 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / September 2004Carbs converted to sat fat ?
Hello, Someone here said that the body converts every carbohydrates over 150 grams to saturated fats I wonder if this is true and is there's a official scientific reference to back this up Someone consuming a normal caloric diet and doing some sport, let's say 2500 calorie daily would have to consume no more than 24% carbohydrates to avoid an "excess" of carb is that is true If that is not true does anyone know the actual figure for carb -> sat fat convertion or wether there's no such a thing as an excess of carbohydrates only an excess of calories Maybe the difference is between unrefined and refined high GI carbs where only the latter in a normocaloric diet are converted to fat Thanks Nicholas All excess calories are ultimately converted to body fat.  SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. In data Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:46:45 +0200, Mxsmanic ha scritto: > All excess calories are ultimately converted to body fat. Okay, but who said that more than 150 grams of carbohydrates is excessive ? Is there any scientific reference that show that our body consider more than 150 grams of carbohydrate excessive even though it's only 600 calories? If I need 2500 calories and I consume 2000 calories of carboidrates, is this excessive for the body even though it's not excess calories ? What is the limit between fair amount and excessive amount ? 150 g ? Thanks Nicholas > Okay, but who said that more than 150 grams of carbohydrates is excessive ? It depends on how many calories you burn. Any excess of calories consumed over calories burned is converted to fat. > Is there any scientific reference that show that our body consider more > than 150 grams of carbohydrate excessive even though it's only 600 > calories? See above. > If I need 2500 calories and I consume 2000 calories of carboidrates, is > this excessive for the body even though it's not excess calories ? No. You'll lose weight. > What is the limit between fair amount and excessive amount ? 150 g ? See above. Anything beyond what your body requires in terms of energy is excessive and will be turned to fat. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. You have correctly identified one of the flaws in the low carb logic, any of the macro sources of nutrition are not likely to lead to problems if their sum doesn't exceed daily calorie requirements. The 150 carbs is related to the brain needing an amount similar to this each day, the brain uses glucose only or one of it's variations for it's energy source. Using the backwards logic of low carb, this then means anything above 150 is to be avoided. >> All excess calories are ultimately converted to body fat. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Thanks >Nicholas Two flaws in this paragraph, at least. 1) It assumes the complete mathematical infallibility of the application of the caloric theory in the real world, which is dubious due to the very broad and general nature of the food/calorie quantifications, labelling inaccuracies, etc. 2) The silly ramblings about 150 carbs and the needs of the brain, and the excess to be avoided. ????? The low-carb concept is directly tied to the glycemic load concept. Essentially, refined and high-GI carbs with little fat to slow absorption of the carbs will spike hormonal levels (insulin) and cause weight gain or at least block weight loss. A meal with fewer refined carbs and more slowly absorbed (metabolized) wholefood carbs will avoid this unusual hormonal spike and minimize the amount of time that the body is in this fat storage mode. Carbs are the first available source of energy for the body. If there is always high levels of glucose in the body, the body will use it to the exclusion of using fat for energy and will try to store the excess carbs as fat. Never even touching the stored fat for energy. If you glucose levels are low, then the body has no choice but to use fat for its energy source. And no, that is not unusual or dangerous. The body can safely use fat for energy and break it down to ketones and get rid of the excess ketones. That how the body developed over millions of years with little or no refined carbs in the diet. If it was as simple as cutting calories, anyone who seriously wanted to be thin would be, and it would not be a major battle, they would just have to cut back on what they eat. Yet, it fails in about 98% of cases. TC TC > You have correctly identified one of the flaws in the low carb logic, any > of the macro sources of nutrition are not likely to lead to problems if [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Thanks > >Nicholas > The low-carb concept is directly tied to the glycemic load concept. *Some* low carb approach are (South Beach for instance), others *really* focus on reducing the number of net carbs, high or low GI. > Essentially, refined and high-GI carbs with little fat to slow > absorption of the carbs will spike hormonal levels (insulin) and cause > weight gain or at least block weight loss. By that logic, one should not be able to lose weight on a low fat diet, or on a very high carb diet. That would mean most of the people in the Third World would be obese or unable to lose weight. But people *do* lose weight on low fat, as long as you restrict calories low enough. Likewise, people lose weight on plenty of weird diets, like fruit only diets or cookies only diets (yes, they do exist). That fact is in contradiction with what you're saying. The problem of all diets is *not* losing weight. All of them, no matter how crazy, do that. The problem all diets face are binges and people unable to maintain weight loss (which is mostly binges and inability to recover from them). > A meal with fewer refined > carbs and more slowly absorbed (metabolized) wholefood carbs will > avoid this unusual hormonal spike and minimize the amount of time that > the body is in this fat storage mode. Normal people who do three iso- or hypo-caloric meals a day will spend most of their time outside of hormonal