Whole mess 'O' research to peruse.

SHBoss1673

Here are a bunch of cool research articles published in the last 15 years or so. Almost all deal with nutrition, metabolism, and obesity. I'll reserve any opinions until you read them. Feel free to post yours, I'm interested in discussion.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/77/3/544.full.pdf+html?sid=e89fb416-23c9-4726-9f6b-2755536995a5

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/1/280S.full.pdf+html?sid=e89fb416-23c9-4726-9f6b-2755536995a5

http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/3/570.full.pdf+html?sid=e89fb416-23c9-4726-9f6b-2755536995a5

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf+html?sid=e89fb416-23c9-4726-9f6b-2755536995a5

http://www.ajcn.org/content/25/1/85.full.pdf+html?sid=5deb5c19-82fc-46dc-bf19-5dc7842a779a

good one here: http://www.ajcn.org/content/60/1/29.full.pdf+html?sid=5deb5c19-82fc-46dc-bf19-5dc7842a779a

http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/4/993.full.pdf+html?sid=5deb5c19-82fc-46dc-bf19-5dc7842a779a

I know this is a lot of stuff, but they were all so informative. Granted reading them all might leave you a bit dizzy, but they are really great research. Anyway, if you want to discuss a specific topic, please provide the link to that article and maybe the title just so we have some background to read on first.

SHBoss1673

nuthin huh? I guess I'm the only person psycho enough to read this much gobblty gook.

SHBoss1673

I'm going to take the lack of response as people either just not having the time, or not being able to follow the research. It IS super technical. Please let me know if you looked at any at least. If nobody's reading any of this stuff, then I'd just as soon not waste time posting it. Oh well.

carmen62

Yeah, all busy. It may help if you give a topic summary for each URL.

SHBoss1673

bahh, I don't think I'm gonna do that. It would mean a lot of extra work and even I don't have that kind of time in the middle of the week. They're all related to nutrition, obesity, and human metabolism. Many deal with restricted calorie diets and fasts as well and what they do to the hormonal balance in the body (which is central to fat mass and weight loss topics)

lotusfromthemud

You know I you, so I read the first one. And, that is some serious science/medical-ese....

I think the first study found that: although a decrease in leptin occurs during calorie restriction, when food is no longer restricted, the subjects didn't compensate (overeat?) for the missed food (missed during the restriction).

Also, it seems that the subjects were male, mid 30s, right?

With no basis in any science whatsoever, I'm convinced that some overweight people have some sort of problem with insulin/leptin regulation, and their hunger cues are all screwed up. I know, anecdotally, that when I experimented with IF, I compensated like a mother at the next available meal after the fasting period. Even after eating well for years, I still have difficulty when I'm really and truly hungry, knowing where "enough" is. Just opinion, though....

carmen62

Had a quick look. The bit on Carbs and metabolism looked interesting. The obesity articles are of less interest as I am not obese, just overweight.

I appreciate your effort here, but the practicality is, too busy t wade through. i am studting myself and have enough journal articles to get through!

carmen62

PS What is Red Sox Nation?

foxyforce

You know I you, so I read the first one. And, that is some serious science/medical-ese....

I think the first study found that: although a decrease in leptin occurs during calorie restriction, when food is no longer restricted, the subjects didn't compensate (overeat?) for the missed food (missed during the restriction).

Also, it seems that the subjects were male, mid 30s, right?

With no basis in any science whatsoever, I'm convinced that some overweight people have some sort of problem with insulin/leptin regulation, and their hunger cues are all screwed up. I know, anecdotally, that when I experimented with IF, I compensated like a mother at the next available meal after the fasting period. Even after eating well for years, I still have difficulty when I'm really and truly hungry, knowing where "enough" is. Just opinion, though....

weight and weight issues is pretty multidisciplinary I would think. ie. the science people know how metabolic systems work where psychologist understand behaviours and how priming would effect your "hunger cues". no one piece of research states anything, that is why it is so dry and boring to read, they have to be real careful not to summarize anything for the sake of getting it wrong. they are just delivering the facts for the research that they have studied.

