Obesity and Food Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
182

[quote]D Public wrote:
well our body is not a heat engine…it is more like a fuel cell…it stores energy in chemical bonds which can ultimately be converted into mechanical energy…

The energy equation can be further broken down into this…

(Food Intake ? Food Not Digested) = RMR + TEF + TEA + Adaptive Thermogenesis + Glycogen Stored + Fat Stored

RMR ? Resting Metabolic Rate
TEF ? Thermic Effect of Food
TEA ? Thermic Effect of Activity

Our body is extremely good at absorbing nutrients…most people digest close to everything they eat…so, digestion is normally not an issue at all…

RMR is what is needed to basically live without moving or doing anything…

TEF is the incr in thermogenesis due to digesting a food…if you ingest protein or fiber, you will induce a higher rate of TEF

TEA is just energy expended due to movement…if you are exercising a lot, it will have an impact on your TEA

The adaptive component is the hardest to understand…some people will start doing small body twitches throughout the day which are unnoticeable to them which could burn substantial calories…some people may have some type of upregulation of an uncoupling protein which induces this as well…at the end of the day, some type of movement or other heat expenditure is occuring whether it is muscular or molecular…This component is heavily regulated by Leptin which is master hormone that regulates downstream metabolic processes in the body…

glycogen storage is related to insulin signaling…it is very dependent on genetics and the level of fatty acids that are in your blood stream(obese people may have impaired insulin signaling which would favor enhanced fat storage)…

protein synthesis…It is occuring constantly…our body breaks itself down and rebuilds itself every second…this is related to insulin and androgen signaling…If you increased it, it would increase the RMR…

fat would be what is not expended…
[/quote]
oh no you didnt just post data with no references!

:slight_smile:

183

I personally think that a high protein and carb diet is better for leaner people…close to 1:1 ratio of carbs to protein(includes protein found in carbs like beans or oats), high fiber(like 20% of carb intake)…and fat is whatever you want…

just to show you how crazy the human body is…

I can eat 3600kcal a day and not gain weight at all when bulking

Yet, after a couple weeks in a caloric deficit…I have to go down to 1000 kcal(with 1-2 carb ups so effectively 1500kcal or so)…and even then I lose fat at 1/2 lb a week…

when i get off the diet…in a couple weeks, i can be back up to 3000 or so kcal and not gain weight…

the body is not stagnant like a machine…It is more complex…

184

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

oh no you didnt just post data with no references!

:)[/quote]

That is like 50 different studies that I have condensed and cross linked into a rambling format for you guys

but, here is a study that is extremely interesting…

http://www.ajcn.org/content/24/3/290.abstract?ijkey=859ef7d35d3a0ac3a75ee164218c32766b78c692&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

185

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:

A Calorie is a Calorie violates the second law of Thermodynamics. Explained in above article

Aragorn touched lightly on this.[/quote]

Let’s do some math using the provided figures for the 2000 kcal diet:

Part One
“Here we took the average of Jéquier’s values (2.5, 7 and 27.5 % for fat, CHO and protein) and calculated the effective energy yield for a 2000 kcal diet. If we assume a diet composition of CHO:fat: protein of 55:30:15, within the range of commonly recommended diets, the calculated effective yield is 1848 kcal.”

Calories are obtained by multiplying the decimal equivalent by the total calories (eg, 2000 x .55 = 1100 kcal from carbs).

1100(.07) + 600(.025) + 300(.275) = 174.5 kcal lost due to TEF (using Jéquier’s averaged values).

2000 - 174.5 = 1825.5 calories = “true” intake. Not 1848 kcal.

Part Two
“We now consider the effect of reducing carbohydrate progressively and substituting the calories removed equally between fat and protein. Figure 2 shows that the wasted calories due to thermogenesis increase as carbohydrate is reduced and reach 100 kcal at 21 % carbohyfrate.”

55% - 21% = 34% decrease in carbohydrate intake. Split equally between fat and protein, this is +17% for both.

420(.07) + 940(.025) + 640(.275) = 228.9 kcal lost due to TEF (using Jéquier’s averaged values).

228.9 (new TEF loss) - 174.5 (old TEF loss) = 54.4 extra calories lost due to thermogenesis. Not 100.

Part Three
“Notably, at 8 % CHO, the value for the early phase of the Atkins [17], South Beach [18] or Protein Power diets [19], 140 kcalories are lost as heat.”

55% - 8% = 47% shift. Split evenly, this is an additional 23.5% kcal for protein and fat.

160(.08) + 1070(.025) + 770(.275) = 249.7 kcal lost due to TEF (using Jéquier’s averaged values).

251.3 (new TEF loss) - 174.5 (old TEF loss) = 76.8 kcal difference, NOT 140.

186

Lotta numbers, but… OK, but what’s the point?

Whelp, unless someone can tell me where my math went wrong (or where I am mistaken in my interpretation), the new task is to explain to my why I should trust Feinman and Fine’s interpretation of thermodynamics when they can’t (seemingly) perform basic arithmetic.

