Must-Read INFO on Metabolism, Gaining and Losing

1246

Replies

  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    And no, it's not.
    Prove it. :tongue:

    I think you fail to see how this works... You spout off a claim, then you're the one who is supposed to back it up. Nom sayin?
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    I needed the chuckle this morning. Thanks, OP.

    Overconfident kiddo vs. Scientist. Cage match on Sunday Sunday Sunday.

    In for the cage match!!

    and me.
  • whitebalance
    whitebalance Posts: 1,654 Member
    In...
    af7f0828f067c92f9776856397ad88bd.jpg
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Aren't they discussing general weight loss for the public at large? How does something that affects a subset of people with a particular type of diabetes apply?
    Because the difference between a fat person and a fat person with type II diabetes is often only the level of insulin resistance. :wink:

    You say that as if it's some minor difference. Diabetes is an incredibly dramatic metabolic disease that drastically affects how the body responds to food.

    Advice for diabetics should NOT be applied to the general population.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    @EvgeniZyntx
    My personal position is that, while meal frequency does have some effects on a variety of hormones, it really is a question of preference and not the single solution for all in terms of general weight loss. Thermogenesis studies tend to show that energy balance is really more about total calories than meal frequency or meal timing.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3592618

    I am sure you don't mind some science ;)

    Have you read this one:
    http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/files/Kahleova.pdf

    This suggests that meal frequency makes a difference, at least in type II diabetics. Not sure what the underlying mechanism is although I strongly suspect that insulin might be involved somehow. I'll certainly watch that space.

    I apologise wholeheartedly to all spectators for pulling this thread back on a more factual level. :flowerforyou:

    That's an interesting read and and similar work on insulin resistance is one of the reasons for my caveat. Insulin sensitivity seems to the current hypothesis for the mechanism of action. The general criticism one can make on these studies is that since consumption is self-reported (even in a well designed cross-over study like this one) one might be likelier to over consume a 6x meals than at 2x - and the idea that these are iso-caloric diets might not be true.

    In real world application - it might not make a difference. IF or 2 meals might be superior for a lot of people because one eats less if the window of eating is smaller.

    With regards to the mechanism of action - I have the opinion that it's too early to say "insulin" given that few of these studies are set up to look at leptin or ghrelin or other markers over large populations over large diet periods. I expect that it is complex and that, in reality meal timing and meal frequency do have role but that this role is so secondary to total calories and consistent tracking that they can be ignored.

    --- that's for the science ---

    Personal: I can't IF because my activity plan may vary a lot each day and type of activity leads to "crash and burn" situations. I tried it a few years ago with the idea that my body would be used to only eating in the afternoon/evening and a 5-hour morning bike climb on the Karwendel near Munich with little in me (day two of a multi-day ride) left me zapped and in a dangerous situation.

    Now, back to the trainwreck... I hope.:drinker: :bigsmile:
  • George_Baileys_Ghost
    George_Baileys_Ghost Posts: 1,524 Member
    And no, it's not.
    Prove it. :tongue:

    I think you fail to see how this works... You spout off a claim, then you're the one who is supposed to back it up. Nom sayin?

    To be fair, it's really difficult to put so much energy into cleverly scolding people for giffing while hoping they don't notice that you're not actually contributing any science into a science based conversation...all in the name of, "pulling this thread back on a more factual level."
  • dorisopen9
    dorisopen9 Posts: 94 Member
    Evidence to support this comparison?
    Yup:
    http://www.jci.org/articles/view/10842
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17167471
    http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/21/12/1443.long
  • dorisopen9
    dorisopen9 Posts: 94 Member
    You say that as if it's some minor difference. Diabetes is an incredibly dramatic metabolic disease that drastically affects how the body responds to food.
    It's not one major step, it's a sliding scale.
    Advice for diabetics should NOT be applied to the general population.
    If you follow my link you might notice that it's a study and not advise, nor have I given advice.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    This is great. I might as well get in on the action:

    OP, where did you "study nutrition" between the ages of 19 and 22?

