Mice become Obese WITHOUT Consuming Any More Calories
Replies
-
For those of you asking how the metabolism of a human and rodent differ-Rats are carb burners; they consume and rapidly use large amounts of carbohydrates to survive. Humans are fat burners, meaning we don’t need carbs constantly since our body can easily store energy in the form of fat. Therefore, something that prevents obesity and activates lipid metabolism in rodents will have different effects in humans, unless those rodents’ metabolisms have been altered to mimic those of humans.
"unless those rodents’ metabolisms have been altered to mimic those of humans." Most of the mice used for these studies are genetically engineered to respond as a human's metabolic pathway would..
*oops, too slow... Robyn already explained.0 -
The BODY controls energy balance, not us. We have very limited ability to affect our body weight, especially over the long term. Body weight is overwhelmingly INVOLUNTARILY regulated by neural circuitry.
The BODY fights back. Dr. Liebel has shwon the metabolic consequences to weight loss includes a 25 % DROP in metabolism- far gretaer than what would normally be expected from weight loss itself.
Lastly, stop invoking scientific laws. The laws of thermodynamics do NOT explain how mammalian fact cells are regulatedl. Science does not at all understand the chemical behavior of fat cells receptors.
They EXPLAIN NOTHING about obesity. The question is NOT if they apply, it is IF WE CAN INFER from these laws the behavior of mammalian fat cells- which we cannot.
Learn the SCOP OF APPLICABILITY of various laws.
Realize that BOTH theories and laws could be shown to be wrong at some tinme if there are data to suggest so.There is NO HERIARCHY WHATSOEVER between theories and laws in science.
0 -
The BODY controls energy balance, not us. We have very limited ability to affect our body weight, especially over the long term. Body weight is overwhelmingly INVOLUNTARILY regulated by neural circuitry.
The BODY fights back. Dr. Liebel has shwon the metabolic consequences to weight loss includes a 25 % DROP in metabolism- far gretaer than what would normally be expected from weight loss itself.
Lastly, stop invoking scientific laws. The laws of thermodynamics do NOT explain how mammalian fact cells are regulated, you fool. Science does not at all understand the chemical behavior of fat cells receptors.
They EXPLAIN NOTHING about obesity. The question is NOT if they apply, it is IF WE CAN INFER from these laws the behavior of mammalian fat cells- which we cannot.
Learn the SCOP OF APPLICABILITY of various laws.
Realize that BOTH theories and laws could be shown to be wrong at some tinme if there are data to suggest so.There is NO HERIARCHY WHATSOEVER between theories and laws in science.
Funny, my body weight went up when I moved less and ate more and went down when I moved more and ate less....I must be a wizard!
Maybe even an alien wizard!
oh btw
We just met
and this might be crazy
but I'm new around here
I'll insult everyone maybe?0 -
I lost 90 lbs eating all the way up til bed time (11pm - 12am). The difference is I watched my calories, no matter what time of day it was.
This is idiotic.
Your ticker says 89 lbs. Your argument is invalid.0 -
^ LMAO!0 -
My husband has done shift-work for 11 years, including a good amount of graveyard.
He's 5'9", 160lbs, wears a size 30" pants (the same size he's worn since highschool), has 20" biceps and oh, can race his mountain bike 100 miles in less than 10 hours.0 -
Yes, because My great great great grandmother's sister in law once removed was a mouse, so that means I am related to mice. No wonder my kids can relate to Mikey and Minnie Mouse so much.
There are also various Scientific studies that indicate that humans are in fact, NOT mice :noway:
Care to cite such studies?0 -
Who's "they"?That is why they say that you should not eat after 6pm unless you are going to exercise.
I'd love to see any peer-reviewed scientific studies which correlate weight gain with eating after a certain time. Otherwise, I'll stick with the contention that it's an old wives' tale which has been scientifically disproven many times.
READ SCIENCEDAILY, YOU BAFOON. THERE IS PLENTY OF RESEARCH SHOWING THE TIME AT WHICH YOU EAT MATTERS. YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT.
Please cite it.
