Re: Regulation of Fatty Acid Metabolism

From: Dunne E. Dawe (never_at_never.again)
Date: 11/14/04 

Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:43:49 +0800

On 10 Nov 2004 07:11:29 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) posted:

>Daniel <daniel_r@email.it> wrote in message news:<YPakd.31730$B06.10547@news.edisontel.com>...
>> tcomeau wrote:
>> > Daniel <daniel_r@email.it> wrote in message news:<u3xjd.31258$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?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, but you can restrict refined carbs or not consume them at all and
>> still consume a diet that it's not low carb
>> So, if you say that refined carbs are bads you're right
>> If you say that restricting refined carbs is the solution you're right
>
>Yep, you are right. I should always specify refined and high-GI carbs.
>But it does not detract from the fact that for generations now we've
>been told to specifically restrict either fats or calories. All fats
>and all calories. And my main point is that the
>fat-caloire-restriction diets have failed and we need to pay more
>attention to the carb aspect of our diet, and I do mean the refined
>and high-GI carbs.

Calorie restriction (below expenditure) is all you have to do to lose
weight. Nothing else will do it short of amputation. One really should
reduce all calories, including carbs. Fats are easy to reduce and thus
cut considerable calorie intake.
One should avoid refined foods wherever possible, regardless of
whether one is trying to lose weight or not.

>> If you say that the only to restrict refined carbs is to follow a low
>> carb diet, you're wrong
>>
>
>One does not have to be "on a diet" or "on a low carb diet" to
>restrict carbs.

That is nonsense. Restricting any dietary input is regarded as a
"diet". Meaning something different from the usual fare.
Why on earth pick on carbs? You get much more "reduction for effort"
by cutting empty fats, and you won't even notice it, as they provide
no needed nutrition except calories (energy) and no satiety to speak
of. And then there are the dangerous fats.

> I've restricted carbs for four years.

So what? I've stood on my head for five minutes :=)

>I can not say
>that I am on diat "a" or diet "b" but my diet is low carb.

Your last five words say it all.

>This is not
>a matter of being "on a diet" it is changing the way you eat.

Restricting a valuable (to most people) group of foods?
Have you got some peculiar problem that would mean you should avoid
carbs? If so, you are on the right track, but that is not the case for
normal folk.

>> >>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?
>> >
>>
>> But you keep saying that "it's the carbs" while you're admitting that
>> "it's the refined carbs"
>> To me this makes a substantial different and I really don't understand
>> why you keep ignoring the difference between refined carbs and unrefined
>> carbs in your statements
>>
>
>Yes, it is the carbs, and not fat, that matters.

When are you going to realise that it is calories that matter? There
is NO way that you can eat more calories than you expend and lose
weight. You are either fooling yourself, or someone is.

>That is my point. The
>argument is based on the fact that the mainstream has insisted that
>the only way to maintain weight is to restrict fat and eat more carbs,

Since when? I've only seen the advice to reduce calories. Of course,
if you substitute 500 gm of fat for 500 g of carb, you will be losing
2500 calories of energy by this simple move (equivalent to a loss of
280 g of fat)

>my argument makes a point diametrically opposed to that concept. Hence
>my general reference to carbs.

Yet you have zero evidence for this arbitrary discrimination?

>If you omit or restrict refined and high-GI carb foods, it becomes
>difficult to eat a lot of carbs.

Yet several BILLION Asians manage to eat 70% of their diet as carb and
enjoy perfect health? Where is this difficulty?

>If you do not restrict refined and
>high-GI carbs it is difficult to not eat too many carbs.

Total nonsense. Just look at the food tables and see for instance, how
easily fatty foods will take you way over 2000 calories per day.
The only way to eat too much of anything is to choose to eat too much
of anything. Everything must be restricted to no more than needed
calories, in order to maintain weight.

>> >>Now insulin levels and carbs amount are not linked together
>> >
>> >
>> > Bull***.
>>
>> If you eat carbohydrates that because of high fiber intake doesn't
>> result in a sugar spike because the absorption is low, you don't get
>> high insulin level despite the meal being high GL
>> The Insulin Score was ideated because the author of the GI found that
>> there were no direct correlation between GI + GL and insulin secretion
>>
>
>Agreed.

Good. At last :-)

>> >>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.
>>
>> It was beaf, not lean beaf; so fat was there
>>
>
>I've not seen the evidence that showed such an insulin spike from
>beef. Until then it is anecdotal evidence. And whether it is a fatty
>piece of beef or lean is speculation.

But you said you'd seen the insulin index chart I referred to.
Did you not understand it?

>> >>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, 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.
>>
>> No, it's primarily refined carbs
>> When I know that a pathological condition is caused by trans fats I say
>> "the cause is trans fats" and not "the cause is fats"
>> So, if you don't want to be like the "fats-bashers" people you hate you
>> should say "the cause is refined carbs" and not "the cause is carbs" or
>> you're in the same position of those who demonize fats without realizing
>> the importance of EFA
>>
>
>Again, my reference to carbs in general is in the context that the
>mainstream insists that carbs have little or no role to play in
>obesity.

Calories do. The sooner you realise this the sooner you can stop being
so confused.

>They insist that it is calories and they then use the logic
>that fat is twice the calories as carbs therfore restricting fat is
>the way to go.

Fat reduction is an easy way to help in reducing many calories.
Whatever you eat, you MUST reduce calorie intake below calorie
expenditure to lose weight.