SHBoss1673

You know I you, so I read the first one. And, that is some serious science/medical-ese....

I think the first study found that: although a decrease in leptin occurs during calorie restriction, when food is no longer restricted, the subjects didn't compensate (overeat?) for the missed food (missed during the restriction).

Also, it seems that the subjects were male, mid 30s, right?

With no basis in any science whatsoever, I'm convinced that some overweight people have some sort of problem with insulin/leptin regulation, and their hunger cues are all screwed up. I know, anecdotally, that when I experimented with IF, I compensated like a mother at the next available meal after the fasting period. Even after eating well for years, I still have difficulty when I'm really and truly hungry, knowing where "enough" is. Just opinion, though....

weight and weight issues is pretty multidisciplinary I would think. ie. the science people know how metabolic systems work where psychologist understand behaviours and how priming would effect your "hunger cues". no one piece of research states anything, that is why it is so dry and boring to read, they have to be real careful not to summarize anything for the sake of getting it wrong. they are just delivering the facts for the research that they have studied.

yep, they leave the speculation for others (us).

SHBoss1673

@viv, these were 8 women, not men. @carmen, abdominally obese does not mean obese in the classical terminology. It just means a predominance of their fat is in their belly. Enough to make the stomach higher in fat content than normal.

I'll have to re-read and confirm, but I think the main conclusions of this study were that, while healthy women (and men to a different degree) have a sharp, rapid increase of lipolytic response (increased adipose fat burning) for short term IF, abdominally obese (and by extension generally obese, one would imagine) women have a very reduced increase, meaning that their body's don't seem to kick into the "fat burning" mode after a reduction or elimination of carbohydrate intake over the course of a few days.

While troubling, it's not conclusive IMHO, its just further confirmation that when women gain to much fat, their bodies don't respond to stimuli like they normally would. Which I'm sure most of us guessed already. I.E. when a woman gets to fat, their body makes it harder to lose that fat for some unknown reason. That's troubling but not completely unexpected.

lotusfromthemud

@viv, these were 8 women, not men. @carmen, abdominally obese does not mean obese in the classical terminology. It just means a predominance of their fat is in their belly. Enough to make the stomach higher in fat content than normal.

I'll have to re-read and confirm, but I think the main conclusions of this study were that, while healthy women (and men to a different degree) have a sharp, rapid increase of lipolytic response (increased adipose fat burning) for short term IF, abdominally obese (and by extension generally obese, one would imagine) women have a very reduced increase, meaning that their body's don't seem to kick into the "fat burning" mode after a reduction or elimination of carbohydrate intake over the course of a few days.

While troubling, it's not conclusive IMHO, its just further confirmation that when women gain to much fat, their bodies don't respond to stimuli like they normally would. Which I'm sure most of us guessed already. I.E. when a woman gets to fat, their body makes it harder to lose that fat for some unknown reason. That's troubling but not completely unexpected.

On a completely (or only slightly related note). I used to never gain fat in the abdominal region (I was always an hourglass, not quite a pear shape). After a two-year course of corticosteroid treatment, my body hasn't been the same. I now gain/have great difficultly losing in the gut region. This could also be due to being, um, no longer twenty, but even women in my family who were aged (like my great grandmother) had the hourglass body.

Troubling is right. I find that, now that I spent a considerable amount of time heavy...it is nearly impossible to convince my body to let go of what I consider the last ten pounds (or so) of fat. Do you know of any studies regarding corticosteroid use, the subsequent weight gain and long term effects on weight loss? I could probably google this, but you seem to be deep into the studies right now...so just wondering if you'd come across any...

How did I miss that they were women, not men? derp.