Also, please do not send me PMs calling me an idiot, a bimbo or an *kitten*.
What is up with the second PM you sent with yet more insults and personal attacks. Don't bother with any more - you are blocked so you will have to stick to insulting me publicly.0 -
In spite of the way this thread imploded, I find the idea that weight might be genetically determined is actually hopeful.
Firstly, I think a genetic tendency isn't necessarily determination. It's like being geneticially predisposed to heart disease or cancer - it doesn't mean you have to get these illnesses, it's just a single factor (particularly if you do everything else right). Having this knowledge can make us more careful about other factors.
Secondly, maybe this means a new way of considering that we can be healthy at different weights. Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily will begin to be considered healthy instead of automatically dismissed as serious illness waiting to happen, and more healthy than thin people who rarely exercise and eat a lot of junk food. Then the phrase "I'm not doing this to be thin, I'm doing this to be healthy" can ring a little more true.
For those who said "this didn't happen to me so it's not true" might want to consider that just because it's not true for them doesn't mean it's not true at all. I actually had the opposite experience at a retreat where we only had two meals a day, breakfast and lunch, with a piece of fruit for dinner, I ate huge meals because I was so worried about being hungry, there is no way I was eating less calories in my two meals than I normally ate in three, but I lost 7 lbs in 10 days. I'm not suggesting this would work for everyone, but it sure affected my body in a way that made me drop weight.0 -
Interesting article.
I consume most of my 4000 calories at night and am currently at 11% bodyfat.
This leads me to believe that I don't share the same metabolism as a mouse.0 -
good thing we're not mice lmfao. Until we get some peer-reviewed human trials up in this thread, I think it's safe to say that meal timing does not matter one bit. Unless, I guess, you have some new time-based version of hypothyroidism/pcos0
-
good thing we're not mice lmfao. Until we get some peer-reviewed human trials up in this thread, I think it's safe to say that meal timing does not matter one bit. Unless, I guess, you have some new time-based version of hypothyroidism/pcos
There are links to studies on humans.0 -
Sven (OP) has deactivated his account after being called out for trolling.0
-
All I know it that when I eat, it feels pretty darn "natural", regardless of the time. So, I'm not scared.0
-
Yes, clearly your personal experience, and untrained opinion mean that the carefully performed work of people with advanced degrees, filtered into one or two sentences by a lay period is "idiotic." Clearly. Science is useless and we should all just use only those tools provided to us by strangers on the internet. Wait...without science, we wouldn't have the internet. hmmm...I lost 90 lbs eating all the way up til bed time (11pm - 12am). The difference is I watched my calories, no matter what time of day it was.
This is idiotic.0 -
I lost 90 lbs eating all the way up til bed time (11pm - 12am). The difference is I watched my calories, no matter what time of day it was.
This is idiotic.
I agree. I eat whenever I want as long as it's within my calorie goals for the day. I don't care about a schedule as long as I'm eating only when I'm hungry.0 -
There are plenty of peer-reviewed scientific studies (on humans) indicating both that the laws of thermodynamics/energy balance are, in fact, valid, and that nutrient timing is, in fact, irrelevant.Yes, clearly your personal experience, and untrained opinion mean that the carefully performed work of people with advanced degrees, filtered into one or two sentences by a lay period is "idiotic." Clearly. Science is useless and we should all just use only those tools provided to us by strangers on the internet. Wait...without science, we wouldn't have the internet. hmmm...0 -
People seem to be getting confused here, none more so than the OP. Unless I am totally reading it wrong, the study is not about intra-day meal timing being relevant - it shows the impact to your metabolism when your whole eating pattern vis a vis night v day gets thrown off. It also addresses the propensity to eat more in that situation.
"When a species’ typical daily rhythm is thrown off, changes in metabolism also happen. For example, in people, night shift workers have an increased prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome, and patients with sleep disorders have a higher risk for developing obesity. Also, less sleep means more weight gain in healthy men and women."
