thoughts on Metabolism

Pat said:

"It may seem logical to think that significant weight gain or being
overweight is related to a very low rate of metabolism or possibly
even a condition such as an underactive thyroid gland. In reality,
it's very uncommon for low metabolism to be the cause of excess
weight".

True, only because it says "significant" and "cause". Some weight
gain is due to slow metabolism. Low metabolism is a factor in gaining
excess weight.

Quoted message said:

"Lean body mass is a major factor in determining a person's basal
metabolic rate. More calories are burned by the body to support
muscle tissue than are burned to support fat".

True, but not significant. Latest word is that it's only 6 kcal/day
per lb lean tissue, although my math still has 21 kcals/kg lean vs 4.4
kcals/kg fat.

*Using* that lean tissue burns lots of calories though.

Quoted message said:

"Generally, people who are overweight carry 20 percent to 35 percent
of that excess weight as lean tissue. In other words, as people gain
weight, they not only gain fat but they also gain lean tissue to
support the fat".

True. It's not muscle though, it's more like connective tissue.

Quoted message said:

"So, contrary to popular belief, an increase in body size actually
increases your basal metabolic rate, mostly due to the lean tissue
gained to support the fat".

I'd disagree with "mostly" but otherwise true. With 3-4x fat than
lean, that's 40-45% of the extra calories coming from fat tissue and
the rest from lean supportive tissue (the old 21 kcal/kg/day number).
More if you believe the newer 6 kc/kg/day number for lean tissue (more
likely since it's connective tissue).

Now, moving all that extra weight around burns more calories too, and
*that* is muscle work.

Quoted message said:

"Your ability to change your basal metabolism is limited. However,
you can increase daily activity, which not only helps you burn more
calories, but also promotes lean body tissue, which burns more
calories than does fat".

True. Diet and activity are by far the best way to control your
weight, with IMHO activity being slightly better.

Pat said:

"It may seem logical to think that significant weight gain or being
overweight is related to a very low rate of metabolism or possibly
even a condition such as an underactive thyroid gland. In reality,
it's very uncommon for low metabolism to be the cause of excess
weight".

True, only because it says "significant" and "cause". Some weight
gain is due to slow metabolism. Low metabolism is a factor in gaining
excess weight.

Quoted message said:

"Lean body mass is a major factor in determining a person's basal
metabolic rate. More calories are burned by the body to support
muscle tissue than are burned to support fat".

True, but not significant. Latest word is that it's only 6 kcal/day
per lb lean tissue, although my math still has 21 kcals/kg lean vs 4.4
kcals/kg fat.

*Using* that lean tissue burns lots of calories though.

Quoted message said:

"Generally, people who are overweight carry 20 percent to 35 percent
of that excess weight as lean tissue. In other words, as people gain
weight, they not only gain fat but they also gain lean tissue to
support the fat".

True. It's not muscle though, it's more like connective tissue.

Quoted message said:

"So, contrary to popular belief, an increase in body size actually
increases your basal metabolic rate, mostly due to the lean tissue
gained to support the fat".

I'd disagree with "mostly" but otherwise true. With 3-4x fat than
lean, that's 40-45% of the extra calories coming from fat tissue and
the rest from lean supportive tissue (the old 21 kcal/kg/day number).
More if you believe the newer 6 kc/kg/day number for lean tissue (more
likely since it's connective tissue).

Now, moving all that extra weight around burns more calories too, and
*that* is muscle work.

Quoted message said:

"Your ability to change your basal metabolism is limited. However,
you can increase daily activity, which not only helps you burn more
calories, but also promotes lean body tissue, which burns more
calories than does fat".

True. Diet and activity are by far the best way to control your
weight, with IMHO activity being slightly better.

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

Quoted message said:

True, but not significant. Latest word is that it's only 6 kcal/day
per lb lean tissue, although my math still has 21 kcals/kg lean vs 4.4
kcals/kg fat.

That's intersting. Do you have a reference or URL ?

