calories - true or false - I win

Quoted message said:

4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact biological
process that occurs in the human body that triggers fat
storage or fat usage in direct response to calorie
intake. How does the body respond to a low-calorie diet
to cause it to burn fat and how does it respond to a
high-calorie diet that causes the body to store fat and
how does it know what state it is in. I want the basic
metabolic pathways, the specific bio-chemical responses
and the trigger mechanism that causes the fat cells to
store or burn fat.

Well, I do not mean to be offensive (in the end, I am
practicing LC), but one things makes me wander: once fat
is absorbed from food to blood (using chylomicrons AFAIK)
and there is no insulin response to it, what do you think
it happens to it? Certainly it is NOT circulating in
blood forever. Some of it is used to build body
substances, OK, but if your intake is higher than is
needed, what happens to it?

Mirek

Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about
"calories - true or false - I win." Our champion De-
Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

1) The name(s) of the seminal study or series of studies
that established once and for all that calories are
directly applicable to the typical human in terms of
weight gain or loss.

I do believe it is called using your brain for something
other than a hat rack.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact
biological process that occurs in the human body that
triggers fat storage or fat usage in direct response
to calorie intake. How does the body respond to a low-
calorie diet to cause it to burn fat and how does it
respond to a high-calorie diet that causes the body
to store fat and how does it know what state it is
in. I want the basic metabolic pathways, the specific
bio-chemical responses and the trigger mechanism that
causes the fat cells to store or burn fat.

Well, I do not mean to be offensive (in the end, I am
practicing LC), but one things makes me wander: once fat
is absorbed from food to blood (using chylomicrons AFAIK)
and there is no insulin response to it, what do you think
it happens to it? Certainly it is NOT circulating in
blood forever. Some of it is used to build body
substances, OK, but if your intake is higher than is
needed, what happens to it?

Mirek

That is one of the questions I would like answered.

Does it get stored in fat cells just because it is there in
the blood stream to begin with? Is there a specific bio-
chemical trigger that causes fat storage or are our fat
cells just like dumb sponges, absorbing dietary fat just
because it exists in the blood?

Does the body use dietary fats in the exact same way (ie.
exactly 9 kcal/g for fats) in every possible physical state
such as various states of hunger and/or starvation or
satiation, extreme exertion or sedentaryness, hormonal
fluctuations, physical stress, mental stress, hydration or
de-hydration, excessive carbs or restricted carbs, excessive
fat or restricted fats, excessive protein or restricted
protein, etc?

The thought that somehow the body is a passive receptacle
that breaks down the three macro-nutrients to the exact same
basic energy values (4 cal/g for protein and carbs and 9
kcal/g for fats) in every possible state thru-out the day,
day-in and day-out, regardless of the multitudinous possible
states of the body in the real world, seems kinda overly-
simplistic not to mention evolutionarily silly.

Especially in the light that there doesn't appear to be any
readily accessible scientific evidence or proof of this. You
would think that the proof would be available and taught in
every basic nutrition class, but even the advanced
university textbooks offer no proof, no specific studies, no
founding researchers, no specific eureka moment, no nothing.
I guess it is kinda like religion: have faith... we know of
what we speak even if we can't actually explain it to you in
scientific terms and we have no real proof to support it.

TC

You lose, as for questions 1 and 2, do your own homework. To confess here
your ignorance on the topic is not proof that the calorie model is in the
least wrong 1 and 2 are like asking someone to prove by historical
discorse that the germ theory of disease is correct before you take a shot
of antibotic for a bacteria infection. Question 3 was provided for you
previously, here it is again:

For a look at why there is a range of outcomes in weight
status for calorie restricted states:

medscape.com469768 3Open ↗

For a current discussion of the overall view of diets and
the science behind them:

medscape.com469768Open ↗
medscape.com470747Open ↗

The above has a reference section, which will answer your
questions if you want follow up info in greater detail; and
one would not be surprised if the historical path you seek
is included. The above requires a one time free
subscription. As for you having to "prove" anything, in your
previous missives you not only ask questions but conclude
that because you are ignorant of the answers that calorie
balance has nothing to do with weight status, it is good to
see you have now abandoned that faulty line of logic and
resumed a posture more in line with your current level of
knowledge on the subject.

