A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 27th, 2004, 06:59 PM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory

What you will be reading, if you continue, is my personal theory about the
workings of most people's digestive system. My purpose is to try and see the
forest from the trees of endless technical research papers. My belief in the
effectiveness of a low carb diet is based on my personal experience, the
experiences of others and the fact that places like Duke University are
offering that approach in their Diet and Fitness center
(http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=7051).



My theory is based on the fact that when changes in matter occur (chemical
reaction), energy is lost during the process, usually in the form of heat.
No process is 100% efficient or we'd have perpetual motion machines.
Furthermore some chemical reactions waste more energy as heat and are
therefore less efficient in utilizing the initial available energy.



Now the body needs energy to function. The body prefers glucose (digested
carbohydrate) for its energy. The reason for this preference is that the
body is most energy efficient at converting carbohydrate energy into cell
energy. But if there's no carbohydrate energy available, the body can
utilize fat calories to get the glucose calories the cells need. However the
fat conversion process is terribly inefficient and it takes far more fat
calories to get the required cell calories in the form of glucose. When we
limit our carb intake, our body is forced to rely on the very inefficient
fat conversion process that consumes not only the dietary fat calories we
ingest but also the adipose fat calories stored around our body.



Here's an analogy. You live in a house located in a very cold climate. You
want to keep the house at 20 C all the time. You have two heat sources: a
furnace that burns natural gas very efficiently, say 80%, and a huge
fireplace that burns wood but only at 20% efficiency. Now every morning Mr
Carb comes with his natural gas truck and fills your tank for the day. At
the same time each morning, Mr Fat also comes with his wood truck for the
fireplace. But being lazy, you use the furnace and let the wood stay in the
truck. Since Mr Carb has brought enough gas for the 24 hours until his next
delivery the following day, you burn the gas and stack the wood in the back
where you have a nice big pile growing (adipose tissue). Now one day Mr Fat
and Mr Carb arrive as usual but Mr carb says he's not able to deliver 24
hours of gas and gives you only two hours. Suddenly, after two hours, the
furnace quits and the house begins to get cold. But you want it warm so you
go out to Mr Fat's truck and bring in wood for the fireplace. Since the
fireplace is so inefficient you are constantly going out to the truck for
wood to keep the house at 20C. Finally in the morning, the wood truck is
empty and the new day's delivery of gas and wood are still an hour away. So
off to the wood pile in the back yard you march to get more wood.



Comments welcome.




  #2  
Old March 27th, 2004, 09:00 PM
Martin Golding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:59:04 +0000, John wrote:
My theory is based on the fact that when changes in matter occur (chemical
reaction), energy is lost during the process, usually in the form of heat.
No process is 100% efficient or we'd have perpetual motion machines.
Furthermore some chemical reactions waste more energy as heat and are
therefore less efficient in utilizing the initial available energy.


Now the body needs energy to function. The body prefers glucose (digested
carbohydrate) for its energy. The reason for this preference is that the
body is most energy efficient at converting carbohydrate energy into cell
energy. But if there's no carbohydrate energy available, the body can
utilize fat calories to get the glucose calories the cells need. However
the fat conversion process is terribly inefficient and it takes far more
fat calories to get the required cell calories in the form of glucose.
When we limit our carb intake, our body is forced to rely on the very
inefficient fat conversion process that consumes not only the dietary fat
calories we ingest but also the adipose fat calories stored around our
body.


The problem with that is that what we call a 'calorie' is, while quite
solidly specified for laboratory conditions, an irrelevant theoretical
concept in human diets. Except for people on managed diets, people don't
eat calories. We eat a slice of bread (well, we _used_ to) or a teaspoon
of mustard oil or a head of broccoli fried over high heat in a tablespoon
of bacon fat and sprinkled with the juice of a Meyer lemon and soy sauce
to taste. Something other than the standard caloric value of the food
(which measure is not biologically determinable) must say "Good! Put down
the fork, we have dined today."

