Page 13 of 39 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 390

Thread: Ask a biochemist. page 13

  1. #121
    eva's Avatar
    eva
    eva is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    249
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    oh heaven...

  2. #122
    Tara tootie's Avatar
    Tara tootie is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    616
    Yah. I would SO move to a primal place in the mountains and live like that with all of you. Well except the midnight thing... that would be with my SO, lol.

    So long as I could get to the city once in a while, and have access to internet sometimes, life would be good!
    Life on Earth may be punishing, but it includes an annual free trip around the sun!

  3. #123
    primal_jessjane's Avatar
    primal_jessjane is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    569
    Don't know if this has been asked yet, but Molecular Grokologist (what is your name by the way?), what do you think of the calories in=calories out theory? I am watching this video from CF Journal.. http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/...production.tpl .. And apparently this guy thinks that Body Weight=Calories In-Calories Out is ABSOLUTELY false. I can understand why he says this, especially based on the understanding that the body is certainly an open system and can't really subjected to such a simple equation like that, but to say that calories don't effect body weight to ANY degree is questionable to me.. Thoughts?

  4. #124
    Allbeef Patty's Avatar
    Allbeef Patty is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    278
    PJJ, I posted that link a few pages ago. Though much of it was over my head, I thought the interview was great. If you watched Glassman, even he looked lost. I was curious to see what the sci-set here on MDA thought. I just think the guy was a bit hyperbolic.

  5. #125
    Molecular Grokologist's Avatar
    Molecular Grokologist is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    303
    (Accumulated energy) = (energy input) - (energy output) cannot be false if the presently understood laws of thermodynamics are true. That's not the same as saying "if you eat more, you will gain weight" because output depends in many respects on the character and quantity of input. There are lots of ways for the body to use energy, from exercise, to increased repair and maintenance, to heat generation, to peeing a tiny amount out as ketones...

    I'll watch the movie this weekend and get back to you (I'm pretty busy today, so I don't have an hour and a half to burn), but if he argues it's absolutely false, he's got a Nobel Prize winning set of data on his hands or he's wrong, and I bet I know which.
    Give me liberty. Exploration of other options will be vigorously discouraged.

    Wondering something sciencey? Ask me in my Ask a Biochemist Thread

  6. #126
    Allbeef Patty's Avatar
    Allbeef Patty is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    278
    I'm not curious enough to watch the whole thing again to see if I'm right, but I think his point was more that the caloric deficit theory (eat 500 calories a day less to lose a pound) is wrong, or too complex, with too many variables, to be of any use. And he claims that it's never been shown to work.

  7. #127
    Molecular Grokologist's Avatar
    Molecular Grokologist is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    303
    Oh, well I pretty much agree with that. I'll watch the whole thing later to comment further.
    Give me liberty. Exploration of other options will be vigorously discouraged.

    Wondering something sciencey? Ask me in my Ask a Biochemist Thread

  8. #128
    eva's Avatar
    eva
    eva is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    249
    molecular grocologist: about the cal in = cal out thingy
    yes, metabolics have to apply to the laws of thermodynamics - but they have to be interpreted then in context of bioenergetics. the calorie used in bioenergy (internal energy E) isnt the same as the one used in physics (Gibbs free energy G). the first involves the second law of thermodynamics (as the first law only applies in a closed system) thus encompassing entropy in its meaning - allowing for cal in ><cal out

  9. #129
    Frits van der Bergen's Avatar
    Frits van der Bergen is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    6
    There's a lot of talk about insulin among Groks. However, this study from 1997
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9356547 suggests that there's no big difference between the insulin response of fish and beef to potatoe chips, popcorn, bread, pasta, porridge ...
    It's all about insulin, according to Mark Sisson, but if there's no big difference between different kinds of food, it can't be all about insulin.

  10. #130
    primal_jessjane's Avatar
    primal_jessjane is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    569
    How can you make such a general statement about insulin responses?...I disagree with that study. I was also wondering that if the calories in-calories out thing doesn't truly exist as we thought it did, why is fasting always reccomended for weight loss? I understand it improves insulin sensitivity, which is important for weight loss, but wouldn't you already be insulin sensitive following a PB/paleo diet? Or does it also have to do with resetting your appetite? Hmm hmmm....

Page 13 of 39 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •