Printable View
Dog - not Dpg
Interesting article DFH brought attention to:
DFH:
"Here's a good article that explains how researchers are working on replacing calorie theory with the insulin hypothesis-"
[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/61236146/Obesity-and-Energy-Balance-is-the-Tail-Wagging-the-Dog[/url]
Thanks Sue
This was interesting about gut flora:
"Individuals may differ in their capacity to extract energy from a given dietary intake. Two bacterial colonisers of the human gut, the bacteriodetes and the firmicutes, differ in their metabolic efficiency in that individuals with a higher proportion of firmicutes have an enhanced capacity to harvest dietary energy and hence gain weight more readily."
As Dr B Walsh said you are not what you eat but what you eat, digest and absorb (something like that).
Still reading the above study in-between breakfast, organising the kids, house work etc.
[QUOTE=Hedonist;524343]Thanks Sue[/QUOTE]
No worries. Hopefully we get a bit of discussion going.
So basically we are not what we eat but what we absorb and how we digest?
Is that the jist of this?
I think that's why for most of us we work better on the low carbohydrate lifestyle presented through primal.
As well as those that can work best off the medium range of carbohydrates for the primal lifestyle.
Where as some of us can't do the other one because we don't digest and absorb them....?
If I am getting the jist of this, I truly hope that's what I am understanding from this text.
Like some people work best off a lower dosage of protein say .5 rather than 1.
Like some people work best off a lower dosage of fat say .5 instead of 1 or even 1.5
Please correct me if I am wrong about this..
Good stuff. I would just be wary of saying insulin hypothesis or carbohydrate hypothesis. It is likely that a whole host of things contribute to poor metabolic function. If Taubes and Lustig have one flaw it is being monomaniacs.
Also calories in does play a big role. But like they suggest, what causes that? Is it really deliciousness, boredom, and lack of character? It probably has a large dysregulation component. Neurons in parts of the brain associated with food reward have leptin receptors to trigger an inhibitory effect, and leptin resistance makes it so that doesn't run so smoothly. Next thing you know that whole bag of potato chips is gone. Last time I ate potato chips it was 2 handfuls. Hypoglycemia too.
[QUOTE=Captain Archer;524358]So basically we are not what we eat but what we absorb and how we digest?
Is that the jist of this?
I think that's why for most of us we work better on the low carbohydrate lifestyle presented through primal.
As well as those that can work best off the medium range of carbohydrates for the primal lifestyle.
Where as some of us can't do the other one because we don't digest and absorb them....?
If I am getting the jist of this, I truly hope that's what I am understanding from this text.
Like some people work best off a lower dosage of protein say .5 rather than 1.
Like some people work best off a lower dosage of fat say .5 instead of 1 or even 1.5
Please correct me if I am wrong about this..[/QUOTE]
I was just commenting some people can digest and absorb more the others from the same calorie amount. So one person who digests and absorbs better will gain on that calorie amount while someone else may maintain or lose. Dr B Walsh is a naturopath and has nothing to do with above study. I was just reading how you are not just what you eat but what you eat, digest and absorb. If digestion not very good, undigested foods escape, nutrients vitamins not absorbed as well.
Interesting how they were talking about low birth weight babies being more inclined to obesity later on but only if dietary composition is right. So dietary composition of refined carbohydrates is going to contribute to excess weight gain and childhood obesity. So important to feed kids right from the start. Breast-feeding good place to start.
[QUOTE=Captain Archer;524358]So basically we are not what we eat but what we absorb and how we digest?
Is that the jist of this?
I think that's why for most of us we work better on the low carbohydrate lifestyle presented through primal.
As well as those that can work best off the medium range of carbohydrates for the primal lifestyle.
Where as some of us can't do the other one because we don't digest and absorb them....?
If I am getting the jist of this, I truly hope that's what I am understanding from this text.
Like some people work best off a lower dosage of protein say .5 rather than 1.
Like some people work best off a lower dosage of fat say .5 instead of 1 or even 1.5
Please correct me if I am wrong about this..[/QUOTE]
Sue-Good idea to make this a separate thread. Everyone who keeps getting bogged down on the calorie thing really should read it and understand it.
The paper is basically comparing the "Classic energy balance model of obesity" (aka CICO, calorie theory, eat less, move more) with "Metabolic perturbation model of obesity" (which explains how low carb works, aka the insulin hypothesis).
The paper is careful to not say that the metabolic answer is right so this makes the calorie answer wrong.
The paper agrees with Taubes who says that (when insulin is elevated) you are not getting fat because you eat too much, you eat too much because you are getting fat.
This is what the people stuck on calories and balance are having trouble getting their heads around.
Quote from the paper-
[QUOTE]
...Excessive emphasis on energy balance as the primary ‘explanatory’ approach in obesity research may be a case of the tail wagging the dog...
...Our approach builds on recent insights by Lustig and Taubes to develop a model of obesity based on metabolic perturbation, rather than energy imbalance. What does this perspective imply for efforts to prevent and treat obesity? The first implication is that the composition, rather than the quantity, of the food that we eat may be critical...
...The second implication is that an entire generation of obesity researchers may have been studying the symptoms, not the causes, of weight gain (Lustig, 2006b;Taubes, 2008). Total energy intake and total physical activity level,seemingly so obviously the determinants of weight gain,might actually be somewhat peripheral to persistent population increases in body mass index, although enforced changes in diet and exercise would undoubtedly impact on energy balance...
...The third implication is that the current emphasis on theearly origins of adult disease risk may be focusing attention unduly on the first component of a two-stage mechanism. There is now compelling evidence that birth weight is inversely associated both with faster infant growth (Ong et al ., 2000), and with the risk of many chronic degenerative diseases (Barker et al ., 2009)...
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sue;524345]This was interesting about gut flora:
"Individuals may differ in their capacity to extract energy from a given dietary intake. Two bacterial colonisers of the human gut, the bacteriodetes and the firmicutes, differ in their metabolic efficiency in that individuals with a higher proportion of firmicutes have an enhanced capacity to harvest dietary energy and hence gain weight more readily."
As Dr B Walsh said you are not what you eat but what you eat, digest and absorb (something like that).
Still reading the above study in-between breakfast, organising the kids, house work etc.[/QUOTE]
So...nuke the gut with antibiotics to kill the healthy gut bacteria, reducing the number of calories you can absorb and TA DA! America's newest diet fad?