"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,5:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,5:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Degeneration of the body is purely a function of carbs.</div>
I am going to go back to the deans office and give back my Ph.D.

I know nothing.</div>
A doctorate can't prove anything we say.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,5:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As far as I know, carbs induce a disease state. There is no normal range for a carbohydrate metabolism. It changes everything. This means what we consider a normal state is actually abnormal and thus any conclusion we draw from that is invariably incorrect.

I don't see why I shouldn't use all the data. What's so different about one who sits and one who runs? Two individuals will adapt to the same stress in the same manner. If they respond differently, the difference will be primarily in the amplitude of the response. The nature of the response will be the same. Eating carbs will cause the same fuel partitioning in both individuals. The same fat accumulation. The same chronic diseases. What will change is the amplitude these changes will manifest themselves. We would all develop cataracts to varying degree. But it's the same cataracts. I argue &quot;develop cataracts&quot; while you argue &quot;to varying degree&quot;. You do so claiming that the difference in amplitude is what matters most. It's not.</div>
it is not about fixing a safe quantity. It is about matching energy intake with energy expenditure.

The difference between one who sits and one who runs should be evident if you have any idea about how the body works and responds.

A person sitting eating carbs. protein or fat will store the excess energy as fat.

The person running, will burn the first the circulating sugars, then the stored glcogen and the start burning fat, then protein. If the person is highly trained, they will burn more fat until the intensity rises above a certain threshold which is determined by their training status. Usually, the trained athlete has a much more efficient heart, thus burns less energy and will not need to empty stoired glycogen.

Again, you are mixing diseaes and degeneration with normal physiology.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,5:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,5:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,5:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Degeneration of the body is purely a function of carbs.</div>
I am going to go back to the deans office and give back my Ph.D.

I know nothing.</div>
A doctorate can't prove anything we say.</div>
It is a license to practice the given field. It means a panel of other doctors have given me the right to speak and work as a Ph.D. It is not above proving anything.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,5:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">it is not about fixing a safe quantity. It is about matching energy intake with energy expenditure.

The difference between one who sits and one who runs should be evident if you have any idea about how the body works and responds.

A person sitting eating carbs. protein or fat will store the excess energy as fat.

The person running, will burn the first the circulating sugars, then the stored glcogen and the start burning fat, then protein. If the person is highly trained, they will burn more fat until the intensity rises above a certain threshold which is determined by their training status. Usually, the trained athlete has a much more efficient heart, thus burns less energy and will not need to empty stoired glycogen.
...</div>
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 &quot;book&quot; 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. I won't go into detail here but suffice to say that hunger does cause mental problems sometime to the extent of self mutilation as Ancel Keys has observed in his starvation studies back in the 1940'.


What are the ethical ramifications of such a prescription in view of the potential for harm due to increased hunger and in view of an alternative remedy that lacks this potential for harm yet by all accounts produces equal or better results?
 
I haven´t really prescribed anything.

Obese people can´t really do much exercise. And there is no pill to make 50% of their fat go away. They need to take in the amount of energy required to keep them alive and start walking. Their hunger is not only mental, but physical. The body doesn´t count sweet calories from sour, it is reacting to energy needs.

This is a forum about growing muscle and losing fat to increase definition.

A sedentary person, a marathoner, an obese sedentary person, a body-builder, a child and a football player all have different energy requirements. Their physiology, in the normal state is more or less similar. Once they chronically start exercising, energy requirements and macro-nutrient needs change. Unless the are chronically burning upwards of 7000 kCal a day, their micronutrient needs remain the same. It becomes mainly a question of energy needs and macronutrient ration. Body building is not a normal physiological state and the nutritional requirements spit out by text books and the FDA are aimed towards normal, non-chronically exercising individuals.

Once a person is obese, it is no longer a nutritional question, but a disease state and unfortunately, diet alone cannot initially change anything. this is a different case than a BBr with 8% BF trying to get down to 3% body fat.

You are promulgating the avoidance all carbohydrates. This is an extreme situation, inconclusively determined by evidence-based science to be healthy and effective. It is an exception that Inuits and some African tribes thrive otherwise.

You mix diseased-state physiology with non-diseased-state physiology. In your world, all forms of carbohydrates are unhealthy. This is erroneous.
Carbohydrates are not the cause of all disease.

My contention is that the source of carbohydrate is far more important-fruits and vegetables are the optimal source whereas grain based foods are the opposite.

I dropped almost 20kg within 6 months. I switched to non-grain based carb sources, limited it 30% and chronically exercised. I went for days on end with a 2000 cal deficit. I was never hungry. I agree and recommend that people at least try, low-carb protocols. The difference is that I suggest all carbs come from fruits and vegggies.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,5:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,5:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">it is not about fixing a safe quantity. It is about matching energy intake with energy expenditure.

