What makes you fat, carbs or calories?

[Sinister]

FWIW I'm pretty positive that diabetes and pseudoglucagonoma syndrome (disease of excess glucagon production minus a pancreatic tumor), are two different conditions. What might be a little confusing is that glucagonoma (with a pancreatic tumor) is typically accompanied by diabetes mellitus, those cases of diabetes are due to the imbalance of glucagon and insulin that glucagonoma causes.

Type II diabetes is not "caused by" any one specific biochemical occurrence directly. When there's a specific defect, the condition is usually classed a different way (which is why there's a type I and type II, for instance). However, to insinuate that insulin resistance isn't the main characterization of type II diabetes mellitus is not correct.

 

[salad101]

what do you guys think about vegan people claiming they can eat 5000+ calories on a fruit or vegan diet and not get fat? are they bull shitting?

and don't mind the name salad101. I am not vegan.

 

[WARserra]

what do you guys think about vegan people claiming they can eat 5000+ calories on a fruit or vegan diet and not get fat? are they bull shitting?

and don't mind the name salad101. I am not vegan.

5,000 calories of veggies? Sounds like what a plow eats when it's harvest time.

 

[Pathogenic]

From my understanding on the study, they used indirect calorimetry to establish REE, so the methods are legitimate. First they had all the subjects lose weight on a normal cal restriction diet until they lost 12.5% of BW. Then they put them on isocaloric diets of either the low-carb/low-fat/low-GI diets. Then they found that while on the low-carb diet (using a randomized crossover design, so the study lasted over three months) that patients had the highest REE/TEE on the low-carb diet. So the results seem solid...

But I still have a bad taste in my mouth because despite the fact that physical activity did not differ between any group, and while REE/TEE were different, there was no difference in weight loss while on the different isocaloric diets. Also, they used a DEXA scanner to assess body fat percentage in the run-in weight loss stage, but didn't use it for the isocaloric stage. Why? Why would they use the DEXA, which costs money and time, on the phase of the experiment that they weren't even testing, and then not use DEXA during the phase they were testing, especially when they found REE/TEE values to be different with no difference in actual weight lost? To me, it screams out that they omitted results on body fat percentage data because it wasn't favorable. They poured so much money into this study, I know they had the funding to pay for more DEXA scans (for 27 patients it would only cost them an additional ~$700 to run a DEXA after each trial diet, which is a drop in the hat compared to how much everything else costs).

I think this study actually just took a weakness in indirect calorimetry methods and used it to their advantage. REE measurements look at O2/CO2 and sometimes urea nitrogen waste. For the O2/CO2 REE measurements, the method is inherently biased towards estimating a higher REE when you have a lower RQ output. RQ is always lower on high-fat diets because of the increase in fat oxidation, which lowers the CO2 output. Here is the formula:

REE = [VO2 (3.941) + VCO2 (1.11)] 1440 min/day

What do you think will happen to REE when VCO2 drops and VO2 raises? You guessed it, REE will be significantly higher because the coefficient for VO2 is over triple that of VCO2.

Thanks for the detailed synopsis. I admit that I skimmed over the WSJ's summary of the study, which was probably a bad idea.

Shady accounting makes for bad studies. Why be dishonest? If everyone lost the same amount of weight, then you can't claim any sort of metabolic advantage.

 

[mtruitt76]

No, generally forums like this, articles by people in the game for years, lyle mcdonald, alan aragon etc.

I don't think that is true at all, which is why ketosis works so well, carbohydrates are the easiest and fastest to store therefore the primary use.

Normal individuals aren't healthy and they should be worried, healthy dieters should also take care, it is not a complicated topic pretty much everyone knows that too much insulin too regularly = insulin resistance = diabetus.

Try reading these links. One references Lyle McDonalds view on carbs being stored as fat which is basically what Cygnus-X is saying and the exact opposite of what you are arguing.