Quoted message said:

Can someone please provide this information: > >1) The
name(s) of the

seminal study or series of studies that >established once
and for all that calories are directly applicable to >the
typical human in terms of weight gain or loss. > >2) The
names(s) of the ground breaking researcher(s) that came up
with >this breakthrough finding. > >or > >3) The definitive
proof to support the calorie concept in any form

Quoted message said:

whatsoever. > >or > >4) A clear and precise explanation of

the exact biological process >that occurs in the human body
that triggers fat storage or fat usage >in direct response
to calorie intake. How does the body respond to a >low-
calorie diet to cause it to burn fat and how does it respond
to a >high-calorie diet that causes the body to store fat
and how does it >know what state it is in. I want the basic
metabolic pathways, the >specific bio-chemical responses and
the trigger mechanism that causes >the fat cells to store or
burn fat. > >BTW, I am not challenging or attempting to
subvert the laws of >thermodynamics, I am just interested in
the scientific proof behind

Quoted message said:

the caloric values of foods and its direct application in
fat storage >or

usage in the human body. Again, this should be easy. It just

Quoted message said:

happens to be the most basic foundation of the modern

science of >nutrition. > >And for those of you who troll
around demanding proof against the >calorie theory, you guys
can just FOAD. > >TC

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

Quoted message said:

Can someone please provide this information:

1)> 2) The names(s) of the ground breaking researcher(s)
that came up with this breakthrough finding.

or

3) The definitive proof to support the calorie concept in
any form whatsoever.

or

4) A clear and precise explanation of the exact biological
process that occurs in the human body that triggers fat
storage or fat usage in direct response to calorie
intake. How does the body respond to a low-calorie diet
to cause it to burn fat and how does it respond to a
high-calorie diet that causes the body to store fat and
how does it know what state it is in. I want the basic
metabolic pathways, the specific bio-chemical responses
and the trigger mechanism that causes the fat cells to
store or burn fat.

TC

TC: A serious response to 4:

You are talking about a very complex and ADAPTIVE multi-loop
system, so I would not hold your breath while waiting for a
concise and easy answer.

As you well know, the 'energy in' to 'energy out' balance
must account for losses of energy by muscle work done;
excretion via bowel, kidneys and lungs; radiant and
convectional losses; variations in metabolic rate (body
temperature); storage and growth mechanisms (anabolism,
catabolism); and importantly, time, as it affects the above.
ie seasonal effects on all of the above such as activity,
food availability, day length etc. which cause adaptations
in many metabolic control loops.

Nevertheless if you are truly interested getting an
understanding of these processes, (which I by no means claim
to have, by the way) I would refer you to my bottom line
source. Please spend some time with Professor Mitch Lewis at
Upenn. His detailed course notes on Intermediary Metabolism
cover, as far as I can see, all of the energy homeostasis
processes which may interest you. This includes lipolysis,
lipogenesis, glycolysis, glycogenesis, gluconeogenesis,
catabolysis, anabolysis. He combines charts and description
in an excellent clear manner, (considering the complexity of
the subject).

The trick seems to be recognizing that the three forms of
energy are readily interchangeable depending on nutritional
status. Various biochemical processes themselves seem to be
more or less efficient therefore affecting the resting
metabolic rate. My own view is that there may be at least be
some short to medium term advantages (energy inefficiencies)
in very low carb nutrition, but that if the body perceives
itself to be 'starving' it will eventually put itself into
economy mode and terminate them. I think this may be done by
the central nervous system. The trick here to extending the
advantages, may be in convincing the body that it is not
starving. Adequate exercise will probably make this point
less critical for many of us. 🙂 TC I have to tell you
though, that over the long haul, I believe the conservation
of energy principle applies to body weight. Energy and mass
are related. (Einstein said it best: e=mc^2)

This material is not a casual read. Only begin if you really
want to know.
🙂
snowwhite.med.upenn.edumetabolism.htmOpen ↗ You can
scan any of the topics such independently, as Fatty Acid
Oxidation' or 'Fatty Acid Synthesis' , but in my opinion its
better to read the prerequisites for each topic before
proceeding.

Thoughtful comments or information welcomed.

Good luck.

Mike V

Moosh. Please be advised: It's far too long for your
attention span. Don't even think about it. (requires longer
than 15 seconds to digest and dismiss)
:-}

Quoted message said:

the resting metabolic rate. My own view is that there may
be at least

be

Quoted message said:

some short to medium term advantages (energy
inefficiencies) in very

low

Quoted message said:

carb nutrition, but that if the body perceives itself to
be 'starving'

it

Quoted message said:

will eventually put itself into economy mode and
terminate them.

Actually, this is what low-carbers seem to experience
quite often.

