gonefishin, I understand what you mean but by your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics a car should run on croissants. there is plenty of energy in a croissant, why is'nt this car moving?
There are plenty of caloris in croissants, but unfortunaly for the laws of thermodynmics the body does not always treat croissant calories as fuel. It can take peoples croissant calories and turn them into fat, (look up insulin resistance), and them make that fat very difficult to burn as fuel.
There are quite a lot of calories in diesel, if I drank that would it contribute to my calorie balance (by your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics)
gonefishin, I understand what you mean but by your interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics a car should run on croissants. there is plenty of energy in a croissant, why is'nt this car moving?
Don't be ridiculous I said no such thing and that's little more than a straw man argument. Different engines use different types of fuel yes, they are still bound the laws of thermodynamics.
There are plenty of caloris in croissants, but unfortunaly for the laws of thermodynmics the body does not always treat croissant calories as fuel. It can take peoples croissant calories and turn them into fat, (look up insulin resistance), and them make that fat very difficult to burn as fuel.
That would be what is referred to as an "unsteady state energy balance" which is incidently the same situation that TR described only in reverse. It doesn't matter whether or not someone is insulin resitant their body (or engine) is still subject to the laws of thermodynamics.
trail_rat if you ask me DD had it last week on the fattist thread when he asked which would make you fatter, 2000calories of cruciferous veg or 2000 calories of ice cream.
Different engines use different types of fuel yes, they are still bound the laws of thermodynamics.
It is not a straw man, my point is that the calories in food only count as fuel if the body recognises them as fuel.
Insulin restance makes the body refuse to treat carbs as fuel. People eat them carbs, but the body does not turn them into glycogen, so it is not available for them to burn. Soon after eating carbs the body starts asking for more fuel, because the glycogen stores have not been replenished. It is similar to putting croissants in your fuel tank, whilst they do have a high calorific value, the car cannot recognise croissants as fuel so cannot use them.
Of course it subject to the laws of thermodynamics, but understanding what energy the body can burn or not will drive the thermodynamics. Simplistic statements such as calories in=calories out are frankly bollocks.
"Insulin restance makes the body refuse to treat carbs as fuel. People eat them carbs, but the body does not turn them into glycogen, so it is not available for them to burn. Soon after eating carbs the body starts asking for more fuel, because the glycogen stores have not been replenished. It is similar to putting croissants in your fuel tank, whilst they do have a high calorific value, the car cannot recognise croissants as fuel so cannot use them."
someone should tell team sky chef this.
[i]You know criticism like this always raises alarm bells in my head, mostly because it appear to contradict the laws of thermodynmaics. As crafy as the endocrine system might be (I have no idea as it is way outside my area of expertise) it can't break the laws of thermodynamics.[/i]
I understand what you mean and it can bake your noodle. But there are a few observations in this field which are counter intuative and so take some concentrated reconsideration. Some folk are open minded enough to compare the results of calorie restricted diets against carbohydrate restricted diets.
Others just cling to a flawed belief of a direct link between fat accumulation and exercise, etc, which does not explain how the body works.
For example, it would seem obvious that excess weight is the result of a lack of exercise. But usually, people sit around on the sofa because their body is directing a disproportionately high percentage of the energy they consume, to fat storage and leaving very little energy for exercise. So they don't feel like getting up and going running/cycling.
People will be sedentary because they are growing sideways (energy is being diverted to storage). They are not growing sideways, becasue they are sedentary.
As for thermodynamics. The body has choices with what to do with energy, subject to how the endocrine system operates and what you eat. While the model for the first law is isothermal.
So, where the FLoTD can only allow energy to be used or stored. This has nothing to do with obesity, which is the result of a disrruption of the fat accumulation processes of the body.
So, firstly, your body should stop you eating more than you need, when everything is working correctly and you have a good diet. But even if you [i]went for it[/i] as perhaps you might on a special occassion, etc. Then if its a one off, slowly, over time, your body will deal with the caloric excess and you will return to your usual weight (hunger will be temporarily suppressed until leptin levels return to normal, for example). Alternatively, if you've eaten more than you need, then sometime afterwards, you may experience the need to get up and run about. So by just these two examples, you can see that the body has options as to what to do with amount of food you can consume and what you actually need.
The problems begin with the consumption of refined carbs. The endocrine system reacts poorly. Its just the way we work.
[i]a bottle of coke is not worth a steak and some broccoli [/i]
Thats a great way to explain it !
[i]trail_rat if you ask me DD had it last week on the fattist thread [/i]
Hes a clever lad, I liked his [i]eat better, move about a bit[/i] quote.
Try Berocca mate,
It's you, but on a good day.
Have you had an MOT at the quacks to highlight any issues?
