If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Two Keys to Weight Loss
As stated, over the long term fewer calories then required for daily metabolism and tissue status will result in weight loss. Even with the disorder as a variable, others have not so refined theier assertions, energy stored will in time become the source when the external source is lowered,ie. insulin promotes glucose utpake, but the pathway is a two lane highway and the body also releases the energy. There is no doubt that metabolic disorders complicate the system and the normal action of various energy pathways is modified, but fat stored is but the future energy source when the outside source is lowered enough. If this were not the case, the low carb diet would not work. As cconcluded by a researcher from the recent long term diet comparsion, in the end it was calories that told the final story. The low carb diet is but one way over the long term to lower calory intake and require use of stored energy. There is variation in responce to the process in humans, as is the case in all living systems, and it can be expressed as a bell curve. The 500 cal/day/week for 1 pound loss or gain describes the middle, the great hump of the curve that is most people. A metabolic disorder can put an individual near one tail of the curve, but all curves have in the end a brickwall which describes all people. The calory balance model accounts for all cases. We can look at the fine tuning and tinkering modifying the sub parts of the system has,ie. low carb, but in the end there are no exceptions. We are talking about a fundimental principle of how living systems work. There is too much an urban legend that I think the diet book authors permit to exist that there is some new twist on this principle and that weight will be lost without doing what is obvious, one must in the end by whatever means eat less,ie. calories, to lose weight. You are correct in your statements that eating more than one burns will always result in fat gain. You're incorrect in assuming that in all people it is the calories which control the metabolism, and therefore restricting calories and disregarding macronutrient composition is the answer for all overweight people. In normal people, the energy intake action precedes the metabolic hormone reaction. Therefore, type of calories matter very little to a normal person and they can lose weight just by cutting back and ignoring macronutrient composition. However, for those with a pathology of metabolism like insulin resistance, the energy intake action is *incongruent* with the metabolic hormone reaction. Hypoinsulinemia is a prerequisite for catabolism (lipolysis from body fat or gluconeogensis from muscle mass). In a normal person, hypoinsulinemia occurs when consumed energy is low relative to metabolic needs. The body then raises glucagon which facilitates catabolism. The thing is, if one is insulin resistant, they are by definition hyperinsulinemic (T2 diabetics with obliterated beta cells excluded). This means they produce too much insulin in the blood per energy consumed. This also means that their body requires inordinately low amounts of consumed energy in order to facilitate catabolism. A hyperinsulinemic person might not lose weight on a 1500, 1400, 1300 or less calorie diet for this reason - that all depends on glycemic load of the macronutrient composition, and the degree of insulin resistance. Please see my earlier post which goes into detail on the physiology of hormones on metabolism to understand why, it is really too complex a subject to explain in a footnote. If you are suffering from uncontrolled insulin resistance and wish to lose weight, you would be well advised to first control the insulin resistance through a low glycemic diet before attempting to create a catabolic environment via energy restriction. Those with insulin resistance (which, by the way, is the majority of considerably overweight people) *must* be careful to structure their diets in such a way so that foods which do not elicit a big insulin response are favored. Yes, it is possible to lose weight while ignoring dietary composition when you have a tendency towards hyperinsulinemia. Is it practical? Is it sustainable? For most with this unfortunate problem, the answer is a resounding HELL no! Some people who are so insulin resistant find they have to restrict calories to *starvation* levels to decrease insulin sufficiently enough to facilitate catabolism on a high glycemic load diet. Dawn is correct in that she understands the crucial relationship between metabolic hormones and weight management. However she seems to be a bit confused. In a normal person, macronutrient composition is much less important and ultimately calories determine the metabolic hormone state. The hormonal state is *reactionary* to the energy balance state of a normal person. Meaning, hormone synthesis is reactionary to the amount of energy consumed. A lot of low carbers seem to be under the influence that sugar is the only macronutrient which requires insulin. This is untrue. All consumed energy needs insulin, the difference is that sugar is broken down so rapidly that it puts a demand for a LOT of insulin in a short period time. If a normal person who has no insulin resistance at all eats 1000 calories of sugar, they will lose just as much weight as they would have if they ate 1000 calories of pure fat. This is untrue for those with insulin resistance though. The insulin resistant person will produce too much insulin when eating things which are broken down so quickly as to require a rapid uptake of energy. Their insensitive insulin receptors will only clear out the huge hit of blood sugar when a mondo sized dose of insulin is released into the blood. WHen the insulin resistant person eats a diet of slowly digested energy sources (fat, protein, and fiberous low digestible energy carbohydrate), there is never a huge surge of energy, and thus the body is never assaulted with energy more rapidly than their receptors can receive it. So, they preemptively avoid the problem of hyperinsulinemia. Basically, LC allows one to make caloric deficits more easily - especially if you have insulin resistance. It is incorrect to say LC is not a low-calorie diet. It may appear that way to some (especially the very insulin resistant who see a big difference between how they lose/feel on LC vs a regular diet), but do be certain that the only way to elicit catabolism is by reducing energy intake to the point where hypoinsulinemia occurs. There is *no other way to burn body fat other than this*. wrote in message -n et.com... It was one of the research people who made the observation based on her knowledge of the published results. please do provide support to the contrary that macro source in the end determines weight status and not consuming fewer calories then required to maintain energy balance, regardless of diet. I have done alot of reading on insulin and it's role in metabolism, and I'm willing to be as open in reaching conclusions as the data provides; I feel free to speculate beyond the data but leave it open knowing it is not supportable. If one eats fewer calories then one expends, one will in the long term lose weight, that is the reference to which info to the contrary should be shown. Macro source of food is irellevant, in the end calories consumed will determine weight status. In the two most recent studies done, one author said it was in the end the amount of caloires for both low and high carb diets that made the difference. One guy can say anything he wants to support his own pre-drawn conclusions. But it's possible to be smarter and more open-minded than that -- do some reading on insulin response and weight gain. While it is not calorgy restricted, it works when it is calory restricted for what ever reason. For some people, but not all. Which is beside the point, anyway. I said it's not a calorie restriction diet. And look - you agree with me. That's two times you've agreed with me but made it seem as if you were arguing. Weird. One of the marketing spins some low carb diet book authors made was to infer that one can eat as much as one wants because calorie counting or protion size is of little value and not a central part of the practice of the diet. "Some low carb diet book authors" have said that, have they? Very specific, that. I don't believe there's a single low-carb plan in existence that says one can eat "as much as one wants." Even Atkins' beginning induction level, when calories and portion sizes are pretty much disregarded, specifies that you should eat only until satisfied and not overeat. Dawn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ok, fine, whatever, I give up | Luna | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 101 | November 1st, 2005 04:33 AM |
Two Keys to Weight Loss | ta | General Discussion | 57 | June 7th, 2004 01:17 AM |
Longest scientific study yet backs Atkins diet | Diarmid Logan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 127 | May 27th, 2004 09:11 PM |
Shakes and a thank you to you all! | Mark | General Discussion | 12 | March 19th, 2004 06:11 AM |
Dr Phil 7 keys to weight loss | damson | General Discussion | 42 | January 20th, 2004 04:32 PM |