While it is an interesting study and most likely there will be a benefit to more research into it with regard to obesity, it does not refute the laws of thermodynamics and it does not change the findings that intra-day meal timing is irrelevant.0 -
There are plenty of peer-reviewed scientific studies (on humans) indicating both that the laws of thermodynamics/energy balance are, in fact, valid, and that nutrient timing is, in fact, irrelevant.Yes, clearly your personal experience, and untrained opinion mean that the carefully performed work of people with advanced degrees, filtered into one or two sentences by a lay period is "idiotic." Clearly. Science is useless and we should all just use only those tools provided to us by strangers on the internet. Wait...without science, we wouldn't have the internet. hmmm...
Yes, and had the commenter referenced any of those studies, and/or made an argument other than to offer anecdotal evidence, I would not have replied in a sarcastic manner. Moreover, given how much we still have to learn about energy balance, metabolism, obesity, etc., in mammals generally, I have a difficult time imagining that most scientists in this area would make such a blanket statement as to say that "nutrient timing is, in fact, irrelevant." If scientists in this area agreed that nutrient timing was "in fact, irrelevant" this study would not have been done. Nor would it have been published if it did not have at least enough scientific merit to make it past at least a couple of reviewers for a relatively prestigious journal. I'm not saying the study is perfect, that the theories presented will ultimately be accepted, or even that crappy work doesn't get published, I'm merely saying that for someone who can only offer anecdotal evidence on the subject to dismiss the careful work of scientists, published in a well-known journal as "idiotic" is itself, rather idiotic.0 -
People seem to be getting confused here, none more so than the OP. Unless I am totally reading it wrong, the study is not about intra-day meal timing being relevant - it shows the impact to your metabolism when your whole eating pattern vis a vis night v day gets thrown off. It also addresses the propensity to eat more in that situation.
"When a species’ typical daily rhythm is thrown off, changes in metabolism also happen. For example, in people, night shift workers have an increased prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome, and patients with sleep disorders have a higher risk for developing obesity. Also, less sleep means more weight gain in healthy men and women."
While it is an interesting study and most likely there will be a benefit to more research into it with regard to obesity, it does not refute the laws of thermodynamics and it does not change the findings that intra-day meal timing is irrelevant.
This is also what I took from this, and I appreciate RobynC's comments earlier clarifying some of the more technical points of the paper as I didn't entirely understand those details upon reading the full study.
I also did not see where the energy expenditure side of the equation was controlled either in the paper, though, admittedly, I didn't spend as much time with it as I'd have liked.0 -
People seem to be getting confused here, none more so than the OP. Unless I am totally reading it wrong, the study is not about intra-day meal timing being relevant - it shows the impact to your metabolism when your whole eating pattern vis a vis night v day gets thrown off. It also addresses the propensity to eat more in that situation.
"When a species’ typical daily rhythm is thrown off, changes in metabolism also happen. For example, in people, night shift workers have an increased prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome, and patients with sleep disorders have a higher risk for developing obesity. Also, less sleep means more weight gain in healthy men and women."
While it is an interesting study and most likely there will be a benefit to more research into it with regard to obesity, it does not refute the laws of thermodynamics and it does not change the findings that intra-day meal timing is irrelevant.
Can we INFER from the laws of thermodynamics the regulation and behavior of mammalian fat cells?
THE ANSWER IS NO!0 -
People seem to be getting confused here, none more so than the OP. Unless I am totally reading it wrong, the study is not about intra-day meal timing being relevant - it shows the impact to your metabolism when your whole eating pattern vis a vis night v day gets thrown off. It also addresses the propensity to eat more in that situation.
"When a species’ typical daily rhythm is thrown off, changes in metabolism also happen. For example, in people, night shift workers have an increased prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome, and patients with sleep disorders have a higher risk for developing obesity. Also, less sleep means more weight gain in healthy men and women."
While it is an interesting study and most likely there will be a benefit to more research into it with regard to obesity, it does not refute the laws of thermodynamics and it does not change the findings that intra-day meal timing is irrelevant.
This is also what I took from this, and I appreciate RobynC's comments earlier clarifying some of the more technical points of the paper as I didn't entirely understand those details upon reading the full study.
