Belly Fat Increasing.

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, jethrof, parth, stuward

Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:25 pm



NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:20 pm

Stephen Johnson wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:Either way, having metabolic syndrome can't cause efficiencies in fat storage that aren't there. The pathways used to convert glucose to lipids is inefficient from what i've read.
With the epidemic of obesity in the US over the last 20 or so years - which curiously coincides with a push towards low fat (ie high carb) foods from fatty foods - the pathways you mentioned, sadly, don't appear to be inefficient enough.
That's where the misconception happens - people aren't gaining weight because of carbs, they're gaining weight because of excess calories.

When you intake carbohydrates and fat, it causes fat oxidation to essentially stop - this means that if you're eating at maintenance the fat calories temporarily are stored as fat, once the carb calories stop being used - the fat that was stored is then released for energy.

Hence, energy balance.

When you intake carbohydrates and fat, and you're above caloric maintenance for the day - the fat is stored and never used, due to the fact you have an abundance of calories from carbohydrates.

So, essentially - it is actually the fat and carbs in a combination with a caloric surplus that is making american fat.

The main reason it has come along with the 'low fat' craze is because people don't pay attention to calories when things say low fat - the just eat as much as they want.

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:23 pm

stuward wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0004546
Metabolic syndrome is associated with many conditions and risk factors. The two most important risk factors are:

Extra weight around the middle of the body (central obesity). The body may be described as "apple-shaped."

Insulin resistance, in which the body cannot use insulin effectively. Insulin is needed to help control the amount of sugar in the body.
This condition is caused or exaserbated by excessive carb consumption. Once you have it, you need to manage your insulin or you risk getting diabetes. Vast numbers of people are becoming pre-diabetic. Obeisity is just one symptom.

This is why Jungle Doc said that carbs are the problem. In healthy people that haven't developed metabolic syndrome, there may appear to be no problem but that doesn't mean that the problem isn't developing.

According to the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, metabolic syndrome is present if you have three or more of the following signs:

Blood pressure equal to or higher than 130/85 mmHg

Fasting blood sugar (glucose) equal to or higher than 100 mg/dL

Large waist circumference (length around the waist):

Men - 40 inches or more

Women - 35 inches or more


Low HDL cholesterol:

Men - under 40 mg/dL

Women - under 50 mg/dL


Triglycerides equal to or higher than 150 mg/dL
Every one of these markers is improved by lowering carbs.
Every one of those markers is improved by lower calories and body fat levels as well, I'd assume.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the recent 'twinkie diet' had all the same changes in health markers.

Low-carb diets just tend to cause people to lose weight because they don't eat as many calories (as protein/fat is more filling), it's not because of the low-carbs themselves.

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:24 pm

Jebus wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE

This explaines it well.
People shouldn't believe everything they see in the movies - why start when it comes to health issues?

Carbs are not the enemy - refined carbs? Maybe. Can they be eaten in the right context while still losing body fat? Yup.

Absolutes are a problem in health - carbs alone do not cause you to be fat - fat itself can just as easily cause you to become fat.

Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:23 pm

NightFaLL wrote:Absolutes are a problem in health - carbs alone do not cause you to be fat - fat itself can just as easily cause you to become fat.
So where is your evidence? I'm not saying your wrong, I would just like to see it.


NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:32 pm

Jebus wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:Absolutes are a problem in health - carbs alone do not cause you to be fat - fat itself can just as easily cause you to become fat.
So where is your evidence? I'm not saying your wrong, I would just like to see it.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... t-fat.html

This first link is what I think helps break it down the best, really.


http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrit ... ation.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrit ... rview.html

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6650
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:35 pm

See how much animal fat and protein you can eat before you start adding fat to your middle.

Remember that the most common source of saturated fats in North America is donuts and pizza.
Last edited by stuward on Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:36 pm

stuward wrote:See how much animal fat and protein you can eat before you start adding fat to your middle.
The point is that it's still calories that matter. I agree, it's more difficult to overeat on fat/protein than carb-based.