For some people, something (or things) about low carb diets affect the
_desire_ for food. If eating low carb didn't manage _my_ appetite, I'd
find it easier to limit calories with a low fat, high fiber diet. (I
_know_ this, we've been on one. When the house was full of beans and
grains and fish and vegetables, it was hard to eat too many calories
even when I had food cravings. Low carbing, I don't have to curb the
urge to eat more food in the first place, so I don't need the assistance
of a controlled supply of high fiber, low calorie density food in the
second place).


Here's an analogy. You live in a house located in a very cold climate. You
want to keep the house at 20 C all the time. You have two heat sources: a
furnace that burns natural gas very efficiently, say 80%, and a huge
fireplace that burns wood but only at 20% efficiency. Now every morning Mr
Carb comes with his natural gas truck and fills your tank for the day. At
the same time each morning, Mr Fat also comes with his wood truck for the
fireplace. But being lazy, you use the furnace and let the wood stay in
the truck. Since Mr Carb has brought enough gas for the 24 hours until his
next delivery the following day, you burn the gas and stack the wood in
the back where you have a nice big pile growing (adipose tissue). Now one
day Mr Fat and Mr Carb arrive as usual but Mr carb says he's not able to
deliver 24 hours of gas and gives you only two hours. Suddenly, after two
hours, the furnace quits and the house begins to get cold. But you want it
warm so you go out to Mr Fat's truck and bring in wood for the fireplace.
Since the fireplace is so inefficient you are constantly going out to the
truck for wood to keep the house at 20C. Finally in the morning, the wood
truck is empty and the new day's delivery of gas and wood are still an
hour away. So off to the wood pile in the back yard you march to get more
wood.


IMO, based mostly on our experience (because even if somebody wanted to
do a double blind study on hunger control it'd be damned hard AND fairly
expensive: Find people who agree to completely controlled eating conditions.
Feed them all the same base diet, then vary carbohydrates, fats, and fibers
in indistinguishable gelatin capsules. Allow free snacking only of other
distinguishable but unspecified capsules, so they can choose based on
experienced effect but not known content. Switch participants among diets
on schedule, correlate snacking rates and calorie levels with both
managed and free consumption) the value of a low carb diet lies primarily
in appetite control. To stretch your analogy a bit mo

If you left a kettle of water on the hearth to keep the humidity up and
spent the day working in front of the fireplace where the sparkling
flames made you feel warm and happy while toasting the soles of your
otherwise always cold feet, you'd call up Mr. Carb AND Mr. Fat and tell
them to cut your order.


Then you'd spend the savings sipping a nice Germain Robain brandy, for
medicinal purposes only of course, and retire, a happier, warmer, and
smaller person, to bed.

Martin (215/162/165 since 4/2003)
--
Martin Golding | "They don't know. They did have a 1346 reference for it,
DoD #236 | so they haven't known for a pretty long time."

  #3  
Old March 27th, 2004, 10:36 PM
DJ Delorie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory


"John" writes:

My theory is based on the fact that when changes in matter occur
(chemical reaction), energy is lost during the process, usually in
the form of heat. No process is 100% efficient or we'd have
perpetual motion machines.


The problem with this theory is that this "waste heat" is not wasted -
it's used to keep your body temp at 98F. Since your body temp is
fairly constant, and "room temperature" is fairly constant, the amount
of energy "used" for heat is pretty constant too. In fact, your body
has tissues that do nothing but waste more heat to keep you warm - the
other chemical reactions don't produce enough!

So, this is true, but irrelevent.

Now the body needs energy to function. The body prefers glucose
(digested carbohydrate) for its energy.


Actually, the body prefers alcohol. Glucose is second. Anecdotal
evidence has shown that once you've been LCing for a while, it changes
to prefer fat second, and glucose third. In fact, on day 5 of UD2
(when done right), you eat about 1000g of carbs and your body STILL
burns fat for fuel.

But if there's no carbohydrate energy available, the body can
utilize fat calories to get the glucose calories the cells need.


