Re: Regulation of Fatty Acid Metabolism

From: Dunne E. Dawe (never_at_never.again)
Date: 11/11/04 

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:25:50 +0800

On 9 Nov 2004 11:41:00 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:

>Dunne E. Dawe <never@never.again> wrote in message news:<6pp0p05rk6vautj09gtpe9jaoucpueelpu@4ax.com>...
>> On 8 Nov 2004 06:54:09 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:
>>
>> >Daniel <daniel_r@email.it> wrote in message news:<u3xjd.31258$B06.25042@news.edisontel.com>...
>> >> > too many refined carbs in the diet = high blood glucose concentrations
>> >> > = higher insulin secretions = fatty acid synthesis = obesity
>> >> >
>> >> > low carb diet = lower blood glucose concentrations = higher glucagon
>> >> > secretions = fatty acid oxidation = no obesity
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Now, why you first says "too many refined carbs" and as its contrary
>> >> "low carb diet"
>> >> If the problem is too many refined carbs, the solution is not low carb
>> >> per se but low refined carbs
>> >
>> >Guess what a low carb diet does. It restricts refined and high-GI-load
>> >carbs. But you knew that right?
>>
>> Well, yes, but why restrict an excellent food source when you are
>> trying to restrict only a small subset of that food group?
>> Baby with the bathwater come immediately to mind.
>>
>
>An excellent food source does not make you fat and sick, carbs do.

They certainly do not, as several billion healthy Asians on 70% carb
diets will attest.

>If
>you fail to see that then you are not very perceptive.

Who can't see all those healthy human beings?
Who is apparently not very perceptive?

>> >> You can get a sugar spike only with high GI refined carbs
>> >> But if you eat lentils, quinoa, buckwheat, broad beans and so on you're
>> >> eating CARBS but they don't have the same adverse effects of refined carbs
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It is the freakin' hormones, not the damned calories.
>> >> >
>> >> > It ain't the fat, it's the carbs.
>> >>
>> >> No,
>> >> it ain't the fat, it's anything who raise insulin levels
>> >>
>> >
>> >Which is primarily refined and high-GI-load carbs, but you knew that
>> >right?
>>
>> No, a good steak will raise insulin more. You knew that, did you? :-)
>>
>
>Do you have any evidence of that? Didn't think so. Meat in general may
>contain on the neighborhood of 50 to 6% carbs, but they are not high
>GI carbs, they get metabolised slower than refined carbs. If you have
>proof otherwise, you may want to share that with us.

My link is dead, but you apparently have not seen that insulin index
chart? I'm sure you could find it. The insulin spike is nothing to do
with any trace of carbohydrate in a steak. It's the protein!

Found it, Mendosa now has it. http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm

What was that you said? Didn't think? :-)
You will notice that beef has a higher score than white pasta!

>> >> Now insulin levels and carbs amount are not linked together
>> >
>> >Bull***.
>>
>> Have you seen that chart showing insulin response to many foods?
>> Perhaps not.
>>
>
>Yes I have, have you?

So why did you not understand it?
I've pasted the link above because what you have been saying leads me
to believe that you have no idea what it is about.

>> >> As a matter of fact eating beef results in the higher insulin secretion
>> >> possible
>> >
>> >Not in the presence of fat. A fatty piece of meat will not spike
>> >insulin like a straight shot of flavored sugar-water.
>>
>> Sorry, are you recommending eating fatty steak and flavoured sugar
>> water? I thought advice was to avoid both. Now a lean steak has all
>> the fat you could ever want. It "spikes" insulin somewhat more than
>> many other foods including carb containing ones.
>>
>
>Can you not read english? I am suggesting a fatty steak without the
>flavoured sugar water. And you haven't provided any evidence to
>support your contention that steak spikes insulin more than refined
>carbs.

Well I have now, and I'm surprised you need it, as you claimed you'd
seen it, and impertinently asked whether I'd seen it.
Remember my warning about always looking foolish?