Excess Protein and Fat Storage - Q&A | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

Here is one by Alan Aragon regarding low carb diets and there effectiveness vs. more standard diets with carbs. Again not in line with what you are arguing.
Max Condition Training and Fitness: Low Carb Dogma

Also here is one by Alan Aragon on the validity of the GI index . FYI he doesn't think it is very valid.
Elements Challenging the Glycemic Index - AlanAragon.com - Fitness Based on Science & Experience

It is good that you are reading stuff by Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon, but I am not sure what articles you are reading to arrive at the opinions you are holding.

 

[Pathogenic]

Mtruitt, thank you so much for posting that. I posted a thread awhile ago looking for a certain study that I searched for hours to find, but gave up on. The Alan Aragon link had the one I was looking for. It's the Golay study from 1996. It absolutely destroys the entire low carb superiority argument.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

FWIW I'm pretty positive that diabetes and pseudoglucagonoma syndrome (disease of excess glucagon production minus a pancreatic tumor), are two different conditions. What might be a little confusing is that glucagonoma (with a pancreatic tumor) is typically accompanied by diabetes mellitus, those cases of diabetes are due to the imbalance of glucagon and insulin that glucagonoma causes.

Type II diabetes is not "caused by" any one specific biochemical occurrence directly. When there's a specific defect, the condition is usually classed a different way (which is why there's a type I and type II, for instance). However, to insinuate that insulin resistance isn't the main characterization of type II diabetes mellitus is not correct.

No, you almost always see irregular glucagon activity in diabetics. Their glucagon secretion is timed completely wrong and that's what causes their blood sugar spikes at irregular times (like post meal, when their glucagon secretion elevates in response to feeding instead being blunted). There are so many different pathways that stimulate GLUT4 translocation, and when glucagon is reigned in NIDDMs will have blood glucose levels in a normal range. That's how metformin works, it stimulates GLP-1 post-feeding, which blunts glucagon secretion and gluconeogensis, leading to lower blood glucose levels. GLUT4 translocation is one of the most redundant metabolic pathways, and doesn't need insulin to function normally in muscle and fat tissue.

Hepatic insulin resistance is a big problem (in that the gluconeogenic pathways don't get shut off as much as they should), but fixing it won't completely fix the underlying problem of irregular glucagon secretion in T2DBs.

You're right though, insulin resistance is a characterization of Type II diabetics. But most likely not a "this how things go wrong in the first place" root cause. The root cause is still a huge matter of debate and anyone, especially a laymen (or an author... cough, cough), saying they know what the real cause is should probably just stop talking.

 

[PhelpsMMA]

FWIW I'm pretty positive that diabetes and pseudoglucagonoma syndrome (disease of excess glucagon production minus a pancreatic tumor), are two different conditions. What might be a little confusing is that glucagonoma (with a pancreatic tumor) is typically accompanied by diabetes mellitus, those cases of diabetes are due to the imbalance of glucagon and insulin that glucagonoma causes.

Type II diabetes is not "caused by" any one specific biochemical occurrence directly. When there's a specific defect, the condition is usually classed a different way (which is why there's a type I and type II, for instance). However, to insinuate that insulin resistance isn't the main characterization of type II diabetes mellitus is not correct.

Thanks for summarising that much better than I had.

Try reading these links. One references Lyle McDonalds view on carbs being stored as fat which is basically what Cygnus-X is saying and the exact opposite of what you are arguing.

Excess Protein and Fat Storage - Q&A | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

Here is one by Alan Aragon regarding low carb diets and there effectiveness vs. more standard diets with carbs. Again not in line with what you are arguing.
Max Condition Training and Fitness: Low Carb Dogma

Also here is one by Alan Aragon on the validity of the GI index . FYI he doesn't think it is very valid.
Elements Challenging the Glycemic Index - AlanAragon.com - Fitness Based on Science & Experience

It is good that you are reading stuff by Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon, but I am not sure what articles you are reading to arrive at the opinions you are holding.

Thanks I'll check them out.

 

[ViddyWellLilBro]

I just read all 5 pages and still have no clue if I should be eating high or low carb diet.

