Addicted To Carbs

[cells]

Yes I would accept this as broadly true, except we do know that some people burn (much) more calories at rest than other people, ie they are more inefficient. I'm not sure science understands the reasons for this yet? Some bodybuilders need to take in 5000+kcals when trying to gain weight, while others can gain on 3000kcals a day.

That's why they recommend you calculate your own base metabolic rate when losing weight; once you know how many calories you need to stay at the same weight then you can get a good estimate of the number of calories you need to take in or exercise away in order to consistently lose weight. (3500kcals deficit leads to weight loss of a pound).

I think its about 5500 calories per kg. Fat has 7000 calories per kg but body fat is I believe about 20% water so it would only take 5500 calories to lose 1kg or about 2500 calories per pound.

[Pick It Down]

I think its about 5500 calories per kg. Fat has 7000 calories per kg but body fat is I believe about 20% water so it would only take 5500 calories to lose 1kg or about 2500 calories per pound.

Water weight is something that confuses people in their early stages of dieting isn't it. Typically we store 1 part glucose with 4 parts water in our bodies, and in people who are well-fed this can be 1-2lbs of carbs with 4-8lbs of water. The diet starts and they lose their initial stores of carbs, and hey presto the 4-8lbs of water weight gets lost as well. They then expect 5-10lbs weight loss a week after then.

It's an interesting point that fat is also stored with water, I didn't know that as I would have thought at body temperature our fat stores would be mobile enough to not need water, I suppose it makes sense though as our fat stores also hold a lot of other stuff. Hardcore pot smokers for example can find themselves getting another high when exercising into their fat stores as the canniboids/toxins get released again

[Pole]

I thought the laws of thermodynamics would be well enough known.

The First Law of Thermodynamics can be reinterpreted, such that the behaviors of increased caloric intake and decreased energy expenditure are secondary to obligate weight gain. This weight gain is driven by the hyperinsulinemic state, through three mechanisms:

energy partitioning into adipose tissue;

interference with leptin signal transduction;

and interference with extinction of the hedonic response to food.

[Pick It Down]

The First Law of Thermodynamics can be reinterpreted, such that the behaviors of increased caloric intake and decreased energy expenditure are secondary to obligate weight gain. This weight gain is driven by the hyperinsulinemic state, through three mechanisms:

energy partitioning into adipose tissue;

interference with leptin signal transduction;

and interference with extinction of the hedonic response to food.

Plain speaking please. If energy is stored in fat more readily than in glucagon for example, then fat stores will be accessed quicker at times of calorie deficit due to glucagon stores being depleted more quickly. It's all about the calories in vs calories out in the long run. Short-term body responses (minutes/hours) need to be ignored as they are likely to be nullified in the medium term (hours/days), and weight balance will be related to total calories consumed over the period and not glasses of orange juice consumed.

[Pole]

Plain speaking please. If energy is stored in fat more readily than in glucagon for example, then fat stores will be accessed quicker at times of calorie deficit due to glucagon stores being depleted more quickly. It's all about the calories in vs calories out in the long run. Short-term body responses (minutes/hours) need to be ignored as they are likely to be nullified in the medium term (hours/days), and weight balance will be related to total calories consumed over the period and not glasses of orange juice consumed.

I'm sticking to Robert Lustig's analysis. It simply makes a lot of sense to me based on my own experiences and observations of our society which is obssesed with and addicted to carbs and sugars.

Swap your 2000 daily calories that you get from bread, potatoes and fruity drinks for 2000 calories from fish, eggs and vegs and you'll see what's going to happen to your weight.

Counting calories won't get you anywhere. A human body is not as simple to work out as an engine of a car.

[Woot]

out of interest, is your name Benedict? and are you speaking infallibly on this matter?

Indeed - poor chap can't get past the rather outdated and overly-facile calorie equation, despite being offered a wealth of relevant sources. We all fully understand (after the 17th reiteration )what works for him, however the thread is interesting in that the majority contributing are trying to discuss the broader picture. One size, in this issue, does not fit all.

