Do we absorb better *when hungry* ?!

Shiperton Henethe said:

Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

Yes, it is a well known fact that protein utilization
for example increases when you have not consumed protein
for awhile.

Quoted message said:

And just *how* hungry is best?

There is a tradeoff here in catabolism, if you wait for long
periods of time your body will start breaking down muscle to
feed itself. Especially after periods of intense activity.

--
Cliff Stamp
[email hidden] physics.mun.ca~sstampOpen ↗

The one unforgivable sin, the offence against one's own integrity,
is to accept anything at all simply on authority -- Maureen Johnson Long

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. -- Publilius Syrus

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

Quoted message said:

Shiperton Henethe said:

Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

Yes, it is a well known fact that protein utilization
for example

increases

Quoted message said:

when you have not consumed protein for awhile.

Quoted message said:

And just *how* hungry is best?

There is a tradeoff here in catabolism, if you wait for
long periods of

time

Quoted message said:

your body will start breaking down muscle to feed itself.
Especially after periods of intense activity.

Actually I *wasn't* thinking about protein particularly.
More trace minerals (like Chromium, Magnesium, Zinc, Iron
etc) & vitamins & Omega3/6 & other nutrients.

For example I cooked up a bunch of (mainly) green vegetables
(i.e. spinach, aubergine, broccoli etc) and took them in to
work to eat. They cleary don't have many calories in
them but at lunch time I got quite hungry so I ate
them *on their own*.

About half an hour later I was still quite hungry and went
for a protein/carb/fat lunch.

But it occurred to me that the *when hungry* body might be
no only digesting the the food more efficiently, but it
might take more interest in the miscellaneous nutrients in
that meal as well!

In fact over and beyond obesity this may well be the reason
why people who don't over eat seem to live longer and be
healthier!?

Any thoughts?

Alec

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:10:59 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Hi

Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious food
*when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

i.e. If I am planning one nutritious meal and two poor
nutritious quality meals - should I wait until I am
really quite hungry before eating the nutritious one,
in order to best absorb all the nutrients in the
meal?!

If true then should we also wait until we are hungry before
eating food supplements?!

And just *how* hungry is best?

Ship Shiperton Henethe

I doubt there is much in it. It will make no difference on a
balanced diet.

Put another way - is there any merit in eating my salad
meal first and staying hungry when I digest it for half an
hour or so.

I bet
a) it does make a difference and
b) that no one has ever tested this !

Ship

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:10:59 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Hi

Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

i.e. If I am planning one nutritious meal and two poor
nutritious quality meals - should I wait until I am
really quite hungry before eating the nutritious
one, in order to best absorb all the nutrients in
the meal?!

If true then should we also wait until we are hungry
before eating food supplements?!

And just *how* hungry is best?

Ship Shiperton Henethe

I doubt there is much in it. It will make no difference on
a balanced diet.

Shiperton Henethe said:

But it occurred to me that the *when hungry* body might be
no only digesting the the food more efficiently, but it
might take more interest in the miscellaneous nutrients in
that meal as well!

Well yes, if it digests less of the food it gets less of the
nutrients, its gets the vitamins and minerals out through
the digestion process.

--
Cliff Stamp
[email hidden] physics.mun.ca~sstampOpen ↗

The one unforgivable sin, the offence against one's own integrity,
is to accept anything at all simply on authority -- Maureen Johnson Long

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. -- Publilius Syrus

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:14:19 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]
posted:

Quoted message said:

Shiperton Henethe said:

Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

Yes, it is a well known fact that protein utilization
for example increases when you have not consumed protein
for awhile.

Depends on what form it is ingested in, surely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And just *how* hungry is best?

There is a tradeoff here in catabolism, if you wait for
long periods of time your body will start breaking down
muscle to feed itself. Especially after periods of intense
activity.

Agreed if you have used up all your glycogen stores and have
little fat stores.

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:06:18 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Shiperton Henethe said:

Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

Yes, it is a well known fact that protein utilization for
example

increases

Quoted message said:

when you have not consumed protein for awhile.

Quoted message said:

And just *how* hungry is best?

There is a tradeoff here in catabolism, if you wait for
long periods of

time

Quoted message said:

your body will start breaking down muscle to feed itself.
Especially after periods of intense activity.