>It is the carbs, albeit refined and high-GI carbs.

What is? You have no evidence of this world-changing claim. Why do you
keep banging your head against this wall?
It seems to me that you either have a religious conviction, or you are
trying to sell something.

>> > Studies have shown that we eat
>> > about 10% less fat calories and about 10% more carbs calories. 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.
>>
>> We eat 10% more sugar calories
>> Sweets, chocolates, syrup, sodas, sugared cereals, snacks
>> if you look at the data you can see that total caloric consumption is
>> raised because of higher refined sugar consumption
>> Now, I would call refined white sugar a carbohydrates
>> It needs a special category on its own: white poison

>The calories thing still is not a practical predictor of weight gain
>or loss.

When are you going to see the light? There is NO other indicator of
energy balance. Energy is measured in calories. Energy balance MUST be
crucial to energy storage/utilisation.

>Counting carbs is much more practical in predicting weight
>gain or loss, it is just more accurate.

So can you eat NO carbs, and lose weight furiously on a 3000 calorie
input? You do agree that the conservation of energy law is always
upheld, I asume. Could you then tell us what you think happens to
every one of these 3000 calories?

>I agree with your sentiments on the white poison. The hint is in the
>fact that no bug or bacteria will consume it. It has a super long
>shelf life because of this fact.

That is total emotive nonsense for those who haven't got a clue about
simple chemistry. Have you not heard of osmotic pressure?

>> > No fairy tale here, except for the fools who hang onto the "fat is
>> > evil" bull***.
>>
>> Any "whatever macronutriet" is evil is bull***
>> This is not a "battle" of percentage but a battle of quality
>> We should focus more on the quality of macronutrients without demonizing
>> the healthy exponents of each of them

>The fact is that I can vary my carb intake and see direct weight
>change results within a couple of days.

And you know it is fat that varies? If not, you are wasting your time.
Only fatty tissue reduction brings the health benefits you are
seeking.

>Try it. Cut out carbs, ala
>atkins induction, and increase your fat intake, and within a couple of
>days you will start to lose weight. Or eat nothing but carbs,
>including pasta and bread, and restrict fat, for a few days, and you
>will immediately start putting on weight.

And what do you think this weight consists of?

>Anyone who has changed their diets to low carb has experienced the
>above when they may be travelling or at christmas or some other time,
>when carbs are plentiful. They will gain a few pounds when they load
>up on carbs. But by the end of the next week after a few days back to
>low carbing, they will quickly lose the few pounds.

As above. What is this weight? You don't seriously think is is fat
storage tissue, do you?

>For those of us who live low carb, it becomes patently obvious that
>carbs (yes, refined and high-GI/GL) are the true cause of obesity.

Nope, sorry, no evidence for this. Even though refined carbs should be
avoided (like all refined foods).

>> > And those foods contibute to the problem to some degree. But the worst
>> > if obviously refined carbs. Are you blind or just stupid. Talk about
>> > living in denial.
>>
>> The worst is surely refined carbs, I'm not denying this
>> I'm just saying that I don't find it honest when you first say "the
>> problem is refined carbohydrates" and then you lump everything together
>> and say "carbs is the problem"
>> Never forget the "refined" before the word carbs, please
>> I don't think it's okay to lump together corn syrup and pizza with
>> lentils or quinoa
>>
>
>I prefer the High-GI or high-GL carbs terminology. Regardless in the
>face of people arguaing that calories and high-calorie fats are the
>problem, I will respond with the general statement that they should
>look at the carbs.

Nope, the only success will be from looking at total calories.

>Remember, if you remove the high-GI and high-GL carbs from the diet,
>it becomes virtually impossible to eat enough carbs to gain weight.

Utter nonsense! Please look at any food table. Look at the Mendosa
GI/GL tables for a start.

>There is a real difference in carb density between the refined and
>high-GI carbs and what I refer to as the good whole food carbs.

Between rolled oats and white flour?
Between wholegrain bread and white unfortified bread?

>It
>only makes sense that if you restrict carbs, you restrict the refined
>and high-density carbs and enjoy the low-carb-density and high
>nutrition whole food carbs.

Nonsense, see above. I don't eat high GI/GL carbs, and yet my diet is
high in carbohydrate energy. It can easily be done, without even
thinking about it.

>But going into this much detail is not my goal when I say it's the
>carbs.

You prefer to be just misleading and misrepresenting the broad issues?

>I am simply saying don't fixate on calories and fats, start
>thinking about the carbs.

And you will not succeed in losing weight unless you think about ALL
calories. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, so far as energy
balance goes.

>> >>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.
>>
>> You're right
>> But maybe you should focus more on the context of this group, made of
>> more or less knowledgeable people that know the difference between the
>> two things
>
>I assume that they know the difference.

So why do you confound the two? Sugar and white flour are surely not
to be confused with all carb containing foods, just as hydrogenated
oils are not to be confused with the fat/oil in whole grains, nuts and
other vegetable sources.

>If they don't then they have
>no business commenting on the topic.

Yet you are the one saying "carbs must be restricted" when you now
seem to mean that "refined carbs should be restricted"? And even when
this is easily shown to be flawed?

ALL refined food should be restricted.

>But I do understand your point regarding low and high density carbs.

I don't. Please explain. What is low density about rolled oats
porridge and whole grain bread? And incidentally, many of the
manufactured breakfast cereals.

We are overeating energy. We must restrict energy. This is easlily
done by restricting refined fats and carbs. End of story.

Quantcast