User avatar
Stephen Johnson
Exalted Seer
Exalted Seer
Posts: 2097
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:20 pm
Location: New York City

Post by Stephen Johnson » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:37 pm

NightFaLL wrote:The point is that it's still calories that matter.
OK, I see what you're saying - it's the amount of calories (and expanding of portion sizes) that is the prime driver in the obesity epidemic, not the source of the calories.

Still, many convenience and fast foods are so calorie dense, it's hard to keep from getting fat if your diet has a lot of them.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6650
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:10 pm

From another site, this is from a doctor that specializes in paleo nutrtion.

People who are already or get to very lean while doing intense exercise and don't add significant sources of carbs/starches in some manner (daily or cyclical) are bound to end up hammering their adrenals long-term. Undereating in general is chronic and almost endemic in the Paleo community.
That tells me that it's hard to maintain or gain weight on just protein and animal fat.

Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:00 pm

NightFaLL wrote:
Jebus wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:Absolutes are a problem in health - carbs alone do not cause you to be fat - fat itself can just as easily cause you to become fat.
So where is your evidence? I'm not saying your wrong, I would just like to see it.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... t-fat.html

This first link is what I think helps break it down the best, really.


http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrit ... ation.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrit ... rview.html
This is an article, I asked for evidence, like a study.
That article didn't even have any references to any studies.

This is what evidence looks like,
http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/ ... 13557.html

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:59 pm

Jebus wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:
Jebus wrote: So where is your evidence? I'm not saying your wrong, I would just like to see it.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... t-fat.html

This first link is what I think helps break it down the best, really.


http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrit ... ation.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrit ... rview.html
This is an article, I asked for evidence, like a study.
That article didn't even have any references to any studies.

This is what evidence looks like,
http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/ ... 13557.html
First off, that's actually an article - not a study. It talks about a study, but so do all the links that I posted (they are also referenced on the site).
Although the study was not designed to determine which diet was more effective for losing weight, the average weight loss for the low-calorie dieters was about 5 pounds after two weeks, while the low-carbohydrate dieters lost about 9½ pounds on average.
5lbs vs 9 1/2 pounds of WEIGHT means absolutely nothing - I can lose 10lbs in one day if I see fit, it won't be fat.

Glycogen/water weight, etc, tends to go first on low-carb diets.

I asked in another thread for some evidence that low-carb is more effective than calorie restriction for fat loss - I've yet to see anything proving otherwise.

My sources are just as credible as the one you posted.

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:00 pm

stuward wrote:From another site, this is from a doctor that specializes in paleo nutrtion.

People who are already or get to very lean while doing intense exercise and don't add significant sources of carbs/starches in some manner (daily or cyclical) are bound to end up hammering their adrenals long-term. Undereating in general is chronic and almost endemic in the Paleo community.
That tells me that it's hard to maintain or gain weight on just protein and animal fat.
As I said before, it's more difficult to overeat on protein/fat only. It still comes down to calories, though. I guarantee that if you were to eat 500 calories over maintenance every day for a week on fat/protein, you would gain a significant amount of fat.

Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:17 pm

NightFaLL wrote: I guarantee that if you were to eat 500 calories over maintenance every day for a week on fat/protein, you would gain a significant amount of fat.
I agree on most of what you say except this. Now, I'm skeptical for the opposite to be true as well. But I havent seen any evidence of people gaining fat on low-carb diets. Its very well possible but I think you would need quite a bit more fat/protein, cal/cal for fat gain. Meaning that, if you took 1 individual and with a cal surplus of 500 being carbs, and switched it to fat, being 500 cal too, he wouldn't gain as much fat, if at all.

There is no study to support what I said, as far as I know but same goes for you, as far as I know.

Oscar_Actuary
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2407
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:12 pm

Post by Oscar_Actuary » Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:10 pm

Jebus wrote: But I havent seen any evidence of people gaining fat on low-carb diets. Its very well possible but I think you would need quite a bit more fat/protein, cal/cal for fat gain. Meaning that, if you took 1 individual and with a cal surplus of 500 being carbs, and switched it to fat, being 500 cal too, he wouldn't gain as much fat, if at all.
Where would the extra calories go?
Faster matabolism, or more poop? or Muscle ?


Post Reply