Ilya wrote:
>You could search the archives of the lowcarb-l–solid.net list.
Thanks.
I wrote:
>> Hm, according to the above citation, there are circumstances
>> when significant amounts (not only acetone) leave the body.
>> But these don't seem to be normal and healthy.
Ilya:
>You say these don't seem to be normal and healthy. If by normal
>you mean 'not something that happens on an average day to an average
>person', then fine. But you also call it unhealthy. On what are you
>basing this? We have other examples that are similar (i.e. drink
>lots of water) where it's soon leaving the body through kidneys
>and people recommend this as healthy. Taking extra amounts of some
>vitamins (e.g. C) is another. Again, recommended as healthy.
On the ..edu reference i read excretion of ketone bodies
(other than acetone)
is described to occur only in the bodie's attempt to reestablish
its acid-balance. And similar when excreting glucose by the kindey.
This is (for me) an indication that it may be
unhealthy *on the long run*.
Maybe the body can estabish this excretion as a long term function,
if other befenits are gained by a certain WOE.
As i view several paleolithic ages, may it be africa or ice-europe,
the most crucial supply seems always to have been the fuel, energy.
Wild game contains much less energy from fat as meat, so parts of
meat protein just have to be burnt.
(Consequentely present hunters and gatherers consider fat to be
very valuable).
Under such circumstances I can't imagine that the excretion of
fat parts (ketone bodies) has evolved just to "get rid of" calories.
Energy and protein is preserved very carefully,
except if much bigger dangers
would arise keeping it, like hyperglykemia with glucose and
acidification with ketones (in conjuction with glocuneogenesis).
> .. (Bodys ability to utilize these calories maxes out).
>This does
>NOT explain why NONE of the calories above maintenance seem
>to be utilized (no fat/weight gain). My point was very simple -
>you were wrong when you said that the body does not simply
>discard calories, that they must be used or stored. I was
>trying to show that not only can they be discarded, but they
>are discarded in large amounts (everything above the needed level).
Accepted as an exception of the rule (and as a leaving out of mine).
For the reason mentioned above, however i doubt
that it's "everything above the needed level".
>> I already said how i think that actual *usage* of carb-kcals
>> is be hindered - lack of enzymes and namely thiamin lack.
>> So that fat is deposited while at the same time the
>> energy could be spent useful, because the
>> body temperature is low, and a fatigueness spares muscle energy.
>The reason somebody with a 2500 carb kcal diet is gaining weight
>is the hormonal balance.
This fits to my description. Just that there's a *reason*
why the body chooses such a hormonal regulation
(low temperature and such).
>You would be very hard pressed to find
>somebody who gains weight on a 2500 calorie/day low carb, high
>fat, appropriate protein diet.
If you have (much of) your calories from fat, a different pathway
can be used, using different enzymes,
probably not needing thiamin for ex..
Of special interest may be the brown adipose cells.
These are fat cells, that burn virtually fat for gaining
*temperature*. Who learned about heat energy in physics
may remember that is costs enormous energy to heat up something.
> (And I hope you are still not
>implying that 2500 calories from mostly fat, rest protein somehow
>maxes out the bodys ability to process it.
The switch from carb to fat metabolism functione without a need for
thiamin. This favours fat over carbs for their *usage*.
Because thiamin is a truely low supplied vitamin in the
"normal" diet (SAD).
And every pure sugar molecule increases that effect.
>If you are please
>show some references,
remember the Dr.Stoll reference?
> rather than your gut feelings, pun intended :)
Sorry, i missed the pun. I'm not native in english.
>> It would be easier to feel satisfied after a 2300 kcal meal
>> as to stop hungry after a 4000 kcal meal.
>Not trying to be difficult, but still don't see where you are going
>with this.
>Oh, and btw, I ate 5000 calories not because I was hungry - I simply
>love food and ate more. My hunger was satiated much earlier.
You can make a difference between hunger and appetite or craving.
Hunger beeing the hunger for energy and appetite what makes you
not to stop eating after hunger is satisfied.
As you know, my guess is, that the body is still seeking for
something
in the food (some vitamin or mineral) it hasn't got yet.
Also in you case. Something might have missing.
(I don't assume that is was merely the psychological
effect to feel comforted while eating).
>> It's true, this are my own ideas, and i haven't seen them written
>> anywhere in that form. ...
>I don't have any problems with this as a general premise. The
>problems that I do have with it are twofold - first it is
unsubstantiated,
>thus not really suitable as a theory (fine as a speculation),
>second you seem to place too much stress on it as a primary
>hunger/set point mechanism. I would not deny (even without proof)
>that the body evolved to crave things it needs. However, this simply
>means that it's ONE OF, not THE mechanism regulating hunger.
I wouldn't claim to explain "THE" mechanism regulating hunger.
There may be psychological effects, sometimes malfunctions
and various satiety signals like filling or over-toxication.
I just want to point out one hunger generating mechanism
i think to have found. Cravings for Vitamins.
One mechanism generating hunger
may be enough to overfeed, if its imperative is strong enough
to overrule intentions of restrictions.
A second mechanism which i think is even more important
for obesity and over-eating is the hunger for energy.
Who knows, or counts with it, that all that sugarous calories
eaten cannot really be burnt (in the Krebs-Cycle without thiamin).
For a reference you can read in any vitamin book that
thiamin was "important for carbohydrate metabolism".
As a co-enzyme it is also used up.
A very good description of it can also be found
at http://www.bcn.net/~stoll/sugar.html
Thanks for your thoughts. I see, i still didn't manage
to outline the thiamin idea to be understood and
accepted easily. I'll work on that.
Jean-Claude wrote on cholesterol, heart desease...:
>I think the difference is in the amount of sugar eaten by the
French.
>... The the French eat 5 pounds of sugar
>per capita per year and Americans eat 37 lb.. I think the number of
>lb. has increased greatly for Americans in the last ..
Sugar, the pure vitamin-depleting agent may in the follow up
be responsible for many deseases.
regards
Amadeus
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
|
