mark2001
User
Newbie
| Posts: 6 |   |
Karma: 0
|
Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/05/31 23:31
Two Keys to Weight Loss: Cut Energy Density and Trim Portion Size
A new study shows how remarkably easy it is to trick the appetite so as to cause weight loss or weight gain. Pennsylvania State University researchers prepared an Italian pasta bake for a group of 39 women on several different days, but varied the recipe so that it was lower in calories on some occasions (more vegetables, less cheese) and higher in calories at other times. The researchers also varied the portion size from 500 grams to 700 grams and 900 grams.
They found that, when participants were served either the lower-calorie version or a smaller portion at lunch, they did not compensate by eating more at dinner. The average calorie intake fell by 221 calories with the smallest and least energy-dense food.
The study shows that two different strategies-reducing portions, plus choosing foods with low energy density, such as vegetables and fruits-work independently to cause a marked reduction in calorie intake. In contrast, increasing portion sizes and the use of calorie-dense foods, such as meat, cheese, or oil, tends to increase calorie intake without the diner's awareness.
Here is the reference:
Kral TVE, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Combined effects of energy density and portion size on energy intake in vwomen. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79:962-8.
For information about nutrition and health, please visit www.pcrm.org.
Popular posts by mark2001
Shooting Ourselves in the Foot
Ecocide and the GOP
America's Booming, Polluting, Ev...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/01 00:35
Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon DA.
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined (in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3046303&dopt=Abstract
Meat is *not* healthy food for humans. You don't have to like the fact, but disliking a fact does not convert it into a fiction no matter what your politics are.
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/01 06:07
The 'nonprofit' Center for Consumer Freedom? Oh dear..
SEE;
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/01 06:27
Like you think you're nasty history will go away by changing your nym?
We all know who the supporter of terrorism is here- and I mean REAL terrorism, not a few desperate attempts at getting animal torture stopped.
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/01 09:34
Profile of a Sociopath
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm
YOU are NOT in a position to comment on ANYBODY'S ethics, LIAR.
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/02 00:34
Go take your medicine..
Drug-Induced Disorders
EILEEN G. HOLLAND, PHARM.D., and FRANK V. DEGRUY, M.D.
University of South Alabama College of Medicine, Mobile, Alabama '..
Drug-induced disorders, in the form of adverse drug events or drug interactions, occur daily in all health care environments.
Unfortunately, significant morbidity and mortality are often the consequence of these reactions. Several studies have reported that an average of 10 percent of all hospital admissions may be attributable to drug-induced disorders; this percentage may be a significant underestimate.1 Furthermore, an evaluation of a large sample of 30,195 randomly selected hospital records revealed that 1,133 patients (3.7 percent) experienced a disabling injury caused by medical treatment while hospitalized.2 Other studies report that hospitalized patients have a 1.5 to 43.5 percent chance of having a drug-induced disorder.1 Using the conservative figure, that 4 percent of hospitalized patients have an adverse event due to medical treatment, and extrapolating to the United States, each year over 1 million patients are injured while in the hospital, and approximately 180,000 die as a result of these injuries.3
In the ambulatory care environment, the incidence of drug-induced disorders not causing hospitalization or death is less well known because different, less effective methods are used to collect data.
Reported rates have ranged from 2.6 to 50.6 percent, depending on the source of the data.4 The lower rates generally reflect data collected from physicians, and the higher rates come from patient surveys.
..'
http://www.aafp.org/afp/971101ap/holland.html
Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon DA.
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined (in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3046303&dopt=Abstract
Diet related disorders (include) Deaths per year (US)
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
btregre
User
Newbie
| Posts: 5 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/03 01:17
You and Dawn are both right and wrong.
You are correct in your statements that eating more than one burns will always result in fat gain.
