Posted on 12/14/2012 6:41:08 PM PST by neverdem
The energy in–energy out hypothesis is not set in stone, argues Gary Taubes. It is time to test hormonal theories about why we get fat.
“It is better to know nothing,” wrote French physiologist Claude Bernard in An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865), “than to keep in mind fixed ideas based on theories whose confirmation we constantly seek.”
Embracing a fixed idea is one of the main dangers in the evolution of any scientific discipline. Ideally, errors will be uncovered in the trial-by-fire of rigorous testing and the science will right itself. In rare cases, however, an entire discipline can be based on a fundamental flaw.
As a science journalist turned science historian, I have written at length about how and why this may have happened in obesity research. I have suggested that the discipline may be a house of cards — as, by extension, may much research into the chronic diseases associated with obesity, such as diabetes.
Before the Second World War, European investigators believed that obesity was a hormonal or regulatory disorder. Gustav von Bergmann, a German authority on internal medicine, proposed this hypothesis in the early 1900s.
The theory evaporated with the war. After the lingua franca of science switched from German to English, the German-language literature on obesity was rarely cited...
---snip--
NuSI aims to fund and facilitate the trials necessary to rigorously test the competing hypotheses, beginning with inpatient feeding studies that will rigidly control dietary interventions for participants so that we know unambiguously the effects of macronutrients — protein, fat and carbohydrates — on weight and body fat. These studies will be done by independent, sceptical researchers. This may be an idealistic dream, but we have committed ourselves to the effort.
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
I always thought a bomb calorimeter would be a great plot device for a mystery novel: either disposing of the body, or a jewel thief with a doomsday protocol for burning the stolen diamonds in 50 atmospheres of oxygen should he be caught...
Cheers!
You might enjoy these long-past vanities:
(Vanity) Confessions of a Crunchy Con II, or, I Left My Heart in Cans of Crisco
Confessions of a Crunchy Con III, or, Why Don't I Mind *Your* Own Business?
Cheers!
I think freedumb2003 is in error by conflating "sufficient" with "necessary"...
Cheers!
No, that is no longer true. Limit your carbs. Eat more healthy fats: coconut oil, meat and butter from healthy animals (no feedlot animals are healthy - go as organic and grassfed as you can), some olive oil if you don’t heat it. You will lose weight.
Try only 20 g of carbs a day. No fake sugars. Forget the exercise - it’s good, get out there and do whatever you like, use your body - but for weight loss, your diet is 80-90%.
This is the over simplified concept the author is saying needs to be challenged.
A couple of summers ago I started riding my my bike to work, 13.5 miles each way and 1000 of elevation gain.
That was 2.5 hours a day. At my peak, I did a 6 week stretch without missing a day. Do you know how much weight I lost in that period. 1 pound.
Then with your absolute 100% proven theory, you would say, well you must have eaten more food.
Believe me I did not eat an extra 2500 calories a day.
If it was as simple as you say, 94% of people who lose significant weight would not regain it. They obviously knew how to lose it.
I love the Biggest Loser. I love the trainers and the mental changes plus the cameraderie between the contestants.
But still they are wrong.
Can Jillian, dolvett, and bob get and keep people thin by exercise and low fat? Yes. They are experts. They can. Eight hours of exercise a day.
Will these contestants, from shedding fat so quickly, end their lives with Lou gehrig’s, Parkinson’s, or alzheimers? Sadly, the chances are high. As with the people getting weight loss surgery. They are stressing their livers and lymph and other systems by forcing too much fat into their bloodstreams daily. It is definitely not healthy, though the transformations look great.
They could lose the same fat healthier by citing carbs and eating healthfully. Jillian knows this and would not stump for the yogurts filled with fake sugar and subway and what not. But she has two kids now so she could use the paycheck, plus her tough psychological approach is hugely fun to,watch and deep — those who don’t go through the mental transformation tend to gain all their weight back.
I’m a huge fan but their strategy is for quick transformations, not for lasting health.
Gluten is evil. I think most of us have issues with it; we just don’t know it. I went paleo two years ago and in doing, gave up wheat and mostly all grains. For rare treats I bake with gluten free grains. On my last birthday I decided to treat myself to something I have missed: chiles rellenos at a Mexican restaurant. They are very lightly breaded - you can’t even see the breaking when they are fried - and I was up all night with the worst indigestion. I can no longer digest wheat.
So I used to avoid it for general health; now I avoid it so that I don’t feel sick. I will never eat gluten again willingly. The custom in my religion is very dependent on wheat but now even at Passover I break the dietary laws as do most gluten sensitive and eat gluten free matzah substitutes. It’s worth it. But it shows how many centuries we depended on wheat. Tough our modern wheat may be significantly different than wheat 400 years ago.
Giving up gluten is a way to ensure you don’t eat most packaged and junk food too. Do not just buy gluten free packaged junk though. Most of that stuff has awful “gums” that are just as hard to digest, and it’s still carby junk.
