Jump to content
RemedySpot.com
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Re: Eat Fat, Lose Fat...Fat Fat Fat!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Gene-

>I said that I need to exercise " enought to burn the calories that I

>consume " , in order not to gain weight. Isn't this, quite obviously,

>true of everyone?

Not even close. Have you never come across people who eat like pigs

and never exercise but are still rail-thin? Obviously they're

handling their caloric intake through means other than exercise.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Gene-

>hmmm. have any studies been done on this? My inclination is to

>believe that activity level, which could be anything from nervous

>activity, to sitting upright vs lying down, etc - would have far

>more effect. I think that, for instance, mental energy might have

>some affect, but when compared to a kettlebell workout? If I want to

>lose weight, I don't think that concentrating harder is going to do it....

I don't have figures handy, but the brain is capable of consuming

VAST amounts of energy.

Also, there are metabolic switches in cells which determine to what

degree fuel gets converted to useful energy and to what degree it's

merely burned off as heat.

I could go on at some length, but I'm trying to catch up on my email

quickly and I don't have time right now.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Renata-

>Yeast can really go through the sugars,

>but does that make the calories less bioavailable to us?

Slightly, but there are a few countervailing factors. Yeast (and

other microbes) can spur us to eat more sugar than we would have

otherwise, more than compensating for any effective calorie input

reduction caused by their presence. Microbes also don't fully

metabolize anything -- they merely break it down somewhat, and the

reaction products are available for metabolism by us and our gut

flora. And yeast (and other undesirables) produce biotoxins which

damage our metabolism.

>Also

>certain " calories " the olgiosaccharides, are " eaten " by the

>beneficial bacteria in the gut, who in turn give us nice things like

>GABA and butyric acid, and some vitamins.

They're also eaten by nasty gut organisms which can cause MAJOR

problems. The idea that FOS and inulin are magically available only

to " beneficial " organisms is a myth and also relies on the

misconception that a given organism is always only beneficial or

problematic regardless of population and conditions.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Chris-

>Additionally, I read a review of various different and

>conflicting metabolic typing diets in _Metabolic Man: 10,000 Years

> From Eden_ and while I liked the book itself, I was not very impressed

>with the diets it presented.

Actually, I think one of the best points of that book, however

unintentional it might have been, is how much all the various

metabolic typing theories conflict with each other.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 8/12/06, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I don't have figures handy, but the brain is capable of consuming

> VAST amounts of energy.

This is demonstrable to me through one relatively clear point of

personal experience: when I'm hungry, my ability to read and even

moreso my analytical power decreases sharply. When I eat, these

abilities are restored.

I think that when we are low on energy, we conserve the energy we have

for the most basic needs. Thus, the fact that my ability to read and

analyze information declines sharply when my body is conserving energy

indicates to me that those activities consume substantial amounts of

energy above and beyond what the brain consumes for sustaining basic

waking functions.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

>> > In my own experience (perhaps this explains my skepticism), I

>> > don't encounter these vast differences that you speak of. If

>> > anything, they seem pretty small. If I exercise enough to burn the

>> > calories that I consume, I seem to lose weight, but if not, I gain

>> > weight. For the most part. I am amused when I read people saying

>> > that they drink a gallon of coconut oil every day, and can't

>> > understand why they're gaining weight.

>

> ³I second 's point, but more generally, are you kidding or

> what? You embody a single data point! And from this you're drawing

> sweeping conclusions which allow you to sneer at other people who

> have more difficulty than you do in regulating their weight?

>

> - ³

>

> Look. WTF are you talking about? Of course, I embody a single data point. I

> explained why this single data point may have what may to you seem like a

> simplistic view.

> I can be amused that someone may consume hundreds of calories worth of coconut

> oil a day and be puzzled as to why he/she has a weight problem. I don¹t think

> that this is ³sneering². I¹ve seen you be amused by many opinions expressed on

> this list. But perhaps then you admit to the sneering.

>

> I simply never claimed that I was logically drawing ³sweeping conclusions²

> from my own single data point. But just as you and everyone else allows their

> own experience to influence their opinions, I admitted that perhaps mine were

> also influenced by my opinions.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

An interesting quote from

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=381608 ;

....the brain may use 30% of a body's total energy, while being only 2–3% of

total body mass.

Suat

On 8/12/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

> On 8/12/06, Idol <Idol@... <Idol%40nyc.rr.com>>

> wrote:

>

> > I don't have figures handy, but the brain is capable of consuming

> > VAST amounts of energy.

>

> This is demonstrable to me through one relatively clear point of

> personal experience: when I'm hungry, my ability to read and even

> moreso my analytical power decreases sharply. When I eat, these

> abilities are restored.

>

> I think that when we are low on energy, we conserve the energy we have

> for the most basic needs. Thus, the fact that my ability to read and

> analyze information declines sharply when my body is conserving energy

> indicates to me that those activities consume substantial amounts of

> energy above and beyond what the brain consumes for sustaining basic

> waking functions.

>

>

> Chris

>

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

> Gene-

>

>> >I said that I need to exercise " enought to burn the calories that I

>> >consume " , in order not to gain weight. Isn't this, quite obviously,

>> >true of everyone?