You're incorrect in assuming that in all people it is the calories which control the metabolism, and therefore restricting calories and disregarding macronutrient composition is the answer for all overweight people. In normal people, the energy intake action precedes the metabolic hormone reaction. Therefore, type of calories matter very little to a normal person and they can lose weight just by cutting back and ignoring macronutrient composition.
However, for those with a pathology of metabolism like insulin resistance, the energy intake action is *incongruent* with the metabolic hormone reaction. Hypoinsulinemia is a prerequisite for catabolism (lipolysis from body fat or gluconeogensis from muscle mass). In a normal person, hypoinsulinemia occurs when consumed energy is low relative to metabolic needs. The body then raises glucagon which facilitates catabolism. The thing is, if one is insulin resistant, they are by definition hyperinsulinemic (T2 diabetics with obliterated beta cells excluded). This means they produce too much insulin in the blood per energy consumed. This also means that their body requires inordinately low amounts of consumed energy in order to facilitate catabolism. A hyperinsulinemic person might not lose weight on a 1500, 1400, 1300 or less calorie diet for this reason - that all depends on glycemic load of the macronutrient composition, and the degree of insulin resistance. Please see my earlier post which goes into detail on the physiology of hormones on metabolism to understand why, it is really too complex a subject to explain in a footnote.
If you are suffering from uncontrolled insulin resistance and wish to lose weight, you would be well advised to first control the insulin resistance through a low glycemic diet before attempting to create a catabolic environment via energy restriction. Those with insulin resistance (which, by the way, is the majority of considerably overweight people) *must* be careful to structure their diets in such a way so that foods which do not elicit a big insulin response are favored.
Yes, it is possible to lose weight while ignoring dietary composition when you have a tendency towards hyperinsulinemia. Is it practical? Is it sustainable? For most with this unfortunate problem, the answer is a resounding HELL no! Some people who are so insulin resistant find they have to restrict calories to *starvation* levels to decrease insulin sufficiently enough to facilitate catabolism on a high glycemic load diet.
Dawn is correct in that she understands the crucial relationship between metabolic hormones and weight management. However she seems to be a bit confused. In a normal person, macronutrient composition is much less important and ultimately calories determine the metabolic hormone state. The hormonal state is *reactionary* to the energy balance state of a normal person. Meaning, hormone synthesis is reactionary to the amount of energy consumed. A lot of low carbers seem to be under the influence that sugar is the only macronutrient which requires insulin. This is untrue. All consumed energy needs insulin, the difference is that sugar is broken down so rapidly that it puts a demand for a LOT of insulin in a short period time.
If a normal person who has no insulin resistance at all eats 1000 calories of sugar, they will lose just as much weight as they would have if they ate 1000 calories of pure fat. This is untrue for those with insulin resistance though. The insulin resistant person will produce too much insulin when eating things which are broken down so quickly as to require a rapid uptake of energy. Their insensitive insulin receptors will only clear out the huge hit of blood sugar when a mondo sized dose of insulin is released into the blood. WHen the insulin resistant person eats a diet of slowly digested energy sources (fat, protein, and fiberous low digestible energy carbohydrate), there is never a huge surge of energy, and thus the body is never assaulted with energy more rapidly than their receptors can receive it. So, they preemptively avoid the problem of hyperinsulinemia.
Basically, LC allows one to make caloric deficits more easily - especially if you have insulin resistance. It is incorrect to say LC is not a low-calorie diet. It may appear that way to some (especially the very insulin resistant who see a big difference between how they lose/feel on LC vs a regular diet), but do be certain that the only way to elicit catabolism is by reducing energy intake to the point where hypoinsulinemia occurs. There is *no other way to burn body fat other than this*.
Popular posts by btregre
Can creatures lacking a definite ne...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/04 04:37
Profile of a Sociopath
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm
Oi vey. ..
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
<..>
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
New AMA Statement on PCRM and Good Nutrition
In the early 1990s, the American Medical Association was critical of vegetarian diets and of PCRMÂ’s nutritional advocacy. But in
February of 2004, the AMA released a new statement saying that those past criticisms do not reflect current AMA policies.