I also did not see where the energy expenditure side of the equation was controlled either in the paper, though, admittedly, I didn't spend as much time with it as I'd have liked.
The laws of thermodynamics do NOT AT ALL EXPLAIN - EXPLAIN-EXPLAIN obesity. THEY DO NOT ADDRESS WHAT IS STORED AS FAT, USED AS FUEL, USED TO REPAIR MUSCLE OR CRAPPED OUT.
THAT IS FAR BEYOND THEIOR REACH AND SCOPE, YOU IDIOT.
WHAT DON'T YOU GET ? The experimental mice DID NOT EAT ANY MORE calories.EVERYTHING WAS CONTROLLED WELL. THESE RESEARCHERS ARE TOPS IN THE FIELD, A S SH OL E.
STOP PRETENDING you are a compentent at critiqueing studies. You're a LAYMAN. I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH DR. FITZGERALD.THE MAN IS ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHERS IN THE WORLD. HIS WORK IS QUALITY. IASSURE YOU THAT YOU - YOU ARE THE CRANK.
HE SAID IN HIS OWN WORDS : "The caloric hypothesis is far too simplistic to explain obesity and fat cell regulation BY ITSELF".
THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS COMPLETELY FALL APART AS YOU APPROACH THE EVENT HORIZON 9 and move toward the center ) OF A BLACKHOLE
DID YOU KNOW THAT?
YOU ARE FAT BY THE WAY........0 -
Thanks for adding to the discussion, I found a more recent review on this topic that I think is a little more inclusive.
Chronobiological aspects of food intake and metabolism and their relevance on energy balance and weight regulation
C. Ekmekcioglu1,*, Y. Touitou2
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00716.x/full
This review nicely lists the studies done on meal timing and weight loss and the jury is still out. Several studies show increased weight loss by eating in the morning as compared to evening, and several also show that there was no effect in weight loss.
So I think we can all relax a little bit because you can argue for either case. But I'm interested in knowing how people feel about meal timing and it's effect on your weight loss. For me, eating all of my calories an hour before I go to bed would be a bad diet because I would experience more hunger throughout the day. I am rarely hungry in the morning before I go to school but get really hungry at 10 if I haven't eaten yet so I try to make sure I eat before I leave the house. Does eating time change your activity level too? I wouldn't want to work out with a big meal in my stomach so I think smaller meals are more favorable for me as well.Good thing we have studies on humans showing that nocturnal eating habits aren't detrimental:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909674
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35087450 -
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.In spite of the way this thread imploded, I find the idea that weight might be genetically determined is actually hopeful.
Firstly, I think a genetic tendency isn't necessarily determination. It's like being geneticially predisposed to heart disease or cancer - it doesn't mean you have to get these illnesses, it's just a single factor (particularly if you do everything else right). Having this knowledge can make us more careful about other factors.
Secondly, maybe this means a new way of considering that we can be healthy at different weights. Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily will begin to be considered healthy instead of automatically dismissed as serious illness waiting to happen, and more healthy than thin people who rarely exercise and eat a lot of junk food. Then the phrase "I'm not doing this to be thin, I'm doing this to be healthy" can ring a little more true.
For those who said "this didn't happen to me so it's not true" might want to consider that just because it's not true for them doesn't mean it's not true at all. I actually had the opposite experience at a retreat where we only had two meals a day, breakfast and lunch, with a piece of fruit for dinner, I ate huge meals because I was so worried about being hungry, there is no way I was eating less calories in my two meals than I normally ate in three, but I lost 7 lbs in 10 days. I'm not suggesting this would work for everyone, but it sure affected my body in a way that made me drop weight.
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily0 -
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.In spite of the way this thread imploded, I find the idea that weight might be genetically determined is actually hopeful.
Firstly, I think a genetic tendency isn't necessarily determination. It's like being geneticially predisposed to heart disease or cancer - it doesn't mean you have to get these illnesses, it's just a single factor (particularly if you do everything else right). Having this knowledge can make us more careful about other factors.
