If Excess Protein Turns into Fat...
Prisoner at War
Then how come the body can't use stored fat when it needs protein?
What, biochemically speaking, prevents it from turning fat back into
protein the way it apparently turns fat back into sugar? (I'm
assuming that 'cause stored fat is used for energy, right? And the
only form of energy for the body is sugar....)
And why doesn't the body use stored fat for its daily fat needs -- why
are people trying to lose fat still advised to get ("good") fats in
their daily diet??
Cubit
Excess protein becomes glucose. The liver does it.
Sugar is not the only form of energy for the body. Ketones are a big one,
if you don't guzzle carbs. Alcohol, I think, can too.
The body does not need to use stored fats, if the diet has too many
calories.
There are entire books saying that each kind of fat is the best fat, and all
the books contradict each other. Most agree that trans fats are bad.
Personally, I like saturated fats as found in Coconuts, and I suspect there
is merit to the form of Omega 6 called CLA. Without dietary fat, the body
makes its own fats. I have wondered if dietary fat is healthier than the
fat the body can make.
"Prisoner at War" <prisone...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188091526....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Ron Peterson
> Then how come the body can't use stored fat when it needs protein?
> What, biochemically speaking, prevents it from turning fat back into
> protein the way it apparently turns fat back into sugar? (I'm
> assuming that 'cause stored fat is used for energy, right? And the
> only form of energy for the body is sugar....
Fats don't contain amino acids which are necessary for the body to
synthesize proteins.
Fatty acids supply energy as well as glucose.
> And why doesn't the body use stored fat for its daily fat needs -- why
> are people trying to lose fat still advised to get ("good") fats in
> their daily diet??
Stored fat is used for daily energy needs, however, excess calories
cause more fat to be stored.
PUFA, mega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids, are essential for normal body
metabolism and brain function.
Saturated fats don't have any well known benefit to the human diet,
and are suspected of contributing to cardiovascular disease and type
II diabetes.
--
Ron
Bill Penrose
> Then how come the body can't use stored fat when it needs protein?
> What, biochemically speaking, prevents it from turning fat back into
> protein the way it apparently turns fat back into sugar?
The short answer is nitrogen. There's no nitrogen in fats. The
nitrogen is wizzed out as urea after the decomposition of protein.
The longer, but not longest, answer
1. There are 20 amino acids in protein. Each one has a different
pathway by which it is converted into fats or sugars and waste
products.
2. We can make some of those amino acids, but we lack the metabolic
pathways to make some of the 20. If one vital amino acid is missing,
you can't make any protein. This is why you can't live on a corn diet
(no lysine) but you can live on corn, rice and beans.
3. It takes a huge amount of energy to make protein, but you don't get
much of it back when you destroy it for energy. This is why you can't
live on lean spring rabbits.
>>(I'm
> assuming that 'cause stored fat is used for energy, right? And the
> only form of energy for the body is sugar....)
No, the body can burn fat directly, but it needs some sugar to do
that. In other words, it can burn sugar only, and sugar plus fat, but
not fat only. The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the diet,
supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
> And why doesn't the body use stored fat for its daily fat needs -- why
> are people trying to lose fat still advised to get ("good") fats in
> their daily diet??
'Good' fats are usually not used for energy. They're used for
structure, cell membranes, etc. Bad fats aren't bad, either,
especially if you work very hard in a cold climate. Only fat can give
you enough energy. It's all in the amount you eat.
(Says corpulent)
Dangerous Bill
David Cohen
> 'Good' fats are usually not used for energy. They're used for
> structure, cell membranes, etc. Bad fats aren't bad, either,
> especially if you work very hard in a cold climate. Only fat can give
> you enough energy. It's all in the amount you eat.
In the winter, polar bears hunting on the ice will eat only the
blubber of seals, leaving the meat and bones to the wolves who follow
the bears, and then what the wolves don't eat is taken by the foxes,
who have been following the wolves, who have been following the
bears.
It almost makes you want to break out into a song from "Lion King" :)
David
mont...@lycos.com
metabolism and brain function."
False, Ron. Did you not see my post of a couple of days ago. I
examined the original experiments, and it was vitamin B6 deficiency.
When they fed the rats B6 but no fat, the rats were fine. They made
Mead acid, and in other studies, actually lived longer than the rats
fed "essential fatty acids." If you don't believe me, you are free to
take me up on the experimental offer I've made to you time and time
again. Stop spreading these very dangerous myths - you might hurt
someone badly. And how can I see all kinds of benefits, and no
problems, after deciding to avoid dietary PUFA since 2001? Do you or
do you not understand what a direct refutation is in science, and what
role it plays in the scientific method?
My free site is at:
http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-
You can see relevant citations and quotations on the threads with
titles that are obviously on point (e.g., "Mead acid studies").
Omelet
Bill Penrose <pen...@iit.edu> wrote:
> The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the diet,
> supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
<lol>
Good joke...
--
Peace, Om
Remove _ to validate e-mails.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson
spodosaurus
> No, the body can burn fat directly, but it needs some sugar to do
> that. In other words, it can burn sugar only, and sugar plus fat, but
> not fat only. The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the diet,
> supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
Incorrect: glucose can be created from fats using the gluconeogenesis
pathway and getting the energy for this pathway from the citric acid
cycle that the catabolism of fat feeds into.
Cheers,
Ari
--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
Steve Freides
news:1188091526....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
Do we really have to have this conversation for the umpteenth time? Fat
"apparently turns" to sugar? Coal turns to gold? Alchemy. The body
not using stored fat for its daily needs? Try dieting.
Hard Bop Drums
"Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1188100046.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
You need to get your head out of your ass and read a bit more. Yes, PUFAs
are high in all the essential fatty acids, but there are MANY types of
saturated fats and not all lead to any cardiovascular problems. I'll bet you
an arm and a leg that you are a fat ass.
--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche
Hard Bop Drums
news:1188111175.0...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Wow! Yet another SPAMMING asshole who thinks he knows about diet. If I had
nickel for every idiot like this guy I have seen in Usenet, I could buy and
sell Bill Gates 50 times over. There is a reason why they are called
essential fatty acids. Your fake rats studies don't hold water with humans.
Hard Bop Drums
news:5je7aqF...@mid.individual.net...
Steve,
This guy obviously has never met anyone whom has become leaner through diet
and hard work!! :-)
Ron Peterson
> Bill Penrose wrote:
> > No, the body can burn fat directly, but it needs some sugar to do
> > that. In other words, it can burn sugar only, and sugar plus fat, but
> > not fat only. The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the diet,
> > supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
> Incorrect: glucose can be created from fats using the gluconeogenesis
> pathway and getting the energy for this pathway from the citric acid
> cycle that the catabolism of fat feeds into.
Glucogenesis produces glucose from glycerol and proteins, not fatty
acids. Glycerol is only a small part of triglycerides.
--
Ron
mont...@lycos.com
sell. Would you like me to copy and paste all the evidence I have on
my site every time someone asks a relevant question? Perhaps if you
would remove your head from your hind quarters you would realize that
just because someone has a web site and references it does not mean
there is a "spam" issue involved. If you want to discuss the science,
then cite your evidence and let's talk science. This is supposed to
be a scientific newsgroup. There is no "opinion" in my post. The
experiments are part of the scientific literature, and nobody has ever
claimed that they were fraudulent or in any was suspect (some were
done at M.I.T.).
spodosaurus
No, that is incorrect. Gluconeogenesis pathway produces glucose from
pyruvate/oxaloacetate. Oxaloacetate can be taken right from the citric
acid cycle, regardless of its source molecule (in this example, fatty
acids). Glycerol is not needed, and nor are amino acids, although some
amino acids can be used to get the oxaloacetate.
mont...@lycos.com
This statement just shows how incredibly, aggressively ignorant of the
subject you are - you don't even understand the terminology. In your
case, I advise you ingest large amounts of what you believe to be the
"essential fatty acids." Report back to us what happens about ten
years from now, if you last that long.
For those with an open mind, "saturated fat" is a phrase that lacks
scientific precision and is useless (in fact, it may be worse than
useless, to the extent that it misleads). Lard is considered a
"saturated fat" by most "experts," but is only about 40% saturated,
not much more saturated than chicken fat, for example. Coconut oil is
over 90% saturated. However, the actual saturated fatty acids are not
all the same, and can have different effects. Some SFAs are said to
raise cholesterol levels while at least one SFA is said to lower it.
Because CHD is now understood down to the molecular-level, this
information is no longer relevant. Oxidized LDL is to blame, and LDL
containing a lot of PUFAs are susceptible to oxidation. Therefore,
basic logic dictates that if you avoid dietary PUFAs and of course
dietary cholesterol that is largely oxidized (steamed salmon is
especially bad, for example), then there is no reason to fear
saturated fatty acids. Lard is unhealthy due to what is in it besides
the saturated fatty acids, not because of the saturated fatty acids.
Once you understand this, you can examine the actual findings of
various studies and it will make sense to you. If something does not
make sense, you can ask me questions on my free site. I do not charge
any fees, and make absolutely no money, directly or indirectly, by
doing this. I am "giving" my time, trying to help people. The site
is sponsored by Microsoft, which allows me to do this for free (they
put small banner ads up on top of the page, and it has nothing to do
with me).
mont...@lycos.com
Kaz Kylheku
> "PUFA, omega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids, are essential for normal body
> metabolism and brain function."
>
> False, Ron.
Ron's statement simply reflects the current mainstream understanding.
If a better understanding replaces that one, it's unlikely that this
will come from some lame Internet crackpots.
> And how can I see all kinds of benefits, and no
> problems, after deciding to avoid dietary PUFA since 2001?
You might have /decided/ to do that, but it's next to impossible.
You'd have to avoid fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, dairy, etc.
Basically all food.
This causes me to wonder, what exactly do you eat? Ah, your website
has the answer to that:
``Aside from fresh fruit, especially bananas (though I'm not sure if
bananas are technicaly a "fruit"), I eat a lot of cheese along with
ricotta, which can be the same as cheese, or be made with whey, which
will change the amino acid profile a litte. I also eat other dairy,
such as butter, sour cream, and yogurt, but never with additives such
as carrageenan.'' [... etc]
Doh, dairy contains PUFA. It's a source of omega-3 and omega-6 EFA's,
as are other things in your diet.
Ron Peterson
> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> > PUFA, mega 6 and omega 3 fatty acids, are essential for normal body
> > metabolism and brain function.
> > Saturated fats don't have any well known benefit to the human diet,
> > and are suspected of contributing to cardiovascular disease and type
> > II diabetes.
> You need to get your head out of your ass and read a bit more. Yes, PUFAs
> are high in all the essential fatty acids, but there are MANY types of
> saturated fats and not all lead to any cardiovascular problems. I'll bet you
> an arm and a leg that you are a fat ass.
You don't have it quite right. Oils that are high in PUFA, don't
necessarily have all the essential fatty acids, particularly those
common in fish oil (EPA & DHA).
The short chained saturated fatty acids may be comparatively safe, but
fats that are highly saturated aren't dominated by SCFA.
I try to be very careful about my sources of information being
skeptical of vegan and "natural/organic" web sites and publications.
--
Ron
Prisoner at War
Hey, you can tune out, you know...I mean, you don't have to read every
single post on MFW!
How about you try "real life" some time....
Prisoner at War
> Um, uh.
>
> Excess protein becomes glucose. The liver does it.
I've read that excess protein becomes fat. But even if it does become
glucose, well, if it's excess glucose it still becomes fat!
> Sugar is not the only form of energy for the body. Ketones are a big one,
> if you don't guzzle carbs. Alcohol, I think, can too.
Perhaps, I don't know; the point of my question isn't whether sugar is
the only form of energy for the body (though if what you say is true I
thank you for the edification), but how come fat cannot be converted
back to protein the way fat can be converted back to sugar.
> The body does not need to use stored fats, if the diet has too many
> calories.
Indeed.
> There are entire books saying that each kind of fat is the best fat, and all
> the books contradict each other. Most agree that trans fats are bad.
Yeah, it's a jungle out there!
> Personally, I like saturated fats as found in Coconuts, and I suspect there
> is merit to the form of Omega 6 called CLA. Without dietary fat, the body
> makes its own fats. I have wondered if dietary fat is healthier than the
> fat the body can make.
