Click the +1 button to recommend a page on Google.
Quote from: ARod on August 03, 2010, 04:41:27 PMQuote from: samjohn on August 03, 2010, 04:26:16 PMCheers for that avelin, that last one looks pretty useful.Arod - Not really. The body does not have to store excess dietary calories.what else would it do with them? and how would it know that you dont want them stored? is it not adaptive and automatic to store excess calories when the body comes across them?Excrete them as waste.
Quote from: samjohn on August 03, 2010, 04:26:16 PMCheers for that avelin, that last one looks pretty useful.Arod - Not really. The body does not have to store excess dietary calories.what else would it do with them? and how would it know that you dont want them stored? is it not adaptive and automatic to store excess calories when the body comes across them?
Cheers for that avelin, that last one looks pretty useful.Arod - Not really. The body does not have to store excess dietary calories.
Quote from: samjohn on August 03, 2010, 05:23:57 PMQuote from: ARod on August 03, 2010, 04:41:27 PMQuote from: samjohn on August 03, 2010, 04:26:16 PMCheers for that avelin, that last one looks pretty useful.Arod - Not really. The body does not have to store excess dietary calories.what else would it do with them? and how would it know that you dont want them stored? is it not adaptive and automatic to store excess calories when the body comes across them?Excrete them as waste. to a certain point, maybe, but i dont think the body could eat significantly more calories than the maintainance level and not gain weight
the need for internationally accepted criteria for evidence-based nutrition guidelines as there are for evidence-based medicine
...if, however, one isn’t eating any carbohydrates, the body has to spend energy to convert the protein and trigylceride to glucose. That’s one reason that the caloric requirements go up on a low-carb diet.
The other reason is that the body increases futile cycling (...) Futile cycles are just what the name implies: a cycle that requires energy yet accomplishes nothing. It operates much like you would if you took rocks from one pile and piled them in another, then took them from that pile and piled them back where they were to start with. A lot of work would have been expended with no net end result.
Another way the body dumps calories is through the inner mitochondrial membrane.
One of the things that happens on a high fat diet is that the body makes more uncoupling proteins. So, with carbs low and fat high, the body compensates, not by ditching fat in the stool, but by increasing futile cycling and by increasing the numbers of uncoupling proteins and even increasing the porosity of the inner mitochondrial membrane so that the protons that required energy to be moved across the membrane are then moved back. So, ultimately, just like the rocks in my example above, the protons are taken from one pile and moved to another then moved back to the original pile, requiring a lot of energy expenditure with nothing really accomplished.This is probably all as clear as mud, but it is what happens to the excess calories on a low-carb, high-fat diet.
This general question, i.e., what happens with extra calories in the absence of carbs, has been answered and the gist is that the extra energy is not necessarily stored.
There was a recently a new installment of the "Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials" series. The latest study was recently published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition by Dr. Anthony Sebastian's group. Dr. Sebastian has collaborated with Drs. Loren Cordain and Boyd Eaton in the past. This new trial has some major problems, but I believe it nevertheless adds to the weight of the evidence on "paleolithic"-type diets. The first problem is the lack of a control group. Participants were compared to themselves, before eating a paleolithic diet and after having eaten it for 10 days. Ideally, the paleolithic group would be compared to another group eating their typical diet during the same time period. This would control for effects due to getting poked and prodded in the hospital, weather, etc. The second major problem is the small sample size, only 9 participants. I suspect the investigators had a hard time finding enough funding to conduct a larger study, since the paleolithic approach is still on the fringe of nutrition science. I think this study is best viewed as something intermediate between a clinical trial and 9 individual anecdotes. Here's the study design: they recruited 9 sedentary, non-obese people with no known health problems. They were 6 males and 3 females, and they represented people of African, European and Asian descent. Participants ate their typical diets for three days while investigators collected baseline data. Then, they were put on a seven-day "ramp-up" diet higher in potassium and fiber, to prepare their digestive systems for the final phase. In the "paleolithic" phase, participants ate a diet of: Meat, fish, poultry, eggs, fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, canola oil, mayonnaise, and honey... We excluded dairy products, legumes, cereals, grains, potatoes and products containing potassium chloride... Mmm yes, canola oil and mayo were universally relished by hunter-gatherers. They liked to feed their animal fat and organs to the vultures, and slather mayo onto their lean muscle meats. Anyway, the paleo diet was higher in calories, protein and polyunsaturated fat (I assume with a better n-6 : n-3 ratio) than the participants' normal diet. It contained about the same amount of carbohydrate and less saturated fat. There are a couple of twists to this study that make it more interesting. One is that the diets were completely controlled. The only food participants ate came from the experimental kitchen, so investigators knew the exact calorie intake and nutrient composition of what everyone was eating. The other twist is that the investigators wanted to take weight loss out of the picture. They wanted to know if a paleolithic-style diet is capable of improving health independent of weight loss. So they adjusted participants' calorie intake to make sure they didn't lose weight. This is an interesting point. Investigators had to increase the participants' calorie intake by an average of 329 calories a day just to get them to maintain their weight on the paleo diet. Their bodies naturally wanted to shed fat on the new diet, so they had to be overfed to maintain weight. On to the results. Participants, on average, saw large improvements in nearly every meaningful measure of health in just 10 days on the "paleolithic" diet. Remember, these people were supposedly healthy to begin with. Total cholesterol and LDL dropped, if you care about that. Triglycerides decreased by 35%. Fasting insulin plummeted by 68%. HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, decreased by 72%. Blood pressure decreased and blood vessel distensibility (a measure of vessel elasticity) increased. It's interesting to note that measures of glucose metabolism improved dramatically despite no change in carbohydrate intake. Some of these results were statistically significant, but not all of them. However, the authors note that: In all these measured variables, either eight or all nine participants had identical directional responses when switched to paleolithic type diet, that is, near consistently improved status of circulatory, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism/physiology.
Mmm yes, canola oil and mayo were universally relished by hunter-gatherers. They liked to feed their animal fat and organs to the vultures, and slather mayo onto their lean muscle meats.
