Dry carbohydrates, wet carbohydrates & energy density.

Karen N Davids thought of it first!

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!

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!).

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 = E_in - E_out
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"

"FACT: Calories neither determine weight OR body composition with certainty. Nigel / some CICO zealots may agree body composition changes are privy to nutrition, but wt is 100% controlled by calories. This is something they pretty much made up and biological science does not at all support this idea. Calories neither control body composition OR body weight/mass with any certainty. The bulk consumed with fork and spoon does not need to stick on your body in the form of a mass laden tissue, ever."
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. "

"Again, making crap up. There is NO RULE IN BIOLOGY which states all consumed energy must be retained as body mass. Indeed most typical people gain fat during overfeeding (with great resistance/inefficiency of fat gain), but it is indeed possible to hardly gain any or none at all as in constitutional thinness. What happens during calorie consumption among different people (and perhaps, different DIETS and different TIMES and different ENDOCRINE situations...) is a wild card determined by the biology i.e. neuroendocrine functions of the animal in question. There is NOTHING about physics which reflects / informs physiology other than the basic fact the latter exists within the former (which, again, tells us NOTHING ultimately). How organisms process consumed nutrition is not a physics question. There is no freakin' law of physics or physiology for that matter which states nom nom time = thigh chub. You don't have to wear that pizza as a popeye's muscle or as a shelf butt."
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."

"I know anxious/obsessional people like the safe feeling of balancing calories. The fact reality is more complex and you can't just enter things in a phone app and be ASSURED of what is going on in your body, doesn't invalidate the truth of the fact metabolic reactions are more complex THAN CALORIES.

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."

"1) The advantage of a ketogenic diet (non-fasting) does exist, so it's not a 'cock up", even if his mechanism was wrong.
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).

Nutritional Ketosis: What is it good for?

I have a video in mind...


Having previously shown you what I look like on a diet of ~125g/day low-GL carbohydrates, here are a couple of recent pictures of Jimmy Moore, who's on a very-low-carb, very-high-fat diet (~85%E from fats), a.k.a. Nutritional Ketosis. It involves adding Kerrygold butter to just about everything, even eating sticks of it from a block. I'm not kidding.

I told you I wasn't kidding.

From Google Image Search on "Jimmy Moore" OR "Livin la Vida low carb", images in the last 7 days:-

On 6.7.14.

On 8.7.14.

The only recent footage of Fredrick Hahn, is the following video from the Low Carb Cruise...


To my eyes, Nutritional Ketosis is good for absolutely nothing. Dietary fat can be stored as body fat, in the absence of dietary carbohydrates. Gary Taubes' claim "You can basically exercise as much gluttony as you want, as long as you're eating (only) fat and protein." is pure fantasy, not supported by evidence.

The low protein intake in Nutritional Ketosis, combined with the high serum cortisol that's almost inevitable on this way of eating, results in a loss of muscle mass. I give Nutritional Ketosis a thumbs-down.
 

Summary:-

1) No Energy Deficit → No Weight Loss. There is no Metabolic Advantage to Nutritional Ketosis. See http://www.jbc.org/content/92/3/679.full.pdf

2) Insufficient carbohydrate intake and insufficient protein intake starves the liver & kidneys of gluconeogenic pre-cursors, which raises cortisol, which converts muscle mass into gluconeogenic pre-cursors e.g. Glutamine, Alanine etc. This is standard Biochemistry. No links required.

3) While excess carbohydrates are converted into triglycerides by the liver, excess fats are converted into cholesterol by the liver, which is exported to tissues as LDL-C.

LDL-P ∝ LDL-C. High LDL-P is strongly associated with increased risk factor for CHD. See http://www.lecturepad.org/dayspring/lipidaholics/pdf/LipidaholicsCase291.pdf

CHD is not an inflammation-mediated phenomenon. It's an LDL-P and neovascularisation-mediated phenomenon. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492120/

Postprandial lipaemia is atherogenic. See Ultra-high-fat (~80%) diets: The good, the bad and the ugly.

4) Read Page 10 of https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/feb/pritikinpdf3.pdf, starting from "Could such a cream meal precipitate an angina attack because the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood is lowered?" It's an actual trial on humans with clogged coronary arteries. It's not a hypothesis.