Back in April of 1991, PCRM held a press conference featuring
Denis Burkitt, M.D., who was well-known for the identification and successful treatment of what was to become known as
BurkittÂ’s lymphoma and for his later research establishing the value of dietary fiber; T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., of Cornell University and head of the China Health Study; Oliver Alabaster, M.D., a
George Washington University oncologist and head of the Institute for Disease Prevention; and Neal Barnard, M.D., PCRM president.
The press conference recommended that federal dietary guidelines favor whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and that other foods be considered optional, rather than required.
Other organizations, of course, have taken favorable stances on plant-based diets. The American Dietetic Association’s position statement on vegetarian diets states, “appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”
The American Medical Association, however, criticized PCRMÂ’s proposal and argued that meat and dairy products should be kept in the diet.
In September of 1992, PCRM hosted a press conference featuring
Benjamin Spock, M.D., and Johns Hopkins University Director of
Pediatrics Frank Oski, M.D., to discuss new research findings linking cowÂ’s milk proteins and type 1 diabetes. In light of the new studies, the doctors suggested that milk not be recommended or required in nutrition guidelines. At about the same time, an American
Academy of Pediatrics work group reported that evidence from more than 90 studies indicated that avoiding early exposure to cowÂ’s milk proteins could reduce the risk of type 1 diabetes. In contrast, the
AMA issued a press release arguing that there was no scientific proof to support such a claim.
Thereafter, these criticisms ended. In 1995, the AMA published one of Dr. BarnardÂ’s research articles in the Archives of Family
Medicine and subsequently used various PCRM physicians as
2004, the AMA issued the following statement:
"In the early 1990s, AMA spokespersons made critical comments pertaining to the dietary recommendations issued by the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). These statements regarding diet are no longer current, as the AMA does not have policy specifically addressing vegetarian diets or the inclusion of milk in a diet. The AMA recognizes that a great deal of scientific evidence has been accumulated on nutritional issues over the past decade and supports continued research into the overall relationship between diet and health."
Healthy Living ..
A Guide to Healthy Weight Loss
Permanent Weight Control
Weight Control and Obesity Prevention in Children .
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/04 17:08
Not indicating snips, eh. And that was a rather hefty one too..
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/04 20:25
Aren't the Weston Price Foundation agents for the 'grass-fed beef' business? It certainly looks like it;
http://www.westonaprice.org/local_chapters/alexva_resources.html.
'Ms. Keizer is a certified classical homeopath and the chapter leader for the Santa Cruz chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation. The nonprofit organization is dedicated to the principles of Weston Price, a 1930s dentist who visited cultures free from degenerative diseases to discover their "secrets."* He became concerned that the refined foods Americans were eating were contributing to disease.
"Julie and Joe [Morris] contacted me through the Weston Price foundation and I was glad to know that grass-fed beef was available in our area. ..."
http://www.alderspring.com/articles/html/latest%20research.html
... etc..
*'Dental caries in First Nations children is documented as both more extensive and prevalent than found in the general Canadian population.
Two previous surveys of First Nation and Inuit children in Canada, completed in 1990-91 and 1996-97, confirmed a high dental caries experience that remained virtually static during the intervening years.'
http://www.caphd-acsdp.org/abstracts03.htm
But the Adventist health study compares Adventist vegetarians and meat eaters, not vegetarian Adventists and the general public.
'The Adventist Health Study: Mortality studies of Seventh-day
Seventh-day Adventists have increasingly become the objects of epidemiologic studies, both because they tend to be far more homogeneous in many lifestyle choices and because they are more heterogeneous in nutritional habits than the general population.
Certain lifestyle characteristics, such as heavy cigarette smoking, consumption of alcohol, and diets heavy in fats may confound or modify the effects of other factors, making it difficult to study them.
