Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The metabolic advantage hypothesis

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
    ...
    So much fake biochem on this thread. I wont address stuff I don't have a clue about... But just some biochem stuff I do know something about. I don't know a lot in this world, but I know a little about biochem and organic chem.


    Pklopp:
    -deamination is a real process... But your picture of an amino acid is insufficient to support your claim that protein is treated as fatty acid if the one amine is removed. The "R" (representing a variable region) group could be a methyl group or some other hydrocarbon chain, in which case you are right, but it could also be one with its own amine, carboxylic acid, sulfur, ring structured hydrocarbon... Etc. Saying protein is just Fatty acid with the one amine group removed is kind of like saying we humans would all be identical if we remove our genetic variances from each other. You make it sound so easy! To say somethjng with an aromatic ring or weird 3-carbon ring is the same as something with a simple hydrocarbon chain is ridiculous.
    When I said that I would "try to give the Cliff's notes of Cliff's notes version about how energy metabolism works" I was saying I was about to give the summary of summaries ... necessarily eliding details. There is something to be said for not getting bogged down in the trees.

    Now, unless you are actually intending to make an accusation, you need to be careful with your language to differentiate between fake, and simplified, where one implies an active attempt to mislead, and the other merely that not all the details are being presented. Overall, you did gloss of the real point of the argument which was that the amine group is what makes proteins metabolically more "expensive" to process.

    Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
    .
    -the point about unsaturated fats in general is that they have a regulatory effect of making the cell wall more fluid, have a lower freezing point, so more adaptative for winters ...if you are a plant, small animal, or a cold blooded fish without a good centralized heating unit installed in your body. Human beings don't need o-3 unless human beings ingest other stuff that needs o-3 to balance out/out compete. Like o-6. So the studies showing o3 fixed something is usually becuase o3 is brought it to out compete some other unsaturated fat, or to counter the effects of some other unsaturated fat.
    Once you make an assertion like that, you have to actually provide something that resembles proof, not merely your opinion. In your own words, your statement "is insufficient to support your claim". And the point of all of the above is that cell membrane fluidity has a fundamental impact on metabolism, in general, more fluid being a better state than less, up to a point. But apart from membrane fluidity, dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids also affect membrane-associated enzyme and receptor functions, signal transduction, second messenger, and eicosanoid generation. These are pretty fundamental metabolic processes.

    Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
    - I disagree with anyone who doesn't think amino acids can be made from carb sources. Maybe a whole protein can't because there are a few essential amino acids we can't make ourselves (bcaa for example), but we can make most a.a. Just fine from carbs.
    I'm not sure if you are not confused about the process of transamination here, which nobody is disputing. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot produce nitrogen out of thin air ( this is a joke, by the way, since inorganic nitrogen is a large component of air ), you must get it from other protein sources. Transamination merely swaps an amine group from one carbon backbone to another. Fair enough, but you had to have that source in the first place. This shuffling of amine groups is in no sense the same as the creation of a new amine, and this is why protein intake is critical to growth.

    Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
    -Oh and, biochemistry is a face paced field. Citing studies from before DNA's helical structure was discovered... Or anything more than 10-15 years old, is kind of outdated. Also I can find studies with the exact narrow hypothesis finding conflicting results on so much that nowadays I am generally skeptical of studies unless it is in Nature or something of similar caliber.
    Agreed again, but when you cite "seminal" papers, or pioneering work, you are necessarily dealing with ground breaking, early work. Of course, subsequent work can revise understanding, and the most recent work tends to be most persuasive due to our increased knowledge and experimental methodologies. This is precisely why I cited four modern studies, references which you seem to not have examined before assuming they were pre-historic ( pre-Watson and Crick in your analytical framework ). But I'll do you the courtesy of giving more complete references:

    Title : Effect of dietary linoleic acid and essential fatty acid deficiency on resting metabolism, nonshivering thermogenesis and brown adipose tissue in the rat
    Journal : The Journal of Nutrition
    Published : May 1988

