|
|
| Author |
Message |
Mr-Natural-Health
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1807
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject:
Re: Eating too much fat?
|
|
|
X-No-Archive:yes
TC wrote:
| Quote: | Ron Peterson wrote:
TC wrote:
Ron Peterson wrote:
Carbohydrates end up in the blood stream as glucose and if the levels
are high enough gets converted to glycogen and stored in the liver. The
liver can't grow very large, so there isn't much weight gain from
glycogen storage.
And if the bg levels are high enough, the pancreas has to kick out
massive amounts of insulin which triggers all the fat cells of the body
to store fats. The body has a limited capacity to store excess
carbohydrates, but it can easily convert those excess carbohydrates
into excess body fat.
The website http://www.howstuffworks.com/fat-cell.htm explains the
process in detail.
It states: "On the other hand, if you have 100 extra calories in
glucose (about 25 grams) floating in your bloodstream, it takes 23
calories of energy to convert the glucose into fat and then store it.
Given a choice, a fat cell will grab the fat and store it rather than
the carbohydrates because fat is so much easier to store."
Website http://www.essentialfats.com/efats1.htm states: "Since the body
cannot make EFAs, we must consume them as part of our diets. This is
not true of other types of fat, because the body can easily convert
carbohydrates and protein to saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and
monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), but not to polyunsaturated fatty
acids (PUFAs)."
I think that it might pay to keep ones carbohydrate calories below that
normally consumed in a day to prevent the conversion to saturated fats.
--
Ron
I don't want some pathetic grade school over-simplified explanation. I
want the science. Either and university textbook reference or a
scientific treatise or study that explains it in depth. The real deal.
Actual science. The actual bio-chemical complex processes that take
place. You know, the stuff that they use to teach our advanced degreed
medical people.
TC
|
????
That has got to be the most moronic comment that I have heard in a long
time.
TC, you are nothing, but a total buffoon who doesn't have a clue as to
what he is talking about. So, I am supposed to be all embarrassed by
this stupid reply of yours? And, waste more of my time pointing out
what should be painfully obviously to anybody half-way knowledgeable
about the subject? No, I do NOT think so. :)
So, in order to STOP wasting even more of my time cleaning up your dog
do-do; this reply of mine will henceforth be the ONLY one that you will
ever get out of me.
Get a life, and take a hike. And, I do NOT mind saying so.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Doug Freese
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 261
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject:
Re: Eating too much fat?
|
|
|
"TC" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152543476.940691.96930@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | I don't want some pathetic grade school over-simplified explanation. I
want the science. Either and university textbook reference or a
scientific treatise or study that explains it in depth. The real deal.
Actual science. The actual bio-chemical complex processes that take
place. You know, the stuff that they use to teach our advanced degreed
medical people.
|
Why ask? Anytime you are shown to be a quack you hide behind the
conspiracy curtain. Nice curtain your never wrong.
-DF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug Freese
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 261
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Eating too much fat?
|
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1152554813.765243.210770@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
TC wrote:
Find it and post it.
I don't see why I have to do anything. I'm not making any
extraordinary
claim.
The problem is not in the people applying the theory, it is in the
caloric balance theory itself. It is smoke and mirrors.
Where is your evidence. You seem to be saying that calories may be
consumed without being burned, excreted, or stored.
|
He sure does believe that and even when you do the homework that shows
he is out to lunch he claims the person or persons are bought and paid
for by some evil group. You can not reason a conspiracy whacko.
-DF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TC
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1814
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:11 am Post subject:
Re: Eating too much fat?
|
|
|
Doug Freese wrote:
| Quote: | "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1152554813.765243.210770@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
TC wrote:
Find it and post it.
I don't see why I have to do anything. I'm not making any
extraordinary
claim.
The problem is not in the people applying the theory, it is in the
caloric balance theory itself. It is smoke and mirrors.
Where is your evidence. You seem to be saying that calories may be
consumed without being burned, excreted, or stored.
He sure does believe that and even when you do the homework that shows
he is out to lunch he claims the person or persons are bought and paid
for by some evil group. You can not reason a conspiracy whacko.
-DF
|
They are either "burned", excreted or stored. Certainly. And some
advanced degree egghead with big round eyeglasses and a slide rule will
do the calculations and pronounce the results with great authority. And
maybe the big rooster will, in fact, find himself in the garbage can.
But the vast majority of people who do the calculations, some with
great precision and dedication, will fail to succeed in losing more
than a few pounds and then promptly regain it all, and then some,
quickly after backing off just a bit on the whole exercise.
Calories are measures of energy and they can be measured in a
calorimeter. They are a real and measurable entity. But "they" have no
actually known way of actually impacting the body in such a way as to
actually trigger fat storage or fat loss. There exists a wide chasm of
disconnect between the theory and the reality.
The energy certainly has to be accounted for in the end, and I am sure
that in the wider scheme of things it is, but not quite in the precise
way you would like to think. And not with the constant and direct
linear relationship that the calorie balance theory suggests. There are
factors that the theory conveniently ignores and tries to rationalise,
and the rationalization usually involves blaming the poor sap who is
genuinely trying to make it work in the real world where there is a
better than 95% failure rate.
If we talk about carbs we go from A to B to C. A being elevated blood
glucose levels, B being a constant chronic boost in insulin production
and C is the insulin triggering the cells to use as much of the sugar
as possible to create and store fat. And we can go into excruciating
details about all the bio-chemical cascades, the blood sugar values
increasing to unusually high levels over time then decreasing over
time, the hormonal balance between insulin and glucagon, the insulin
receptors, the atp, the formation of fat in the cells, etc, etc etc.
Any basic bio-chemistry textbook will tell you all they know about the
endocrine system and how it is impacted by carbs and how it triggers
hormonal fluctuations which in turn causes fat storage.
If we talk about calories we should go from A to B to C, but all we
have is A - we eat more calories (usually fats) the B - something
happens and C - we gain weight.
We assume a clear and specific constantly linear mathematical
equivalent between caloric balance and weight gain or loss. Yet all the
real world evidence seems to contradict it. We north americans, as a
people, have increased our carb consumption by about 12% since the 70's
and decreased our fat consumption by about 10%, just as we were advised
to do to maintain weight and good health. If you do the math that
should net out to less overall calories.
Yet we have NEVER been more obese or more sick. However you look at it,
the caloric balance approach to weight and health management has
failed.
Now, you may dispute the last two paragraphs, or at least the second
last paragraph above, but if you are going to prove that the caloric
balance theory is 100% mathematically valid, you will actually have to
flesh out how exactly it works in the human body. Start at the
beginning. The calories are consumed and the body knows it has excess
calories to manage, how does it know that exactly, and what does it do
to deal with it? Blood sugars? Hormones? Receptor? Thermometers?
Switches? Transistors? Feedback loops?
Do we know anything at all about the biological mechanism that
supposedly exists within that mysterious and mystical black box of the
caloric balance theory other than "cause I said so"?
TC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:13 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Mortgage Calculator | Song Lyrics | Loans | Remortgaging | Mobile Phones
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
nutrition
