Author Topic: Episode #660  (Read 8025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11568
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2018, 02:45:23 PM »
As for this episode:
At 20 minutes in Steve says: "You cannot extrapolate from basic science to complex final clinical outcomes."

And I heard that and I thought: "Well, isn't that exactly what calories in/calories out is? The basic science extrapolated to clinical outcomes?

Quote
No. It's clinical studies comparing calorie balance to changes in weight.


First, there's a shift here. The problem is not actually excess weight, that is a symptom of the problem. The problem is excess fat storage. There is nothing in the laws of physics or the clinical trials that you're alluding to that say excess calories go to fat storage.


Quote
Not extrapolating basic science, but studies that test the hypothesis suggested by basic science.

But when he made that comment he didn't mention any studies, he simply extrapolated.

And the studies don't agree with his point. (Calories in/calories out is actually pretty difficult to control in humans, especially the calories out part, which involves changes in resting energy expenditure and total energy expenditure).


Quote
It's also the conservation of energy.

And, once again, reducing a complex system to basic science.


Quote
If you claim that energy is not conserved, that is an extraordinary claim, given the entirety of physics supporting conservation, and you need to provide extraordinary evidence.

That is not my claim nor the claim of any serious advocates of LCHF diet. Where does that come from?

Quote
But I was under the impression that the claim of LCHF advocates was not that the calorie balance didn't matter, but that supposedly you would eat fewer calories (or maybe burn more?) on that diet.

That's what studies have found, yes.


Quote
Other studies have offered convincing evidence that success in losing weight depends far more on the individual's commitment to losing weight than on the specific diet or macronutrient ratios.

I'd like to see those studies.

Quote
And if it turned out that I'd have a 1% better chance of meeting my weight goal on an LCHF diet than on a balanced diet, I'd still choose the balanced diet, because the minuscule increase in my chances of success does not justify what I consider to be a less healthy diet overall. (Though I'm aware you disagree on that last point. I trust my doctor more than the minority opinion of a chat board.) And I have ethical considerations that would make a high-fat diet difficult for me to maintain. (I choose not to eat meat because I regard it as barbaric and commercial meat production to be an environmental disaster.)

Even if you accept the false premise offered by Steve (no significant differences within 1 year) in nearly every RCT diet trial, dieters lose their weight sooner and realize metabolic benefits faster and significantly more stay with the diet than all others tested.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2018, 04:55:14 PM »
The problem is not actually excess weight, that is a symptom of the problem. The problem is excess fat storage. There is nothing in the laws of physics or the clinical trials that you're alluding to that say excess calories go to fat storage.

Then where do they go, do we shit more?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11568
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2018, 06:15:43 PM »
The problem is not actually excess weight, that is a symptom of the problem. The problem is excess fat storage. There is nothing in the laws of physics or the clinical trials that you're alluding to that say excess calories go to fat storage.

Then where do they go, do we shit more?

Probably not a significant amount more. One thing to remember is that the calculations for calories in food are based on 100-year-old science that's not very precise. Back then they didn't find a lot more calories in feces and urine than normal.

Excess calories (beyond your basal metabolic rate; beyond what is needed for homeostasis) are either burned or stored, and if they're not stored as fat they're stored as muscle or other lean tissue.

If they're burned, it's done through either exercise, or increases in REE and TEE.

If you were to eat significantly more calories in fat than you can possibly burn (the way people do with carbs), we don't know where it goes.

That hasn't been studied. There seems to be an assumption that it will be stored as fat, but there would have to be some mechanism to either raise insulin, or store fat and keep fat stored with low insulin.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline fred.slota

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2018, 06:29:20 PM »
... the calculations for calories in food are based on 100-year-old science that's not very precise.

Anti Appeal to Antiquity?

What part is/was not precise?  Can we be a little more precise about the non-precision, please?

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2018, 06:53:03 PM »
The problem is not actually excess weight, that is a symptom of the problem. The problem is excess fat storage. There is nothing in the laws of physics or the clinical trials that you're alluding to that say excess calories go to fat storage.

Then where do they go, do we shit more?

Probably not a significant amount more. One thing to remember is that the calculations for calories in food are based on 100-year-old science that's not very precise. Back then they didn't find a lot more calories in feces and urine than normal.

Excess calories (beyond your basal metabolic rate; beyond what is needed for homeostasis) are either burned or stored, and if they're not stored as fat they're stored as muscle or other lean tissue.

If they're burned, it's done through either exercise, or increases in REE and TEE.

If you were to eat significantly more calories in fat than you can possibly burn (the way people do with carbs), we don't know where it goes.

That hasn't been studied. There seems to be an assumption that it will be stored as fat, but there would have to be some mechanism to either raise insulin, or store fat and keep fat stored with low insulin.
Surely it can only be burned if the energy demand changes.