5) Chronically-raised cortisol causes aggressive behaviour (cortisol is a stress hormone) and adversely affects short-term memory storage in the Hippocampus. See http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=cortisol

6) Eskimos, Sami, Masai, Samburu, Tokelauans etc, get ~50% of their total energy from fats. There are zero populations that get ≥80%E from fats.


Update 25th July 2014: I appear to have rustled Fredrick Hahn's Jimmies. See https://www.facebook.com/FredrickHahn/posts/10152227780827864

I can safely state that Fredrick Hahn is a liar (I am not poking fun at anybody and I have only blocked him (not his followers) from posting here, for a flagrant breach of my Moderation Policy on his first attempt at commenting), and intellectually-dishonest (for repeatedly mis-quoting me, and using other logical fallacies). He posted the above post knowing that, as I had blocked him on Facebook, I wouldn't see it. I only learned of its existence after a friend PM'ed me on Facebook Messenger. He instructed his "followers" to leave comments here and then accuse me of lying about white-listing, back on his page, because their comments didn't appear immediately. He's a real piece of work! From ABOUT ME:-

Moderation Policy: Comments from first-time & untrusted commenters are moderated ← (click for details). Please be patient. Now that I have a Smart Phone, I can publish your comments during the day when I'm away from my lap-top, but I prefer to type replies on my lap-top. Comments from anonymous commenters, containing links in any form, are deleted.

This is a function of Disqus, as it's impossible to retrospectively white-list a commenter who's never commented here before. There appears to be a severe lack of cognitive function in these people. I really can't think why that is ;-)

Why am I being so hard on Jimmy Moore and Fredrick Hahn? I don't know these people personally.

1) These people are making money out of peddling pseudoscience.

2) These people meet all the criteria in Guest post: Science versus Pseudoscience and have created an alternative science, where sky-high LDL cholesterol, sky-high LDL-P and sky-high postprandial TG's are not risk factors for CHD, but are either harmless or beneficial.

I'm back with some miscellaneous ramblings.

I'm not dead! Who knew?


I saw https://twitter.com/JimJohnsonSci/status/468745252170248192 and read Modeling type 2 diabetes in rats using high fat diet and streptozotocin.

What I find a bit sad is the "cure > prevention" attitude. The cause of pre-diabetes & type 2 diabetes is pretty well known now, i.e. it's basically the inability of bodily stores (liver/muscle glycogen stores & fat masses) to accommodate any more, resulting in excessive amounts of various things (e.g. glucose, fat, cholesterol, NEFAs etc) in the blood, with varying degrees of beta cell dysfunction.

The degree of fatness at which bodily stores become full depends on the degree of adipocyte hyperplasia, so it's possible for slim people to become type 2 diabetic, though ~85% of type 2 diabetics are over-fat. Some slim people are misdiagnosed with type 2 diabetes, as they have LADA or signalling abnormalities. Some have acquired endocrine abnormalities.

I've been pre-diabetic twice to my knowledge, the most recent occasion being last year when I became slightly manic after mum died and got into a large number of arguments on various blogs. I "took my eye off the ball" diet-wise and ended up gaining too much body-fat, even though my belt didn't feel noticeably tight. I blogged about feeling too hot last year. When I had blood tests in September to find out why I was overheating so much, the results revealed hyper****aemia, where **** = glucose, total cholesterol & triglycerides. The doctor recommended that I take a statin. I declined, stating that I knew what had caused the problem and that I would deal with it. I was told to have repeat blood tests in 3 months time.

I subsequently "kept my eye on the ball" diet-wise (using bathroom scales to monitor progress), lost 8kg (some of it fat mass & some of it muscle mass) and when I was retested 3 months later, the previously abnormal blood test results were back to completely normal. That's twice I've gone from pre-diabetes to normal, which suggests that deterioration from pre-diabetes to type 2 diabetes is not inevitable, provided that the cause is dealt with before excessive irreversible beta cell dysfunction occurs.

The main reason why the incidence of over-fatness & type 2 diabetes is increasing is the overconsumption of "Crap in a bag/box/bottle" by increasing numbers of people. How to reverse this trend? Damned if I know!

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.

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.