SHBoss1673

@viv, these were 8 women, not men. @carmen, abdominally obese does not mean obese in the classical terminology. It just means a predominance of their fat is in their belly. Enough to make the stomach higher in fat content than normal.

I'll have to re-read and confirm, but I think the main conclusions of this study were that, while healthy women (and men to a different degree) have a sharp, rapid increase of lipolytic response (increased adipose fat burning) for short term IF, abdominally obese (and by extension generally obese, one would imagine) women have a very reduced increase, meaning that their body's don't seem to kick into the "fat burning" mode after a reduction or elimination of carbohydrate intake over the course of a few days.

While troubling, it's not conclusive IMHO, its just further confirmation that when women gain to much fat, their bodies don't respond to stimuli like they normally would. Which I'm sure most of us guessed already. I.E. when a woman gets to fat, their body makes it harder to lose that fat for some unknown reason. That's troubling but not completely unexpected.

On a completely (or only slightly related note). I used to never gain fat in the abdominal region (I was always an hourglass, not quite a pear shape). After a two-year course of corticosteroid treatment, my body hasn't been the same. I now gain/have great difficultly losing in the gut region. This could also be due to being, um, no longer twenty, but even women in my family who were aged (like my great grandmother) had the hourglass body.

Troubling is right. I find that, now that I spent a considerable amount of time heavy...it is nearly impossible to convince my body to let go of what I consider the last ten pounds (or so) of fat. Do you know of any studies regarding corticosteroid use, the subsequent weight gain and long term effects on weight loss? I could probably google this, but you seem to be deep into the studies right now...so just wondering if you'd come across any...

How did I miss that they were women, not men? derp.

I would assume that the abdominal fat gains were probably at least partly to do with the steroid treatments, which probably increased testosterone levels, which has been shown to enhance the body's abdominal fat storage (I.E. why men store fat in the stomach more easily than women). along those same lines, estrogen seems to be a factor in why women store more fat in the lower body, and I think maybe the steroids probably changed your estrogen and/or testosterone levels. Or at least they didn't help matters. As women age they produce less estrogen, so that probably is one of the reasons. Your doctor could probably help with that if it's still an issue, many women receive estrogen treatments, it's something to consider at least.

SHBoss1673

as to your question on corticosteroids. I haven't read anything specific recently. But I know that they mimic the hormone cortisol to a degree which means that they limit phospholipid burning (the release of adipose fat from fat cells for energy production). the dosage and term of the delivery is really the most important factor in this case. The higher the dose and the longer the course of the treatment, the more effect it will have on fat storage. Cortisol is biologically a steroid that counteracts insulin, and effectively increases glucose production in the liver. This means higher blood sugar with no where to go, which means more of that free floating sugar is stored as fat. Cortisol is naturally released to counteract high stress situations where in our distant past, high bursts of energy were needed (like running from a giant saber toothed tiger, or chasing down a woolly mammoth), of course, artificially adding corticosteroids will help things like inflammation and asthma, but they hurt things like body fat % and bone mass. So it's somewhat of a tradeoff there.

lotusfromthemud

as to your question on corticosteroids. I haven't read anything specific recently. But I know that they mimic the hormone cortisol to a degree which means that they limit phospholipid burning (the release of adipose fat from fat cells for energy production). the dosage and term of the delivery is really the most important factor in this case. The higher the dose and the longer the course of the treatment, the more effect it will have on fat storage. Cortisol is biologically a steroid that counteracts insulin, and effectively increases glucose production in the liver. This means higher blood sugar with no where to go, which means more of that free floating sugar is stored as fat. Cortisol is naturally released to counteract high stress situations where in our distant past, high bursts of energy were needed (like running from a giant saber toothed tiger, or chasing down a woolly mammoth), of course, artificially adding corticosteroids will help things like inflammation and asthma, but they hurt things like body fat % and bone mass. So it's somewhat of a tradeoff there.