Actually I *wasn't* thinking about protein particularly.
More trace minerals (like Chromium, Magnesium, Zinc, Iron
etc) & vitamins & Omega3/6 & other nutrients.

For example I cooked up a bunch of (mainly) green
vegetables
(i.e. spinach, aubergine, broccoli etc) and took them in to
work to eat. They cleary don't have many calories in
them but at lunch time I got quite hungry so I ate
them *on their own*.

About half an hour later I was still quite hungry and went
for a protein/carb/fat lunch.

But it occurred to me that the *when hungry* body might be
no only digesting the the food more efficiently, but it
might take more interest in the miscellaneous nutrients in
that meal as well!

In fact over and beyond obesity this may well be the reason
why people who don't over eat seem to live longer and be
healthier!?

Any thoughts?

Westerners worrying about absorption efficiency is rather
silly IMHO.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:51:56 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Put another way - is there any merit in eating my salad
meal first and staying hungry when I digest it for half an
hour or so.

I bet
a) it does make a difference and
b) that no one has ever tested this !

Ship

Well if you eat a huge amount of fibre and fat, some
nutrients in the salad might get carried through in the
rush, but on a balanced eucaloric moderate diet, I doubt
there is much in it. My opinion. Treat it as worth what you
paid for it 🙂

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:10:59 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Hi

Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

i.e. If I am planning one nutritious meal and two poor
nutritious quality meals - should I wait until I am
really quite hungry before eating the nutritious
one, in order to best absorb all the nutrients in
the meal?!

If true then should we also wait until we are hungry
before eating food supplements?!

And just *how* hungry is best?

Ship Shiperton Henethe

I doubt there is much in it. It will make no difference
on a balanced diet.

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:06:18 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Shiperton Henethe <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Is there any evidence that eating your more
> nutritious food *when you are really hungry* is more
> effective?!

Yes, it is a well known fact that protein utilization
for example

increases

Quoted message said:

when you have not consumed protein for awhile.

> And just *how* hungry is best?

There is a tradeoff here in catabolism, if you wait for
long periods of

time

Quoted message said:

your body will start breaking down muscle to feed
itself. Especially

after

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

periods of intense activity.

Actually I *wasn't* thinking about protein particularly.
More trace minerals (like Chromium, Magnesium, Zinc, Iron
etc) & vitamins & Omega3/6 & other nutrients.

For example I cooked up a bunch of (mainly) green
vegetables
(i.e. spinach, aubergine, broccoli etc) and took them in
to work to eat. They cleary don't have many
calories in them but at lunch time I got quite
hungry so I ate them *on their own*.

About half an hour later I was still quite hungry and
went for a protein/carb/fat lunch.

But it occurred to me that the *when hungry* body might
be no only digesting the the food more efficiently, but
it might take more interest in the miscellaneous
nutrients in that meal as well!

In fact over and beyond obesity this may well be the
reason why people who don't over eat seem to live longer
and be healthier!?

Any thoughts?

Westerners worrying about absorption efficiency is rather
silly IMHO.

How then do you explain the various deficiencies such as
Zinc, Chromium, Magnesium, Iron and vast array of
associated allergic, ME, plummeting spermcounts, sugar
regulation/diabetes, retinopathy, depression even
cancer... etc?

Are you saying:
a) Westerns dont get these diseases?
b) Westerns do get these diseases but they have nothing to
do with nutrient absorption?
c) That you dont give a [censored] if westerners get diseases
like these? Not even if it can make their lives not
worth living?

Please declare you hand.

Ship

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:14:19 +0000 (UTC),
[email hidden] posted:

Quoted message said:

Shiperton Henethe said:

Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

Yes, it is a well known fact that protein utilization for
example

increases

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when you have not consumed protein for awhile.

Depends on what form it is ingested in, surely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And just *how* hungry is best?

There is a tradeoff here in catabolism, if you wait for
long periods of

time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your body will start breaking down muscle to feed itself.
Especially

after

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

periods of intense activity.

Agreed if you have used up all your glycogen stores and
have little fat stores.

I didnt really mean that either.

Let me put it like this: Is there any merit in eating entire
meals out of highly nutritious materials that have few
readily available calories?

Is it better to eat a meal of just "greens", or better to
mix that same number of greens in with your starch/protein/fat-
rich foods.