Nope. The cell either gets energy from glucose, or energy from fat.
It does not use fat for "glucose energy". There are two metabolic
pathways; one uses glucose, the other fat. Both produce ATP. ATP is
the final "energy molecule" that the cell uses for activities.

However the fat conversion process is terribly inefficient and it
takes far more fat calories to get the required cell calories in the
form of glucose.


No. The body is very efficient at burning fat (once it's adapted to
it). However, the body is very *thrifty* about holding on to its fat
reserves. It's not about efficiency, it's about hormones.

When we limit our carb intake, our body is forced to rely on the
very inefficient fat conversion process that consumes not only the
dietary fat calories we ingest but also the adipose fat calories
stored around our body.


If you replace "carb" with "calorie" and remove "very inefficient"
that would be a reasonable statement.

Here's an analogy.


It's a bad analogy because the calorie listings on food nutrition
labels are appropriate for counting calories; they already take into
account the various ways that your body uses the fuel. Any remaining
inefficiencies are negligible.

The problems we've seen here is that some people have ABNORMAL
metabolisms - their "thriftiness" is so asymmetrical that the type of
calories they ingest determines whether they're stored or burned, and
how difficult it is to release stored calories later. For "normal"
metabolisms, it doesn't matter what kind of calories you eat.
  #4  
Old March 28th, 2004, 05:06 PM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory


"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

"John" writes:

My theory is based on the fact that when changes in matter occur
(chemical reaction), energy is lost during the process, usually in
the form of heat. No process is 100% efficient or we'd have
perpetual motion machines.


The problem with this theory is that this "waste heat" is not wasted -
it's used to keep your body temp at 98F. Since your body temp is
fairly constant, and "room temperature" is fairly constant, the amount
of energy "used" for heat is pretty constant too. In fact, your body
has tissues that do nothing but waste more heat to keep you warm - the
other chemical reactions don't produce enough!

So, this is true, but irrelevent.


I respectfully disagree. Any calorie "wasted", even if heating the body, is
wasted as far as contributing to a cell's specific energy need. The more
food energy wasted as heat, the fewer calories available for cell function
and the more food required to meet that cell's energy demands.

Now the body needs energy to function. The body prefers glucose
(digested carbohydrate) for its energy.


Actually, the body prefers alcohol. Glucose is second. Anecdotal
evidence has shown that once you've been LCing for a while, it changes
to prefer fat second, and glucose third. In fact, on day 5 of UD2
(when done right), you eat about 1000g of carbs and your body STILL
burns fat for fuel.

But if there's no carbohydrate energy available, the body can
utilize fat calories to get the glucose calories the cells need.


Nope. The cell either gets energy from glucose, or energy from fat.
It does not use fat for "glucose energy". There are two metabolic
pathways; one uses glucose, the other fat. Both produce ATP. ATP is
the final "energy molecule" that the cell uses for activities.


My misake in semantics. The final energy form is ATP but both fat and carbs
are the first ingredient in their respective chemical transformation to get
to the end product of ATP. My thought is the energy lost in going from carb
calories to ATP is less than the energy lost going from fat calories to ATP.
Now unless the series of chemical steps is altered for processing fat to
ATP, the energy loss will always be the same per gram processed. The body
may choose to burn fat over carbs, but the fat processing chemical reactions
won't change and therefore the inefficiency of the conversion process won't
change.

However the fat conversion process is terribly inefficient and it
takes far more fat calories to get the required cell calories in the
form of glucose.


No. The body is very efficient at burning fat (once it's adapted to
it). However, the body is very *thrifty* about holding on to its fat
reserves. It's not about efficiency, it's about hormones.


Respectfully I disagree. The body is very efficient at storing fat in
adipose tissue, not burning it.

When we limit our carb intake, our body is forced to rely on the
very inefficient fat conversion process that consumes not only the
dietary fat calories we ingest but also the adipose fat calories
stored around our body.


