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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"J Stutzmann" wrote in message ink.net...
Thermodynamics --- a law we can't live without! [grin] It's not a law but a collection of laws. Thermodynamics is about the aggregate statistical behaviour of systems, assuming a Boltzman distribution for the energy in the states of the system. You cannot reconstruct the microphysics of a system starting with thermodynamics. wrote in message news:slbWb.19977$032.64937@attbi_s53... In sci.med.nutrition tcomeau wrote: : Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little : bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. 1) Please learn to trim quotes 2) Have you somehow forgotten the laws of thermodynamics? It is quite simple: if energy in energy out, the body will gain mass. Wow. The reverse of a nuclear explosion! There are no mass-energy conversions in chemical reactions. You gain mass because the various chemical reactions in your body that keep you alive start storing some of the mass that you consume instead of extracting chemical energy from it and excreting the mass. Now what triggers this mass storage? It isn't thermodynamics, it is the design of the the cellular chemistry and cell microphysics. Different people have sufficiently different microphysics (e.g. number of insulin receptors in their cell membranes) that assuming that one energy balance model works for everyone is absurd. One person who consumes several slices of bread or any other starchy food will respond to the induced insulin spike by producing more heat while another will respond by storing fat created from the starch (which is a collection of glucose molecules). The system of each of these individuals will obey the laws of thermodynamics but clearly the result is different. If energy out energy in, the body will lose mass. Yes, just like in the fission of Unranium nuclei.... |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On 12 Feb 2004 19:16:05 -0800, (kvs) posted: "J Stutzmann" wrote in message ink.net... Thermodynamics --- a law we can't live without! [grin] It's not a law but a collection of laws. Thermodynamics is about the aggregate statistical behaviour of systems, assuming a Boltzman distribution for the energy in the states of the system. You cannot reconstruct the microphysics of a system starting with thermodynamics. wrote in message news:slbWb.19977$032.64937@attbi_s53... In sci.med.nutrition tcomeau wrote: : Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little : bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans. 1) Please learn to trim quotes 2) Have you somehow forgotten the laws of thermodynamics? It is quite simple: if energy in energy out, the body will gain mass. Wow. The reverse of a nuclear explosion! There are no mass-energy conversions in chemical reactions. Who said there were? Ever hear of sarcasm? You gain mass because the various chemical reactions in your body that keep you alive start storing some of the mass that you consume instead of extracting chemical energy from it and excreting the mass. Or you store excess chemical energy in your food intake as chemical energy in the body. A gram of fat stores 9 calories, and a gram of carb and protein stores 4 calories of energy. Now what triggers this mass storage? Excess energy in the system. Fat storage is triggered by specific chemical messangers. When you eat a low fat, high carb diet malonyl CoA levels are high and inhibit fatty acid oxidation by inhibiting carnitine-palmitoyl transferase I, found in the outer mitochondrial membrane. As a result most fatty acids end up as triglycerol for export in VLDL lipoprotein by the liver. Fatty acid synthesis occurs in response to a high carb, low fat diet. Glucose is converted into pyruvate in the cytoplasm, which is then transported into the mitochondria and converted into acetyl-CoA and carbon dioxide. Acetyl-CoA is converted into Malonyl-CoA by acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC). Acetyl-CoA and Malonyl-CoA are are two key stages of fatty acid synthesis. ACC is inhibited by glucagon and epinephrine (i.e. a high protein diet and exercise) but ACC is activated by insulin and citrate. Receptors on adipose cell surfaces respond to the glucagon/insulin ratio. If the ratio increases (fall in insulin or increase in glucagon or both) then lypolisis is triggered. Glucagon increases the phosphorylation of hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) by increasing cAMP and the cAMP-dependent protein kinases. Insulin decreases HSL phosphorylation through processes that decrease cAMP and activating phosphatases that inactivate HSL by removing phosphates from it. It isn't thermodynamics, Thermodynamics is just a succinct statement that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, something that some here seem to overlook, at times. it is the design of the the cellular chemistry and cell microphysics. No, excess energy in the system is just stored as chemical energy in the body tissues. No excess, no storage. I just described for you the physical difference between individuals with different numbers of insulin receptors in their cell