Well, I'm wondering why the advice to ingest dietary fat, even though
the body already has fat.
Kaz Kylheku
> You need to get your head out of your ass and read a bit more. Yes, PUFAs
> are high in all the essential fatty acids,
Makes no sense whatsoever. The essential fatty acids are types of
PUFA. PUFA is a class of which EFA's are members, as are many more non-
essential fats, including toxic ones.
Prisoner at War
>
>
> Fats don't contain amino acids which are necessary for the body to
> synthesize proteins.
So how do proteins, which contain amino acids, get converted into
fat? The body just tosses out the amino acids when it decides that
protein intake has become excessive (and in what terms -- that
particular minute, hour, day, what?) and decides to turn it into
fat??? But I thought protein was made of amino acids?? So if you
toss it out, then you're tossing out protein!
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron
Prisoner at War
>
>
> The short answer is nitrogen. There's no nitrogen in fats. The
> nitrogen is wizzed out as urea after the decomposition of protein.
Oh! Thanks...and I guess the body can't just grab some floating
nitrogen and add it to fat and convert that fat into protein, eh....
> The longer, but not longest, answer
> 1. There are 20 amino acids in protein. Each one has a different
> pathway by which it is converted into fats or sugars and waste
> products.
Ah! Check.
> 2. We can make some of those amino acids, but we lack the metabolic
> pathways to make some of the 20. If one vital amino acid is missing,
> you can't make any protein. This is why you can't live on a corn diet
> (no lysine) but you can live on corn, rice and beans.
Hmm! Check.
> 3. It takes a huge amount of energy to make protein, but you don't get
> much of it back when you destroy it for energy. This is why you can't
> live on lean spring rabbits.
Whuh? Um, check.
> No, the body can burn fat directly, but it needs some sugar to do
> that. In other words, it can burn sugar only, and sugar plus fat, but
> not fat only. The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the diet,
> supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
Okay, so it needs some sugar in order to burn fat. Seems like God has
a very round-about, Rube Goldberg way of engineering things!
> 'Good' fats are usually not used for energy. They're used for
> structure, cell membranes, etc.
Yeah, but why can't the body use the fat stores it already has for
these cell membranes and so forth??
Omelet
Look up the structure of a protein (amino acid) molecule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_structure
It contains carbon atoms and carboxyl groups.
In other words...
Atoms capable of constructing carbohydrates.
The body can strip the nitrogen from the protein molecular structure and
use the remaining atoms to create glucose thru a process known as
gluconeogenesis.
This takes place in the liver.
It helps to have taken Biochemistry in College as well as taking the
time to study sports nutrition. ;-)
I hope this helps your understanding a bit.
Seriously.
Excess protein can still be converted to fat.
The human body is an amazing chemistry factory.
Excess nitrogen not utilized to create protein structures in the body is
excreted by the kidneys as urea. (pee)
Steve Freides
>
> Hey, you can tune out, you know...I mean, you don't have to read every
> single post on MFW!
>
> How about you try "real life" some time....
OK, sure, thanks for the advice.
number6
wrote:
> On Aug 25, 11:44 pm, "Cubit" <n...@not.not> wrote:
>
> > Um, uh.
>
> > Excess protein becomes glucose. The liver does it.
>
> I've read that excess protein becomes fat. But even if it does become
> glucose, well, if it's excess glucose it still becomes fat!
No that is not correct ... the body cannot convert proteins to stored
fat ... In fact, it cannot store ingested fat ... The body can only
convert and store excess carbohydrates as fat ... not even alcohol ...
Omelet
number6 <snum...@aol.com> wrote:
In your dreams...
Bill Penrose
> On Aug 25, 11:56 pm, Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
> > The short answer is nitrogen. There's no nitrogen in fats. The
> > nitrogen is wizzed out as urea after the decomposition of protein.
>
> Oh! Thanks...and I guess the body can't just grab some floating
> nitrogen and add it to fat and convert that fat into protein, eh....
Naw, you have to be a pea or another legume to do that (and the
process is actually carried out by nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the
root nodules). For most metabolic purposes, nitrogen is an inert gas.
> Okay, so it needs some sugar in order to burn fat. Seems like God has
> a very round-about, Rube Goldberg way of engineering things!
It's a miracle that it works at all, even more amazing that it works
for nearly a century without all that much maintenance. You can thank
God or Darwin, it's still amazing as hell.
> Yeah, but why can't the body use the fat stores it already has for
> these cell membranes and so forth??
It can, but it can't make unsaturated fats. A cell membrane is made of
a mixture of saturated and unsaturated fats, specially compounded to
give it just the right degree of fluidity.
DB
hanson
Corpulent "Bill Penrose" <pen...@iit.edu> wrote in message
news:1188245924.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > The short answer is nitrogen. There's no nitrogen in fats. The
>> > nitrogen is wizzed out as urea after the decomposition of protein.
>>
>> Oh! Thanks...and I guess the body can't just grab some floating
>> nitrogen and add it to fat and convert that fat into protein, eh....
>
> Naw, you have to be a pea or another legume to do that (and the
> process is actually carried out by nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the
> root nodules). For most metabolic purposes, nitrogen is an inert gas.
>
... ahahahaha... ok then, since there is plenty of N2 in then blood
stream, let's dream about the development of a "supplement"
or pill that contains GE nitrogen fixing bacteria, appropriate
enzymes and the required trace minerals (V & Mo, IIRC), and
have them bugs manufacture proteins in the stomach or upper
gut so that we can thrive on daisies and cuttings from our lawns....
ahahahaha... ahahanson
Gordon
wrote:
My uncle, who lived in Alamosa, Colorado, some years back, used
his lawn clippings to feed a number of white rabbits, then his
family ate the rabbits as they reached maturity.
He used one of those little reel type push mowers to mow about
1/7 of his lawn each day. He then placed the clippings in his
rabbit hutches each morning and the rabbits were quite contented
with their fare.
There was an ample supply of lawn clippings for rabbit food
through the summer months, but when winter came he had to feed
the breeding rabbits alfalfa and commercial rabbit food.
This all worked out very well and he was able to market many of
the rabbits. They usually had many more than his family could
eat.
He sold the rabbit pelts to a furrier who used them for clothing
decorations and glove linings.
Gordon
Hard Bop Drums
news:1188191405....@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Don't bother with this Monty moron. He wouldn't know good nutrition from his
little boy porn sites.
hanson
"Gordon" <gord...@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:r6k6d39qfs7d2092k...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:04:35 GMT, "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
> wrote:
>>
Corpulent "Bill Penrose" <pen...@iit.edu> wrote in message
news:1188245924.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The short answer is nitrogen. There's no nitrogen in fats. The
nitrogen is wizzed out as urea after the decomposition of protein.
>>>>
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh! Thanks...and I guess the body can't just grab some floating
nitrogen and add it to fat and convert that fat into protein, eh....
>>>
Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
Naw, you have to be a pea or another legume to do that (and the
process is actually carried out by nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the
root nodules). For most metabolic purposes, nitrogen is an inert gas.
>>>
[hanson]
stream, let's dream about the development of a "supplement"
or pill that contains GE nitrogen fixing bacteria, appropriate
enzymes and the required trace minerals (V & Mo, IIRC), and
have them bugs manufacture proteins in the stomach or upper
gut so that we can thrive on daisies and cuttings from our lawns....
ahahahaha... ahahanson
>>
>My uncle, who lived in Alamosa, Colorado, some years back, used
his lawn clippings to feed a number of white rabbits, then his
family ate the rabbits as they reached maturity.
He used one of those little reel type push mowers to mow about
1/7 of his lawn each day. He then placed the clippings in his
rabbit hutches each morning and the rabbits were quite contented
with their fare.
There was an ample supply of lawn clippings for rabbit food
through the summer months, but when winter came he had to feed
the breeding rabbits alfalfa and commercial rabbit food.
This all worked out very well and he was able to market many of
the rabbits. They usually had many more than his family could
eat. He sold the rabbit pelts to a furrier who used them for clothing
decorations and glove linings.
> Gordon
>
ahahahaha... Fantastic!. So, it makes you mature, i.e. the
whole family too, when you eat lawn-clipping-fed white rabbits.
Did your unki's family also reproduce like the rabbits did?
Well, I guess we don't need any futuristic N2-GE pills, when
the solution lays already within the rabbits on the lawn...
Nature won again!
Thanks for the laughs, Gordy.... ahahaha... ahahanson
hanson
Bill you said I one of your earlier posts in this threadnews:1188100597....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
What, biochemically speaking, prevents it from turning fat back into
protein the way it apparently turns fat back into sugar?
>
The short answer is nitrogen. There's no nitrogen in fats. The
nitrogen is wizzed out as urea after the decomposition of protein.
>
1. There are 20 amino acids in protein. Each one has a different
pathway by which it is converted into fats or sugars and waste
products.
pathways to make some of the 20. If one vital amino acid is missing,
you can't make any protein. This is why you can't live on a corn diet
(no lysine) but you can live on corn, rice and beans.
much of it back when you destroy it for energy. This is why you can't
live on lean spring rabbits.
that. In other words, it can burn sugar only, and sugar plus fat, but
not fat only. The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the diet,
supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
especially if you work very hard in a cold climate. Only fat can give
you enough energy. It's all in the amount you eat.
(Says corpulent)
Dangerous Bill
>
Is it really that clean cut and simple?.. i.e. history shows that all the
members, save 2 guys, of the De Soto expedition died from protein
poisoning because they only ate their horses (like your rabbits)
but some Inuits live very happily by eating only fat, whale blubber.
>
So, something else seems to be at work here . What prevents or is
missing in our metabolism that does not allow us to aminate (insert
a NH2) into Leucine, (C6H13NO2) to yield Lysine (C6H14N2O2)?
... or to turn Valine C5H11NO2 by methyleneation (inserting a CH2)
into the C6 amino acids?
What is the reason for that in the thinking of the bio-med community?
Which are the responsible genes or DNA markers? Are they known?
hanson
Bill Penrose
> Corpulent "Bill Penrose" <penr...@iit.edu> wrote in > [hanson]
> Is it really that clean cut and simple?.. i.e. history shows that all the
> members, save 2 guys, of the De Soto expedition died from protein
> poisoning because they only ate their horses (like your rabbits)
> but some Inuits live very happily by eating only fat, whale blubber.
You can't get enough energy from lean meat. The body attempts to make
energy by burning protein, and the nitrogen loading can poison or the
body can simply starve.
Blubber isn't just fat. There's protein there, too. I remember in my
biochem classes in 1963-5 being told that Inuit have different
metabolism that allows them to subsist without carbohydrates. Biochem
was moderately primitive then, so I don't know what the modern story
is. It is true that Inuit and white people eating the same high-fat,
low-carbohydrate diets react differently, but I don't know the basis
of it.
> So, something else seems to be at work here . What prevents or is
> missing in our metabolism that does not allow us to aminate (insert
> a NH2) into Leucine, (C6H13NO2) to yield Lysine (C6H14N2O2)?
> ... or to turn Valine C5H11NO2 by methyleneation (inserting a CH2)
> into the C6 amino acids?
Missing enzymes. They've been lost, presumably because they weren't
needed during some period of our Special Creation/Evolution. Like the
ability to make ascorbic acid.
> What is the reason for that in the thinking of the bio-med community?
> Which are the responsible genes or DNA markers? Are they known?
I don't know.
Dangerous Bill
hanson
>
[hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/ae44828743af2c51?hl=en&
Is it really that clean cut and simple?.. i.e. history shows that all the
members, save 2 guys, of the De Soto expedition died from protein
poisoning because they only ate their horses (like your rabbits)
but some Inuits live very happily by eating only fat, whale blubber.
>
You can't get enough energy from lean meat. The body attempts to make
energy by burning protein, and the nitrogen loading can poison or the
body can simply starve.
>
Blubber isn't just fat. There's protein there, too. I remember in my
biochem classes in 1963-5 being told that Inuit have different
metabolism that allows them to subsist without carbohydrates. Biochem
was moderately primitive then, so I don't know what the modern story
is. It is true that Inuit and white people eating the same high-fat,
low-carbohydrate diets react differently, but I don't know the basis
of it.