spike anyway. Remember that many non-diabetic people are already back to normo-glycemia less than two hours after the start of a meal. By that time, they're not anabolic anymore. > Carbs are the first available source of energy for the body. If there > is always high levels of glucose in the body, the body will use it to > the exclusion of using fat for energy and will try to store the excess > carbs as fat. Per definition, if you eat less calories than you burn, this just cannot happen. Eventually, everything that you have eaten, carbs or not, will have been burnt. Then, the body will have to use its stores, both fats and glycogen. > If your glucose levels are low, then the body has no choice but to use fat for > its energy source. That's what happens to everyone, low carbing or not, as long as they're not diabetic (or are diabetics in good control). Low glucose level is what triggers hunger after all. If you wait until you're hungry before eating, you will have gone through a low glycemia phase with low insuline level. > And no, that is not unusual or dangerous. The body > can safely use fat for energy and break it down to ketones and get rid > of the excess ketones. That's also what happens in everyday life, provided you don't snack every hour (I will admit that some people *do* snack every hour). > That how the body developed over millions of years with little or no refined carbs in the diet. But we still had some high GI food. Both human beings and apes have a strong attraction to sweet, because our brains are insanely power hungry (compare human brain glucose need to that of other animals). So, we often ate fruits, and ripe tropical fruits are pretty heavy in sugar. As soon as fire was available, cooking roots was possible, another source of energy with plenty of carbs. > If it was as simple as cutting calories, anyone who seriously wanted > to be thin would be, and it would not be a major battle, they would > just have to cut back on what they eat. Well, it's actually that simple. >Yet, it fails in about 98% of cases. No, failure rate is only 85% ;) And very few people fail in the early phase : weight loss. When most fail is either halfway to goal (but some weight has been lost), or, mostly, at maintenance. Extreme restriction of food will lead to short term weight loss with accompanying poor health. Eating extreme amounts of all foods will lead to gaining weight and the accompanying poor health. I am not addressing these EXTREME circumstances. Somewhere in the middle is a diet that fills you up without causing you to gain weight and provides you with optimum nutrition. It is a low-carb low-glycemic-index diet. It is high fat, moderate protein and low carb, compared to the currently recommended food pyramid. TC > > The low-carb concept is directly tied to the glycemic load concept. > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > : weight loss. When most fail is either halfway to goal (but some weight has > been lost), or, mostly, at maintenance. > Extreme restriction of food will lead to short term weight loss with > accompanying poor health. Eating extreme amounts of all foods will > lead to gaining weight and the accompanying poor health. I am not > addressing these EXTREME circumstances. Neither am I. Eating 1600 calories a day doesn't sound that extreme to me. That will nevertheless cause weight loss in someone who needs 2000 calories a day. Actually, some obeses can lose on a 2500 calories diet, because some of them retain a high metabolism. That doesn't sound very extreme to me. There is no clear link between extreme low calories and ability to maintain the weight loss or not. I mean, most of the time, the dieter is unable to maintain the weight loss, but that's also what happens with most diets anyway. > Somewhere in the middle is a diet that fills you up without causing > you to gain weight and provides you with optimum nutrition. That's what happens if you're doing a diet that follow the natural weight loss curve of the body or a diet that is anorexigen. Low carb is anorexigen, but that doesn't mean you cannot use other approaches. > It is a > low-carb low-glycemic-index diet. It is high fat, moderate protein and > low carb, compared to the currently recommended food pyramid. I know how it looks like. It's only one of the way to deal with the problem, others are available. But I'm still not clear on how that kind of diet fares in the long term. We still have no clue about long term success rate. What is its long term impact on health? Is the loss sustainable? Many studies are done at the one year mark, and that's worthless. That's a diet you're supposed to follow for life. It should be evaluated at 5 years, 10 years, 20 years... Somewhere in the middle is a diet that fills you up without causing you to gain weight and provides you with optimum nutrition. It is a low-carb low-glycemic-index diet. It is high fat, moderate protein and low carb, compared to the currently recommended food pyramid. TC Don't agree. I went on a low-fat diet...ate as much low fat or no far food as I wanted...did'nt worry about portions or sugar for that matter and lost 80 lbs with no pain or side effects over two years. Yes it is slower but it is a diet that is easy to live on...does'nt take much thought and works. Low carb makes one constipated,lethargic,gives one halitosis, kidney stress etc. Bren Signature"For a person's a person No matter how small" -Dr. Suess Low fat diets give many gallbladder failure. > Somewhere in the middle is a diet that fills you up without causing > you to gain weight and provides you with optimum nutrition. It is a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bren Most diets fail because they are not long term solutions, not because they have too many carbs. Permanent change for people is a difficult thing, and sometimes its even costly (whole grain products can cost more than refined products). Also, in America increasingly people don't get physical activity. I'm not talking exercise. Everybody hates exercise, except for the few people who are athletes or are addicted to running. I'm