Thank you. My current doctor (who I've finally decided is not so great of a doctor) hasn't been believing me when I tell him how much I eat, and said, regarding my steroid treatment "that wouldn't effect weight gain." (whaaaa? I gained thirty pounds in my first three months on the damn things while eating pretty much the same amount).

this gives me a good starting point of inquiry when I get my new doctor. Thanks.

SHBoss1673

]

Thank you. My current doctor (who I've finally decided is not so great of a doctor) hasn't been believing me when I tell him how much I eat, and said, regarding my steroid treatment "that wouldn't effect weight gain." (whaaaa? I gained thirty pounds in my first three months on the damn things while eating pretty much the same amount).

this gives me a good starting point of inquiry when I get my new doctor. Thanks.

doctors are like any other profession these days, overworked, and working of potentially out of date information. It's really up to the individual doctor for how proactive they want to be with the latest research and information. Some of this metabolic stuff is less than 10 years old, which means you may be ahead of him on it. It's possible, especially if it's a GP doctor who doesn't focus on metabolic conditions.

mmnichol

Thanks for the resources, unforunately, just another reason to lament aging! :sad:

anovasjo

Thanks for the links, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and I had not been previously introduced.
I'm in the middle of a study break right now so I'm not going to wade in just yet, but I know what I'm going to read this evening!

Cheers!

SHBoss1673

Thanks for the resources, unforunately, just another reason to lament aging! :sad:

heh, (holding my ears). LALALALALALALALALA. i'm not listening to you.

In college, a full rugby game was a warm-up for me. Then I'd go out and play the B-side game if we didn't have enough guys, that's ahh what? 120 minutes of sprinting, wrestling, and un-dislocating fingers and stuffing cotton up my nose to stop the bleeding. And then we went drinking. Now, I'd be lucky to play a half without having a TIA on the field.

lotusfromthemud

]

Thank you. My current doctor (who I've finally decided is not so great of a doctor) hasn't been believing me when I tell him how much I eat, and said, regarding my steroid treatment "that wouldn't effect weight gain." (whaaaa? I gained thirty pounds in my first three months on the damn things while eating pretty much the same amount).

this gives me a good starting point of inquiry when I get my new doctor. Thanks.

doctors are like any other profession these days, overworked, and working of potentially out of date information. It's really up to the individual doctor for how proactive they want to be with the latest research and information. Some of this metabolic stuff is less than 10 years old, which means you may be ahead of him on it. It's possible, especially if it's a GP doctor who doesn't focus on metabolic conditions.

Yeah, I'm sure he qualifies in the whole overworked thing...but he's essentially accused me of lying to my food journal (or him.) I would lie to my own mother before I would lie to my food journal.:laugh:

Essentially, something (insulin resistance/hormonal issues/thyroid problems/something else) is up, and he won't investigate it. Or, it could be as simple as the study we were talking about...once I spent time significantly overweight, I'm doomed. I don't want to be doomed, and I'm suffering health problems that I believe are directly tied to the extra fat. (normal cholesterol levels, but high levels of arterial plaque, for example.) :grumble:

SHBoss1673

]

Thank you. My current doctor (who I've finally decided is not so great of a doctor) hasn't been believing me when I tell him how much I eat, and said, regarding my steroid treatment "that wouldn't effect weight gain." (whaaaa? I gained thirty pounds in my first three months on the damn things while eating pretty much the same amount).

this gives me a good starting point of inquiry when I get my new doctor. Thanks.

doctors are like any other profession these days, overworked, and working of potentially out of date information. It's really up to the individual doctor for how proactive they want to be with the latest research and information. Some of this metabolic stuff is less than 10 years old, which means you may be ahead of him on it. It's possible, especially if it's a GP doctor who doesn't focus on metabolic conditions.