 

[jackjohnson]

Someone help me out here, I dont get it. Before Atkins came along it was all about calories. Burn more than you take in and you'll lose weight, which makes sense to me. But now, it's all about carbs. According to Atkins, you can eat 5,000 calories of protein a day and still lose weight. I'm sure both are correct to some degree but what is the best answer to the question, what makes you fat, carbs or calories?

Signed,
Confused

To try and answer the original question. To my knowledge.
I think it is because your body breaks down protein into amino acids . Your body cannot store excess amino acids. You piss it all out so that's why you don't get fat.
However , as someone stated your body is much more complicated. And If you at on high protein low carb, ur body may go into a catabolic state etc.....

 

[selfcritical]

Protein is calories also, so why can I eat a shitload of protein and not get fat according to Atkins? That's the confusing part.

You physically can't actually eat that much protein(in calories). It's too sating. If you sat down at every meal and tried to gorge yourself on completely lean meat, you would almost certainly eat at a caloric deficit, because you will simply stop being hungry too fast. Almost like how if you tried to get fat on green veggies with no dressing, you would simply run out of stomach space before you got a major caloric surplus.

 

[mtruitt76]

You physically can't actually eat that much protein(in calories). It's too sating. If you sat down at every meal and tried to gorge yourself on completely lean meat, you would almost certainly eat at a caloric deficit, because you will simply stop being hungry too fast. Almost like how if you tried to get fat on green veggies with no dressing, you would simply run out of stomach space before you got a major caloric surplus.

Speak for yourself. I would have not problem eating at a caloric surplus eating meat.

 

[Cygnus-X]

To try and answer the original question. To my knowledge.
I think it is because your body breaks down protein into amino acids . Your body cannot store excess amino acids. You piss it all out so that's why you don't get fat.

That's a completely ridiculous notion. If that was the case we would already have all the world's obesity problems solved, just make them eat protein until they're full and they'll piss everything out except 30 grams.

 

[VoodooPlata]

There seems to be a conception that however many calories you eat, that is how many calories your body will absorb. If you eat 3000 calories of fat, 3000 calories will provide fuel for bodily processes etc. This notion is wrong.

Physics states that is I use 2000 calories of energy in a day, those 2000 calories must come from somewhere. This is true. Physics however also states that no machine is 100% efficient (thermodynamics). This is very true of the human body, which is a machine in a physical sense. So even if the human body wasn't self-regulating, which it is, it wouldn't be true that you ate 4000 calories and then used 2000 and the rest became fat. If that were the case, shit wouldn't be sticky - most of the sticky stuff in shit is fat. Fat that is not on your belly, but which you ate. Horseshit is not sticky - it is wet, but not fatty. They also do not eat a lot of fat, but metabolize it from other sources instead. So they don't have fat in their bellies, and thus do not shit fat.

Add to this that the human body will regulate hormonally what happens to the stuff you eat, and then suddenly your "calories in - calories out = weight lost/gained" isn't so crystal clear anymore.

I highly recommend "the skinny on obesity" by Robert Lustig, and his talks on the subject. All can be found on youtube. He is an endocrinologist, who talks about how eating carbohydrates, especially fructose, does bad shit to you. There are also several books on ketogenic diets.

EDIT: what I'm contributing to the discussion is meant to be the notion that even disregarding hormones and self-regulatory processes, calories in - calories out would not be true.

 

[Cygnus-X]

I highly recommend "the skinny on obesity" by Robert Lustig, and his talks on the subject. All can be found on youtube. He is an endocrinologist, who talks about how eating carbohydrates, especially fructose, does bad shit to you. There are also several books on ketogenic diets.

Robert Lustig is full of shit and much of what he says flies in the face of science.

 

[Chalito]

You gain weight when you are in a caloric surplus. Pretty simple.

 

[Ironpants]

You gain weight when you are in a caloric surplus. Pretty simple.

It's the kind of weight you gain that makes the differance.....