Ship

Sorry eucaloric is not in any dictionary I can find online

I trust you dont mean
- the element "Eu" europium.
- The European Union

But I gather Eu-means good or well in Greek. So do you mean
a normal or appropriate number of calories?

If so you are still ignoring the question. The question is
that if you are *overall* eating an appropriate number of
calories - is there any merit in eating entire meals of trace-
mineral & vitamin-rich foods (such as green vegetables).

The point if you go slightly hungry even at the end of the
meal you can feel you digestion working harder to really
digest *everything* in the meal. Rather than be a bit lazy
about it and just absorb the easy stuff...

Ship

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:51:56 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Put another way - is there any merit in eating my salad
meal first and staying hungry when I digest it for half
an hour or so.

I bet
a) it does make a difference and
b) that no one has ever tested this !

Ship

Well if you eat a huge amount of fibre and fat, some
nutrients in the salad might get carried through in the
rush, but on a balanced eucaloric moderate diet, I doubt
there is much in it. My opinion. Treat it as worth what
you paid for it 🙂

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:10:59 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

>Hi
>
>Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
>food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!
>
>i.e. If I am planning one nutritious meal and two poor
> nutritious quality meals - should I wait until I
> am really quite hungry before eating the
> nutritious one, in order to best absorb all the
> nutrients in the meal?!
>
>If true then should we also wait until we are hungry
>before eating food supplements?!
>
>And just *how* hungry is best?
>
>
>Ship Shiperton Henethe

I doubt there is much in it. It will make no difference
on a balanced diet.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:53:42 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:14:19 +0000 (UTC),
[email hidden] posted:

Quoted message said:

Shiperton Henethe <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Is there any evidence that eating your more nutritious
> food *when you are really hungry* is more effective?!

Yes, it is a well known fact that protein utilization
for example

increases

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when you have not consumed protein for awhile.

Depends on what form it is ingested in, surely.

Quoted message said:

> And just *how* hungry is best?

There is a tradeoff here in catabolism, if you wait for
long periods of

time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your body will start breaking down muscle to feed
itself. Especially

after

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

periods of intense activity.

Agreed if you have used up all your glycogen stores and
have little fat stores.

I didnt really mean that either.

Let me put it like this: Is there any merit in eating
entire meals out of highly nutritious materials that have
few readily available calories?

Nope, I wouldn't think so. Are you aiming for super-
absorption? I would guess that if you ate a very rich iron
meal, not much would be absorbed, proportionally. The body
is geared to absorb its needs on a daily basis from a food
supply with adequate availability of all nutrients.

Quoted message said:

Is it better to eat a meal of just "greens", or better to
mix that same number of greens in with your starch/protein/fat-
rich foods.

I wouldn't think it makes much difference when an adequate
diet is eaten. Are you suffereing from some micronutrient
malabsorption or deficiency?

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:23:20 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:06:18 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> Shiperton Henethe <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Is there any evidence that eating your more
> > nutritious food *when you are really hungry* is more
> > effective?!
>
> Yes, it is a well known fact that protein utilization
> for example
increases
> when you have not consumed protein for awhile.
>
> > And just *how* hungry is best?
>
> There is a tradeoff here in catabolism, if you wait
> for long periods of
time
> your body will start breaking down muscle to feed
> itself. Especially

after

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> periods of intense activity.

Actually I *wasn't* thinking about protein particularly.
More trace minerals (like Chromium, Magnesium, Zinc,
Iron etc) & vitamins & Omega3/6 & other nutrients.

For example I cooked up a bunch of (mainly) green
vegetables
(i.e. spinach, aubergine, broccoli etc) and took them in
to work to eat. They cleary don't have many
calories in them but at lunch time I got quite
hungry so I ate them *on their own*.

About half an hour later I was still quite hungry and
went for a protein/carb/fat lunch.

But it occurred to me that the *when hungry* body might
be no only digesting the the food more efficiently, but
it might take more interest in the miscellaneous
nutrients in that meal as well!

In fact over and beyond obesity this may well be the
reason why people who don't over eat seem to live longer
and be healthier!?

Any thoughts?

Westerners worrying about absorption efficiency is rather
silly IMHO.