If you replace "carb" with "calorie" and remove "very inefficient"
that would be a reasonable statement.

Here's an analogy.


It's a bad analogy because the calorie listings on food nutrition
labels are appropriate for counting calories; they already take into
account the various ways that your body uses the fuel. Any remaining
inefficiencies are negligible.


Are you suggesting the calories listed on food labels are not the gross
caloric content of that food item? I thought food was "burned" in a test lab
to determine it's caloric value.


The problems we've seen here is that some people have ABNORMAL
metabolisms - their "thriftiness" is so asymmetrical that the type of
calories they ingest determines whether they're stored or burned, and
how difficult it is to release stored calories later. For "normal"
metabolisms, it doesn't matter what kind of calories you eat.


If that were true, then the low carb diets would not be working as well.
Fats would come to the rescue in as much as a gram of fat has about twice
the caloric content as a gram of carbohydrate.


  #5  
Old March 28th, 2004, 07:17 PM
DJ Delorie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory


"John" writes:
The more food energy wasted as heat,


In general, though, that part is the misleading part. The body
regulates waste heat too, to maintain body temperature. So, waste
heat is fairly constant, and thus is not a factor of concern when
trying to figure out what makes a diet work or fail.

My thought is the energy lost in going from carb calories to ATP is
less than the energy lost going from fat calories to ATP.


I don't think this is true. In general, the wasting steps in
metabolism are in the digestion of food, not the burning of it.
Protein, for example, is 5 cal/g in a calorimeter, but only counts as
4 cal/g in food because it costs 1 cal/g to digest it. Google on
"thermic effect of food". Note that fat has the lowest losses here.

Respectfully I disagree. The body is very efficient at storing fat
in adipose tissue, not burning it.


Proof? I say the body can efficiently do either, but whether it
*chooses* to do one or the other varies from person to person in
response to hormonal influences.

My evidence is skinny people. When I was a teen, I could eat
thousands of calories a day and never gained weight (heck, I was
*trying* to gain muscle at least, no luck). If my body were very
efficient at storing fat then, I'd have been fat then. I was burning
fat like crazy. These days it's different. Have the laws of physics
changed? Or just my hormones?

Are you suggesting the calories listed on food labels are not the
gross caloric content of that food item? I thought food was "burned"
in a test lab to determine it's caloric value.


Yes, I'm saying that. Protein, for example, is 5 cal/g in the lab,
but 4 cal/g on the label. Fat is the same in both because it requires
so little energy to digest and metabolize.

The problems we've seen here is that some people have ABNORMAL
metabolisms - their "thriftiness" is so asymmetrical that the type
of calories they ingest determines whether they're stored or
burned, and how difficult it is to release stored calories later.
For "normal" metabolisms, it doesn't matter what kind of calories
you eat.


If that were true, then the low carb diets would not be working as
well. Fats would come to the rescue in as much as a gram of fat has
about twice the caloric content as a gram of carbohydrate.


Ah, but that's exactly why LC diets DO work well. They address the
problems of the abnormalities, in such a way to work around the
problems and let the body function normally.

And the "gram of fat" part is irrelevent. The body doesn't really
store carbs (just a tiny bit as glycogen), but it readily stores fat.
To compare the two in a diet, it's only the calorie content that
counts, not the mass. Yes, a gram of fat has more calories than a
gram of carbs, but 100 kcals worth of carbs and 100 kcals worth of fat
are the same diet-wise.
  #6  
Old March 29th, 2004, 01:18 AM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory

Thank you for your thoughtful response, DJ Delorie. I appreciate your views.
I've added a few more of mine for your consideration.

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

"John" writes:
The more food energy wasted as heat,


In general, though, that part is the misleading part. The body
regulates waste heat too, to maintain body temperature. So, waste
heat is fairly constant, and thus is not a factor of concern when
trying to figure out what makes a diet work or fail.


