8

votes

Do you believe humans gain weight and lose weight by the same mechanism or is something else in play?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created September 28, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Interesting to hear your take.....

Carb sane said [here][1] that to lose weight one needs a calorie deficit. She implied to gain weight one must have a calorie surplus.......given her statement of belief do you think we gain and lose weight by the same mechanism.

Simple.

[1]: Calories matter. If you want to burn body fat you need to be in calorie deficit. Period. For more Paleo hacks: http://paleohacks.com/questions/67636/do-calories-really-matter#ixzz1ZHKu8HBy

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

There could be an epigenetic influence, but epigenetics affects the expression of genes, not the deletion of them.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 30, 2011
at 08:55 PM

Even without genetic screwiness, something as simple as a magnesium deficiency will prevent the mitochondria from being able to synthesize ATP, and I'm pretty sure that will have an impact on body composition regardless of caloric intake.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 03:43 PM

yes, Matt, it depends on how one defines caloric excess.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:26 PM

(continued) Back then “they” said to do cardio for at least 40 minutes because fat burning kicked in after 20 minutes and that sort of thing. I think at a practical level, activity is really the key, not how much fat or carbs or how often you are in lipolysis. I think fasted, low intensity exercise where you burn fat more directly is a more “painless” way to lose weight.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:25 PM

Majkinetor, one common “HC” dieting argument is basically that if you don’t eat much fat then the body will be forced to utilize its own fat stores. Peter at Hyperlipid talks about this a lot where you body will “eat” the saturated fat off your butt if don’t get enough in your diet. Back in the ‘80s and ‘90s people were counting fat grams like people count carb grams today, so the main fuel for someone who was dieting was carbs. Dieters lost weight just as well then as today. The thing is, exercise was emphasized a lot more back then than is currently espoused by many LCers today.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 30, 2011
at 11:27 AM

Muscle to fat wouldn't result in a net gain in weight. That doesn't even make sense at starvation level of energy intake. Why would your body store fat under starvation conditions/energy deficit? Loss of muscle at that point is for glucose production and overall cellular maintenance. Even considering the thermodynamics of it: protein to fat is an inefficient process: utilizing protein for energy is an energy intensive process (large loss in just the conversion). Nevermind that more than 2 grams of protein would only convert to 1 gram of fat (assuming 100% efficiency).

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:48 AM

@Matthew: Many females can apparently under-eat without great difficulty too. http://goo.gl/56sig

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:44 AM

@Matthew, yes its strongly oriented toward preventing starvation, but if you happen to be starving inside of your body because of unequal energy distribution ... what then ?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:43 AM

@Matthew: Extreme points like yours are meaningless. When I said above, I meant in normal circumstances. Black & White thinking is bad.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:30 AM

I have NEVER seen ANY PHYSIOLOGICAL explanation of why would HC diets be good for weight loss and general health, apart from observational studies, while there are complete systems of LC diets worked out. There is that famous thing about less energy in carbs which sounds reasonable, but again, what is common sense in science ? Is it relativity of time common sense ? Schrodinger's cat perhaps ? Or string theory ? Or hyperbolic geometry that defines universe we live in? Common sense is mostly how people think about HC diets and when we drop to common sense, the real science is out.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:27 AM

The biggest problem is that I have NEVER seen ANY PHYSIOLOGICAL explanation of why would higher CHO diets would be good for weight loss and general health apart from observational studies, while there are complete systems of low carb diets worked out. There is that famous deal with less energy in carbs but again which sounds reasonable, but again, what is common sense in science ? Is it relativity of time common sense ? Schrodinger's cat perhaps ? Or string theory ? Or hyperbolic geometry that defines universe.... Common sense is mostly how people describe high carb diets.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:22 AM

But I seriously do not understand why is CS defending CHOs so much ? AFAIK, CS is at low carb diet! She may be right in giving people opposing view that carbs are not evil in general. Overloading of carbs is and is very easy to overload because of food industry standards that are governed by rules that don't include subjects health - like shelf life, production maximization, etc..

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:19 AM

So level of amino acids influence glucagon levels which influence what liver does with sugar reserves. Liver does this optimally, so insulin will not overshoot. Overshooting is the problem. You inject lots of carbs and insulin overcompensates, leading to reactive hypoglycemia. Thats the problem. Higher insulin levels are not problem if they are adequately controlled.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:17 AM

There are more studies claiming otherwise, here are some from head: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3095717 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005276077901825 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22414/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10744780

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 30, 2011
at 03:29 AM

Travis, I saw this study saying that glucagon does not influence lipolysis in adipose tissue - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11344211. Also, what is the insulin doing with the glucose if glucagon was "blocking" the re-uptake?

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 30, 2011
at 02:57 AM

No, it's not disputable. Even Taubes will admit it.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 30, 2011
at 02:49 AM

Please Loon, nobody can gain real mass on 600 cals/day. Happy Now, I'd be glad to answer your question for the specific knockout or genetic mouse. But the bottom line is you're not a mutant, nor am I. So the explanation isn't going to change anyone's understanding.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:53 AM

Travis, I guess don’t understand your reasoning. I’m not a biochemistry guy, but it would appear that: You eat fish, you get an insulin response on par with popcorn, you get a glucagon response that releases about the same amount of glucose into the blood that popcorn would have caused, the adipose tissue “sees” only the insulin and glucose. I also think if you are willing to move past insulin+glucose->fat to incorporate glucagon, then why stop there> There is all kinds of biochemistry going on. Like I said before, many people on low fat diets eat carbs every 2-3 hours and lose weight.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:47 AM

Fat mass gain indisputably indicates a caloric excess. If a "caloric excess" isn't producing a fat mass gain, it is not really a caloric excess.

