Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> But acetone is the only ketone body out of three which is unusable.
> More ketone bodies could be urinated away in the bodies attemps
> to keep the acid balance.
It's the last part - getting rid of ketones (regardless of type) when
their concentration gets too high - that's responsible for loosing
extra calories as waste in low carbers.
> >I personally don't have an answer, somebody on the low carb exercise
> >list posted some calculations (me thinks it was Lyle), but then
> >changed them significantly.
> If more ketones are excreted to keep the acid balance (by the kidney)
> this may be the explanation why the calculations change.
> Could you point to the url where that "Lyle" calculations can be
> found?
You could search the archives of the [log in to unmask] list.
I don't have the archive url, but if you join, you'll get the e-mail
with instructions. Beware that that list generates far more traffic
than this one, and each topic is usually discussed many times, so
finding something might be a tad difficult.
> >> I think ketone bodies are a small hope if someone is trying to
> >> loose excess kalories.
> >If that's the case, then how do you explain people who eat
> >FAR above their maintenance levels of calories and still loose
> >fat, or don't gain any? I am talking about 5000 calories per day
> >in fat and protein. I am also talking about people who used to
> >gain weight on 2500 calories per day when eating carbs as well.
>
> 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.
> Why should one want to eat so much as 5000 cal anyway if it's soon
> leaving through the kindeys??
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.
> Other explanations for the 5000 kcal puzzle were:
> 5000 kcal fat are about 500g (half liter oil or 2 lbs bacon).
> Could that much be assimilated in the gut anyway?
> At least it has to be emulsified into small drops by bile
> in order to be digested.
> If not, it could leave the body as it went into it.
What you are saying here explains why SOME of the calories
may not be used up in an extremely high caloric intake situation.
(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).
> The case with the 2500 carb kcal diet gaining weight:
> Any kcal ingested above the actual use is deposited into
> fat (except in unnatural circumstances, as above).
> 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. You would be very hard pressed to find
somebody who gains weight on a 2500 calorie/day low carb, high
fat, appropriate protein diet. (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. If you are please
show some references, rather than your gut feelings, pun intended :)
> >> The focus on energy balance should be, IMHO in our
> >> intrinsic hunger/appetite regulation.
> >Sorry, don't understand what you are trying to say here
>
> Our appetite and hunger feelings regulate how much food we eat.
> I think it would be much more easier if the appetite could
> say "stop" after the needed 2200 kcal or so are ingested.
> Easier as if appetite stops only after 5000 kcal.
>
> It would be easier to feel satisfied after a 2300 kcal meal
> as to stop hungry after a 4000 kcal meal.
> If we understood what upregulates and downregulates the appetite
> this kind of comfort could be achieved.
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. Also,
I have noticed that if I eat a very high protein meal that is also
low in carbs and fat I go into a very sleepy state for about half
an hour. So I would get extra fat to avoid this. (I would typically
drink a cup of heavy cream or olive oil, or if that was available
eat lots of butter).
> >> My guess is, that this "set point" is most often determined by the
> >> availability of one or few essential micronutrients in food.
> >This is a pure speculation on your part. If not - could you
> >reference your sources please.
> It's true, this are my own ideas, and i haven't seen them written
> anywhere in that form.
> I've encountered cites in books and net sites that support
> the basics that serve as my basis.
> The "set point" reference is in my last posting.
> Appetite signals demanding a specific food can be observed by
> anybody.
> I found reports from animals choosing food Vitamin-b1-specific
> or amino-acid specific after a shortage before.
> To me, my ideas, may it be speculation, deduction or theory
> seem obvious.
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.
Ilya
|