saying living in suburbs makes you fat (they have proven this, in a recent study). People don't have to walk beyond picking up the mail- their SUV takes them everywhere. You have to look at it holisticly. It also didn't help the US government changed the definition of "overweight", thus putting more people within the ranks of the overweight. Lots of studies have shown that being moderately overweight doesn't significantly affect healthcare costs over a lifetime- in fact it's not until you get into the frank obese that healthcare costs really start to increase. In many cultures, being thin is not considered desireable or attractive, in fact it is assosciated with poverty. Pushing diets on people, especially women, encourages eating disorders and unhealthy attitudes about food and eating. " It also didn't help the US government changed the definition of "overweight", thus putting more people within the ranks of the overweight. Lots of studies have shown that being moderately overweight doesn't significantly affect healthcare costs over a lifetime- in fact it's not until you get into the frank obese that healthcare costs really start to increase. In many cultures, being thin is not considered desireable or attractive, in fact it is assosciated with poverty. Pushing diets on people, especially women, encourages eating disorders and unhealthy attitudes about food and eating." The body mass index measure of body weight was not decided by the government. It's cut off points were based on looking to see where the curve for various risk factors starts to rise, for both upper and lower markers. A bmi lower then or above the normal range have added health risks. By emperical research the bmi for various parts of the world has been modified to reflect differences in risk factors, for example the 25 as the upper number for normal is 23 or so for those in the s. asia area because their risk factors start to rise at a lower number. Maybe the government will perform their usual miracle with obesity?? 1) redefine what obesity really means. Loosen the parameters. 2) Recount the tally. 3) Scream to the world they have cured it with their new obesity vaccine. > Most diets fail because they are not long term solutions, not because > they have too many carbs. Permanent change for people is a difficult thing, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > people, especially women, encourages eating disorders and unhealthy > attitudes about food and eating. > Most diets fail because they are not long term solutions, not because > they have too many carbs. That's certainly one of the reason why diets fail, but certainly not the only one. I would include others : - many diets rely on willpower. Willpower is not meant to deal with trivial things like eating three meals a day, there is only so much willpower available. - many diets are restrictive; they put the dieter in a state of cognitive restriction, which is one step in the binge cycle. This means most diets are a medically induced and controlled form of anorexia - sometimes it backfires and leads to binge eating or bulimia. - diets fail to address the *cause* of the obesity, they only deal with removing the symptoms (the fat). - diets fail to help the dieter adjust to being in a slim body, some people are just not able to cope with that. - diets fail to help people to give up the positive aspects of their fat. > Permanent change for people is a difficult thing, > and sometimes its even costly (whole grain products can cost more than > refined products). That's why obesity should be addressed from all angles, not only from the medical angle. It's also a political problem. It implies changes in city planning, agriculture policy, education... > Also, in America increasingly people don't get physical > activity. I'm not talking exercise. Everybody hates exercise, except for > the few people who are athletes or are addicted to running. I'm saying > living in suburbs makes you fat (they have proven this, in a recent study). > People don't have to walk beyond picking up the mail- their SUV takes them > everywhere. Several European cities are thinking about banning SUV, you should join them ;) That's again a political problem, an urbanism one. Zoning created the *need* to drive a car to do anything. Compare that to traditionnal European cities, or American cities built like them (New York, San Francisco...) : people walk a lot, because work, houses and shops are within the same area. The average new yorkers walks an insane amount of distance daily. I wonder if this shows on the obesity statistics for the city, once you remove the other factors (income...). > Lots of studies have shown that being moderately overweight doesn't > significantly affect healthcare costs over a lifetime- in fact it's not > until you get into the frank obese that healthcare costs really start to > increase. 1) knowing that modest overweight carries little health risk 2) knowing that most diets *fail* and lead to net weight *gain* 3) knowing that repetitively losing and gaining weight carries a much higher health risk than keeping that weight constant It follow that a doctor *forcing* an otherwise healthy and moderately overweight patient to start a diet is actually statistically doing harm to his patient. Primum non nocere. > Pushing diets on people, especially women, encourages eating disorders and unhealthy > attitudes about food and eating. Yup. One might wonder if the diet craze is part of what is increasing the obesity rate. I mean, more and more people are on a diet, and more and more people ar obese. > Yup. One might wonder if the diet craze is part of what is increasing > the obesity rate. I mean, more and more people are on a diet, and more > and more people ar obese. Paul Campos (in _The Obesity Myth_ and various columns) suggests that that's precisely the case. He also wrote a column (available online, but I don't remember the URL) about how people didn't walk much (it wasn't related to weight control). According to the BMI, Arnold Schwartzeneger (in his prime, dunno how he is now days) was severely