5b69a02dadcae753771921d913909215

(1457)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:16 AM

It's per se.... not per say

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:41 AM

Oh, but I think it is disputable that caloric excess causes fat mass gain.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:32 AM

Coming up with a model based on their assumptions and then showing results consistent with the assumptions is not worthy of a weighty paper.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 30, 2011
at 12:31 AM

An interesting thought is condition vs. causality. Falling causes the leg to break, so jumping back up doesn't fix the leg. On the other hand it's not disputable that caloric excess (however accomplished) causes fat mass gain, so caloric deficit (again, however accomplished) will reverse it. And vice versa.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:29 AM

Akman, you just aren't paying attention to the posts. There are plenty of people doing paleo/primal in this category, it is just that some of the low carb boards are more friendly and so people post about it more often.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:24 AM

maj, you're right, it is just that when it comes to obesity, all sorts of physics experts come out of the woodwork.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:21 AM

I think Carbane's and Matthews comments here just illustrate how many people just do not get obesity, and are still entirely tethered to an irrelevant physics concept. Not all fat people are liars.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:09 AM

Once again, it's not the insulin response, it's the ratio of insulin:glucagon.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 29, 2011
at 11:42 PM

Majkinetor, I was just pointing out that beef and fish are pretty insulinogenic according to the table in Wikipedia that I linked to. You said "never insulogenic as carb." The table of insulin index values says otherwise, notably in the examples I quoted. Beef and fish do "spike" your insulin more than pasta and popcorn. Glucagon releases glucose out of the liver, so you have insulin spike + glucose. Maybe "carbs" are "bad", but in terms of insulin, protein is not so much different than "carbs". The insulin response to protein is not as trivial as people want it to be.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 11:04 PM

@Paleo: Yeah, you eat popcorn for breakfast then, lol. About pasta, I highly doubt it, pastas are made from different kinds of wheat. Most carbs also block Vitamin C, well known fact, leads to lower immunity next 5 hours. Inflamation may promote obesity: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/leukocytic_index.html BTW, I do not promote zero carb. But lets not be ridiculous here.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 10:57 PM

@CS: Protein CAN be more insuligenic, carbs ARE insuligenic, fats can not increase insulin response of carbs if the carbs are not there, and most of all, they will not increase insulin response, they will digest slower hence the one will have steadier monosaharide influx. Amylase is more pronanunced in the morrning, hence its particularly bad to eat then. You wont go there on opiates ? Thats interesting, since that doesn't make a case for calorie in as it makes you crave carbs, not protein or fat.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 29, 2011
at 10:17 PM

Majkinetor, the insulin index of beef and fish is higher than pasta, popcorn, and some breakfast cereals. Fish has a higher insulin index than "grain bread". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 29, 2011
at 10:13 PM

@majkinetor: Proteins can be more insulinogenic, fats can increase the insulin response of carbs (that's why they help glycemic index), same food can cause different insulin response if first vs. last meal of the day. I won't "go there" on the opiates ... but that makes a case for calories (intake) after all.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 29, 2011
at 10:01 PM

Why do the arguments against CI/CO revolve around abnormal metabolisms? Diabetics and fried thyroids? Let's talk what really happens in folks without deranged metabolisms and hormone production.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 09:40 PM

Can be, but its never as insulogenic as carb. Effect on microbiota is also substantially different. Different types of strains will populate your gut depending on dominant macronutrient. Brain is obviously differently influenced cuz of all that opiate things that are completely absent with fat/protein. I do think, however, that 0 carb is probably not good on the long run mostly because there are some substances that almost only with carbs.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 29, 2011
at 09:38 PM

I guess I just find it hard to believe that we're born with all of these "switches" in a particular orientation that can't be altered by actual experience.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 29, 2011
at 09:31 PM

protien can be very insulogenic

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 09:26 PM

Just if we talk about insulin, we know that fat doesn't influence it and that protein doesn't rise it so much. So thats obvious difference, right ?

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 07:21 PM

I'm not saying that we've deleted genes, but that there seems to be a very real possibility that we've turned them off.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:26 PM

and when you change everything in your life, as most people i argue do at some point, you need to learn what works for you, listen to your noggin, and eat and listen, and eat and feel, and eat and sleep...rinse/repeat

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:20 PM

uh....theyd prolly die from electrolyte imbalances before they could even gain weight...

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:19 PM

because of the nutrient status and absorption difference in the quality of food...

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:18 PM

and your body prolly turned all your muscle into fat at the expense of your metabolic rate thus, you gained fat. a good thing for a starving person, as this would signal your vital organs chose to stay par instead of downregulating. it took your muscle and made fat for energy instead of something important like say, your liver or heart... makes sense you gained weight IMO

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:16 PM

but that happens because your body is either not absorbing or not getting what it needs...

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:15 PM

I think your nutrient status regulates your hormonal status.... and that regulates calorie partitioning. calories matter because youre body will continue to request food until it gets the nutrients it needs. if your massively surplussed in certain things(copper/iron/etc), your body may massively desire another to try and form a balance(mag/zinc/calcium)... until your body finds hormesis the yoyo in food necessity continues... this is why i think people shouldnt take supplements. i think your body will learn to adjust and work with what it's got without exogenous anything

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:07 PM

I too read that article. The entire article supports the basic CI/CO model of weight management. They disprove a strawman. They end up showing that an static calorie deficit eventually disappears, which is exactly what the CI/CO model would predict.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:42 PM

@Ambimorph - We do have a functioning appetite regulator. However it is more strongly orientated to preventing starvation than preventing overeating. Humans rarely accidentally starve to death because they forgot to eat enough. Many humans can apparently overeat without great difficulty.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:41 PM

@Ambimorph - We do have a functioning appetite regulator. However it is more strongly orientated to preventing starvation than preventing overeating. Humans rarely accidentally starve to death because they forgot to eat enough. Most humans can over eat with ease.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:36 PM

@majkinetor - how about we lock you in a cell for a year without any food and you can see if calories do not matter at any point.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:13 PM

B6 also : http://jn.nutrition.org/content/120/3/258.full.pdf

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:11 PM

Lipids are not forced if you don't have enough carnitine. Guess what is needed for carnitine ? http://www.jacn.org/content/24/3/158.long http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-3-35.pdf http://www.ajcn.org/content/54/6/1147S.full.pdf

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:03 PM

I actually read that Lancet article and it points out that energy balance is a function of hormonal balance in calorie partitioning. It supports my contention that calories per say dont matter. Your hormone status does. Plus one......

