Fat? Blame 1950s Stepford Wives

[noxiousdog]

Yes, it's more complex than calories in-calories out=conversion to fat, but, it's the primary contributor.

Unless we are absorbing energy from the air or sun, it's really not.

Couple off the top of my head. Note I think exercise and food intake are by far the most important contributors, but they're not the only.

1) Types of food eaten. Depending upon the chemical composition of the food you eat, it can require more or less energy to convert to fat. For example, simple sugars are the easiest to process (requiring less bond energy expenditure to convert), whereas proteins are relatively difficult to convert to fat (as it has to be converted to glucose first). See for a real basic description. Basic biochemistry; wish I had my Voet and Voet textbook here as I could give a much better description with concrete examples of energy it takes for conversion. Likely in ATPs, going way down the nerd rabbithole.

2) Genetics. We now have a lifestyle that allows for more fatasses, so that gene isn't perhaps the selector it used to be. This one's theoretical.

3) Finally, it's not all about just actively spending energy. For example, exercise not only is about the energy you're actively burning, but also has a positive effect on your metabolism (burning calories while sleeping, for instance). Yes, this is still technically calories out, but most people don't understand that if you don't exercise, your baseline caloric expenditure will be lower as well...not only are you not burning calories when exercising, you're burning less when sleeping.

I also didn't go the insulin route (we're bombarded far more frequently by food that causes insulin release, leading to insulin resistance), because I just don't really want to head down that pathway. For example, there's highly conflicting evidence, but it appears that foods/drinks with zero calories that are enhanced with artificial sweeteners (i.e., aspartame) cause a transient insulin spike. And they should not...because insulin should only be released in response to carbohydrate presence.

That's fantastic. But it still winds up on the calories out part of the equation.

[Eightball]

It's pretty well established that South Beach and Paleo diets lead to a significantly reduced calorie intake.

Is that all they are shorthand for, then? My bad. I was trying to conjure up a diet fad that claims something more mystical than simply "eat less food." But if these two are simply ways to make you feel full on fewer calories than the traditional not-dieting diet, then I grabbed bad examples.

No, you're right. They claim to. But in reality the reason it works is that you consume less calories. At least that's the overriding factor, imo.

They work because you eat more protein...which fills you up a lot more, and is far less dense in calories than carbohydrates. Protein causes more satiety than carbs. And for calories?

A 6 ounce beef tenderloin filet is about 350 calories. A bagel (plain) is 354. One Dunkin Donut's donut runs around the same, if not more.

One of the three will fill you for dinner.

[silverjon]

It's pretty well established that South Beach and Paleo diets lead to a significantly reduced calorie intake.

Is that all they are shorthand for, then? My bad. I was trying to conjure up a diet fad that claims something more mystical than simply "eat less food." But if these two are simply ways to make you feel full on fewer calories than the traditional not-dieting diet, then I grabbed bad examples.

No, the diets do push nutritional mysticism, but because of the things they tell people to not eat, the people on them eat less overall.

[Eightball]

That's fantastic. But it still winds up on the calories out part of the equation.

I can't tell if you really just want to be obtuse on this, or you just plain out prefer the simple answer? The genetic one certainly isn't just calories out. I wouldn't have reduced the chem conversion one to calories out, either, but whatever.

If you want to lose weight...eat less and exercise more. It really is that easy. But there are plenty of people who eat right, exercise a lot, and gain weight. Likewise, there are plenty of people who eat terrible, don't exercise, and still can't gain weight. There's something more than just simple in/out.

[hepcat]

ding. when I was doing low carb, i would get so frustrated with the act of finding foods I could eat, I would inevitably eat less.

[LordMortis]

Dietitians and other experts on how the body operates can come up with magic about proportions of various types of food may lead to some sort of mystical chemical processes which lead to more efficient caloric burning of certain types of calories (I'm thinking in terms of folks pushing for things like a South Beach or Paleo types of diets), but to me these types of things are down in the noise of the data. Putting fewer calories down your esophagus is the easiest measurable to control when it comes to accomplishing the goal of losing fat. Everything else would be, in the strictest of engineering terms, "mice nuts."

While it still comes down to calories in and calories out, it's the non complexity part that sits awkward with me.

For instance, they seem to be doing a lot of studies of mitochondria and how to make more of them and how to them stronger and more productive.

So they've got drugs that are essentially exercise pills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW_501516" target="_blank

(Also see AICAR though wiki doesn't talk about it)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/evans-narkar-qa.html" target="_blank

And these exercise pills have (not in the same magnitude of efficiency) counterparts in nature, grapes.

Anyhoo, I don't know that any of this actionable. But it's interesting, especially for someone who used to never struggle with weight and now does.

Edit: And a lot of this was expressed while I was busy trying to look shit up.

Edit: Like magic, there are new studies being released, like now...

http://www.nih.gov/news/radio/feb2012/2 ... ratrol.htm" target="_blank

[MonkeyFinger]

Been struggling with comprehending all of the issues being discussed here - in v. out, low cal/fat/carb/whatever... rather daunting. Currently reading Taubes' Why We Get Fat and found an interesting discussion of the book and quite a number of rather well-spoken comments afterwords here.

[Enough]

I love OO, awesome discussion all. I should have guessed posting what struck me as a slightly amusing article would lead to such an intense conversation here.

[dbt1949]

I say enough is enough!

[hepcat]

When my mother breast fed me, it wasn't milk...it was gravy,
baby.

Wait. That was your mother I boinked?

Boink is such a nasty word. Couldn't you go back to calling it "parking your yacht in hair harbor"? My 3rd grade class really seemed to like that during the only father's day presentation you deigned to show up for at my school.

[noxiousdog]

That's fantastic. But it still winds up on the calories out part of the equation.

I can't tell if you really just want to be obtuse on this, or you just plain out prefer the simple answer? The genetic one certainly isn't just calories out. I wouldn't have reduced the chem conversion one to calories out, either, but whatever.

If you want to lose weight...eat less and exercise more. It really is that easy. But there are plenty of people who eat right, exercise a lot, and gain weight. Likewise, there are plenty of people who eat terrible, don't exercise, and still can't gain weight. There's something more than just simple in/out.

And I'm arguing that "eat right" and "eat terrible" are worthless metrics without specific caloric numbers attached to them. Likewise "exercise a lot" and "don't exercise" are worthless without knowing what else they are doing throughout the day.

I read something recently that something as simple as sleeping with only a sheet, instead of a blanket, can increase calorie output by 400 calories a day due to heat loss.

That's a crap load of calories for doing "nothing."

[Eightball]

And I'm arguing that "eat right" and "eat terrible" are worthless metrics without specific caloric numbers attached to them. Likewise "exercise a lot" and "don't exercise" are worthless without knowing what else they are doing throughout the day.

I read something recently that something as simple as sleeping with only a sheet, instead of a blanket, can increase calorie output by 400 calories a day due to heat loss.

That's a crap load of calories for doing "nothing."

Ok. So, what are you arguing about with me?

[noxiousdog]

And I'm arguing that "eat right" and "eat terrible" are worthless metrics without specific caloric numbers attached to them. Likewise "exercise a lot" and "don't exercise" are worthless without knowing what else they are doing throughout the day.

I read something recently that something as simple as sleeping with only a sheet, instead of a blanket, can increase calorie output by 400 calories a day due to heat loss.

That's a crap load of calories for doing "nothing."

Ok. So, what are you arguing about with me?

I think if you'll look closely I wasn't doing much (if any) contradicting of you.

[Eightball]

And I'm arguing that "eat right" and "eat terrible" are worthless metrics without specific caloric numbers attached to them. Likewise "exercise a lot" and "don't exercise" are worthless without knowing what else they are doing throughout the day.

I read something recently that something as simple as sleeping with only a sheet, instead of a blanket, can increase calorie output by 400 calories a day due to heat loss.

That's a crap load of calories for doing "nothing."

Ok. So, what are you arguing about with me?

I think if you'll look closely I wasn't doing much (if any) contradicting of you.

Yay!