Perhaps he needs a new avatar:

[Pick It Down]

Indeed - poor chap can't get past the rather outdated and overly-facile calorie equation, despite being offered a wealth of relevant sources. We all fully understand (after the 17th reiteration )what works for him, however the thread is interesting in that the majority contributing are trying to discuss the broader picture. One size, in this issue, does not fit all.

Perhaps he needs a new avatar:

I've not seen a paper cited saying that limiting calories in and increasing calories out is not the best way to lose weight. Feel free to provide one, I'm all ears.

[ccc]

(1) Why is 'losing' weight good ? Surely for many people the opposite is true. Surely being fit is what is important. Why the obsession with how much you weigh. Who cares.

(2) Why are 'office workers' classed as lacking exercise ? I work in an office. And if anyone on this forum is fitter than me I would be impressed. Resting pulse at the moment of around 42. Beat that...

[bugged bunny]

I've not seen a paper cited saying that limiting calories in and increasing calories out is not the best way to lose weight. Feel free to provide one, I'm all ears.

Define 'best way to lose weight' please.

Rapid weight loss tends to contribute to metabolic syndrome, plus it significantly increases the risk of cancer in women because rapid fat burning causes a surge in oestrogen levels.

A big problem with the simplistic calories in/calories out argument is that those who are overweight are often overweight at least in part because they are malnourished. Thus reducing their calorie intake will result in an even bigger deficit of the vitamins and minerals they are lacking, increasing food cravings and making them feel worse, and highly likely to give up the 'diet'.

It's vital that anyone reducing their calorie intake significantly switches to more vitamin and mineral-rich food.

In my experience the best way to lose weight is mostly through increased exercise and eating more nutrient-rich, low-carb food to boost energy levels and metabolism.

[Pick It Down]

Define 'best way to lose weight' please.

Rapid weight loss tends to contribute to metabolic syndrome, plus it significantly increases the risk of cancer in women because rapid fat burning causes a surge in oestrogen levels.

A big problem with the simplistic calories in/calories out argument is that those who are overweight are often overweight at least in part because they are malnourished. Thus reducing their calorie intake will result in an even bigger deficit of the vitamins and minerals they are lacking, increasing food cravings and making them feel worse, and highly likely to give up the 'diet'.

It's vital that anyone reducing their calorie intake significantly switches to more vitamin and mineral-rich food.

In my experience the best way to lose weight is mostly through increased exercise and eating more nutrient-rich, low-carb food to boost energy levels and metabolism.

Best way to lose weight means the healthiest and most consistent/reliable, by measuring calories in you also make sure you don't lose weight too quickly, an ideal rate is 1% per week - preferably half from exercise and half from calorie restriction.

Rapid weight loss can cause you to lose muscle mass, which slows metabolism. That is why I recommend weight-training and high protein levels while in a clorie deficit plan. If you lose weight too quickly or cut out carbs you will also experience light-headedness, extreme sluggishness and inability to concentrate.

Of course for those obese they should consult a doctor so that in addition to a measured reduction in calorie intake they can also be helped with any malnourishment.

[Pick It Down]

(1) Why is 'losing' weight good ? Surely for many people the opposite is true. Surely being fit is what is important. Why the obsession with how much you weigh. Who cares.

(2) Why are 'office workers' classed as lacking exercise ? I work in an office. And if anyone on this forum is fitter than me I would be impressed. Resting pulse at the moment of around 42. Beat that...

1) More people need to lose weight than to gain it, I'd estimate about 50:1 ratio judging by the sorry sight of Britain's populace.

2) Office workers tend to be totally untrained and "skinny fat" - absolutely no muscle but loads of fat, the absolute opposite to the ideal body shape (for men a V - wide shoulders tapering to a narrow waist, and for women the hourglass).

[ccc]

1) More people need to lose weight than to gain it, I'd estimate about 50:1 ratio judging by the sorry sight of Britain's populace.

I would agree in general terms. However why is it generally seen that losing weight is good ?

When someone on a chat forum chats about losing weight - how many actually ask them if they should be losing weight in the first place ? Yet to see it even once myself. It is just assumed that losing weight is the right thing to do.