    Title : The possible role of essential fatty acids in the pathophysiology of malnutrition
    Journal : Prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and essential fatty acids
    Published : Oct 2004

    Title : FISH OIL PREVENTS ESSENTIAL FATTY ACID DEFICIENCY AND ENHANCES GROWTH: CLINICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL IMPLICATIONS
    Journal : Metabolism
    Published : 2008-5

    Title : The essentiality of arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid
    Journal : Prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and essential fatty acids
    Published : 2009 Aug-Sep

    -PK
    Last edited by pklopp; 10-09-2013, 12:43 PM.
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

    Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

    Comment


    • PKlopp I'm on my iphone so I can't leave a big reply quoting all your rebuttals so I will leave you to ponder a few things.

      1. The definition of anabolism is to synthesize larger molecules from smaller ones. You mentioned the synthesis of muscle cells from amino acids, this is definitely a form of anabolism. BUT THERE ARE OTHERS... The synthesis of triglycerides in adipocytes and glycogen in liver and muscle cells is also an anabolic process, what do all these processes have in common? They happen in the presence of insulin. Carbs promote insulin secretion from the pancreas which kicks off anabolic processes all over the body, proteins do this too to a lesser extent. Carbs are anabolic.

      2. In the islet of langerhans in the pancreas there are alpha & beta cells which produce glucagon and insulin(and another I forget the name of) these cells are paracrine cells meaning they can directly "communicate" with each other. It just so happens that they "communicate" a message to be directly inversely proportional to the output of the other cell. Ie if the alpha cell output is 100% then the beta cell output MUST be 0%, if the beta cell output is 50% then the alpha cell output must also be 50%.

      Now the body decides the ratio of the output of these 2 cells by the amount of blood sugar present in the serum. Ingested Carbs means predominantly insulin output and little glucagon. Proteins (your big steak example) results in a near 50 / 50 split between insulin and glucagon wich is perfect because half of the amino's are broken down by glucagon to become a mildly useful glucose source and the other half are transported by insulin to be anabolised into body cells. Note this insulin response can't be as significant as you make out because of the paracrine action with glucagon. Fats result in predominant glucagon release because the body still detects low blood glucose. Fatty acids can only be released from adipocytes by glucagon, although they can be transported by insulin as you mention.

      3 from the above it is easy to affirm that given equal caloric amounts of a macro substrate the body will respond differently depending on the macro in question, I cannot see where the contradiction lies.


      Sent from my iPhone
      A little primal gem - My Success Story
      Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pklopp View Post
        Ok, I'll bite. Shockingly, it turns out Choco doesn't really know what he's talking about. So where did this EFA propaganda come from? The seminal paper was from 1929 entitled "A NEW DEFICIENCY DISEASE PRODUCED BY THE RIGID EXCLUSION OF FAT FROM THE DIET.*" which fed experimental rats a diet completely devoid of fat. How did the animals fare under this regime?
        If you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know that that study was summarily disproven as the deficiency turned out to be a B-vitamin deficiency, not an "EFA deficiency." Liars and cheats take this study the "prove" the that omega 6's and omega 3's are "essential" to survival, and they never acknowledge that the conclusion was completely wrong from the get-go. You are either ignorant or outright lying for some reason.

        Upon repeat, the study was mimicked but B-vitamins were administered. This corrected the problem.