>
So, something else seems to be at work here . What prevents or is
missing in our metabolism that does not allow us to aminate (insert
a NH2) into Leucine, (C6H13NO2) to yield Lysine (C6H14N2O2)?
... or to turn Valine C5H11NO2 by methyleneation (inserting a CH2)
into the C6 amino acids?
>
Missing enzymes. They've been lost, presumably because they weren't
needed during some period of our Special Creation/Evolution. Like the
ability to make ascorbic acid.
>
What is the reason for that in the thinking of the bio-med community?
Which are the responsible genes or DNA markers? Are they known?
>
I don't know.
Dangerous Bill
>
Thanks, man.
Perhaps some posters from the younger set can enlighten us...
Tom Anderson
> On Aug 27, 8:12 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 25, 11:56 pm, Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
>>> The short answer is nitrogen. There's no nitrogen in fats. The
>>> nitrogen is wizzed out as urea after the decomposition of protein.
>>
>> Oh! Thanks...and I guess the body can't just grab some floating
>> nitrogen and add it to fat and convert that fat into protein, eh....
>
> Naw, you have to be a pea or another legume to do that
Apparently some non-legumes can do it to. But as you say ...
> (and the process is actually carried out by nitrogen-fixing bacteria in
> the root nodules).
It's actually prokaryotes doing it, not plants at all, really.
Nitrogenase, the enzyme which cracks atmospheric N2 into ammonia, is
absolutely fascinating in terms of its chemistry. I studied it a fair bit
for my degree, and it almost tempted me into becoming a structural
biologist!
tom
--
Hier gaan over het tij, de wind, de maan en wij.
Tom Anderson
> Ron Peterson wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 2:32 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>>> Bill Penrose wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, the body can burn fat directly, but it needs some sugar to do
>>>> that. In other words, it can burn sugar only, and sugar plus fat, but
>>>> not fat only. The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the diet,
>>>> supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
>>>
>>> Incorrect: glucose can be created from fats using the gluconeogenesis
>>> pathway and getting the energy for this pathway from the citric acid
>>> cycle that the catabolism of fat feeds into.
>>
>> Glucogenesis produces glucose from glycerol and proteins, not fatty
>> acids. Glycerol is only a small part of triglycerides.
>
> No, that is incorrect. Gluconeogenesis pathway produces glucose from
> pyruvate/oxaloacetate. Oxaloacetate can be taken right from the citric
> acid cycle, regardless of its source molecule (in this example, fatty
> acids).
But you can't make oxaloacetate from fat! Yes, carbons from fat flow into
the Krebs cycle, but to get them in, you need molecules of the
intermediates there already to accept them; to make oxaloacetate, you need
acetyl CoA and an existing molecule of oxaloacetate, so there's no *net*
synthesis - the number of molecules of the intermediates stays constant,
that's what makes it a cycle.
To make more of the intermediates, you need one of the anaplerotic
reactions (one of my favourite words, that!), and those start from sugars
and amino acids.
Although, having refreshed my memory of this, you *can* do anaplerosis
from fatty acids - but only if they're odd-length! And those are only made
by some bacteria, and only found in the human diet in significant
quantities in the meat of ruminants, which have those bacteria in their
guts. Even then, it's a small portion of the total fat, and you only get
one anaplerotic equivalent per fatty acid chain, so it's not going to get
you very far.
It's always been a puzzle to me why we don't have an enzyme capable of
making propionyl-CoA by methylating acetyl CoA, say using
methyl-tetrahydrofolate (although i'm kind of hazy on the ultimate source
of the methyl groups for that - might also need an acetyl-CoA
decarboxylase to make them ...). Or some kind of malonyl-CoA
isomerase-reductase complex. Or why we ever lost the glyoxylate cycle. We
could then use fat for everything, lose our dependence on sugars, and dump
all that ketone body junk. Oh well, more evidence for the absence of
intelligent design, i guess!
Tom Anderson
> Then how come the body can't use stored fat when it needs protein? What,
> biochemically speaking, prevents it from turning fat back into protein
> the way it apparently turns fat back into sugar?
You've had plenty of other answers on this, but, basically (a) we can't
turn fat back into sugar and (b) both this inability and the inability to
turn fat into protein are because we lack a few crucial enzymes.
For protein, there's also a question of where you'd get the nitrogen from,
as amino acids contain nitrogen but fats don't. You'd need organic
nitrogen, which could come either from fixation of atmospheric nitrogen,
which means we'd need symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria like plants (or a
whole new raft of genes of our own to do the job), or from proteins in the
diet - and then you're playing a trading game, because you could do things
like making two molecules of alanine (each of which contains one nitrogen
atom) from one of lysine (which contains two) and some carbon from fat,
you could never make two lysines starting from one.
> (I'm assuming that 'cause stored fat is used for energy, right? And the
> only form of energy for the body is sugar....)
No. Most of the energy you use comes from a set of reactions called the
Krebs cycle (aka the citric acid cycle and tricarboxylic acid cycle),
which burns something called acetyl coenzyme A (acetyl CoA). You can make
that from sugar or from fat. You can also turn it back into fat, but not
sugar. The process by which you make it from sugar is called glycolysis,
and that produces energy of its own as well; it can also be diverted away
from acetyl CoA to produce lactic acid. Glycolysis doesn't require oxygen,
but the Krebs cycle does, so that's what the body does when it needs
energy but doesn't have oxygen - you get less energy per molecule of
sugar, but it works. A consequence of this is that only sugar can fuel
anaerobic energy production, not fat. There is something called the Cori
cycle which uses energy to recycle lactic acid to sugar, but that's
another story!
I don't know if this makes things any clearer, but the separate steps are:
glucose -> pyruvate (glycolysis; makes some energy)
pyruvate -> lactic acid (used as an endpoint for anerobic metabolism)
pyruvate -> acetyl CoA + CO2 (first step in aerobic metabolism)
acetyl CoA + O2 -> CO2 + H2O (Krebs cycle; makes lots of energy)
The relationship between sugar and acetyl CoA is a bit like that between
wood and charcoal; you can make the latter from the former, and you can
burn both, but you can't make the former from the latter!
Tom Anderson
> On Aug 25, 11:47 pm, Ron Peterson <r...@shell.core.com> wrote:
>
>> Fats don't contain amino acids which are necessary for the body to
>> synthesize proteins.
>
> So how do proteins, which contain amino acids, get converted into
> fat?
By some very complicated reactions that we don't want to get into.
> The body just tosses out the amino acids when it decides that
> protein intake has become excessive
Yes. Or rather, irreversibly converts them to fat. Mostly.
> (and in what terms -- that particular minute, hour, day, what?)
Tens of minutes, i believe. If you eat a steak, after two hours, any amino
acids that haven't been needed for protein synthesis are being turned into
fat.
> and decides to turn it into fat??? But I thought protein was made of
> amino acids?? So if you toss it out, then you're tossing out protein!
Hey, maybe that's why America has an obesity crisis, not a muscularity
crisis!
spodosaurus
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, spodosaurus wrote:
>
>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>> On Aug 26, 2:32 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>>>> Bill Penrose wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, the body can burn fat directly, but it needs some sugar to do
>>>>> that. In other words, it can burn sugar only, and sugar plus fat,
>>>>> but not fat only. The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the
>>>>> diet, supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect: glucose can be created from fats using the gluconeogenesis
>>>> pathway and getting the energy for this pathway from the citric acid
>>>> cycle that the catabolism of fat feeds into.
>>>
>>> Glucogenesis produces glucose from glycerol and proteins, not fatty
>>> acids. Glycerol is only a small part of triglycerides.
>>
>> No, that is incorrect. Gluconeogenesis pathway produces glucose from
>> pyruvate/oxaloacetate. Oxaloacetate can be taken right from the citric
>> acid cycle, regardless of its source molecule (in this example, fatty
>> acids).
>
> But you can't make oxaloacetate from fat! Yes, carbons from fat flow
> into the Krebs cycle, but to get them in, you need molecules of the
> intermediates there already to accept them; to make oxaloacetate, you
> need acetyl CoA and an existing molecule of oxaloacetate, so there's no
> *net* synthesis - the number of molecules of the intermediates stays
> constant, that's what makes it a cycle.
>
No human exists in a vacuum (literally, we tend to explode then freeze).
your hypothetical point here is not pertinent to the reality of the
situation - a person switching from carbohydrates to a protein+fat diet.
Acetyl CoA comes from fatty acid oxidation. You get C/2 acetyl-CoA's
from each fatty acid (C=number of carbons in the chain, and this is for
even number carbon chains). You originally said that humans can burn
sugar and fat, but that there must always be a carbohydrate source. This
is not correct, as topping up the intermediates can be done readily
through the protein consumed with the rest of the animal.
> Oh well, more evidence for the absence
> of intelligent design, i guess!
We marvel at the intricacies of what actually works and say 'something
intelligent must have designed this', and ignore the 85% junk and
half-assed bollocks that exists alongside :)
Ari
--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
Omelet
Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
I'll bet you have the Krebs cycle permanently memorized...
<sigh>
And the periodic table.
Omelet
> (a) we can't
> turn fat back into sugar
Fat can't be converted back (partially) into glucose? Since when?
Where does the glucose for the central nervous system come from for
those that do a lot of fasting?
Tom Anderson
Actually, i believe that's a popular myth - you asphyxiate then freeze, no
exploding involved:
http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.html
> your hypothetical point here is not pertinent to the reality of the
> situation - a person switching from carbohydrates to a protein+fat diet.
> Acetyl CoA comes from fatty acid oxidation. You get C/2 acetyl-CoA's
> from each fatty acid (C=number of carbons in the chain, and this is for
> even number carbon chains). You originally said that humans can burn
> sugar and fat, but that there must always be a carbohydrate source.
That wasn't me.
> This is not correct, as topping up the intermediates can be done readily
> through the protein consumed with the rest of the animal.
Quite true. Sorry, i wasn't saying that you had to eat sugars to be able
to metabolise fat; i was just pointing out that you can't make sugar from
fat.
tom
--
People don't want nice. People want London. -- Al
Tom Anderson
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@urchin.earth.li>,
> Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> (a) we can't turn fat back into sugar
>
> Fat can't be converted back (partially) into glucose? Since when?
Ooh, a few hundred million years, ish. I actually can't find out where in
our evolutionary lineage we lost it; somewhere after the vertebrates
separated out ~500 million years ago, but where exactly, i have no idea.
> Where does the glucose for the central nervous system come from for
> those that do a lot of fasting?
What glucose? Time to meet the metabolic substrate nobody mentions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies
There have been reports of glyoxylate enzyme activities in mammals, but
they're sporadic, and the consensus seems, to my outsider's eye, to be
that they haven't won acceptance. There's apparently no trace of genes for
the enzymes in the human genome, which kind of puts the kybosh on the
idea. But don't sue me if that's not so ...
And no, i haven't memorised the Krebs cycle, the periodic table, the
genetic code, or anything intellectual like that. I can probably tell you
the catalogue numbers of most of the antibodies i use, though!
Omelet
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@urchin.earth.li>,
> > Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >> (a) we can't turn fat back into sugar
> >
> > Fat can't be converted back (partially) into glucose? Since when?
>
> Ooh, a few hundred million years, ish. I actually can't find out where in
> our evolutionary lineage we lost it; somewhere after the vertebrates
> separated out ~500 million years ago, but where exactly, i have no idea.
Ok, my bad.
My metabolic biochemistry is a bit rusty... (It's only been 21 years
since I took the classes, and it's been awhile since I've done any
serious reading on it).
So I did some googling last night at work and "studied". <G>
And of course, you are correct.
Thru various enzymatic pathways, fatty acids enter the oxidative
phosphorylation pathway directly and so do ketone bodies. They are then
converted to Acetyl CoA and from there to ATP, the final product
actually used for energy.
Cool.
Since a lot of ketone bodies are dumped in the urine, that is what makes
ketogenic dieting so much better. It's "Inefficient" so burns off more
fat. It still drives me nuts when I read things like "scientists don't
understand why people consuming the same number of protein and fat
calories burn off more body fat than people using low fat, high carb
diets".
It's like, duh.
>
> > Where does the glucose for the central nervous system come from for
> > those that do a lot of fasting?