Respectfully, I disagree. Waste heat will vary depending on the level of
physical activity and caloric demand by the body. Our body regulates these
fluxuations in wasted heat through perspiration and vascular/capillary
dialation. Exercise not only uses more calories in our muscle tissue but
also more in wasted heat energy due to the increase in overall caloric
demand to fulfill the exercise energy requirement.

My thought is the energy lost in going from carb calories to ATP is
less than the energy lost going from fat calories to ATP.


I don't think this is true. In general, the wasting steps in
metabolism are in the digestion of food, not the burning of it.
Protein, for example, is 5 cal/g in a calorimeter, but only counts as
4 cal/g in food because it costs 1 cal/g to digest it. Google on
"thermic effect of food". Note that fat has the lowest losses here.


Respectfully I disagree. The body is very efficient at storing fat
in adipose tissue, not burning it.


Proof? I say the body can efficiently do either, but whether it
*chooses* to do one or the other varies from person to person in
response to hormonal influences.


I will try and find the articles about efficient fat storing. I believe it's
in this URL: http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/adipose/adipose.html
I agree some individuals do have bodies that prefer fats but I think they're
not the majority. None the less, if we restrict carbs, the body has no
choice and it's forced to use fat. If you accept the premise that as a
result of limited carb intake, "most" bodies will use fat for fuel, our
discussion becomes one of fat to ATP conversion efficiency. In my favor I'd
submit the caloric density of fat would lead one to think an ingested gram
of fat would be more than enough for the body compared to 1 gram of
ingested carbs. If the chemical transformation process for fats to ATP were
as efficient as carbs to ATP, wouldn't we get fatter since our body is
getting twice the available calories? I am assuming we eat to "feel" full
which is a bulk/mass subjective determination that I'm not sure how to
quantify. Do 4 grams of olive oil satisfy one's hunger more or less than an
4 grams of dry rice (subsequently cooked and eaten)? Maybe the amount of fat
in terms of grams ingested is less that the grams of carbohydrates ingested
for the same "feeling" of being full.



My evidence is skinny people. When I was a teen, I could eat
thousands of calories a day and never gained weight (heck, I was
*trying* to gain muscle at least, no luck). If my body were very
efficient at storing fat then, I'd have been fat then. I was burning
fat like crazy. These days it's different. Have the laws of physics
changed? Or just my hormones?


My thought would be that your activity level not only used every carb
ingested but also all the ingested fat. Why one body has a higher "rest"
energy requirement is another discussion. But I would say you had a very
high rest energy requirement and then added physical activity too it. My
guess is when we're young our hormones are doing many crazy things with
weird results.

Are you suggesting the calories listed on food labels are not the
gross caloric content of that food item? I thought food was "burned"
in a test lab to determine it's caloric value.


Yes, I'm saying that. Protein, for example, is 5 cal/g in the lab,
but 4 cal/g on the label. Fat is the same in both because it requires
so little energy to digest and metabolize.

The problems we've seen here is that some people have ABNORMAL
metabolisms - their "thriftiness" is so asymmetrical that the type
of calories they ingest determines whether they're stored or
burned, and how difficult it is to release stored calories later.
For "normal" metabolisms, it doesn't matter what kind of calories
you eat.


If that were true, then the low carb diets would not be working as
well. Fats would come to the rescue in as much as a gram of fat has
about twice the caloric content as a gram of carbohydrate.


Ah, but that's exactly why LC diets DO work well. They address the
problems of the abnormalities, in such a way to work around the
problems and let the body function normally.

And the "gram of fat" part is irrelevent. The body doesn't really
store carbs (just a tiny bit as glycogen), but it readily stores fat.
To compare the two in a diet, it's only the calorie content that
counts, not the mass. Yes, a gram of fat has more calories than a
gram of carbs, but 100 kcals worth of carbs and 100 kcals worth of fat
are the same diet-wise.


However if the body has been calorie-satiated with carbohydrates then the
fat isn't burned at all but stored. Therefore the mass is important until
that fat mass parked in the adipose tissue (in a slightly modified form) is
required for cell fuel.