It has to go somewhere....

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11568
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2018, 07:16:03 PM »
... the calculations for calories in food are based on 100-year-old science that's not very precise.

Anti Appeal to Antiquity?

What part is/was not precise?  Can we be a little more precise about the non-precision, please?

Hmmm.... usually an appeal to antiquity is the opposite, a claim that something is true because it's old.

In this case, the calorie content of foods and the body's handling of calories were measured by Atwater using a "bomb calorimeter." What that means is they prepare two identical versions of a food for a test subject. On version was fed to the subject, the other was burned in the device and the amount of calories generated were noted. Then all of the pee, poop and sweat the subject excreted was put into an identical bomb calorimeter and the calories generated were noted.

They then subtracted the calories from the excretions from the calories in the food, and averaged that for a number of foods, and arrived at the numbers that to determine how many calories are in our foods.

But even then, there are numerous foods for which these Atwater averages (4 per gram for carbs and protein; 9 for fat) are significantly off and a special set of calorie values (Atwater factors) are used. But even then it's biased. Atwater factors are only used when a food manufacturer presents studies to the USDA showing that the calories for a specific food are significantly different, and they would only have a motive to do that if the food had fewer calories per gram.)

Since, Atwater averages are thought to be fairly consistent in various conditions, it's likely that excess calories are not excreted in poop.

But, again, for some reason, no one has wanted to carefully study that either.


and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline fred.slota

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2018, 07:31:19 PM »
... the calculations for calories in food are based on 100-year-old science that's not very precise.

Anti Appeal to Antiquity?


Hmmm.... usually an appeal to antiquity is the opposite, a claim that something is true because it's old.

Hence, the "Anti", in that you appeared to be indicating not that it was true because it was old, but rather that it was imprecise because it was old (as opposed to simply imprecise because it was imprecise.)

Offline stlc8tr

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2018, 07:34:35 PM »
I agree with bachfiend on weighing: I can actually fluctuate two pounds from one day to the next, weighed first thing in the morning. On a successful diet I can lose half a pound a week. If I weigh myself just once a week and the days line up just wrong, the scale might tell me I've gained a pound and a half when in fact I've lost half a pound. So I weigh myself every day, then I discard the highest and lowest numbers and average the rest. It's that weekly average I care about. When I'm not actively dieting, I weigh myself daily, and I guesstimate an average by eyeball.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think weight is all that important. I probably weigh 10 lbs more after I started to exercise but I also dropped an inch in my waist size so all that extra weight is going to the right places.  :)

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11568
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2018, 08:07:11 PM »
... the calculations for calories in food are based on 100-year-old science that's not very precise.

Anti Appeal to Antiquity?


Hmmm.... usually an appeal to antiquity is the opposite, a claim that something is true because it's old.

Hence, the "Anti", in that you appeared to be indicating not that it was true because it was old, but rather that it was imprecise because it was old (as opposed to simply imprecise because it was imprecise.)

Ahh, I missed the anti antiquity.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8614
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2018, 08:26:06 PM »
... The problem is not actually excess weight, that is a symptom of the problem. The problem is excess fat storage. There is nothing in the laws of physics or the clinical trials that you're alluding to that say excess calories go to fat storage. ...

Nothing in the laws of physics, no. Physics would not care if our bodies stored that energy as gasoline or dynamite. But that's not what our bodies do with excess energy. They store it as fat.

I agree with bachfiend on weighing: I can actually fluctuate two pounds from one day to the next, weighed first thing in the morning. On a successful diet I can lose half a pound a week. If I weigh myself just once a week and the days line up just wrong, the scale might tell me I've gained a pound and a half when in fact I've lost half a pound. So I weigh myself every day, then I discard the highest and lowest numbers and average the rest. It's that weekly average I care about. When I'm not actively dieting, I weigh myself daily, and I guesstimate an average by eyeball.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think weight is all that important. I probably weigh 10 lbs more after I started to exercise but I also dropped an inch in my waist size so all that extra weight is going to the right places.  :)

You are correct that weight is not the critical point. Fat is. But this is merely linguistics. We say "overweight" when we mean overfat. If you are a bodybuilder you will gain lean weight and that's actually healthy. Most Americans do not gain lean body mass in adulthood. I lift some weights as part of my overall fitness program, but the intensity of my lifting is far short of anything that would build a measurable amount of muscle mass. I'm just maintaining muscle tone as I age. So for me, changes in my weight are a very good proxy for changes in my fat mass.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11568
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2018, 08:56:42 PM »
... The problem is not actually excess weight, that is a symptom of the problem. The problem is excess fat storage. There is nothing in the laws of physics or the clinical trials that you're alluding to that say excess calories go to fat storage. ...