>
> What glucose? Time to meet the metabolic substrate nobody mentions:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies
I saw LOTS of stuff on ketogenic diets being used to treat Epileptic
children. Interesting stuff.
>
> There have been reports of glyoxylate enzyme activities in mammals, but
> they're sporadic, and the consensus seems, to my outsider's eye, to be
> that they haven't won acceptance. There's apparently no trace of genes for
> the enzymes in the human genome, which kind of puts the kybosh on the
> idea. But don't sue me if that's not so ...
So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates?
So if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own muscles?
I've not googled far enough to find references for fasting metabolism.
>
> And no, i haven't memorised the Krebs cycle, the periodic table, the
> genetic code, or anything intellectual like that. I can probably tell you
> the catalogue numbers of most of the antibodies i use, though!
>
> tom
;-)
I had to memorize the damned thing three times in college and I STILL
don't remember all the steps!
Omelet
DZ <15...@1900132091.1700436.13514.2134.10068> wrote:
> Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> > Omelet wrote:
> >> Fat can't be converted back (partially) into glucose? Since when?
> >
> > Ooh, a few hundred million years, ish. I actually can't find out where in
> > our evolutionary lineage we lost it; somewhere after the vertebrates
> > separated out ~500 million years ago, but where exactly, i have no idea.
>
> LOL
>
> > There have been reports of glyoxylate enzyme activities in mammals,
>
> Sightings of the beast... Here is one, http://pmid.us/2712349
>
> > but they're sporadic, and the consensus seems, to my outsider's eye,
> > to be that they haven't won acceptance. There's apparently no trace
> > of genes for the enzymes in the human genome, which kind of puts the
> > kybosh on the idea. But don't sue me if that's not so ...
>
> Here is a good paper on this:
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1630690
>
> Of all animals only the roundworms are well documented to have the two
> key enzymes (two in one). But those who found a rudimentary expression
> in mammals etc. say that the enzymes are not coded by the homologous
> genes (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g40v1765q46q8245/)
>
> They mention those roundworms in support of the hypothesis, where the
> stuff is already sufficiently diverged to became a single
> bi-functional enzyme.
>
> So, if rats drink plenty of vodka but otherwise starved but, a small
> amount of fat can turn into carbs - http://pmid.us/8706872
>
> This simply HAD to come from Russian scientists!
>
> Wait a minute, in men too - http://pmid.us/12056879
Nice links.
I needed more reading material. <G>
Tom Anderson
> What prevents or is missing in our metabolism that does not allow us to
> aminate (insert a NH2) into Leucine, (C6H13NO2) to yield Lysine
> (C6H14N2O2)? ... or to turn Valine C5H11NO2 by methyleneation (inserting
> a CH2) into the C6 amino acids? What is the reason for that in the
> thinking of the bio-med community? Which are the responsible genes or
> DNA markers? Are they known?
Yes, the genes are known. Our ancestors had them tens or hundreds of
millions of years ago, when they were rats or worms or jellyfish or
something. We've lost them since then. Why? I guess because we get enough
amino acids from our diet, and don't need to make them. Whether we lost
them by neutral drift (just because we didn't need them) or whether there
was some selective advantage to losing them, i'm not qualified to say.
tom
--
For me, thats just logic. OTOH, Spock went bananas several times using
logic. -- Pete, mfw
Tom Anderson
> Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> Fat can't be converted back (partially) into glucose? Since when?
>>
>> but they're sporadic, and the consensus seems, to my outsider's eye, to
>> be that they haven't won acceptance. There's apparently no trace of
>> genes for the enzymes in the human genome, which kind of puts the
>> kybosh on the idea. But don't sue me if that's not so ...
>
> Here is a good paper on this:
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1630690
>
> Of all animals only the roundworms are well documented to have the two
> key enzymes (two in one). But those who found a rudimentary expression
> in mammals etc. say that the enzymes are not coded by the homologous
> genes (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g40v1765q46q8245/)
Aha. Those guys have actually purified this alleged enzyme, so it should
be child's play to sequence it and then go looking for the gene. I await
further reports with interest.
> So, if rats drink plenty of vodka but otherwise starved but, a small
> amount of fat can turn into carbs - http://pmid.us/8706872
>
> This simply HAD to come from Russian scientists!
I had the same thought when i saw those papers!
Edward Green
> On Aug 27, 7:26 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> > Corpulent "Bill Penrose" <penr...@iit.edu> wrote in > [hanson]
> > Is it really that clean cut and simple?.. i.e. history shows that all the
> > members, save 2 guys, of the De Soto expedition died from protein
> > poisoning because they only ate their horses (like your rabbits)
> > but some Inuits live very happily by eating only fat, whale blubber.
>
> You can't get enough energy from lean meat. The body attempts to make
> energy by burning protein, and the nitrogen loading can poison or the
> body can simply starve.
>
> Blubber isn't just fat. There's protein there, too. I remember in my
> biochem classes in 1963-5 being told that Inuit have different
> metabolism that allows them to subsist without carbohydrates. Biochem
> was moderately primitive then, so I don't know what the modern story
> is. It is true that Inuit and white people eating the same high-fat,
> low-carbohydrate diets react differently, but I don't know the basis
> of it.
Presumably you refer to the fact that "white people" lose weight --
it's called the Atkin's diet. I've wonder what would happen if you
never stopped: would one reach stasis, or starve to death?
Another tidbit: I recall that wolves drink a great deal of water after
wolfing down that caribou, specifically to flush out the urea.
Omelet
Edward Green <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
Or maybe it's because they are thirsty?
Tom Anderson
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@urchin.earth.li>,
> Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@urchin.earth.li>,
>>> Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (a) we can't turn fat back into sugar
>
> So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
> Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates? So
> if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own muscles?
That's certainly what i was taught. We spent weeks on this in my second
year at university, and i remember that the switch from fed to fasting
metabolism is very complicated, but that i eventually understood it. But
that's all i remember :(.
>> And no, i haven't memorised the Krebs cycle, the periodic table, the
>> genetic code, or anything intellectual like that. I can probably tell
>> you the catalogue numbers of most of the antibodies i use, though!
>
> ;-)
>
> I had to memorize the damned thing three times in college and I STILL
> don't remember all the steps!
Citrate to ... mevalonate to ... phosphoenolpyruvate to ... halfpastate to
... nothanksijustate ... er ... CO2! Still got the old magic!
tom
--
File under 'directionless space novelty ultimately ruined by poor
self-editing'
Tom Anderson
> Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>
>>> So, if rats drink plenty of vodka but otherwise starved, a small
>>> amount of fat can turn into carbs - http://pmid.us/8706872
>>>
>>> This simply HAD to come from Russian scientists!
>>
>> I had the same thought when i saw those papers!
>
> Russian scientists studying the glyoxylate shunt -
> http://soldadoo.mylivepage.ru/image/61/455_yoga1.jpg (I'm the guy with
> the larger biceps)
We recently carried out similar work here:
http://s223.photobucket.com/albums/dd64/donotbugme/?action=view¤t=bucket.jpg
I'm the guy with the bucket :(.
Omelet
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@urchin.earth.li>,
> > Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Omelet wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@urchin.earth.li>,
> >>> Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> (a) we can't turn fat back into sugar
> >
> > So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
> > Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates? So
> > if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own muscles?
>
> That's certainly what i was taught. We spent weeks on this in my second
> year at university, and i remember that the switch from fed to fasting
> metabolism is very complicated, but that i eventually understood it. But
> that's all i remember :(.
Hence PSMF'ing is mucho better than actual fasting.
A' La' Lyle... You get to keep your muscle. Mostly anyway.
>
> >> And no, i haven't memorised the Krebs cycle, the periodic table, the
> >> genetic code, or anything intellectual like that. I can probably tell
> >> you the catalogue numbers of most of the antibodies i use, though!
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > I had to memorize the damned thing three times in college and I STILL
> > don't remember all the steps!
>
> Citrate to ... mevalonate to ... phosphoenolpyruvate to ... halfpastate to
> ... nothanksijustate ... er ... CO2! Still got the old magic!
>
> tom
Heh!
All I remember is (Name Carbon based molecule here) goes in, ATP, CO2
and H20 come out. <g>
I think it's 4 ATP's per Carbon? <shrugs>
Oh, and it takes place in the Mitochondria. Y'know, those symbionts in
your cells that put you in touch with "The Force".
Oh, nevermind, those were "Midichlorians" (or however the hell George
Lucas spelled it).
;-)
Omelet
> > Russian scientists studying the glyoxylate shunt -
> > http://soldadoo.mylivepage.ru/image/61/455_yoga1.jpg (I'm the guy with
> > the larger biceps)
>
> We recently carried out similar work here:
>
> http://s223.photobucket.com/albums/dd64/donotbugme/?action=view¤t=bucket
> .jpg
>
> I'm the guy with the bucket :(.
>
> tom
>
> --
> File under 'directionless space novelty ultimately ruined by poor
> self-editing'
I've seen a LOT worse "drunk" picks floating around the web. ;-)
Doug Freyburger
>
> So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
> Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates?
> So if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own muscles?
That's one of at least two sources of blood glucose when low
carbing, eating a successfull predator diet or fasting. The other
is fat metabolism.
Glucogenesis from protein is 50ish% efficient by calorie.
Fat gets cut into fatty acids and glycerol. The fatty acids into
acetyl-CoA and ketones. Two glycerols get bonded to one
glucose. The energy yield of glucode from fat is 10ish% by
calorie.
So whether you're burning your own muscles depends on
how much non-muscle lean has been stored (very little I suspect),
how much dietary protein in excess of metabolic amino acid
needs, and how much fat is being burned.
High fat diets are more lean sparing than high protein diets
per assorted studies - especially the "fat fast" one that is one
of the triggers for Dr Atkins to design his low carb diet. Why
isn't directly obvious - Doesn't extra fat at 10% take so much
more to maintain blood sugar levels? I figure this has a lot to
do with why ketotic diets have a "metabolic edge", though. It
takes excess ketone generation to achieve enough blood sugar.
The problem with that line of reasoning are two facts. 1) The
"metabolic edge" drops as the amount of excess body fat
drops and it hits zero somewhere around 20 pounds left to
lose and this doesn't match the mechanism to keep blood
sugars up. 2) Levels of ketosis (really ketonuria) start out
high in the first couple weeks of a ketotic diet then drop and
this also doesn't match the mechanism to keep blood sugars up.
Wally West
the first couple weeks of a ketotic diet then drop and this also doesn't
match the mechanism to keep blood sugars up.>
Basically every diet loses its body-shock effect after 2-3 weeks and the
spectacular losses that often accompany the first 2-3 weeks are gone to just
a pound or two after that.
I have often wondered if one way around it would be to keep switching diets
every three weeks?
Omelet
"Wally West" <wall...@curb.com> wrote:
Yes.
I've found I can maintain better ketosis if I go ahead and have some
carbs every couple of weeks.
That very thing is designed into Lyle's PSMF diet.
I've done fat fasting and can lose about 1/2 lb. per day doing it.
Atkins recommended that you not do it for more than 5 days (iirc, I've
not read his books in awhile) as it's nutritionally deficient. I did it
for 2 weeks one time and lost 10 lbs before going for some protein and
veggies.
It's hard as hell to stay on that thing tho' as you are always hungry.
1,000 calories of fat is not a lot of food.
Part of that weight loss tho' is muscle glycogen depletion which is why
when you DO indulge in carbs after strict low carbing, you will see a
sudden weight gain (usually about 5 lbs. in my case) due to water being
pulled into muscles along with the glycogen storage.
This is why carb depletion is done prior to a contest then you "carb up"
the day before the actual competition. The increase in fluid retention
inside of the muscle body is often overdone giving you some increased
muscle hardness for the stage.
Omelet
Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Omelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
> > Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates?
> > So if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own muscles?
>
> That's one of at least two sources of blood glucose when low
> carbing, eating a successfull predator diet or fasting. The other
> is fat metabolism.
I thought it was said that fat would not convert back to glucose?
Now I'm confoozed. <G>
>
> Glucogenesis from protein is 50ish% efficient by calorie.
Hence the concept of "metabolic advantage" with low carb diets that some
scientists don't seem to understand.
>
> Fat gets cut into fatty acids and glycerol. The fatty acids into
> acetyl-CoA and ketones. Two glycerols get bonded to one
> glucose. The energy yield of glucose from fat is 10ish% by
> calorie.
<fixed the word "glucode" <G>>
Body fat or dietary fat?
I presume you mean dietary fat.
Hence the accelerated weight loss I experience with "fat fasting".
Too bad that diet is such a bitch. It'd be a panacea.
>
> So whether you're burning your own muscles depends on
> how much non-muscle lean has been stored (very little I suspect),
> how much dietary protein in excess of metabolic amino acid
> needs, and how much fat is being burned.
And how great your glycogen storage capacity.
>
> High fat diets are more lean sparing than high protein diets
> per assorted studies - especially the "fat fast" one that is one
> of the triggers for Dr Atkins to design his low carb diet.
See my previous post.
> Why
> isn't directly obvious - Doesn't extra fat at 10% take so much
> more to maintain blood sugar levels?
Due to the supposed caloric content, it fascinates me that one can lose
weight faster using pure fat than pure protein, or a mix of both.
Fat = 9 calories per gram
Protein = 4 calories per gram
Yet, you really will see a drastic difference in loss of body weight
consuming 1,000 calories of fat per day (with very limited "other"
calorie sources) than eating 1,000 calories worth of protein per day.
It's fascinating.
The length of time you can keep it up tho' is very limited and you have
to wonder what the drawbacks can be. Body fat loss vs. lean muscle loss
with a deficit of amino acids for instance.
All other things being equal of course using vitamin supplements.
> I figure this has a lot to
> do with why ketotic diets have a "metabolic edge", though.
That is due to it's sheer inefficiency compared to the body metabolizing
carbs.
> It
> takes excess ketone generation to achieve enough blood sugar.
> The problem with that line of reasoning are two facts. 1) The
> "metabolic edge" drops as the amount of excess body fat
> drops and it hits zero somewhere around 20 pounds left to
> lose and this doesn't match the mechanism to keep blood
> sugars up. 2) Levels of ketosis (really ketonuria) start out
> high in the first couple weeks of a ketotic diet then drop and
> this also doesn't match the mechanism to keep blood sugars up.
I know that from experience. Unfortunately.
Want some fun? Google for "rabbit starvation".
Tom Anderson
> In article <1188507334....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Omelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
>>> Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates?
>>> So if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own
>>> muscles?
>>
>> That's one of at least two sources of blood glucose when low carbing,
>> eating a successfull predator diet or fasting. The other is fat
>> metabolism.
>
> I thought it was said that fat would not convert back to glucose? Now
> I'm confoozed. <G>
Fat *mostly* doesn't convert back into glucose. I may have skimped on
exegesis here.
What it comes down to is that one molecule of fat is made of one molecule
of glycerol bonded to three molecules of fatty acid. The glycerol has
three carbon atoms, and the fatty acids 16-20ish each, so the fatty acids
make up ~95% of the fat molecule; when talking about fat, we tend to
forget about the glycerol and just treat it as a bunch of fatty acids.
Anyway, fatty acids can't be made into glucose, only burned or made into
ketone bodies, but glycerol can. However, it's a rather small amount - you
need two glycerols to make a glucose, so you get half a glycerol per
molecule of fat, which also gives you three molecules of fatty acid, worth
8-10 turns of the Krebs cycle each.
>> Glucogenesis from protein is 50ish% efficient by calorie.
>
> Hence the concept of "metabolic advantage" with low carb diets that some
> scientists don't seem to understand.
Yebbut you don't use the protein to make glucose, you break it down
straight to acetyl CoA and burn it. It's still less efficient than fat,
but better than 50%, i think.
I think this metabolic efficiency stuff is a red herring. It's not like
you, or your body, eats a specific number of calories of whatever food and
then stops, and protein's better for you because less of those calories
become available; you eat as much as it takes to stop you being hungry, so
if protein was less good at stopping you being hungry, you'd eat more of
it, and end up with more calories in your blood.
Rather, the amount you eat is decided by your body's nutrient-sensing
machinery. High-protein/fat diets make you satiated using less calories
than high-carb diets because, AIUI, the machinery is geared to detecting
protein and fat as indicators of food intake. That's the secret - if you
eat rich food, you eat less of it than if you eat wholesome food. There's
no metabolic magic going on, just some sleight of hypothalamus!
>> Fat gets cut into fatty acids and glycerol. The fatty acids into
>> acetyl-CoA and ketones. Two glycerols get bonded to one glucose.
Dammit, that's what i just said, only a quarter the length. CURSE YOU,
FREYBURGER!
>> The energy yield of glucose from fat is 10ish% by calorie.
>
> <fixed the word "glucode" <G>>
>
> Body fat or dietary fat?
>
> I presume you mean dietary fat.
Either.
>> So whether you're burning your own muscles depends on how much
>> non-muscle lean has been stored (very little I suspect),
What would constitute non-muscle lean? Glycogen, i guess, but that goes
early; protein in other tissues? You know, i have no idea how the body
uses, or regulates its use of, protein in various different tissues for
energy while fasting. I'd guess (well, hope), that it takes the skeletal
muscles down to a bare minimum before it starts burning the organs, and
that it then starts with the liver and spleen before things like heart,
lungs and brain!
>> how much dietary protein in excess of metabolic amino acid needs, and
>> how much fat is being burned.
>
> And how great your glycogen storage capacity.
I doubt it's big enough in anyone to make a difference in a diet lasting a
week or more.
>> High fat diets are more lean sparing than high protein diets per
>> assorted studies - especially the "fat fast" one that is one of the
>> triggers for Dr Atkins to design his low carb diet.
>
> See my previous post.
>
>> Why isn't directly obvious - Doesn't extra fat at 10% take so much more
>> to maintain blood sugar levels?
Is this true when the diets are isocaloric? If so, it's very surprising; i
would have thought protein would generate a stronger protein-preserving
anabolic stimulus than fat.
Mind you, there is some evidence that fat consumption promotes protein
synthesis - someone posted a paper a while back showing that drinking
whole milk led to more muscle protein synthesis than an isocaloric dose of
whey protein. They showed it wasn't down to insulin levels, too; it sort
of suggests there's either a direct effect of blood FFA on protein
synthesis in muscle, or that there's an as yet unknown anabolic hormone
that's produced in response to fat consumption.
> Want some fun? Google for "rabbit starvation".
Sounds like a hoot.
tom
--
10 PARTY : GOTO 10
Tom Anderson
> In article <XfKBi.50955$Lu.1...@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Wally West" <wall...@curb.com> wrote:
>
>> "Doug Freyburger" < Levels of ketosis (really ketonuria) start out high
>> in the first couple weeks of a ketotic diet then drop and this also
>> doesn't match the mechanism to keep blood sugars up.>
>>
>> Basically every diet loses its body-shock effect after 2-3 weeks and
>> the spectacular losses that often accompany the first 2-3 weeks are
>> gone to just a pound or two after that.
>>
>> I have often wondered if one way around it would be to keep switching
>> diets every three weeks?
>
> That very thing is designed into Lyle's PSMF diet.
>
> I've done fat fasting and can lose about 1/2 lb. per day doing it. [...]
> It's hard as hell to stay on that thing tho' as you are always hungry.
> 1,000 calories of fat is not a lot of food.
What sort of vegetables can you eat on PSMF? Whenever i've tried to lose
weight, filling up on green veg has always been helpful. The best thing is
oriental broths made with leafy veg, stock and/or soy sauce and chillies:
basically, a bowl of hot water and celluose, contaminated with salt,
glutamic acid and capsaicin!
I keep typing PMSF instead of PSMF - something quite different, but which
also protects protein:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIGMA/P7626
Omelet
> > That very thing is designed into Lyle's PSMF diet.
> >
> > I've done fat fasting and can lose about 1/2 lb. per day doing it. [...]
> > It's hard as hell to stay on that thing tho' as you are always hungry.
> > 1,000 calories of fat is not a lot of food.
>
> What sort of vegetables can you eat on PSMF?
Mostly green ones with leafy greens being the best.
You know, those "negative calorie" high fiber ones. ;-)
Lettuce, cabbage, endive, broccoli, spinach, chard, celery, to name a
few of my personal favorites.
> Whenever i've tried to lose
> weight, filling up on green veg has always been helpful.
Yes.
> The best thing is
> oriental broths made with leafy veg, stock and/or soy sauce and chillies:
> basically, a bowl of hot water and celluose, contaminated with salt,
> glutamic acid and capsaicin!
Try tossing in some Bok Choy and/or chinese cabbage.
Mushrooms work too. Chitin is not digestible by the human organism, and
they are high in trace minerals.
>
> I keep typing PMSF instead of PSMF - something quite different, but which
> also protects protein:
>
> http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIGMA/P7626
>
> tom
Cool.
Theoretically, so does Clenbuterol, but it's not legal. ;-)
Doug Freyburger
> Omelet wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Omelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
> >>> Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates?
> >>> So if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own
> >>> muscles?
>
> >> That's one of at least two sources of blood glucose when low carbing,
> >> eating a successfull predator diet or fasting. The other is fat
> >> metabolism.
>
> > I thought it was said that fat would not convert back to glucose? Now
> > I'm confoozed. <G>
>
> Fat *mostly* doesn't convert back into glucose. I may have skimped on
> exegesis here.
Tom Anderson posted with the statement that "fatty acids" don't
get converted to glucose, and that's true. I pointed out that "fat"
is made of more than fatty acids and the other part does get
converted to glucose. Small difference in terminology, roughly
10% difference in energy that comes through glucose.
> What it comes down to is that one molecule of fat is made of one molecule
> of glycerol bonded to three molecules of fatty acid. The glycerol has
> three carbon atoms, and the fatty acids 16-20ish each, so the fatty acids
> make up ~95% of the fat molecule; when talking about fat, we tend to
> forget about the glycerol and just treat it as a bunch of fatty acids.
Here's the fun part - The energy yield per carbon atom of glycerol
through glucose seems higher than either of the two paths fatty
acids take (acetyl-CoA or ketones), so even though the mass is
5ish% the energy is 10ish%.
> >> Glucogenesis from protein is 50ish% efficient by calorie.
>
> > Hence the concept of "metabolic advantage" with low carb diets that some
> > scientists don't seem to understand.
>
> Yebbut you don't use the protein to make glucose, you break it down
> straight to acetyl CoA and burn it. It's still less efficient than fat,
> but better than 50%, i think.
>
> I think this metabolic efficiency stuff is a red herring. It's not like
> you, or your body, eats a specific number of calories of whatever food and
> then stops, and protein's better for you because less of those calories
> become available; you eat as much as it takes to stop you being hungry, so
> if protein was less good at stopping you being hungry, you'd eat more of
> it, and end up with more calories in your blood.
That's part of the low carb advantage, but that isn't the so-called
"metabolic advantage" stressed by Dr Atkins. (He failed to mention
it is roughly proportional with amount to lose and hits zero once
there's 10-20 pounds left to lose). Low carbing keep the metabolism
up somewhat compared to low fatting and low calorie. Five percent
difference in the first 6 months, none after that comparing low carb
to low fat but those studies include calorie restrictions for low
fatters
so it might be a little more than 5%.
Low carb tends to increase glucagon levels and glucagon draws
fat out of storage. Whether those excess calories are burned
through higher rest metabolism or wasted through ketone
evaporation doesn't matter all that much - More fat pulled from
storage is what almost everyone diets for in the first place.
> Rather, the amount you eat is decided by your body's nutrient-sensing
> machinery. High-protein/fat diets make you satiated using less calories
> than high-carb diets because, AIUI, the machinery is geared to detecting
> protein and fat as indicators of food intake. That's the secret - if you
> eat rich food, you eat less of it than if you eat wholesome food. There's
> no metabolic magic going on, just some sleight of hypothalamus!
This is a much more important feature of low carbing to me
than the metabolic advantage. Many people aren't hungry while
low carbing.
> > Body fat or dietary fat?
>
> > I presume you mean dietary fat.
>
> Either.
More specifically *both*. The high fat percentage of low carbing
triggers higher glucagon levels which draws stored fat out.
There's a calorie range where eating more fat causes more
stored fat to be withdrawn, and that calorie range is close to
the common guideline of (current weight in pounds * 10 calories).