        There has never been a study proving that omega 3 and omega 6 are essential, only a study done nearly 100 years ago that was quickly proven wrong, but please continue lying to the people.
        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
          Hey, no problem. You provide a lot of good advice to people and are right about a lot of things. It's just counterweighted by arrogance and the rigid certainty that you're right, even when you're wrong.
          It isn't arrogance. I have no interest playing to people's sensitivities. If you want to lose weight and get healthier, do it. Don't give me bullshit excuses about how life is too hard to find time to cook your own food and exercise. You can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped and I'm not in the business of distributing internet hugs to make people feel better.
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
            It isn't arrogance. I have no interest playing to people's sensitivities. If you want to lose weight and get healthier, do it. Don't give me bullshit excuses about how life is too hard to find time to cook your own food and exercise. You can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped and I'm not in the business of distributing internet hugs to make people feel better.
            You sound like you need the internet hug.
            The Champagne of Beards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
              You sound like you need the internet hug.
              Look at it from my point of view. pklopp comes into this thread, says I don't "really know what [I'm] talking about," continues to post the very study in question that was disproven decades ago out of either (ironically) sheer ignorance or malicious intent to mislead, but he fills his completely incorrect posts with all kinds of pretty pictures and it convinces people to actually buy in. And that's why we're in the health mess we're in in this country - we have bad, outdated information passed around in aesthetically pleasing packages by ignorant or malicious individuals, and it causes people to buy in.

              The fact is, bad people have better marketing than good people. And it frustrates my soul.
              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

              Comment


              • Low carbohydrate diets caused the health mess we're in?
                The Champagne of Beards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                  Low carbohydrate diets caused the health mess we're in?
                  What is this referencing?
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                    Look at it from my point of view. pklopp comes into this thread, says I don't "really know what [I'm] talking about," continues to post the very study in question that was disproven decades ago out of either (ironically) sheer ignorance or malicious intent to mislead, but he fills his completely incorrect posts with all kinds of pretty pictures and it convinces people to actually buy in. And that's why we're in the health mess we're in in this country - we have bad, outdated information passed around in aesthetically pleasing packages by ignorant or malicious individuals, and it causes people to buy in.

                    The fact is, bad people have better marketing than good people. And it frustrates my soul.

                    Frankly, I've always consider your posts quite the marketing genius. I mean repetition and appeal to emotion are classic marketing technique and you have em nailed. "....it frustrates my soul"..... classic!

                    But back to the science! Does refuting one of several studies presented sufficiently end the debate? I really don't think so.

                    From Marks link just the other day you get this as well

                    Effects of dietary fish oil on thyroid hormone signaling in the liver.

                    Interesting stuff right? Well kinda, I already know what we will consider confounding factors. So yeah, back to the other 4-5 studies already presented I suppose.

                    Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                    Low carbohydrate diets caused the health mess we're in?
                    Apparently.
                    Last edited by Neckhammer; 10-09-2013, 10:49 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                      Frankly, I've always consider your posts quite the marketing genius. I mean repetition and appeal to emotion are classic marketing technique and you have em nailed. "....it frustrates my soul"..... classic!

                      But back to the science! Does refuting one of several studies presented sufficiently end the debate? I really don't think so.

                      From Marks link just the other day you get this as well

                      Effects of dietary fish oil on thyroid hormone signaling in the liver.

                      Interesting stuff right? Well kinda, I already know what we will consider confounding factors. So yeah, back to the other 4-5 studies already presented I suppose.
                      I think most of MDA will agree I'm not a very good marketer. Then again, I don't really care to be. I don't benefit in any way by you taking my advice. It actually just makes more unnecessary work for me because I have to reply to it. Maybe I should work on being even less of a people-person? I love the Peat approach. Write about what you've learned, let people try to sort it out for themselves.

                      There are no long-term studies on fish oil. Therefore, there are no studies on fish oil worth reading. All fish oil studies show is, as Zach put it, is that adrenaline (and cortisol) are some damn powerful hormones.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        The fact is, bad people have better marketing than good people. And it frustrates my soul.
                        Only one solution : accept the fact or be frustrated forever ...

                        Seriously, what do you mean by "bad" ? Do I sense some preachy tone under your prose ? And now, is pklopp a "bad" poster because he contradicts you ? He's got a style, just like you, but really, if we stop at the style, then yes you'll come out frustrated. Please, if you have to spend some time writing in these forums, contradict the guy with backed up arguments instead of accusing him. I personally have no interest in who's right but I do like to chew on well backed up analyses, data, etc, regardless of the opinion that they are supposed to support.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
                          Only one solution : accept the fact or be frustrated forever ...