Secondly, maybe this means a new way of considering that we can be healthy at different weights. Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily will begin to be considered healthy instead of automatically dismissed as serious illness waiting to happen, and more healthy than thin people who rarely exercise and eat a lot of junk food. Then the phrase "I'm not doing this to be thin, I'm doing this to be healthy" can ring a little more true.
For those who said "this didn't happen to me so it's not true" might want to consider that just because it's not true for them doesn't mean it's not true at all. I actually had the opposite experience at a retreat where we only had two meals a day, breakfast and lunch, with a piece of fruit for dinner, I ate huge meals because I was so worried about being hungry, there is no way I was eating less calories in my two meals than I normally ate in three, but I lost 7 lbs in 10 days. I'm not suggesting this would work for everyone, but it sure affected my body in a way that made me drop weight.
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?Maybe overweight people who are active and eat healthily
The "obesity epidemic" perfectly tracks the increase in the consumption of sugar (sucrose). In 1900 the average American ate less than 5 pounds of sugar a year. Now the average is about 150 pounds a year. The typical diet that includes lots of processed food, contains about 500 calories a day in added sugar. The food processors use it because a.) it is a cheap filler and b.) more importantly (for them) it is addictive. That isn't the entire problem---the other part of the problem is our sedentary habits. Our ancestors got a lot more exercise---and did heavy manual labor, in particular, which built up their metabolic furnace (their lean muscle mass). In the nineteenth century, it was a status symbol to be "corpulent" because only the wealthy became obese--they could afford to eat lots of sugar (which was originally quite expensive) and they had servants to guarantee that they burned off fewer calories than their "poor relations". Interestingly, the amount of fat in the diet has remained relatively constant (we only eat, at the most, about 1% more fat in our diets). The extra calories that we eat today come from carbohydrates---specifically sugar.
The "fat switch" that causes the body to put on body fat and induces sluggishness, appears to be the fructose component of sugar/sucrose (sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose). Our bodies deal well with glucose and it does not appear to contribute to obesity and other metabolic problems. But fructose is a problem because our bodies do not handle large quantities of it very well. It may well be that those who have a tendency to obesity have a particularly intense reaction to fructose in the diet. While fruit eating isn't particularly problematic because most people simply don't eat that much fruit---eating sugar is a problem. To give you some idea of scale: a small Valencia orange has about 2 grams of fructose but an "orange" soda has about 26 grams of fructose (in a total of 44 grams of high fructose corn syrup). Most people do not gorge on fruit but they will eat a piece of "Carrot cake a la mode" from The Keg restaurant chain. There is 260 grams of sugar in that puppy---130 grams of which would be fructose (when obesity researchers recommend limiting fructose intake to 25 grams or less per day. It is easy to see why "we have a problem, Houston").
Other mammals, in preparation for hibernation, will consume as much fructose as they can get their little paws on. Black bears gorge on massive quantities of wild blueberries at the end of summer and put on a lot of body fat in a very short time. But then, they burn off the excess fat over the winter. Unfortunately, we do not hibernate.0 -
[/quote]
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.
[/quote]
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?
[/quote]
If this is what I conveyed then I wasn't very clear. The idea that there is a tendency to obesity that is genetic doesn't mean there are no other factors. Like genetic tendencies to illnesses, it is just one of many elements.
Regarding overweight healthy people, i said healthy, not elite. I see more visibly overweight people now running in 5 Ks or longer. Closer to home, I have a friend who is more visibly fit than I am, but our cholesterol levels, blood pressure and heartrate couldn't be more different. In terms of these markers, I am much healthier, even carrying some extra pounds. I'm sure this isn't unique to me.0 -
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.
[/quote]
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?
[/quote]
If this is what I conveyed then I wasn't very clear. The idea that there is a tendency to obesity that is genetic doesn't mean there are no other factors. Like genetic tendencies to illnesses, it is just one of many elements.
Regarding overweight healthy people, i said healthy, not elite. I see more visibly overweight people now running in 5 Ks or longer. Closer to home, I have a friend who is more visibly fit than I am, but our cholesterol levels, blood pressure and heartrate couldn't be more different. In terms of these markers, I am much healthier, even carrying some extra pounds. I'm sure this isn't unique to me.