How then do you explain the various deficiencies

I'm talking about overeating energy, and worrying about
small inefficiencies in absorbing this energy.

Quoted message said:

such as Zinc, Chromium, Magnesium, Iron

In those eating a varied diet of wholefoods? Or those
drinking Coke and eating fries? (While sitting on their
asses in front of a screen 🙂

Quoted message said:

and vast array of associated allergic,

That's likely to be caused by obsessive cleaniliness in
childhood.

Quoted message said:

ME,

No idea.

Quoted message said:

plummeting spermcounts,

Where? Or did you see this on TV?

Quoted message said:

sugar regulation/diabetes,

Overeating of energy!

Quoted message said:

retinopathy,

From diabetes? Not taking care of it, mostly.

Quoted message said:

depression

Modern lifestyles and community problems..

Quoted message said:

even cancer... etc?

Where? Older populations (and we are living much longer than
previously) always show increased rates of these "diseases
of the elderly".

Quoted message said:

Are you saying:
a) Westerns dont get these diseases?

See above.

Quoted message said:

b) Westerns do get these diseases but they have
nothing to do with nutrient absorption?

As I was talking about energy absorbtion... Too much energy
absorption is at fault in some of these.

Quoted message said:

c) That you dont give a [censored] if westerners get diseases
like these?

Of course, but I don't consult the Ouija board to find out
the causes.

Quoted message said:

Not even if it can make their lives not worth living?

Eating less energy? I'm always advocating that.

Quoted message said:

Please declare you hand.

See above.

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 21:50:35 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Sorry eucaloric is not in any dictionary I can find online

Did you try google? Many hits there.

Quoted message said:

I trust you dont mean
- the element "Eu" europium.
- The European Union

No the Greek PREFIX meaning "good" or "well"

Quoted message said:

But I gather Eu-means good or well in Greek.

Of course. The PREFIX, not the abbreviation.

Quoted message said:

So do you mean a normal or appropriate number of calories?

No, it means a calory intake that matches your calorie
needs. You will be in trouble if you try to deduce the exact
meaning of a word by studying its etymology. Try "decimate"
in its modern meaning for an example.

Quoted message said:

If so you are still ignoring the question.

You will have to excuse my appearing to not answer any
question. I sometimes don't get messages on my newsserver. I
try to answer all, questions.

Quoted message said:

The question is that if you are *overall* eating an
appropriate number of calories - is there any merit in
eating entire meals of trace-mineral & vitamin-rich foods
(such as green vegetables).

I would doubt that, but that's just a guess on my part. Have
you got any evidence that it does? Absorption of
micronutrients is generally fine given a reasonable
availability of it. Why are all your meals not reasonably
"balanced"?

Quoted message said:

The point if you go slightly hungry even at the end of the
meal you can feel you digestion working harder to really
digest *everything* in the meal. Rather than be a bit lazy
about it and just absorb the easy stuff...

My, that's a good imagination! I've never felt
"digestion" myself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So do you mean a normal or appropriate number of
calories?

No, it means a calory intake that matches your calorie
needs. You will be in trouble if you try to deduce the
exact meaning of a word by studying its etymology. Try
"decimate" in its modern meaning for an example.

If we are being pedantic - and you at least are - then you
are ignoring the calories wasted during digestion. Thus if
you only eat food containing the actual calories you need,
then you will starve. Like I say a rather spastic pedantic
point, but I thought you'd appreciated it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The question is that if you are *overall* eating an
appropriate number of calories - is there any merit in
eating entire meals of trace-mineral & vitamin-rich foods
(such as green vegetables).

I would doubt that, but that's just a guess on my part.
Have you got any evidence that it does? Absorption of
micronutrients is generally fine given a reasonable
availability of it. Why are all your meals not reasonably
"balanced"?

Because I live in the real world and compromises between
lifestyle and earning enough money to actually pay for the
food have to be found. I have had chronic fatigue for about
15 years and my available energy to spend preparing the
perfect diet is severely restricted. Plus I have found over
years that all manner of extreme experiments with my diet,
have made very close to zero impact on my health and
available energy levels in the long- and medium- run.
(Albeit massive short-term impact).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point if you go slightly hungry even at the end of
the meal you can feel you digestion working harder to
really digest *everything* in the meal. Rather than be a
bit lazy about it and just absorb the easy stuff...

