry W

email hidden (Larry Weisenthal) said:

I could provide references to carbs...
I could provide references to studies...

Why don't you? This is sci.med.nutrition, after all. As such,
references are a good thing. Unless you provide references, everything
you write is just, well, yet another opinion.

Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:40:15 -0500 in article
<[email hidden]> Just Cocky <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

email hidden (Larry Weisenthal) said:

I could provide references to carbs...
I could provide references to studies...

Why don't you? This is sci.med.nutrition, after all. As such,
references are a good thing. Unless you provide references, everything
you write is just, well, yet another opinion.

I'll second that. Talk is cheap, we need some evidence.

--
Matti Narkia

31 Dec 2005 16:27:41 -0800 in article
<[email hidden]> "[email hidden]

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Choosing a diet is not like choosing a cancer drug. In the latter
case, you've got one shot to get it right. With diet, you've got your
whole life.

Unless your diet turns out to be a disaster and you realize that because of
that you probably won't have a whole lot of life left.

Quoted message said:

Determine your goals:

Weight loss. Serum lipoprotein improvement. Control of hypertension.
Management of diabetes. Just great taste. Whatever. It's your body;
your goals; your food.

So you read the diet books. Read the journal articles. Read the
arguments on the internet. And make your choice. Give it some time.
Lots of people tried Pritikin and Atkins and Zone and South Beach and
Weight Watchers and Ornish and whatever. Some stayed with one or the
other. Many did not, for a variety of reasons. There isn't any reason
at all why a particularly motivated person couldn't try all of them.

Well, try this one: the willingness to avoid serious chronic disease and
untimely death caused by an inherent danger of a particular diet for a
certain subgroup of people. Not all diets are safe for everyone. When you
realize that it could be too late.

Quoted message said:

Someone suggested the "Seasonal Diet." Maybe like paleolithic humans.
Atkins (mastadon) in the winter. Pritikin (roots and fruits) in the
summer. Or even and odd years. Find out what works for you and for
your goals.

If Atkins (or whatever) works for you, then great.

If Pritikin (or whatever) works for me, then great also.

Don't follow any particular diet, though, just because someone claims
that it is the best diet for the average person (the lowest common
denominator theory of diet).

No, but do your research ( I recommend Medline and the web site of Nutrition
Source, Harvard School of Public Health) to find out which diet is safest
and does not have inherent dangers for certain subgroups of the general
population).

--
Matti Narkia

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unless your diet turns out to be a disaster and you realize that because of

that you probably won't have a whole lot of life left. <<

Matti, I don't understand why you are being so stubbornly nihilistic.

What an utterly nonsensical statement (I'm criticizing the statement,
not you).

You determine your goals. Let's say that you have elevated lipids and
high blood pressure and are 10 Kg overweight.

You read whatever you want to read to help you decide what makes sense
for you.

You love Mediterranean style food. So you try this. And things get
better. So you stay with it.

Or else you like the food, but you don't lose weight and you try
something else. Maybe Weight Watchers. Maybe the South Beach diet.
Maybe Atkins, Pritikin, whatever.

The idea that you are going to kill yourself by trying a new diet
(which is supported by one's "research"😉 for a month or so (and that's
truly all it takes to see if it's helping or not) is, well,
nonsensical.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, but do your research ( I recommend Medline and the web site of Nutrition

Source, Harvard School of Public Health) to find out which diet is
safest
and does not have inherent dangers for certain subgroups of the general

population). <<

No argument. For example, if I had kidney disease or a history of
colon polyps, there are certain diets I'd avoid.

That's what I've been saying. Do your research. Determine your goals.
Make your choices. If your choices work, keep doing them. If they
don't work, try something else.

Why don't you make a specific criticism about something I've said?
Argue, if you wish, with my interpretation of the implications of one
of the studies I've discussed. Or provide a study which contradicts
something I've said (or which challenges the data of one of the studies
I've cited and discussed). So far, you have failed to do this.

The only thing you've done is thown out a blizzard of almost entirely
irrelevant studies, without any thoughtful discussion concerning what
exactly you think these studies are showing.

- Larry W

Quoted message said:

Why don't you? This is sci.med.nutrition, after all. As such,
references are a good thing. Unless you provide references, everything
you write is just, well, yet another opinion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll second that. Talk is cheap, we need some evidence.

These are unfounded criticisms. I've provided references (and, beyond
that, detailed explanations) to very good studies which directly
support all the important points I've made. My critics have, to date,
failed to provide either contradictory studies or counterarguments
based on either reason or data to these points.

On the current thread, I was simply making a point regarding the
thoughtless posting of a blizzard of references, without discussion of
the supposed importance of the studies.

You guys criticize me for actually discussing things in a discussion
group, as opposed to simply posting bibliographies, devoid of
discussion.

If you think I've made an incorrect statement, then challenge it.
That's what I did when Susan made statements which later appeared to be
false, as she would not substantiate them. So tell me -- specifically
-- what I said which you feel to be incorrect. Then we can discuss the
specifics of the point in question.

You guys have the luxury of posting bibliographies without discussion
This produces no improved mutual understanding and no progress. It
really works better if we discuss things first; find out where we
specifically disagree, then go looking for studies which bear directly
on the disagreements at hand.

So tell me, what precisely have I said with which you disagree and
which you feel that I have not adequately defended with pertinent
studies?

- Larry W

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You guys criticize me for actually discussing things in a discussion
group, as opposed to simply posting bibliographies, devoid of
discussion.

If you think I've made an incorrect statement, then challenge it.
That's what I did when Susan made statements which later appeared to
be
false, as she would not substantiate them. So tell me -- specifically
-- what I said which you feel to be incorrect. Then we can discuss the
specifics of the point in question.

You guys have the luxury of posting bibliographies without discussion
This produces no improved mutual understanding and no progress. It
really works better if we discuss things first; find out where we
specifically disagree, then go looking for studies which bear directly
on the disagreements at hand.

So tell me, what precisely have I said with which you disagree and
which you feel that I have not adequately defended with pertinent
studies?

And I thought that Matti would provide a reasonable dialog. I'm
beginning to feel he a better than average troll and knows exactly how
to pull your chain. The fact that you have persisted in trying a
reasonable discussion to be met with repeatedly glib opinions. As Laura
Peller used to say in the Bugger King commercial, "where's the beef?'
Matti, you promised better but you resorting to Susan tactics less the
truly grammar school insults. Are you going to offer a real dialog or
simply wild ass arm waving? In essence, where is the beef???

-DF

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:21:03 GMT, Dave LCHF wrote in
<news:[email hidden]> on
sci.med.nutrition :

[...]

Quoted message said:

Eating complex carbs like rice, pasta, bread, and potatoes is the
same thing as preparing a meal with a large pile of sugar on your plate.

Try eating a large pile of sugar, and your body will tell you it's not
the same as a pasta. 🙂
Pasta has not the same IG as sugar, for starts.
Some kinds of rice do, some don't, afaik.
Whole pasta & rice have fiber and micronutrients, sugar doesn't.
Pasta & rice are seldom eaten alone, they often come with vegetables,
some protein, fat, in satiating and (more or less) balanced recipes...
Sugar doesn't.

Quoted message said:

Low carb may be out as a fad, but avoiding excess carbohydrates

Avoid excess anything.
I gather that nutritional guide lines in Italy say a standard pasta
(or rice) portion is 80 grams.* Would you consider that "excess"?

*
http://www.sinu.it/larn/annesso2.asp (in Italian)

Quoted message said:

is a
critical part of surviving in a society with an improper food supply.

If that means "don't overeat", I thoroughly agree!