>> >> So this is the problem, you believe that only carbs can raise insulin
>> >> levels but this is just a simplistic fairy tales
>> >
>> >I never said that only carbs can raise insulin. But in a world where
>> >children eat flavored, colored, extruded corn starch called ready to
>> >eat cereals every morning,
>>
>> Do they? Some do I'm sure, but no-one recommends this.
>> So what is your point? Some folk ignore good advice?
>> Well, what else is new? :-)

>The US govt recommends up to 25% sugar in the diet.

So?
Many folk would eat this.
I do, and I NEVER eat refined cane sugar.

>And they fixate on
>fats while conveniently downplaying the role of refined carbs in
>obesity and obesity related disease, not unlike your leanings in these
>discussions.

Sorry, I see them advise AGAINST refined foods.
Fats are way overdone in modern diets. Margerine is something that is
totally unnecessary in my opinion. Fats have lots more energy than any
other food, and as energy is what we eat too much of and what causes
the huge bulk of our dietary problems, it should be reduced, along
with other high energy refined foods like sugar and white flour (to
considerable extent).

>> > then eat candy all day and drink gallons of
>> >soda every day and their parents take the lazy way out and cook tons
>> >of white refined flour pasta and feed them pizzas with inch thick
>> >white flour crusts, or take them to a fast food restaurant feed them
>> >supersized fries and drinks, it becomes very clear what the excess
>> >food is and it is primarily carbs.
>>
>> An awful lot of fat, too, but that is just crazy eating and is not
>> recommended by any authority I've seen.
>
>Pork fat rules.

That is a singularly silly thing to say, isn't it?
It is empty calories with more than twice the energy content of most
other foods.

>Fats protect b cells.

 Beta cells do just fine with 15% of your diet as fats from
wholefoods. Beta cells do fine if you don't overdo the calories

>Fat satiates.

Professor Jenny Brand-Miller (GI) looked at this scientifically and
found it was not the case. Proteins are more satiating than most, but
the most satiating food is mashed potato. Go figure!

http://www.diabetesnet.com/diabetes_food_diet/satiety_index.php

>Fat is needed for
>many bodily processes.

Like what? It is an energy store. There are a few essential fatty
acids that are well supplied with by a feed of fish or a handful of
nuts.
That is nothing to do with the macronutrient fat, that you are talking
about here.

>Good healthy fats from healthy animals is very
>healthy.

If you need the energy, I agree, but if energy is what you have too
much of, then you can dispense with eating much of these empty
calories.

>> Now just because some folk in some countries eat very badly, doesn't
>> mean that they should avoid perfectly fine foods just because they
>> might have some of the constituents in this poor but excessive diet
>> you describe.
>
>Perfectly healthy foods like what?

Whole grains in just about any form. Fruits, vegetables, nuts, can't
think of any others at the moment.

>Refined wheat pasta, refined wheat
>bread, refined high fructose corn syrup in sodas.

No, they are the foods to be avoided. Have you not been paying
attention? Those few foods are just a tiny group of
"should-be-avoided" carb foods. There are millions of very healthy
others. Open your eyes at the supermarket, please.

>They are neither
>fine nor healthy and are completely unnecessary in our diets.

I agree. Just like most fat, especially refined, and the excess that
occurs in farmed animals and dairy. In Australia, kangaroo is very
healthy as it contains very little fat. Similarly, lean poultry.

>There is
>no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

And no such thing as an essential saturated fat, but so what? Once you
have your required small amount of amino acids, any extra protein is
non-essential as well. That is a rather meaningless term

>> >Studies have shown that we eat
>> >about 10% less fat calories and about 10% more carbs calories.
>>
>> Sorry, who do, and since when, and percentages of what? That statement
>> doesn't mean much as you've expressed it.
>>
>
>People, in the western world, the US specifically, today eat 10% less
>fats than they did 30 years ago, and they eat about 10% more carbs
>than they did 30 years ago. With this trend away fron fats and towards
>more carbs we have become fatter and sicker. This is a fact. This is
>also a very simple concept. Work on it a while, eventually you will
>get your brain around it.