>

> ³Not even close. Have you never come across people who eat like pigs

> and never exercise but are still rail-thin? Obviously they're

> handling their caloric intake through means other than exercise.

>

> - ³

>

> Are you for real? I think the meaning of what I said was pretty clear. If you

> don¹t exercise ³enough² so that you are left with excess calories, you will

> gain weight. That doesn¹t imply that all people need to exercise the same

> amount, or that all people need to exercise at all. But if you are consuming

> excess calories (you are not burning them off otherwise, through whatever

> biological processes) then you need to exercise to do so.

>

> Perhaps the point is so simple that your desire to attack me colors your

> logic?

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

> Gene-

>

>> >hmmm. have any studies been done on this? My inclination is to

>> >believe that activity level, which could be anything from nervous

>> >activity, to sitting upright vs lying down, etc - would have far

>> >more effect. I think that, for instance, mental energy might have

>> >some affect, but when compared to a kettlebell workout? If I want to

>> >lose weight, I don't think that concentrating harder is going to do it....

>

> ³I don't have figures handy, but the brain is capable of consuming

> VAST amounts of energy.²

>

> I say that I am doubtful of this, and would be curious about any actual

> research. You just simply tell me that it¹s true. Well, I¹m still doubtful.

> What is ³VAST². Do you mean that if I need to lose weight, I can change

> nothing but learn how to focus my mind properly and burn off an extra 800

> calories a day?

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

> On 8/12/06, Idol <Idol@... <mailto:Idol%40nyc.rr.com> >

> wrote:

>

>> > I don't have figures handy, but the brain is capable of consuming

>> > VAST amounts of energy.

>

> ³This is demonstrable to me through one relatively clear point of

> personal experience: when I'm hungry, my ability to read and even

> moreso my analytical power decreases sharply. When I eat, these

> abilities are restored.²

>

> So, you conclude by the fact that you can think more clearly when you¹re not

> hungry, that mental activity can burn ³VAST² amounts of calories?

>

> ³I think that when we are low on energy, we conserve the energy we have

> for the most basic needs. Thus, the fact that my ability to read and

> analyze information declines sharply when my body is conserving energy

> indicates to me that those activities consume substantial amounts of

> energy above and beyond what the brain consumes for sustaining basic

> waking functions.²

>

> Please produce one study that shows that vast numbers of calories can be

> produced simply by mental activity.

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

wrote:

> >> > I don't have figures handy, but the brain is capable of consuming

> >> > VAST amounts of energy.

In response, I wrote:

> > ³This is demonstrable to me through one relatively clear point of

> > personal experience: when I'm hungry, my ability to read and even

> > moreso my analytical power decreases sharply. When I eat, these

> > abilities are restored.²

Finally, Gene wrote:

> So, you conclude by the fact that you can think more clearly when you¹re not

> hungry, that mental activity can burn ³VAST² amounts of calories?

It is already well-known and well-established that the brain uses vast

amounts of calories. wrote the first comment and I wrote the

second, so the connection isn't perfect. What I was trying to say was

not that 's contention (or truism rather) depended on my mere

personal anecdote, but rather than the import of what said is

demonstrated in that anecdote.

If I were to engage in a debate with someone about whether 's

statement is true, I would not use what I said as evidence showing it

to be true, but I wasn't, at the time, considering there to be any

debate about it.

And in fact my anecdote says more about the relative difference

between what the brain uses for basal metabolism compared to what it

is capable of using in maximal activity, which I could have been more

precise about pointing out. If my analytical power varies by a factor

of five, say, depending on available food energy, then that suggests

that the variation in the amount of food energy is also widely

variable. Thus, if the brain used 5% of the body's energy on average,

this wide variation could be rather small in absolute terms. Since it

uses 30% of the body's energy on average, then the variation is

probably very substantial.

I can't pin an exact quantity on it, and just because my analytical

power varies by five-fold (which is just a guess -- I have no way of

quantifying it accurately) it doesn't directly follow that the food

energy being used varies 5-fold. But it is certainly suggestive of

wide variation in energy use at least on an intuitive level, which I

think is sufficient to make a passing speculative mention about rather

than use as hard evidence in a deabate.

> Please produce one study that shows that vast numbers of calories can be

> produced simply by mental activity.

Someone has just cited the 30% figure that I already referred to

before (without a citation). I'm not sure whether you're actually

disputing that the brain uses vast amounts of energy or whether you

are simply disputing that the variation in its energy use according to

variation in mental activity is significant. The former is

well-accepted. As to the latter, I simply don't have any figures on

it. Nor do I know of any. So I can't really debate the point, but it

seems completely plausible and likely to me that the variation is very

substantial.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>> > Please produce one study that shows that vast numbers of calories can be

>> > produced simply by mental activity.

>

> ³Someone has just cited the 30% figure that I already referred to

> before (without a citation). I'm not sure whether you're actually

> disputing that the brain uses vast amounts of energy or whether you

> are simply disputing that the variation in its energy use according to

> variation in mental activity is significant. The former is

> well-accepted. As to the latter, I simply don't have any figures on

> it. Nor do I know of any. So I can't really debate the point, but it

> seems completely plausible and likely to me that the variation is very

> substantial.

>

> Chris²

>

> That would certainly be interesting if one could diet by simply concentraing

> hard on something, which is what this all implies. The hell with exercise ­

> I¹ll just lie down in bed and read this heady philosophical treatise.