My, that's a good imagination! I've never felt
"digestion" myself.

You are either being pedantic or are from some strange
planet. If one finishes a meal still very slightly hungry,
for most of us that "feels" different to eating until you
feel feel full.

However, I've always wondered - what actually *happens* in
those of us who dont immediately get fatter - if we do eat
too many calories? Is it simply not digested and left in the
gut or what?!

(For now I am ignoring the whole hormonal arguments
concerning, time of day of meal, Glucose Index, glucose
spikes, browsing vs. binging etc which clearly influence the
glycogen and fat storage. )

Ship

Shiperton Henethe said:

However, I've always wondered - what actually *happens* in
those of us who dont immediately get fatter - if we do eat
too many calories? Is it simply not digested and left in
the gut or what?!

Your metabolism is raised to burn it off, or it is
excreted in the urine (labile proteins take this end route
for example).

--
Cliff Stamp
[email hidden] physics.mun.ca~sstampOpen ↗

The one unforgivable sin, the offence against one's own integrity,
is to accept anything at all simply on authority -- Maureen Johnson Long

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm. -- Publilius Syrus

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:47:23 +0100, "Shiperton Henethe"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So do you mean a normal or appropriate number of
calories?

No, it means a calory intake that matches your calorie
needs. You will be in trouble if you try to deduce the
exact meaning of a word by studying its etymology. Try
"decimate" in its modern meaning for an example.

If we are being pedantic - and you at least are -

I'm trying to use a word as it is commonly used and you
are being obtuse by trying to deduce its meaning from
Greek roots?

Quoted message said:

then you are ignoring the calories wasted during digestion.

Could you explain this "wasting"?

Quoted message said:

Thus if you only eat food containing the actual calories
you need, then you will starve.

No, by definition, you will have eaten the calories you
need. Sorry for appearing pedantic, but when I'm given an
obtuse statement to comment on....

Quoted message said:

Like I say a rather spastic pedantic point, but I thought
you'd appreciated it.

No, I take it for what it is, thankyou.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The question is that if you are *overall* eating an
appropriate number of calories - is there any merit in
eating entire meals of trace-mineral & vitamin-rich
foods (such as green vegetables).

I would doubt that, but that's just a guess on my part.
Have you got any evidence that it does? Absorption of
micronutrients is generally fine given a reasonable
availability of it. Why are all your meals not reasonably
"balanced"?

Because I live in the real world and compromises between
lifestyle and earning enough money to actually pay for the
food have to be found. I have had chronic fatigue for about
15 years and my available energy to spend preparing the
perfect diet is severely restricted. Plus I have found over
years that all manner of extreme experiments with my diet,
have made very close to zero impact on my health and
available energy levels in the long- and medium- run.
(Albeit massive short-term impact).

Your personal problems (although I sympathise with you) have
little bearing on the biochemistry of nutrition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point if you go slightly hungry even at the end of
the meal you can feel you digestion working harder to
really digest *everything* in the meal. Rather than be a
bit lazy about it and just absorb the easy stuff...

My, that's a good imagination! I've never felt
"digestion" myself.

You are either being pedantic or are from some
strange planet.

Because I have never "felt" digestion?

Quoted message said:

If one finishes a meal still very slightly hungry, for
most of us that "feels" different to eating until you feel
feel full.

Yes, one feels slightly hungry or full. Where is the
"feeling digestion" that you were referring to?

Quoted message said:

However, I've always wondered - what actually *happens* in
those of us who dont immediately get fatter - if we do eat
too many calories? Is it simply not digested and left in
the gut or what?!

Perhaps excreted, but I've not seen many measurements of
the energy excreted in human faeces. I believe it is
rather small. The concensus seems to be that this apparent
anomaly is caused by not measuring energy inputs and
outputs at all accurately. Metabolic lab studies where
these measurements can be made accurately show nothing
contravening any law of physics.

Quoted message said:

(For now I am ignoring the whole hormonal arguments
concerning, time of day of meal, Glucose Index, glucose
spikes, browsing vs. binging etc which clearly influence
the glycogen and fat storage. )

But at the end of the day, if you eat hypercalorically, you
will very likely get fat, and if you eat hypocalorically,
you will certainly lose energy stores.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:26:31 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]
posted:

Quoted message said:

Shiperton Henethe said:

However, I've always wondered - what actually *happens*
in those of us who dont immediately get fatter - if we do
eat too many calories? Is it simply not digested and left
in the gut or what?!