You forgot to tell me the increase in excess calories consumed. As I
tried to explain, that is the only important figure.
Then you failed to tell me percentage of what, as I asked.
Percentage of the calories consumed, or percentage of absolte calories
of fat and carb? You are still not giving us the full story.
Your impertinent comments are again making you look foolish.
You would do better to concentrate on the subject and leave the
insults to the airheads on this group.

>> >The
>> >shift has been towards carbs, and refined and high-GI-load carbs at
>> >that. And we are fatter and sicker than 30 years ago.
>>
>> And how many extra calories are we eating above what we expend?
>> That's the nub of the problem. We are eating more and doing less.
>> Reverse that and most of the health problems will be solved.
>>
>
>Not enough to explain the massive increase in obesity.

So how much? Do you actually know? Eating X calories extra is
different from eating X calories extra and doing Y calories less
effort. You did realise this, I hope.

>> >No fairy tale here, except for the fools who hang onto the "fat is
>> >evil" bull***.
>>
>> Some fats are certainly not desirable, as are some carbs not
>> desirable, (although none as poisonous as trans fats, I believe) but
>> it is difficult to get too little fat, and it is certainly a potent
>> energy containing food. If I needed to reduce calories, I would reduce
>> fat intake as a first and easy step. Of course no-one should eat much
>> refined food of any sort. Especially fat (refined) and carbs such as
>> refined sugar and starch.
>>
>
>The only fats that are unhealthy are the fake fats, the trans fats,
>margarine and shortening.

Trans fats occur naturally, I hope you realise.
Fats are fine for part of your energy source, if you need all the
energy they supply. As the problem with most westerners is too much
energy, is it not sensible to cut the intake of non-essential, empty
calories in fats as is so easy to do?

> And calories are besides the point, they are
>virtually irrelevant in weight management in humans.

Good grief! Have you learned nothing in the past few weeks?
Perhaps I shouldn't have bothered.
How can you possibly say that, when ALL the evidence from properly
measured studies say the opposite?

>The proof is in
>the failure of 98% of those attempting to lose weight by restricting
>calories.

Are you STILL confusing compliance with efficacy?

>> >> You hold the GI in great esteem, yet you don't give a damn about its
>> >> author pointing out and proving that a lot of low carb foods cause an
>> >> higher insulin secretions than many high carb foods
>>
>> >And those foods contibute to the problem to some degree.
>>
>> If you mean the obesity problem, then ALL foods contribute to this,
>> surely. If just the insulin spike, steak is one of the worst, that's
>> if this really is a problem, unless obesity ensues.
>>
>
>You will have to provide some real science to show the steak thing you
>keep referring to.

See above. I thought you claimed you had seen this? Perhaps you were
telling us a little porkie pie? And that's why you covered it with an
impertinent quip?

>> >But the worst
>> >if obviously refined carbs.
>>
>> Well not really. Refined carbs only have 4 calories in each gram of
>> the pure substance, whereas fats and oils have around 9 calories in
>> each gram. So on that basis fats are over two times as "worse" :-)
>>
>
>Calories mean nothing.

So you keep saying against everyone else in the world. Do you not see
that it is YOU who is out of step? Not the rest of the world as you
keep asserting?

> If they did, anyone wanting to lose weight
>would easily lose weight with a modicum of calorie-restricting effort.

Calorie restricting is NOT easy for most. Those who succeed, lose
weight. Those who cannot manage restricting their calories to below
expenditure, fail. I'm sure I've pointed this out to you previously. I
have a strong feeling of deja vu.

>But we all know that isn't true.

Sorry, that most can't manage the calorie restriction and so fail at
weight loss? Well, that is surely self-evident.

>> >Are you blind or just stupid. Talk about
>> >living in denial.
>>
>> Sorry, denial of what? You seem to assume that what you are saying
>> here is somehow unassailable. As you seem to be persistently confused
>> about energy balance, I wonder what gives you the right to be so
>> arrogant here.
>>
>
>It is unassailable, which is why I am scratching my head as to why you
>continue to argue the point.