Even better, while fat has roughly the same filling effect as
protein calorie for calorie, fat tends to keep hunger from coming
back longer than protein calorie for calorie. Eating more fat
doesn't end up equaling eating more calories - It ends up
meaning eating less protein. Very much the opposite of
obvious in several ways.
> >> So whether you're burning your own muscles depends on how much
> >> non-muscle lean has been stored (very little I suspect),
>
> What would constitute non-muscle lean? Glycogen, i guess, but that goes
> early; protein in other tissues? You know, i have no idea how the body
> uses, or regulates its use of, protein in various different tissues for
> energy while fasting. I'd guess (well, hope), that it takes the skeletal
> muscles down to a bare minimum before it starts burning the organs, and
> that it then starts with the liver and spleen before things like heart,
> lungs and brain!
I've read statements that the body can only store a couple of days
worth of amino acid needs before it starts cannibalizing muscle.
I know that the body's glycogen stores work that way, but folks
on a fast seem to do better than I think they should. If the body
really did start consuming its own muscle, I think starvation would
lead to muscular weakness more than it does. So while I have
no idea what sort of stored protein a body has, I think it's got to
be more than that couple of days in the claims. Note how weak
my logic in this belief is and how lacking my supporting data is.
> >> High fat diets are more lean sparing than high protein diets per
> >> assorted studies - especially the "fat fast" one that is one of the
> >> triggers for Dr Atkins to design his low carb diet.
>
> > See my previous post.
>
> Is this true when the diets are isocaloric? If so, it's very surprising; i
> would have thought protein would generate a stronger protein-preserving
> anabolic stimulus than fat.
Yes it is true on isocaloric diets. The study that was 1 of Dr Atkins
2 drivers to design his plan was a study of subjects fed 1000 calorie
diets of 90% carb, protein or fat with the control group on a water
only
fast. The 90% fat group lost more than the 90% group and somehow
also lost less lean.
And the studies that show this are very surprising. I have no idea
what the mechanism is.
> Mind you, there is some evidence that fat consumption promotes protein
> synthesis - someone posted a paper a while back showing that drinking
> whole milk led to more muscle protein synthesis than an isocaloric dose of
> whey protein. They showed it wasn't down to insulin levels, too; it sort
> of suggests there's either a direct effect of blood FFA on protein
> synthesis in muscle, or that there's an as yet unknown anabolic hormone
> that's produced in response to fat consumption.
That's the closest I've seen to a mechanism to explain the
observed data.
Hard Bop Drums
news:omp_omelet-0CDB7...@news.giganews.com...
Carb loading does not work in bodybuilding nor in endurance events. That was
proven a long time ago. Many bodybuilders still use it because they don't
know how to properly dehydrate themselves and stay full before a contest.
That's where Lasix, alcohol and other goodies come in! :-)
--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche
Hard Bop Drums
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@urchin.earth.li...
Tom,
Lyle had great ideas, but I will never be a believer in Ketogenic diets. I
have used balanced calorie diets myself and with others for years with great
results. The key to all of this is consistency and hard work. I have veins
shows in my abs right now and am eating junk food once a day or so. Once you
get yourself down to where you are really lean, you no longer have to kill
yourself. Remember too, the more muscle you have, the more calories you can
take in.
hanson
>> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>"DZ" <27245@2793811668.1331219963.15615.26290.4901>
>
Hey dudes, Tom, Om, Doug DZ etc,
That is some cool shit you guys are talking about here,
(in sci. chem). Carry on.
Let me ask you on the same general subject of
fat/calory conversion/burning and its consequences, etc.:
What will Hydrogen gas do to the human metabolism
when H2 is inhaled on a daily and prolonged basis
(with N2 at a safe sub-explosive ration)?.
Will H2 react in the blood stream at all?
If yes,
will H2 change the pH of the plasma dangerously?,
will H2 induce other unpleasant or dangerous systemic
changes?
If no,
will H2 provide sufficient usable caloric energy that a
Hydrogen weight loss regimen (replacing solid food)
could be advocated?
hanson
Omelet
wrote:
> "Tom Anderson" <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@urchin.earth.li...
> > Omelet wrote:
> >> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>"DZ" <27245@2793811668.1331219963.15615.26290.4901>
> >
> Hey dudes, Tom, Om, Doug DZ etc,
> That is some cool shit you guys are talking about here,
> (in sci. chem). Carry on.
For once the crossposted groups are all relevant. <g>
> Let me ask you on the same general subject of
> fat/calory conversion/burning and its consequences, etc.:
>
> What will Hydrogen gas do to the human metabolism
> when H2 is inhaled on a daily and prolonged basis
> (with N2 at a safe sub-explosive ration)?.
> Will H2 react in the blood stream at all?
> If yes,
> will H2 change the pH of the plasma dangerously?,
> will H2 induce other unpleasant or dangerous systemic
> changes?
> If no,
> will H2 provide sufficient usable caloric energy that a
> Hydrogen weight loss regimen (replacing solid food)
> could be advocated?
> hanson
Dude...
Don't go inhaling H2! It'll combine with O in the lungs and drown you!
The whole idea is to lose body fat and keep on muscle weight.
In order to do that, you have to maintain a positive N balance.
The gas you want to be inhaling is N2O.
Omelet
"Hard Bop Drums" <nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> Carb loading does not work in bodybuilding nor in endurance events. That was
> proven a long time ago. Many bodybuilders still use it because they don't
> know how to properly dehydrate themselves and stay full before a contest.
> That's where Lasix, alcohol and other goodies come in! :-)
>
> --
> Robert Schuh
So you are advocating drugs in place of diet?
If dietary changes will work, why risk poisoning yourself?
Omelet
Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> > Omelet wrote:
> > > Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Omelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
> > >>> Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates?
> > >>> So if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own
> > >>> muscles?
> >
> > >> That's one of at least two sources of blood glucose when low carbing,
> > >> eating a successfull predator diet or fasting. The other is fat
> > >> metabolism.
> >
> > > I thought it was said that fat would not convert back to glucose? Now
> > > I'm confoozed. <G>
> >
> > Fat *mostly* doesn't convert back into glucose. I may have skimped on
> > exegesis here.
>
> Tom Anderson posted with the statement that "fatty acids" don't
> get converted to glucose, and that's true. I pointed out that "fat"
> is made of more than fatty acids and the other part does get
> converted to glucose. Small difference in terminology, roughly
> 10% difference in energy that comes through glucose.
Ok, my bad.
I must have misunderstood.
>
> > What it comes down to is that one molecule of fat is made of one molecule
> > of glycerol bonded to three molecules of fatty acid. The glycerol has
> > three carbon atoms, and the fatty acids 16-20ish each, so the fatty acids
> > make up ~95% of the fat molecule; when talking about fat, we tend to
> > forget about the glycerol and just treat it as a bunch of fatty acids.
>
> Here's the fun part - The energy yield per carbon atom of glycerol
> through glucose seems higher than either of the two paths fatty
> acids take (acetyl-CoA or ketones), so even though the mass is
> 5ish% the energy is 10ish%.
But still nowhere as efficient as carbs.
That's the beauty of it. ;-)
>
> > >> Glucogenesis from protein is 50ish% efficient by calorie.
> >
> > > Hence the concept of "metabolic advantage" with low carb diets that some
> > > scientists don't seem to understand.
> >
> > Yebbut you don't use the protein to make glucose, you break it down
> > straight to acetyl CoA and burn it. It's still less efficient than fat,
> > but better than 50%, i think.
> >
> > I think this metabolic efficiency stuff is a red herring. It's not like
> > you, or your body, eats a specific number of calories of whatever food and
> > then stops, and protein's better for you because less of those calories
> > become available; you eat as much as it takes to stop you being hungry, so
> > if protein was less good at stopping you being hungry, you'd eat more of
> > it, and end up with more calories in your blood.
>
> That's part of the low carb advantage, but that isn't the so-called
> "metabolic advantage" stressed by Dr Atkins. (He failed to mention
> it is roughly proportional with amount to lose and hits zero once
> there's 10-20 pounds left to lose). Low carbing keep the metabolism
> up somewhat compared to low fatting and low calorie. Five percent
> difference in the first 6 months, none after that comparing low carb
> to low fat but those studies include calorie restrictions for low
> fatters
> so it might be a little more than 5%.
So what do you do it you only NEED to lose 10 to 20 lbs.?
Not that that applies to many, but still...
>
> Low carb tends to increase glucagon levels and glucagon draws
> fat out of storage. Whether those excess calories are burned
> through higher rest metabolism or wasted through ketone
> evaporation doesn't matter all that much - More fat pulled from
> storage is what almost everyone diets for in the first place.
Cool. So lets inject Glucagon! (just kidding!)
>
> > Rather, the amount you eat is decided by your body's nutrient-sensing
> > machinery. High-protein/fat diets make you satiated using less calories
> > than high-carb diets because, AIUI, the machinery is geared to detecting
> > protein and fat as indicators of food intake. That's the secret - if you
> > eat rich food, you eat less of it than if you eat wholesome food. There's
> > no metabolic magic going on, just some sleight of hypothalamus!
>
> This is a much more important feature of low carbing to me
> than the metabolic advantage. Many people aren't hungry while
> low carbing.
Very true.
In fact, if I have a good Ketone level running, I almost have to force
myself to eat. I tend to forget to eat if I'm busy with other things.
I've gone nearly two days sometimes before I remembered.
Wish I had had the will power in the past to stick to it for more than a
month at a time.
If I'd kept off all the weight I've lost over the years, there would be
nothing left of me by now. <G>
>
> > > Body fat or dietary fat?
> >
> > > I presume you mean dietary fat.
> >
> > Either.
>
> More specifically *both*. The high fat percentage of low carbing
> triggers higher glucagon levels which draws stored fat out.
> There's a calorie range where eating more fat causes more
> stored fat to be withdrawn, and that calorie range is close to
> the common guideline of (current weight in pounds * 10 calories).
> Even better, while fat has roughly the same filling effect as
> protein calorie for calorie, fat tends to keep hunger from coming
> back longer than protein calorie for calorie. Eating more fat
> doesn't end up equaling eating more calories - It ends up
> meaning eating less protein. Very much the opposite of
> obvious in several ways.
Funny. I'd been cutting fat out more to save on total calories...
Guess that is a mistake? Probably why I keep getting stuck.
>
> > >> So whether you're burning your own muscles depends on how much
> > >> non-muscle lean has been stored (very little I suspect),
> >
> > What would constitute non-muscle lean? Glycogen, i guess, but that goes
> > early; protein in other tissues? You know, i have no idea how the body
> > uses, or regulates its use of, protein in various different tissues for
> > energy while fasting. I'd guess (well, hope), that it takes the skeletal
> > muscles down to a bare minimum before it starts burning the organs, and
> > that it then starts with the liver and spleen before things like heart,
> > lungs and brain!
>
> I've read statements that the body can only store a couple of days
> worth of amino acid needs before it starts cannibalizing muscle.
> I know that the body's glycogen stores work that way, but folks
> on a fast seem to do better than I think they should. If the body
> really did start consuming its own muscle, I think starvation would
> lead to muscular weakness more than it does. So while I have
> no idea what sort of stored protein a body has, I think it's got to
> be more than that couple of days in the claims. Note how weak
> my logic in this belief is and how lacking my supporting data is.
Oddly enough, I lose weight FASTER on a fat fast than on a total fast.
(I've experimented a lot with fasting in the past. Longest was 2 weeks
and I still went to the gym).
>
> > >> High fat diets are more lean sparing than high protein diets per
> > >> assorted studies - especially the "fat fast" one that is one of the
> > >> triggers for Dr Atkins to design his low carb diet.
> >
> > > See my previous post.
> >
> > Is this true when the diets are isocaloric? If so, it's very surprising; i
> > would have thought protein would generate a stronger protein-preserving
> > anabolic stimulus than fat.
>
> Yes it is true on isocaloric diets. The study that was 1 of Dr Atkins
> 2 drivers to design his plan was a study of subjects fed 1000 calorie
> diets of 90% carb, protein or fat with the control group on a water
> only
> fast. The 90% fat group lost more than the 90% group and somehow
> also lost less lean.
>
> And the studies that show this are very surprising. I have no idea
> what the mechanism is.
Neither do I, but I know it works.
