Hopefully, that got your attention! Please watch the following video.
The secret to weight loss success is this:-
1. Formulate a good plan. A good plan is one that both works and is doable.
2. Stick to it!
3. Exercise mostly increases fitness, but it does increase energy expenditure by a significant amount. See Calories Burned - Walking: 3.5 mph (17 minutes per mile). A 250lb man walking for 90 minutes expends 756kcals.
The vast majority of people who eat "fast food" don't do the above. "Fast food" establishments use every trick in the book to get people to make bad food choices and consume as much as possible.
As people are reluctant to go back for more food (as they think that it makes them look greedy), super-sizing was invented, which allows people to eat twice as much food for less than twice as much cost.
Delicious aromas stimulate the appetite. Added sugar, salt & flavour enhancers increase the food reward.
Bright colours, cartoon characters and toys entice children.
Calories etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
Calories etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
20 Ekim 2015 Salı
22 Ağustos 2014 Cuma
"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, 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, 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.
18 Ağustos 2014 Pazartesi
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 http://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 http://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 http://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!
13 Ağustos 2014 Çarşamba
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 http://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 http://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).
7 Temmuz 2014 Pazartesi
Why Calories count (where weight change is concerned).
I have to add the words "where weight change is concerned", as calories have little to do with body composition or general health (unless somebody becomes morbidly obese).
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 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 pretty 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 Calories ...
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 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 pretty 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 Calories ...
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.
4 Temmuz 2014 Cuma
How low-carbohydrate diets are (incorrectly) explained to work.
Having explained how 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. 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. There is no significant Metabolic Advantage with low-carbohydrate diets.
14 Haziran 2014 Cumartesi
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
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.
For more information on Prof. Taylor's work, see Reversing Type 2 Diabetes.
Eating Through The Myths: Food, Health and Happiness - Taylor, Prof. R., Berlin, 28-Sep-12
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.
For more information on Prof. Taylor's work, see Reversing Type 2 Diabetes.
7 Haziran 2014 Cumartesi
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 http://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 http://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 (~400kcals/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 http://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 http://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 (~400kcals/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!
2 Haziran 2014 Pazartesi
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.
31 Temmuz 2013 Çarşamba
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.
24 Temmuz 2013 Çarşamba
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.
19 Temmuz 2013 Cuma
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.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)