2) Office workers tend to be totally untrained and "skinny fat" - absolutely no muscle but loads of fat, the absolute opposite to the ideal body shape (for men a V - wide shoulders tapering to a narrow waist, and for women the hourglass).

There are a surprising number of people who work in offices who have quite impressive figures.

[@contradevian]

I'm sticking to Robert Lustig's analysis. It simply makes a lot of sense to me based on my own experiences and observations of our society which is obssesed with and addicted to carbs and sugars.

Swap your 2000 daily calories that you get from bread, potatoes and fruity drinks for 2000 calories from fish, eggs and vegs and you'll see what's going to happen to your weight.

Counting calories won't get you anywhere. A human body is not as simple to work out as an engine of a car.

I agree as I slip into 31" waist jeans. Though I tend to suffer from being skinny fat and now work out and swim a lot more. For this reason achieving weight equilibrium has been difficult.

I do intend to permanently restrict carbs though. No (or very little) bread, pasta etc..

[Pick It Down]

I would agree in general terms. However why is it generally seen that losing weight is good ?

When someone on a chat forum chats about losing weight - how many actually ask them if they should be losing weight in the first place ? Yet to see it even once myself. It is just assumed that losing weight is the right thing to do.

There are a surprising number of people who work in offices who have quite impressive figures.

Yeah losing weight isn't that accurate as to what people want to do. They usually want to lose fat. To lose weight all you need to do is cut calories, and is very easy. To lose only fat (maintaining lean muscle mass) you need to cut calories at the same time as weight training and increasing protein to around 150g/day.

I think the 50:1 ratio thing is general means that is a safe assumption that people who want to lose weight need to do so.

Yeah, there are a few in my office who are active outside of the office, it only takes 3hrs a week of exercise and a bit of attention to diet. Beyond 3hrs a week of exercise the gains become minimal IMO.

[Pick It Down]

Swap your 2000 daily calories that you get from bread, potatoes and fruity drinks for 2000 calories from fish, eggs and vegs and you'll see what's going to happen to your weight.

Your weight will be exactly the same under both situations.

That's not to say that your body will stay the same in other regards however. The fish, eggs and veg have more a more balanced array of vitamins and minerals and IMO make for a healthier diet.

[Pick It Down]

x2

[thombleached]

(1) Why is 'losing' weight good ? Surely for many people the opposite is true. Surely being fit is what is important. Why the obsession with how much you weigh. Who cares.

(2) Why are 'office workers' classed as lacking exercise ? I work in an office. And if anyone on this forum is fitter than me I would be impressed. Resting pulse at the moment of around 42. Beat that...

1) As always ccc, the voice of reason. Maintaining a fit and healthy body (things like my minute/mile, resting HR, body fat % etc) is something I pay much more attention to than my general weight.

2) Resting HR impressive - we've only got so many beats inside us (why I'm convinced the couchies of this world will probably outlive pro cyclists/runners). Mine's a touch above that and decreasing slowly (though I am getting older!). Did my first ever great south in October and beat some of the elites (I was at the back of the pack aswel - came in at 1hr09)

Anyway, enough of this willy waving. As I, ccc and others have said previously, what is key to health is maintaining a fit system, the human body is remarkably good at dealing with all kinds of sh*t you throw at it, but the system needs to be a healthy one. The human body can easily undergo drastic changes in metabolism, weight gain/loss whatever - an understanding and appreciation is key.

[bugged bunny]

Your weight will be exactly the same under both situations.

That's not to say that your body will stay the same in other regards however. The fish, eggs and veg have more a more balanced array of vitamins and minerals and IMO make for a healthier diet.

No - because the foods with higher glycaemic index affect liver metabolism very differently and cause metabolic syndrome and sluggishness.

The average calorie consumption in the UK is lower now than it was in the fifties. The major causes of the obesity epidemic in the UK are lack of exercise and changes in the average composition of the diet, the most harmful of which is are those propagated by the myth that fat is bad and complex carbs are good.

And the excess consumption of carbohydrates and beer in the modern diet has caused metabolic syndrome. These days I see a shocking of number women in their twenties of a supposedly 'healthy' weight, but they have no waist and they have a 'beer gut'. This indicates excess intraabdominal fat which is caused by sweeping changes in our diet. Twenty years ago, this was almost unheard of - even the fat women had waists.