[/quote]
And you know what the difference may come from? It may be that he/she eats more sugar than you do. Some slender athletes have incredible appetites for sugar. While their high activity level and high lean body mass burns off the sugar, the metabolic effects of eating fructose are going forward all the same. High fructose consumption (from eating lots of sugar) sets off a metabolic cascade that is pretty vicious. Since we do not possess uricase (unlike other animals), our uric acid levels climb and then all sorts of "fun" begins. High blood pressure is just one of the results, along with incipient renal disease. Sugar cane workers in Central America are experiencing a virtual epidemic of renal failure. Researchers expect to find that the renal failure comes from a combination of dehydration (which increases uric acid levels in the body) along with their habit of drinking soda pop and/or sugar-sweetened fruit juices while working in the intensely hot fields. It is thought that that particular combination raises their uric acid levels to the point where the uric acid crystalizes in the kidneys (as the body desperately tries to eliminate the very high levels of uric acid) and does extensive damage to them.0 -
Where are all these people who are active and eat healthily but are overweight? You mean like all of the obese baseball players, olympic athletes, tennis players, marathon runners, swimmers, ice skaters, bike racers, etc?
The problem with this idea is that you inherit your genes from your parents, who inherited them from your grandparents, etc. You don't inherit your genes from your friends, neighbors, people who like the same sports teams, people who live in your state or country, etc etc. If it were genetic, it would require that a new mutation JUST occurred in the last few decades when this epidemic started, and everyone who is obese would have been children or grandchildren of the original carrier. It would mean that several hundred million humans right now are all first cousins with each other.
[/quote]
If this is what I conveyed then I wasn't very clear. The idea that there is a tendency to obesity that is genetic doesn't mean there are no other factors. Like genetic tendencies to illnesses, it is just one of many elements.
Regarding overweight healthy people, i said healthy, not elite. I see more visibly overweight people now running in 5 Ks or longer. Closer to home, I have a friend who is more visibly fit than I am, but our cholesterol levels, blood pressure and heartrate couldn't be more different. In terms of these markers, I am much healthier, even carrying some extra pounds. I'm sure this isn't unique to me.
[/quote]
And you know what the difference may come from? It may be that he/she eats more sugar than you do. Some slender athletes have incredible appetites for sugar. While their high activity level and high lean body mass burns off the sugar, the metabolic effects of eating fructose are going forward all the same. High fructose consumption (from eating lots of sugar) sets off a metabolic cascade that is pretty vicious. Since we do not possess uricase (unlike other animals), our uric acid levels climb and then all sorts of "fun" begins. High blood pressure is just one of the results, along with incipient renal disease. Sugar cane workers in Central America are experiencing a virtual epidemic of renal failure. Researchers expect to find that the renal failure comes from a combination of dehydration (which increases uric acid levels in the body) along with their habit of drinking soda pop and/or sugar-sweetened fruit juices while working in the intensely hot fields. It is thought that that particular combination raises their uric acid levels to the point where the uric acid crystalizes in the kidneys (as the body desperately tries to eliminate the very high levels of uric acid) and does extensive damage to them.
[/quote]
well, yeah. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't think this is a factor.Didn't I mumble something about about overweight people who are active and eat well can be healthier than thinner people who are sedentary and eat junk? I'm pretty sure I did.0 -
I gained weight eating at night. But not because it wasn't because of when I was eating. It was because I was lazy and didn't watch what I ate, nor did I exercise. Currently, using MFP, correcting my eating habits and getting my lazy butt up and exercising I have lost weight.
Good thing the mice theory doesn't apply to me.0 -
There are a lot more factors in the problems experienced by night shift workers than just what time they are eating. Lack of light, poor sleep, boredom and more all play a role I'm sure. And, like others say, we are not mice. Mice don't get blue because they have to work at night and wish they had a nine to five job for example, then eat crap because there are mouse vending machines nearby ready to help them boost their seratonin with low food value carbs.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions