Hopefully, that got your attention! Please watch the following video.
The video is about teaching youngsters to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to make healthy food choices.
The secret to successful weight loss & maintenance:-
Formulate a good plan. A good plan is one that works and is sustainable. Exercise mainly increases fitness, but also increases energy expenditure. See Calories Burned - Walking: 3.5 mph (17 minutes per mile). E.g. a 250lb man who walks for 45 minutes expends 378kcals.
The vast majority of people who visit "fast food" establishments don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to make healthy food choices. "Fast food" establishments use every marketing trick in the book to influence people to make unhealthy food choices and consume as much of them as possible.
As people are reluctant to go back for second helpings (as they think it makes them look greedy), super-sizing was invented, which allows people to eat considerably more food for not much extra money.
Delicious aromas increase hedonic hunger. Added sugar, salt and flavour enhancers make foods moreish.
Bright colours, cartoon characters and toys attract children.
Edward Bernays-style (emotion-targeted) marketing encourages people to visit "Fast food" establishments, make unhealthy food choices and over-consume them. See https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d29tf for more information. The first two minutes summarise.
Showing posts with label Calories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calories. Show all posts
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Friday, 22 August 2014
"Myths, Presumptions, and Facts about Obesity" is partly a myth.
Yoni Freedhoff has already blogged about this in The New England Journal's Obesity Mythbusting
I don't have anything to say about Yoni Freedhoff's blog post on Myths, Presumptions, and Facts about Obesity (PDF), except for Myth 1.
"Small sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long-term weight changes."
This is misleading. One small sustained change (say, -100kcals/day) in energy balance results in one sustained change in weight of -10lbs. If no further changes are made, there are no further changes in weight. However...
If, after the result of the small sustained change has stabilised, another small sustained change (say, -100kcals/day) in energy balance is made, there's another sustained change in weight of -10lbs. And so on...
A series of small sustained changes in energy balance will produce large, long-term weight changes.
Little changes, big results.
 |
| It's a mythtery. |
I don't have anything to say about Yoni Freedhoff's blog post on Myths, Presumptions, and Facts about Obesity (PDF), except for Myth 1.
"Small sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long-term weight changes."
This is misleading. One small sustained change (say, -100kcals/day) in energy balance results in one sustained change in weight of -10lbs. If no further changes are made, there are no further changes in weight. However...
If, after the result of the small sustained change has stabilised, another small sustained change (say, -100kcals/day) in energy balance is made, there's another sustained change in weight of -10lbs. And so on...
A series of small sustained changes in energy balance will produce large, long-term weight changes.
Little changes, big results.
Monday, 18 August 2014
Dry carbohydrates, wet carbohydrates & energy density.
Karen N Davids thought of it first!
Here's a list of commonly-eaten carbohydrates and their Energy Density, in kcals/100g. From https://nutritiondata.self.com/
Dry Carbohydrates:-
Bread, White_________________________________________________266
Bread, Multi-grain___________________________________________265
Bread, Rye___________________________________________________258
Bread, Pumpernickel__________________________________________250
Bread, Whole-wheat___________________________________________247
Bread, reduced-calorie, white________________________________207
Bread, reduced-calorie, wheat________________________________198
Wet Carbohydrates:-
Pasta, fresh-refrigerated, plain, cooked_____________________131
Rice, white, long-grain, regular, cooked_____________________130
Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked______________________________111
Peas, green, frozen, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt_______78
Beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, with salt__127
Lentils, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, with salt_____________114
Vegetables, mixed, frozen, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt_60
Broccoli, frozen, spears, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt__28
Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, with salt________________92
Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, with salt____________87
Grapes, red or green (European type), raw_____________________69
Cherries, sweet, raw__________________________________________63
Pears, raw [Includes USDA commodity food A435]________________58
Apples, raw, with skin________________________________________52
If a diet is high in carbohydrates:-
Which of the above foods are most likely to result in weight gain?
Which of the above foods are most likely to result in weight loss?
Answers on a postcard, please!
 |
| From https://www.amazon.co.uk/Carbs-Weight-Manage-Nutritional-Carbohydrates-ebook/dp/B00DJF2GKU |
Here's a list of commonly-eaten carbohydrates and their Energy Density, in kcals/100g. From https://nutritiondata.self.com/
Dry Carbohydrates:-
Bread, White_________________________________________________266
Bread, Multi-grain___________________________________________265
Bread, Rye___________________________________________________258
Bread, Pumpernickel__________________________________________250
Bread, Whole-wheat___________________________________________247
Bread, reduced-calorie, white________________________________207
Bread, reduced-calorie, wheat________________________________198
Wet Carbohydrates:-
Pasta, fresh-refrigerated, plain, cooked_____________________131
Rice, white, long-grain, regular, cooked_____________________130
Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked______________________________111
Peas, green, frozen, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt_______78
Beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, with salt__127
Lentils, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, with salt_____________114
Vegetables, mixed, frozen, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt_60
Broccoli, frozen, spears, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt__28
Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, with salt________________92
Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, with salt____________87
Grapes, red or green (European type), raw_____________________69
Cherries, sweet, raw__________________________________________63
Pears, raw [Includes USDA commodity food A435]________________58
Apples, raw, with skin________________________________________52
If a diet is high in carbohydrates:-
Which of the above foods are most likely to result in weight gain?
Which of the above foods are most likely to result in weight loss?
Answers on a postcard, please!
Thursday, 14 August 2014
Dear ItsTheWoo, how do you do?
This post is attacking what I consider to be faulty reasoning. It's not a personal attack on ItsTheWoo, who I like (even though she drives me up the wall, sometimes!).
See What I believe and what I don't.
The basic The Energy Balance Equation:- Change in body stores = Ein - Eout
For a detailed mathematical analysis of weight change, see Completing the trine: vive la différence!
From Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds:-
Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.
The faulty reasoning is in Dear Nigel and other CICO zealots: you are ignorant. Charming!
I'll quote passages from it and refute them, one by one.
Calories determine weight change. See Bray et al shows that a calorie *is* a calorie (where weight change is concerned). It would have been nice if Fig. 6 had contained a plot of "Effect of energy intake on change in body weight", but it didn't.
LBM = Lean Body Mass
FM = Fat Mass = Body Fat
Weight change = LBM change + FM change
Weight change varies from ~+3.5kg (@ +2,500kJ/d) to ~+9.1kg (@ +5,900kJ/d).
(Maximum weight increase)/(minimum weight increase) = 2.6
(Maximum kJ/day increase)/(minimum kJ/day increase) = 2.36
∴ A calorie IS a calorie (where weight change is concerned).
∴ Insufficient protein can result in loss of LBM (bad).
The main thrust of ItsTheWoo's argument is that inter-personal variations in weight gain from subject to subject, invalidates Bray's conclusion. It doesn't.
Some subjects become more energetic on a 40% caloric surplus, which increases their NEAT & TEA, which increases their Eout, which reduces their weight gain.
Some subjects don't change their energy on a 40% caloric surplus, which doesn't change their NEAT & TEA, which results in intermediate weight gain.
Some subjects become less energetic on a 40% caloric surplus, which decreases their NEAT & TEA, which decreases their Eout, which increases their weight gain.
I believe that the Insulin Sensitivity (IS) of the subject determines which category they fall into and by how much. The higher the IS, the higher the energy, as high IS results in low serum insulin, which minimises sedation. Energy Balance always applies.
I've never stated that Calories exactly determine weight change. That's a strawman.
I've never stated that Calories determine body composition. That's a strawman.
Somewhere within all of the irrelevant waffle about rules & laws, ItsTheWoo raises an interesting point. Although a caloric surplus is always required for weight gain, eating more Calories can sometimes result in zero weight gain. How so? From ItsTheWoo's link:-
"Conclusion: This data is the first to demonstrate a resistance to weight gain in constitutional thinness (CT) population in response to 4-week fat overfeeding, associated with an increase in resting energy expenditure and an emphasised anorexigenic hormonal profile.
In CT people, their energy expenditure increases in line with their energy intake. Therefore, even though they're eating more Calories, there's no caloric surplus, therefore there's no weight gain. Energy Balance always applies.
Just because it is *impossible* for a reasonable free living human to quantify all of the metabolic, endocrine, nervous system factors influencing adipocyte growth changes does not mean they don't fucking exist."
ItsTheWoo left out my calculations. Here they are:-"if I eat 2000 calories of a ketogenic diet in 3 hrs, most of it is wasted as heat, physical energy (I know, because I am EXTREMELY warm/energetic) and then the rest of time i am using a relatively greater percent of stored fat."
Do you know at what rate you're burning-off extra energy intake as heat energy output when you're "EXTREMELY warm/energetic"? Here's an estimate:-
If the mean TEF for your meal is 11% (assuming your meal is 50%E protein & 50%E fat), that's 220kcals (921kJ) "wasted" as heat energy. That'll make you feel EXTREMELY warm, as 220kcal raises the temperature of 57kg of water (your body) by 3.84°C.
A 2,000kcal meal (a whole day's worth of food) takes a lot longer than 3 hours to digest & absorb. I'll guesstimate it as 24 hours. 921kJ of extra heat power over the course of 24 hours = 10.7W, which is an increase of 17.7% over your normal Metabolic Rate of ~60W heat power (~1kcal/minute).
It's easy to "prove" something by being vague. That's PSEUDOSCIENCE. I do science. If you do the maths, you can see that, of the 2,000kcal ketogenic meal, most of it isn't wasted as heat, because if most of it is wasted as heat, ItsTheWoo would spontaneously combust!
2) If atkins was wrong (you pee out all LCHF food) who cares? That was 30+ years ago. He was a cardiologist who observed a VLC diet made him slim. He used his medical education to hypothesize a reason why. His hypothesis was wrong, but his observations were right. This happens all the time in science or basic human reasoning; make observations, form hypothesis. The hypothesis may be wrong, the findings are STILL RIGHT (i.e. low carb diets DO make slim, just not via peeing away ketones)."
1) There is no Metabolic Advantage to ketogenic diets. See https://www.jbc.org/content/92/3/679.full.pdf
2) Atkins' observations were wrong. See The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
a) Low-Carb diets work better than High-Carb diets for people who are Insulin Resistant.
b) Low-Carb diets work worse than High-Carb diets for people who are Insulin Sensitive.
c) Low-Carb diets work the same as High-Carb diets for everybody in Metabolic Ward Studies.
If there's a Metabolic Advantage to ketogenic diets, they would work better than high-carb diets all the time. They don't. See How low-carbohydrate diets result in more weight loss than high-carbohydrate diets for people with Insulin Resistance or Type 2 Diabetes for my hypothesis, which explains a), b) and c).
 |
| From http://hypetrak.com/2011/10/mayer-hawthorne-how-do-you-do-full-album-stream/ |
See What I believe and what I don't.
The basic The Energy Balance Equation:- Change in body stores = Ein - Eout
For a detailed mathematical analysis of weight change, see Completing the trine: vive la différence!
From Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds:-
Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.
The faulty reasoning is in Dear Nigel and other CICO zealots: you are ignorant. Charming!
I'll quote passages from it and refute them, one by one.
- "With a zero caloric deficit, there is zero weight change"
Calories determine weight change. See Bray et al shows that a calorie *is* a calorie (where weight change is concerned). It would have been nice if Fig. 6 had contained a plot of "Effect of energy intake on change in body weight", but it didn't.
LBM = Lean Body Mass
FM = Fat Mass = Body Fat
Weight change = LBM change + FM change
Weight change varies from ~+3.5kg (@ +2,500kJ/d) to ~+9.1kg (@ +5,900kJ/d).
(Maximum weight increase)/(minimum weight increase) = 2.6
(Maximum kJ/day increase)/(minimum kJ/day increase) = 2.36
∴ A calorie IS a calorie (where weight change is concerned).
∴ Insufficient protein can result in loss of LBM (bad).
The main thrust of ItsTheWoo's argument is that inter-personal variations in weight gain from subject to subject, invalidates Bray's conclusion. It doesn't.
Some subjects become more energetic on a 40% caloric surplus, which increases their NEAT & TEA, which increases their Eout, which reduces their weight gain.
Some subjects don't change their energy on a 40% caloric surplus, which doesn't change their NEAT & TEA, which results in intermediate weight gain.
Some subjects become less energetic on a 40% caloric surplus, which decreases their NEAT & TEA, which decreases their Eout, which increases their weight gain.
I believe that the Insulin Sensitivity (IS) of the subject determines which category they fall into and by how much. The higher the IS, the higher the energy, as high IS results in low serum insulin, which minimises sedation. Energy Balance always applies.
I've never stated that Calories exactly determine weight change. That's a strawman.
I've never stated that Calories determine body composition. That's a strawman.
- " Every subject [in bray's overfeeding study] gained weight (mostly fat mass) during the 40% energy excess overfeeding period. "
Somewhere within all of the irrelevant waffle about rules & laws, ItsTheWoo raises an interesting point. Although a caloric surplus is always required for weight gain, eating more Calories can sometimes result in zero weight gain. How so? From ItsTheWoo's link:-
"Conclusion: This data is the first to demonstrate a resistance to weight gain in constitutional thinness (CT) population in response to 4-week fat overfeeding, associated with an increase in resting energy expenditure and an emphasised anorexigenic hormonal profile.
In CT people, their energy expenditure increases in line with their energy intake. Therefore, even though they're eating more Calories, there's no caloric surplus, therefore there's no weight gain. Energy Balance always applies.
- "Yes, kcals do get wasted. You don't understand things quantitatively i.e. how many kcals get wasted."
Just because it is *impossible* for a reasonable free living human to quantify all of the metabolic, endocrine, nervous system factors influencing adipocyte growth changes does not mean they don't fucking exist."
ItsTheWoo left out my calculations. Here they are:-"if I eat 2000 calories of a ketogenic diet in 3 hrs, most of it is wasted as heat, physical energy (I know, because I am EXTREMELY warm/energetic) and then the rest of time i am using a relatively greater percent of stored fat."
Do you know at what rate you're burning-off extra energy intake as heat energy output when you're "EXTREMELY warm/energetic"? Here's an estimate:-
If the mean TEF for your meal is 11% (assuming your meal is 50%E protein & 50%E fat), that's 220kcals (921kJ) "wasted" as heat energy. That'll make you feel EXTREMELY warm, as 220kcal raises the temperature of 57kg of water (your body) by 3.84°C.