Regarding fructose and fruit consumption, the human body has not evolved to consume large quantities of this highly toxic sugar. Primitive man grazed throughout the day on moderate amounts of berries which have a relatively low release of sugar compared with many of the farmed fruits eaten today.

The gut is designed to absorb fructose much more slowly than glucose, because a spike in blood fructose levels can be lethal.

This is because fructose is further down the pathway of single sugar metabolism than glucose. Fructose enters glycolysis slightly later on than glucose, and unlike glucose, it bypasses the major rate-determining step. So high concentrations of fructose can sequester ATP, the body's energy currency, because the early steps of glycolysis require an input of ATP. It is only at the end of glycolysis that net ATP is produced. This is one reason for the characteristic energy slump following excessive consumption of fructose or sucrose ( which consists of 50% fructose, 50% glucose, e.g. white sugar).

In the seventies, some doctors who didn't appreciate the biochemistry of sugar breakdown conducted some experiments in which they injected diabetics with fructose, in the mistaken belief that it would give them energy more quickly than glucose would. Some of those diabetics died, because their vital organs were starved of ATP.

One consequence of the slow absorption of fructose, as mentioned by a poster earlier in this thread, is that it can cause fermentation and yeast overgrowth in the gut - a very common problem in Western societies. I eat a virtually fructose-free diet for this reason.

[Pick It Down]

No - because the foods with higher glycaemic index affect liver metabolism very differently and cause metabolic syndrome and sluggishness.

The average calorie consumption in the UK is lower now than it was in the fifties. The major causes of the obesity epidemic in the UK are lack of exercise and changes in the average composition of the diet, the most harmful of which is are those propagated by the myth that fat is bad and complex carbs are good.

And the excess consumption of carbohydrates and beer in the modern diet has caused metabolic syndrome. These days I see a shocking of number women in their twenties of a supposedly 'healthy' weight, but they have no waist and they have a 'beer gut'. This indicates excess intraabdominal fat which is caused by sweeping changes in our diet. Twenty years ago, this was almost unheard of - even the fat women had waists.

Regarding fructose and fruit consumption, the human body has not evolved to consume large quantities of this highly toxic sugar. Primitive man grazed throughout the day on moderate amounts of berries which have a relatively low release of sugar compared with many of the farmed fruits eaten today.

The gut is designed to absorb fructose much more slowly than glucose, because a spike in blood fructose levels can be lethal.

This is because fructose is further down the pathway of single sugar metabolism than glucose. Fructose enters glycolysis slightly later on than glucose, and unlike glucose, it bypasses the major rate-determining step. So high concentrations of fructose can sequester ATP, the body's energy currency, because the early steps of glycolysis require an input of ATP. It is only at the end of glycolysis that net ATP is produced. This is one reason for the characteristic energy slump following excessive consumption of fructose or sucrose ( which consists of 50% fructose, 50% glucose, e.g. white sugar).

In the seventies, some doctors who didn't appreciate the biochemistry of sugar breakdown conducted some experiments in which they injected diabetics with fructose, in the mistaken belief that it would give them energy more quickly than glucose would. Some of those diabetics died, because their vital organs were starved of ATP.

One consequence of the slow absorption of fructose, as mentioned by a poster earlier in this thread, is that it can cause fermentation and yeast overgrowth in the gut - a very common problem in Western societies. I eat a virtually fructose-free diet for this reason.

Well people will just have to see what works for them and make their own mind up. I don't see a structured way to lose weight thought in this anti-fruit piece - avoiding fruit does not stop people from over-eating. I also see again you've made the mistake of assuming "primitive" people had a set way of eating.

There are also times when it is useful to eat high-GI carbs and that is straight after exercise when you want an insulin-release in order to shuttle nutrients to muscles to enable anabolism and ward off the catabolic effects of stress hormones such as cortisol.

The main thing is not to over-complicate the weight issue though, all you need to do is increase energy expenditure, decrease intake or ideally both.

The causes of sluggishness are laziness and ironically a lack of exercise, rather than diet.