Comments on Emotions for Engineers: Unified Feed Theory

Thanks Doug. These are great comments and ...

2008-08-30T07:33:00.000-07:00

Thanks Doug. These are great comments and clarifications.

I want to clarify one thing though.

You said, "Your graph of new fat storage bottomed out at 0. I think it actually bottoms out somewhere below zero. That's why low carbing works for loss."

What I meant on the graph is that even eating low carb, if your total calories are high by eating a lot of protein or fat you can gain fat. The insulin release from eating lots of fat or protein that you mentioned could be one way, and there's also the ASP pathway. So the maximum fat gain is above zero when you are low carbing.

Cheers,
e4e

One of your paragraphs says this -

> As ...

2008-08-29T11:36:00.000-07:00
One of your paragraphs says this -

> As you increase the amount of
> carbs that you eat. You open up
> a more efficient pathway for fat
> conversion.

The problem is increased carb intake makes room for efficient storage of dietary fat. At some point an extra calorie of dietary carb ends up allowing an extra calorie of dietary fat to be stored. That's why total calories are so important to folks on low fat plans.

> Your body uses the spent carbs
> to create triglyceride
> molecules.

Energy from glucose can be used to create saturated fatty acids. This is a very inefficient process and if anyone claims that eating low fat has a metabloic advantage it is this inefficency they mean. Basically extra carbs eaten in combination with too little fat to store is very inefficient to turn into new fat for storage.

> This is the primary storage form
> of fat.

The word triglyceride means fat. A triglyceride (fat) molecule is made by using a glycerol (the glyceride part) then bonding 3 fatty acids to it (the tri part).

> The slope of the line is a ratio
> of fat to carbs in a triglyceride
> molecule. I don't have that
> number.

If you mean calorie for calorie, fat burns at about 10% calories from the glycerol. Two glycerols bind to form a glucose. And about 90% from the fatty acids. Fatty acids are burned into acetyl-CoA (aerobic) and/or ketones (varios metabolic paths). The reason it's "about" 90/10 is fatty acids have variable length.

If you mean molecule for molecule once hydrolized into glucose and fatty acids the ration is 3 to 1/2 (in other words 6/1). This is molar ratio.

I'm not exactly sure if you need calorie ratio or molar ration. I think you need calorie ratio.

As to not being able to store new fat in the absence of dietary carbs, of course that's not quite true. It's actually not being able to store new fat in the absence of sufficient blood insulin. Thing is eating a serious excess of fat (think 2000 calories of dietary fat) can trigger insulin release.

Also eating sufficient excess protein can also trigger insulin release. The amount of protein needed is lower than you'd want. The body needs something under 100 grams of protein per day. The rest of converted to glucose in a process that's a bit over 50% efficient per calorie. Eat 200 grams of protein in a day (at roughly 7 grams of protein isolate per ounce of lean meat so that's a lot of meat but not a vastly excessive amount) and you end up with the equivalent of 50 grams of dietary carbs. This is part of why Dr Atkins warned against combining low fat with low carb I suspect.

So it's being in ketosis that's proof against storing new body fat rather than the easier to count low carb intake. Almost the same but it doesn't allow serious overeating.

Your graph of new fat storage bottomed out at 0. I think it actually bottoms out somewhere below zero. That's why low carbing works for loss.

Interesting to combine maximum fat loss rate (so many calories per existing pound of fat) with body fat percentage. It explains why heavier folks lose faster and lighter folks lose slower.

Hey SusanJ, I made the his or her change. I agree,...

2008-06-20T17:21:00.000-07:00
Hey SusanJ, I made the his or her change. I agree, it's especially important for an introductory note. Thanks again.

Regarding that note in your link about calories...

That Dr. may be technically correct in some ways, but I think he's splitting hairs. He says we do not burn calories, we oxidize them. Well, burning is just fast oxidation.

I can't say I understand the exact physics of this, but it seems that there is a lot of experience with the whole calories-in minus calories-out thing.

I don't want to argue with some guy about technical/semantic issues around calories, but Lyle McDonald has some really nice posts on this issue.

The first is "Is a calorie just a calorie" in which he argues that "fundamentally it is under strictly controlled artificial conditions.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/calorieacalorie.html

The second is "Calories, nutrients, or food," in which he explains the calories in side. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/calnutfood.html

The third is "Metabolic rate - Overview"in which he discusses the calories out piece.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/metrate.html

Lyle is not a Taubes/low carb advocate, but he does promote various ketogenic approaches in certain situations. His site and methods are aimed more at athletic nutrition than nutrition for the masses. He's a really smart guy with a fairly acerbic personality. Lots of good information can be found at http://www.bodyrecomposition.com

I suspect that the reason low-carbs works for so many is the ratchet effect. If you eat zero carbs, there will be days where you eat less than you burn. Low carb makes this a little easier than a higher carb approach, i.e. you feel less hunger in general.

So you lose weight on the low calorie days, then on the high cal days, you put on no or very little fat.

I recently tried Lyle's Rapid Fat Loss diet. I was eating about 200 g of protein and little else every day. I never felt hungry. Towards the end of the week, as I went into ketosis I got a little shaky, but not hungry. I lost 7 lbs of fat in three weeks before going off it.