A 2,000kcal meal (a whole day's worth of food) takes a lot longer than 3 hours to digest & absorb. I'll guesstimate it as 24 hours. 921kJ of extra heat power over the course of 24 hours = 10.7W, which is an increase of 17.7% over your normal Metabolic Rate of ~60W heat power (~1kcal/minute).
It's easy to "prove" something by being vague. That's PSEUDOSCIENCE. I do science. If you do the maths, you can see that, of the 2,000kcal ketogenic meal, most of it isn't wasted as heat, because if most of it is wasted as heat, ItsTheWoo would spontaneously combust!
- "Dr. Robert C. Atkins made the same fundamental cock-up when he said that humans pissed-out loads of kcals of ketones each day, giving a Metabolic Advantage to ketogenic diets."
2) If atkins was wrong (you pee out all LCHF food) who cares? That was 30+ years ago. He was a cardiologist who observed a VLC diet made him slim. He used his medical education to hypothesize a reason why. His hypothesis was wrong, but his observations were right. This happens all the time in science or basic human reasoning; make observations, form hypothesis. The hypothesis may be wrong, the findings are STILL RIGHT (i.e. low carb diets DO make slim, just not via peeing away ketones)."
1) There is no Metabolic Advantage to ketogenic diets. See https://www.jbc.org/content/92/3/679.full.pdf
2) Atkins' observations were wrong. See The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
a) Low-Carb diets work better than High-Carb diets for people who are Insulin Resistant.
b) Low-Carb diets work worse than High-Carb diets for people who are Insulin Sensitive.
c) Low-Carb diets work the same as High-Carb diets for everybody in Metabolic Ward Studies.
If there's a Metabolic Advantage to ketogenic diets, they would work better than high-carb diets all the time. They don't. See How low-carbohydrate diets result in more weight loss than high-carbohydrate diets for people with Insulin Resistance or Type 2 Diabetes for my hypothesis, which explains a), b) and c).
Monday, 7 July 2014
Why Calories count (where weight change is concerned).
I have to add the words "where weight change is concerned", as nobody who knows what they're talking about claims that calories have anything to do with body composition or health (unless a prolonged imbalance makes somebody very underweight or very overweight).
Arguments used by Calorie Denialists include:-
1) Calories don't count because the human body isn't a Bomb Calorimeter and treats different macronutrients differently.
100g of liquid paraffin burns in a Bomb Calorimeter, yielding 900kcals. In a human, it passes through completely undigested. Ah-ha!, I hear you saying. This proves that the Energy Balance Equation is invalid. Uh, nope!
Calories in = Calories entering mouth - Calories exiting anus
As 100% of liquid paraffin calories entering the mouth exit the anus, Calories in = 0
This is why Sam Feltham's "Smash the Fat" "experiment" is utter nonsense. A high percentage of the large amount of raw almonds he ate would have exited his anus incompletely chewed, undigested & unabsorbed.
See the picture above? In the late 1800's, W.O. Atwater established Atwater Factors (3.75kcals/g for digestible Carbohydrates, 4kcals/g for Proteins, 5kcals/g for Ketones, 7kcals/g for Alcohols & 9kcals/g for Fats*) using Human Calorimeters, not Bomb Calorimeters.
∴ Atwater Factors are accurate.
*Fats containing different fatty acids have slightly different kcals/g. Fats containing long-chain fatty acids are 9kcals/g. Fats containing medium-chain fatty acids e.g. coconut oil are ~8kcals/g.
For more information, see Atwater
2) Calories don't count because Dietary Efficiency varies for different macronutrients.
Uh, nope! The Heat Power generated by the body is regulated by a NFB loop involving the Hypothalamus, Pituitary, Thyroid Axis, also Uncoupling Proteins (UCP's), also shivering, so as to maintain a body temperature of 37°C ±3°C. If this wasn't the case, different amounts & types of foods (also, changes in ambient temperature & clothing) would cause large variations in body temperature resulting in death, as the enzymes in our bodies function correctly over a limited range of temperatures.
Heat Power generated by the body (W) = Temperature difference between the body & ambient (°C) divided by Thermal resistance between the body & ambient (°C/W)
∴ Dietary Efficiency is irrelevant.
 |
| From https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz4TDaehOqMKSXZHUUVxWnl5VTQ/edit?usp=sharing |
Arguments used by Calorie Denialists include:-
1) Calories don't count because the human body isn't a Bomb Calorimeter and treats different macronutrients differently.
100g of liquid paraffin burns in a Bomb Calorimeter, yielding 900kcals. In a human, it passes through completely undigested. Ah-ha!, I hear you saying. This proves that the Energy Balance Equation is invalid. Uh, nope!
Calories in = Calories entering mouth - Calories exiting anus
As 100% of liquid paraffin calories entering the mouth exit the anus, Calories in = 0
This is why Sam Feltham's "Smash the Fat" "experiment" is utter nonsense. A high percentage of the large amount of raw almonds he ate would have exited his anus incompletely chewed, undigested & unabsorbed.
See the picture above? In the late 1800's, W.O. Atwater established Atwater Factors (3.75kcals/g for digestible Carbohydrates, 4kcals/g for Proteins, 5kcals/g for Ketones, 7kcals/g for Alcohols & 9kcals/g for Fats*) using Human Calorimeters, not Bomb Calorimeters.
∴ Atwater Factors are accurate.
*Fats containing different fatty acids have slightly different kcals/g. Fats containing long-chain fatty acids are 9kcals/g. Fats containing medium-chain fatty acids e.g. coconut oil are ~8kcals/g.
For more information, see Atwater
2) Calories don't count because Dietary Efficiency varies for different macronutrients.
Uh, nope! The Heat Power generated by the body is regulated by a NFB loop involving the Hypothalamus, Pituitary, Thyroid Axis, also Uncoupling Proteins (UCP's), also shivering, so as to maintain a body temperature of 37°C ±3°C. If this wasn't the case, different amounts & types of foods (also, changes in ambient temperature & clothing) would cause large variations in body temperature resulting in death, as the enzymes in our bodies function correctly over a limited range of temperatures.
Heat Power generated by the body (W) = Temperature difference between the body & ambient (°C) divided by Thermal resistance between the body & ambient (°C/W)
∴ Dietary Efficiency is irrelevant.
Friday, 4 July 2014
How low & very low-carbohydrate diets don't work.
Having explained how low & very low-carbohydrate diets work, here are a few ways in which they don't work.
1. Hormonal clogs: This is a term used by Jonathan Bailor. I don't think he's referring to wooden shoes! The "clog", I'm guessing, is supposedly caused by that dastardly hormone insulin. Uh, nope!
See the following plots of RER vs exercise intensity after being on high-fat diet or low-fat diet.
The low-fat diet results in higher RER, so the body is burning a higher %E from carb and a lower %E from fat.
However, this doesn't make any difference to weight loss, as it's merely a substrate utilisation issue. In addition, when the body is burning a higher %E from carb, this depletes muscle glycogen stores faster, which lowers RER during the course of the exercise. So, it's not a problem.
2. Insulin: This is Gary Taubes' hypothesis. Insulin makes your body store carbohydrates as body fat. Uh, nope!
The only time that there's significant hepatic DNL is when there's chronic carbohydrate over-feeding. If you eat sensibly, there's no significant hepatic DNL.
3. A Calorie isn't a Calorie, where weight change is concerned: This is Richard D Feinman's hypothesis. "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, therefore there's a metabolic advantage with low-carbohydrate diets. Uh, nope!
Where to start? Evelyn Kocur knows her Physics, so I'll start there. See The first law of thermodynamics (Part 1) and The first law of thermodynamics (Part 2).
From Second Law of Thermodynamics:-
"Living organisms are often mistakenly believed to defy the Second Law because they are able to increase their level of organization. To correct this misinterpretation, one must refer simply to the definition of systems and boundaries. A living organism is an open system, able to exchange both matter and energy with its environment."
People on ketogenic diets excrete very few kcals as ketone bodies. See STUDIES IN KETONE BODY EXCRETION (PDF). There is no significant Metabolic Advantage with low-carbohydrate diets.
 |
| Uh, nope! |
1. Hormonal clogs: This is a term used by Jonathan Bailor. I don't think he's referring to wooden shoes! The "clog", I'm guessing, is supposedly caused by that dastardly hormone insulin. Uh, nope!
See the following plots of RER vs exercise intensity after being on high-fat diet or low-fat diet.
 |
| RER = 0.7 ≡ 100%E from fat. RER ≥ 1.0 ≡ 100%E from carb. |
The low-fat diet results in higher RER, so the body is burning a higher %E from carb and a lower %E from fat.
However, this doesn't make any difference to weight loss, as it's merely a substrate utilisation issue. In addition, when the body is burning a higher %E from carb, this depletes muscle glycogen stores faster, which lowers RER during the course of the exercise. So, it's not a problem.
2. Insulin: This is Gary Taubes' hypothesis. Insulin makes your body store carbohydrates as body fat. Uh, nope!
The only time that there's significant hepatic DNL is when there's chronic carbohydrate over-feeding. If you eat sensibly, there's no significant hepatic DNL.
3. A Calorie isn't a Calorie, where weight change is concerned: This is Richard D Feinman's hypothesis. "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, therefore there's a metabolic advantage with low-carbohydrate diets. Uh, nope!
Where to start? Evelyn Kocur knows her Physics, so I'll start there. See The first law of thermodynamics (Part 1) and The first law of thermodynamics (Part 2).
From Second Law of Thermodynamics:-
"Living organisms are often mistakenly believed to defy the Second Law because they are able to increase their level of organization. To correct this misinterpretation, one must refer simply to the definition of systems and boundaries. A living organism is an open system, able to exchange both matter and energy with its environment."
People on ketogenic diets excrete very few kcals as ketone bodies. See STUDIES IN KETONE BODY EXCRETION (PDF). There is no significant Metabolic Advantage with low-carbohydrate diets.
Saturday, 14 June 2014
Reversing type 2 diabetes, the lecture explaining T2D progression, and how to treat it.
Julianne Taylor of Paleo & Zone Nutrition posted the following excellent lecture on Facebook:-
Eating Through The Myths: Food, Health and Happiness - Taylor, Prof. R., Berlin, 28-Sep-12
EDIT: The link above needs Flash. If Flash isn't available, see YouTube video below.
Salient points:
1) It's a chronic calorie excess (of carbohydrates and/or fats) that causes problems.
2) Motivation, motivation, motivation!
3) Both diet and exercise are important. See Move More: Solutions to problems.
4) You can't outrun your fork. See The 5th Myth of Modern Day Dieting: You Can Outrun Your Fork.
5) Underlying Insulin Resistance needs to be addressed. See Insulin Resistance: Solutions to problems.
See also Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol, and Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes: tracing the reverse route from cure to cause (PDF).
For more information on Prof. Taylor's work, see Reversing Type 2 Diabetes.
EDIT: Long-term results are now in. See Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial. The full study is behind a pay-wall, but here are a couple of Figures from it.
86% of participants who completed all 3 phases of the trial maintained over 15kg of weight loss and achieved remission from diabetes. Participants who dropped-out at various points achieved less weight loss at the 1 year point and achieved a lower % of remission. It's not easy for people who are consuming 15% fewer kcals/day of healthy foods to maintain motivation when they're constantly being bombarded by persuasive marketing encouraging them to eat yummy Food Products.
If beta cells have been irreversibly damaged and the above approach doesn't work, improved glycaemic control can be achieved using a LCHF diet.
Eating Through The Myths: Food, Health and Happiness - Taylor, Prof. R., Berlin, 28-Sep-12
EDIT: The link above needs Flash. If Flash isn't available, see YouTube video below.
Salient points:
1) It's a chronic calorie excess (of carbohydrates and/or fats) that causes problems.
2) Motivation, motivation, motivation!
3) Both diet and exercise are important. See Move More: Solutions to problems.
4) You can't outrun your fork. See The 5th Myth of Modern Day Dieting: You Can Outrun Your Fork.
5) Underlying Insulin Resistance needs to be addressed. See Insulin Resistance: Solutions to problems.
See also Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol, and Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes: tracing the reverse route from cure to cause (PDF).
For more information on Prof. Taylor's work, see Reversing Type 2 Diabetes.
EDIT: Long-term results are now in. See Primary care-led weight management for remission of type 2 diabetes (DiRECT): an open-label, cluster-randomised trial. The full study is behind a pay-wall, but here are a couple of Figures from it.
86% of participants who completed all 3 phases of the trial maintained over 15kg of weight loss and achieved remission from diabetes. Participants who dropped-out at various points achieved less weight loss at the 1 year point and achieved a lower % of remission. It's not easy for people who are consuming 15% fewer kcals/day of healthy foods to maintain motivation when they're constantly being bombarded by persuasive marketing encouraging them to eat yummy Food Products.
If beta cells have been irreversibly damaged and the above approach doesn't work, improved glycaemic control can be achieved using a LCHF diet.
Saturday, 7 June 2014
Bray et al shows that a calorie *is* a calorie (where weight change is concerned).
Continued from Everyone is Different, Part 3.
EDIT: I made an error in stating that all of the extra calories came from fat, in the fat overfeeding phase. Thanks to commenter CynicalEng for pointing that out. It doesn't change the conclusion at all.
At 01:17 on 6th June, during a Facebook discussion, Fred Hahn told me:-
"Nigel Kinbrum - read this please.
Bray, et al. Shows that a Calorie is Not a Calorie and that Dietary Carbohydrate Controls Fat Storage.
Perhaps you'll learn something from a real expert who teaches metabolism to medical students at the largest medical school in the country."
So I did.
At 02:22, I replied:-
"Thanks for that. I read Feinman's blog post about Bray et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777747/ some time ago.
There's a fundamental error in Feinman's analysis. As LeonRover pointed out in his comment https://feinmantheother.com/.../bray-et-al-shows-that.../...
In Diets:- "Absolute carbohydrate intake was kept constant throughout the study."
Also, in COMMENT:- "The extra calories in our study were fed as fat, as in several other studies, and were stored as fat..."
Oh, whoops! That may be why it was rejected by the editor."
Here's Figure 6 from Bray's study.
Some Definitions:-
LBM = Lean Body Mass
FM = Fat Mass = Body Fat
Weight change = (LBM change + FM change)
Weight change varies from ~+3.5kg (@ +2,500kJ/d) to ~+9.1kg (@ +5,900kJ/d).