obese, and Bruce Willis and Sylester Stallone were overweight. According to my "BMI" I'm 35-38 lbs overweight and obese, but to me, it seems like I'm more like 20 lbs overweight. There is no way I'd feel healthy weighing only 165 lbs. I think the lowest I ever weighed was about 174, and I didn't have any real body fat left (in fact I had trouble keeping on the weight). So I don't feel obese, even if I probably could stand to lose a few pounds (weighing about 202 lbs). > That's why obesity should be addressed from all angles, not only from the > medical angle. It's also a political problem. It implies changes in city > planning, agriculture policy, education... High obesity is the canary in the coal mine... it's a sign of a society that is severely disfunctional. To be fair, Europe and Asia have increased rates of obesity too, but the US has more. > It follow that a doctor *forcing* an otherwise healthy and moderately > overweight patient to start a diet is actually statistically doing harm to > his patient. Primum non nocere. A more productive approach, IMO, would be to encourage people to eat better foods. Telling people to lose weight is obviously a recipe for failure, because ultimately society has more than its share of responsability for the rise in obesity. In the US, there are cases of both obesity and maltnutrition at the same time. Some of the poorer hispanic migrant communities, or inner-cities, for instance. People exist on diets of cheap starches, soda pop, and little else. They can't afford to eat good food. There are also cases of food deserts in the US, where the only place to buy food easily is a convenience store. This is a problem both in rural areas and inner cities, and is caused by the suburbification and super-center grocery stores like Wal-Mart. : > That's why obesity should be addressed from all angles, not only from the : > medical angle. It's also a political problem. It implies changes in city : > planning, agriculture policy, education... : High obesity is the canary in the coal mine... it's a sign of a society : that is severely disfunctional. : To be fair, Europe and Asia have increased rates of obesity too, but the : US has more. : > It follow that a doctor *forcing* an otherwise healthy and moderately : > overweight patient to start a diet is actually statistically doing harm to : > his patient. Primum non nocere. : A more productive approach, IMO, would be to encourage people to eat : better foods. Telling people to lose weight is obviously a recipe for : failure, because ultimately society has more than its share of : responsability for the rise in obesity. : In the US, there are cases of both obesity and maltnutrition at the same : time. Some of the poorer hispanic migrant communities, or inner-cities, for : instance. People exist on diets of cheap starches, soda pop, and little : else. At our local hospitals, we receive fly-in patients from a Native ("N. American Indian") reservation. Diabetes and obesity are exploding among that population, too. Emma > > That's why obesity should be addressed from all angles, not only from the > > medical angle. It's also a political problem. It implies changes in city [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > store. This is a problem both in rural areas and inner cities, and is > caused by the suburbification and super-center grocery stores like Wal-Mart. I am against the decision made by the H&H Services to call obesity a disease...this is not helping the condition or the mindset of individuals, imho. > Hello, > Someone here said that the body converts every carbohydrates over 150 grams [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Maybe the difference is between unrefined and refined high GI carbs where > only the latter in a normocaloric diet are converted to fat Scanning various web pages it looks like very little carbohydrates in a normal diet gets converted to fat, and so I don't think that the conversion is an important source of saturated fat in the body. Carbohydrates get burned first, so an excess of calories is what causes a person to gain weight (mostly as fat). SignatureRon >> Hello, >> Someone here said that the body converts every carbohydrates over 150 grams [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Carbohydrates get burned first, so an excess of calories is what >causes a person to gain weight (mostly as fat). Protein Triggers Carbohydrate Conversion To Body Fat A biochemistry team from the Department of Veterans Affairs and UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas has identified a glucose-sensitive protein that translates excessively high-carbohydrate intake into body fat, especially when combined with a sedentary lifestyle. "Once upon a time, we thought hormones directed this long-term control of metabolism. Turns out, diet also plays a major role," said Dr. Kosaku "Ko" Uyeda, a UT Southwestern professor of biochemistry and research career scientist at the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Uyeda and his UT Southwestern colleagues reported in today's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they isolated the glucose-sensitive protein, dubbed the carbohydrate response element-binding protein (ChREBP), that triggers the long-term process of transforming excess dietary carbohydrates into fat. They used rat livers in their study, but the results are believed to reflect the human body's functions. When people eat desserts, pasta, potatoes or other sugar- and starch-laden foods beyond the body's energy and nutritional needs, these carbohydrates become a flood of glucose, and the liver converts the surplus glucose to fat, Uyeda said. At some point, the glucose reaches a level that signals the ChRE-binding protein to start a chain-reaction along a series of genes that, in turn, activate the synthesis of a dozen enzymes that catalyze the transformation of the excess glucose into fat to be stored in the body, he said. See http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0731014.htm for complete article. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.