Take care,
Hamburger
320/280/220

Hamburger said:

Quoted message said:

True, but not significant. Latest word is that it's only 6 kcal/day
per lb lean tissue, although my math still has 21 kcals/kg lean vs 4.4
kcals/kg fat.

That's intersting. Do you have a reference or URL ?

Sorry, no. I remember the numbers but they're not *that* important to
me that I need to keep the references ;-)

: "Hamburger" <[email hidden]> writes:
: > > True, but not significant. Latest word is that it's only 6 kcal/day
: > > per lb lean tissue, although my math still has 21 kcals/kg lean vs 4.4
: > > kcals/kg fat.
: >
: > That's intersting. Do you have a reference or URL ?

: Sorry, no. I remember the numbers but they're not *that* important to
: me that I need to keep the references ;-)

So, I guess you don't mind that in the meantime if I believe the doctors at
the Mayo Clinic instead of you, eh?

Pat in TX

Pat said:

So, I guess you don't mind that in the meantime if I believe the
doctors at the Mayo Clinic instead of you, eh?

Only if you think they've read the latest studies. At least I *admit*
that I might be wrong; doctors are often wrong even when they proclaim
(and even believe) they're right.

If you're doing to be paranoid, at least be consistently paranoid.
Remember, these are the same doctors that told us low fat/high carb
diets were healthy.

: "Pat" <[email hidden]> writes:
: > So, I guess you don't mind that in the meantime if I believe the
: > doctors at the Mayo Clinic instead of you, eh?
:
: Only if you think they've read the latest studies. At least I *admit*
: that I might be wrong; doctors are often wrong even when they proclaim
: (and even believe) they're right.
:
: If you're doing to be paranoid, at least be consistently paranoid.
: Remember, these are the same doctors that told us low fat/high carb
: diets were healthy.

You've made 3 assumptions here:
1.) the doctors who wrote the study and who work at the Mayo Clinic
"probably" haven't read the latest studies. Why on earth would you think
that? Have you seen any evidence to make you think that of this particular
topic in this particular newsletter? Or do you just like to run down the
medical profession?
2.) that doctors are "often wrong when they proclaim they are right" and
therefore we should believe you instead because you admit you might be
wrong. What the heck is this kind of "logic"? You don't even cite your
evidence because you "can't remember" and yet you want people to believe you
over a medically trained person?
3.) that these are the "same doctors"? Where is your proof that the doctors
who wrote this article in the July issue of the Mayo Clinic Health Letter
are the "same" as the "doctors that told us low fat/high carb diets were
healthy"? Generalities won't do it. I can ask you to prove that these
authors are the "same doctors" and you will just say, "I can't remember".

So, either put up the proof behind your assertions or once again, admit you
are wrong. Because all you are doing is blowing smoke and asking people to
believe you over doctors in a respected publication because....you often
admit you may be wrong.

Pat in TX

Pat said:

You've made 3 assumptions here:

No, I haven't. You just think I have.

Quoted message said:

1.) the doctors who wrote the study and who work at the Mayo Clinic
"probably" haven't read the latest studies.

I didn't say that.

Quoted message said:

Why on earth would you think that?

I don't think that. I said that *you* could believe them if *you*
thought they reflect the latest studies.

Quoted message said:

Have you seen any evidence to make you think that of this particular
topic in this particular newsletter?

No, nor did I claim any.

Quoted message said:

Or do you just like to run down the medical profession?

I don't "like" to run them down but I've seen far too many cases with
my own doctors to just *assume* they know what they're talking about.

Quoted message said:

2.) that doctors are "often wrong when they proclaim they are right"

Based on personal experience, yes.

Quoted message said:

and therefore we should believe you instead

I never said that.

Quoted message said:

because you admit you might be wrong.

That's a reason to *not* believe me.

Quoted message said:

What the heck is this kind of "logic"?

Hey, I'm not the one drawing false conclusions. I said what I said;
you're the one putting the spin on it.

