Posted on 04/15/2013 8:13:06 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I see there are a lot of caveats and qualifiers to the belief that carbohydrates, and not total calories, is at the heart of obesity.
What is at the heart of obesity isn't always clear. But it is clear that it isn't calories.
Increased consumption and/or decreased activity is a consequence of a metabolic process that partitions energy into fat storage, just as increased consumption and/or decreased activity is a consequence of a metabolic process that partitions energy into skeletal growth or muscle development.
People don't get fat because they overeat, they overeat because their metabolism is storing excess fat.
Raised insulin levels aren't the only factor in that, but it is the most important, in most people. And dietary carbohydrates aren't the only determinant of insulin levels, but in most people it's the most significant.
People can and do eat carbs without getting fat and sick. But at any level of carb intake, there will be some who will. And the higher the level, the larger the proportion who'll have problems. Especially if the carbs are highly processed, quickly digestible, and lacking accompanying fat, protein, and fiber.
Japanese grade school kids are doing quite well on a diet of rice, steamed vegetables, and fish. Their older siblings are doing less well, as they gain the opportunity to eat processed junk food.
Nobody but nobody will do well on a diet of white bread, skim milk, and high fructose corn syrup. And that's what the various industry lobbyists have ensured are specifically not excluded from the dietary guidelines.
No, the cause of obesity is very clear. Obesity results from an imbalance between energy consumed in foods and energy burned by metabolic processes and physical activity. Michael Phelps, when he was in training, consumed up to 12,000 calories per day. He said his diet regularly included sugar covered French toast, chocolate chip pancakes, pizza, lots of white bread and plenty of those sugar loaded energy drinks. I don't think anyone would consider Phelps to be overweight or unhealthy.
The first law of thermodynamics says you can't get something from nothing. People who believe that there are good foods and bad foods, rather than just food, don't understand that you can feed someone nothing but white bread, chocolate flavored milk, and high fructose corn syrup, and they will not gain weight (and will actually lose weight) if they expend more energy than they consume.
People don't get fat because they overeat, they overeat because their metabolism is storing excess fat.
This is nonsense. Humans will burn burn fat, rather than store it, if the body is using more energy than it takes in. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial of the thermodynamic perspective.
If raised insulin levels were in some way responsible for obesity, then we'd be seeing all sorts of studies correlating caffeine consumption with obesity. I haven't seen any. But how is that possible when caffeine consumption causes an insulin response?
People can and do eat carbs without getting fat and sick. But at any level of carb intake, there will be some who will
So, for some people, the only way to be healthy is to avoid carbohydrates altogether? That's sure sounds like what you're saying. If so, that's just more nonsense that cannot be supported by sound science. The Japanese, and many other Asian nations, stand in stark contrast to this belief of yours as they continue to enjoy the world's highest life expectancy. All those people who worked on farms several generations ago that ate huge amounts of carbohydrates, while working 12 hours a day in the fields and never getting fat, also prove that this can't be true. I watched Michael Phelps in the Olympics and he didn't look unhealthy to me. I agree that there will always be people who rely far too much on one macronutrient in their diet rather than eating all of them in balance, and that they will probably be less healthy than those that do. No surprises there.
Japanese grade school kids, their older siblings, and their parents, all consume a diet high in high GI carbs. The Japanese are hardly an obese or physically sick society. They don't have as much protein in their diets as Americans, but I can't imagine anyone thinking they are sickly because they've relied on a high carbohydrate diet for thousands of years. Good grief, the Roman armies conquered the world marching on bread.
Science tells us that the total number of calories is what is important – while the macronutrient ratio is not terribly important – provided it does not lead to malnutrition. Demonization of one macronutrient or another is a common trait of diet fads. History shows you can sell diet advice more easily if you claim that fats or carbs are the problem – while the (admittedly rather obvious) idea that calories are the problem seems to be something that few are prepared to pay for. Yup, bad nutritional advice and a lack of understanding can be blamed on money. Unlike lobbyists, however, this nonsense is being promoted by charlatans who are solely interested in grant money and others who simply want to sell you something.
Obesity results from an imbalance between energy consumed in foods and energy burned by metabolic processes and physical activity.
Frankly, that's nonsensical. It's equivalent to saying that a nightclub is crowded because more people came in the doors than went out. It's true, because it's tautological. It says nothing about causation.
If people are gaining weight, they are taking in more calories than they consume. This is true, regardless of whether they are a teen going through a growth spurt or a middle-aged man growing a middle. The reason they are building muscle or bone or fat is that their hormones are partitioning incoming nutrients into building muscle or bone or fat.
This isn't crackpot science, it's not even controversial. It's well-established science you can find in every biochemistry textbook.
But for some reason, many assume that it isn't relevant, because if people would eat less and exercise more, their hormonal levels would automatically adapt to the reduced available nutrients by partitioning less energy into fat deposition. And the problem with that it is demonstrably not true.
It's not only possible, it's quite common, for the body to respond to a calorie deficit by decreasing energy levels, cannibalizing muscle, and maintaining or even continuing to increase fat deposits.
Hardly. I learned this as a grad student in biochemistry, focused in food science, and it is considered pretty basic knowledge to anyone with any training in human nutrition. No bio-chem book I am aware of is going to deny that fact. It wasn't controversial in any way back then, and I assure you that nothing has changed.
Growing bodies demand more energy, so teenagers can consume massive amounts of kilocalories without experiencing weight gain. Again, you are stating the obvious. There are numerous variables that will control how quickly someone will gain weight, as well as how much more difficult it may be for a particular person to shed those pounds. Again, this is very basic stuff that isn't controversial. However, I don't care who you are or what you eat, if you burn more energy than you consume, you will lose weight. Hormones don't matter, metabolism doesn't matter, macronutrient type doesn't matter.....you will lose weight. If you put a rat on a treadmill for 10 hours a day, and feed it its normal caloric diet in nothing but sucrose, it isn't going to get fat.
The only way to argue against this truth is to deny thermodynamics. And I don't think you're prepared to do that, are you?
Your body's storage capacity for the three macronutrients works in this order:
1. Fats
2. Glucose
3. Proteins
Your body burns macronutrients in this order:
1. Proteins
2. Glucose
3. Fats
If your protein needs exceed the amount available to your body from what it is constantly recycling, then your body will start using the protein in muscles to get what it needs. But this doesn't occur until your body is in starvation mode. If you completely eliminate glucose from your diet, your body would have to start metabolizing muscle to get the glucose it needs to keep your brain working. Some folks think that's an acceptable and healthy approach to living. I think it's crazy, but to each their own.
Too many people are looking for an excuse for their obesity, and for someone or something to blame. Not enough people are taking personal responsibility for their appearance and well-being. It's much easier being a victim. It's a sad commentary on our society, and there are a lot of people earning a good living playing to this pathology, while bastardizing the legitimate science many of us bothered to learn. It's unfortunate and depressing.
The only way to argue against this truth is to deny thermodynamics. And I don't think you're prepared to do that, are you?
The thermodynamics will always balance. But they will not always balance in the direction you would prefer.
You said:
Humans will burn burn fat, rather than store it, if the body is using more energy than it takes in.
And that's simply not the case. In the face of a calorie deficit, the body will either:
Energy input will always balance, but your claim that it will always balance by burning fat is demonstrably not true. It's not on possible, but common, for the body to respond to a calorie deficit by lowering its metabolic rate, reducing lean mass, and retaining fat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.