  #7  
Old March 29th, 2004, 02:08 AM
DJ Delorie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory


"John" writes:
Waste heat will vary depending on the level of physical activity and
caloric demand by the body.


True, but we were talking about diet variations, not exercise.

None the less, if we restrict carbs, the body has no choice and it's
forced to use fat.


Even on a high carb diet, if your total caloric intake is less than
what you need, you will burn both the carbs and the fats. Also,
muscle seems to prefer fats to carbs at low intensities, perhaps
saving the carbs for high intensity needs.

In my favor I'd submit the caloric density of fat would lead one to
think an ingested gram of fat would be more than enough for the body
compared to 1 gram of ingested carbs.


Comparing grams is not fair. Compare calories. 100 calories of
dietary fat vs 100 calories of dietary carbs. You wouldn't compare a
gram of water to a gram of carbs, would you?

If the chemical transformation process for fats to ATP were as
efficient as carbs to ATP, wouldn't we get fatter since our body is
getting twice the available calories?


No, because you can't compare grams to grams. You have to compare
calories to calories.

I am assuming we eat to "feel" full which is a bulk/mass subjective
determination that I'm not sure how to quantify. Do 4 grams of olive
oil satisfy one's hunger more or less than an 4 grams of dry rice
(subsequently cooked and eaten)?


This is far more complex than you realize. 4 grams of fiber are more
satisfying than 4 grams of water, but neither has calories. In
general, though, fats and proteins digest slower, so a given number of
calories of fats or proteins will satisfy one's hunger longer than
that same number of calories of carbs.

However if the body has been calorie-satiated with carbohydrates
then the fat isn't burned at all but stored. Therefore the mass is
important until that fat mass parked in the adipose tissue (in a
slightly modified form) is required for cell fuel.


But when it's required for fuel, the need is measured in calories.
  #8  
Old March 29th, 2004, 03:46 AM
revek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory

John burbled across the ether:
I am assuming we eat to "feel" full which is a
bulk/mass subjective determination that I'm not sure how to quantify.
Do 4 grams of olive oil satisfy one's hunger more or less than an 4
grams of dry rice (subsequently cooked and eaten)? Maybe the amount
of fat in terms of grams ingested is less that the grams of
carbohydrates ingested for the same "feeling" of being full.



You are conflating feeling full with not feeling hunger/satiation. One
is purely physical and depends on how bulky the food is, and the other
is far more reliant on the blood/sugar insulin cycle. Neither bulk nor
calories effect the blood sugar/insluin cycle-- carbohydrates do. Fiber
and fat slow the absorption of carbohydrates and can therefore have an
effect on the cycle as well, but that has little to do with the caloric
or bulk of either food and more to do with how quickly they are
processed by the body.

One of the things about lowcarb that makes it successful is teaching
people to differentiate between the two sensations and how to attain
mastery over both.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June
2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please
All truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Then, it
is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.


  #9  
Old March 29th, 2004, 05:27 PM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory


"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

"John" writes:
Waste heat will vary depending on the level of physical activity and
caloric demand by the body.


True, but we were talking about diet variations, not exercise.


We are talking about diet variations. My point was to illustrate that when
fat becomes the predominate source of fuel and the waste energy increases
due to the inefficiency of fat conversion to ATP, that the body has a
mechanism to dispose of this extra heat. But since fat may be converted to
ATP more slowly than carbs, as you pointed out, then the wasted heat
generation might be equal to that for carbs.

None the less, if we restrict carbs, the body has no choice and it's
forced to use fat.


Even on a high carb diet, if your total caloric intake is less than
what you need, you will burn both the carbs and the fats. Also,
muscle seems to prefer fats to carbs at low intensities, perhaps
saving the carbs for high intensity needs.


I agree


In my favor I'd submit the caloric density of fat would lead one to
think an ingested gram of fat would be more than enough for the body
compared to 1 gram of ingested carbs.


