Why We Get Fat

The graphs presented in the report deal with percentages.

Since 1970, the percentage of calories from carbs has increased in the American diet while the percentage of fats has decreased. However, absolute intake shows that carbs and fat are BOTH being consumed in greater amounts than they were in the past.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm

[quote]chkeeley wrote:

I think it’s largely due to our lifestyle changes – 24/7 access to calorically-dense foods, introduction of TV/video games/computers, automatic this that and everything. There’s a lot of nasty additives like HFCS that really screws with you.

Overall, good video and very well communicated. So this guy is from U Cal? Anyone know his credentials?[/quote]

Dr. Lustwig? gogole him, he has an hour long talk about HFCS on youtube :wink:

posting on autopilot

[quote]chkeeley wrote:

I think it’s largely due to our lifestyle changes – 24/7 access to calorically-dense foods, introduction of TV/video games/computers, automatic this that and everything.
[/quote]

Agreed with this.

Life styles are radically different now.

A lot of you low carb advocates seem to not realize that if people were a bit more active, i am talking about moving around as much as they sit around, carbohydrates would not be as hard to handle.

But the combination of highly calorie dense foods combined with waking up sitting at the table, sitting at work, coming home and sitting back down again for the rest of the night then going to sleep will really wreak havoc on an organism that had a very active lifestyle for a large chunk of time

Jehova do you just search the internet all day looking for things to back up your line of thinking and then post them here looking for people to back up your line of thinking?

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
A lot of you low carb advocates seem to not realize that if people were a bit more active, i am talking about moving around as much as they sit around, carbohydrates would not be as hard to handle.[/quote]

And, respectfully, there are just some people who do happen to manage their body composition better with low carb diets.

Today, when we think of the typical American (fat), I don’t see any reason why a low carb diet wouldn’t be a good route to use UNTIL BG, Insulin Sensitivy, Leptin Sensitivity, BF levels are acceptable. THEN adjusting carb intake depending on activity.

I agree nearly everyone SHOULD be more active but it just wont happen. Until it does I think low[er] carb diets are a pretty good recommendation.

…No, I don’t think every one should eat low carb.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
what are your thoughts on what is driving the obesity epidemic?[/quote]

I wrote a term paper last semester on biomarkers of obesity that covered this in detail. I will see if I can dig up my USB drive and post the tl;dr version.

I don’t want to do it off the top of my head because I would prefer to post sources along with the information.

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]chkeeley wrote:

I think it’s largely due to our lifestyle changes – 24/7 access to calorically-dense foods, introduction of TV/video games/computers, automatic this that and everything.
[/quote]

Agreed with this.

Life styles are radically different now.

A lot of you low carb advocates seem to not realize that if people were a bit more active, i am talking about moving around as much as they sit around, carbohydrates would not be as hard to handle.

But the combination of highly calorie dense foods combined with waking up sitting at the table, sitting at work, coming home and sitting back down again for the rest of the night then going to sleep will really wreak havoc on an organism that had a very active lifestyle for a large chunk of time[/quote]

I have been eating low carb for years. For a while I was lifted weights 4-6 x a week and running 50 miles a week, rarely if ever going over 100g carbs from brown rice,sweet potato or oats.

I know this may not be low for some people but, as you have stated we all handle/ are better suited to certain diets.

Didn’t anybody else see the major problems with the model that was proposed in that video?

  1. Skeletal muscle is the major route of insulin stimulated glucose removal from blood. Even in diabetics. Fat has a serious limit to how much glucose it can take up and even when somebody has huge amounts of fat, it’s still not that much. So that 500 calories is drastically overstated.

  2. It is implied that once the glucose enters the fat it automatically becomes immobile and inaccessible to the rest of the body for energy use. Are you freaking kidding me? People just seem to forget that fat is mobile!; it is constantly being turned over. Furthermore, diabetics have an issue were they have an even faster turnover of fat. So even if 500 calories was deposited, it would be still be burnt anyway.

  3. What about insulin resistant subjects who do not use insulin? By this model, these guys would have found the secret to getting lean. Insulin resistance extends to the hypothalamus, the area were leptin signals. So, theoretically, these guys should not be having a problem with insulin blocking leptin signalling.

So, insulin modulates leptin signalling. Great! So do triglycerides and a number of other things. Leptin isn’t the be all and end all of appetite regulation.