Also, fact that if you are going LC for the first time, you
losse weight much faster than if you are repeating process
would indicate that initially, body is not adapted to
burning fat and process is ineffective - later it becomes
more effective and advantage disappears too - it also seems
that ketosis levels drop quite fast too.

There are also "body confusion" theories (or perhaps
myths), that if you stall for a long time, it could be a
good idea to go "off-plan" for day or two. Quite often it
breaks the stall.

Anyway, mere fact that there ARE stalls indicates that
"calorie is a calorie" concept is not universal truth. And,
btw, stalls do not seem to be typical only for LC diets.

Quoted message said:

snowwhite.med.upenn.edumetabolism.htmOpen ↗
You can scan any of the topics such independently, as
Fatty Acid

Oxidation'

Quoted message said:

or 'Fatty Acid Synthesis' , but in my opinion its better
to read the prerequisites for each topic before
proceeding.

Thoughtful comments or information welcomed.

Good luck.

Mike V

Moosh. Please be advised: It's far too long for your
attention span.

Don't

Quoted message said:

even think about it. (requires longer than 15 seconds to
digest and

dismiss)

Quoted message said:

:-}

Thank you for tips and excellent post.

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

Actually, this is what low-carbers seem to experience
quite often.

There is no "economy mode" compatible with life.

The body needs a certain amount of energy to operate,
period. While fasting and starvation can induce some energy-
sparing reactions in the body, none of them are compatible
with a normal state of health--the person is still starving,
and if food isn't forthcoming soon, death will result. The
notion that human beings can go for months or years in some
sort of magic energy-saving mode that allows them to eat
virtually nothing without losing weight is a pure fantasy.
Look at any country where people _really aren't_ eating
anything, and you'll see how quickly they die. People in
developed countries who "eat nothing but still don't lose
weight" are either very incompetent at counting calories or
are lying to themselves and everyone else about how much
they actually eat.

Quoted message said:

... initially, body is not adapted to burning fat and
process is ineffective - later it becomes more effective
and advantage disappears too - it also seems that ketosis
levels drop quite fast too.

The body learns to burn fat within a couple hours, since the
alternative is death from starvation. It doesn't need to
adapt to anything over longer periods. All these mechanisms
are built in, and they work very well.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, mere fact that there ARE stalls indicates that
"calorie is a calorie" concept is not universal truth.

No, it's an indication of how incompetent or dishonest some
people are when they try to count calories.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, this is what low-carbers seem to experience
quite often.

There is no "economy mode" compatible with life.

The body needs a certain amount of energy to operate,
period. While fasting and starvation can induce some energy-
sparing reactions in the body, none of them are compatible
with a normal state of health--the person is still
starving, and if food isn't forthcoming soon, death

will

Quoted message said:

result.

That is certainly true, but how is it related?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... initially, body is not adapted to burning fat and
process is ineffective - later it becomes more effective
and advantage

disappears

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

too - it also seems that ketosis levels drop quite
fast too.

The body learns to burn fat within a couple hours,
since the

alternative

Quoted message said:

is death from starvation.

Oh, I never heard that couple hours of starvation causes
death. Any references ? 🙂

Quoted message said:

It doesn't need to adapt to anything over longer
periods. All these mechanisms are built in, and they
work very well.

Well, I am speaking about experience. Of course, anecdotal
experience is not a proven fact, but when theory does not
match practice, theory is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyway, mere fact that there ARE stalls indicates that
"calorie is a calorie" concept is not universal truth.

No, it's an indication of how incompetent or dishonest
some people are when they try to count calories.

[censored]. If somebody after loosing 30lbs stalls without
changing anything in regime and tries everything to break
the stall, honest counting is one first things he does - and
often easiest.

Ignoring reality is not a way to do a good science.

That said, there is plenty of possible explanations of
stalls even withing "calorie" theory - one being that fat is
in cells replaced by water until finally dropped.

Mirek

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

Quoted message said:

Mirek Fidler said:

Actually, this is what low-carbers seem to experience
quite often.

There is no "economy mode" compatible with life.

The body needs a certain amount of energy to operate,
period. While fasting and starvation can induce some energy-
sparing reactions in the body, none of them are compatible
with a normal state of health--the person is still
starving, and if food isn't forthcoming soon, death will
result. The notion that human beings can go for months or
years in some sort of magic energy-saving mode that allows
them to eat virtually nothing without losing weight is a
pure fantasy. Look at any country where people _really
aren't_ eating anything, and you'll see how quickly they
die. People in developed countries who "eat nothing but
still don't lose weight" are either very incompetent at
counting calories or are lying to themselves and everyone
else about how much they actually eat.

