"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 21 2008,12:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">hunger in the non-diseased, chronically exercising state is a purely a function of energy requirement and assumes the availability of energy.</div>
Hunger is a lot more than just that
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,7:14)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><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.</div>

You like to make meaningless statements without backing it up.  The majority of people in the scientific world believe what you argue against, so where is your 'evidence' that shows otherwise?

I know you won't post any, because there is none.
 
Topic: &quot;Eating fat makes you fat&quot;, ARRRRRGH!!!

Yeah, I agree. This discussion is becoming absolutely non-informative. Martin have stated that there is no middle line: Carbs are snake poison. Obviously nobody can change his mind, so please stop trying, or this part of the forum risks declining visitors as they can't get valuable info from it. Please change the subject. We all know what make us fat by now (depending on your faith, I would guess).
 
Carbs cause obesity, heart attacks and cancer. I think AIDS is also caused by carbs.
laugh.gif
 
I'm not sure if this is particularly pertinent but isn't it the case that many of the poor folks who suffered a consistent negative energy balance (in WWII concentration camps) eventually died when their bodies were no longer able to function? Did they look well fed at the time they died or do photographic records show that they were emaciated beyond belief. The same was also true for many who survived the ordeal. Anyone know what they mainly had to eat? My guess would be carbs (like bread) rather than meat and fat.

It would seem that a consistent negative energy balance would lead to weight loss and eventually death.
rock.gif
 
Oh, I forgot. You like making fun of him... I understand why.

I would not think a bodybuilder with little bf% would last long in a concentration camp on the diet provided. A week or two?
sad.gif
 
<div>
(nkl @ May 21 2008,1:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Obviously nobody can change his mind, so please stop trying, or this part of the forum risks declining visitors as they can't get valuable info from it.</div>
Would you prefer visitors to get any random piece of information? As that would go against the intent of Bryans setup.
 
<div>
(Lol @ May 20 2008,8:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not sure if this is particularly pertinent but isn't it the case that many of the poor folks who suffered a consistent negative energy balance (in WWII concentration camps) eventually died when their bodies were no longer able to function? Did they look well fed at the time they died or do photographic records show that they were emaciated beyond belief. The same was also true for many who survived the ordeal. Anyone know what they mainly had to eat? My guess would be carbs (like bread) rather than meat and fat.

It would seem that a consistent negative energy balance would lead to weight loss and eventually death.
rock.gif
</div>
See Ancel Keys starvation studies in the 1940'. That will answer all your questions on starvation. You are speaking of starvation, aren't you? The physiological state of starvation (zero food intake) does not translate as is to a negative caloric balance with carb intake (hypocaloric high carb) and vice versa.

Starvation causes a similar physiological state as a ketogenic diet. Hunger is suppressed, fat is released from fat tissue, lean tissue is spared as much as possible, energy expenditure adjusts to total nutrients available, etc.

A negative caloric balance with carb intake causes a much different set of conditions. Hunger increases, lean tissue wastes away, fat is locked in fat tissue, etc.

Between zero food intake and negative caloric balance with carb intake, the Keys starvation studies resembled more the second set of conditions (increased hunger, etc) than the first (ketogenic diet, etc). It is from these studies, for instance, that we learned not to feed starving people so much food all at once. It is from these studies, for instance, that we learned that people die when fed carbs following a lengthy bout of starvation. They died because their bodies would enter a state with all the conditions of the second set (increased hunger, lean tissue wasting away, fat locked in, etc) so dramatically that they went into shock and their organs shut down. I'm not explaining it so well but that's about it at a glance.

So yes, a negative caloric balance will cause us to lose weight. But we're not speaking of losing weight. We're speaking of growing fat by eating fat. And speaking of losing fat or growing lean. Not merely losing weight indiscriminately. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the PCB hypothesis in which case you have no choice but to lose weight indiscriminately (fat and lean tissue at the same time) as the Keys starvation studies have shown.


It is pertinent. Unfortunately, it agrees with the carbohydrates hypothesis. Not the PCB hypothesis.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ May 21 2008,3:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Would you prefer visitors to get any random piece of information?  As that would go against the intent of Bryans setup.</div>
No, I would not. The forum is a valuable resource. The thing I lament is that nothing new comes forth in this thread. It's the same old. If you are looking for insight the info has already been spilled in the first half of the thread. Now it has become a repetitious loop (of sort). Reading it in search of new wisdom, it becomes just... time consuming and frustrating. This forum is known for its high standard. I do not want that to change.