Comparing grams is not fair. Compare calories. 100 calories of
dietary fat vs 100 calories of dietary carbs. You wouldn't compare a
gram of water to a gram of carbs, would you?


It's fair because with adequate carbs in one's diet, fat is converted into
lipids and then deposited in the adipose tissue. It's never burned. To think
only in calories is like ordering a gallon of heating oil by the BTU. Until
that oil is burned, it's volume is what matters because it has to be stored
first before being burned.

If the chemical transformation process for fats to ATP were as
efficient as carbs to ATP, wouldn't we get fatter since our body is
getting twice the available calories?


No, because you can't compare grams to grams. You have to compare
calories to calories.


We eat to feel full and that's dependent on how big our portion of food is.
Our body doesn't know the caloric value until well into the digestion
process. If we eat the same mass of carbs and fat, aren't we getting twice
the calories from the fat diet? What I can't answer is does the same mass of
each make us feel full. Consuming mass equivalents and feeling full may not
work.

I am assuming we eat to "feel" full which is a bulk/mass subjective
determination that I'm not sure how to quantify. Do 4 grams of olive
oil satisfy one's hunger more or less than an 4 grams of dry rice
(subsequently cooked and eaten)?


This is far more complex than you realize. 4 grams of fiber are more
satisfying than 4 grams of water, but neither has calories. In
general, though, fats and proteins digest slower, so a given number of
calories of fats or proteins will satisfy one's hunger longer than
that same number of calories of carbs.

Good point. Maybe we only need half the grams of fat since it lasts longer
in digestion and keeps us from becoming hungry. You have shown me there are
many variables and I'm grateful.

However if the body has been calorie-satiated with carbohydrates
then the fat isn't burned at all but stored. Therefore the mass is
important until that fat mass parked in the adipose tissue (in a
slightly modified form) is required for cell fuel.


But when it's required for fuel, the need is measured in calories.

I agree. But until it's burned it's just mass getting packed in fat cells.


  #10  
Old March 29th, 2004, 05:36 PM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory

You' re right, Revek, I am confused between feeling full and being hungry.
Am I correct is saying 20 ounces of water will make you feel full but you'll
still be hungry? What about 20 ounces of water with two teaspoons sugar
mixed in? Then both bulk and glucose needs are met. Would one glass of water
mixed with a tablespoon of psyllium husk powder and sugar be as effective?
Your thoughts are appreciated.

"revek" wrote in message
...
John burbled across the ether:
I am assuming we eat to "feel" full which is a
bulk/mass subjective determination that I'm not sure how to quantify.
Do 4 grams of olive oil satisfy one's hunger more or less than an 4
grams of dry rice (subsequently cooked and eaten)? Maybe the amount
of fat in terms of grams ingested is less that the grams of
carbohydrates ingested for the same "feeling" of being full.



You are conflating feeling full with not feeling hunger/satiation. One
is purely physical and depends on how bulky the food is, and the other
is far more reliant on the blood/sugar insulin cycle. Neither bulk nor
calories effect the blood sugar/insluin cycle-- carbohydrates do. Fiber
and fat slow the absorption of carbohydrates and can therefore have an
effect on the cycle as well, but that has little to do with the caloric
or bulk of either food and more to do with how quickly they are
processed by the body.

One of the things about lowcarb that makes it successful is teaching
people to differentiate between the two sensations and how to attain
mastery over both.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June
2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please
All truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Then, it
is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Joseph's reduced carb pita emkay Low Carbohydrate Diets 15 December 3rd, 2004 03:01 AM
Article: The TRUTH About Low Carb Diets by Keith Klein Steve General Discussion 24 June 7th, 2004 09:05 PM
I Got this enema bag, I actualy lost 5 lb in one week Mary General Discussion 10 May 28th, 2004 10:28 PM
'Put fat children on Atkins diet' Diarmid Logan General Discussion 136 April 8th, 2004 07:44 PM
Muellers Reduced Carb Pasta just me Low Carbohydrate Diets 3 February 28th, 2004 06:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.