Quoted message said:

... initially, body is not adapted to burning fat and
process is ineffective - later it becomes more effective
and advantage disappears too - it also seems that
ketosis levels drop quite fast too.

The body learns to burn fat within a couple hours, since
the alternative is death from starvation. It doesn't need
to adapt to anything over longer periods. All these
mechanisms are built in, and they work very well.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, mere fact that there ARE stalls indicates that
"calorie is a calorie" concept is not universal truth.

No, it's an indication of how incompetent or dishonest
some people are when they try to count calories.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to
reach me directly.

Please reconsider your position on the body's ability to
regulate its energy homeostasis as a function of food
availability, fasting. Offering evidence below. Famine and
seasonal fluctuations have been around for most of human
existence, and the metabolic survival strategy has been to
store as much fat as possible during good times, and to
economize in bad times. I submit that 'famine' may be part
of the ideal healthy CR lifestyle. :-} (also helps to
explain why modern humans have an obesity problem.) MikeV

Physiol Behav. 2001 Nov-Dec;74(4-5):683-701. Related
Articles, Links

The hypothalamus and the control of energy homeostasis:
different circuits, different purposes.

Williams G, Bing C, Cai XJ, Harrold JA, King PJ, Liu XH.

Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Group, Department of
Medicine, University of Liverpool, Duncan Building, Daulby
Street, L69 3GA, Liverpool, UK. [email hidden]

The hypothalamus regulates many aspects of energy
homeostasis, adjusting both the drive to eat and the
expenditure of energy in response to a wide range of
nutritional and other signals. It is becoming clear that
various neural circuits operate to different degrees and
probably serve specific functions under particular
conditions of altered feeding behaviour. This review will
discuss this functional diversity by illustrating
hypothalamic neurones that express neuropeptide Y (NPY), the
melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4-R) and the orexins. NPY
neurones in the arcuate nucleus (ARC) release NPY, a
powerful inducer of feeding and obesity, in the
paraventricular nucleus (PVN) and the lateral hypothalamic
area (LHA). ARC-NPY neurones are inhibited by leptin and
insulin and become overactive when levels of these hormones
fall during undernutrition. They may function
physiologically to protect against starvation. With
disruption of the inhibitory leptin signals due to gene
mutations, the NPY neurones are overactive, which
contributes to hyperphagia and obesity in the ob/ob and
db/db mice and fa/fa Zucker rat. The MC4-R is activated by
alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone [alpha-MSH; a cleavage
product of pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC), which is expressed
in the other ARC neurones] and inhibits feeding. This effect
is antagonised by agouti gene-related peptide (AGRP), which
is coexpressed by the ARC-NPY neurones only. Activation of
MC4-R, possibly mediated by blockade of AGRP release,
appears to restrain overeating of a palatable diet. This
response may be programmed by a transient rise in leptin
soon after presentation of palatable food, and rats that
fail to do this will overeat and become obese. Orexin-A and
-B (corresponding to hypocretins 1 and 2) are expressed in
specific LHA neurones. These have extensive reciprocal
connections with many areas involved in appetite control,
including the nucleus of the solitary tracts (NTS), which
relays vagal afferent satiety signals from the viscera.
Orexin neurones also have close anatomical connections with
LHA glucose-sensitive neurones. Orexin-A induces acute
feeding but does not cause obesity. Orexin neurones are
stimulated by hypoglycaemia partly via the NTS and inhibited
by food ingestion. These neurones may therefore be involved
in the severe hyperphagia of hypoglycaemia and short-term
control of feeding.

Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial

PMID: 11790431 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Mirek Fidler said:

That is certainly true, but how is it related?

It's related in that nobody undergoes massive changes in
metabolism as a result of fasting or starvation. The body
requires x calories to operate because x-y calories isn't
enough; it cannot magically reconfigure to survive on x-y
calories, because if it could, it wouldn't be using x
calories in the first place.

Temporary reductions in calorie requirements as a response
to fasting and starvation are desperate measures to
conserve energy and cannot be sustained for more than a
short time. They are _temporary_, and they do not occur
except in the most extreme conditions (such as never eating
anything at all). They always produce serious side effects.
They have no role in normal weight loss. Fat people who
claim that their metabolism grinds to a halt when they go
on a hypocaloric diet are indulging a baseless fantasy, and
making excuses to cover the fact that they really aren't on
a hypocaloric diet to begin with (that is, they are eating
a lot more than they claim).