The difference between one who sits and one who runs should be evident if you have any idea about how the body works and responds.

A person sitting eating carbs. protein or fat will store the excess energy as fat.

The person running, will burn the first the circulating sugars, then the stored glcogen and the start burning fat, then protein. If the person is highly trained, they will burn more fat until the intensity rises above a certain threshold which is determined by their training status. Usually, the trained athlete has a much more efficient heart, thus burns less energy and will not need to empty stoired glycogen.
...</div>
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 &quot;book&quot; 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. I won't go into detail here but suffice to say that hunger does cause mental problems sometime to the extent of self mutilation as Ancel Keys has observed in his starvation studies back in the 1940'.


What are the ethical ramifications of such a prescription in view of the potential for harm due to increased hunger and in view of an alternative remedy that lacks this potential for harm yet by all accounts produces equal or better results?</div>
hunger in the non-diseased, chronically exercising state is a purely a function of energy requirement and assumes the availability of energy. The extreme of hunger is, for the US and Europe, not significant and the studies on forced hunger are useless for this forum. No one here is faced with hunger.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,6:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
A sedentary person, a marathoner, an obese sedentary person, a body-builder, a child and a football player all have different energy requirements. their physiology, in the normal state is more or less similar. Once they chronically start exercising, this physiology changes. Body building is not a normal physiological state and the nutritional requirements spit out by text books and the FDA are aimed towards normal, non-chronically exercising individuals.

Once a person is obese, it is no longer a nutritional question, but a disease state and unfortunately, diet alone cannot initially change anything. this is a different case than a BBr with 8% BF trying to get down to 3% body fat.

...
This is an extreme situation, inconclusively determined by evidence based science to be healthy and effective. It is an exception that inuits and some african tribes thrive otherwise.

you are using diseased states to make points about non-diseased physiology.</div>
I'm using all the data available. If it comes from the observation of a disease, it's no less pertinent to the mechanism involved. Observing diabetes is where we learn about insulin. Observing stunted growth is where we learn about growth hormone. Observing cancer is where we learn about cell division and DNA replication and apoptosis. Insulin is no less pertinent to the lean as it is to the obese. Growth hormone is no less pertinent to the young as it is to the old. Cell division, DNA replication and apoptosis are no less pertinent to the healthy as they are to the sick.


Bodybuilding is a normal state. There is nothing more normal than lifting an object from the ground with our hands. There is nothing more normal than to use our muscles to perform that task. There's nothing more normal than to grow bigger muscles in response to this activity. There is nothing more normal to develop hunger following a bout of heavy lifting.

With the comparison between different activity levels, you argue that a change in amplitude somehow changes the mechanism involved. It doesn't. The mechanism remains the same regardless of the amplitude. Hunger works the same way for everybody. Fuel requirements are satisfied the same way for everybody. Aerobic and anaerobic mean the same thing for everybody. Carbohydrates and fat do the same thing for everybody. We are not fundamentally different.

Once a person is obese, it becomes especially and exclusively the domain of diet. It is so because the diet is what caused obesity in the first place and also because by the very nature of the disorder, it becomes difficult if not impossible to apply any other remedy such as exercise if indeed exercise had a positive effect on fat loss. Which it doesn't.

The Inuit are indeed exceptionally healthy. Their diet is rather exceptional too. But this does not mean that the &quot;rule&quot; is any more correct or normal or even substantially different. Look around you and see how many people you can consider healthy by any standard. Count adults just for kicks. If you consider 66% (and growing) of US adults overweight (30% obese) as normal of even healthy, then something is wrong with the assessment. If you consider any amount of dental caries healthy or even normal, then something is wrong with our perception. If you consider that any degree of chronic illness is normal or healthy, then something is very wrong with our measure of health.

We've had the tendency to blame our genes for a whole bunch of problems or even for some qualities. This tendency extends to our observation of isolated populations such as the Inuit. We don't consider the diet to be of any consequence in that case so we don't make the connection between carbs, or the lack thereof in this case, and our diseases of civilization. We consider that the Inuit can eat such a diet because of their genetic heritage. We don't consider for one second that their health could be a direct result of their diet since their diet is so fundamentally different from ours. It can't be all that fat, we tell ourselves. Fat is bad for ya, we say. How can it be any good for them? They must be different.

The fact is, fat is much better for us than either protein or carbs.
 
Sorry, but I am a scientist and maybe you are as well, but you are simply wrong on so many points.