In the Adventist population, these potentially distorting characteristics are largely absent, making other factors more easily observed. Perhaps even more importantly, the wide range of dietary habits, from strict vegetarianism to a normal
American diet, greatly enhances the ability of investigators.
..'
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/mortality.html
47. (a) Ibid.; (b) K Erikson and NE Hubbard. Dietary fat and tumor metastasis. Nutr Rev, 1990, 48:6-14.
This lot experiment on rats and mice. Sure that's true for humans?
Meat Use and Ovary Cancer Death Rates
Lacto-ovo-vegetarian Adventists 15.9/100,000
Adventists using meat 1-3 times per week 18.0/100,000
General population 24.0/100,000 [Phillips R. et al. "Environmental Aspects of Cancer: The Role of Macro and Micro Components of Foods" 1983]
Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon DA.
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined (in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
[RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman Meat Eggs Butter/cheese less than once per week 1.0 1.0 1.0
2-4 times per week 2.55 1.91 2.10 almost daily 3.83 2.86 3.23 (from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's
"Problems with Meat", 1989)]
Physicians? Vegetarian or meat eating Adventist physicians??
Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.
Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee, doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians], significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts <1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the absence of meat.
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/05 00:59
You seriously expecrt me to trawl through that lot?
A quote from a CREDIBLE source will do just fine.
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
mgreen
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 61 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/05 03:54
We? Got a mouse in your pocket Pearl? Or do you have a customer with you?
Popular posts by mgreen
What if?
"veg chickn' nugget feasts&quo...
A Question for Pearl
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
btregre
User
Newbie
| Posts: 5 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/05 13:12
Calories are only secondary to hormonal fluctuations when there is a disease of the endocrine system (most common of which is hyperinsulinemia associated with insulin resistance). Under normal circumstances, in a normal individual, calories *determine* hormonal fluctuations. The energy intake action equals the insulin/hormone release reaction in a healthy person. Eat more digestible energy, and you will produce more insulin. Eat less energy, and your insulin will be low.
If you have insulin resistance/hyperinsulinemia you can control it by going on a LC diet, however going on a LC diet only *allows* weight loss to occur. Unless you create a caloric deficit, in addition to
that for most hyperinsulinemic people LC allows them to make caloric deficits effortlessly (unconsciously), simply because when their insulin levels become more stable and normal they get out of the "fat storage" cycle they were in. The body now has the overwhelming desire to dump the extra fat. With insulin now normal glucagon elevates, facilitating lipolysis (probably for the first time in a long time).
They burn body fat so quickly that they lose their appetites completely, sometimes to the point of feeling nausea (high rate of fat burning = high ketone concentration = nausea).
I think a LC diet isn't the answer for everyone. Some people just like to eat a lot, because they like to eat (not because of insulin resistance or some other issue). If you DO have hyperinsulinemia & insulin resistance, then LC is the *only* answer, and odds are if you go on a LC diet it will be like a miracle. However, if you have limited degree of IR and your insulin is *normal* for what you are eating, then you probably won't do as well on it. I mean everyone benefits from LC to a degree (eating whole foods that are low glycemic tends to quelsh appetite for everyone), but unless you have insulin resistance the improvement won't be as marked.
I think this is why some people go on LC diets and find they lose weight rather quickly without watching calories, whereas others lose slowly and need to watch calories to lose. The former type of person was overweight because of insulin resistance mainly, the latter was likely overweight for reasons other than, or in addition to insulin resistance. The hyperinsulinemic individual is no longer eating foods which play havoc with their damaged metabolism, allowing them to normalize appetite & lose weight. The normal person doesn't have a damaged metabolism, so they are less sensitive to the effects of simple foods. There is no huge improvement when they omit things like bread and rice in favor of fat and protein.