Fair play to you though, I really got to start the weightloss regime myself !
I reckon it's far simpler than think.
If you are 4-5 stone overweight then you are going to feel crap after exercise, the same way I'd feel crap(er) if I was having to cart around an extra 4-5 stone while doing the same exercise.
Just make sure you exercise constantly, ie climb stairs, don't use lifts - park at the far end of the car park, get the coffee's in at work. Go for a 15 minute walk, rather than drive 5 minutes.
Oh, and stop Goggle-ing.
someone should tell team sky chef this.
Why? Do the Sky cyclists suffer from insulin resistance? I don't think so.
As I said - diet has to match exercise to get the result you want.
probably my fault to assume that folks know the difference between clean calories and junk calories.
Do you?
gonefishin - don't keep going on about thermodynamics. People are not simple heat engines, so that doesn't really apply to us. There are so many exceptions to this that it's obviously rubbish. There are lots of people who eat loads, don't exercise, and don't get fat.
There are lots of people who eat loads, don't exercise, and don't get fat.
In over half a century on this planet I've yet to meet one. Every person I've lived close enough to to judge fits the simple model "you are what you eat".
In over half a century on this planet I've yet to meet one.
I know loads. Half my family is like this. Including my Dad. He never ate much sugary stuff though, to be fair, but plenty of starch.
Then there's my colleague who plays football once a week, and is more or less constantly eating at work - he brings a packed lunch (that includes cakes), eats it before lunchtime and then goes out and buys food. Also cakes mid morning. He is 1" taller than me, similar build, and 4kg lighter.
Then there's my other colleague who cycles a similar amount to me, eats a moderate amount of cakes and so on and has about 6% bodyfat.
What job did he do? I doubt he was sat in front of a computer, before and after sitting in a car before watching TV.
What, my Dad? He used to sit in front of a class mostly, and sometimes stand. And then sit in a car and infront of a TV.
[i]People are not simple heat engines,[/i]
this is true
[i] so that doesn't really apply to us.[/i]
This is not true.
Teachers spend most of the day on their feet IME.
Sigh.
The thing that pisses me off about you, Edukator, is that you're always absolutley totally convinced that you know everything and that you're always right. You NEVER say anything like 'oh, that's interesting, perhaps I'll look into it'. No - you know everything, you don't need to do any more reading ever.
The scientific community is constantly learning new things and discovering more about how our bodies work. You should probably try the same thing.
I just did a quick google about why some people never get fat. It produced tons of stories and articles about it from all sorts of sources. I expect you're going to tell me that every one of them is wrong, and you know best - go on, I dare you.
You're forgetting that I've been a part of that peer-reviewed scientific community and have yet to see anything better than "eating more than you need makes you fat". Some people need to eat more than others but if nobody ate more than they need to maintain a healthy weight then nobody would be fat. Weight Watchers strategy works, try it.
someone should tell team sky chef this.
Trai_ rat, molgrips said it, but I wanted to reiterate, I expect none of team sky have insulin resistance issues, therefore no issue, but obese people tend to have it.
There is only one way to break insulin resistance, ****ing hard intense exercise.
Id hope so given my whole philosophy when i was racing revolved around fueling the engine right , everything has its place in your diet but at different points and in different amounts.
Protein from white meat and fish was my staple bulked out with lots of green veg.
Coke was my ultra last ditch need a boost , im dying here effort
Id say both worked.
Obviously I'm not accusing Team Sky in specific of anything but there is still no validated test for [url= http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/March/08030701.asp ]insulin[/url] which is widely used by both power and endurance athletes in their doping protocols. Treat anything related to professional cycling with extreme caution as history tells us their weird and wonderful eating regimes are either necessary to complement the doping or simply part of the smoke screen.
re laws of thermodynamics, i saw a piece recently that suggested that calories in vs calories out theory doesn't apply to people because we aren't closed systems. They also pointed out that the body is more efficient at turning calories from carbohydrates into glycogen than turning fats and proteins into glycogen - therefore the form of your calories is very important to consider.
I'll try and find the source.
edit: here it is:
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/energy-in-does-not-equal-energy-out/
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/eating-less-will-not-make-us-weigh-less/
What you're saying is that we don't digest everything in our food, some digest better than others and that some foods are easier to digest than others. So if you chew well and eat easily digested foods, have an efficient digestive system and slow metabolism you don't need to eat as much - so don't eat as much. Eat according to what you need based on all your personal factors but stick to eating no more than you need to maintain you weight. If you wish to lose weight then eat a little less than that.
Edukator - Troll
What you're saying is that we don't digest everything in our food, some digest better than others and that some foods are easier to digest than others. So if you chew well and eat easily digested foods, have an efficient digestive system and slow metabolism you don't need to eat as much - so don't eat as much. Eat according to what you need based on all your personal factors but stick to eating no more than you need to maintain you weight. If you wish to lose weight then eat a little less than that.