Of course, we are talking low carb diets here – NOT high protein. Therefore, even with the less-than-stellar difference shown to be found in carbohydrate reduction, we can expect it to be even less than less-than-stellar if we DIDN’T split the caloric difference between fat and protein and, instead, shifted it completely from carbs to fat.

Because, after all, that IS what is being discussed. Fat vs carbs. Not carbs vs fat and protein.

This is a distinction that is lost amongst most LC advocates when they trot out their studies. While no one is going to argue the existence of TEF (it was pointed out by Aragorn and acknowledged by me pages ago), the difference between carbs and fat is so little that it has been shown to be negligible in tightly controlled studies.

Academically illustrative? Yes. Pragmatically noteworthy? Not so much. People simply don’t lose extra weight by relying on the TEF difference between carbs and fat.

187

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I wasn’t trying to argue LC, LF, or anything of the sort. All I’m saying is that given a fixed amount of calories, the composition of those calories DOES matter. Therefore, CICO is not accurate. If it didn’t matter, we would just drink olive oil all day for a quick energy fix and be done with it. That’s all I’m saying.[/quote]

Calories in, calories out is for weight manipulation, not body composition or health.

No one is arguing that people can live off of olive oil.

188

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
I posted links showing studies of lower carbohydrate Diets being the better of the Diets being tested.[/quote]

Still curious as to your thoughts on the paleo article – this sentence gives the impression you consider it a lower carb diet.

If you look it up, you will find (Table 1) that carb intake only decreased approximately 5g total. The percentage is (slightly) lower (6%), but this is due primarily to the increased protein.

So, why do you consider this a lower carb diet and why are you assuming that the 5g decrease in carbohydrate is responsible for the shift in health markers more than any other alternative I offered?

I will give my thoughts on the second one after we review this. If I’m taking the time to look over these studies, I want to make sure my concerns are addressed.

189

So, the Paleo study was lower in calories? Isn’t this something that would satisfy most people/ People cutting their calories without focusing on that solely, it takes care of itself through the body’s ability to self regulate intake better?

Look, counting calories is absurd when you think about it, at no point in history did any animal EVER have to do such a thing, until recently.

190

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
So, the Paleo study was lower in calories? Isn’t this something that would satisfy most people/ People cutting their calories without focusing on that solely, it takes care of itself through the body’s ability to self regulate intake better?

Look, counting calories is absurd when you think about it, at no point in history did any animal EVER have to do such a thing, until recently.[/quote]

That may be because it was never needed. Early humans, and the majority of people on the planet until recently led very active lives and most jobs required a lot of physical activity so it did not really matter how much one took because most people’s energy needs were so great and weight loss was not really a big deal since most people who were not upper class did not get fat.

These days, many foods are so calorically dense that it is incredibly easy to eat above one’s maintenance level without even realizing it. Taking that and coupling it with the generally sedentary lifestyle of most Americans that creates a need for weight loss that is much greater in the past as evidenced by roughly 66% of the population being obese/overweight. Really if you are dieting you are almost always going to have some way of measuring caloric intake, whether it is through counting your own calories to come up with a meal plan or following someone else’s diet. It is very rare to see someone go through a weight loss phase without paying any attention to caloric intake at least on a basic level.

I also have some comments on the thermodynamics paper but I will have to get to that later.

191

Sorry, I don’t buy the exercise part of the obesity argument. Greater energy expenditure will lead the body to want more calories… Take a look at fat construction workers, among the most active people there are, yet how/why are they fat?

Housewives of the 70s sure didn’t hit up the gym 5x wk, yet obesity in women was not like that of today.

192

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:

Btw Anomym: You come across as a arrogant snobbish prick if you mean it or not. Just a heads up. Dr Matt in all of his intelligence does not. FWIW.

[/quote]

Thank you, but in all fairness I have been accused of being a snob, but it was by HH so I am not sure if it counts, although I have lost patience once or twice with people on these forums so I do understand why Anonym has been frustrated by certain posters in this thread.

193

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
So, the Paleo study was lower in calories? Isn’t this something that would satisfy most people/ People cutting their calories without focusing on that solely, it takes care of itself through the body’s ability to self regulate intake better?

Look, counting calories is absurd when you think about it, at no point in history did any animal EVER have to do such a thing, until recently.[/quote]

That may be because it was never needed. Early humans, and the majority of people on the planet until recently led very active lives and most jobs required a lot of physical activity so it did not really matter how much one took because most people’s energy needs were so great and weight loss was not really a big deal since most people who were not upper class did not get fat.

These days, many foods are so calorically dense that it is incredibly easy to eat above one’s maintenance level without even realizing it. Taking that and coupling it with the generally sedentary lifestyle of most Americans that creates a need for weight loss that is much greater in the past as evidenced by roughly 66% of the population being obese/overweight. Really if you are dieting you are almost always going to have some way of measuring caloric intake, whether it is through counting your own calories to come up with a meal plan or following someone else’s diet. It is very rare to see someone go through a weight loss phase without paying any attention to caloric intake at least on a basic level.