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 05:55 AM

Are you saying it is not possible that humans haven't undergone a similar accidental genetic engineering over the last 20-80 years? I would argue that many of us have become "knock-out" mice from exposure to some very odd substances that have been passing for food over the last 3-4 generations.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 05:49 AM

I also didn't exercise during that weight loss, I spent most of my time reading or folding paper cranes.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 29, 2011
at 04:47 AM

With IDDM, the liver is stuck in a gluconeogenic and ketogenic state due to the high glucagon:insulin ratio. Lipids are forced into beta-oxidation and protein is forced into gluconeogenesis. The person wastes away as a result until they get exogenous insulin. I don't see how this wouldn't just confirm that the aforementioned ratio is important for humans.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 29, 2011
at 04:34 AM

Whether or not the fat in a genetically-engineered mouse can be oxidized for ATP in the mouse's mitochondria or turned into ketone-bodies in the liver is irrelevant for a healthy human trying to understand how they can lose their gut.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on September 29, 2011
at 02:47 AM

+1 for Quilt. The brain is not separate from the body! And THE regulating system regulates ALOT of stuff - not just energy in and out. Very complex system that can be affected by many things that are NOT "all in your head" but rather, sometimes in actual changes in brain structure, neural pathways that are pruned or never developed or dug in very deep, as well as biochemical changes, all every bit as "real" as anything real can be, and all highly responsive to many "events."

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:57 AM

She cant......she is tied into dogma of calories in and out.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:56 AM

Sherpa.......that means that the cortisol likely did something to your hypothalamus......the switches move in both directions you know.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:56 AM

its six......that is when the hypothalamus is fully wired and epigenetically set. Unless you change everything you do in your life to reset it

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:48 AM

Quilt, I was a slim/skinny kid up until age 10 when my parents got divorced, we moved, I got depressed and everything in my life changed. I acquired an eating disorder in my teens. I have to think none of that would have happened if my life hadn't significantly changed.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:30 AM

+1 If I eat 2000 SAD calories, I will be very sad indeed. 2000 paleo calories = happy lady!

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:27 AM

@CarbSane, how do you explain the mice that will hang onto their adipose tissue even when starved to death?

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:26 AM

@CarbSane, how do you explain the mice that will hang onto their adipose tissue even when starved to death.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:18 AM

The thyroid meds weren't added until after the 30 lb. weight loss too, so regardless of metabolic rate based on my thyroid function, going from 1000 to 2500 calories somehow induced weight loss.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:14 AM

I hope youre feeling better too.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:04 AM

Metabolic rates do decline with hypothyroidism, but I seriously doubt the 1000ish calories I was taking in overshot that especially because my reproductive system started to shut down and it felt like my brain wasn't coping very well either. The increase in adiposity didn't appear out of nothing, it was my body's inflammation response, it was fluid retention in the fat cells. That same 30 lbs. was lost in less than 2 months of increased caloric intake.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 29, 2011
at 12:57 AM

Oh get real Jack. Anyone gaining real weight (edema/bloating can occur) on 600 cal/day? If they're not losing weight they're a lying about their intake Doc.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:57 AM

Plumpynut is the gold standard from what I hear - http://www.nutriset.fr/

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:52 AM

Doesn't that hypothyroidism indicate that your basal metabolic rate was lower than normal and thus energy in still exceeded energy out, regardless of what value energy in equaled? Wouldn't stating otherwise imply that the 30lbs of fat appeared ex nihilo?

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:41 PM

@Meredith - after a glass of malbec I would no longer be able to spell either word :)

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:40 PM

@Meredith - after a glass of malbec I would no longer be able to spell either :)

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:37 PM

@ambimorph - please see my profile if you are on Facebook we could use you!

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:34 PM

@matthew - I read this a few times and I thought you said "hippocampus!" I can't picture overweight brains on a river in Africa... So I was really stuck on your comment. Now I get it! Now I totaly need to put the MALBEC away for the night. Cherereeers!

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:34 PM

If you fed someone 100,000 calories then weight gain would be the least of their problems :)

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:34 PM

Hormones and genetics make the difference in what your body does with fuel. The secret to weight loss is no more simply eating less than the secret to getting tall is eating more. Not only that, but what you eat affects your hormones, and hormone-like substances.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:28 PM

That must be why everything preys on hippopotamuses. They are so fat and slow, well known to make an easy meal if you ever find yourself by a river in Africa.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:28 PM

No properly functioning body should have an appetite regulator that asks for more or less fuel than it needs over time.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:19 PM

How about 100 000 ?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:18 PM

If you are weighty you are easy pray for predators.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:14 PM

Maybe not age 6, but its sure some very small number, maybe even 1 or 2.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:13 PM

No, calories do not matter at any point. Just like you can't force yourself to live on starvation diet, you can't force yourself to overfeed continually. Just like you yo-yo after CRON, you will yo-yo after overfeeding. Quality over quantity.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on September 28, 2011
at 11:04 PM

I agree with you, Katherine, but CICO and all things are equal? No way!!!!!!!

Eecc48184707bc26bce631485b5b7e34

(4764)

on September 28, 2011
at 10:28 PM

At some point, calories begin to matter. Can anyone deny that?

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on September 28, 2011
at 10:22 PM

How about 10,000, which is what I actually said?