Quoted message said:

You don't even cite your evidence because you "can't remember" and
yet you want people to believe you over a medically trained person?

What, you expect me to remember EVERYTHING I ever hear, including
where and when I heard it? Get a life. This is Usenet, not the New
England Journal of Medicine, and I'm a software engineer, not a
medical researcher. I heard (or read) something in passing, and
brought it up when it was topical, and you want references? Sorry,
no.

Quoted message said:

3.) that these are the "same doctors"? Where is your proof that the doctors
who wrote this article in the July issue of the Mayo Clinic Health Letter
are the "same" as the "doctors that told us low fat/high carb diets were
healthy"? Generalities won't do it.

That *was* a generalization. It wasn't the neurosurgeons telling us
about diets, and it wasn't the ER doctors. It was the *gasp*
nutrition specialists.

Quoted message said:

I can ask you to prove that these authors are the "same doctors" and
you will just say, "I can't remember".

Now you're just being silly.

Quoted message said:

So, either put up the proof behind your assertions or once again,
admit you are wrong.

I will not admit that I *am* wrong because I don't know that I *am*
wrong. I already admitted that I *might* be wrong, but then, anyone
*might* be wrong. You might be wrong. The doctors might be wrong.

Quoted message said:

Because all you are doing is blowing smoke and asking people to
believe you over doctors in a respected publication because....you
often admit you may be wrong.

I never said you should believe me over any doctors. I merely
suggested that you don't blindly believe anyone - you should consider
how reliable their information is, compare it with other sources, and
USE YOUR OWN DAMN BRAIN to decide what to believe.

Welcome to Usenet, the worlds biggest gossip room.

Pat said:

these are quotes from the Mayo Clinic Health Letter, July 2005

"It may seem logical to think that significant weight gain or being
overweight is related to a very low rate of metabolism or possibly even a
condition such as an underactive thyroid gland. In reality, it's very
uncommon for low metabolism to be the cause of excess weight".

logical, very low, possibily even, very, excess. This statement
is so heavily qualified it bearly means anything. Chuckle.

Quoted message said:

"Lean body mass is a major factor in determining a person's basal metabolic
rate. More calories are burned by the body to support muscle tissue than
are burned to support fat".

Thus the stress on exercise. Check.

Quoted message said:

"Your ability to change your basal metabolism is limited.

While this is true, exactly how relevant it is becomes a
question.

Human metabolism can vary from around 1000 to over 3000
calories per day. It depends on amount of food available,
level of activity, external temperature and all sorts of
other factors. That means that your ability to change your
basal metabolism (given the knowledge how and the means to
do so) is actually very large.

Note that my qualification (given the knowledge how and
the means to do so) is important. How many have the
knowledge? This newsgroup discusses hormones insulin,
glucagon, thyriod T3, leptin and several others yet few
know how to influence their own levels. That leaves us
with level of activity:

Quoted message said:

However, you can
increase daily activity, which not only helps you burn more calories, but
also promotes lean body tissue, which burns more calories than does fat".

Check.

But folks can also influence other control factors once
they know about the hormones mentioned above. All it takes
is changing resting metabolism a couple hundred calories
per day and it makes a big difference in losing vs gaining.
The quote ignores this skill issue.

Hi DJ Delorie,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True, but not significant. Latest word is that it's only 6 kcal/day
per lb lean tissue, although my math still has 21 kcals/kg lean vs 4.4
kcals/kg fat.

That's intersting. Do you have a reference or URL ?

Sorry, no. I remember the numbers but they're not *that* important to
me that I need to keep the references ;-)

OK, so I had to f***ing google it myself ...

I finally found this reference:

http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/9/5/331

This article gives a revised formular for resting energy expenditure (REE) :

REE = 200 x liver + 240 + brain + 440 x heart
+ 440 x kidneys + 13 x sceletal muscle
+ 4.5 x adipose tissue + 12 x miscellaneous tissues

where REE is in kilocalories per day;
individual tissue/organ mass is in kilograms;
and the coefficients are the resting metabolic rates
of individual tissues and organs in kilocalories per kilogram per day.