Quoted message said:

Oh, I never heard that couple hours of starvation
causes death.

Because it never occurs, except in people who already have
no fat stores to burn. As long as there is some fat to burn,
the body will burn that as required to maintain life. When
all fat is exhausted, the body turns to protein, burning
away skeletal muscles and finally resorting to essential
muscles such as the heart and diaphraghm, at which point
death occurs, if it hasn't already. This last stage is quite
short, since burning away muscle protein doesn't provide
much energy for long.

Someone with lots of fat on board can live for many months
while eating almost nothing, although some species of
malnutrition is likely to develop along the way.

Quoted message said:

Well, I am speaking about experience. Of course, anecdotal
experience is not a proven fact, but when theory does not
match practice, theory is wrong.

My experience supports everything I've said. Now what?

Quoted message said:

[censored]. If somebody after loosing 30lbs stalls without
changing anything in regime and tries everything to break
the stall, honest counting is one first things he does -
and often easiest.

He just has to reduce calories until weight loss resumes.
And it will.

Quoted message said:

Ignoring reality is not a way to do a good science.

It's a great way to rationalize being fat, though.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Mike V said:

Please reconsider your position on the body's ability to
regulate its energy homeostasis as a function of food
availability, fasting. Offering evidence below.

Nothing in the abstract you provide is relevant to the
discussion. There is no mention of durable and significant
changes in metabolism being induced by fasting or starvation
that I can see.

Quoted message said:

Famine and seasonal fluctuations have been around for most
of human existence, and the metabolic survival strategy
has been to store as much fat as possible during good
times, and to economize in bad times.

And during a famine, people burn fat, lose weight, and (if
the famine continues for too long) die of starvation.

Why is it that all the people who "just can't lose weigh"
live in countries where food is plentiful? There never seems
to be any fat people around during a true famine. Why not,
if the body is so capable of dramatically altering its
metabolism?

Quoted message said:

I submit that 'famine' may be part of the ideal healthy CR
lifestyle.

Perhaps you'll have a chance to live through one sometime.
Think how healthy you'll be!

Or you can simply stop eating and simulate one yourself.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach
me directly.

Quoted message said:

Temporary reductions in calorie requirements as a response
to fasting and starvation are desperate measures to
conserve energy and cannot be sustained for more than a
short time. They are _temporary_, and they

do

Define short time.... If it is something like several months
to year, I can agree.

I think you are wastly oversimplifying. There is a lot of
things that body can do to preserve energy before it will
start breaking muscle.

Just try to google: "Metabolic slowdown". You will get a lot
of advertising, but also a couple of scientific articles
too. Read.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, I am speaking about experience. Of course,
anecdotal

experience is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not a proven fact, but when theory does not match
practice, theory

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wrong.

My experience supports everything I've said. Now what?

And where your experience comes from?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored]. If somebody after loosing 30lbs stalls without
changing anything in regime and tries everything to
break the stall, honest counting is one first things he
does - and often easiest.

He just has to reduce calories until weight loss
resumes. And it

will.

So how is it possible when the same calories before stall
resulted in in weight loss ?

Well, I would say that e.g. BMR is now lower than it was
before, but according to your theory, there are no
differences in BMR, so perhaps you will give me another
exlanation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ignoring reality is not a way to do a good science.

It's a great way to rationalize being fat, though.

Oh, most of these things happen or happened to people that
are not fat anymore... It not something like "Well, my body
wants to be fat, I can do nothing with it", these reports
are most likely "Hey, I stalled for two months, nothing
helped, so I have changed XY for two days and stall was
broken. Now I am thin".

You should also consider opposite side: gaining. Following
your theory of always constant BMR, one eating only 300kcal
more / day should constantly gain the weight - but that
never happens. It takes quite a lot effort to bulk to
extreme, like sumo fighters would tell you.

Mirek

Quoted message said:

And during a famine, people burn fat, lose weight, and (if
the famine continues for too long) die of starvation.

You think the body is so stupid? There are hundreds of
processes in body that can be slowed down to conserve energy
before breaking heart muscle.

You can also try to google: "thyroid" and "hypothyroidism"

Quoted message said:

Why is it that all the people who "just can't lose weigh"
live in countries where food is plentiful? There never
seems to be any fat people around during a true famine.
Why not, if the body is so

capable

Quoted message said:

of dramatically altering its metabolism?

Irrelevant. We are speaking about stalls and their relation
to metabolic slowdown during weight loss.