membranes. Putting it in your terms, the insulin resistant individual will have a much lower threshold for "excess" than the "normal" individual when it comes to a high carb diet. So the advice for them is to avoid high carb diets at all costs if they don't want to become obese. The same number of calories for the same ideal body weight will make then gain fat while the "normal" individual will gain nothing. Different people have sufficiently different microphysics (e.g. number of insulin receptors in their cell membranes) that assuming that one energy balance model works for everyone is absurd. Less receptors just means the reaction is slower. The end point is the same however. For the appropriate level of caloric intake one individual will have no weight gain while the other will have adipose fat storage working for a longer period of time. The chemical energy that would have been converted to heat through cellular respiration in the "normal" individual will have to be stored as fat in the insulin resistant individual. It would be nice if insulin resistant people could just dump the fraction of glucose that they cannot burn compared to the "normal" people but it doesn't work that way. One person who consumes several slices of bread or any other starchy food will respond to the induced insulin spike by producing more heat while another will respond by storing fat created from the starch (which is a collection of glucose molecules). The system of each of these individuals will obey the laws of thermodynamics but clearly the result is different. But of course this different heat output is insignificant. Otherwise folks would overheat. How is extra heat generated when muscular activity is not increased? The BM generally produces enough metabolic heat to keep folks comfortable. (In reasonable climates, that is I percieve a noticeable increase in my heat output after a meal. Fat accumulation is really slow. Of course by stuffing oneself fat accumulation can be made quite rapid. My point is that a high carb meal with the appropriate amount of calories will do different things to different people. So insulin resistant people have to literally starve themselves in order to eat high carb meals and not gain weight. This is a recipe for morbid obesity and not health. By shifting the protein and carb ratio of the meal, while keeping the number of calories fixed, insulin resistant people can avoid the nightmare. If energy out energy in, the body will lose mass. Yes, just like in the fission of Unranium nuclei.... WTF are you talking about? 1000 calories of food in, and 500 calories of energy out, and you will have 500 calories of excess energy stored. That will be a couple of ounces of fat, thankyou very much. You are missing the point, comletely. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret
Right on, Sister! Oh well, you can tell what era ***I*** come from!
One of the things that has happened to me as I stick to my eating plan is getting an "inner guide" as to what I should or should not be eating. I was pleased this week to notice that the chocolate cakes, cookies etc just no longer appeal to me. My doctor put it like this: we are born with the impulses to steal and lie, etc but this gets trained out of us. Those of us who have internalized the lesson are the ones who will pick up a fallen wallet full of money and get it back to the owner instead of going on a spending spree. Those of us who have learned what we should and should not be eating have internalized this self-control issue and that's what will help keep it off once we get there! This is important once the satisfaction element of seeing the scale-readings move downward. BTW, I just wanted to let the rest of us "losers" know that, with my falling weight, my blood pressure has gone from elevated to readings of normal-to-slightly-low...low being kind of "normal" for my family, so hang in there on your own efforts! in article , Carol Frilegh at wrote on 2/12/04 9:11: And they don't matter in the long run because people can't give everlasting microscopic attention to every bite for a lifetime. They have to develop an eating "cruise control" that they can use without negative calorie theories and this fiber concept, Fiber is important for good bowel function. Eating less, exercising more and doing it ongoing is what will yield results. The one thing that stands out IMO is this has to be a lifetime committment, not annual, seasonal or now and then, not let's splurge weekends and start over Monday. -- Diva ****** There is no substitute for the right food |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
You want PROOF - Here's Quackery Proof. | marengo | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 173 | April 17th, 2004 11:26 PM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 135 | February 14th, 2004 04:56 PM |
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 23 | December 14th, 2003 11:39 AM |
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works | Jim Marnott | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 108 | December 12th, 2003 03:12 AM |
Was Atkins Right After All? | Ken Kubos | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 22nd, 2003 11:01 PM |