If we are to go somewhere we need to dig a little bit deeper and look at the mechanisms. For example,
i  What metabolic differences are there between an endurance athlete, a weight lifter, a normal person, and a person in a diseased state in the resting state?
ii  In these cases, how do exercise affect storage vs. mobilization of fat?
iii In these cases, how do the macronutrient ratio make their metabolisms shift?
iv From this, how does this apply to us?
v From this, what methods can we take advantage of to reach our goals?

But I sense it will continue to be posts that essentially states that 'hunger which leads to overeating makes you fat' respectively 'carbs makes you fat'. Please, prove me wrong, you all.
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 20 2008,7:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
The majority of people in the scientific world believe what you argue against
...</div>
That's an assumption on your part. You don't know what the majority of people in the scientific world believes.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This forum is known for its high standard. I do not want that to change.</div>

i totally 100% agree. However i feel we are still discussing to reach a conclusion, one has not been reached for me, and to me it seems there are a clash of opinions rather than truth. because both 'sides' are claiming truth, and no please don't say 'oh it's all individual', none of that please lol
biggrin.gif

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
But we're not speaking of losing weight. We're speaking of growing fat by eating fat.</div>

i think THAT topic went out the window from around the start
laugh.gif
but now i'm interested in the carbohydrate discussion. see, to me, the only way to maintain the quality of this forum is through the dissection and elimination of opinion in search of greater truth. I haven't eliminated Martin's view, i'm listening to him intently, as i am also listening to other views.
There HAS to be one truth about this topic, or are both 'sides' true??
rock.gif
 
Simon, I agree. There seems to be some things we don't have a clear answer for. That is why I think we should dig deeper. What science is there for the special cases? I'm not aware of any other mechanisms that those I outlined earlier in the framework. Martin claims that the framework is faulty, but what new mechanisms are there? Why would an abundance of digested fat not be stored as fat? Where does that extra calories go? It surely cannot be all converted in GNG. Sure, if one have some digestive problems and the abundance of what goes in never is absorbed...
rock.gif
 
<div>
(nkl @ May 21 2008,1:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sure, if one have some digestive problems and the abundance of what goes in never is absorbed...  
rock.gif
</div>
Maybe this is a key issue? If the bacteria lining the gut are not able to do their job for one reason or another that would make a difference to absorption of nutrients. What are the key factors in maintaining a healthy gut and what is known about factors affecting absorption? Also, there is only so much bile that your liver can produce (plus what's stored in the gall bladder). So, how much fat and oil can a healthy body actually emulsify and break down at any one time?

I know so very little about this subject that any questions, however naive, are genuine with no intent to cause offence to any body.

Thanks for your answer to my last post Martin. I am glad that you do agree that with very little food (even if it is predominantly carbs) we do lose weight.
 
Here is a quote from http://www.tuberose.com/Digestion.html <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Digestion Of Fat
Fat in the diet is most commonly triglycerides or neutral fat found in both animals and plants. Cholesterol, cholesterol-compounds and phospholipids also are normal fats in foods. Because a large quantity of fat dumped into the blood stream at one time is deleterious to health and might fatally clog the circulatory system, a mechanism for retardation of stomach emptying of fat is present. When a bit of fat enters the duodenum, a chemical message is sent to the brain which then signals the stomach to cease releasing more material into the duodenum until it has taken care of the fat. Fat may stay in the stomach for four hours or longer, producing at the time a sensation of satiety (filled up) but rendering fermentation more likely. Since fermentation products irritate the stomach, and an irritated stomach subsequently evokes a greater sensation of hunger, the practice of eating fats for satiety is self-defeating. Fats clog the digestion. Much pain and indigestion have their origin with fats eaten. Only a small amount of fat is digested in the stomach by gastric lipase, a fat-splitting enzyme. Essentially, most fat digestion occurs in the small intestine. First, the fat globules must be broken into small sizes so enzymes can act. This emulsification is accomplished under the influence of bile, a secretion of the liver. Bile is stored in the gallbladder and drawn upon as needed. Bile contains a large amount of bile salts, the main function of which is to make fat globules break down. This is similar to the action of some household detergents that remove grease.
The &quot;detergent&quot; function of bile salts is essential to fat digestion, for the lipase (fat-splitting enzymes) can &quot;attack&quot; the fat globules only on their surfaces. The smaller the fat particles, the better digestion. Pancreatic lipase is the most important enzyme in fat digestion. In concert, the epithelial lining of the small intestine also releases a small amount of lipase. Both lipases (pancreatic and intestinal) act to digest fat. Bile salts also form micelles, small sphericle globules. These micelles help remove the end products of fat digestion so further fat digestion can continue. These little micelles transport their cargo to the lining of the small intestine, where they're absorbed. The bile salts then return for more cargo, thus providing a &quot;ferry service.&quot; So important are bile salts that, when in adequate supply, about 97 percent of fat is absorbed. If insufficient, only 50 to 60 percent is absorbed.

