TexasCHLforum.com

rdcrags

I guess I am just ignorant enough to believe that the "wrong food" kick is just one fad after another. Many of us have never changed what we eat, just how much, and are still healthy at old age.

rdcrags

Tracker wrote:
rdcrags wrote:
carlson1 wrote:
rdcrags wrote:
carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs

What is your story?
My story is this: I believe that when the weight goes down due to eating fewer calories, exerting more, or both, the bad numbers go down, the good numbers up. I plotted this for my case over a period of 3 years (6 blood analyses), and showed the plot to my doctor. He requested permission to show the plot to his non-believing patients. In other words, what was relevant 70 years ago is still valid, despite the yards of dietary shelf space at the book stores and online. That’s my story. Each to his own belief or understanding, though. Free country.
Dr Peter Attia MD (Stanford medical school and Johns Hopkins residence) is also an undergrad and graduate degrees in engineering. That gives him an advantage over the typical MD in that he actually had to know thermodynamics to get his engineering degrees. Nobody is disputing the energy conservation. But here's what Attia has to say about the whole calories in/out paradigm: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

Basically, it goes like this: the equation X = kcal in - kcal out is descriptive (ie a mathematically correct description). It is not explanatory. It doesn't answer Why questions. That is, the equation does not establish an "arrow of causality."

So I'm going to apply this equation a number of different ways. Each one is mathematically identical.

G = growth
G = Calories in - Calories out.
You have a growing adolescent boy who is eating you out of house and home. Why? What's causing him to do so?

Is he growing because he's in eating more calories then his maintenance needs? Is the arrow of causality this way G <= Calories in - Calories out?
Or
Is he eating more calories then his maintenance because he's growing. Is the arrow of causality this way G => Calories in - Calories out?

I can ask the same question of a pregnant woman: P = Calories in - Calories out. My daughter is pregnant. Where she used to eat like a bird, she now says she's now hungry all the time.

What's going on in the above two equation? Hormones are driving the hunger response and increasing appetite to insure a positive caloric balance.

F = bodyfat
People just assume the arrow of causality is this way: F <= Calories in - Calories out. Maybe that's not true.
Are you getting fat (<=) because you are eating more calories then your maintenance?
Or
Are you eating more calories then your maintenance because you are getting fat (=>)?
If it's this later then what [hormone] is driving fat accumulation and increasing appetite? Insulin.

To quote Attia's link, above:
"What you eat (along with other factors, like your genetic makeup, of course) impacts how your body partitions and stores fat. In case anyone is wondering how I got over 2,000 words into this post without mentioning the i-word, wonder no longer. Insulin, while not the only factor involved in this process, is probably at the top of the list. When you eat foods that have the double whammy of increasing insulin levels AND increasing your cell’s resistance to insulin, your body prioritizes fat storage over fat utilization. Remember the great medical disconnect – no one disputes that insulin is the most singularly important hormone for causing fat cells to accumulate fat. Somehow the dispute centers on what causes people (full of billions of fat cells) to accumulate fat.

All calories are not created equally: The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body."

Also from Attia's blog: The great medical disconnect
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the- ... disconnect
"here is probably no greater disconnect in medicine than the root cause of obesity. Even if you think you already know the answer to this “obvious” question, it’s still worth reading on. The reason this question matters, of course, is clear to everyone. Obesity (and more broadly the syndrome we define as metabolic syndrome) predisposes us to virtually every disease afflicting us in the modern age. Above is a simple graphic from the journal Nature showing the linkage between obesity and all of its sequela.

When you are obese, your risk of disease goes up. This is not disputed. Here is where the controversy starts…what actually makes us obese?

Obesity is a disorder of fat accumulation – fat cells accumulate too much fat, relative to how much fat the body breaks down. Conventional wisdom, however, says obesity is a disorder of eating too much and/or exercising too little. These are not the same thing.

Let’s turn to a well-respected source of medical information, Lehninger’s Principles of Biochemistry (the so-called “bible” of biochemistry)......"

My 1st comment (page 3 of this thread) began with a statement that a small percentage of the population suffer from aberrations causing the inability to control excessive weight. The thyroid is usually singled out as the source of the difficulty. The word “metabolism” is usually thrown as well. That leaves the rest of us to consider. On page 4, when “brain chemistry” was mentioned by someone, I acknowledged that the brain controls everything pertaining to bodily functions. No argument there, either. But, we must acknowledge that brain control includes having the will to eat less and/or exercise more, and not just give it lip service. I also routinely concede that changing the kinds or types of solid and liquid intakes for whatever fad-like reason someone may have, can result in weight loss. But, I maintain that when it does, it is because the calories were incidentally reduced or that there was additional exertion involved. That’s why I asked if you made that calculation in the interest of science. I am not criticizing your beliefs on the subject.

rdcrags

carlson1 wrote:
rdcrags wrote:
carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs and my wife has lost 26lbs so far. Slow process, but with God all things are possible. We just keep fighting a little at a time. No drugs or surgery.

Carlson's Theology:
1. I didn't get fat overnight so thus I will not become skinny overnight.
2. You can't out run a fork.
3. Everyone is on a diet rather it is a good diet or a bad diet.
4. Lack of prayer is failure at the table.