13 kcal/day per kg of sceletal muscle = 5.9 kcal/day per lb. of sceletal
muscle

Take care,
Hamburger

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

Quoted message said:

This newsgroup discusses hormones insulin,
glucagon, thyriod T3, leptin and several others yet few
know how to influence their own levels.

Insulin I can manage. How do I influence the others?

Nicky.

--
A1c 10.5/4.5/<6 T2 DX 05/2004
1g Metformin, 100ug Thyroxine
95/76/72Kg

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nicky said:

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

Quoted message said:

This newsgroup discusses hormones insulin,
glucagon, thyriod T3, leptin and several others yet few
know how to influence their own levels.

Insulin I can manage. How do I influence the others?

Nicky.

Thyroid: Talk to your doctor and eat sufficient calories.
Glucagon: Eat more fat.

Leptin I'm not sure about yet.
--
Om.

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

Nicky said:

Doug Freyburger said:

This newsgroup discusses hormones insulin,
glucagon, thyriod T3, leptin and several others yet few
know how to influence their own levels.

Insulin I can manage. How do I influence the others?

Insulin - Keep carbs below some threshold with lower
below that threshold not having any additional effect.
Basically in ketosis but any less than it takes to
get into ketosis doesn't help. Insulin moves fat
into storage and once below threshold with fat flowing
out less carbs do not give additional benefit.
Insulin is released in direct response to dietary
carbs. Dietary protein and fat have no influence
unless overeaten.

Glucagon - Moves fat out of storage unless blocked
by insulin. The more glucagon the better the fat
loss. Glucagon is released in indirect response to
dietary fat so the more the dietary fat, the more
the glucagon, the more the fat loss, up until you're
overeating. Dietary carbs and protein have no or
little effect on glucagon levels.

So the goal so far is just barely in ketosis, with
the least protein consistant with some reasonable
guideline, and filling in the rest of the daily
calories with fat. Eating less fat merely decreases
the fat withdrawn from storage and has the net
effect of pulling resting metabolism down to match
(limited by metabolism's best efficiency). This is
the basic Atkins 4-phase process.

Thyroid T3 - Catches the eye of folks on thyroid
pills but it's only one of the thyroid output
hormones. There are studies that very low carb for
longer than a couple of weeks will cause T3 levels
to drop. Resting metabolism tracks T3 levels among
other influences so the higher the T3 the faster
the loss. The basic idea is that staying just
barely in ketosis prevents T3 drop, but the studies
are about very low so they really only apply to
extended Induction not exactly to just barely in
ketosis. Dr Atkins discussed thyroid but it does
not appear that he read the studies involved or
caught the link.

Leptin - Somehow tracks the highest carb intake
level in the last few months. Yet another reason
that extended Induction tends to trigger stalls.
Also tracks amount of existing excess body fat.
A countering reason why folks with over 100 lbs
to lose don't tend to stall. Somewhere under 100
to lose, sometime extending too low carbs and
leptin starts to drop. Prevent this by keeping
the carbs as high as possible while in ketosis, or
by cheating, or by a non-cheat leptin reset that
uses lots of boring high-carb foods for a fixed
number of days. Lowered leptin tends to trigger a
stall, so reset leptin tends to trigger a whoosh.
Since cheating tends to trigger a leptin reset
and a leptin reset tends to trigger a whoosh,
cheats tend to create a vicious cycle of being
excessively strict to make the reset necessary
and then a cheat to trigger a whoosh. Much better
to prevent.

There is some small discussion of the methods
used in a leptin reset in the 1993 and 1999
editions without mention of leptin. See "reversal
diet" in the index. Folks came to Dr A who had
abused Induction, fallen out of ketosis, stalled.
He devised the reserval diet as a low-fat slow-carb
system that worked to reset their CCLL, basically
a leptin reset without knowing about leptin.