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 10:08 PM

@Quilt - you should go to Somalia, you could quickly solve the current famine there. You can show them how to gain weight on 600 calories a day.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 28, 2011
at 10:01 PM

Evolution generally has selected for "easy keepers". Putting on weight in times of plenty is an evolutionary advantage. A high metabolism is a liability in times of famine.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:47 PM

It isn't discarded. Its irrelevant. Plus, evolution doesn't like extra weight, starting from bacteria and it goes all the way up. Its too much maintenance, and low agility. That means it selected for means that will prevent this from happening and it did, on all levels of existence. There is no such thing as energy surplus just like that just like there is no such thing as elevated temperature because you like to be near furnace - its a disease state, imparied homeostasis.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:47 PM

Neither of those diseases disprove the mechanisms at all. How could they?

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:46 PM

The question isn't as clear as you think. Neither was your above comment. and how do u figure it's age 6 in everyone?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:44 PM

99% ? dont think so I could feed 5000 calories a day to a T1D and they would not gain weight.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:41 PM

This isn't really only question about obesity. All systems work like that, for instance immunity. If something is disabling parts of your vitamin D pathway, you can sunshine all you want but you will still suffer from deficiency... I am programmer, we see this thing in little every day.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:40 PM

I'm sure it makes sense somewhere inside Quilts head.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:16 PM

Once you get the core you realize the fallacy of calories.....

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:15 PM

Agreed, the question is not at all clear.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:13 PM

All those things you mention affect an individual's metabolism. Just because though we can't with 100% certainty predict an individual's metabolic rate doesn't mean that the energy surplus/deficit explanation of weight gain/loss should be discarded.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:12 PM

T1D and Cushing's disease would have you paying up my bet in your scenario.......but I really want to hear your insights.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:11 PM

It makes sense.....if you think about it.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:11 PM

plus one meredith........im knew you would jump in. And your spot on right.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:10 PM

Explain then how one gains weight on a diet of 600 calories a day. I see ladies daily on that kind of intake and yet they gain weight consistently. Amgen found the same thing in their leptin trials. So give your assumption and what you know about science.......explain your position and these incongruent clinical scenarios.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:08 PM

I would be the house in your betting game.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:07 PM

Thanks Maj.....I was hoping to hear you chime in. Im waiting for a few others. plus one.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:06 PM

then think about it for a while before you respond. Because its quite a good question. The problem is most people have assumed the mechanism in which humans gain and lose fat works on the same continuum. I submit it does not. We all partition calories based upon how our epigenetic switches were set and reset and then hard wired into our hypothalamus at age 6. Many people believe the way you lose and gain is calories in and out.......

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:03 PM

Beth that is at the core here.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on September 28, 2011
at 08:13 PM

I think the interesting question is not how we gain or lose weight but rather, what is responsible for breaking the mechanism by which weight is regulated.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 07:54 PM

How is a calorie surplus and a calorie deficit the same mechanism?

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 07:42 PM

I would think that no one believes that humans gain and lose body weight by the same mechanism.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 07:41 PM

I would think that no one believes that humans gain and lose weight by the same mechanism.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on September 28, 2011
at 07:35 PM

I don't understand the question. By 'same mechanism' do you mean that there is no individual variation in what causes people to lose and gain? And by weight, do you mean lean mass, fat, or both?

  • Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

    asked by

    (25477)
  • Views
    2.7K
  • Last Activity
    1261D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

13 Answers

13
0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on September 28, 2011
at 08:46 PM

I can totally buy calorie surplus being the factor that causes weight gain. BUT what is it that causes different people to burn/partition calories so differently?

Two different conditions that cause out of control weight gain on low calorie diets are thyroid disease and Cushing's syndrome.

In uncontrolled type I diabetes isn't there uncontrollable weight loss?

Inflammatory conditions, autoimmune conditions, nutrient deficiencies, hormonal imbalance are some variables that cause people to use calories differently than others and thus gain/lose weight differently.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:41 PM

@Meredith - after a glass of malbec I would no longer be able to spell either word :)

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:37 PM

@ambimorph - please see my profile if you are on Facebook we could use you!

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:11 PM

plus one meredith........im knew you would jump in. And your spot on right.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:47 PM

It isn't discarded. Its irrelevant. Plus, evolution doesn't like extra weight, starting from bacteria and it goes all the way up. Its too much maintenance, and low agility. That means it selected for means that will prevent this from happening and it did, on all levels of existence. There is no such thing as energy surplus just like that just like there is no such thing as elevated temperature because you like to be near furnace - its a disease state, imparied homeostasis.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:34 PM

Hormones and genetics make the difference in what your body does with fuel. The secret to weight loss is no more simply eating less than the secret to getting tall is eating more. Not only that, but what you eat affects your hormones, and hormone-like substances.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 29, 2011
at 04:47 AM

With IDDM, the liver is stuck in a gluconeogenic and ketogenic state due to the high glucagon:insulin ratio. Lipids are forced into beta-oxidation and protein is forced into gluconeogenesis. The person wastes away as a result until they get exogenous insulin. I don't see how this wouldn't just confirm that the aforementioned ratio is important for humans.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:40 PM

@Meredith - after a glass of malbec I would no longer be able to spell either :)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:18 PM

If you are weighty you are easy pray for predators.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:28 PM

That must be why everything preys on hippopotamuses. They are so fat and slow, well known to make an easy meal if you ever find yourself by a river in Africa.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:13 PM

B6 also : http://jn.nutrition.org/content/120/3/258.full.pdf

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:13 PM

All those things you mention affect an individual's metabolism. Just because though we can't with 100% certainty predict an individual's metabolic rate doesn't mean that the energy surplus/deficit explanation of weight gain/loss should be discarded.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:34 PM

@matthew - I read this a few times and I thought you said "hippocampus!" I can't picture overweight brains on a river in Africa... So I was really stuck on your comment. Now I get it! Now I totaly need to put the MALBEC away for the night. Cherereeers!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 28, 2011
at 10:01 PM

Evolution generally has selected for "easy keepers". Putting on weight in times of plenty is an evolutionary advantage. A high metabolism is a liability in times of famine.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:11 PM

Lipids are not forced if you don't have enough carnitine. Guess what is needed for carnitine ? http://www.jacn.org/content/24/3/158.long http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-3-35.pdf http://www.ajcn.org/content/54/6/1147S.full.pdf

8
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 08:10 PM

No, I don't think so.