>
> > Mind you, there is some evidence that fat consumption promotes protein
> > synthesis - someone posted a paper a while back showing that drinking
> > whole milk led to more muscle protein synthesis than an isocaloric dose of
> > whey protein. They showed it wasn't down to insulin levels, too; it sort
> > of suggests there's either a direct effect of blood FFA on protein
> > synthesis in muscle, or that there's an as yet unknown anabolic hormone
> > that's produced in response to fat consumption.
>
> That's the closest I've seen to a mechanism to explain the
> observed data.
New discoveries are made nearly every day. The body is a very complex
chemical factory.
Omelet
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article <1188507334....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Omelet <omp_ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So I am presuming that base serum glucose levels are maintained via
> >>> Gluconeogenesis using protein if you are not consuming carbohydrates?
> >>> So if you eat insufficient protein, it's going to use your own
> >>> muscles?
> >>
> >> That's one of at least two sources of blood glucose when low carbing,
> >> eating a successfull predator diet or fasting. The other is fat
> >> metabolism.
> >
> > I thought it was said that fat would not convert back to glucose? Now
> > I'm confoozed. <G>
>
> Fat *mostly* doesn't convert back into glucose. I may have skimped on
> exegesis here.
Or I simply mis-read it.
That happens sometimes. ;-)
>
> What it comes down to is that one molecule of fat is made of one molecule
> of glycerol bonded to three molecules of fatty acid. The glycerol has
> three carbon atoms, and the fatty acids 16-20ish each, so the fatty acids
> make up ~95% of the fat molecule; when talking about fat, we tend to
> forget about the glycerol and just treat it as a bunch of fatty acids.
>
> Anyway, fatty acids can't be made into glucose, only burned or made into
> ketone bodies, but glycerol can. However, it's a rather small amount - you
> need two glycerols to make a glucose, so you get half a glycerol per
> molecule of fat, which also gives you three molecules of fatty acid, worth
> 8-10 turns of the Krebs cycle each.
>
> >> Glucogenesis from protein is 50ish% efficient by calorie.
> >
> > Hence the concept of "metabolic advantage" with low carb diets that some
> > scientists don't seem to understand.
>
> Yebbut you don't use the protein to make glucose, you break it down
> straight to acetyl CoA and burn it. It's still less efficient than fat,
> but better than 50%, i think.
So what then is gluconeogenesis for protein usage in the liver?
I'm trying to figure out how one manages to maintain a normal serum
glucose level on a total fast.
>
> I think this metabolic efficiency stuff is a red herring. It's not like
> you, or your body, eats a specific number of calories of whatever food and
> then stops, and protein's better for you because less of those calories
> become available; you eat as much as it takes to stop you being hungry, so
> if protein was less good at stopping you being hungry, you'd eat more of
> it, and end up with more calories in your blood.
True. I've been able to get "pork trimmings" lately for $.97 per lb.
What the store does is take pork that fixin' to outdate, re-package it
and knock the price down and sell it as "trimming".
Some of it is shoulder or butt, but some of it is also fairly lean rib
and loin chops! I kid you not.:
http://i12.tinypic.com/4p3tqug.jpg
One cannot live on chicken alone... ;-)
I've found when I take this stuff to work (cooked of course), 8 to 10
oz. of it stuffs me for a good 6 hours.
My weight is finally starting to drop again. Slowly, but still
encouraging.
One of the real issues with low carb dieting is the damned price of meat.
>
> Rather, the amount you eat is decided by your body's nutrient-sensing
> machinery. High-protein/fat diets make you satiated using less calories
> than high-carb diets because, AIUI, the machinery is geared to detecting
> protein and fat as indicators of food intake. That's the secret - if you
> eat rich food, you eat less of it than if you eat wholesome food. There's
> no metabolic magic going on, just some sleight of hypothalamus!
The other secret is learning to CHEW your food and eat more slowly.
"Wolfers" consume a lot more calories than taking time to enjoy a meal
as it takes a bit of time to become satiated.
I watched my BIL eat a couple of chili dogs from Der Weinershnitzel one
day when he came over to use my laser printer.
My god.
He snarfed each one down in two bites and maybe 3 seconds.
I don't think he hardly stopped to chew.
No wonder he weighs over 300 lbs... <sigh>
He's a big guy and can probably stand to weigh about 220 at most, but
he's really starting to have health problems and he knows it. It'd help
if my sister was not a "fat acceptance" buff. ;-P
I worry about them.
>
> >> Fat gets cut into fatty acids and glycerol. The fatty acids into
> >> acetyl-CoA and ketones. Two glycerols get bonded to one glucose.
>
> Dammit, that's what i just said, only a quarter the length. CURSE YOU,
> FREYBURGER!
<grins>
So did you?
It's an interesting thing.
One of the docs at work introduced me to the term.
Made me want to start raising rabbits again. <G>
itazuke
however, I have had some experiences with total fasting. I agree with
most authors that it is not really a good way to lose weight, although
you could lose some depending on how long you go. Fasting by
definition is total lack of food; so people who term something a
"juice fast" or a "Fat fast" are just begging the question and are
using wrong terminology. Those things are "DIETS". A "Fast" only
includes water.
I think the real value of fasting is the self-control which is
manifested by doing it. A person who can control themselves enough to
"Fast" can also control their eating habits and are less likely to be
overweight. Incidently, fasting is actually fairly easy once you
understand the mechanisms. For me, it is only one day of hunger; or
really only maybe 1/2 a day.
John
Omelet
itazuke <john....@itazuke.org> wrote:
> I deleted most of the coversation to avoid too much info to read;
> however, I have had some experiences with total fasting. I agree with
> most authors that it is not really a good way to lose weight, although
> you could lose some depending on how long you go. Fasting by
> definition is total lack of food; so people who term something a
> "juice fast" or a "Fat fast" are just begging the question and are
> using wrong terminology. Those things are "DIETS". A "Fast" only
> includes water.
No argument there.
Note that in one of my last posts, I DID differentiate between a total
fast and the fat fast.
>
> I think the real value of fasting is the self-control which is
> manifested by doing it.
Absolutely.
> A person who can control themselves enough to
> "Fast" can also control their eating habits and are less likely to be
> overweight. Incidently, fasting is actually fairly easy once you
> understand the mechanisms. For me, it is only one day of hunger; or
> really only maybe 1/2 a day.
> John
For me, it's 3 days of deliberate fasting.
Not the "forgetting to eat" during a successful ketogenic dieting period.
Doug Freyburger
> Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That's part of the low carb advantage, but that isn't the so-called
> > "metabolic advantage" stressed by Dr Atkins. (He failed to mention
> > it is roughly proportional with amount to lose and hits zero once
>
> So what do you do it you only NEED to lose 10 to 20 lbs.?
> Not that that applies to many, but still...
Low carbing does reduce appetite. Not for everyone in the
population but it does for a large percentage. Use that
reduced appetite in those last pounds.
I suspect that in the last 10 not even the appetite reduction
still works and that a fair number will need to be hungry
during that time. I also notice that I disagree with the goal
weights of a LOT of people. Pick a goal weight below what
your body considers its ideal and the only way to get there
is hunger during the losing phase followed to endless hunger
during maintenance as well.
> > Low carb tends to increase glucagon levels and glucagon draws
> > fat out of storage ...
>
> Cool. So lets inject Glucagon! (just kidding!)
If only it could be done the way it's done with insulin. Not that
a magic bullet injection can ever change anyone's habits, but
it could accelerate lose rates in folks who are doing the rest
right.
> > ... The high fat percentage of low carbing
> > triggers higher glucagon levels which draws stored fat out.
> > There's a calorie range where eating more fat causes more
> > stored fat to be withdrawn, and that calorie range is close to
> > the common guideline of (current weight in pounds * 10 calories).
> > Even better, while fat has roughly the same filling effect as
> > protein calorie for calorie, fat tends to keep hunger from coming
> > back longer than protein calorie for calorie. Eating more fat
> > doesn't end up equaling eating more calories - It ends up
> > meaning eating less protein. Very much the opposite of
> > obvious in several ways.
>
> Funny. I'd been cutting fat out more to save on total calories...
> Guess that is a mistake? Probably why I keep getting stuck.
There is a curve where the result isn't as simple as folks hope.
While out of ketosis (actually ketonuria) cutting carbs to get into
ketosis works best. But once in ketosis further cutting carbs does
little but risk T3 drop and a stall. Consider CCLL the bottom for
carbs at least half the time. Since the higher carb foods early
in the carb ladder tend to be more filling veggies, Atkins tends
to be isocaloric after Induction - The increased carb quota is
roughly offset by spontaneously eating smaller portions of fat
and/or protein. It's easy to think you're trading more carbs for
less fat at this point ...
Once in ketosis cutting protein not fat seems the next step.
Dietary fat does a better job of increasing glucagon release,
though do some research and you'll find claims that protein is
better at it so there doesn't seem to be a good scientific
consensus on this point. Or for the same total calories swap
extra fat for less protein to improve the ratio to increase
glucagon. Switching from 500 calories of pepperoni to 500
calories of lean turkey is not the way to go. Switching from
1000 calories of pepperoni to 700 calories of lean turkey, much
harder to say. Note that protein is essential so there's a point
below which reducing causes problems, but that level tends to
be much lower than what most westerners eat.
Then only cut fat to cut total calories. Deal is, when trying
to bust a stall when low carbing cutting calories becomes the
fourth thing to do - 1) Check for calorie creep and renewed
overeating. Aka correcting calorie overage not cutting calories.
2) Recalibrate ketosis and CCLL by getting out of ketosis
then back in to avoid T3 drops. 3) Work the fat to protein
ratio by cutting protein and increasing fat at the same total
calories to increase glucagon. 4) The big hammer approach
of lowering calories.
> Oddly enough, I lose weight FASTER on a fat fast than on a total fast.
While that is surprising before reading the original fat fast
study, it isn't surprising after reading it. It's the glucagon
drawing fat from storage that matters the most. Lower
both dietary fat and protein and you lower glucagon release.
That's a defense mechanism to lower metabolism during a
famine.
Senator Larry Gaye
will work, why risk poisoning yourself?
> --
Bob understands diet differently. It starts with the drug cycles and the
food and liquids are ingested to complement the drugs.
Omelet
Since you are using a fake name and I'm too lazy to trace the headers,
all I can say is "Butt the hell out shithead".
;-)
Senator Larry Gaye
headers,
> all I can say is "Butt the hell out shithead".
>
I guess you want to get it straight from the horse's mouth? Like you never
realized that Bob's diet plan is created around his drugs, not vice-versa?
BTW, what is your real name? Where do you live? What is your social security
number? I don't respect cowards that don't post their verifiable information
on the internet.
Hard Bop Drums
Maybe he thinks inhaling Hydrogen will keep him light on his feet? I just
Helium to do that! ;-)
Omelet
"Hard Bop Drums" <nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> Maybe he thinks inhaling Hydrogen will keep him light on his feet? I just
> Helium to do that! ;-)
Either that or he wants to make his farts interesting...
H2 is rather explosive iirc?
(Hindenburg)
http://www.vidicom-tv.com/tohiburg.htm
<shudder> Idiots for even attempting to use Hydrogen instead of Helium...
nana_hadi
> On Aug 27, 10:00 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 25, 11:44 pm, "Cubit" <n...@not.not> wrote:
>
> > > Um, uh.
>
> > > Excess protein becomes glucose. The liver does it.
>
> > I've read that excess protein becomes fat. But even if it does become
> > glucose, well, if it's excess glucose it still becomes fat!
>
> No that is not correct ... the body cannot convert proteins to stored
> fat ... In fact, it cannot store ingested fat ... The body can only
> convert and store excess carbohydrates as fat ... not even alcohol ...
fitness.........
nana_hadi
> Corpulent "Bill Penrose" <penr...@iit.edu> wrote in messagenews:1188245924.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...>> > The short answer is nitrogen. There's no nitrogen in fats. The
> >> > nitrogen is wizzed out as urea after the decomposition of protein.> >> Oh! Thanks...and I guess the body can't just grab some floating
> >> nitrogen and add it to fat and convert that fat into protein, eh....
>
> Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
> > Naw, you have to be a pea or another legume to do that (and the
> > process is actually carried out by nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the
> > root nodules). For most metabolic purposes, nitrogen is an inert gas.
