Ilya wrote:
>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.
I think you're right in emphasizing that there is indeed
something like a calorie loss for the body.
Something that can hardly be found in nutrition literature
because such circumstances ( as low-carbers experience )
hardly ever occurs in "normal" living diets.
And probably also *very* seldom in any back ages of our
anchestors, may it be paleolithic or earlier or later.
I can accept that it works and may help you to
loose some calories you whish to eat, but not to loose otherwise.
But I can't locate the benefit in adjusting our body's machinery
so, that it's forced to burn it's fuel incomplete
just for the sake to achieve a higher need.
This reminds me of a motor adjusted too fat (with too less air),
so that part of it's fuel is leaving unburnt.
Except, when the fuel (the fat) brings something with it
which is really needed. May it be protein or w-3 fat or vitamin E
or whatever.
I said:
>> 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.
Ilya:
>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?
No, I just said this favouring the fat-burning pathways.
Energy is very worthwhile and very needed.
For the sake of keeping a constant body temperature for example.
Fats can provide a good energy supply *without* needing to eat
too much food of possibly unwanted, unnecessary and maybe dangerous
ingredients.
Would one live on grains alone to get the 2400 kcal
would provide about 150% of RDA proteins.
(with grains over-supply of protein isn't desireable because the
proteins come with some antinutrients and no protein is needed
to yeald the necessary glucose).
Would one live on meat alone to get the 2400 kcal,
would provide about 700% of RDA proteins.
(with meat-olone a over-supply of protein *is* necessary, because
very much protein is a needed to end up as the necessary glucose,
and to catch up with some vitamins in supply).
But eating fat can supply pure energy, so that the input of
meat or grain or nut or whatever can be cut down to the
level, where other demands become dominant (e.g. vitamins).
As i recall this is exactely what Stephansson (or was it the other)
in the much citet meat-only experiment did, and what inuit do.
Eating a *big* percentage of fat.
>> remember the Dr.Stoll reference?
>Sorry, no. Who is he and what is the reference?
Searching more stuff about the Krebs Cycle, energy yielding pathways
and about thiamin, i came about that Dr.Stoll's web site.
I include it again at the bottom.
>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 .....
I can imagine, that there are factors other than
biological needs that influence food desires.
However what i experience day to day, appears to me mostly like a
really ravenous appetite on *energy*
(most often on every type of sweets).
Seems as would these sweets not really satisfy the hunger
but rather be deposited as fat.... meanwhile still on low body
temperature and low energy level.
>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.
I whish you, that this persists on the long run too.
>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.
At first, thiamin shortages are described by the severe diseases
it can cause ("beri beri"...). Many described severe diseases
are caused by the nerves and/or muscles beginning to malfunction
because of the unability to fuel nerves.
This is how thiamin was found to be essential, a vitamin.
However, are some other enzymes necessary for process.
They will be found in natural food , containing thiamin too.
But not in supplements,
I think, that thiamin supplement study you suggest might prove
a positive effect on weight loss even if it's thiamin only.
Especially on the long run and without additional efforts of
weight reduction.
It may not be the only factor leading to obesity, but it may be
a factor that *can* lead to obesity.
And thiamin shortage *is* common in western countries.
I'm not shure in which direction you are argueing.
All this thiamin points towards a diet of natural and unmodified
and fresh items - like paleo does. It emphasizes several seeds
but it's also found in some meats (pork...).
IMO a real good reason for paleo-nutrition - as i view it
and as you might view it too.
regards
Amadeus
|