Its simply wrong. Everybody knows bunch of people who eat like crazy and are always fit and vice-versa.

The fact is that you can't look at the humans as simple fuel machines. We have many systems that can be ON or OFF depending on the status of the body defined by circulating hormones. So, for instance, reproductive system takes some energy, and if its down for some reason that energy could be shuttled to adipocytes.

She is generally right, but it doesn't really mean anything since we don't know how the energy is distributed. Its the same as saying for instance, that if you want to be rich, you need to get million dollars. That doesn't tell you how to do it, nor how to deal with eventual problem that somebody is constantly stealing from you despite you work as hard as other rich people.

The calorie in calorie out is probably the most trivial and stupid explanation of obesity I ever heard. Its hardly any better then proposing that there are elephants on mars doing curse on you.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:07 PM

Thanks Maj.....I was hoping to hear you chime in. Im waiting for a few others. plus one.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:41 PM

This isn't really only question about obesity. All systems work like that, for instance immunity. If something is disabling parts of your vitamin D pathway, you can sunshine all you want but you will still suffer from deficiency... I am programmer, we see this thing in little every day.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:24 AM

maj, you're right, it is just that when it comes to obesity, all sorts of physics experts come out of the woodwork.

4
66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

on September 28, 2011
at 08:05 PM

i don't get the question.

it depends on from where you looking at it from. from 10k feet, everyone gains weight because of some kind of energy balance issue. call that the macro-mechanism, i guess. the means by which that energy balance get thrown off varies greatly.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on September 29, 2011
at 02:47 AM

+1 for Quilt. The brain is not separate from the body! And THE regulating system regulates ALOT of stuff - not just energy in and out. Very complex system that can be affected by many things that are NOT "all in your head" but rather, sometimes in actual changes in brain structure, neural pathways that are pruned or never developed or dug in very deep, as well as biochemical changes, all every bit as "real" as anything real can be, and all highly responsive to many "events."

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:06 PM

then think about it for a while before you respond. Because its quite a good question. The problem is most people have assumed the mechanism in which humans gain and lose fat works on the same continuum. I submit it does not. We all partition calories based upon how our epigenetic switches were set and reset and then hard wired into our hypothalamus at age 6. Many people believe the way you lose and gain is calories in and out.......

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:26 PM

and when you change everything in your life, as most people i argue do at some point, you need to learn what works for you, listen to your noggin, and eat and listen, and eat and feel, and eat and sleep...rinse/repeat

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:56 AM

its six......that is when the hypothalamus is fully wired and epigenetically set. Unless you change everything you do in your life to reset it

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:46 PM

The question isn't as clear as you think. Neither was your above comment. and how do u figure it's age 6 in everyone?

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:48 AM

Quilt, I was a slim/skinny kid up until age 10 when my parents got divorced, we moved, I got depressed and everything in my life changed. I acquired an eating disorder in my teens. I have to think none of that would have happened if my life hadn't significantly changed.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:56 AM

Sherpa.......that means that the cortisol likely did something to your hypothalamus......the switches move in both directions you know.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:14 PM

Maybe not age 6, but its sure some very small number, maybe even 1 or 2.

3
Medium avatar

on September 28, 2011
at 07:54 PM

I would wager that all omnivorous mammals gain and lose weight by the same mechanisms. Depending on how you look at it, you could extend that out to all mammals and maybe further. Differing endocrine profiles affect energy partitioning of course (which mostly tracks along gender lines in healthy individuals), but the underlying mechanisms involved in gaining or losing fat are the same.

Edit: Even with your edit, I would still say that a net gain in adiposity is the result of more FFA being esterified in adipocytes compared to how many are released and oxidized. This would apply to all animals and of course both genders.

Edit2: To clarify, I mean the net FFAs stored/released as viewed over time, since adipocytes have a huge amount of transmembrane flux that increases as they increase in size.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 07:21 PM

I'm not saying that we've deleted genes, but that there seems to be a very real possibility that we've turned them off.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:21 AM

I think Carbane's and Matthews comments here just illustrate how many people just do not get obesity, and are still entirely tethered to an irrelevant physics concept. Not all fat people are liars.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 05:55 AM

Are you saying it is not possible that humans haven't undergone a similar accidental genetic engineering over the last 20-80 years? I would argue that many of us have become "knock-out" mice from exposure to some very odd substances that have been passing for food over the last 3-4 generations.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:12 PM

T1D and Cushing's disease would have you paying up my bet in your scenario.......but I really want to hear your insights.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:57 AM

She cant......she is tied into dogma of calories in and out.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:10 PM

Explain then how one gains weight on a diet of 600 calories a day. I see ladies daily on that kind of intake and yet they gain weight consistently. Amgen found the same thing in their leptin trials. So give your assumption and what you know about science.......explain your position and these incongruent clinical scenarios.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 29, 2011
at 12:57 AM

Oh get real Jack. Anyone gaining real weight (edema/bloating can occur) on 600 cal/day? If they're not losing weight they're a lying about their intake Doc.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 10:08 PM

@Quilt - you should go to Somalia, you could quickly solve the current famine there. You can show them how to gain weight on 600 calories a day.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:08 PM

I would be the house in your betting game.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 29, 2011
at 09:38 PM

I guess I just find it hard to believe that we're born with all of these "switches" in a particular orientation that can't be altered by actual experience.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:47 PM

Neither of those diseases disprove the mechanisms at all. How could they?