 

[Ironpants]

Physics states that is I use 2000 calories of energy in a day, those 2000 calories must come from somewhere. This is true. Physics however also states that no machine is 100% efficient (thermodynamics). This is very true of the human body, which is a machine in a physical sense. So even if the human body wasn't self-regulating, which it is, it wouldn't be true that you ate 4000 calories and then used 2000 and the rest became fat. If that were the case, shit wouldn't be sticky - most of the sticky stuff in shit is fat. Fat that is not on your belly, but which you ate. Horseshit is not sticky - it is wet, but not fatty. They also do not eat a lot of fat, but metabolize it from other sources instead. So they don't have fat in their bellies, and thus do not shit fat.

Any number of things can happen to excess calories (anything above maintaince) wheather they get stored as adipose, mucsle tissue, used for body/organ functions, or just excreted as wasted energy which ultimatly depends on the diet and hormonal enviroment, not to mention the influnce of genetics and basal metabolism so it's not enough to reduce it to simple add and subtract formula that goes into to some magic bank account.

EDIT: what I'm contributing to the discussion is meant to be the notion that even disregarding hormones and self-regulatory processes, calories in - calories out would not be true

.

It's simply an easier concept to sell to the public then what you just illustrated in your detailed post.

 

[Pathogenic]

There seems to be a conception that however many calories you eat, that is how many calories your body will absorb. If you eat 3000 calories of fat, 3000 calories will provide fuel for bodily processes etc. This notion is wrong.

Physics states that is I use 2000 calories of energy in a day, those 2000 calories must come from somewhere. This is true. Physics however also states that no machine is 100% efficient (thermodynamics). This is very true of the human body, which is a machine in a physical sense. So even if the human body wasn't self-regulating, which it is, it wouldn't be true that you ate 4000 calories and then used 2000 and the rest became fat. If that were the case, shit wouldn't be sticky - most of the sticky stuff in shit is fat. Fat that is not on your belly, but which you ate. Horseshit is not sticky - it is wet, but not fatty. They also do not eat a lot of fat, but metabolize it from other sources instead. So they don't have fat in their bellies, and thus do not shit fat.

Add to this that the human body will regulate hormonally what happens to the stuff you eat, and then suddenly your "calories in - calories out = weight lost/gained" isn't so crystal clear anymore.

I highly recommend "the skinny on obesity" by Robert Lustig, and his talks on the subject. All can be found on youtube. He is an endocrinologist, who talks about how eating carbohydrates, especially fructose, does bad shit to you. There are also several books on ketogenic diets.

EDIT: what I'm contributing to the discussion is meant to be the notion that even disregarding hormones and self-regulatory processes, calories in - calories out would not be true.

Robert Lustig is a con artist selling snake oil. Partisan diet cultists like to play with the laws of physics to make them appear to suit their talking points, but science has already murdered their arguments.

The thermic effect of carbohydrate versus fat fee... [Metabolism. 1985] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of isoenergetic overfeeding of either carb... [Br J Nutr. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI
MMS: Error
The effects of low-carbohydrate versus conven... [Ann Intern Med. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and ... [JAMA. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Presence or absence of carbohydrates and the propo... [Br J Nutr. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
Obesity - A Randomized Trial Comparing Low-Fat and Low-Carbohydrate Diets Matched for Energy and Protein
Ketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets have no Metabolic Advantage over Nonketogenic Low-carbohydrate diets | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Bray GA et. al. Hormonal Responses to a Fast-Food Meal Compared with Nutritionally Comparable Meals of Different Composition. Ann Nutr Metab. 2007 May 29;51(2):163-171

Calories in, calories out holds in every single clinical situation in which it has been tried.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

Robert Lustig is a con artist selling snake oil. Partisan diet cultists like to play with the laws of physics to make them appear to suit their talking points, but science has already murdered their arguments.

I wouldn't go as far as saying Lustig is a con artist... just mistaken. He dived into the pool before it had water. What I mean is, he used data from mice, yeast, and cultured "petri dish" human tissue and developed his theories since it allows for more inference. Data from living breathing humans is much harder to acquire, has technical restrictions that other research doesn't, and takes way longer. He jumped the gun. I don't doubt that he authentically believes in his own message (as with Taubes), I just believe he made the common mistake of asserting things he can't quite support yet. Pretty common in academia, imo... publish, publish, publish.