[quote]anonym wrote:
An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods

I won’t be able to read this more thoroughly until later tonight, but what do you carbs → insulin → fat proponents make of things like fish, cheese and beef having a higher II than white pasta?[/quote]
Hahaha, read the article mate.
The insulin response per gram of carbohydrate, or in relation to glucose response, is larger in those foods. But, they didn’t cause greater amounts of insulin to be secreted.
The results are mostly what you would expect. But there are a number of surprises. Look at page 1271 for a nice breakdown figure.
Overall, it’s a nice study to have. I was looking for something like this but never got around to searching. Cheers

Someone might like to read this:
Associations between postprandial insulin and blood glucose responses, appetite sensations and energy intake in normal weight and overweight individuals: a meta-analysis of test meal studies.

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

A lot of you low carb advocates seem to not realize that if people were a bit more active, i am talking about moving around as much as they sit around, carbohydrates would not be as hard to handle.
[/quote]
This EXACT thing is covered from minute 4 to minute 7 in the video.

Edit: Is it me or is Dr Lustig incredibly pompous? Does that work for an American audience? Here in Australia he’d be labelled a wanker and ignored.

Interesting video. I don’t think Jehovasfitness is saying that the dance between insulin and leptin is the only factor, however it seems to be a big one, espcially in the obese population. I know my mother-in-law has tried to lose weight on many occasions and she is, by all definitions, obese. Over 200 lbs on a 5’ 2" female frame, I’m surprised she’s still alive.

A couple things I take from this video:

  1. Don’t let yourself get obese in the first place.
  2. If you are obese, a low carb diet is probably the way to go.
  3. One could use this to support the value of:
    a) Fasting for parts of the day (eg: 16/8 IF) - keeping insulin low, allowing fat to be burned for fuel
    b) Carb back-loading - working out in the late afternoon & then having the bulk of your carbs post work-out when insulin sensitivity is reportedly lower in fat cells and higher in muscle.

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Jehova do you just search the internet all day looking for things to back up your line of thinking and then post them here looking for people to back up your line of thinking?[/quote]

No… but I do read a lot on the topic of health. This video was posted by WAPF to my FB feed :wink:

[quote]MAF14 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
A lot of you low carb advocates seem to not realize that if people were a bit more active, i am talking about moving around as much as they sit around, carbohydrates would not be as hard to handle.[/quote]

And, respectfully, there are just some people who do happen to manage their body composition better with low carb diets.

Today, when we think of the typical American (fat), I don’t see any reason why a low carb diet wouldn’t be a good route to use UNTIL BG, Insulin Sensitivy, Leptin Sensitivity, BF levels are acceptable. THEN adjusting carb intake depending on activity.

I agree nearly everyone SHOULD be more active but it just wont happen. Until it does I think low[er] carb diets are a pretty good recommendation.

…No, I don’t think every one should eat low carb.[/quote]

this x10000, and really this is what I’m talking about. For those on the board that are lean and active, this stuff does not apply to. But, when you’re talking about the avg American, the standard high-carb diet just ain’t working. The recommendations to fear fat and eat “whole grains” just ain’t working.

You guys see/hear this too, but I deal with every day. I’ve spent a good amount of time working with people who follow the low-fat dogma who shun steak, egg yolks, butter and instead live off processed garbaged that they are being sold as healthy.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
this x10000, and really this is what I’m talking about. For those on the board that are lean and active, this stuff does not apply to. But, when you’re talking about the avg American, the standard high-carb diet just ain’t working. The recommendations to fear fat and eat “whole grains” just ain’t working.

You guys see/hear this too, but I deal with every day. I’ve spent a good amount of time working with people who follow the low-fat dogma who shun steak, egg yolks, butter and instead live off processed garbaged that they are being sold as healthy.
[/quote]

so are you in here preaching to the choir or just venting? :slight_smile:

[quote]ds1973 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
this x10000, and really this is what I’m talking about. For those on the board that are lean and active, this stuff does not apply to. But, when you’re talking about the avg American, the standard high-carb diet just ain’t working. The recommendations to fear fat and eat “whole grains” just ain’t working.