(Maximum weight increase)/(minimum weight increase) = 2.6
(Maximum kJ/day increase)/(minimum kJ/day increase) = 2.36
∴ A calorie *is* a calorie (where weight change is concerned) ± some inter-personal variation.
∴ Insufficient protein can result in LBM loss (this is bad).
As LBM has a lower Energy Density (~600kcals/lb) than FM (~3,500kcals/lb), LBM loss can increase weight loss, when in a Caloric Deficit.
See The Energy Balance Equation, for a simple explanation, and The Dynamics of Human Body Weight Change, for an incredibly complicated one!
I was rather chuffed when Alan Aragon left the following comment at 04:34:-
"Nigel is correct. From Bray et al's text:
"The extra calories in our study were fed as fat, as in several other studies [33,34], and stored as fat with the lower percentage of excess calories appearing as fat in the high (25%) protein diet group. The higher fat intake in the low protein group probably reduced nutrient absorption (metabolizable energy) relative to the other groups and this would have brought the intake and expenditure closer together in this group.""
Feinman has deleted his blog post. However, his post I Told George Bray How to do it Right is still there. I believe that Dr. George A. Bray M.D. sort-of did it right.
Dr. George A. Bray used a "weight maintenance formula" in all three groups for the weight maintenance phase. He then changed the formula in all three groups to low-P, med-P and high-P formulas, for the fat overfeeding phase. Carbohydrate grams remained constant in all three groups for all phases, but additional fat grams were fewer in the high-P group than in the low-P group, for the fat overfeeding phase.
I would have used the low-P, med-P and high-P formulas for the weight maintenance phase and for the fat overfeeding phase, to equalise the additional fat grams in all three groups.
Continued on Everyone is different Part 4, Fallacies and another rant!
EDIT: I made an error in stating that all of the extra calories came from fat, in the fat overfeeding phase. Thanks to commenter CynicalEng for pointing that out. It doesn't change the conclusion at all.
At 01:17 on 6th June, during a Facebook discussion, Fred Hahn told me:-
"Nigel Kinbrum - read this please.
Bray, et al. Shows that a Calorie is Not a Calorie and that Dietary Carbohydrate Controls Fat Storage.
Perhaps you'll learn something from a real expert who teaches metabolism to medical students at the largest medical school in the country."
So I did.
At 02:22, I replied:-
"Thanks for that. I read Feinman's blog post about Bray et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777747/ some time ago.
There's a fundamental error in Feinman's analysis. As LeonRover pointed out in his comment https://feinmantheother.com/.../bray-et-al-shows-that.../...
In Diets:- "Absolute carbohydrate intake was kept constant throughout the study."
Also, in COMMENT:- "The extra calories in our study were fed as fat, as in several other studies, and were stored as fat..."
Oh, whoops! That may be why it was rejected by the editor."
Here's Figure 6 from Bray's study.
Some Definitions:-
LBM = Lean Body Mass
FM = Fat Mass = Body Fat
Weight change = (LBM change + FM change)
Weight change varies from ~+3.5kg (@ +2,500kJ/d) to ~+9.1kg (@ +5,900kJ/d).
(Maximum weight increase)/(minimum weight increase) = 2.6
(Maximum kJ/day increase)/(minimum kJ/day increase) = 2.36
∴ A calorie *is* a calorie (where weight change is concerned) ± some inter-personal variation.
∴ Insufficient protein can result in LBM loss (this is bad).
As LBM has a lower Energy Density (~600kcals/lb) than FM (~3,500kcals/lb), LBM loss can increase weight loss, when in a Caloric Deficit.
See The Energy Balance Equation, for a simple explanation, and The Dynamics of Human Body Weight Change, for an incredibly complicated one!
I was rather chuffed when Alan Aragon left the following comment at 04:34:-
"Nigel is correct. From Bray et al's text:
"The extra calories in our study were fed as fat, as in several other studies [33,34], and stored as fat with the lower percentage of excess calories appearing as fat in the high (25%) protein diet group. The higher fat intake in the low protein group probably reduced nutrient absorption (metabolizable energy) relative to the other groups and this would have brought the intake and expenditure closer together in this group.""
Feinman has deleted his blog post. However, his post I Told George Bray How to do it Right is still there. I believe that Dr. George A. Bray M.D. sort-of did it right.
Dr. George A. Bray used a "weight maintenance formula" in all three groups for the weight maintenance phase. He then changed the formula in all three groups to low-P, med-P and high-P formulas, for the fat overfeeding phase. Carbohydrate grams remained constant in all three groups for all phases, but additional fat grams were fewer in the high-P group than in the low-P group, for the fat overfeeding phase.
I would have used the low-P, med-P and high-P formulas for the weight maintenance phase and for the fat overfeeding phase, to equalise the additional fat grams in all three groups.
Continued on Everyone is different Part 4, Fallacies and another rant!
Monday, 2 June 2014
False dichotomies: cot'd.
I'm talking about the "What causes Z, X or Y?" & "What is best, X or Y" type statements.
Some people believe that hormonal disruption causes obesity, rather than energy excess. The vast majority of people who are overweight or obese weren't born with hormonal disruption. It's years of chronic energy excess (see Determinants of the Variability in Human Body-fat Percentage for the many reasons causing it) that make people too heavy/fat than is healthy. Once too heavy/fat than is healthy, various hormones become disrupted, causing even more energy excess. Therefore, the cause of obesity is not one thing or another, it's both (plus lots of others), which is why reversing it is so difficult.
On Peter D's blog, the title reads "You need to get calories from somewhere, should it be from carbohydrate or fat?" I say "Both. And some protein. And a bit of alcohol, too!" And I know that I shouldn't start sentences with And.
It's been a while since I posted a video of me singing. Here's one from February this year.
 |
| From http://johnbarban.com/fitness-vs-fatness-a-false-dichotomy/ |
Some people believe that hormonal disruption causes obesity, rather than energy excess. The vast majority of people who are overweight or obese weren't born with hormonal disruption. It's years of chronic energy excess (see Determinants of the Variability in Human Body-fat Percentage for the many reasons causing it) that make people too heavy/fat than is healthy. Once too heavy/fat than is healthy, various hormones become disrupted, causing even more energy excess. Therefore, the cause of obesity is not one thing or another, it's both (plus lots of others), which is why reversing it is so difficult.
On Peter D's blog, the title reads "You need to get calories from somewhere, should it be from carbohydrate or fat?" I say "Both. And some protein. And a bit of alcohol, too!" And I know that I shouldn't start sentences with And.
It's been a while since I posted a video of me singing. Here's one from February this year.
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
Completing the trine: vive la différence!
First, the obligatory picture of Hannah Spearritt :-)
Women have a harder time losing weight than men. Women retain water more than men for hormonal reasons, but a factor that's overlooked is that, on average, healthy women have higher body-fat percentages than healthy men. This is because women have babies and men don't. Who knew? On the plus side, women produce more DHA than men.
Why should having higher body-fat percentages make a difference to weight loss? See What is the required energy deficit per unit weight loss? The energy deficit required to lose 1lb of body-weight increases with increasing body-fat percentage. It's rarely 3,500kcals per lb.