Yeah, I'm sure he qualifies in the whole overworked thing...but he's essentially accused me of lying to my food journal (or him.) I would lie to my own mother before I would lie to my food journal.:laugh:

Essentially, something (insulin resistance/hormonal issues/thyroid problems/something else) is up, and he won't investigate it. Or, it could be as simple as the study we were talking about...once I spent time significantly overweight, I'm doomed. I don't want to be doomed, and I'm suffering health problems that I believe are directly tied to the extra fat. (normal cholesterol levels, but high levels of arterial plaque, for example.) :grumble:

I think maybe 35 years ago you would have been doomed, as they didn't have the synthetic hormones they do now. But I think, with the correct blood work, correct diagnosis, and proper hormone therapy, you would be able to beat it. Those are some hurdles, but it all depends on having the right medical staff involved, someone who really knows their stuff and is willing to think a little outside the box. I'm sure there' someone around now that would be able to treat you, I just don't know that a regular General Practice doctor would be that solution, they're so afraid of anything out of cookie cutter treatments these days (lawsuits are a *****), that they won't dare prescribe something to someone who isn't on their death bed.

MMK72

Bump - for later reading, can't read it all in one hit! Phew!

I'm really looking forward to the bit titled "a fat cell is more than just a bag of fat" LOL!

But as to article one it's all very interesting but what does it mean?
All the steroid hormones are fat soluble so what do lower plasma levels actually mean - is the hormone all in the fat rather than the blood?
Does the change in adiposity lead to a change in hormone production/sequestration?
Or does the change in hormone production lead to the change in body composition?

Chicken or Egg? Let them researches keep researching until then, diet and exersize it is.

SHBoss1673

DrMooMoo,

I had to go back and re-read the first article to remember the conclusions given. But I'll try to explain as best I can.

Basically what they are saying is that when they tested 8 abdominally obese women in controlled conditions, they found that after a short term fasting period, these women didn't begin using fat for energy (lipolysis) as normal weight (NW) women did. The spike was far more muted in the Abdominally obese women. Furthermore they found that the only other change between the two groups was the lack of increased Growth Hormone (GH) in the obese women. which makes sense to me since growth hormone triggers energy need in the body among other things.

The background is basically this. By now, it's been well documented that for normal weighted, healthy adults, after a short term fasting period (about 20 to 50 hours); the body depletes glycogen stores and begins a period of hyper-lipolysis where fat is pulled for energy at a slightly higher rate than normal. this can continue, depending on the amount of calorie restriction, for anywhere from a few days to 15 days or more, where the starvation response will kick in and change the metabolism to our great detriment. But for abdominally obese women, it's seems this (dare I say marvelous) effect is blunted, meaning they don't really get that extra fat burn that a lot of us do, thus (at least in this study) making intermittent fasting not a very worthwhile practice for woman with high percentages of body fat in the abdominal region.

MMK72

Aahh, back to some intellectual discussion. remind me never to go back to that "other" topic again, beginner mistake I guess!
I shouldn't have used "inflammatory" language. Hah Pun based on further reading.

I get the point about the previous article, I guess it doesn't matter if it's chicken or egg, if you have tummy fat, fasting doesn't help you burn fat, but if you're normal weight it does - maybe the source of all the arguments here - those of us overweight and larger will not burn fat by fasting - even the shortish periods from dinner/night before until breakfast, but those in the normal weight range will??

I just read the?editorial "Intergrative view of obesity" and I found it really interesting.

Firstly on a purely intellectual level ( I am medical, but not much to do with nutrition) I found it interesting that fat cells die if you are obese. I had this wierd idea (or maybe 15 years ago when I was at uni the research wasn't out) fat cells didn't die they just got bigger and smaller and the only way you reduced the number was by removing them surgically! The activation of macrophages is also really interesting because this whole "inflammatory" activation thing is usually bad and results in medical events related to clotting - heart disease, DVT/PE and stroke amongst others . So we've always known obese people are at risk of these things statistically but it seems researches are really filling in the "why".