I´ll leave it at this: Observation tells us alot, but far from everything. .
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,6:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
What are the ethical ramifications of such a prescription in view of the potential for harm due to increased hunger and in view of an alternative remedy that lacks this potential for harm yet by all accounts produces equal or better results?[/quote]
hunger in the non-diseased, chronically exercising state is a purely a function of energy requirement and assumes the availability of energy. The extreme of hunger is, for the US and Europe, not significant and the studies on forced hunger are useless for this forum. No one here is faced with hunger.</div>
Hunger is consequential. It is the primary regulator of food intake. If not fulfilled, it causes mental disorders that can be debilitating and destructive. It's paradoxical to claim that it is not significant when two thirds of the US population is overweight and the prescription for this problem is to cut total calories and exercise more which will invariably cause an increase in hunger for the duration of the caloric deficit. Day and night. Without respite.

I won't continue in this line of discussion. The problem is not mine to resolve.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,7:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sorry, but I am a scientist and maybe you are as well, but you are simply wrong on so many points.

I´ll leave it at this: Observation tells us alot, but far from everything. .</div>
If I am wrong, then the facts are wrong. Like you say, observation tells us a lot but not everything.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,7:09)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,6:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
What are the ethical ramifications of such a prescription in view of the potential for harm due to increased hunger and in view of an alternative remedy that lacks this potential for harm yet by all accounts produces equal or better results?</div>
hunger in the non-diseased, chronically exercising state is a purely a function of energy requirement and assumes the availability of energy. The extreme of hunger is, for the US and Europe, not significant and the studies on forced hunger are useless for this forum. No one here is faced with hunger.[/quote]
Hunger is consequential. It is the primary regulator of food intake. If not fulfilled, it causes mental disorders that can be debilitating and destructive. It's paradoxical to claim that it is not significant when two thirds of the US population is overweight and the prescription for this problem is to cut total calories and exercise more which will invariably cause an increase in hunger for the duration of the caloric deficit. Day and night. Without respite.

I won't continue in this line of discussion. The problem is not mine to resolve.</div>
do you even read others post? As you mix disease and non disease, so you mix hunger as a physiological response and hunger as a societal problem.
 
<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 &quot;book&quot; 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?
 
BRYYYYAAAAAAAAAN!!! COME AND PLAY!!!!
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,5:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My increased carb intake comes solely from Fruits and vegetables. During training I mix glucose and fructose into water and eat some bananas. The chronic diseases are coming from a lifelong consumption of grain-base foods.

Carbs are not the problem, the carb source is the problem. I assume you are a human and thus your derivation of energy and nutrients solely from animal flesh is suspect and contrary to all evidence based medicine.

YOu will also suffer in the long run from a nutritional protocol based solely on animal flesh. You might think otherwise, but unless you are a cat, you will suffer later in life.</div>
I have been toying with that hypothesis as of late, based on a little wild speculation, and a little bit of reading, piecing things together, etc. (I mean the notion that carb source is the issue, and grain based carbs are to be avoided) Could you elaborate on it a little bit (I'll start a new thread if more appropriate) or guide me in the direction of some reading?
 
<div>
(beingisbeing @ May 20 2008,11:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,5:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My increased carb intake comes solely from Fruits and vegetables. During training I mix glucose and fructose into water and eat some bananas. The chronic diseases are coming from a lifelong consumption of grain-base foods.

Carbs are not the problem, the carb source is the problem. I assume you are a human and thus your derivation of energy and nutrients solely from animal flesh is suspect and contrary to all evidence based medicine.

YOu will also suffer in the long run from a nutritional protocol based solely on animal flesh. You might think otherwise, but unless you are a cat, you will suffer later in life.</div>
I have been toying with that hypothesis as of late, based on a little wild speculation, and a little bit of reading, piecing things together, etc. (I mean the notion that carb source is the issue, and grain based carbs are to be avoided) Could you elaborate on it a little bit (I'll start a new thread if more appropriate) or guide me in the direction of some reading?</div>
just try it. you have nothing to lose and it will do no harm. the whole grain based vs non-grain based is a huge can of worms. just try it and see if it for you.
 
Thats the plan. I'm settled on doing Lyle's UD2.0 for a few weeks as of yesterday. Once I come out of that, I don't plan on including anything grain based in my diet. I'm just going to cut the fat back a bit, add some fruit, and see what happens. Grains tend to make me feel like complete and utter garbage, low GI notwithstanding. Fruit never has...the plot thickens...
So where do legumes fit into this?
 
just stick with fruits and veggies and leave out the legumes.
 
<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 &quot;book&quot; 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.
 
<div>
(coach hale @ May 20 2008,6:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">consistent positive energy balance causes weight gain

thanks
Coach Hale</div>
This implies the opposite: Consistent negative energy balance causes weight loss.

The problem is that the evidence shows otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top