Mirek

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And during a famine, people burn fat, lose weight, and
(if the famine continues for too long) die of
starvation.

You think the body is so stupid? There are hundreds of
processes in body that can be slowed down to conserve
energy before breaking heart muscle.

You can also try to google: "thyroid" and "hypothyroidism"

Quoted message said:

Why is it that all the people who "just can't lose
weigh" live in countries where food is plentiful? There
never seems to be any fat people around during a true
famine. Why not, if the body is so

capable

Quoted message said:

of dramatically altering its metabolism?

Irrelevant. We are speaking about stalls and their
relation to metabolic slowdown during weight loss.

Mirek

Mirek: Mr Manic seems to have missed the context of your
comments (on my response to TC's Item 4). He apparently
wants a different 'discussion'. I'm retiring. MikeV

tcomeau said:

1) The name(s) of the seminal study or series of studies
that established once and for all that calories are
directly applicable to the typical human in terms of
weight gain or loss.

Because fat is how excess energy is stored, and thus the
greater the caloric intake the greater the stored energy. If
it didn't work this way we would all starve and have never
survived early man. On a related note, carbs are stored as
glycogen and amino acids as labile proteins. Thus those two
storage devices are also related to the relevant intakes,
studies can be found on these readily.

Of course these are not the only factors, for example
exercise causes insulin-independent receptors to rise to the
surfaces of cells which allows greater glycogen storage,
supercompensation, and thus a caloric surplus will go to
enhancing glycogen stores rather than fat after rigerous
exercise which significntly depleted glycogen stores, same
thing for protein synthesis.

The complicated part is realizing that the calories your
body obtains from food are not the same as what is listed on
foods as this assumes 100% energy breakdown and your body is
more efficient at certain types, excess carbs are stored as
fat much more readily than protein for example as it take
more energy to turn amino acids into fats, and they are
inherently metabolism boosting unlike carbs which have the
opposite effect.

Then there are the satiety effects, the influence on
digestion of fibre, etc. .

--
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

Mirek Fidler said:

once fat is absorbed from food to blood (using
chylomicrons AFAIK) and there is no insulin response to
it, what do you think it happens to it? Certainly it is
NOT circulating in blood forever. Some of it is used to
build body substances, OK, but if your intake is higher
than is needed, what happens to it?

Depending on the diet (fibre intake), it can be readily
edjected into the stool. Of course it can also go to fat
cells depending on the type of fat, some like the Omega-3's,
DHA, EPA and ketogenic MCT's are not stored nearly as
readily as long chain saturates.

--
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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

once fat is absorbed from food to blood (using
chylomicrons AFAIK)

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there is no insulin response to it, what do you think it
happens to

it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Certainly it is NOT circulating in blood forever. Some
of it is used

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

build body substances, OK, but if your intake is higher
than is

needed,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what happens to it?

Depending on the diet (fibre intake), it can be readily
edjected into

the

Quoted message said:

stool.

You think that it can go back from blood to stool?!

Never heard about that...

Or do you think that chylomicrons full off fat circulating
in blood, or ketosis, somewhat prevent fat absorbtion?

Quoted message said:

Of course it can also go to fat cells depending on the
type of fat, some like the Omega-3's, DHA, EPA and
ketogenic MCT's are not stored

nearly

Quoted message said:

as readily as long chain saturates.

Yes, but in the end, it must end somewhere ?

Mirek

Mirek Fidler said:

You think that it can go back from blood to stool?!

Never heard about that...

Or do you think that chylomicrons full off fat circulating
in blood, or ketosis, somewhat prevent fat absorbtion?

Indirectly, if you go on a vew low calorie diet you will
note constipation readily because your body will act to
minimize any waste and thus squeeze and last bit of energy
out of the food. If you are eating in an excess, with high
TG levels your body will be much more slack in absorbing
energy and thus more will be lost.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Of course it can also go to fat cells depending on the
type of fat, some like the Omega-3's, DHA, EPA and
ketogenic MCT's are not stored nearly as readily as long
chain saturates.

Yes, but in the end, it must end somewhere ?

It can be lost in the urine, this is what happens to labile
proteins, keytones etc. .

--
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

Quoted message said:

and last bit of energy out of the food. If you are
eating in an

excess, with

Quoted message said:

high TG levels your body will be much more slack in
absorbing energy

and

Quoted message said:

thus more will be lost.

Not exactly argument favoring ketogenic diet 🙂 (Low TG
levels seem to "trademark" of high-fat diet).

Mirek