On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:33:10 +0100, MattLB
<[email hidden]> posted:
Quoted message said:Moosh:) said:Quoted message said:> > Could you explain this "wasting"?
> Not used to power the body.
Also known as diet-induced thermogenesis i.e.
digestion heats up the body and that heat is energy
the body has lost.
Just seen a met lab study of Atkins diet (Horizon BBC)
and there is nothing in it, nor ketone bodies in the
urine; the amounts of energy lost this way are within the
noise of the experimental error, not worth worrying
about. Trying to dissipate this amount of energy in
heating the body would cause all sorts of problems not
generally seen.
If you give two people a piece of gum to chew and one chews
it 100 times and the other only 50, obviously there is a
difference in energy expenditure.
I do hope you don't think this is significant. Look at
how many steps you must climb for a significant
expenditure of calories.
Quoted message said:It would be the same with food. A piece of steak of the
same calorific value as a piece of cake will require
more chewing.
And? It could be argued that the extra chewing is far
outweighed by the extra calories extracted from this extra
ground-up food. I truly believe that in the scheme of
things, this is just rearranging the pebbles on the ant's
nest. Are rich folk who eat tenderer meat fatter than poor
folk who eat tougher meat? Depend on the sharpness of their
knives? 🙂
Quoted message said:If they are both swallowed whole, the stomach will have to
work harder to digest the steak.
Work harder physically or chemically? Perhaps some won't
be absorbed?
Quoted message said:Whichever way you look at it high protein diets use up
more energy.
Not significantly. Try celery or apples or cocnuts from
the tree 🙂
What about milk protein? Eggs?
Quoted message said:The difference may be small, but a small difference over
time (longer than the Horizon test) can have a
significant effect.
Sorry you can't be serious? Fat obese folk chew too. Are you
really claiming that a bit of chewing is significant
exercise? What about minced (ground) beef, or melt-in-your-
mouth beef? The Horizon test showed that they just ate less
calories. Something that has been said here for years.
Quoted message said:At any rate the more energy used in digestion the less the
net gain from the food being eaten.
And when they measure it, ZILCH, sorry. Atkins' lose weight
cos they eat less calories.
Quoted message said:Depending on the external temperature the DIT can be
offset against a reduction in cold-induced thermogenesis
to seemingly lose no calories. If the external temperature
is above the thermoneutral temperature for the body,
however, the extra heat will be a problem requiring the
use of more energy in sweating.
Not many fat westerners live in 37C or above. The tropics is
usually around the 30C mark. What's DIT?
Quoted message said: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.
The calorie content of the *food* may match the daily
expenditure, but unless digestion is 100% efficient -
which it isn't - you will end up with a deficit.
If it's not 100% efficient, where do these calories go
to?
Mostly straight through or to bacteria, but also to heat.
The more churning the stomach has to do the more heat will
be produced.
You are joking. This is much of a muchness on just about any
food ingested, and totally negligible.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I'm not regarding heat production to maintain a constant
body temperature as waste.
Your body is maintaining its temperature before you eat, so
any heat from digestion is added to that.
And it turns out to be negligible. And extra heat is used to
replace other heat sources such as shivering. Most folk
spend most time trying to maintain their temp upwards.
Quoted message said:In the arctic DIT is good, at noon on the equator it isn't.
What is DIT?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Others may generate more heat and so wear T-shirts when
others are in coats.
Still dosen't get rid of much energy as heat. I know two
folks who eat pretty much the same and one is alway "hot"
and peeling off clothes, and the other is always
complaining of the cold and putting on extra clothing.
They are both overweight.
Nevertheless, the one who is comfortable in a T-shirt must
be producing more heat (assuming they both have a core temp
of 37 degrees and are equally fat). This sort of thing will
get rid of significant energy as heat as it is happening 24
hours a day. Being cold is a great way to lose weight, but
too uncomfortable to be a serious weight-loss technique.
How many calories would be in the difference?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I know it's not scientific evidence of any merit, but
from all I've read, there ain't much in it. Certainly not
in the Atkins phenomenon. *They* just eat less food.
I wasn't suggesting it had anything to do with Atkins, more
the opposite
i.e. it depends on the individual.