But some really overweight people never seem to get any heart disease or obvious medical complication (other than the gallbladder that's getting removed or the knee that's getting replaced which is why I see them) and I wonder if it's to do with some of the stuff later in the article under "intergrative solutions" like maintaining a high fresh fruit and vegetable/antioxidant diet most of the time? My mum has been obese most of her life but has always loved blueberries - maybe they truly deserve the "superfood" title!

It would be nice to spread the word that metabolic syndrome was
"positively correlated with
high-glycemic-index food intake (high-fat meats, cheeses, and
processed foods) and negatively correlated with a low intake of
low-glycemic-index foods (vegetables, soy, fruit, green and
black tea, low-fat dairy desserts, seeds and nuts, and fish)"

and that (with editing)
"the DASH diet- increased fruit, vegetables, low-fat
dairy, and whole grains, resulted in a lowered intake of saturated
fat, total fat, and cholesterol and higher HDL (good) cholesterol and
lower triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood
pressure, and fasting blood glucose in men and women,
and reduced most of the metabolic risks in both men and
women that are known to be associated with insulin resistance
and metabolic syndrome"

I guess we all have been told that fruit and veg, wholegrains and low fat are good for us but it's nice to see some research. (not that I went and read those studies but I trust the editor and peer review process - risky I know just go to retractionwatch!)

Edited to add that dodgy pun at the beginning :laugh:

abihaila

bump

MMK72

I tried to read the 3rd article but it makes my brain hurt. This is my summary:

"We studied 2 day long low calorie diets but we did it in normal weight people who never diet so they wouldn't consciously avoid overeating after the calorie restriction ended. All we noticed was they eat more carbohydrates (but not calories) afterwards and this correlates with the decreased insulin levels during the calorie restricted time and even though the leptin was reduced during calorie restriction time it wasn't associated with an increase in calories eaten after."

Umm.... is this a useless study?? Or does it show normal weight people do not over eat after a severe (60%) calorie restricted 2 days. I guess we need the study that shows that obese or overweight people do overeat after the end of severe calorie restriction I wonder if it's coming up....

Again maybe the source of the arguments - it seems normal weight people don't suffer if they fast or calorie restrict.

SHBoss1673

I thought this study was important for 2 reasons.
1st because it shows that at least for the short term, men with no perceived food issues don't have a problem with varying their food intake for short periods. I found this to be interesting. Psychologically, they did what comes naturally, when being deprived of food their body tried to preserve blood sugar somewhat, and when in "recovery" they eat a little extra. this is exactly what one would expect. They didn't gorge themselves after a short famine state as people with food issues may do. And their insulin responded in kind, jumping up a little to balance out the extra carbohydrate intake.

and

2nd leptin, the hormone that tells us we are hungry, was not raised proportionally on the days that the "re-feeding" occurred, saying that in a healthy normal person, the body doesn't "panic" and overeat. It's only in people that there is already a strong psychological connection to food in some way that the brain does "weird things" with regard to re-feeding. Just thought it was an interesting study in contrast to what we on MFP normally read. I.E. most of the stuff we (I at least) look at are related to obesity and eating disorders, it's good to look at the other side sometimes and see what there is to see.

ladyhawk00

Bump to read later

MMK72

I thought this study was important for 2 reasons.
1st because it shows that at least for the short term, men with no perceived food issues don't have a problem with varying their food intake for short periods. I found this to be interesting. Psychologically, they did what comes naturally, when being deprived of food their body tried to preserve blood sugar somewhat, and when in "recovery" they eat a little extra. this is exactly what one would expect. They didn't gorge themselves after a short famine state as people with food issues may do. And their insulin responded in kind, jumping up a little to balance out the extra carbohydrate intake.

and

2nd leptin, the hormone that tells us we are hungry, was not raised proportionally on the days that the "re-feeding" occurred, saying that in a healthy normal person, the body doesn't "panic" and overeat. It's only in people that there is already a strong psychological connection to food in some way that the brain does "weird things" with regard to re-feeding. Just thought it was an interesting study in contrast to what we on MFP normally read. I.E. most of the stuff we (I at least) look at are related to obesity and eating disorders, it's good to look at the other side sometimes and see what there is to see.