                          Seriously, what do you mean by "bad" ? Do I sense some preachy tone under your prose ? And now, is pklopp a "bad" poster because he contradicts you ? He's got a style, just like you, but really, if we stop at the style, then yes you'll come out frustrated. Please, if you have to spend some time writing in these forums, contradict the guy with backed up arguments instead of accusing him. I personally have no interest in who's right but I do like to chew on well backed up analyses, data, etc, regardless of the opinion that they are supposed to support.
                          Precisely. Both choco and pklopp have persuasive styles of writing IMO. But I'm not persuaded by style. I tend to cut right through all that malarkey to see what is actually being said and to determine if there is sufficient evidence to back the point.

                          Either way, I find lots of good info to mull over in just the past few pages, regardless of if it fits my opinions.
                          Last edited by Neckhammer; 10-09-2013, 12:16 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
                            Only one solution : accept the fact or be frustrated forever ...

                            Seriously, what do you mean by "bad" ? Do I sense some preachy tone under your prose ? And now, is pklopp a "bad" poster because he contradicts you ? He's got a style, just like you, but really, if we stop at the style, then yes you'll come out frustrated. Please, if you have to spend some time writing in these forums, contradict the guy with backed up arguments instead of accusing him. I personally have no interest in who's right but I do like to chew on well backed up analyses, data, etc, regardless of the opinion that they are supposed to support.
                            What I'm saying is that people that have to sell you on a bad product have to go through a lot more trouble than people that have to sell you on a good product. Good products sell themselves with the right education. However, bad products needs to look bigger, better, brighter and shinier because you have to go after the less-educated consumer who are buying based on price and, often, impulse.



                            Attached is basic, CAFO chicken breast. Pretty much the bottom-of-the-barrel quality from a typical chain grocer. Looking at the package, this must be the greatest thing ever with all those check-marks and stamps, except...

                            ...Chickens aren't vegetarians.
                            ...The "right" animal byproducts can be very healthy. Most of MY diet is animal byproducts, like steaks, eggs, milk and cheese.
                            ...Only egg-laying chickens are raised in cages because cages take up way too much room.
                            ...You CANNOT add hormones and steroids to a chicken's diet non-medicinally in the US!

                            Every single claim is actually a NEGATIVE in context, yet they're billed as POSITIVES and the unsuspecting consumer eats it up.

                            I'm guessing if you buy a true, pastured chicken from a local farmer, you're not getting much praise on the packaging. It probably comes vacuum-sealed in a boring package or box.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • Sorry, there is a cultural collision here: I don't live in the US, I do outdoor local markets and buy local products most of the time. what i see in these markets usually make noises and tramp in cages ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                                If you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know that that study was summarily disproven as the deficiency turned out to be a B-vitamin deficiency, not an "EFA deficiency." Liars and cheats take this study the "prove" the that omega 6's and omega 3's are "essential" to survival, and they never acknowledge that the conclusion was completely wrong from the get-go. You are either ignorant or outright lying for some reason.

                                Upon repeat, the study was mimicked but B-vitamins were administered. This corrected the problem.

                                There has never been a study proving that omega 3 and omega 6 are essential, only a study done nearly 100 years ago that was quickly proven wrong, but please continue lying to the people.
                                This is beneath even you, Choco. That was the first study in an 80+ year history of research into lipids. The fact that you pretend that it is the only such study that ever drew a similar link is laughably disingenuous. Further, that you would choose to ignore the other four much more recent studies that I posted, is also quite telling.

                                So Choco, debunk this study:

                                Title : The essentiality of arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid
                                Journal : Prostaglandins, leukotrienes, and essential fatty acids
                                Published : 2009 Aug-Sep

                                It is the most recent one that I posted.

                                Oh, and while hiding behind your keyboard, you can call me whatever names you want, I don't expect that people will be very impressed with that tactic.

                                -PK
                                Last edited by pklopp; 10-09-2013, 12:53 PM.
                                My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

                                Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X