Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> 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.
As far as I know this is true.
> This is (for me) an indication that it may be
> unhealthy *on the long run*.
As far as I know there are NO known long term negative effects
due to this. Just as one may say that the body gets rid of water
when there is too much of it in an attempt to reestablish a
fluid balance, but that does not mean that drinking extra water
causes any kind of long term problems.
> Under such circumstances I can't imagine that the excretion of
> fat parts (ketone bodies) has evolved just to "get rid of" calories.
I don't believe it's directly to get rid of calories either. Basically,
fatty acids get burned incompletely - leaving ketone bodies, which
are only used by some organs (e.g. heart prefers ketones to any other
fuel). Ketones can also be burned further IF glucose is available.
If not, their production can be higher than the demand for them
and the excess leaves through urine.
Please remember how/why this argument started - can/does the body
just get rid of extra calories rather than use/store them. It is
very clear that it can and does and sometimes in very large
quantities. Whether this makes sense to us from an evolutionary
point of view is irrelevant - the fact remains that the body does
this. If our theories don't agree with facts than the theories
are wrong, not the facts. It might make for an interesting
discussion as to what the evolutionary need is to 'waste' otherwise
useful resources and why this ability evolved, but this should not
direct the argument somehow to conclude that this does not happen
simply because it does not make sense to us.
> > .. (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".
If it was NOT everything above the needed level then I and some other
people who had similar experiences would have gained weight (as fat).
This is a simple consequence of arithmetic. Total energy consumed
must be equal to the energy burned, stored, or wasted. Since the
needed calories are those burned and there is nothing stored then
everything above needed is wasted.
> >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.
This still sounds like you are not agreeing with what I said, so I
am a bit puzzled - are you saying that people would commonly gain
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.
> 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.
You lost me here. What are you trying to say - that 2500 does max out
the body's ability to process it and give an explanation for that?
> >If you are please
> >show some references,
> remember the Dr.Stoll reference?
Sorry, no. Who is he and what is the reference?
> >> 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.
Unlikely, though I obviously don't have any proof that I am not
missing anything (but this is one of those 'prove the negative'
arguments). As for minerals or vitamins - I do supplement rather
thoroughly, so I know it's not one of the know ones.
> (I don't assume that is was merely the psychological
> effect to feel comforted while eating).
Has nothing to do with being comforted. Kinda like sex - I keep wanting
it beyond my need to procreate, nor do I need it for comfort or
feeling of being loved (though it's very nice when they do go together).
Very simply - if I like something, and I can keep doing it, I will keep
on doing it. Your assumption that I might be missing something is
essentially rooted in your belief that my desire for or liking of food
must be diminished as my biological need diminishes. I have not seen this
to be the case to an absolute degree (my desire will go down some, but
NOT disappear). This has been the case when I was eating high carb,
also during my 3 month stint as a vegetarian, and pretty much throughout my
life. It does not appear to be affected much by specific food choices.
I can eat an absolutely gluttonous amounts of any tasty food (high or low
carb, nutritious or not) and still enjoy eating more. The difference is that on
low carb it doesn't seem to affect me badly, either in terms of gaining
weight or in terms of my health.
> 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.
If what you say is correct it could be checked rather easily by
a simple study - give people on a typical high carb diet more thiamin
and see what happens. If that was the case and thiamin could
eliminate obesity either by controlling appetite or by changing
how body processes it, it would have been discovered and proven
by now.
Ilya
|
