Calorie Debate

[Ed Prochak]

Some discussion in Scientific American about what we concluded here
long ago:
Calories IN = Calories OUT + weight gain/loss

Actually this is about weight gain of the nation, not of individuals.

The Mathematician's Obesity Fallacy
Unfortunately one outsider's recently published perspective on the
obesity crisis isn't really an outsider's perspective at all: it is
the physicist's perspective
By Michael Moyer

(I hope wordwrap doesn't mess up the link)
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/15/the-mathematicians-obesity-fallacy/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_physics_20120518

Sorry I haven't posted in a long time. I'm still slowly out there.

Enjoy the run.
ed

[Michael]

Yes, the body metabolizes sugar much differently than other foods. Essentially, sugar will kill you.

Mike

[Tony S]

I think the the metabolic processes of different foods should be studied
more. I clicked on the link "Is Sugar Toxic?", and I think it makes some
good arguments.

While it may be true that every Calorie you eat is accounted for per the
above equation, 'Calories OUT' may be highly variable depending on how
different general food groups and some specific foods are metabolized,
meaning you either burn them with a higher metabolic rate, or your
metabolism slows and they get packed on as fat.

The proposition that all foods are metabolized equally can't be right.
The chemical differences in foods necessitate different metabolic
processes to utilize them, processes that are a product of evolution.

If having metabolic syndrome does increase the risk of type II diabetes,
heart disease and cancer; and if metabolic syndrome is caused by
too-high influxes of sugar that overwhelm the liver, particularly
fructose, then the circumstantial evidence is strong that a threshold
exists (which probably varies genetically) for the amount of fructose we
can tolerate at any time. If it does overwhelm the liver and cause fatty
deposits there that create metabolic syndrome, then a lot of things
would make sense about the rise of those modern diseases.

Anything that studies the actual metabolic processes is extremely
valuable IMO, though the results will always be debated. One might even
argue why try to do science because the results are conflicting and
never clear enough? I'm on the side of trying. One could clearly see
though why the soda industry in particular would want to fight like hell
the idea that fructose in commonly consumed doses could be toxic.

--
http://tonyoutthere.blogspot.com/

[Ed Prochak]

On May 21, 3:36 pm, Tony S <n...@none.none> wrote:
> On 5/21/2012 11:03 AM, Ed Prochak wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some discussion in Scientific American about what we concluded here
> > long ago:
> > Calories IN = Calories OUT + weight gain/loss
>
> > Actually this is about weight gain of the nation, not of individuals.
>
> > The Mathematician's Obesity Fallacy
> > Unfortunately one outsider's recently published perspective on the
> > obesity crisis isn't really an outsider's perspective at all: it is
> > the physicist's perspective
> > By Michael Moyer
>
> > (I hope wordwrap doesn't mess up the link)

> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/15/the-mathe...

The

Calories IN = Calories OUT + weight gain/loss

equation is certainly a first approximation, especially when applied
to individuals.

Actually what I found interesting in the discussions was a realization
I've been coming to over many years. Dr. Chow was looking at the
overall weight of the nation and concludes that the abundance of food
is a primary factor to explain the "obesity epidemic". When I grew up,
very little food was thrown out. Even with the increase of eating out,
Americans spend much less on food in proportion to total income.

here's a quote from Chow's blog
' Finally, with regard to food supply causing the obesity epidemic.
We took our model and calibrated it to the average American and then
fed it the average food available. What we found is that the excess
food more than compensated for the weight gain. In fact, we predict
that we are progressively wasting more food over time and this is
partially validated with EPA data on municipal waste. If we applied
the “Taubes effect” then people would either be even fatter or waste
more food. In either case, it doesn’t discount the increase in food
supply as the cause. '
http://sciencehouse.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/the-calorie-debate/

Certainly a complicated issue. Hope you enjoy the links.
now back to work.
ed

[Tony S]

Thanks for the link. Chow is saying that the question of whether carbs
make you fat hasn't been studied enough, and I agree. That macro models
can help analyze the situation of obesity and disease is a given, but
until the biochemistry is better understood we can't come to any hard
conclusions.

To me What is missing in all the analyses is a historical view of how
humans adapted to different food sources. What he says about the brain
preferring glucose and the body's unique way of conserving glucose for
the brain I don't doubt, but the brain can function perfectly well on
Ketones, and that is ignored. Does anyone really think that carbs were
constantly available as a primary food source in our evolutionary history?

Certainly agriculture made carbs available to certain large populations
beginning in some areas 7 to 10 thousand years ago, possibly earlier,
and that may have been long enough for some groups of humans to adapt
epigenetically to a more carb based diet. But if one considers the
history of modern humans going back much farther, a hunter-gatherer diet
is probably what sustained our historical forefathers, which would only
have made carbs available seasonally, meaning our brains probably
evolved to run on ketones much more than on glucose and only later
adapted to the latter as a primary fuel as it became available.

To me it would be very natural to assume that many groups of humans that
only recently historically had carbs available in constant quantity are
not biochemically adapted to use those carbs as a primary fuel source,
and that significant problems may arise from that different diet over
time, particularly with highly refined sources and much greater
quantities than ever before.

Among other possible problems, the pinpointing of high quantities of
fructose in soft drinks very well could be overwhelming the liver and
could be creating a metabolic problem that builds over time and causes
the overall metabolism to malfunction. Just as the old saying goes about
having moderation in most things, so it is with diet. It makes perfect
sense that big changes in food sources in the last 50 to 100 years are
hard to digest, literally.


--
http://tonyoutthere.blogspot.com/

[pithydoug]

On May 21, 1:46 pm, Michael <michaeldwils...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2012 10:03:51 AM UTC-5, Ed Prochak wrote:
> > Some discussion in Scientific American about what we concluded here
> > long ago:
> > Calories IN = Calories OUT + weight gain/loss
>
> > Actually this is about weight gain of the nation, not of individuals.
>
> > The Mathematician's Obesity Fallacy
> > Unfortunately one outsider's recently published perspective on the
> > obesity crisis isn't really an outsider's perspective at all: it is
> > the physicist's perspective
> > By Michael Moyer
>
> > (I hope wordwrap doesn't mess up the link)

> >http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/15/the-mathe...

>
> > Sorry I haven't posted in a long time. I'm still slowly out there.
>
> >   Enjoy the run.
> >    ed
>
> Yes, the body metabolizes sugar much differently than other foods. Essentially, sugar will kill you.
>

Yup! If you have an hour and half check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
The Biochem section is a little deep but first 30m minutes or so is an
eye opener.

-Doug

[Tony S]

I'm 20 minutes into the talk, thanks for posting the link. Seems like
they're really getting at something. Fructose, sounds healthy, as in
fruit, and normal sugar, which contains much fructose is added to 80% of
all 'foods' in supermarkets, believe me I know because I read all the
labels for salt and sugar, salt for helping care for my elderly mom
before, and sugar for me on low carb diet. Hey -- I'm open minded -- if
I can eat more rice, I'd love that. Have to continue learning.

--
http://tonyoutthere.blogspot.com/