I'm not saying anything, just pointing out something i read. Read the links and it explains it far better than i can. I think the point is tt isn't about digestion, but the energy required to turn energy in food into energy available for the body to use.
The energy used up in making carbohydrate, for example, available to the body as energy vs. the energy used up converting protein to usable energy is substantially different. 100 calories of carbohydrate eaten may make 93 available to the body; 100 calories of protein eaten may make only 70 available (Ref 1). That’s a significant advantage for dieters and helps to explain the effectiveness of low carbohydrate diets.
It doesn't matter how many calories are are in your food, in each food type and how many you digest from each type of food so long as the total that end up in your body meet your needs and no more.
You're forgetting that I've been a part of that peer-reviewed scientific community and have yet to see anything better than "eating more than you need makes you fat".
How hard did you look? Weren't you a geologist?
It doesn't matter how many calories are are in your food, in each food type and how many you digest from each type of food so long as the total that end up in your body meet your needs and no more.
Why?
The stuff under your skin clearly isn't chewed up cakes and sweets, so it is being processed somehow. What makes you think this process is equally efficient in all situations?
It doesn't matter what the process is or how efficient is so long as you don't put more fuel in than you need.
The stuff under my skin isn't cakes or sweets because I rarely eat the former and never the latter.
Breakfast: müesli (no milk) and fruit.
Lunch: ham sandwich and fruit.
After walk snack: dark chocolate in bread and orange juice.
Evening: chicken livers and potatoes.
Now you, Molgrips.
So you're saying energy into your body, not energy into your mouth?
Food gets into your body through your mouth, some of it gets converted into energy, don't consume more than you need.
If you just eat sugar and drink glucose-fructose sodas then you won't need to consume much and will probably feel hungry all the time. If you only eat celery then you will find it impossible to eat enough to stay alive. There is middle ground. Find foodstuffs that you enjoy eating, provide you with all the protein, carbs, fat, vitamins, minerals and fibre you need, and enough energy but no more than enough.
The stuff under my skin isn't cakes or sweets because I rarely eat the former and never the latter
I eat cakes and sweets. The stuff under my skin is still not cake or sweets. Massive point missing.
I eat cakes and sweets.
So you eat "empty" calories that leave you feeling hungry and have trouble controlling your weight.
I eat what is loosely a Mediterranean diet and can gain or lose weight at will by varying quantity and composition. Coming back to the original topic I don't find losing weight makes me ill, but if I maintain my Summer weight through the Winter I'm more likely to feel cold and catch colds.
[i]Sigh.
The thing that pisses me off about you, Edukator, is that you're always absolutley totally convinced that you know everything and that you're always right. You NEVER say anything like 'oh, that's interesting, perhaps I'll look into it'. No - you know everything, you don't need to do any more reading ever.[b]Damn right ![/b]
The scientific community is constantly learning new things and discovering more about how our bodies work. You should probably try the same thing.
I just did a quick google about why some people never get fat. It produced tons of stories and articles about it from all sorts of sources. I expect you're going to tell me that every one of them is wrong, and you know best - go on, I dare you.[/i]
Sometimes, just sometimes, you Gotta luv, Grips.
🙂
[i]You're forgetting that I've been a part of that peer-reviewed scientific community[/i]
Nope, we all recall that you have claimed to have worked for [b]Lindt[/b]
#conflictofinterest
[i]re laws of thermodynamics, i saw a piece recently that suggested that calories in vs calories out theory doesn't apply to people because we aren't closed systems. They also pointed out that the body is more efficient at turning calories from carbohydrates into glycogen than turning fats and proteins into glycogen - therefore the form of your calories is very important to consider.[/i]
Good to know that others are doing their own research, an example to those who assume that they might Edukate us, whilst refusing to update their own reading and knowledge, in order to be "up to date" [b]in 2014......[/b]
[i]It doesn't matter how many calories are are in your food, in each food type and how many you digest from each type of food so long as the total that end up in your body meet your needs and no more.[/i]
Complete rubbish ! really, you are trying to tell us that a calorie of carbs is processed in an identical way to a calorie of fat.
You may think so, but your body, its enzymes and all its hormones, do not agree.
[b]Goodness[/b] you really are out of date.
So much so, that it's difficult to wonder why you persist in demonstrating to the rest of us, just how obtuse you are. Ironic then that you call yourself "[i]Edukator[/i]
[i]Edukator - Troll [/i]
Oh yeah !