Sorry, depends for what? Yes individuals vary, but the
world is made of individuals and Atkins diet is claimed to
work for all.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:If their digestive system has a low absorption/digestion
capacity any extra may just end up feeding bacteria or
passing straight out again.
I suspect some of this happens, but have seen little
calorimetry of faeces.
Funny that :-)
Not really when I take into account the strange things I've
seen done in the lab with it. Fascinating, actually.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Several "experts" here claim it is very little. I do
believe that a sudden increase in fat consumption will
lead to steattorrhoea but still have no numbers. I do
know that everything IN must equal everything OUT.
Quoted message said:> > 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.
This is actually more simplistic than the original
statement. It's true that too much carbohydrate makes
you fat, but too much fat also makes you fat. The key is
what constitutes 'too much' and this is where all the
problems with diets and calories come in. For instance,
high insulin levels (due to high carbs) make you fat
*and* keep you fat, so are qualitatively worse than fats
which just make you fat, but place no restriction on fat
burning. Depending on how much is too much they may also
be quantitatively worse, despite fat having more
calories.
So are you claiming that when the body needs energy, and
all that is there is your fat store, that fat won't be
mobilised and burnt?
Fat is always being burnt, except when insulin levels are
too high.
Or conversely when glucose is normal (post prandial).
Quoted message said:Also, you will never have a situation where fat stores are
all that there are. Blood glucose levels are maintained
even if it means treating the lean tissue of your body as a
glucose store.
Well as a last resort. Yes, bg must be kept above 4
generally 5 in most folks.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Yes, but you will say that in that state, there will be
no insulin present. Of course when insulin is present, no
fat will be burned, so if that much insulin is present,
you are overeating. Gets rather circular.
That's why carbs are qualitatively worse for preventing
obesity.
Well, compare overeating fat with overeaing carb. Both
result in fat storage increase, cal for cal..
Quoted message said:If you never ate any high carb foods, blood glucose would
rarely rise high enough to cause the levels of prolonged
insulin that switch off fat burning.
Insulin does not dictate fat storage or not, does it?. It
just happens to be about when there is a lot of excess
calories about. Are you saying that excess fat in the diet
with no carbs will result in no fat storage? Good luck 🙂
Quoted message said:On such a diet fatty acids would be the energy source for
everything except brain, red blood cells and bits of the
kidney and testes.
Yes. And the effect on fat stores would be dependent on net
number of calories ingested, surely?
Quoted message said:Their requirement for constant glucose is why we have large
glycogen stores in the liver. Glucose's toxicity at high
levels is why the excess has to be stored as fat.
Just like excess fat is stored as fat. What is the
difference?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:An interesting fact to keep in mind is that all the ~30%
fat eaten in an average diet is burned each day, when the
diet is eucaloric. No matter what the insulin level is.
That average diet is presumably three meals a day,
consisting of a mixture of meat and vegetables, in which
case there will be many times during the day when insulin
levels are too low to inhibit lipolysis. An average
American teenager's diet may be rather different consisting
of multiple sugary or starchy snacks, possibly in addition
to normal meals, but possibly instead of. Either way the
blood glucose levels will be higher, so there will be more
insulin about and fat burning will low.
So all the fat they are ingesting on this eucaloric diet is
being stored? Please explain.
Quoted message said:The result: obese teenagers.
On a eucaloric diet? Are you joining TC on the calorie
theory? 🙂
Quoted message said:Given the fact that most people (who by definition must eat
the average diet) gain weight through their lives, the
average diet isn't eucaloric.
Average where? America? I agree. But I'm arguing that on a
eucaloric diet, it really doesn't matter where your calories
come from within reason. And it really doesn't matter what
this or that population actually eat.
Quoted message said:It's possible that the bulk of that 30% is burned at night
when you're asleep and unable to eat more glucose.
Doesn't matter when. In a month, it all evens out.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:If carbs were only ever stored as glycogen there'd be no
diet debates
as it's fat that everyone is bothered about and wants to
get rid of.
Well if the fat stores were limited to 2000 calories or
so, there would be no problem either.
That's true.
Quoted message said:Of course, 10,000 cal of glycogen weigh considerably more
than 10,000cal of fat.
And that's why evolution chose fat as the principal
energy store.
Yep, energy density is what counts. That's why gasoline is
so popular for the automobile.