And yet you cannot show any evidence for these patently silly
assertions of yours?

>You seem to be confused about calories
>meaning anything in spite of the hundred years of failure of the
>calorie theory.

Huh? Did my explanations not have any effect on your wooly thinking?
Where is this failure of the calorie theory? Can you cite ONE example
of where it has failed? I take it you mean the conservation of energy
law of thermodynamics?

>> >> So, saying that high insulin is the problem, it's not the same as saying
>> >> that carbohyrdrates are the problem
>> >
>> >It pretty much is in the context of what people are being fed today.
>>
>> In an institution for the incapable? People have free will. They can
>> choose what they eat. Of course, if folk choose to eat a bad diet, and
>> do little exercise as many do in America and Australia, then that is
>> their choice, but I don't think you can lay the blame at anyone else's
>> feet. Manufacturers make what people buy and eat, they don't make
>> stuff that no one wants.
>>
>
>Those who chose to eat refined carbs get fat.

Not true. Those who chose to eat TO MUCH get fat.
Eat too little (calories) of anything and lose weight.

>It is genetic.

What is? Getting fat? So someone who eats nothing can still get fat?
No? What about those who eat 500 calories per day?

>We did
>not evolve with refined carbs and trans fats. It is making us fat and
>sick.

We evolved to eat starvation rations. At tmes, all that early man
could get was almost pure starch (sago for instance) but early man ran
about from daylight to dusk and ate very little. Does this not tell
you something?

>> >> If low carbers don't begin realizing this fact, they won't even be taken
>> >> seriously... and this would be a pity since the low carb movement is the
>> >> first one that really pointed out the danger of refined carbs as well as
>> >> the importance of EFA in the diet
>> >>
>> >> Daniel
>> >
>> >They are being taken seriously for the simple fact that people who eat
>> >low carb lose their excess weight and keep it off and are healthier
>> >overall.
>>
>> That's not what the evidence says that I've seen. This worked for you
>> I assume, and so you extrapolate it to everyone else? I wonder why.
>>
>> There are plenty of terrible low carb diets, and plenty of excellent
>> high carb diets. It is not the carb, but the food that you eat on a
>> long term basis.
>
>Any low-carb diet will be healthier and more successful for weight
>loss than any high carb diet. There are now dozens of studies to back
>that up.

Well can you show me one? Are you saying that several billion Asians
who eat 70% of their energy as carb are NOT perfectly healthy?
They are all overweight?

>And the low carb diet is a way of life that can be easily adhered to
>long term, especially when compared to lo-cal starvation diets.

Not from some of the studies I've read. Lo carb diets are very
difficult to adhere to for many, as the non-compliance rate is the
same as any weight reduction diet (90 odd percent).
None of them are easy.

>I've
>been eating this way for 4 years now. Just got my lipids checked, they
>are bang on within normal.

And are you saying this actually means anything? There are several
billion Asians on 70% carbs with bang-on lipids. Go figure.

>I haven't had a cold in four years, no
>prescriptions in four years, lost 20 and kept it off, I haven't gone
>hungry for one day. I am eating more calories than when on low-cal and
>I still lost the weight and I'm keeping it off, easily. I am eating
>like a king and I love. My range of menu is huge compared to when I
>was restricting fat.

So it suits you. This has no bearing on your whacky assertions about
the calorie theory and carbs above. Humans can do well on many widely
different diets. You need a tiny amout of essential fatty acids, amino
acids and other essential micronutrients, and then a fair wack of
energy. That's it.

>The reality of food and obesity is very much different from your
>antiquated book-bound low-fat/low-calorie failed concepts that are
>rooted in the age of alchemy when it was believed that the human body
>was the same as a metal can with a flame at its core. Your adherance
>to such nonsense is actually kinda laughable.

Pardon? What is this "metal can"? Do you mean a bomb calorimeter?
Have you seen one? Do you know the principle? Can you describe why you
think it does not give accurate energy measurements of what is in
various food items tested in it?

Loading