I don't feel competent to post much more about the calories issue, but you gave me an idea about talk about how that graph in this post would change over time.

Cheers

I hope this helps.

Thanks for the kind reply. I agree that one shoul...

2008-06-20T14:55:00.000-07:00
Thanks for the kind reply. I agree that one should attempt to avoid awkwardness in writing. I don't usually notice the his/her stuff.

However, I was so happy to find this site today but then when I read your intro, I felt a tiny bit unwelcome. I think you could change just the last sentence of your intro without too much awkwardness:
"My hope in this is that the reader gains insights that have a positive impact on his or her life."

[I would have ignored this but for your interest in emotions .... ]

I have an idea for another post that I'd love for you to write. There seem to be quite a few people on the various low-carb forums who truly believe that calories don't count as long as they consume zero carbs. I disagree.

I do believe, however, as you apparently do as well, that the way calories count is much more complicated than one might have thought.

What prompted me to suggest a post is the funny/sad recent claim by a doctor that calories are only what is measured by burning in a calorimeter and since your body "utilizes" food rather than burning it, that is why calories don't matter.
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=488&pid=9412#pid9412

SusanJ

SusanJ,
Thanks for the comment.

Yeah, I...

2008-06-20T12:49:00.000-07:00
SusanJ,
Thanks for the comment.

Yeah, I think that's how it works and why fat loss tapers off. You could lose *weight* faster, but then you'd be losing the meat and not just the marbling.

Regarding "his or her": Thanks. I struggle with that. It always seems like that breaks the flow of writing without adding information. However, if it is distracting to some, that's bad too. some people alternate his and her within the body of the text. Perhaps that would be a better solution?

Thanks again.

This is a great post. Thanks.

If it's tru...

2008-06-20T08:51:00.000-07:00
This is a great post. Thanks.

If it's true that the upper bound of fat loss is proportional to the amount of one's body fat, that would explain why weight loss tends to slow down as one loses weight. It also explains why the change in gradient is especially bad for us low carbers whose weight loss is (hopefully) primarily fat.

[BTW, I'm a just a scientist, not an engineer, but would still appreciate a "'his or her'" life."]

I adore your blog

I know I say this all the...

2008-06-13T08:46:00.000-07:00
I adore your blog

I know I say this all the time but your voice is SO DIFFERENT from mine that I love the, well, DIFFERENCE.

ponder doing a thursday guest post?

M.

Wow, great stuff, definitely filled in a gap in my...

2008-06-12T11:54:00.000-07:00
Wow, great stuff, definitely filled in a gap in my own understanding of fat metabolism. I started a comment on the details, but it got long so I just posted it to my blog. Here's the link:

http://sparkofreason.blogspot.com/2008/06/swift-kick-in-asp.html

Thanks Dave. Here are a few links that talk about ...

2008-06-12T00:04:00.000-07:00
Thanks Dave. Here are a few links that talk about ASP (Acylation Stimulating Protein) as an alternative pathway for fat storage.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=372487

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/05/weight-loss-when-its-hard.html

http://eugenization.com/asp-lpl-hsl-and-other-acronyms-of-enzymes-you-could-care-less-about/

http://conditioningresearch.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-not-just-carbs.html

I can't vouch for any of the sources in particular, but there does seem to be something to it. Apparently it is not as efficient or effective as the LPL, AGP pathway.

Hi Tony. Great post. I saw a good example of the h...

2008-06-11T14:09:00.000-07:00
Hi Tony. Great post. I saw a good example of the hormonal control of fat deposition on one of the Discovery channels. A woman had been severely obese for 16 years, the result of Cushing's disease. Cushing's disease is a small tumor on the pituitary, which ultimately increases secretion of the hormone cortisol. This in turn stimulates higher levels of insulin, and thus efficient fat storage. It was essentially impossible for her to lose weight, even on a starvation diet, a la the rats Taubes discusses in Good Calories, Bad Calories.

They then moved on to an obese gentleman, who apparently "just ate too much". It never ceases to amaze me how people miss the obvious connection that hormones must somehow play into obesity.

I was curious about the alternative pathway for fat deposition you mentioned. Is this an alternative to the LPL/insulin/alpha glycerol phosphate mechanism, or just the larger dietary carbs increase insulin scenario?

Comments on Emotions for Engineers: Unified Feed Theory

Thanks Doug. These are great comments and ...

One of your paragraphs says this -> As ...

Hey SusanJ, I made the his or her change. I agree,...

Thanks for the kind reply. I agree that one shoul...

SusanJ,Thanks for the comment. Yeah, I...

This is a great post. Thanks. If it's tru...

I adore your blogI know I say this all the...

Wow, great stuff, definitely filled in a gap in my...

Thanks Dave. Here are a few links that talk about ...

Hi Tony. Great post. I saw a good example of the h...

One of your paragraphs says this -

> As ...

SusanJ,
Thanks for the comment.

Yeah, I...

This is a great post. Thanks.

If it's tru...

I adore your blog

I know I say this all the...