<div>
(_Simon_ @ May 20 2008,9:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Eating carbs will cause the same fuel partitioning in both individuals. The same fat accumulation. The same chronic diseases.</div>
hmmm how so? the same fuel partioning? fat accumulation? in other words, i will be obese because the person down the road eats the same amount as me and he is obese.
?!?!? there's more to it i'm sorry.
and btw, the MECHANISM the body would go through to convert energy to store as bodyfat would be once the TDEE/BMR has been surpassed (we won't talk about weightlifting involvement here), energy is converted and stored as bodyfat. i could blah blah on about how it does so, but i don't need logic to explain how it does so, the fact is, that's what happens.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you consider hunger in all this? If not, it's time to do so.
You adhere to the PCB hypothesis. This is clear. I won't hold it against you, I promise. The PCB hypothesis has several attached assumptions. For instance, the prescription for weight loss by a medical doctor is invariably to cut total calories and to exercise more. You say you have a Ph.D. I believe you and so I understand that you would prescribe such a remedy for somebody who is overweight or obese. I understand that this is what you would prescribe not only because that's what your profession is bound to do according to the "book" but also because you personally believe that's the correct path to take in this instance.
You couldn't claim to not know that there is an alternative method to losing fat since we are discussing it here on this forum. Also, you couldn't claim that this alternative method doesn't cause increased hunger as shown by stevejones here in this forum and also by jeff in another forum that I linked to elsewhere. On the contrary this alternative method increases satiety to the point that people just refuse food no matter how palatable it may look. Naturally, carbs are forbidden in this alternative method. You couldn't claim to not know that your prescription would result in increased hunger, perhaps even to the point of causing serious mental problems.</div>
but now you're bringing hunger into it, and it seems as though you're saying that PCB is correct. (by saying that carbs cause people to be hungry THUS eating more THUS gaining weight, so it's the excess energy consumption that causes weight gain, and also just because someone is hungry, doesn't mean they will eat. so you can't attribute carbs as the sole cause). does that make sense?</div>
The discussion is about how fat makes us fat. If you have information on the subject, this is the place for it.
When we're hungry, we eat. Not eating when we're hungry will cause problems.
drpierredebs speaks of the difference between a disease state and a non-disease state. Let's do this about hunger.
In a normal non-disease state, the flow of nutrients is uninterrupted regardless of the quantity of food we eat. In an abnormal disease state, the flow of nutrients is interrupted by what we eat also regardless of the quantity of food we eat. The reason food doesn't interrupt the flow of nutrients is primarily because it doesn't have the capacity to bypass the normal digestive functions. In other words, the digestive functions can deal with that food just fine. The reason food interrupts the flow of nutrients is primarily because it has the capacity to bypass and maybe disrupt the digestive functions. In other words, the digestion functions can't deal with the food properly.
The main difference between a normal state and a disease state is the change in blood glucose level that the food will cause. In a normal state, blood glucose level will remain the same before, during and after the meal. In a disease state, blood glucose level will fluctuate, maybe wildly, before, during and after the meal.
Hunger is a function of nutrients availability. If nutrients flow normally, hunger is non-existent. If nutrients stop flowing normally, hunger will increase appropriately. Glucose is one such nutrient. But on the whole, it's not the only nutrient that determines hunger. What really determines hunger is insulin. But it does so indirectly through storing the nutrients that do determine hunger.
Insulin is a storage hormone. It takes the nutrients from the blood and causes them to be stored in adipose tissue. As insulin level rises, nutrients get locked in. Insulin is so good at its job that it literally empties the blood of all nutrients. Not just of glucose. Hunger will rise accordingly. Hunger will rise especially when lean tissue is highly insulin resistant. And lean tissue is highly insulin resistant when we're overweight or obese. Therefore hunger is much more acute for overweight and obese than it is for lean people.
In a normal non-disease state, hunger is normal (it's even non-existent sometime) and can be easily satisfied by eating a regular meal. In an abnormal disease state, hunger is abnormal and can't be satisfied by eating a regular meal. And what causes the disease state is the food we eat.
There's the difference between non-disease and disease states.