>

> Of course I¹m not saying that it¹s impossible that this is true. But I really

> doubt it, and nothing that either you guys have said is at all convincing.

> While I¹m sure that being mentally alert and concentrating on something would

> probably burn more calories than closing one¹s eyes and drifting off to sleep,

> I think that applying the adjective ³VAST² to it implies that one can achieve

> VAST results by applying this as a diet methodology. I¹ll believe it when I

> read something credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 8/12/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Of course I¹m not saying that it¹s impossible that this is true. But I

really

> > doubt it, and nothing that either you guys have said is at all convincing.

> > While I¹m sure that being mentally alert and concentrating on something

would

> > probably burn more calories than closing one¹s eyes and drifting off to

sleep,

> > I think that applying the adjective ³VAST² to it implies that one can

achieve

> > VAST results by applying this as a diet methodology. I¹ll believe it when I

> > read something credible.

I don't really expect you to be convinced by my thoughts on this

without evidence, and I freely admit I don't have any at the moment to

support my thoughts on this particular point, but nevertheless:

First, the basal metabolic consumption of the brain is vast. As was

posted a little while ago, it uses up about 30% of the body's energy

while accounting for only 2-3% of its weight. That is vast by any

reasonable standard. Whether you can achieve " vast results " is

different: that is the question of whether the variation in energy

conumption by the brain is vast. In other words, if it uses up 30% of

energy no matter what, then even though this is very substantial,

mental effort could never put a dent in your caloric balance because

you can't do anything to raise your brain's consumption of energy.

So whether you achive " vast results " or not is actually dependent on

whether the variation in energy consumption is vast, rather than

whether the absolute consumption is vast.

I had suggested that since my mental power's variation according to

available energy is vast, I suspect that my brain's variation in

energy consumption is proportionately vast, roughly paralleling the

variation in its mental power. I don't have evidence to substantiate

this; you are not impressed; that's acceptable.

But I don't think you are approaching the issue right by conceiving of

this variation as reading-induced. Surely, there is wide variation in

the mental energy you could expend reading, even reading the same

thing. You can read something with relatively low mental alertness,

accept it passively, or forget most of it; on the other hand, you can

read something with high mental alertness, analyze it, synthesize it

and so on. Those are widely variant tasks.

A lot of it isn't a matter of whether you simply willingly engage in

the task. A lot of it, I think, is whether your mental alertness and

efficiency is up to the task. Sometimes I can sit down and study

something, take notes, and analyze it and so on, and other times I'm

too hungry or too tired. Or sometimes I can read, but I'm not quite

sharp enough to do a good analysis.

Surely if I can be in these different states, there are different

things physiologically happening in each of them. I think it is basic

common sense that it requires a greater expenditure of energy to

maintain a state of high alertness than it does to maintain a state of

moderate alertness. Likewise, I'm sure it requires more energy to

feel good than to feel like crap.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

> On 8/12/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...

> <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>

>>> > > Of course I¹m not saying that it¹s impossible that this is true. But I

>>> really

>>> > > doubt it, and nothing that either you guys have said is at all

>>> convincing.

>>> > > While I¹m sure that being mentally alert and concentrating on something

>>> would

>>> > > probably burn more calories than closing one¹s eyes and drifting off to

>>> sleep,

>>> > > I think that applying the adjective ³VAST² to it implies that one can

>>> achieve

>>> > > VAST results by applying this as a diet methodology. I¹ll believe it

>>> when I

>>> > > read something credible.

>

> ³I don't really expect you to be convinced by my thoughts on this

> without evidence, and I freely admit I don't have any at the moment to

> support my thoughts on this particular point, but nevertheless:

>

> First, the basal metabolic consumption of the brain is vast. As was

> posted a little while ago, it uses up about 30% of the body's energy

> while accounting for only 2-3% of its weight. That is vast by any

> reasonable standard. Whether you can achieve " vast results " is

> different: that is the question of whether the variation in energy

> conumption by the brain is vast. In other words, if it uses up 30% of

> energy no matter what, then even though this is very substantial,

> mental effort could never put a dent in your caloric balance because

> you can't do anything to raise your brain's consumption of energy.²

>

> Well, but that¹s kind of the point, I think. If the variation isn¹t

> significant, then pointing to it as a factor in burning calories is silly. It

> doesn¹t matter much whether you¹re concentrating on writing a paper, or

> doodling on a sketchpad absentmindedly ­ at least as far as losing weight

> goes.

>

> ³So whether you achive " vast results " or not is actually dependent on

> whether the variation in energy consumption is vast, rather than

> whether the absolute consumption is vast.²

>

> Well, no. If it is always vast, then it will be vast whether you are expending

> the mental effort or not. So, why was this even brought up as a factor?

>

> ³I had suggested that since my mental power's variation according to

> available energy is vast, I suspect that my brain's variation in

> energy consumption is proportionately vast, roughly paralleling the

> variation in its mental power. I don't have evidence to substantiate

> this; you are not impressed; that's acceptable.²

>

> Of course, it¹s acceptable. The onus is on you and to stop posturing and

> provide some evidence that mental activity is a factor in whether one loses

> weight or not, without of course claiming that one can only physically

> exercise if one¹s brain is involved.