Popular posts by btregre
Can creatures lacking a definite ne...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
btregre
User
Newbie
| Posts: 5 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/05 14:54
You're diabetic, correct? I believe I've seen you on ASD. You're T1 though, not T2 if I remember. You probably know a good deal about diabetes as you are diabetic, but you are either undereducated about insulin resistance because you are T1 or GROSSLY misinformed & confused about your disease if you are T2. Insulin resistance is a risk factor for fat-creation and storage independent of consumed caloric energy. This is rudimentary, foundational knowledge of the syndrome. Here is a brief outline of what happens...
1) LOW RATE OF TRANSFORMATION OF SUGAR INTO THERMIC ENERGY.
Insulin resistance does not strike all tissues equally. Tissues with a high demand for energy such as muscle tend to lose sensitivity first, storage/processing organs like the liver and adipose last. As anyone with IR will tell you, being insulin resistant and eating a high-sugar diet translates into feeling like *crap* all day. This is because when you are insulin resistant sugar is being preferentially metabolized by the liver and stored in fat cells, instead of being taken up by the energy using tissues as needed as your body has a really hard time doing this. This equates to a pervasive state of lethargy, tiredness, fogginess, etc.
2) HIGH RATE OF FAT STORING, LOWERED ABILITY TO USE STORED FAT.
Hyperinsulinemia is a condition where insulin levels are higher than they should be for the physiological need of it. This basically means that hyperinsulinemic people produce too much insulin per unit of energy consumed... the body "overproduces" the hormone for some reason, usually because of peripheral insulin resistance. Insulin resistant people - yet diabetic or not - all tend to have hyperinsulinemia. It is IMPOSSIBLE to burn body fat in a hyperinsulinemic environment, just as it is impossible to store fat in a hypoinsulinemic environment (i.e. out of control T1 diabetes). I'll explain why.
Insulin is an anabolic (tissue - fat - building) hormone. It is also the master metabolic hormone, meaning the state of insulin in the body determines the nature of all metabolic processes. The antagonist to insulin, and therefore the catabolic hormone (tissue wasting), is glucagon. Insulin and glucagon cannot be dominant at the same time, as they work as antagonists, counter weights, a see-saw keeping metabolism regulated. Insulin rises in response to energy intake.
Insulin falls when consumed energy is low. Glucagon rises in response to energy deficiency (such as hypoglycemia or fasting). Glucagon falls when consumed energy is high. A drop in insulin is a prerequisite for catabolic action (lipolysis, gluconeogenisis) to occur.
So what does all this mean? IF ONE is hyperinsulinemic - meaning they produce too much of the fat storing, anabolic hormone insulin per caloric energy consumed - this means their body more readily turns energy into fat. No problem, you are probably thinking. Then they just eat a normal energy diet and feed off of their body fat! Wrong. It doesn't work like that. As I said before, the only way for catabolic activities to occur is when insulin levels fall and glucagon levels rise. However, insulin and glucagon are *antagonists*, and being hyperinsulinemic precludes having inordinately high amounts of insulin per calories consumed. The body CAN NOT AND WILL NOT produce glucagon when insulin is high, as insulin is the "master hormone". The actions of insulin influence the actions of all other metabolic hormones - when insulin is high the body thinks this means lots of energy is present, and therefore it will not produce the catabolic hormone glucagon. This is the physiological basis for complications of hyperinsulinemia, such as the disease of chronic hypoglycemia. This is also the reason behind why IDDM patients need to have glucagon on hand. If they accidentally take too much insulin and for whatever reason won't be able to eat sugar in the event of a severe hypo, they need someone to administer glucagon to them so catabolic energy synthesis may occur. Failure to do this means death from hypoglycemia.
Their bodies won't produce the glucagon on their own due to the high amounts of synthetic insulin present, the only way to save their lives is to pump them full of sugar *or* to inject catabolic hormone.
There is just one way for a hyperinsulinemic person to lose weight (other than treating the hyperinsulinism with a low glycemic diet).
Reduce caloric energy to ridiculously low, unsustainable levels.