Your metabolism is raised to burn it off,

And what do you think happens to your body temperature? I've
not seen many resting folk burning up with a fever when they
haven't got an infection.

Quoted message said:

or it is excreted in the urine (labile proteins take this
end route for example).

Have you got any evidence for this massive excretion of
proteins in the urine without having kidney disease?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>So do you mean a normal or appropriate number of
>calories?

No, it means a calory intake that matches your calorie
needs. You will be in trouble if you try to deduce the
exact meaning of a word by studying its etymology. Try
"decimate" in its modern meaning for an example.

If we are being pedantic - and you at least are -

I'm trying to use a word as it is commonly used and you
are being obtuse by trying to deduce its meaning from
Greek roots?

Commonly used words generally appear in dictionaries.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then you are ignoring the calories wasted during
digestion.

Could you explain this "wasting"?

Not used to power the body.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thus if you only eat food containing the actual calories
you need, then you will starve.

No, by definition, you will have eaten the calories you
need. Sorry for appearing pedantic, but when I'm given an
obtuse statement to comment on....

In theory yes, but due inefficiencies in the digestive
processes, no. Digestion takes a huge amount of energy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Like I say a rather spastic pedantic point, but I
thought you'd appreciated it.

No, I take it for what it is, thankyou.

My pleasure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The question is that if you are *overall* eating an
>appropriate number of calories - is there any merit in
>eating entire meals of trace-mineral & vitamin-rich
>foods (such as green vegetables).

I would doubt that, but that's just a guess on my part.
Have you got any evidence that it does? Absorption of
micronutrients is generally fine given a reasonable
availability of it. Why are all your meals not
reasonably "balanced"?

Because I live in the real world and compromises between
lifestyle and earning enough money to actually pay for
the food have to be found. I have had chronic fatigue for
about 15 years and my available energy to spend preparing
the perfect diet is severely restricted. Plus I have
found over years that all manner of extreme experiments
with my diet, have made very close to zero impact on my
health and available energy levels in the long- and medium-
run. (Albeit massive short-term impact).

Your personal problems (although I sympathise with you)
have little bearing on the biochemistry of nutrition.

You asked me a personal question about my meals and I
answered it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The point if you go slightly hungry even at the end of
>the meal you can feel you digestion working harder to
>really digest *everything* in the meal. Rather than be
>a bit lazy about it and just absorb the easy stuff...

My, that's a good imagination! I've never felt
"digestion" myself.

You are either being pedantic or are from some strange
planet.

Because I have never "felt" digestion?

Quoted message said:

If one finishes a meal still very slightly hungry, for
most of us that "feels" different to eating until you
feel feel full.

Yes, one feels slightly hungry or full. Where is the
"feeling digestion" that you were referring to?

In my guts or if being pedantic in my brain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, I've always wondered - what actually *happens*
in those of us who dont immediately get fatter - if we do
eat too many calories? Is it simply not digested and left
in the gut or what?!

Perhaps excreted, but I've not seen many measurements of
the energy excreted in human faeces. I believe it is
rather small. The concensus seems to be that this apparent
anomaly is caused by not measuring energy inputs and
outputs at all accurately. Metabolic lab studies where
these measurements can be made accurately show nothing
contravening any law of physics.

It remains a strange fact the some people get fat on pasta
diets, whereas others dont. It's not about laws of physics
being violated, its about human hormones digestion and
physiology. It could be that the large intestines burn the
calories... It's certainly true that overeating can lead to
methane (not to mention hydrogen sulphide) production.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(For now I am ignoring the whole hormonal arguments
concerning, time of day of meal, Glucose Index, glucose
spikes, browsing vs. binging etc which clearly influence
the glycogen and fat storage. )

But at the end of the day, if you eat hypercalorically,
you will very likely get fat, and if you eat
hypocalorically, you will certainly lose energy stores.

This is overly symplistic and not true necessarily true. You
only get fat if your insulin levels are high. (Hence the
Zone Diet etc) Some people (my brother for example) actually
get thinner if they over-eat.

Ship