You guys see/hear this too, but I deal with every day. I’ve spent a good amount of time working with people who follow the low-fat dogma who shun steak, egg yolks, butter and instead live off processed garbaged that they are being sold as healthy.
[/quote]

so are you in here preaching to the choir or just venting? :)[/quote]

I thought I was preaching to the choir lol, but seems some of this is still debatable

[quote]anonym wrote:
I wrote a term paper last semester on biomarkers of obesity that covered this in detail. I will see if I can dig up my USB drive and post the tl;dr version.
[/quote]

Please do…I’ll look forward to that.

[quote]MAF14 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
A lot of you low carb advocates seem to not realize that if people were a bit more active, i am talking about moving around as much as they sit around, carbohydrates would not be as hard to handle.[/quote]

And, respectfully, there are just some people who do happen to manage their body composition better with low carb diets.

Today, when we think of the typical American (fat), I don’t see any reason why a low carb diet wouldn’t be a good route to use UNTIL BG, Insulin Sensitivy, Leptin Sensitivity, BF levels are acceptable. THEN adjusting carb intake depending on activity.

I agree nearly everyone SHOULD be more active but it just wont happen. Until it does I think low[er] carb diets are a pretty good recommendation.

…No, I don’t think every one should eat low carb.[/quote]

We are certainly less active than previous generations. Our food sources are more manufactured than grown as well.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]MAF14 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
A lot of you low carb advocates seem to not realize that if people were a bit more active, i am talking about moving around as much as they sit around, carbohydrates would not be as hard to handle.[/quote]

And, respectfully, there are just some people who do happen to manage their body composition better with low carb diets.

Today, when we think of the typical American (fat), I don’t see any reason why a low carb diet wouldn’t be a good route to use UNTIL BG, Insulin Sensitivy, Leptin Sensitivity, BF levels are acceptable. THEN adjusting carb intake depending on activity.

I agree nearly everyone SHOULD be more active but it just wont happen. Until it does I think low[er] carb diets are a pretty good recommendation.

…No, I don’t think every one should eat low carb.[/quote]

We are certainly less active than previous generations. Our food sources are more manufactured than grown as well. [/quote]

Are we less active? Again, take into account that in 1970 hardly anyone “worked” out, sure they may have cut the grass with a pushmower or the like, but tons of people workout, yet are still obese these days.

While I’m not denying the fact that our activity levels are different today, nor that movement matters, when it comes to fat loss exercise/movement doesn’t play as big of a role as many make it out to be. There are studies done on exercise alone for weight loss showing that it’s pitiful without the inclusion of dietary changes. Of course, the best approach is to combine them.

[quote]OzyNut wrote:
Didn’t anybody else see the major problems with the model that was proposed in that video?

  1. Skeletal muscle is the major route of insulin stimulated glucose removal from blood. Even in diabetics. Fat has a serious limit to how much glucose it can take up and even when somebody has huge amounts of fat, it’s still not that much. So that 500 calories is drastically overstated.

  2. It is implied that once the glucose enters the fat it automatically becomes immobile and inaccessible to the rest of the body for energy use. Are you freaking kidding me? People just seem to forget that fat is mobile!; it is constantly being turned over. Furthermore, diabetics have an issue were they have an even faster turnover of fat. So even if 500 calories was deposited, it would be still be burnt anyway.

  3. What about insulin resistant subjects who do not use insulin? By this model, these guys would have found the secret to getting lean. Insulin resistance extends to the hypothalamus, the area were leptin signals. So, theoretically, these guys should not be having a problem with insulin blocking leptin signalling.

So, insulin modulates leptin signalling. Great! So do triglycerides and a number of other things. Leptin isn’t the be all and end all of appetite regulation.[/quote]

I agree that the model was a bit simplified. But looking at your number 1: Most people, (not T-Nation readers) will have glycogen stores that are topped off from their diet, and how much mobilization of glycogen to glucose will occur if the person is sedentary, probably not much. So if they have a diet consisting of a large amount of refined carbohydrates, blood spikes, and subsequently insulin spikes will result in larger portions of that glucose being stored as fat since glycogen stores are filled, and the body will only use so much of that circulating glucose for momentary functions.

With 2: You run into the issue of these people having a fairly constant circulation of insulin from their refined carbohydrate diet, and being sedentary. Insulin halts the mobilization of fatty acids, and promotes fat storage. Also, I was interested in you saying that the diabetics have a faster turnover of fat. Could you elaborate on that? I know that diabetics tend have higher instances of gluconeogenesis.

Also, things dealing with nutrition are never quite black and white, lots of grey areas. But these are just some opposing views to what you listed.