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:26 AM

@CarbSane, how do you explain the mice that will hang onto their adipose tissue even when starved to death.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

There could be an epigenetic influence, but epigenetics affects the expression of genes, not the deletion of them.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 29, 2011
at 04:34 AM

Whether or not the fat in a genetically-engineered mouse can be oxidized for ATP in the mouse's mitochondria or turned into ketone-bodies in the liver is irrelevant for a healthy human trying to understand how they can lose their gut.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 30, 2011
at 02:49 AM

Please Loon, nobody can gain real mass on 600 cals/day. Happy Now, I'd be glad to answer your question for the specific knockout or genetic mouse. But the bottom line is you're not a mutant, nor am I. So the explanation isn't going to change anyone's understanding.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:57 AM

Plumpynut is the gold standard from what I hear - http://www.nutriset.fr/

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:27 AM

@CarbSane, how do you explain the mice that will hang onto their adipose tissue even when starved to death?

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 30, 2011
at 08:55 PM

Even without genetic screwiness, something as simple as a magnesium deficiency will prevent the mitochondria from being able to synthesize ATP, and I'm pretty sure that will have an impact on body composition regardless of caloric intake.

2
8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:01 AM

I don't think that it is ever a given that if something causes a certain condition, doing the opposite of that something will result in reversal of that condition. If you fall out of a tree and break your leg, you go get it set and wear a cast, you don't jump back up into the tree to fix your leg.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 30, 2011
at 12:31 AM

An interesting thought is condition vs. causality. Falling causes the leg to break, so jumping back up doesn't fix the leg. On the other hand it's not disputable that caloric excess (however accomplished) causes fat mass gain, so caloric deficit (again, however accomplished) will reverse it. And vice versa.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:41 AM

Oh, but I think it is disputable that caloric excess causes fat mass gain.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 30, 2011
at 02:57 AM

No, it's not disputable. Even Taubes will admit it.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:47 AM

Fat mass gain indisputably indicates a caloric excess. If a "caloric excess" isn't producing a fat mass gain, it is not really a caloric excess.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 03:43 PM

yes, Matt, it depends on how one defines caloric excess.

2
F3d83ed057afe031152f4dc07c80a763

(40)

on September 29, 2011
at 11:38 AM

Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight

Dr Kevin D Hall PhD a , Gary Sacks PhD b, Dhruva Chandramohan BSc a, Carson C Chow PhD a, Y Claire Wang MD c, Steven L Gortmaker PhD d, Boyd A Swinburn MD b Summary

Obesity interventions can result in weight loss, but accurate prediction of the bodyweight time course requires properly accounting for dynamic energy imbalances. In this report, we describe a mathematical modelling approach to adult human metabolism that simulates energy expenditure adaptations during weight loss. We also present a web-based simulator for prediction of weight change dynamics. We show that the bodyweight response to a change of energy intake is slow, with half times of about 1 year. Furthermore, adults with greater adiposity have a larger expected weight loss for the same change of energy intake, and to reach their steady-state weight will take longer than it would for those with less initial body fat. Using a population-averaged model, we calculated the energy-balance dynamics corresponding to the development of the US adult obesity epidemic. A small persistent average daily energy imbalance gap between intake and expenditure of about 30 kJ per day underlies the observed average weight gain. However, energy intake must have risen to keep pace with increased expenditure associated with increased weight. The average increase of energy intake needed to sustain the increased weight (the maintenance energy gap) has amounted to about 0??9 MJ per day and quantifies the public health challenge to reverse the obesity epidemic. This is from a very recent article in the lancet

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:07 PM

I too read that article. The entire article supports the basic CI/CO model of weight management. They disprove a strawman. They end up showing that an static calorie deficit eventually disappears, which is exactly what the CI/CO model would predict.

5b69a02dadcae753771921d913909215

(1457)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:16 AM

It's per se.... not per say

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:03 PM

I actually read that Lancet article and it points out that energy balance is a function of hormonal balance in calorie partitioning. It supports my contention that calories per say dont matter. Your hormone status does. Plus one......

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:15 PM

I think your nutrient status regulates your hormonal status.... and that regulates calorie partitioning. calories matter because youre body will continue to request food until it gets the nutrients it needs. if your massively surplussed in certain things(copper/iron/etc), your body may massively desire another to try and form a balance(mag/zinc/calcium)... until your body finds hormesis the yoyo in food necessity continues... this is why i think people shouldnt take supplements. i think your body will learn to adjust and work with what it's got without exogenous anything

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:32 AM

Coming up with a model based on their assumptions and then showing results consistent with the assumptions is not worthy of a weighty paper.

2
6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:42 AM

Why do I feel like this is a pop quiz? Whew, good thing I studied. Um, no, calories in, calories out is ridiculous at best, and a really mean and dangerous way to torture overweight people dealing with inflammation and thyroid conditions at it's worst.

I might consider it if people didn't poop, but we have these lovely digestive tracts that remove anything we don't require for energy from our bodies. So, if you to wayyyy overshoot your food intake, you'll poop more, but that is about it, your body will take what it needs and excrete the rest.

If I only ingest a small amount of food, but that food is inflammatory to my body it'll bloat right up. I can prove that if I readopt my old starvation diet of living on 2 scones and 4 8oz. nonfat lattes per day. It really helps pack it on if you avoid sunlight at all costs and have an undiagnosed thyroid condition too. I managed to gain 30 lbs. I didn't want in 2 months.

I may be an oddball, but I have starved myself fat, and feasted myself thin several times. So the math of "calories in, calories out" does not seem to work for me.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:18 AM

The thyroid meds weren't added until after the 30 lb. weight loss too, so regardless of metabolic rate based on my thyroid function, going from 1000 to 2500 calories somehow induced weight loss.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 29, 2011
at 12:52 AM

Doesn't that hypothyroidism indicate that your basal metabolic rate was lower than normal and thus energy in still exceeded energy out, regardless of what value energy in equaled? Wouldn't stating otherwise imply that the 30lbs of fat appeared ex nihilo?

