4 ms·

> Energy balance is the physics of biochemistry; there is no arguing away the laws of thermodynamics. If you get heavier, it's because you consumed more energy

> Energy balance is the physics of biochemistry; there is no arguing away the laws of thermodynamics. If you get heavier, it's because you consumed more energy than you used over a period of time. There is no other way to gain or lose weight* (no matter the proportion of muscle/fat that's gained or lost). I'm not claiming that the body can somehow defy the laws of thermodynamics. Obviously to become "heavier" one must consume more energy than one expends, but to lose fat -- specifically fat, not muscle tissue or bone or water -- the question is this: how important is the role of hormones in fat regulation? Does an increased insulin load, coupled with insulin resistance caused by long-term exposure to chronically high insulin levels, promote greater fat storage? And does this greater mass of fat, which itself is a hormonally active organ, affect the body in a way that results in illness and further weight gain? Would an endocrinologist tell a diabetic that macronutrient content doesn't matter? Should we give that same advice to people with metabolic syndrome or those who are at risk of developing it? If insulin resistance is the primary cause of Type 2 Diabetes, and insulin is the primary hormone involved in fat storage -- both non-controversial statements -- then wouldn't it make sense for those at risk of developing T2DM to eat foods that produced a minimal insulin response? Read Taubes's thought experiment I linked above. If you're willing to make nutrition texts bedtime reading, then you will at least find it interesting, even if you disagree with it. Though Taubes is not a scientist and he doesn't claim to be, he does make a compelling argument. > Don't pull out the "a simple failure of willpower" straw man; I never claimed that. It wasn't intended to target you specifically, but this attitude is pervasive, even among medical professionals. There are people out there who would much rather believe that every obese patient is just a lazy glutton who can't control himself. I know a few of these people myself, one of whom is a prominent oncologist. Science requires that we put aside our biases and assumptions. > Hormones play a HUGE role in metabolism. My bedtime reading is how the chemical reactions they drive fit into human metabolism. you're comment seems to make them out to be "magical", which I suspect is due to your ignorance of them. I'm not claiming hormones are magical. I am merely suggesting that their known role in fat regulation might also play a critical role in obesity. It's been a while since I studied the topic in any great depth, so I can't compete with your bedtime reading, and I don't want to link spam, so I'm keeping it simple. Anyway, I believe the science will eventually shed some light on this issue. There are clinical trials in the planning stages right now, so hopefully we won't have long to wait.

jp555 13y ago
> Does an increased insulin load, coupled with insulin resistance caused by long-term exposure to chronically high insulin levels, promote greater fat storage? > And does this greater mass of fat, which itself is a hormonally active organ, affect the body in a way that results in illness and further weight gain? These are very good questions. Here's what I know (caveat it may not be complete, but I am confident it is accurate): 1: Hmm, chronically high insulin levels is caused by chronically eating too much. Beef spikes insulin just as much as table sugar (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&...). So I would say the problem of "chronically high insulin levels" is a problem of eating too much food, not too much sugar. 2: This is a hugely interesting area of thinking for me. Which fat though? White or brown adipose tissue? Brown fat is darker in colour due to it's huge cellular density of mitochondria when compared to white adipose tissue. It's essential fat-buringing fat, and plays a role in regulating temperature. It basically burns fat to warm us up when we're cold. This is why Michael Phelps can eat 10 million calories a day. 6 hours a day in water requires allocating a LOT of calories to maintain core body temp. We have learned SO much about fat tissue recently, but I don't think we have all the answers yet. I noticed this red-flag from the thought-experiment: > We know the liver will turn some of this fructose into fat and if the fructose is delivered quickly Yep, but less than 1% is converted into fat (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/89 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/89), and this is in a state of caloric surplus. The thought-experiment method is for the subjects to eat calories to match their TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), so it's much more likely that none of this fructose will be converted into fat, it's more likely to completely converted into glucose by the liver. > Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument. the sugar in A’s diet causes A to become insulin resistant. And second, insulin works to put fat in fat tissue. I would say both assumptions are fallacious. Eating @ TDEE means 100% of the food energy is used up, and fat cannot be made from nothing. More sugar in this case does not cause insulin resistance, beef stimulates insulin release into the blood just as much as sugar does, so one can't isolate a single macronutrient like that. Also, the "insulin works to put fat in fat tissue" is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst, depending on how you interpret it. Insulin works to move nutrients into cells. More insulin in the blood is a signal there is food calories available, so insulin also stops fat cells from releasing their fat. This makes total sense; why dip into your savings when you just got a fist full of cash? The point where your body transitions towards fat storage is the point where your energy intake exceed energy expenditure; again just simply eating less solves this. My statements are all for average healthy people. I totally agree metabolic-syndromes like diabetes should be treated differently. But the VAST majority of people are fat because they sustain consuming more energy than they use. The micro-variables like how stressed you are (and therefor how much cortisol hormone is present) matter, but nothing gets diet-induced hormones working as they should better (in healthy people) by just eating food-energy (whatever the macros) to match your activity over the long run.

jp555 13y ago

> Does an increased insulin load, coupled with insulin resistance caused by long-term exposure to chronically high insulin levels, promote greater fat storage? > And does this greater mass of fat, which itself is a hormonally active organ, affect the body in a way that results in illness and further weight gain? These are very good questions. Here's what I know (caveat it may not be complete, but I am confident it is accurate): 1: Hmm, chronically high insulin levels is caused by chronically eating too much. Beef spikes insulin just as much as table sugar (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf#page=1&...). So I would say the problem of "chronically high insulin levels" is a problem of eating too much food, not too much sugar. 2: This is a hugely interesting area of thinking for me. Which fat though? White or brown adipose tissue? Brown fat is darker in colour due to it's huge cellular density of mitochondria when compared to white adipose tissue. It's essential fat-buringing fat, and plays a role in regulating temperature. It basically burns fat to warm us up when we're cold. This is why Michael Phelps can eat 10 million calories a day. 6 hours a day in water requires allocating a LOT of calories to maintain core body temp. We have learned SO much about fat tissue recently, but I don't think we have all the answers yet. I noticed this red-flag from the thought-experiment: > We know the liver will turn some of this fructose into fat and if the fructose is delivered quickly Yep, but less than 1% is converted into fat (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/89 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/89), and this is in a state of caloric surplus. The thought-experiment method is for the subjects to eat calories to match their TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure), so it's much more likely that none of this fructose will be converted into fat, it's more likely to completely converted into glucose by the liver. > Let’s assume two things for the sake of argument. the sugar in A’s diet causes A to become insulin resistant. And second, insulin works to put fat in fat tissue. I would say both assumptions are fallacious. Eating @ TDEE means 100% of the food energy is used up, and fat cannot be made from nothing. More sugar in this case does not cause insulin resistance, beef stimulates insulin release into the blood just as much as sugar does, so one can't isolate a single macronutrient like that. Also, the "insulin works to put fat in fat tissue" is misleading at best and completely wrong at worst, depending on how you interpret it. Insulin works to move nutrients into cells. More insulin in the blood is a signal there is food calories available, so insulin also stops fat cells from releasing their fat. This makes total sense; why dip into your savings when you just got a fist full of cash? The point where your body transitions towards fat storage is the point where your energy intake exceed energy expenditure; again just simply eating less solves this. My statements are all for average healthy people. I totally agree metabolic-syndromes like diabetes should be treated differently. But the VAST majority of people are fat because they sustain consuming more energy than they use. The micro-variables like how stressed you are (and therefor how much cortisol hormone is present) matter, but nothing gets diet-induced hormones working as they should better (in healthy people) by just eating food-energy (whatever the macros) to match your activity over the long run.