If you really love mathematics, see The Dynamics of Human Body Weight Change by Carson C. Chow and Kevin D. Hall.
From the above paper:- ΔU = ΔQ - ΔW
where ΔU is the change in stored energy in the body, ΔQ is a change in energy input or intake, and ΔW is a change in energy output or expenditure. This is the Energy Balance Equation. As I said back in Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds.
Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.
N.B. Poor health can adversely affect body weight and/or body composition, by increasing appetite and/or by adversely affecting partitioning.
Why should having higher body-fat percentages make a difference to weight loss? See What is the required energy deficit per unit weight loss? The energy deficit required to lose 1lb of body-weight increases with increasing body-fat percentage. It's rarely 3,500kcals per lb.
If you really love mathematics, see The Dynamics of Human Body Weight Change by Carson C. Chow and Kevin D. Hall.
From the above paper:- ΔU = ΔQ - ΔW
where ΔU is the change in stored energy in the body, ΔQ is a change in energy input or intake, and ΔW is a change in energy output or expenditure. This is the Energy Balance Equation. As I said back in Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds.
Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.
N.B. Poor health can adversely affect body weight and/or body composition, by increasing appetite and/or by adversely affecting partitioning.
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds.
First, a song by someone who should be alive, but isn't...
The above video was inspired by a Facebook friend who had an accident with Schwartzkopf black hair dye and spent ages getting the stains off her skin. You know who you are!
I may have mentioned that nutrient deficiencies can adversely affect mental (and/or other) function. Nowadays, many people live on a diet of Crap-In-A-Bag (CIAB). There's just enough essential amino acids (EAAs), essential fatty acids (EFAs), minerals & vitamins to keep their bodies alive. However, Alive ≠ Working properly.
To compensate for one (or more) nutrient deficiencies, many people are prescribed one (or more) pharmaceutical drugs to tweak how their brains work e.g. fluoxetine, citalopram/escitalopram, venlafaxine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate etc. There are no pharmaceutical drug deficiencies!
There are people who suffer from mental (and/or other) illnesses, despite having diets & lifestyles that provide sufficient amounts of all nutrients. This post isn't about them. There are people who suffer from depression due to traumatic & inescapable events/situations. This post isn't about them, either.
Finally, nerds! We nerds love to compile information. For an interesting interview with a top compiler of useful information, see Examine's Supplement Goals Reference Guide.
For an excellent article with a mere 148 references, see Why Calories Count. To sum up:-
Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.
N.B. Poor health can adversely affect body weight and/or body composition, by increasing appetite and/or by adversely affecting partitioning.
Continued on Chow on chow, Parkinson's Law, two ways of doing something, and love.
The above video was inspired by a Facebook friend who had an accident with Schwartzkopf black hair dye and spent ages getting the stains off her skin. You know who you are!
I may have mentioned that nutrient deficiencies can adversely affect mental (and/or other) function. Nowadays, many people live on a diet of Crap-In-A-Bag (CIAB). There's just enough essential amino acids (EAAs), essential fatty acids (EFAs), minerals & vitamins to keep their bodies alive. However, Alive ≠ Working properly.
To compensate for one (or more) nutrient deficiencies, many people are prescribed one (or more) pharmaceutical drugs to tweak how their brains work e.g. fluoxetine, citalopram/escitalopram, venlafaxine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate etc. There are no pharmaceutical drug deficiencies!
There are people who suffer from mental (and/or other) illnesses, despite having diets & lifestyles that provide sufficient amounts of all nutrients. This post isn't about them. There are people who suffer from depression due to traumatic & inescapable events/situations. This post isn't about them, either.
Finally, nerds! We nerds love to compile information. For an interesting interview with a top compiler of useful information, see Examine's Supplement Goals Reference Guide.
For an excellent article with a mere 148 references, see Why Calories Count. To sum up:-
Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.
N.B. Poor health can adversely affect body weight and/or body composition, by increasing appetite and/or by adversely affecting partitioning.
Continued on Chow on chow, Parkinson's Law, two ways of doing something, and love.
Saturday, 20 July 2013
FAO the over-fat and/or those with metabolic syndrome: Big breakfast, medium lunch & small dinner is beneficial.
Breakfast like a King/Queen.
According to High caloric intake at breakfast vs. dinner differentially influences weight loss of overweight and obese women.
"High-calorie breakfast with reduced intake at dinner is beneficial and might be a useful alternative for the management of obesity and metabolic syndrome." See the other PubMed studies listed in the above study, which corroborate it.
What about all the "artery-clogging" cholesterol in egg yolks? See Eat Whole Eggs All Day and Throw Your Statins Away? 375x Increased Dietary Cholesterol Intake From Eggs Reduces Visceral Fat & Promotes Healthy Cholesterol Metabolism.
 |
| Go to work on an egg. |
"High-calorie breakfast with reduced intake at dinner is beneficial and might be a useful alternative for the management of obesity and metabolic syndrome." See the other PubMed studies listed in the above study, which corroborate it.
What about all the "artery-clogging" cholesterol in egg yolks? See Eat Whole Eggs All Day and Throw Your Statins Away? 375x Increased Dietary Cholesterol Intake From Eggs Reduces Visceral Fat & Promotes Healthy Cholesterol Metabolism.
Friday, 26 April 2013
The most simple tip to lose weight EVER is “Eat less and move more”.
Said Gaz at Cycle Of Life - Fix You.
He went from this...
To this...
Now tell me that ELMM doesn't work!
He went from this...
 |
| Not a happy bunny. |
 |
| A happy bunny. |
Monday, 28 January 2013
On burning, storing and recomposing.
Burning
I couldn't resist!
On my adventures around the interwebs, I've noticed the following:- "Humans aren't Calorimeters. Therefore calories are irrelevant to humans." While I agree with the first sentence, I don't agree with the second one.
Calorimeters burn (oxidise) foods at high temperatures with a flame using oxygen, which produces carbon dioxide, water (depending on what's being burned) & heat energy.
Humans burn (oxidise) foods at 37ºC with enzymes , charge transporters etc using oxygen, which produces carbon dioxide, water (depending on what's being burned), mechanical energy & heat energy.
As both oxygen & carbon dioxide are gases, these can be measured by a respiratory gas analyser, to establish the rate of burning and what's being burned at any instant. See It's all in a day's work (as measured in Joules). When resting, burning occurs at a rate of ~1kcal/minute and, as it's measured while fasted, ~0.11g/min of fat is burned, & ~0.01g/min of carbohydrate is burned. Also note that a lot of mechanical energy can be produced, which can increase the rate of burning by a factor of seventeen.
In conclusion, humans burn (oxidise) foods, though not with a flame, and they can produce mechanical energy in addition to heat energy. The rate of burning and what's being burned at any instant can be measured.