Absorption Of Fat
Upon contacting the membrane lining of the small intestine, the end products of fat digestion become dissolved in the membrane and diffuse to the interior of the cell. As the split fat molecules enter the lining cells, intestinal lipase (enzyme) helps to further digest them. Triglycerides are formed in these cells and, along with cholesterol and phospholipids (other absorbed fat), they are given a protein coat. Thus &quot;dressed,&quot; these final fat products pass into spaces between the cells and into the villi. Most of these fatty acids are then propelled, along with lymph (a fluid) by the lymphatic pump system. About 80 to 90 percent of digested fat is absorbed in this manner. Small amounts of fatty acids are absorbed directly into the blood going to the liver.</div>Bile salts may be a mechanism to take into account. What are our current knowledge on how to manipulate bile salts? Anyone?
 
<div>
(nkl @ May 20 2008,8:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I would not think a bodybuilder with little bf% would last long in a concentration camp on the diet provided. A week or two?</div>
That sounds like something Lyle would try...
wink.gif
 
Martin, have you seen the pics of the guys from the Minnesota Starvation study, or are you just talkin out your a** again? Oh, right. No need to answer that.

And you are stating that these subjects, from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, went into shock and died after being fed carbs??? There is a book, The Great Starvation Experiment, about this. And here is a study, MANY of these men are still alive today. None died during the refeeding/rehabilitation phase.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/6/1347

They were all emaciated but lean, their fat wasn't magically locked away like lucky charms, they all lost tons of fat, on their high carb, restricted diet.

And David Blane was in a ketogenic state during his 40-some day fast. His muscle wasn't &quot;spared&quot;, nor was his fat. He was skinny, emaciated, and lost muscle mass as well.

Before anyone else asks Martin questions, be aware that HE MAKES STUFF UP. Does not understand research, as he quotes none of it, and skirts around direct questions that are asked to him. When you quote research, he questions it or ignores it. It's fine that he wants to troll around on here (although its not amusing anymore), but just want to make sure that someone that doesn't know better might read what he writes and believe the BS that he continues to spew forth.
 
From wikipedia:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Digestive hormones
There are at least four hormones that aid and regulate the digestive system:
Gastrin - is in the stomach and stimulates the gastric glands to secrete pepsinogen (an inactive form of the enzyme pepsin) and hydrochloric acid. Secretion of gastrin is stimulated by food arriving in stomach. The secretion is inhibited by low pH .
Secretin - is in the duodenum and signals the secretion of sodium bicarbonate in the pancreas and it stimulates the bile secretion in the liver. This hormone responds to the acidity of the chyme.
Cholecystokinin (CCK) - is in the duodenum and stimulates the release of digestive enzymes in the pancreas and stimulates the emptying of bile in the gall bladder. This hormone is secreted in response to fat in chyme.
Gastric inhibitory peptide (GIP) - is in the duodenum and decreases the stomach churning in turn slowing the emptying in the stomach. Another function is to induce insulin secretion.

Significance of pH in digestion
Digestion is a complex process which is controlled by several factors. pH plays a crucial role in a normally functioning digestive tract. In the mouth, pharynx, and esophagus, pH is typically about 6.8, very weakly acidic. Saliva controls pH in this region of the digestive tract. Salivary amylase is contained in saliva and starts the breakdown of carbohydrates into monosaccharides. Most digestive enzymes are sensitive to pH and will not function in a low-pH environment like the stomach. Low pH (below 5) indicates a strong acid, while a high pH (above 8) indicates a strong base; the concentration of the acid or base, however, does also play a role.
pH in the stomach is very acidic and inhibits the breakdown of carbohydrates while there. The strong acid content of the stomach provides two benefits, both serving to denature proteins for further digestion in the small intestines, as well as providing non-specific immunity, retarding or eliminating various pathogens.
In the small intestines, the duodenum provides critical pH balancing to activate digestive enzymes. The liver secretes bile into the duodenum to neutralise the acidic conditions from the stomach. Also the pancreatic duct empties into the duodenum, adding bicarbonate to neutralize the acidic chyme, thus creating a neutral environment. The mucosal tissue of the small intestines is alkaline, creating a pH of about 8.5, thus enabling absorption in a mild alkaline in the environment.</div> If the pH balance were disturbed, the digestion of nutrients would be affected. The hormonal control of the above mentioned digestive hormones could be altered by some mechanism. There could be insufficient supply of specific pieces (molecules, enzymes) to make any of the specific pieces (molecules, enzymes) that are needed for proper digestion. Intolerances, sicknesses, or other genetic disorders may come into play, turning all of these questions into individual cases. What about the hydration balance? In other words, we have a lot of other factors to consider before blaming carbs or other macronutrients for the cause of obesity.