I also have some comments on the thermodynamics paper but I will have to get to that later.[/quote]

What is the mechanism that makes people fat?

And don’t say thermodynamics because that is always true.

194

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
So, the Paleo study was lower in calories? Isn’t this something that would satisfy most people/ People cutting their calories without focusing on that solely, it takes care of itself through the body’s ability to self regulate intake better?
[/quote]

Could it be that avoiding a certain macronutrient makes the body more efficient at burning fat and thus not feel hungry just after eating?

Leptin resistance is a big factor to overweight people who always feel hungry. Leptin resistance and insulin resistance go along together because they both bind to the same receptors. Insulin resistance will make the body pack on weight big time while leptin resistance makes one want to keep eating even when not hungry.

It’s a pretty safe bet that primitive peoples neither became insulin nor leptin resistant.

195

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
So, the Paleo study was lower in calories? Isn’t this something that would satisfy most people/ People cutting their calories without focusing on that solely, it takes care of itself through the body’s ability to self regulate intake better?
[/quote]

Could it be that avoiding a certain macronutrient makes the body more efficient at burning fat and thus not feel hungry just after eating?

Leptin resistance is a big factor to overweight people who always feel hungry. Leptin resistance and insulin resistance go along together because they both bind to the same receptors. Insulin resistance will make the body pack on weight big time while leptin resistance makes one want to keep eating even when not hungry.

It’s a pretty safe bet that primitive peoples neither became insulin nor leptin resistant.[/quote]

I’m mostly with ya, but there are populations that ate a higher % of their cals from carbs, with less fat and meat, yet didn’t have problems.

196

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’m mostly with ya, but there are populations that ate a higher % of their cals from carbs, with less fat and meat, yet didn’t have problems.[/quote]

Tolerance to nutrients is not universal.

197

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’m mostly with ya, but there are populations that ate a higher % of their cals from carbs, with less fat and meat, yet didn’t have problems.[/quote]

Tolerance to nutrients is not universal.[/quote]

no, but the source of those nutrients was a lot different compared to what most people eat these days.

198

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I’m mostly with ya, but there are populations that ate a higher % of their cals from carbs, with less fat and meat, yet didn’t have problems.[/quote]

Tolerance to nutrients is not universal.[/quote]

in that case, a high fat diet may not be good for everyone, again just playing devil’s advocate here

199

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Sorry, I don’t buy the exercise part of the obesity argument. Greater energy expenditure will lead the body to want more calories… Take a look at fat construction workers, among the most active people there are, yet how/why are they fat?

Housewives of the 70s sure didn’t hit up the gym 5x wk, yet obesity in women was not like that of today.[/quote]

There is a big difference between WANTING and HAVING. I also never said it was one or the other. If you really think your physical activity has nothing to do with body composition, you may just be on the wrong kind of site. Up until recently, the idea of having fully stocked grocery stores open 24 hours a day and fast food restaurants on every corner would have been seen as a fantasy, and the food that was available was not usually as calorie dense as the stuff that is available today, plus it was expensive. Disposable income to spend on fast food and junk food was not a reality for most until recently. These days, most people can scrape a few dollars together and buy a few double cheeseburgers from McDonalds, which is something like 1200-1500 calories if I am not mistaken.

200

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
So, the Paleo study was lower in calories? Isn’t this something that would satisfy most people/ People cutting their calories without focusing on that solely, it takes care of itself through the body’s ability to self regulate intake better?[/quote]

Calories were increased by 300 or so in FISCHER’s study.

Carbs were kept at just about the same level and yet… people still saw excellent changes in their health markers.

So, what does that suggest? That maybe the problem isn’t carbs, per se?

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Look, counting calories is absurd when you think about it, at no point in history did any animal EVER have to do such a thing, until recently.[/quote]

That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work. Numerous bodybuilders have been successful prepping for contests by, in part, tracking their calories; people routinely see success with programs such as Weight Watcher’s, etc.

But then, we are living in a world that is completely unlike anything any animal has even seen.

201

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Sorry, I don’t buy the exercise part of the obesity argument. Greater energy expenditure will lead the body to want more calories… Take a look at fat construction workers, among the most active people there are, yet how/why are they fat?

Housewives of the 70s sure didn’t hit up the gym 5x wk, yet obesity in women was not like that of today.[/quote]

There is a big difference between WANTING and HAVING. I also never said it was one or the other. If you really think your physical activity has nothing to do with body composition, you may just be on the wrong kind of site. Up until recently, the idea of having fully stocked grocery stores open 24 hours a day and fast food restaurants on every corner would have been seen as a fantasy, and the food that was available was not usually as calorie dense as the stuff that is available today, plus it was expensive. Disposable income to spend on fast food and junk food was not a reality for most until recently. These days, most people can scrape a few dollars together and buy a few double cheeseburgers from McDonalds, which is something like 1200-1500 calories if I am not mistaken. [/quote]

I wasn’t refferringt o body comp, rather body weight.