    I believe her profile states - "Currently living in China teaching english to children." and
    "I enjoy studying nutrition and practicing a healthy lifestyle. "

    I enjoy learning, too. Doesn't mean I am formally studying at present.

    You can help Chinese children learn English, without being an English teacher.

    English as a foreign language doesn't require the same level of qualifications as being an English teacher in British schools (don't know about the USA)....... To teach EFL takes a very intensive and not easy course that lasts around 1 month. To teach in a school in the UK you need 4 years at university - 3 years undergrad plus one year postgrad (PGCE) or a 4 year teaching degree (that's the same amount of study and school experience as doing the 3 year degree + one year PGCE. So to teach EFL you can do that with any degree and a 1 month course... to teach English in high schools you need an undergrad degree in English followed by a 1 year postgraduate course. (primary school teachers teach all subjects but must have an undergrad degree in a national curriculum subject)

    You can actually teach English as a foreign language with no teaching qualifications at all in many countries, because I was accepted at a school in Saudi on the basis of being a native speaker and having a degree (subject doesn't matter), and I know at least one international language school that will routinely take people with just an undergraduate degree and being a native speaker to work as English as a foreign language teachers.

    So it's not the same at all.

    This is not to diss people who teach EFL... I've done that for years. But it's totally not in the same league as school English teachers who have to teach stuff like Shakespeare.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    OK, I'm in, this looks like it will be a fantastic trainwreck until it's locked or rolls.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    In all fairness, the difference between "hault" and "halt" or "your" and "you're" doesn't require much knowledge of Hamlet.
  • horndave
    horndave Posts: 565
    sb599h.gif


    classic
  • Amitysk
    Amitysk Posts: 705 Member
    So in...
  • George_Baileys_Ghost
    George_Baileys_Ghost Posts: 1,524 Member
    Evidence to support this comparison?
    Yup:
    http://www.jci.org/articles/view/10842
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17167471
    http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/21/12/1443.long

    I see evidence of some links between diabetics and the obese (For instance, "Obesity is associated with an increased risk of developing insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1716747) (Really? I had never heard that before)...not,
    "the difference between a fat person and a fat person with type II diabetes is often only the level of insulin resistance."

    Show me a specific quote from a study that demonstrates a strong enough comparison between the obese, and diabetics, that the blanket application of dietary restrictions should be applied equally (with regards to eating times and hormone regulation) to both groups for optimal weight loss. (Unless we're not discussing weight loss for the general population anymore.) It should probably also not be limited to diabetics and the morbidly obese, since not everyone trying to lose weight falls into one of those two categories.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    You say that as if it's some minor difference. Diabetes is an incredibly dramatic metabolic disease that drastically affects how the body responds to food.
    It's not one major step, it's a sliding scale.
    Advice for diabetics should NOT be applied to the general population.
    If you follow my link you might notice that it's a study and not advise, nor have I given advice.

    Wut.

    You posted a study suggesting that meal frequency matters in diabetics.

    Fine.

    Then someone posted basically "yeah but that's diabetics and doesn't apply to people in general."

    Your response: "Because the difference between a fat person and a fat person with type II diabetes is often only the level of insulin resistance." followed by an obnoxious condescending winky-face.

    Your implication is abundantly clear, and abundantly irrelevant. I was unsurprised to learn that you're diabetic yourself, as you're clearly filtering everything through this lens.

    Let's put it straight: advice for diabetics can in no way be extrapolated to the population at large, and as such the entirety of your participation in this thread is misleading, irrelevant, and harmful.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    This is great. I might as well get in on the action:

    OP, where did you "study nutrition" between the ages of 19 and 22?

    I believe her profile states - "Currently living in China teaching english to children." and
    "I enjoy studying nutrition and practicing a healthy lifestyle. "

    I enjoy learning, too. Doesn't mean I am formally studying at present.

    You can help Chinese children learn English, without being an English teacher.