>

> ³But I don't think you are approaching the issue right by conceiving of

> this variation as reading-induced. Surely, there is wide variation in

> the mental energy you could expend reading, even reading the same

> thing. ³

>

> I don¹t think I claimed otherwise. But again ­ I¹m not sure how you are

> quantifying mental energy. I don¹t think that either you or have made any

> convincing arguments to the effect that this wide variation is a wide

> variation in absolute calories ­ a wide variation being one that is

> significant enough to be a factor in losing or gaining weight.

>

> ³You can read something with relatively low mental alertness,

> accept it passively, or forget most of it; on the other hand, you can

> read something with high mental alertness, analyze it, synthesize it

> and so on. Those are widely variant tasks.²

>

> Well, of course.

>

> ³A lot of it isn't a matter of whether you simply willingly engage in

> the task. A lot of it, I think, is whether your mental alertness and

> efficiency is up to the task. Sometimes I can sit down and study

> something, take notes, and analyze it and so on, and other times I'm

> too hungry or too tired. Or sometimes I can read, but I'm not quite

> sharp enough to do a good analysis.²

>

> Again ­ who in their right mind would argue with this?

>

> ³Surely if I can be in these different states, there are different

> things physiologically happening in each of them.²

>

> I think that you¹re on dangerous ground here. You would really have to be very

> precise about what you mean by different and the same, and what qualifies as

> meaningful in that regard. But even if you could ­ the point is whether

> whatever differences exist constitute a VAST difference in the amount of

> calories burned which is the entire context of this argument. All I see is

> posturing, thus far.

>

> ³I think it is basic

> common sense that it requires a greater expenditure of energy to

> maintain a state of high alertness than it does to maintain a state of

> moderate alertness. Likewise, I'm sure it requires more energy to

> feel good than to feel like crap.²

>

> Obviously the former is true. I¹m not sure that the latter is true. But again,

> the point is whether this energy is similar enough to the energy that we burn

> when we burn calories, and whether it is significant enough to be a difference

> in whether we gain or lose weight. If it is, then one could lose weight simply

> by keeping one¹s diet and exercise the same, and simply expending more mental

> energy. I suppose that if one can burn a very small additional amount of

> calories by doing this, then over time, one might lose a small amount of

> weight. But the adjective ŒVAST¹ seems quite inappropriate, and the

> capitalization of it, except for the additional energy applied to typing in

> upper case, seems silly.

" Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

> ³So whether you achive " vast results " or not is actually dependent on

> whether the variation in energy consumption is vast, rather than

> whether the absolute consumption is vast.²

>

Sorry ­ read this section incorrectly ­ of course. But that¹s what you need

to provide some evidence for, rather than simply saying that, oh, you so

believe it to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hey everyone,

Don't forget about the emotional state of mind. This

can also determine how a calorie of any kind can

affect the body. As we all know the different

emotional states cause a major change in

biochemistries.

TT

__________________________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

> ³Hey everyone,

> Don't forget about the emotional state of mind. This

> can also determine how a calorie of any kind can

> affect the body. As we all know the different

> emotional states cause a major change in

> biochemistries.

> TT²

>

> Same issue. An appeal to emotional consensus doesn¹t substitute for some kind

> of scientific basis. Does one¹s state of mind, disregarding the level of

> physical activity that it may elicit, cause a ³major² change in the number of

> calories burned? I doubt it. Maybe I¹m wrong. But produce SOME kind of

> evidence. So, sorry ­ in the context in which your post is offered ­ no, we

> don¹t all ³know² this.

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 8/12/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Well, but that¹s kind of the point, I think. If the variation isn¹t

> > significant, then pointing to it as a factor in burning calories is silly.

It

> > doesn¹t matter much whether you¹re concentrating on writing a paper, or

> > doodling on a sketchpad absentmindedly ­ at least as far as losing weight

> > goes.

I think, but do not know for sure, that the variation is significant.

I also think the variation is affected by more than what you actually

willingly do with your mind.

I wrote:

> > ³So whether you achive " vast results " or not is actually dependent on

> > whether the variation in energy consumption is vast, rather than

> > whether the absolute consumption is vast.²

Gene wrote:

>> > Well, no. If it is always vast, then it will be vast whether you

are expending

> > the mental effort or not. So, why was this even brought up as a factor?

is the one who wrote that the brain is capable of consuming vast

amounts of energy. He would have to explain exactly what he intended

to achieve by point it out, but here I am simply distinguishing

between what was actually said and the idea that the variation

according to mental activity is vast and therefore mentally focusing

can achieve vast results.

If you recall my original point, it was that the " calories out " part

of your equation had to factor in mental efficiency and brain

metabolism in addition to a number of other non-physical activity

factors. I don't know what proportions of that term they take up,

quantitatively. Here we're on a bit of a tangent, and I *suspect*

that the variation in brain metabolism is very substantial, but I have

nothing to prove it, although see below.

> > Of course, it¹s acceptable. The onus is on you and to stop posturing

and

> > provide some evidence that mental activity is a factor in whether one loses

> > weight or not, without of course claiming that one can only physically

> > exercise if one¹s brain is involved.