This is what we have been doing. . .
Eat Every Day:
Fruits
Whole Grains
Leafy Greens
Nuts
Vegetables
Green Tea

Three Times A Week:
Oily Fish
Yogurt
Broccoli
Sweet Potato
Avocado

One Time Weekly:
Red Meat
Pasta
Dessert

Never:
Fast Foods
Soft Drinks
Processed Meals
Canned Soups
That's fine. Now, just to satisfy us "Calories in vs level of exertion out" nuts, what was the percent reduction in calories?
I have no clue and could care less. The weight is coming off, the number on the scale is going lower, the HDL went up, the LDL went down, triglyceride went down, and I have cut my insulin by 310 units. By the way that is the NUMBERS I am concerned with.

What is your story?

My story is this: I believe that when the weight goes down due to eating fewer calories, exerting more, or both, the bad numbers go down, the good numbers up. I plotted this for my case over a period of 3 years (6 blood analyses), and showed the plot to my doctor. He requested permission to show the plot to his non-believing patients. In other words, what was relevant 70 years ago is still valid, despite the yards of dietary shelf space at the book stores and online. That’s my story. Each to his own belief or understanding, though. Free country.

rdcrags

carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs and my wife has lost 26lbs so far. Slow process, but with God all things are possible. We just keep fighting a little at a time. No drugs or surgery.

Carlson's Theology:
1. I didn't get fat overnight so thus I will not become skinny overnight.
2. You can't out run a fork.
3. Everyone is on a diet rather it is a good diet or a bad diet.
4. Lack of prayer is failure at the table.

This is what we have been doing. . .
Eat Every Day:
Fruits
Whole Grains
Leafy Greens
Nuts
Vegetables
Green Tea

Three Times A Week:
Oily Fish
Yogurt
Broccoli
Sweet Potato
Avocado

One Time Weekly:
Red Meat
Pasta
Dessert

Never:
Fast Foods
Soft Drinks
Processed Meals
Canned Soups

That's fine. Now, just to satisfy us "Calories in vs level of exertion out" nuts, what was the percent reduction in calories?

rdcrags

I admit that something in the brain causes the individual to lack the will to eat less or exert more. It's that simple, in my view, except for the 5% with medical conditions as described.

rdcrags

I think some of you and other experts are making losing weight far too complicated. An excerpt from one of my essays:

"What about the attempts to encourage people to become healthier in order to reduce the need for medical assistance? Five percent of the U.S. population has thyroid or other issues that cause continual weight gain no matter what they eat or how much they exercise. Twenty-five percent of the U.S. population will tell you that they have thyroid or other issues that cause continual weight gain no matter what they eat or how much they exercise. In any case, the emphasis has been shifted from a personal issue to a national economic necessity to “fit” individuals (fitness programs).

Since the turn of the 20th century, the U.S. has been considered a place where food is plentiful. And with plenty comes overindulgence. People store fat for that hibernation that never comes, but they are ready if it ever does. I believe the issue is more basic. An extensive amount of effort is expended in essential one-on-one training over a long period of time for a newborn human to ultimately be able to sustain life by shoving solid food and pouring fluids through that opening at the top front of the human body. It is a long training period, and death would result without that training. Yet, there is no similar one-on-one training, except for athletes, for an adult in the necessary act of controlling the quantity of solid food and caloric fluids pushed and poured into that opening at the top front of the body. Then, there is the 30-30-30 syndrome. Goes like this: Let’s say that a person stuffs until he feels really full. His stomach feels undersized and the brain tells it to grow larger, which it does. He stuffs again, only due to the larger stomach, he feels full only after consuming even more than before. The cycle continues until, 30 years later, his stomach is 30% larger and he is carrying 30 pounds more fat. O.K., I made up the statistics, but I have bought into the concept. Doctors say that candidates for stomach bypass operations have enlarged stomachs. Net result of the initial training and absence of later training: Death at infancy is averted but premature death later is not. Until recently, that is. We now have trainers for celebrities and others who can afford trainers. The training often covers managing both intake and exercise, the essential balance required to stay trim. In some publicized cases, the trainer is engaged twice, first for the task and later to the celebrity herself.

The rest of us are on our own. Engineers understand the concept of calories in and work out. We are able to compare our bodies with manmade machines where such things are calculated routinely. We even know about storing excess energy input into batteries when the intake is greater than the output. In our bodies, the receptacle of that surplus energy is called “fat.” Yet, some engineers still eat too much and/or exercise too little. The basic unit of expending energy is the foot-pound. It means lifting one pound against the force of gravity a distance of one foot. The foot-pound is convertible to other units, including calories and Btu’s. If you pump iron by lifting a weight of 100 pounds a distance of one foot, and do it ten times, doing so is equivalent to eating food containing 650 calories, equivalent to a typical dinner. The latest statistic that I heard is, if you eat one M&M, you need to walk 3 blocks to burn the equivalent number of calories."

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: What's causing American obesity and cardiovascular disease?

Re: What's causing American obesity and cardiovascular disease?

Re: What's causing American obesity and cardiovascular disease?

Re: What's causing American obesity and cardiovascular disease?

Re: What's causing American obesity and cardiovascular disea

Re: What's causing American obesity and cardiovascular disea