Remember what we have established already, a hyperinsulinemic person produces too much insulin in response to sugar consumed. A normal person does not. A normal person can restrict sugar calories to reasonable levels and this is enough to drop insulin so that glucagon may rise and catabolic activity may be facilitated (i.e. 1400 calories will produce safe body fat loss for a metabolically normal small woman). However, a hyperinsulinemic person must make much more severe caloric restrictions in order to drop insulin low enough to allow glucagon to rise and facilitate catabolism. Depending on degree of hyperinsulinism, they must restrict calories very severely to see weight loss. A person of similar build with bad enough hyperinsulinemia may even GAIN weight on that aforementioned 1400 calorie diet!
So what we have here is a double threat to body weight - a high rate of storing energy as fat, and a debilitated ability to elicit catabolism (body fat burning). You may be wondering how hyperinsulinemic people function if their bodies are using less energy than others. They are storing fat, not burning energy sufficiently, yet they are alive with needs for energy just like everyone else. It seems to "violate the law of thermodynamics". If what I am saying is true, being hyperinsulinemic must be a lot like walking around starving all the time. The answer is that yes, IR people are basically walking around effectively starved for energy, as contradictory as that sounds. It matters not that they may be even eating more calories than other people, the fact is that energy is only being put onto body fat and it is not going to fuel the brain, muscles, etc. There is a deficiency of energy for vital metabolic processes. Debilitating fatigue is one of the most common symptoms of insulin resistance / T2 diabetes. The fatigue, fogginess, inability to concentrate, the tiredness - these are symptoms of your body being starved for energy.
This is why LCing, metformin treatment, etc often produces a "burst of energy" for IR people. It's not that they are GAINING energy relative to normal people on a normal diet, it's more an issue of their bodies using ADEQUATE ENERGY for the first time ever. Normal people won't experience energy gains on LC because they don't have problems using sugar for energy.
In closing, yes, insulin resistance with hyperinsulinemia is a RISK
FACTOR INDEPENDENT OF CALORIES for weight gain. It causes an increased rate of anabolism (body fat storage), a debilitated capacity for catabolism (body fat burning), a debilitated capacity for sugar energy usage (resulting in fatigue, fogginess, feeling like a tired slug, etc) which then results in compensatory slashing of metabolic rates (as is seen in starvation or other conditions where energy is restricted from the body - in this case adequate calories may be present, the problem is the body can not use them for thermogenesis due to the IR, so the body is effectively "starving" for energy).
Popular posts by btregre
Can creatures lacking a definite ne...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
btregre
User
Newbie
| Posts: 5 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/05 18:19
It really is quite well known that PCRM are a front group for PeTA.
They aren't even actually physicians.
Popular posts by btregre
Can creatures lacking a definite ne...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/06 06:05
<..>
Have you any evidence to support that assertion?
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/06 07:33
What? That's just a link at the Animal Defence League's link page.
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
mgreen
User
Senior Member
| Posts: 61 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/06 10:35
Now stomp your feed and scream, "It isn't true" until you get dizzy and then maybe those nasty facts you hate will all go away....
Popular posts by mgreen
What if?
"veg chickn' nugget feasts&quo...
A Question for Pearl
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
bobmiller
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 36 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:Two Keys to Weight Loss - 2005/06/06 11:48
To what, and, so what? They have high ethical standards?
Good!! What I'd hope for, and expect from health-care professionals. ("If you have men who will exclude any of
God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow man."
- Saint Francis of Assisi. .. and the facts bear that out!) .
<snip insults>
What I need from you is evidence to support your assertion that-
"PCRM <snip insults> advovcate vegetarianism, not because it is healthy, but because it will avoid the harming of poor beef cows, chickens, etc."
'From the horses mouth', as you'd say; 'Founded in 1985, the
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research.
Popular posts by bobmiller
"Potted Meat Food Product?&quo...
Go see the green-eyed cat and have ...
America's Booming, Polluting, Evil ...
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
|
post new topic