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 05:49 AM

I also didn't exercise during that weight loss, I spent most of my time reading or folding paper cranes.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:18 PM

and your body prolly turned all your muscle into fat at the expense of your metabolic rate thus, you gained fat. a good thing for a starving person, as this would signal your vital organs chose to stay par instead of downregulating. it took your muscle and made fat for energy instead of something important like say, your liver or heart... makes sense you gained weight IMO

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:04 AM

Metabolic rates do decline with hypothyroidism, but I seriously doubt the 1000ish calories I was taking in overshot that especially because my reproductive system started to shut down and it felt like my brain wasn't coping very well either. The increase in adiposity didn't appear out of nothing, it was my body's inflammation response, it was fluid retention in the fat cells. That same 30 lbs. was lost in less than 2 months of increased caloric intake.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 30, 2011
at 11:27 AM

Muscle to fat wouldn't result in a net gain in weight. That doesn't even make sense at starvation level of energy intake. Why would your body store fat under starvation conditions/energy deficit? Loss of muscle at that point is for glucose production and overall cellular maintenance. Even considering the thermodynamics of it: protein to fat is an inefficient process: utilizing protein for energy is an energy intensive process (large loss in just the conversion). Nevermind that more than 2 grams of protein would only convert to 1 gram of fat (assuming 100% efficiency).

2
C980d632512fe8334f5bd99e5b67f9ff

(128)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:38 PM

It seems to me it's not a numbers game with the calories but the calories themselves. 2000 paleo calories don't equal 2000 SAD calories. What would happen to Mr. Quilt if he started eating 1500 calories a day of Krispy Kreems, instead of his usual 1500 calories of coconut oil? (assuming he eats 1500 cal of CO)

Also, go to any Atkins Forum, there you will see countless posts from people who are back into Atkins for the nth time as they fell off the wagon and gained all their weight back plus. You rarely read those type posts on Mark's Daily Apple.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on September 29, 2011
at 01:30 AM

+1 If I eat 2000 SAD calories, I will be very sad indeed. 2000 paleo calories = happy lady!

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:29 AM

Akman, you just aren't paying attention to the posts. There are plenty of people doing paleo/primal in this category, it is just that some of the low carb boards are more friendly and so people post about it more often.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:19 PM

because of the nutrient status and absorption difference in the quality of food...

2
26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

on September 28, 2011
at 09:11 PM

Ohhh. No, I don't think weight gain and loss have the same factors at play, and I do not think calories are the main factor within reasonable perimeters (for instance, 99% of people will see quick weight changes on 300 calories per day, or 10,000).

Also fat gain and loss is totally different, metabolically, than muscle gain and loss and that can't be discounted when we're talking about bodyweight in pounds.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 29, 2011
at 10:01 PM

Why do the arguments against CI/CO revolve around abnormal metabolisms? Diabetics and fried thyroids? Let's talk what really happens in folks without deranged metabolisms and hormone production.

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on September 28, 2011
at 10:22 PM

How about 10,000, which is what I actually said?

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:20 PM

uh....theyd prolly die from electrolyte imbalances before they could even gain weight...

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:44 PM

99% ? dont think so I could feed 5000 calories a day to a T1D and they would not gain weight.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:19 PM

How about 100 000 ?

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 11:34 PM

If you fed someone 100,000 calories then weight gain would be the least of their problems :)

2
7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on September 28, 2011
at 07:38 PM

This question should be clarified. As it's written, there are a couple of ways to interpret it. And most of them don't make any sense.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:11 PM

It makes sense.....if you think about it.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:40 PM

I'm sure it makes sense somewhere inside Quilts head.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on September 28, 2011
at 09:15 PM

Agreed, the question is not at all clear.

1
24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 29, 2011
at 08:41 PM

Allow me to play devil's advocate here with what I call Metabolic Mad Libs. If the hypothesis is that it's all hormonal (be it insulin or whatever), so raising said hormone = fat gain, lowering it = fat loss, the mechanism is the same even if one disagrees with CICO. Even Taubes, and Eades, and Westman (Atkins), and ... yes, Atkins himself, know/knew that weight gain does not occur absent an energy surplus, and weight loss requires an energy deficit. (True weight of interest = fat mass, not water).

As far as I know, the hormones altering appetite and energy expenditure (mostly leptin & thyroid, but possibly ASP as some recent studies I've discovered seem to demonstrate) are not affected differently with weight loss on LFHC vs. LCHF diets (although there's some evidence that LC negatively impacts thyroid -- my own n=1 experience is that my metabolism tanks and I become super efficient after long stints on LC).

Bottom line, metabolic adaptations seem to be indifferent to carb v. fat content of excesses or deficits. I've yet to see a study show significant differences in reduction in BMR with weight loss between the two extremes, and overfeeding studies seem to slightly favor carbs (as in insulin spikes are associated with less weight gain per calorie over maintenance).