I have not read the study below yet, but if I understand the abstract

correctly, " performing cognitive tasks and sensory stimulation " causes

an increase in glucose oxidation by 10-20% in the brain. It isn't

clear from the abstract whether this was in rats or humans and how

they took the measurements, but the full-text is free. It sounds like

they are saying there is greater variation that these activities can't

account for, but I'd have to read the whole thing to figure it out and

I don't have the time at the moment.

=============

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search & DB=pubmed

[...] Recent in vivo 13C NMR measurements of the

glutamate-to-glutamine neurotransmitter cycling in rat and human

brains facilitate a neuroscientific interpretation of functional

imaging data in terms of neurobiological processes since incremental

neurotransmitter flux showed a 1:1 stoichiometry with the incremental

rate of glucose oxidation. [...]Measurements of the neurotransmitter

cycling flux at rest in functional imaging experiments suggest that

performing cognitive tasks and sensory stimulations increases

neurotransmitter cycling by only 10-20%. [...]

================

Just to do a crude calculation, if someone goes through 2000 calories

a day, and the brain uses 30%, then being engaged in " cognitive tasks

or sensory stimulation " over the course of the whole day (for the

purposes of calculating the maximum) would lead to an extra 120

calories burned.

I would expect that a) more complex cognitive tasks and B) cognitive

tasks in humans if this was in rats and c) baseline mental alertness

and efficiency, independent of the actual task being performed, would

all contribute to significantly greater variation in energy burned by

the brain.

Additionally, glucose oxidation doesn't account for other things like

sterol synthesis and other structural synthesis and so on, which diet

in addition to mental activity can affect.

> > I don¹t think I claimed otherwise. But again ­ I¹m not sure how you are

> > quantifying mental energy. I don¹t think that either you or have made

any

> > convincing arguments to the effect that this wide variation is a wide

> > variation in absolute calories ­ a wide variation being one that is

> > significant enough to be a factor in losing or gaining weight.

It is clear that there are factors other than physical activity and

caloric intake, because there is research showing that, for example,

low-carb diets lead to weight loss even with calorie increases (I

don't remember if they've controlled for physical activity or not

though) and there are anecdotes from people who lost weight by doing

any number of things that didn't substantially impact their caloric

balance.

I think in many cases, when people find the diet that best promotes

weight loss for them, they also feel better and can think more

clearly. I guess this can't convince a skeptic necessarily, but it

seems rather obvious to me that if someone goes on a diet that makes

them feel better, think more clearly, lose weight, but they don't

intentionally exercise and they are either eating the same or more

calories, that feeling good and being able to think more clearly

reflect an improvement in energy metabolism in the nervous system that

is probably consuming significantly more energy.

I wrote:

> > ³Surely if I can be in these different states [of mental efficiency], there

are different

> > things physiologically happening in each of them.²

Gene wrote in response:

> > I think that you¹re on dangerous ground here. You would really have to be

very

> > precise about what you mean by different and the same, and what qualifies as

> > meaningful in that regard. But even if you could ­ the point is whether

> > whatever differences exist constitute a VAST difference in the amount of

> > calories burned which is the entire context of this argument. All I see is

> > posturing, thus far.

First, you are taking 's word and putting it in my mouth. Second,

I may be misremembering, but I don't think wrote that in direct

response to you. Third, wrote that the amount consumed was vast,

not the variation in that amount; the importance of such a statement

is that if the absolute amount is vast, then even small variations can

be substantial, though not necessarily themselves vast. Fourth, this

discussion predates the " vast " comment and is broader than it.

The difference in energy oxidation between states of mental

sluggishness and mental alertness does not have to be " vast " in order

to lead to weight loss. Even if energy consumption by the nervous

system was increased by a mere 5 calories per hour, this would be

equivalent to cutting out 120 calories per day, which, over time, all

things being equal, would lead to substantial weight loss.

Add to this feeling energetic and feeling in a good mood, which would

require increases in somatic energy metabolism and nervous metabolism

both, and you would increase this factor even more.

I wrote:

> > ³I think it is basic

> > common sense that it requires a greater expenditure of energy to

> > maintain a state of high alertness than it does to maintain a state of

> > moderate alertness. Likewise, I'm sure it requires more energy to

> > feel good than to feel like crap.²

In response, Gene wrote:

> > Obviously the former is true. I¹m not sure that the latter is true. But

again,

> > the point is whether this energy is similar enough to the energy that we

burn

> > when we burn calories, and whether it is significant enough to be a

difference

> > in whether we gain or lose weight. If it is, then one could lose weight

simply

> > by keeping one¹s diet and exercise the same, and simply expending more

mental

> > energy. I suppose that if one can burn a very small additional amount of

> > calories by doing this, then over time, one might lose a small amount of

> > weight. But the adjective ŒVAST¹ seems quite inappropriate, and the

> > capitalization of it, except for the additional energy applied to typing in

> > upper case, seems silly.

Again, the " vast " was tagged to the amount of energy the brain

consumes, not the amount of weight loss that would occur by doing

homework.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

> is the one who wrote that the brain is capable of consuming vast

> amounts of energy. He would have to explain exactly what he intended

> to achieve by point it out, but here I am simply distinguishing

> between what was actually said and the idea that the variation

> according to mental activity is vast and therefore mentally focusing

> can achieve vast results.