Heh yes I jump to call it useless - maybe what I mean is "not applicable to me and my situation right now".

Mind you I hope to see that as my weight reduces slowly my instinctive behavior will also change from what is described in the 'obese/overweight' studies to the 'normal weight' type behaviors so it's good to learn about what happens to normal weight bodies too. It's interesting to see there is a biochemical difference between the two body types but again i wonder back to my earlier musing - is it chicken or is it egg? Does abnormal hormonal response and production make you overweight or does it occur only after you gain the weight? Imagine the study they'd have to do to show that! Overfeed these poor men, make them overweight, then do the study again! Or they could do it on Sumo wrestlers in Japan - study the "hopefuls' before they start to superfeed and then do it again once they become Sumos???

SHBoss1673

Heh yes I jump to call it useless - maybe what I mean is "not applicable to me and my situation right now".

Mind you I hope to see that as my weight reduces slowly my instinctive behavior will also change from what is described in the 'obese/overweight' studies to the 'normal weight' type behaviors so it's good to learn about what happens to normal weight bodies too. It's interesting to see there is a biochemical difference between the two body types but again i wonder back to my earlier musing - is it chicken or is it egg? Does abnormal hormonal response and production make you overweight or does it occur only after you gain the weight? Imagine the study they'd have to do to show that! Overfeed these poor men, make them overweight, then do the study again! Or they could do it on Sumo wrestlers in Japan - study the "hopefuls' before they start to superfeed and then do it again once they become Sumos???

to your question of what comes first, I don't have a solid, factual based answer for that. Speculatively, my guess would be that cortisol (the stress hormone) would be the biggest factor. After a few years of research into obesity, my current thinking is that almost EVERY single obese person has issues with food because of a psychological issue. In other words, I've come to believe that food is a mental game for EVERYONE. Because cortisol is released in response to stress, and we all know that stress is a big problem for psychological issues, I think that cortisol, and by logical deduction stress is the big problem with obesity today.
The question is how do we solve this? Well, we can't eliminate stress from people's lives, but we can give people the means to deal with that stress in a positive and helpful manner. Instead of bottling up emotions and letting them leak out in subconscious food issues, we can direct people to confront their emotional stresses and deal with the underlying problems that cause cortisol.

For those that are wondering, cortisol is a stress hormone. Cortisol does 2 things, the biggest thing it does with regards to obesity is it counteracts insulin. As most should know, insulin is the enzyme that binds to blood glucose and allows it to pass through cell membranes so that it can be used for energy by mitochondria, cortisol increases insulin resistance, meaning that the cells are not as receptive to insulin and thus less blood sugar is retrieved in cells. This may not sound like a huge deal, but think about it, not only does this reduce energy levels, it also increases blood sugar (the body does not stop converting carbs to glucose because blood sugar levels are high), and with no where to go, the blood sugar is converted to fat to make room for more sugar. Thus cortisol.

Course cortisol is bad for other reasons as well, it also blunts the immune system, reduces bone formation, and increases epinephrine and neoepinephrine sensitivity.

NOW, don't think cortisol is a villain and nothing else, during certain times it's a good thing. It reduces inflammation and increases vasodilation, which means that during times when you need your body to pump more oxygen or remove more heat, it opens up the blood vessels to allow this, this means that when you are working hard physically, cortisol is a GOOD thing. Back when we were homo erectus, this was important for speed and strength bursts. But today, stress is rarely physical, which means all those hormones meant to increase your strength and speed are doing nothing more than heightening your senses to the problem that caused the stress. And of course increasing fat storage and lowering your immune system.

wolf23

bump