>
> [hanson]
> ... ahahahaha... ok then, since there is plenty of N2 in then blood
> stream, let's dream about the development of a "supplement"
> or pill that contains GE nitrogen fixing bacteria, appropriate
> enzymes and the required trace minerals (V & Mo, IIRC), and
> have them bugs manufacture proteins in the stomach or upper
> gut so that we can thrive on daisies and cuttings from our lawns....
> ahahahaha... ahahanson
emmmm....
nana_hadi
> >> So, if rats drink plenty of vodka but otherwise starved, a small
> >> amount of fat can turn into carbs -http://pmid.us/8706872
>
> >> This simply HAD to come from Russian scientists!
>
> > I had the same thought when i saw those papers!
>
> Russian scientists studying the glyoxylate shunt -http://soldadoo.mylivepage.ru/image/61/455_yoga1.jpg
> (I'm the guy with the larger biceps)
what to say?
nana_hadi
> Um, uh.
>
> Excess protein becomes glucose. The liver does it.
>
> if you don't guzzle carbs. Alcohol, I think, can too.
>
> The body does not need to use stored fats, if the diet has too many
> calories.
>
> There are entire books saying that each kind of fat is the best fat, and all
> the books contradict each other. Most agree that trans fats are bad.
> Personally, I like saturated fats as found in Coconuts, and I suspect there
> is merit to the form of Omega 6 called CLA. Without dietary fat, the body
> makes its own fats. I have wondered if dietary fat is healthier than the
> fat the body can make.
>
> "Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1188091526....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Then how come the body can't use stored fat when it needs protein?
> > What, biochemically speaking, prevents it from turning fat back into
> > protein the way it apparently turns fat back into sugar? (I'm
> > assuming that 'cause stored fat is used for energy, right? And the
> > only form of energy for the body is sugar....)
>
> > And why doesn't the body use stored fat for its daily fat needs -- why
> > are people trying to lose fat still advised to get ("good") fats in
> > their daily diet??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
somethin' new
nana_hadi
> In article <1188100597.168811.36...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill Penrose <penr...@iit.edu> wrote:
>
> > The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in the diet,
> > supposedly causes you to stop burning fat, too.
>
> <lol>
>
> Good joke...
> --
> Peace, Om
>
> Remove _ to validate e-mails.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson
hmmm.....
nana_hadi
> Then how come the body can't use stored fat when it needs protein?
> What, biochemically speaking, prevents it from turning fat back into
> protein the way it apparently turns fat back into sugar? (I'm
> assuming that 'cause stored fat is used for energy, right? And the
> only form of energy for the body is sugar....)
>
> And why doesn't the body use stored fat for its daily fat needs -- why
> are people trying to lose fat still advised to get ("good") fats in
> their daily diet??
emmm.........
Omelet
nana_hadi <diana...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow! That was so enlightening!
Hard Bop Drums
Carb loading does not work. All the endurance athletes proved that years
ago. Many BBers still do it because they are stupid and just do what
everyone else tells them to. I would also LOVE to know where you see
anything about poison. You need only a small amount of IV Lasix and just a
shot or 2 of something like Vodka right before you go onstage. Every top
bodybuilder uses some type of diuretic pre contest. Have you ever been lean
enough to see if a change in water would make a visible difference?
-- --Robert Schuh
Hard Bop Drums
news:_knCi.77596$jH3....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
I just love how these anonymous cowards love to lie their asses off. I
suggest that you post your real name or shut the fuck up. It is painfully
obvious that you are a dolt who has zero knowledge of the topics here, so
you have to revert to libel and innuendo to get past. From the lack of style
and the lies, it looks like this is that ATP cunt. Why don't you spend more
time eating well or training instead of stalking people? It's not my fault
that you're a fat ass. Butch up a bit and post your real name. Pussy.
Omelet
"Hard Bop Drums" <nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> "Omelet" <omp_o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:omp_omelet-63879...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <iW%Bi.132403$kK1....@newsfe14.phx>,
> > "Hard Bop Drums" <nos...@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Carb loading does not work in bodybuilding nor in endurance events. That
> >> was
> >> proven a long time ago. Many bodybuilders still use it because they don't
> >> know how to properly dehydrate themselves and stay full before a contest.
> >> That's where Lasix, alcohol and other goodies come in! :-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robert Schuh
> >
> > So you are advocating drugs in place of diet?
> > If dietary changes will work, why risk poisoning yourself?
> > --
> > Peace, Om
> >
> > Remove _ to validate e-mails.
> >
> > "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack
> > Nicholson
>
> Carb loading does not work. All the endurance athletes proved that years
> ago.
Endurance competition is not the same. At all. I never even mentioned it
for that.
> Many BBers still do it because they are stupid and just do what
> everyone else tells them to. I would also LOVE to know where you see
> anything about poison. You need only a small amount of IV Lasix and just a
> shot or 2 of something like Vodka right before you go onstage. Every top
> bodybuilder uses some type of diuretic pre contest. Have you ever been lean
> enough to see if a change in water would make a visible difference?
>
>
>
> -- --Robert Schuh
No Robert, but more than one body builder has died from an electrolyte
imbalance during contest prep or on stage. One has to wonder if risking
your life for a plastic trophy is really worth it all.
It's not like body builders get multi-million dollar contracts like
other professional athletes do.
BB'ing drug use is being pushed to seriously ridiculous limits.
But, that is a personal opinion. YMMV.
One good reason to prefer power lifting.
I'm not arguing with you as I do understand competition, but
Senator Larry Gaye
that ATP cunt. Why don't you spend more time eating well or training instead
of stalking people? It's not my fault that you're a fat ass. Butch up a bit
and post your real name. Pussy.
>
>
three times and then reach your hand under the stall so that I will know it
is you.
I will tell you everything tonight. I have my passport and a copy of my
income taxes so that you can verify it is me. Just like you, I was a
competitive bodybuilder. I places third in the Mr. Meineke Transmissions
contest held at Le Fleur back in 1991.
Hard Bop Drums
No fucking bodybuilders have died from any such thing. Why do you make up
pure unadulterated bullshit like that? Name ONE. Do you still claim that
carb loading works on bodybuilding? Seeing that you don't know anything
about nor been in shape yourself, then why makes such commentary?
>
> It's not like body builders get multi-million dollar contracts like
> other professional athletes do.
What does that have to do with the price of milk?
>
> BB'ing drug use is being pushed to seriously ridiculous limits.
Who cares? They are adults. As long as you are an adult, you should be able
to do whatever you please with your body.
>
> But, that is a personal opinion. YMMV.
>
> One good reason to prefer power lifting.
>
>
>
> I'm not arguing with you as I do understand competition, but
> --
> Peace, Om
>
> Remove _ to validate e-mails.
>
> "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack
> Nicholson
Yeah, there are no drugs on powerlifting. ;-)
--
spodosaurus
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, spodosaurus wrote:
>
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, spodosaurus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 26, 2:32 am, spodosaurus <spodosaurus@_yahoo_.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Penrose wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the body can burn fat directly, but it needs some sugar to do
>>>>>>> that. In other words, it can burn sugar only, and sugar plus fat,
>>>>>>> but not fat only. The 'Atkins diet', where you limit sugars in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pathway and getting the energy for this pathway from the citric acid
>>>>>> cycle that the catabolism of fat feeds into.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glucogenesis produces glucose from glycerol and proteins, not fatty
>>>>> acids. Glycerol is only a small part of triglycerides.
>>>>
>>>> No, that is incorrect. Gluconeogenesis pathway produces glucose from
>>>> pyruvate/oxaloacetate. Oxaloacetate can be taken right from the
>>>> citric acid cycle, regardless of its source molecule (in this
>>>> example, fatty acids).
>>>
>>> But you can't make oxaloacetate from fat! Yes, carbons from fat flow
>>> into the Krebs cycle, but to get them in, you need molecules of the
>>> intermediates there already to accept them; to make oxaloacetate, you
>>> need acetyl CoA and an existing molecule of oxaloacetate, so there's
>>> no *net* synthesis - the number of molecules of the intermediates
>>> stays constant, that's what makes it a cycle.
>>
>> No human exists in a vacuum (literally, we tend to explode then freeze).
>
> Actually, i believe that's a popular myth - you asphyxiate then freeze,
> no exploding involved:
>
> http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.html
>
>> your hypothetical point here is not pertinent to the reality of the
>> situation - a person switching from carbohydrates to a protein+fat
>> diet. Acetyl CoA comes from fatty acid oxidation. You get C/2
>> acetyl-CoA's from each fatty acid (C=number of carbons in the chain,
>> and this is for even number carbon chains). You originally said that
>> humans can burn sugar and fat, but that there must always be a
>> carbohydrate source.
>
> That wasn't me.
>
>> This is not correct, as topping up the intermediates can be done
>> readily through the protein consumed with the rest of the animal.
>
> Quite true. Sorry, i wasn't saying that you had to eat sugars to be able
> to metabolise fat; i was just pointing out that you can't make sugar
> from fat.
>
> tom
>
And I was off smokin' crack before I made a couple of my posts in this
thread, apparently, and missed a couple of major steps (the sort of
steps that make something work or not). I've begun fixing the problem of
my crack compulsion before usenet posting and my knowledge gaps in the
metabolic pathways under discussion.
Cheers,
Ari
--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/
Tom Anderson
> Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What it comes down to is that one molecule of fat is made of one
>> molecule of glycerol bonded to three molecules of fatty acid.
>>
>>>> Two glycerols get bonded to one glucose.
>>
>> Dammit, that's what i just said, only a quarter the length. CURSE YOU,
>> FREYBURGER!
>
> I blame those damn foreigners for spreading the usage "bonded" in place
> of "bound" when referring to chemical bonds.
Heh. Good point. I usually pride myself on avoiding Americanisms and
pointless neologisms, but that one slipped right through my net.
It would be interesting to see if British chemists tend to use 'bonded'
rather than 'bound', and if so, when it started.
tom
--
I don't know what the hell you should do. Try clicking on some shit
or somethin'.
Tom Anderson
> In article <pb0Ci.126$kI5.68@trnddc08>, "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
> wrote:
>
>> What will Hydrogen gas do to the human metabolism
>> when H2 is inhaled on a daily and prolonged basis
>> (with N2 at a safe sub-explosive ration)?.
>> Will H2 react in the blood stream at all?
>> If yes,
>> will H2 change the pH of the plasma dangerously?,
>> will H2 induce other unpleasant or dangerous systemic
>> changes?
>> If no,
>> will H2 provide sufficient usable caloric energy that a
>> Hydrogen weight loss regimen (replacing solid food)
>> could be advocated?
>
> Dude...
> Don't go inhaling H2! It'll combine with O in the lungs and drown you!
>
> The whole idea is to lose body fat and keep on muscle weight.
> In order to do that, you have to maintain a positive N balance.
>
> The gas you want to be inhaling is N2O.
No no no! You need reduced nitrogen to make protein - so he needs to
inhale NH3. Or, if he can get hold of some N2H4, that's even better!
Lucas Buck
If you're smoking crack and have a weight-loss program, you're not buying very good crack.
Omelet
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Omelet wrote:
>
> > In article <pb0Ci.126$kI5.68@trnddc08>, "hanson" <han...@quick.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> What will Hydrogen gas do to the human metabolism
> >> when H2 is inhaled on a daily and prolonged basis
> >> (with N2 at a safe sub-explosive ration)?.
> >> Will H2 react in the blood stream at all?
> >> If yes,
> >> will H2 change the pH of the plasma dangerously?,
> >> will H2 induce other unpleasant or dangerous systemic
> >> changes?
> >> If no,
> >> will H2 provide sufficient usable caloric energy that a
> >> Hydrogen weight loss regimen (replacing solid food)
> >> could be advocated?
> >
> > Dude...
> > Don't go inhaling H2! It'll combine with O in the lungs and drown you!
> >
> > The whole idea is to lose body fat and keep on muscle weight.
> > In order to do that, you have to maintain a positive N balance.
> >
> > The gas you want to be inhaling is N2O.
>
> No no no! You need reduce nitrogen to make protein - so he needs to
> inhale NH3. Or, if he can get hold of some N2H4, that's even better!
That second one should give him some "Energy". ;-)
NH4OH and HNO3 are also candidates, since he seems to be an H fan.
>
> tom