>

> If you recall my original point, it was that the " calories out " part

> of your equation had to factor in mental efficiency and brain

> metabolism in addition to a number of other non-physical activity

> factors. I don't know what proportions of that term they take up,

> quantitatively. Here we're on a bit of a tangent, and I *suspect*

> that the variation in brain metabolism is very substantial, but I have

> nothing to prove it, although see below.

>

But, I never at any point, implied that biological activity isn't a factor

in calories burned. Obviously, some calories are burned in a day (1000+ ?)

even if a person is totally sedentary. The only thing that is relevant is

the degree to which this biological activity, devoid of any change in

physical activity, can influence changes in this calories in/calories out

balance. That would be very interesting indeed if brain activity could play

a " VAST " or " substantial " role in this, but I have never heard anything that

seriously suggests it. Then again, I don't research this stuff like you

do...so all I can do is express doubt, and hope for something that is

convincing.

>>> Of course, it©ös acceptable. The onus is on you and to stop posturing

>>> and

>>> provide some evidence that mental activity is a factor in whether one loses

>>> weight or not, without of course claiming that one can only physically

>>> exercise if one©ös brain is involved.

>

> I have not read the study below yet, but if I understand the abstract

> correctly, " performing cognitive tasks and sensory stimulation " causes

> an increase in glucose oxidation by 10-20% in the brain. It isn't

> clear from the abstract whether this was in rats or humans and how

> they took the measurements, but the full-text is free. It sounds like

> they are saying there is greater variation that these activities can't

> account for, but I'd have to read the whole thing to figure it out and

> I don't have the time at the moment.

>

Nor do I - but I still don't know from the formulation that you make above,

how many calories that would work out to be. All it is saying, if I catch

your drift, is that if one performs " cognitive tasks " , 'glucose oxidation'

would take place at a 10-20% greater rate than before. So, how many

calories, say, in an hour, does the glucose oxidation in a more inactive

brain use? Remember, that the issue isn't whether there is some difference

in the calories burned, no matter how minute, it is whether it is VAST or

significant, which I assume would mean that it is at least enough of a

factor that one could add planned cognitive activity to a diet program.

> =============

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search & DB=pubmed

>

> [...] Recent in vivo 13C NMR measurements of the

> glutamate-to-glutamine neurotransmitter cycling in rat and human

> brains facilitate a neuroscientific interpretation of functional

> imaging data in terms of neurobiological processes since incremental

> neurotransmitter flux showed a 1:1 stoichiometry with the incremental

> rate of glucose oxidation. [...]Measurements of the neurotransmitter

> cycling flux at rest in functional imaging experiments suggest that

> performing cognitive tasks and sensory stimulations increases

> neurotransmitter cycling by only 10-20%. [...]

> ================

>

> Just to do a crude calculation, if someone goes through 2000 calories

> a day, and the brain uses 30%, then being engaged in " cognitive tasks

> or sensory stimulation " over the course of the whole day (for the

> purposes of calculating the maximum) would lead to an extra 120

> calories burned.

Well, does 'glucose oxidation' account for 100% of calories burned? Perhaps

an ignorant question, but that is being assumed here.

You are also assuming that someone would engage in these cognitive

activities instead of sleeping. I would imagine that, in general, not

sleeping for a month or two while keeping other factors constant, would lead

to a loss of weight. So, if you then assume that a person, who was initially

both physically and mentally sedentary, started engaging in cognitive tasks

8 hours a day, and the assumptions I address above are true, this would make

a difference of 40 calories. And, are there any kind of biological

adjustments that a brain might make - for instance, would a person first

engaging in this type of program burn more calories than a person who is

used to the cognitive activity?

In any case, given that it is unlikely that most people are going to sustain

8 hours of intense cognitive activity every day, if we then adjust it down

to, say, a couple of hours, it becomes apparent that the relative calorie

differential is very far from 'VAST' or 'substantial'.

>

> I would expect that a) more complex cognitive tasks and B) cognitive

> tasks in humans if this was in rats and c) baseline mental alertness

> and efficiency, independent of the actual task being performed, would

> all contribute to significantly greater variation in energy burned by

> the brain.

LOL. So add a few percent. IN any case, I'm not sure I'd make some of these

assumptions without research. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, to learn

that humans, who are more accustomed to purely cognitive tasks, burn fewer

calories, relatively, while doing it.

>

> Additionally, glucose oxidation doesn't account for other things like

> sterol synthesis and other structural synthesis and so on, which diet

> in addition to mental activity can affect.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the point we're discussing.

>

>>> I don©öt think I claimed otherwise. But again ¡© I©öm not sure how you are

>>> quantifying mental energy. I don©öt think that either you or have made

>>> any

>>> convincing arguments to the effect that this wide variation is a wide

>>> variation in absolute calories ¡© a wide variation being one that is

>>> significant enough to be a factor in losing or gaining weight.

>

> It is clear that there are factors other than physical activity and

> caloric intake, because there is research showing that, for example,

> low-carb diets lead to weight loss even with calorie increases (I

> don't remember if they've controlled for physical activity or not

> though) and there are anecdotes from people who lost weight by doing

> any number of things that didn't substantially impact their caloric

> balance.