So, what does history tell us ?, it tells us that calorie restricted diets fail, long term. Calorie restriction is semi starvation and humans do not voluntarily live their entire lives in semi starvation in order to remain lean. Also, 150 years, plus, of carbohydrate restricted diets have been proved to be effective.
So, Those who think no further than the theory that a calorie is a calorie, is a calorie. Are out of date, as Grips says, science has moved on. So should we.
I think eating healthily to meet your needs is about as up to date as you'll get, Solo. Almost all of the things you claim I have said apart from the direct quotes I have not, and the thermodynamics quote isn't from me.
What did you eat yesterday? Can you fault what I ate? Do you disagree with the Etude de Lyon Mediterranean diet as a starting point for healthy eating?
Jeez, where has the original question gone.
I too am around 4 stone overweight and although I sometimes feel a bit ropey for a few hours after a ride, the next day is generally ok.
The OP seems to know a fair bit about the human body and food / exercise, so if his problem can't be rationalised then maybe it is time for the docs not a forum of bike nuts !
Jeez talk about go off subject.
Fat holds hormones mainly estrogen, when you loose weight you loose fat and have hormonal changes combine that with the stress on your body that it thinks it's starving and the sudden rise in testosterone levels and you get ill. If you inject testosterone, the first few injections will give you what's called test flu because of this.
A colorie is a calorie but the end composition of you body will be different depending on what you eat. If you eat high carbs and low fat or low carbs and high fat you get different results. That's why boy builders eat low carbs but high fats so they can hold onto lots of.muscle while the fat I'd lost. Athletes will do the opposite as they need the glycogen stores, the high carbs will trigger an insulin response and store all fats consumed so they must remain low.
Edukator - Troll
Food gets into your body through your mouth, some of it gets converted into energy, don't consume more than you need.
So did you a) not read the links, or b) not understand them? They come from someone who is part of the peer-reviewed scientific community.
If we're now talking about getting ill after a hard training session or race then there are studies to show that the immune system is suppressed by hard exercise giving viruses and bacteria people would normally fight off the opportunity to take hold.
Thanks for bringing it back on topic gents, I dunno if I just didn't have a cold and the exercise made it worse. I went for a hard ride last night and feel fine this morning. Love and kisses to all.
Body builders eat carbs and inject insulin. And some end up in comas. Body builders need to be able to work hard and need glycogen in their muscles just as much as endurance athletes.
Of course they need carbs. The OP is talking about loosing weight. Body builders will cut the carbs and the insulin when they want to shed the body fat.
Body builders inject insulin to put on muscle without putting on fat in the first place.
[i]In over half a century on this planet I've yet to meet one. Every person I've lived close enough to to judge fits the simple model "you are what you eat". [/i]
Sorry, but (for once) I'm with Molgrips on this.
I'm 6'2" and until I was 24 never weighed more than 11 stone. Very active. I then got married and within a year I'd put on 1 stone. through not been active and eating well. From the age of 25 to 40 my weight varied between 11 1/2 stone to 12 1/2 stone with little or no exercise.
At the age of 40 I took up MTB. My weight since then has been in the 12 stone to 12 1/2 stone bracket.
I have eaten the same my entire life, basic principle is "you never know where your next meal is coming from" - usually have two hot meals a day, plus breakfast, mid-morning snacks and supper.
My Father (who is in his 80's and still has two course for both lunch and dinner) and pretty much all the male relatives on his side have been the same. None of us overweight in any way, and most white-collar workers.
So I do have some sympathy for some fat folk, just not for those who can't accept that if you are [i]pre-deposed[/i] to be fat then you MUST watch what you eat and MUST exercise.
If you inject insulin my friend you will get fat with high carbs guarenteed, bodybuilder or not. The reason bodybuilders take insulin is because they also inject human growth hormone and igf1 ( insulin like ggrowth factor). This is their muscle building stage and has nothing to.do.with diet, the bodybuilders will be t their highest fat level when doing this. We are talking about LOOSING weight. When it comes time to loose weight the bodybuilder will stop taking the hgh and insulin and eat a VERY VERY low carb diet. They will also change the testosterone they normally use for masterone to push the water out of the skin and then finally diuretics.
You went off subject again as we are talking about loosing weight.
Chaps, I think the Troll moniker on Edukators name tag tells us something. DO NOT FEED HIM.
Meanwhile thanks for a great discussion. When you filter out the crap there is always soemthing to learn here.
I responded to others posters' references to body builders and team Sky. Insulin use allows body builders to put on very little fat even during the muscle building phase. Beta agonists also help with putting on lean muscle, something endurance athletes have known for years hence the 70% of elite triathletes having medical certificates for asthma in the 90s.
Edit: my point being that the eating habits of drug fueled athletes are not a useful model to copy for weekend MTB warriors trying to maintain a healthy weight.