Storing
When we eat food, it's digested and absorbed. As a digested meal is absorbed, it appears in the blood as glucose, triglycerides & amino acids. These then disappear from the blood due to burning and storage.
 |
| Fig. 1 Extended effects of evening meal carbohydrate-to-fat ratio on fasting and postprandial substrate metabolism |
Fig. 1 above shows the effects of a 100g Oral Glucose load (▪▫) or a 40g Oral Fat load (●○) on blood glucose level over a period of 360 minutes. Note that subjects are resting during the 360 minutes. As the 100g Oral Glucose load produces a large insulin response (See Fig. 2 below ▪▫), fat-burning is temporarily reduced.
 |
| Fig. 2 Extended effects of evening meal carbohydrate-to-fat ratio on fasting and postprandial substrate metabolism |
Therefore, ~1kcal/minute resting burning rate is derived ~100% from carbohydrate. Therefore, carbohydrate-burning rate is ~0.25g/min. At this rate, it would take ~400 minutes to burn 100g of glucose. If less than 100% of energy is derived from carbohydrate, it would take longer. However, it actually takes ~180 minutes for blood glucose level to fall from maximum to minimum. Therefore, some glucose from the Oral Glucose load is stored (mostly as glycogen in muscles and liver).
 |
| Fig. 3B Extended effects of evening meal carbohydrate-to-fat ratio on fasting and postprandial substrate metabolism |
Fig. 3B above shows the effects of a 40g Oral Fat load (●○) on blood triglyceride (fat) level over a period of 360 minutes. Note that subjects are resting during the 360 minutes. As the 40g Oral Fat load produces no significant insulin response (See Fig. 2 above ●○), fat-burning is unaffected.
Therefore, fat-burning rate is ~0.11g/min. At this rate, it would take ~364 minutes to burn 40g of fat. If less than 100% of energy is derived from fat, it would take longer. Everyone is Different. shows the variation in % of energy from fat at rest. However, it actually takes 180 to 240 minutes for blood triglyceride (fat) level to fall from maximum to minimum. Therefore, some fat from the Oral Fat load is stored (as fat in adipocytes), even though there is no significant insulin response.
Therefore there are times when stuff is stored (anabolism) and there are times when stuff is withdrawn from stores (catabolism). If more stuff is stored than is withdrawn over a period of time, weight goes up, and vice-versa.
Recomposing
After doing intense exercise e.g. sprinting, resistance training with weights etc, muscles become very sensitive to insulin. Therefore, if intense exercise is done just before stuff is stored, amino acids & glucose are preferentially stored in muscles rather than adipocytes. This increases muscle mass relative to fat mass.
If non-intense exercise is done at times when stuff is withdrawn from stores, this maximises the amount of fat withdrawn from adipocytes and minimises the amount of amino acids withdrawn from muscles. This decreases fat mass relative to muscle mass.
It's therefore possible to increase muscle mass at certain times and decrease fat mass at other times, while keeping overall mass relatively constant i.e. it's possible to gain muscle and lose body-fat without being in an overall caloric deficit.
See The Energy Balance Equation, for more information.
Monday, 7 January 2013
It’s the Calories, Stupid.
I thought I'd mark my return to blogging by taking the piss out of a certain Diet Doctor for his post It’s the Insulin, Stupid, who takes (and tweaks) Fig 7A from Hyperinsulinemia Drives Diet-Induced Obesity Independently of Brain Insulin Production.
At first glance, Fig 7A looks like a CIH believer's dream come true (apart from the words "High Fat Diet").
Hyperinsulinemia → Obesity.
Obesity is caused by too much insulin. Game, Set and Match to insulin.
Not so fast! Let's take a look at the rest of Fig 7.
Figure 7. Revisiting the Current Model of Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes(A)
The most widely accepted model of the pathogenesis of obesity and type 2
diabetes posits that a high-fat diet leads to obesity and insulin
resistance (there is debate about the relative order and causality of
these). In this widely held view, insulin resistance then leads to
hyperinsulinemia, which is followed by β cell exhaustion, and then type 2
diabetes. The accepted model is incompatible with our results that put
the insulin hypersecretion genetically upstream of obesity.(B)
Our data support a model whereby insulin levels must be kept low to
maintain energy expenditure in white adipose tissue via the expression
of Ucp1. Our data do not address the order of subsequent events
after obesity (outside the yellow box), such as insulin resistance
and/or type 2 diabetes, since they were not observed in our studies. In
other words, the effects of insulin gene dosage on obesity are
independent of sustained changes in glucose homeostasis or insulin
resistance.
↑ Peripheral Hyperinsulinemia → ↓ Uncoupling Proteins (WAT) → ↓ Energy Expenditure → ↑ Obesity.
Obesity is caused by a reduction in energy expenditure in these mice. Game, Set and Match to The Energy Balance Equation. It’s the Calories, Stupid. In these mice, energy expenditure is strongly influenced by insulin levels. In humans, not a lot. In humans, insulin can act as a stimulant or a sedative.
I'm not an insulin denier as is obvious from my other blog posts. I'm still restricting my carbohydrate intake to ~125g/day from whole foods.
I'm not a food reward denier. I've been using food reward principles to lose weight.
This post will probably annoy some people. Before wasting your time writing a comment, please read my Moderation Policy.
At first glance, Fig 7A looks like a CIH believer's dream come true (apart from the words "High Fat Diet").
Obesity is caused by too much insulin. Game, Set and Match to insulin.
Not so fast! Let's take a look at the rest of Fig 7.
↑ Peripheral Hyperinsulinemia → ↓ Uncoupling Proteins (WAT) → ↓ Energy Expenditure → ↑ Obesity.
Obesity is caused by a reduction in energy expenditure in these mice. Game, Set and Match to The Energy Balance Equation. It’s the Calories, Stupid. In these mice, energy expenditure is strongly influenced by insulin levels. In humans, not a lot. In humans, insulin can act as a stimulant or a sedative.
I'm not an insulin denier as is obvious from my other blog posts. I'm still restricting my carbohydrate intake to ~125g/day from whole foods.
I'm not a food reward denier. I've been using food reward principles to lose weight.
This post will probably annoy some people. Before wasting your time writing a comment, please read my Moderation Policy.
Saturday, 2 June 2012
Of mice and men, Kleiber's Law & FIRKO.
More musings from my fevered brain!
I remembered a discussion on Hyperlipid about FIRKO mice.
Note: FIRKO stands for Fat Insulin Receptor Knock Out and it results in White Adipose Tissue (WAT) having vastly reduced uptake of nutrients, thus inhibiting gain of WAT. Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) has up-regulated uncoupling proteins i.e. BAT produces heat.
Of great interest was that, in a study where a FIRKO mouse's VMH (VentroMedial Hypothalamus) was deliberately damaged, the mouse ate more food but didn't gain weight. This appears to defy Energy Balance theory.
Mice weigh ~30g, so they can't burn much energy through physical activity. How can mice eat more food but not gain weight?
Peter Dobromylskyj gave me the answer. As a veterinary surgeon, he works on rodents, so he knows about this. Rodents under anaesthesia easily get hypothermia. Mice have a high surface area to mass ratio (see the above graph) compared to adult humans. As heat is lost through the skin, small animals like mice are at a disadvantage when it comes to heat conservation. They have behaviours for conserving heat e.g. covering themselves in bedding (which reduces heat loss) or huddling together in groups (which reduces overall surface area to mass ratio). Anaesthesia prevents heat conservation behaviours.
Any excess energy intake that cannot be stored due to FIRKOisation is disposed of by increased heat production in BAT and increased heat loss by reduced heat conservation behaviours.
Most adult humans have a tiny amount of BAT, so they can't do this. If an adult human raises their metabolic rate significantly (say, by taking 2,4-Dinitrophenol), they tend to die from hyperthermia.