>

> I think in many cases, when people find the diet that best promotes

> weight loss for them, they also feel better and can think more

> clearly. I guess this can't convince a skeptic necessarily, but it

> seems rather obvious to me that if someone goes on a diet that makes

> them feel better, think more clearly, lose weight, but they don't

> intentionally exercise and they are either eating the same or more

> calories, that feeling good and being able to think more clearly

> reflect an improvement in energy metabolism in the nervous system that

> is probably consuming significantly more energy.

>

Possibly also, that when alert and feeling good, that one just simply moves

more in the course of the day without actually engaging in formal exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Gene,

> But, I never at any point, implied that biological activity isn't a factor

> in calories burned. Obviously, some calories are burned in a day (1000+ ?)

> even if a person is totally sedentary. The only thing that is relevant is

> the degree to which this biological activity, devoid of any change in

> physical activity, can influence changes in this calories in/calories out

> balance. That would be very interesting indeed if brain activity could play

> a " VAST " or " substantial " role in this, but I have never heard anything that

> seriously suggests it. Then again, I don't research this stuff like you

> do...so all I can do is express doubt, and hope for something that is

> convincing.

I searched pubmed.com this morning for something indicating the energy

the brain uses with mental activity. I don't remember the exact

keywords I used, but only one study came up, which I posted the

abstract to. There might have been more to turn up if I had played

with my keywords a little, but my time is very limited right now, so

if I'm going to look in any more depth I'll have to put it off at

least a week. In any case, it didn't seem like there was a whole lot

of research on it.

One thing for which the variation is indisputably high is heat

production. In the respiratory chain, the number of uncoupling

proteins versus the number of ATP-synthesizing proteins can lead to

anywhere from 10% to 100% of the energy being converted to heat. I

don't think it ever gets as low as 10% in endotherms, to which group

we belong, but it is incredibly variable.

At a minimum, then, I think you have to admit that heat production is

a major source of caloric expenditure that can rival physical activity

in variance.

As to all of the other biological activities, the question isn't

really whether each particular one can be " vast " on its own, but

whether they are substantial when added up together.

> Nor do I - but I still don't know from the formulation that you make above,

> how many calories that would work out to be. All it is saying, if I catch

> your drift, is that if one performs " cognitive tasks " , 'glucose oxidation'

> would take place at a 10-20% greater rate than before. So, how many

> calories, say, in an hour, does the glucose oxidation in a more inactive

> brain use? Remember, that the issue isn't whether there is some difference

> in the calories burned, no matter how minute, it is whether it is VAST or

> significant, which I assume would mean that it is at least enough of a

> factor that one could add planned cognitive activity to a diet program.

In that case I dispute your basic criteria, because I brought this

point up in the context of how food can affect mental efficiency. You

keep bringing it back to whether willing engagement in cognitive tasks

can lead to weight loss, but what I'd been trying to say from the

beginning was that energy metabolism in the brain (as well as

elsewhere) may be limited by eating poorly.

Of course, I also think that large amounts of cognitive activity are

going to burn substantial amounts of energy above and beyond resting

without that cognitive activity. So you'd have to put the two effects

together.

But as to whether somone could put together a weight loss program with

cognitive activity as a component, that's sort of a joke. No one is

going to engage in intense cognitive activity that they otherwise

wouldn't engage in for the sake of losing weight because exercising is

much easier. Additionally, I think people generally hit a certain

wall where they might not have the mental stamina to engage in certain

tasks after a certian point, and people are generally predisposed to

engaging in certain degrees of cognitive tasks.

Although I've heard from people who turned around the way they felt by

changing how they ate, which led them to pursue some type of schooling

or whatever that they wouldn't think they could do before, which I

think would be an anecdote showing that changing how you eat can in

some cases adjust the amount of cognitive activity you're *able* to

engage in.

> Well, does 'glucose oxidation' account for 100% of calories burned? Perhaps

> an ignorant question, but that is being assumed here.

It would be variable. My calculations are very imprecise; I was just

trying to give a general idea.

Under " normal " conditions the brain runs basically on glucose. It can

use ketones, but can't use fatty acids. So basically the body has to

be producing ketones outside of the brain (I think largely in the

liver) in order for the brain to start using a different fuel. But,

of course, that doesn't mean the somatic tissues are using 100%

glucose for fuel.

Of course that would also impact the 30% figure. I don't know what

the assumptions were in that particular calculation, but no doubt

whatever assumptions they used would not represent the full spectrum

of possible metabolisms.

> You are also assuming that someone would engage in these cognitive

> activities instead of sleeping.

I was just trying to give a very rough figure of what the maximum

caloric change would be for those particular activities. It's an

overestimate.

> I would imagine that, in general, not

> sleeping for a month or two while keeping other factors constant, would lead

> to a loss of weight.

I don't know -- in general, sleeping less would lead to weight gain,

because insufficient sleep impacts metabolism for the rest of the day.

I don't know what kind of effects we'd see from not sleeping at all

though. I don't know if it would be possible without drugs, but the

metabolic changes certainly wouldn't be very pretty, whatever they

were.

> So, if you then assume that a person, who was initially

> both physically and mentally sedentary, started engaging in cognitive tasks

> 8 hours a day, and the assumptions I address above are true, this would make

> a difference of 40 calories.