Replace junk with meat, fruit, and veggies.
Citing carbs - CUTTING CARBS
Precisely. A lot of money has been made by a lot of people selling weight-loss schemes and drugs.
Even more has been made by pharmaceutical companies and doctors who push drugs like metformin (the
muscle-wasting drug) for Type II diabetes when a proper diet and exercise are the cures.
Heart disease caused by the food pyramid has also been a gold mine for surgeons and pill pushers every-
where. Meantime, we sicken and die as the poster children for crony capitalism (cause a problem, sell the
"cure") reap the rewards.
I woke up to these disgusting scams 12 years ago when I read up on and then started low-carbing and
got a look at my blood work after three months.
Ever read Weston Price’s research on eating right for your genetic type?
That explains why the eskimos can eat one diet and not be unhealthy but it might not work for others.
Price found some people in Africa that existed on cow meat, cow milk, cow blood, and a few berries. They were extremely healthy, with good bone structure, good teeth, strong muscles, and very lean. They were eating the same diet that their ancestors had for centuries, which their genetics were primed for, so they had no problem thriving on it.
Price’s contention was that there was no one right diet for the human race. Not surprisingly, one size doesn’t fit all. But try and tell that to the dieticians. They won’t accept it at all.
Well, that’s just my opinion - and my experience as well. Diet + exercise, (+no alcohol for me). Seems to me he’s excluding pills, bariatric surgery, transcendental meditation, cocaine, bulimia, smoking, whatever - so not “conflating” in the usual sense of the word. Your mileage may vary.
Cheers!
You tell me. I'm not a biologist. I'm looking for information in my post, not trying to offend you.
A BMR quite a bit higher than average is what I thought I was referring to.
I used to think a calorie is a calorie too, but not now.
AbstractThere was at least one or two links on recent fructose threads about rats getting either fructose or glucose, but otherwise had the same number of calories. The rats that got fructose became obese. Rats getting glucose didn't. I couldn't find it, so I entered isocaloric diet and fructose into PubMed. I posted the abstract and linked the article. It's not that long. From the discussion:Background/Objectives
The results of short-term studies in humans suggest that, compared with glucose, acute consumption of fructose leads to increased postprandial energy expenditure and carbohydrate oxidation and decreased postprandial fat oxidation. The objective of this study was to determine the potential effects of increased fructose consumption compared to isocaloric glucose consumption on substrate utilization and energy expenditure following sustained consumption and under energy-balanced conditions.
Subjects/Methods
As part of a parallel arm study, overweight/obese male and female subjects, 40–72 y, consumed glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks. Energy expenditure and substrate utilization were assessed using indirect calorimetry at baseline and during the 10th week of intervention.
Results
Consumption of fructose, but not glucose, led to significant decreases of net postprandial fat oxidation and significant increases of net postprandial carbohydrate oxidation (P < 0.0001 for both). Resting energy expenditure decreased significantly from baseline values in subjects consuming fructose (P = 0.031) but not in those consuming glucose.
Conclusions
Increased consumption of fructose for 10 weeks leads to marked changes of postprandial substrate utilization including a significant reduction of net fat oxidation. In addition, we report that resting energy expenditure is reduced compared to baseline values in subjects consuming fructose-sweetened beverages for 10 weeks.
For example, if the mean measured decrease of REE(resting energy expenditure) associated with 10 weeks of fructose consumption, 0.09 kcal/min, was maintained for one year it could total ~15,000 kcals, assuming that REE reflects metabolism during rest/sleep periods adding to about 8 h/d; potentially, a gain of ~1.6 kg of body fat could result. Additional studies examining the effects of chronic sugar consumption on 24-hour energy expenditure conducted in a whole-room calorimeter are needed to confirm these findings and determine if the observed reductions in metabolic rate are directly related to fructose or to sweetener (i.e. sucrose, high fructose corn syrup, etc.) consumption in general. We are currently performing such measurements.That's 3.5 pounds a year. Add a few decades of excess fructose consumption, and that lean mean fightin' machine is hauling about 100 pounds of extra fat. Be sparing with table sugar and avoid soft drinks. The latter was supposed to be made 55 % fructose. Actual assays of some raw samples had 65 % fructose. Excess fructose can alter metabolism.
/johnny
Interesting. Thanks for the ping.
Why did you ping me to this claptrap? You have become the ‘cogitator’ of fructose.
I thought you might have an open mind. I guess I was wrong. It's too bad. Isocaloric studies of fructose versus glucose was just what was needed. The article linked in comment# 74 shows how excess fructose affects metabolism and physiology with decreased resting energy expenditure and increased abdominal fat, the wrong kind of fat, among other findings.
Don't worry. I won't ping you about fructose again. I trust I can expect the same from you. Adios
Nice try, Alinsky Jr. My mind would have to be so open my brain fell out to fall for any of this nonsense. You crackpot pseudo-scientists will be the death of us all.
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.