You could try sitting in a bath of cold water. ;-p That would make me really cold and hungry (and wet!), so I would eat ravenously afterwards. But that's me. Your Mileage May Vary.
See also It’s the Calories, Stupid.
I remembered a discussion on Hyperlipid about FIRKO mice.
Note: FIRKO stands for Fat Insulin Receptor Knock Out and it results in White Adipose Tissue (WAT) having vastly reduced uptake of nutrients, thus inhibiting gain of WAT. Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT) has up-regulated uncoupling proteins i.e. BAT produces heat.
Of great interest was that, in a study where a FIRKO mouse's VMH (VentroMedial Hypothalamus) was deliberately damaged, the mouse ate more food but didn't gain weight. This appears to defy Energy Balance theory.
Mice weigh ~30g, so they can't burn much energy through physical activity. How can mice eat more food but not gain weight?
Peter Dobromylskyj gave me the answer. As a veterinary surgeon, he works on rodents, so he knows about this. Rodents under anaesthesia easily get hypothermia. Mice have a high surface area to mass ratio (see the above graph) compared to adult humans. As heat is lost through the skin, small animals like mice are at a disadvantage when it comes to heat conservation. They have behaviours for conserving heat e.g. covering themselves in bedding (which reduces heat loss) or huddling together in groups (which reduces overall surface area to mass ratio). Anaesthesia prevents heat conservation behaviours.
Any excess energy intake that cannot be stored due to FIRKOisation is disposed of by increased heat production in BAT and increased heat loss by reduced heat conservation behaviours.
Most adult humans have a tiny amount of BAT, so they can't do this. If an adult human raises their metabolic rate significantly (say, by taking 2,4-Dinitrophenol), they tend to die from hyperthermia.
You could try sitting in a bath of cold water. ;-p That would make me really cold and hungry (and wet!), so I would eat ravenously afterwards. But that's me. Your Mileage May Vary.
See also It’s the Calories, Stupid.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Why counting Calories and weighing yourself regularly can be a waste of time.
To lose weight, eat fewer Calories than you burn. Sounds fairly straightforward, doesn't it?
What is a Calorie?
One dietary Calorie (Cal) is 1000calories, or 1kcal for short. A calorie (cal) is the amount of energy required to heat 1g (1mL) of water by 1degree C. As 1cal is a tiny amount of energy, kcal is commonly used. I prefer to use kcal rather than Cal, as the first word in a sentence is always capitalised which could cause confusion.
The SI unit of energy is the Joule (J) and is the amount of energy required to lift a 1kg weight 1m into the air. As 1J is also a tiny amount of energy, kJ is commonly used. There are 4.186kJ in 1kcal.
Why counting Calories can be a waste of time.
1. When the label on a packet of food states that the food contains Xkcals or YkJ, the number may be inaccurate. See Food Composition Analysis and its Implications for Dietary Planning.
2. Many people are hopeless at judging portion sizes, even when using measuring spoons! Watch the following video made by Leigh Peele called Fat Loss Tips! Shocking!
3. People suffer from "The dieter's Paradox", where they erroneously believe that adding something supposedly healthy to Crap-In-A-Bag/Box/Bottle (CIAB) reduces the total number of calories. See The Dieter’s Paradox – Research Review.
4. If people reach their Calorie intake target for the whole day, but it's only 5pm and they're starving hungry, they're going to eat more food and exceed their target, unless they have supreme willpower. If you're eating the wrong diet, Calorie targets are moot. Find a diet where Calorie intake is naturally reduced, without causing hunger pangs.
Why weighing yourself regularly can be a waste of time.
As mentioned previously, scales cannot distinguish between muscle, body-fat, glycogen+water, urine, faeces etc. Bodyweight can fluctuate considerably on a day-to-day basis. The following list (source forgotten!) lists the effect of various things on body-weight.
Thing________________________Weight change (lb)
Glycogen supercompensation________~+10
Glycogen replenishment/depletion_+/-4 to 5
Pre-menstrual water retention_____~+5
Eating a high-sodium meal__________+2 to 3
Fluid retention on airplane flight +2 to 3
Going to the loo (No.2)____________-1 to 2
Going to the loo (No.1)___________~-0.5
Drinking a mug of tea_____________~+0.5
So step away from the scales. There's nothing to see here, folks! If your belt/clothes are getting tighter, reduce the frequency of eating "treats" (moreish foods that are usually high in sugar, fat, salt & flavourings).
And finally, a little light relief. If I just waffle on about Diet & Nutrition all the time, it can get boring. So here's a YouTube video of a really cool cat that must have watched the Doctor Who episode "Blink". You know, the one with the Weeping Angels. Ninja cat comes closer while not moving!
What is a Calorie?
One dietary Calorie (Cal) is 1000calories, or 1kcal for short. A calorie (cal) is the amount of energy required to heat 1g (1mL) of water by 1degree C. As 1cal is a tiny amount of energy, kcal is commonly used. I prefer to use kcal rather than Cal, as the first word in a sentence is always capitalised which could cause confusion.
The SI unit of energy is the Joule (J) and is the amount of energy required to lift a 1kg weight 1m into the air. As 1J is also a tiny amount of energy, kJ is commonly used. There are 4.186kJ in 1kcal.
Why counting Calories can be a waste of time.
1. When the label on a packet of food states that the food contains Xkcals or YkJ, the number may be inaccurate. See Food Composition Analysis and its Implications for Dietary Planning.
2. Many people are hopeless at judging portion sizes, even when using measuring spoons! Watch the following video made by Leigh Peele called Fat Loss Tips! Shocking!
3. People suffer from "The dieter's Paradox", where they erroneously believe that adding something supposedly healthy to Crap-In-A-Bag/Box/Bottle (CIAB) reduces the total number of calories. See The Dieter’s Paradox – Research Review.
4. If people reach their Calorie intake target for the whole day, but it's only 5pm and they're starving hungry, they're going to eat more food and exceed their target, unless they have supreme willpower. If you're eating the wrong diet, Calorie targets are moot. Find a diet where Calorie intake is naturally reduced, without causing hunger pangs.
Why weighing yourself regularly can be a waste of time.
As mentioned previously, scales cannot distinguish between muscle, body-fat, glycogen+water, urine, faeces etc. Bodyweight can fluctuate considerably on a day-to-day basis. The following list (source forgotten!) lists the effect of various things on body-weight.
Thing________________________Weight change (lb)
Glycogen supercompensation________~+10
Glycogen replenishment/depletion_+/-4 to 5
Pre-menstrual water retention_____~+5
Eating a high-sodium meal__________+2 to 3
Fluid retention on airplane flight +2 to 3
Going to the loo (No.2)____________-1 to 2
Going to the loo (No.1)___________~-0.5
Drinking a mug of tea_____________~+0.5
So step away from the scales. There's nothing to see here, folks! If your belt/clothes are getting tighter, reduce the frequency of eating "treats" (moreish foods that are usually high in sugar, fat, salt & flavourings).
And finally, a little light relief. If I just waffle on about Diet & Nutrition all the time, it can get boring. So here's a YouTube video of a really cool cat that must have watched the Doctor Who episode "Blink". You know, the one with the Weeping Angels. Ninja cat comes closer while not moving!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)