The human metabolism and function is sooo much more complicated than we generalize it is. We have some means to adjust the way the machinery works, but we do not ever have full control (the body is a masterpiece of self-regulation). We can come close to make the body do what we want it to, if we make adjustments for individual differences and learn to listen to the feedback (we become a part of our own self-regulating system).
 
The Ileal Brake will slow transit time of food through the GI tract. So a high fat intake will just slow down digestion to allow it to be absorbed.

Fat-induced ileal brake in humans: a dose-dependent phenomenon correlated to the plasma levels of peptide YY.
Pironi L, Stanghellini V, Miglioli M, Corinaldesi R, De Giorgio R, Ruggeri E, Tosetti C, Poggioli G, Morselli Labate AM, Monetti N, et al.

Institute of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Italy.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal motility is regulated by the presence of nutrients in the distal gut. The present study evaluated whether lipid-induced ileal brake on gastric emptying (1) can be elicited by low fat concentrations; (2) is a dose-dependent phenomenon; and (3) is related to gastrointestinal peptide release. METHODS: Seven patients were studied in the defunctionalized stage of total colectomy, on three separate occasions. On each study day, patients ate a meal labeled in the solid component; 30 minutes later, one of the following solutions was randomly infused into the ileal pouch: 0.9% saline, 2% oleic acid, and 20% oleic acid. Plasma concentrations of peptide YY (PYY), enteroglucagon, neurotensin, and motilin were measured. RESULTS: Both oleic acid solutions slowed gastric emptying compared with saline (P &lt; 0.001), the effect being dose dependent (P &lt; 0.001). Ileal infusions did not modify neurotensin and enteroglucagon levels but induced a dose-dependent increase of PYY (P &lt; 0.01) and a borderline decrease of motilin (P = 0.05) levels. Slower rates of gastric emptying were related to increased plasma concentrations of PYY (r = 0.615; P &lt; 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that (1) the ileal brake on gastric emptying can be evoked by low doses of lipids in the distal ileum; (2) the delay of gastric emptying is related to the release of PYY; and (3) both phenomena are dose dependent.

These individual variances in digestive issues are not the answer to obesity. It still comes down to calorie intake and expenditure for the vast majority. Carb restriction is a GREAT way to lose weight, but it doesn't mean that we should be giving this type of diet magical qualities that don't exist.

If looking at digestion nutrient absorption, carbs win over fat. 95plus% of dietary fat is efficiently digested, and the value is lower for many carbs, from 80-90% or so, if I remember correctly. Many carbs have fiber and resistant starch, which aren't absorbed, so less useable calories and more poopies. Hence, eat more food and absorb less, less potential for fat gain.

And if you're lucky enough to have Chrohns disease or Colitis, you can just eat lots of wheat products, inflame the gut so much that you can't absorb nutrients well, and poop out most of what you eat.

Or live on raw ground beef, hope to get a tapeworm and you can be eating for two, and still lose weight.
 
<div>
(nkl @ May 21 2008,11:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
The human metabolism and function is sooo much more complicated than we generalize it is. We have some means to adjust the way the machinery works, but we do not ever have full control (the body is a masterpiece of self-regulation). We can come close to make the body do what we want it to, if we make adjustments for individual differences and learn to listen to the feedback (we become a part of our own self-regulating system).</div>
One wonders how we can accumulate so much fat with such a small caloric surplus over many years, as some have claimed. Or how we can ever lose that fat with an equal caloric difference but negative this time for as many years. If the body is indeed a marvel of homeostasis, it should adjust to changes in energy intake and output, however small or large it is. Unless, of course, something affects the body's ability to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top