Hormones and food type tend to influence fat distribution (and to some extent fuel partitioning lean v. adipose) more than fat gain/loss per se.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 09:40 PM

Can be, but its never as insulogenic as carb. Effect on microbiota is also substantially different. Different types of strains will populate your gut depending on dominant macronutrient. Brain is obviously differently influenced cuz of all that opiate things that are completely absent with fat/protein. I do think, however, that 0 carb is probably not good on the long run mostly because there are some substances that almost only with carbs.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on September 29, 2011
at 09:31 PM

protien can be very insulogenic

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 11:04 PM

@Paleo: Yeah, you eat popcorn for breakfast then, lol. About pasta, I highly doubt it, pastas are made from different kinds of wheat. Most carbs also block Vitamin C, well known fact, leads to lower immunity next 5 hours. Inflamation may promote obesity: http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/leukocytic_index.html BTW, I do not promote zero carb. But lets not be ridiculous here.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on September 29, 2011
at 10:13 PM

@majkinetor: Proteins can be more insulinogenic, fats can increase the insulin response of carbs (that's why they help glycemic index), same food can cause different insulin response if first vs. last meal of the day. I won't "go there" on the opiates ... but that makes a case for calories (intake) after all.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:22 AM

But I seriously do not understand why is CS defending CHOs so much ? AFAIK, CS is at low carb diet! She may be right in giving people opposing view that carbs are not evil in general. Overloading of carbs is and is very easy to overload because of food industry standards that are governed by rules that don't include subjects health - like shelf life, production maximization, etc..

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 29, 2011
at 10:17 PM

Majkinetor, the insulin index of beef and fish is higher than pasta, popcorn, and some breakfast cereals. Fish has a higher insulin index than "grain bread". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 29, 2011
at 11:42 PM

Majkinetor, I was just pointing out that beef and fish are pretty insulinogenic according to the table in Wikipedia that I linked to. You said "never insulogenic as carb." The table of insulin index values says otherwise, notably in the examples I quoted. Beef and fish do "spike" your insulin more than pasta and popcorn. Glucagon releases glucose out of the liver, so you have insulin spike + glucose. Maybe "carbs" are "bad", but in terms of insulin, protein is not so much different than "carbs". The insulin response to protein is not as trivial as people want it to be.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 10:57 PM

@CS: Protein CAN be more insuligenic, carbs ARE insuligenic, fats can not increase insulin response of carbs if the carbs are not there, and most of all, they will not increase insulin response, they will digest slower hence the one will have steadier monosaharide influx. Amylase is more pronanunced in the morrning, hence its particularly bad to eat then. You wont go there on opiates ? Thats interesting, since that doesn't make a case for calorie in as it makes you crave carbs, not protein or fat.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:17 AM

There are more studies claiming otherwise, here are some from head: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3095717 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005276077901825 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22414/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10744780

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:53 AM

Travis, I guess don’t understand your reasoning. I’m not a biochemistry guy, but it would appear that: You eat fish, you get an insulin response on par with popcorn, you get a glucagon response that releases about the same amount of glucose into the blood that popcorn would have caused, the adipose tissue “sees” only the insulin and glucose. I also think if you are willing to move past insulin+glucose->fat to incorporate glucagon, then why stop there> There is all kinds of biochemistry going on. Like I said before, many people on low fat diets eat carbs every 2-3 hours and lose weight.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 29, 2011
at 09:26 PM

Just if we talk about insulin, we know that fat doesn't influence it and that protein doesn't rise it so much. So thats obvious difference, right ?

Medium avatar

(39831)

on September 30, 2011
at 12:09 AM

Once again, it's not the insulin response, it's the ratio of insulin:glucagon.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:27 AM

The biggest problem is that I have NEVER seen ANY PHYSIOLOGICAL explanation of why would higher CHO diets would be good for weight loss and general health apart from observational studies, while there are complete systems of low carb diets worked out. There is that famous deal with less energy in carbs but again which sounds reasonable, but again, what is common sense in science ? Is it relativity of time common sense ? Schrodinger's cat perhaps ? Or string theory ? Or hyperbolic geometry that defines universe.... Common sense is mostly how people describe high carb diets.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:26 PM

(continued) Back then “they” said to do cardio for at least 40 minutes because fat burning kicked in after 20 minutes and that sort of thing. I think at a practical level, activity is really the key, not how much fat or carbs or how often you are in lipolysis. I think fasted, low intensity exercise where you burn fat more directly is a more “painless” way to lose weight.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 30, 2011
at 03:29 AM

Travis, I saw this study saying that glucagon does not influence lipolysis in adipose tissue - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11344211. Also, what is the insulin doing with the glucose if glucagon was "blocking" the re-uptake?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:19 AM

So level of amino acids influence glucagon levels which influence what liver does with sugar reserves. Liver does this optimally, so insulin will not overshoot. Overshooting is the problem. You inject lots of carbs and insulin overcompensates, leading to reactive hypoglycemia. Thats the problem. Higher insulin levels are not problem if they are adequately controlled.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on September 30, 2011
at 07:30 AM

I have NEVER seen ANY PHYSIOLOGICAL explanation of why would HC diets be good for weight loss and general health, apart from observational studies, while there are complete systems of LC diets worked out. There is that famous thing about less energy in carbs which sounds reasonable, but again, what is common sense in science ? Is it relativity of time common sense ? Schrodinger's cat perhaps ? Or string theory ? Or hyperbolic geometry that defines universe we live in? Common sense is mostly how people think about HC diets and when we drop to common sense, the real science is out.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on September 30, 2011
at 01:25 PM

Majkinetor, one common “HC” dieting argument is basically that if you don’t eat much fat then the body will be forced to utilize its own fat stores. Peter at Hyperlipid talks about this a lot where you body will “eat” the saturated fat off your butt if don’t get enough in your diet. Back in the ‘80s and ‘90s people were counting fat grams like people count carb grams today, so the main fuel for someone who was dieting was carbs. Dieters lost weight just as well then as today. The thing is, exercise was emphasized a lot more back then than is currently espoused by many LCers today.

0
2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on September 30, 2011
at 03:59 PM

Genetic influences cannot be ignored. Some people overeat without reaching a sense of fullness, while others have appetites under control, regardless of whether you are following a Paleo or SAD diet.

0
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on September 29, 2011
at 06:52 AM

It is more complicated than calories in -vs- calories out. Metabolic disorder will hamper weight loss but allow weight gain (until you reach a threshold of weight gain).

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on September 29, 2011
at 03:16 PM

but that happens because your body is either not absorbing or not getting what it needs...

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!