    English as a foreign language doesn't require the same level of qualifications as being an English teacher in British schools (don't know about the USA)....... To teach EFL takes a very intensive and not easy course that lasts around 1 month. To teach in a school in the UK you need 4 years at university - 3 years undergrad plus one year postgrad (PGCE) or a 4 year teaching degree (that's the same amount of study and school experience as doing the 3 year degree + one year PGCE. So to teach EFL you can do that with any degree and a 1 month course... to teach English in high schools you need an undergrad degree in English followed by a 1 year postgraduate course. (primary school teachers teach all subjects but must have an undergrad degree in a national curriculum subject)

    You can actually teach English as a foreign language with no teaching qualifications at all in many countries, because I was accepted at a school in Saudi on the basis of being a native speaker and having a degree (subject doesn't matter), and I know at least one international language school that will routinely take people with just an undergraduate degree and being a native speaker to work as English as a foreign language teachers.

    So it's not the same at all.

    This is not to diss people who teach EFL... I've done that for years. But it's totally not in the same league as school English teachers who have to teach stuff like Shakespeare.

    Let's add to irony of it all, as far as this thread goes in which I'm soliloquized with a "16 year-old" and "your (sic) uneducated", it just so happens that English IS my second language and I was, at one time, an ESL student.

    From what I understand from other expats participating in the program, the Chinese ESL program is vast and needs so many teachers that a degree in English or Education is not a requirement. I make no assumptions on our OPs capacity - perhaps in her brashness and certainty of superiority she felt no need to re-read her text before pressing <post>?
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Wow, this definitely turned out to be anticlimactic. OP, as I suspected, you never reply to being challenged on what you spout because you lack the ability to back it up. Tsk tsk.

    Except for the faceless WE trying to yell "Diabeeeetus" as always. All roads always leads to diabeeeeetus.
    It's 10:36 PM in Beijing. I still hold out hope she'll be back.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    You know what........ I think the phrases "metabolic damage" and "damaging the metabolism" and its relatives like "wrecked my metabolism" and the like need to be challenged.

    Yes I'm being pedantic. But dieting will never wreck your metabolism. Adaptive thermogenesis is real, but it's not your metabolism being wrecked, it's your metabolism doing what it's been shaped by millions of years of evolution to do... i.e. slow down a little to conserve resources in a food shortage. It's not wrecked, damaged or broken... it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It's working just fine. It's just that it's working in a way that's optimal for surviving famines, not in a way that's optimal for having big muscles and a low body fat percentage.

    I'll tell you what does wreck your metabolism though... cyanide. Cyanide ions mess with enzymes in your mitochondria, and that causes cellular respiration to come to a standstill, and if that's going on in enough of your mitochondria, you die. Cyanide really does wreck your metabolism.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    bump
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    it just so happens that English IS my second language and I was, at one time, an ESL student.

    You'd never know it.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    I'll tell you what does wreck your metabolism though... cyanide. Cyanide ions mess with enzymes in your mitochondria, and that causes cellular respiration to come to a standstill, and if that's going on in enough of your mitochondria, you die. Cyanide really does wreck your metabolism.

    And DNP!
  • QueenBishOTUniverse
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member
    You know what........ I think the phrases "metabolic damage" and "damaging the metabolism" and its relatives like "wrecked my metabolism" and the like need to be challenged.

    Yes I'm being pedantic. But dieting will never wreck your metabolism. Adaptive thermogenesis is real, but it's not your metabolism being wrecked, it's your metabolism doing what it's been shaped by millions of years of evolution to do... i.e. slow down a little to conserve resources in a food shortage. It's not wrecked, damaged or broken... it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It's working just fine. It's just that it's working in a way that's optimal for surviving famines, not in a way that's optimal for having big muscles and a low body fat percentage.

    I'll tell you what does wreck your metabolism though... cyanide. Cyanide ions mess with enzymes in your mitochondria, and that causes cellular respiration to come to a standstill, and if that's going on in enough of your mitochondria, you die. Cyanide really does wreck your metabolism.

    If we're going to be changing gen pop terminology can I add in a few of my own?

    It's not a shark attack, it's a shark investigation. If the shark was trying to eat your leg, trust me, your leg would be GONE.

    It's not a starfish, it's a seastar, because it's not a damn fish.