Ok, I did a little bit of reading of the review that I had posted the

abstract of. In this chart:

===============

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content-nw/full/95/20/11993/T1

===============

The oxidation of glucose in response to " visual stimulation " ranges up

to 51% and the use of oxygen up to 29%, which respective averages of

31% and 20%. I think the reason that the consumption of glucose is

higher is because some of it is incompletely metabolized to lactate

and then cycled somewhere else, so I guess O2 would be a better

measure of energy consumption, although I didn't follow the text very

closely so I'm not 100% sure of my interpretation of it.

Anyway, I guess we'd have to see what " visual stimulation " is by

looking back at the cited studies, but it sounds to me like this would

be something more akin to watching a movie than, say, analyzing and

synthesizing data.

So I think the 40 calorie figure is probably an underestimate for

complex cognitive activity.

On the other hand, this review was essentially concluding that all of

the previous modeling was making unjustified assumptions about how the

background mental energy consumption was affecting the measurements,

so the data we have may not be valid.

>And, are there any kind of biological

> adjustments that a brain might make - for instance, would a person first

> engaging in this type of program burn more calories than a person who is

> used to the cognitive activity?

Well as you do a specific type of activity it get's easier, and I

assume that is reflected in better neurological wiring, and I'd think

it would take less energy to engage in an activity you're already

wired to perform than to construct the new wiring in the first place.

But then you could separate " learning " a task from " completing " a

task. But then there are some tasks that involve constantly processing

new and different information.

> In any case, given that it is unlikely that most people are going to sustain

> 8 hours of intense cognitive activity every day, if we then adjust it down

> to, say, a couple of hours, it becomes apparent that the relative calorie

> differential is very far from 'VAST' or 'substantial'.

This is not apparent to me because I'm pretty sure that the numbers we

have aren't from " intense cognitive activity " (although I'm basing

this simply on their being categorized as " visual stimulation " ).

Additionally, my point is not simply that the engagement in a specific

activity raises the metabolic rate in the brain, but that the brain's

" resting " metabolism can also vary, as well as the peak metabolic rate

achievable through forced cognitive tasks, and that these might be

manifested as greater mental acuity or better memory or an easier time

learning.

> > I would expect that a) more complex cognitive tasks and B) cognitive

> > tasks in humans if this was in rats and c) baseline mental alertness

> > and efficiency, independent of the actual task being performed, would

> > all contribute to significantly greater variation in energy burned by

> > the brain.

> LOL. So add a few percent. IN any case, I'm not sure I'd make some of these

> assumptions without research. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, to learn

> that humans, who are more accustomed to purely cognitive tasks, burn fewer

> calories, relatively, while doing it.

That would surprise me probably about as much as it would surprise me

that humans burn less energy to make heat than some relatively

ectothermic animal does because we are more accustomed to doing it.

> > Additionally, glucose oxidation doesn't account for other things like

> > sterol synthesis and other structural synthesis and so on, which diet

> > in addition to mental activity can affect.

> I'm not sure how this is relevant to the point we're discussing.

Sterol synthesis requires energy and raw materials that could

otherwise be used for energy and enables neural plasticity and thus

more efficient learning. Thus, it is yet another caloric output

factor that is independent of physical activity.

Sterol turnover decreases with age, which is related to the decline in

neural plasticity. It is not only affected by age, however. For

example, in vitro evidence indicates that ketones increase sterol

synthesis and are incorporated into sterols by brain cells at

something like 5-10 times the rate at which glucose is incorporated

when ketones are added to a cells that are exposed to saturating

solutions of glucose. Thus, eating in a way that produces ketones

could result in more calories being spent making sterols, which would

result in better mental efficiency, compared to eating in a way that

maximally suppresses ketone production.

> Possibly also, that when alert and feeling good, that one just simply moves

> more in the course of the day without actually engaging in formal exercise.

I agree, and that is the point I originally made in response to the

post where a guy was quoted as saying he couldn't help but exercise

when he ate liver because he felt so good.

But I think it is also true that simply feeling good will burn more

calories even if you are just sitting there than feeling " ok, " which

will in turn burn more calories than feeling sluggish. Is it " vast " ?

I don't know how to quantitate it, but when you add up the plethora of

things besides physical activity that can all vary and can be

maximized by appropriate diet and lifestyle, I'm guessing their sum

would be quite substantial.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hello everybody,

I am wondering if kvass, beet kvass and kombucha can be given to toddlers and

children. Thank you for any insight.

haecklers <haecklers@...> escribió:

, not rambling at all! Just take lots of pictures so when

you're 40 you can look at them and appreciate how good you looked! :)

- Renate

---------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

What about the B vitamins gotten from taking Frotier's yeast (not grown

on soy) that Sally Fallon says she takes? Is all yeast bad?

On Aug 12, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Idol wrote:

> And yeast (and other undesirables) produce biotoxins which

> damage our metabolism.

>

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Yeah, I've heard many good things about nutritional yeast! Also the

body needs some yeast to help digest carbs, it just needs it to be

in balance with the rest of the probiotics living in there.

>

> > And yeast (and other undesirables) produce biotoxins which

> > damage our metabolism.

> >

> Parashis

> artpages@...

> zine:

> artpagesonline.com

>

> portfolio:

> http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...