Nothing in the laws of physics, no. Physics would not care if our bodies stored that energy as gasoline or dynamite. But that's not what our bodies do with excess energy. They store it as fat.

No. That's not what the body does with excess energy. That's what the body does with circulating free fatty acids only when insulin is present.

The process of fat storage is regulated by insulin. When insulin is high, more fat is stored and stored fat is inhibited from breaking down into FFAs. When insulin is low, FFAs are not easily transported into cells and triglycerides in cell can easily breakdown.

Energy comes in several forms (glucose; protein; fat; alcohol). Excess energy can come in any combination of those.

If excess energy is fat and glucose (mostly from carbs in diet) then insulin rises and FFAs are transported into fat cells, where they form triglycerides and stored. 

If the excess energy is fat, and glucose is low, insulin will be low, and the excess energy will not be stored as fat. The body will burn it; hunger will decrease; the body may build more lean tissue.

"Excess energy" doesn't magically land as fat in fat cells. There has to be a mechanism. The mechanisms for insulin regulation of fat storage are well documented and well understood. There is no other mechanism for excess energy to be stored as fat.


Quote

I agree with bachfiend on weighing: I can actually fluctuate two pounds from one day to the next, weighed first thing in the morning. On a successful diet I can lose half a pound a week. If I weigh myself just once a week and the days line up just wrong, the scale might tell me I've gained a pound and a half when in fact I've lost half a pound. So I weigh myself every day, then I discard the highest and lowest numbers and average the rest. It's that weekly average I care about. When I'm not actively dieting, I weigh myself daily, and I guesstimate an average by eyeball.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't think weight is all that important. I probably weigh 10 lbs more after I started to exercise but I also dropped an inch in my waist size so all that extra weight is going to the right places.  :)

You are correct that weight is not the critical point. Fat is. But this is merely linguistics. We say "overweight" when we mean overfat. If you are a bodybuilder you will gain lean weight and that's actually healthy. Most Americans do not gain lean body mass in adulthood. I lift some weights as part of my overall fitness program, but the intensity of my lifting is far short of anything that would build a measurable amount of muscle mass. I'm just maintaining muscle tone as I age. So for me, changes in my weight are a very good proxy for changes in my fat mass.

Weight is a symptom of "overfat " as you put it. But it's not the same and it's more than linguistics and it's an issue that impacts everyone, not just aging adults.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2018, 09:11:26 PM »
If the excess energy is fat, and glucose is low, insulin will be low, and the excess energy will not be stored as fat. The body will burn it; hunger will decrease; the body may build more lean tissue.

"Excess energy" doesn't magically land as fat in fat cells. There has to be a mechanism. The mechanisms for insulin regulation of fat storage are well documented and well understood. There is no other mechanism for excess energy to be stored as fat.

So what you're saying is if I eat high fat diet in excess of my energy requirements I'll not put on excess adipose tissue but rather gain muscle and burn off the rest without any additional effort. Hmmm.

Offline rrsafety

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2018, 09:13:09 PM »
You know last year Steve did an online debate with someone on a different topic.
I would love to see him do that on this topic.
Gary Taubes
I agree. I would like to see a discussion with Taubes, doesn't need to be in a debate format though.
I find Steve gets defensive on the issue of Low Carb but it is odd because it doesn't seem he should have that much of a dog in that fight.
I always laugh when people say "low fat or low carb, either works" without acknowledging that just five years ago such ideas were heretical in most areas of public health and dietician circles.  To not give credit to the "low carbers" for pushing back against fifty years of faulty advice from "experts" is, I think, unfair.
Also, I think the science will ultimately show that 200 extra calories a day from eating candy will lead to more weight gain than 200 extra calories a day from almonds. The data might not be there yet but I think someday it will be.

Offline fred.slota

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #43 on: March 06, 2018, 09:20:22 PM »
I'm having trouble coming up with a proper metaphor...  but I think I've determined the your alternate identity, C-Sharky.  You said the magic word, "insulin".  Ah, I missed this...

Good times, good times...

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11568
Re: Episode #660
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2018, 10:22:31 PM »
If the excess energy is fat, and glucose is low, insulin will be low, and the excess energy will not be stored as fat. The body will burn it; hunger will decrease; the body may build more lean tissue.

"Excess energy" doesn't magically land as fat in fat cells. There has to be a mechanism. The mechanisms for insulin regulation of fat storage are well documented and well understood. There is no other mechanism for excess energy to be stored as fat.

So what you're saying is if I eat high fat diet in excess of my energy requirements I'll not put on excess adipose tissue but rather gain muscle and burn off the rest without any additional effort. Hmmm.

I'm saying that I don't know. That specific scenario hasn't been studied in humans. The only way to study that would be to have humans eat beyond satiety on a high fat, low carb, moderate protein ketogenic diet.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

 

personate-rain