    Man, that feels better! :drinker:
  • George_Baileys_Ghost
    George_Baileys_Ghost Posts: 1,524 Member
    You know what........ I think the phrases "metabolic damage" and "damaging the metabolism" and its relatives like "wrecked my metabolism" and the like need to be challenged.

    Yes I'm being pedantic. But dieting will never wreck your metabolism. Adaptive thermogenesis is real, but it's not your metabolism being wrecked, it's your metabolism doing what it's been shaped by millions of years of evolution to do... i.e. slow down a little to conserve resources in a food shortage. It's not wrecked, damaged or broken... it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It's working just fine. It's just that it's working in a way that's optimal for surviving famines, not in a way that's optimal for having big muscles and a low body fat percentage.

    I'll tell you what does wreck your metabolism though... cyanide. Cyanide ions mess with enzymes in your mitochondria, and that causes cellular respiration to come to a standstill, and if that's going on in enough of your mitochondria, you die. Cyanide really does wreck your metabolism.

    If we're going to be changing gen pop terminology can I add in a few of my own?

    It's not a shark attack, it's a shark investigation. If the shark was trying to eat your leg, trust me, your leg would be GONE.

    It's not a starfish, it's a seastar, because it's not a damn fish.

    Man, that feels better! :drinker:

    You have no idea what all your fish-talk does for me.

    office-space-drew-o-face-o-1.gif

    (It's an O-Face gif from Office Space. I'm getting better at remembering you can't always see them.)
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    You know what........ I think the phrases "metabolic damage" and "damaging the metabolism" and its relatives like "wrecked my metabolism" and the like need to be challenged.

    Yes I'm being pedantic. But dieting will never wreck your metabolism. Adaptive thermogenesis is real, but it's not your metabolism being wrecked, it's your metabolism doing what it's been shaped by millions of years of evolution to do... i.e. slow down a little to conserve resources in a food shortage. It's not wrecked, damaged or broken... it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It's working just fine. It's just that it's working in a way that's optimal for surviving famines, not in a way that's optimal for having big muscles and a low body fat percentage.

    I'll tell you what does wreck your metabolism though... cyanide. Cyanide ions mess with enzymes in your mitochondria, and that causes cellular respiration to come to a standstill, and if that's going on in enough of your mitochondria, you die. Cyanide really does wreck your metabolism.

    I pulled the cyanide card the other day and was schooled that it was an important component in some process or another. It CAN wreck your metabolism - in unhealthy doses. Sigh.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    You know what........ I think the phrases "metabolic damage" and "damaging the metabolism" and its relatives like "wrecked my metabolism" and the like need to be challenged.

    Yes I'm being pedantic. But dieting will never wreck your metabolism. Adaptive thermogenesis is real, but it's not your metabolism being wrecked, it's your metabolism doing what it's been shaped by millions of years of evolution to do... i.e. slow down a little to conserve resources in a food shortage. It's not wrecked, damaged or broken... it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do. It's working just fine. It's just that it's working in a way that's optimal for surviving famines, not in a way that's optimal for having big muscles and a low body fat percentage.

    I'll tell you what does wreck your metabolism though... cyanide. Cyanide ions mess with enzymes in your mitochondria, and that causes cellular respiration to come to a standstill, and if that's going on in enough of your mitochondria, you die. Cyanide really does wreck your metabolism.

    If we're going to be changing gen pop terminology can I add in a few of my own?

    It's not a shark attack, it's a shark investigation. If the shark was trying to eat your leg, trust me, your leg would be GONE.

    It's not a starfish, it's a seastar, because it's not a damn fish.

    Man, that feels better! :drinker:

    George is with you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKdvTecYAM
  • likitisplit
    likitisplit Posts: 9,420 Member
    So I was too lazy to read anything other than the first page of responses, but does the OP provide any sources to back up her claims? I saw no citations at the end of her post.

    LOL no.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    So I was too lazy to read anything other than the first page of responses, but does the OP provide any sources to back up her claims? I saw no citations at the end of her post.

    Well, if you consider "I'm 22 and studied nutrition for THREE YEARS" a citation, then absolutely.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories