The Science of Nutrition
#342
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
This PhD nutrition/cancer researcher chick has made an awesome series of short videos:
https://www.youtube.com/user/FoundMyFitness/videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/FoundMyFitness/videos
#345
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/smod.png)
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
This girl is annoying but the information is compelling.
Dr. Terry Wahls' Protocol That Reversed Multiple Sclerosis - YouTube
Dr. Terry Wahls' Protocol That Reversed Multiple Sclerosis - YouTube
#347
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
7 Common Calorie Myths We Should All Stop Believing | Mark's Daily Apple
Many people think weight loss is simply about cutting calories. They believe that to lose weight, you must reduce calories (either eat less or burn more), to gain weight you must add calories, and to maintain weight you keep calories constant. To these folks, calories in, calories out is the only thing that matters. They usually oppose the Primal Blueprint because they assume that we deny the importance of calories in weight loss.
Well, theyre wrong. I dont deny the importance of calories. Calories absolutely count. And if someone has lost weight, they have necessarily expended more calories than they consumed. That said, there are some major misconceptions about calories, body weight, fat loss, and health. These calorie myths are often rooted in truth but presented in black-or-white terms that are useless at best, harmful at worst, and do little to help the average person lose body fat.
Lets dig right in.
Calories in, calories out is all you need to know.
Simple is nice. Simple is good. But overly simple is dangerously inaccurate, so lets break this statement down.
What does calories in refer to?
Calories in what we eat. We cant metabolize sunlight or oxygen. We cant feast on the souls of the damned. The food we eat determines calories in entirely. Simple.
Calories out is where it gets confusing. There are several components to calories out:
Resting energy expenditure the energy used to handle basic, day-to-day physiological functions and maintenance
Thermic effect of food the energy used to digest food and process nutrients
Active energy expenditure the energy used during movement (both deliberate activity like lifting weights, jogging, and walking, plus spontaneous activity like shivering and fidgeting)
Not so simple, is it? There are a lot more variables to consider.
Oh, and about those variables
Calories in and calories out are independent variables.
That would be nice. You could drop energy intake and maintain your resting metabolic rate while burning the same amount of energy digesting food (even though youre eating less of it) and working out. The fat would melt off at a predictable, constant rate. Anyone with basic arithmetic skills (or a calculator) could become a successful weight loss coach and very few people would be overweight.
In reality, the amount and type of calories we eat affect the amount of energy we expend:
During calorie restriction, the body defends its body weight by lowering resting metabolic rate and reducing spontaneous physical activity. To keep weight loss going, you often have to lower food intake even more (to counteract the reduced metabolic rate) and remind yourself to fidget, tap your feet, twiddle your thumbs, and shiver (to recreate the missing spontaneous movement). And you have to do it again when the body readjusts.
Whole foods take more energy to process and digest than processed foods. In one example, subjects either ate a whole food sandwich (multigrain bread with cheddar cheese) or a processed food sandwich (white bread with cheese product). Both meals were isocaloric (same number of calories) and featured roughly identical macronutrient (protein, fat, carb) ratios. Those eating the multigrain sandwiches expended 137 calories postprandially (after their meal). The white bread group expended only 73 calories, a 50% reduction in the thermic effect of food.
Protein takes more energy to process and digest than other macronutrients. Compared to a low-fat, high-carb diet, a high-protein diet increased postprandial energy expenditure by 100% in healthy young women. And in both obese and lean adults, eating a high-protein meal was far more energetically costly (by almost 3-fold) than eating a high-fat meal.
Calories in affects calories out. The two variables are anything but independent of each other.
Weight gain is caused by eating more calories than you expend.
Calorie fetishists love pointing out that weight gain requires overeating. That is, everyone who gains weight necessarily ate more calories than they expended. Okay. Weve established that everyone agrees on this. But its just restating the issue. It doesnt tell us anything new or useful. Its merely descriptive, not explanatory.
To show you what I mean, lets do the same thing with other phenomena.
Why was Martin Luther King Jr. assassinated? Because someone pointed a sniper rifle at him and fired it.
Why did Usain Bolt win the 100 m final in the Beijing Olympics? Because he crossed the finish line first.
Why is the restaurant so crowded? Because more people entered than left.
These are technically true, but they ignore the ultimate causes. In Kings case, they fail to discuss racism, the civil rights movement, or the motivation of the shooter. They dont mention Bolts training, genetics, or his childhood. They dont discuss why the restaurant has attracted so many customers new menu, Valentines Day, graduation? They simply restate the original statement using different words. They just describe what happened.
Im interested in what truly causes us to eat more than we expend and/or expend less than we eat. I dont care to merely describe weight gain because that doesnt help anyone.
A calorie is a calorie.
Look. I loved Carl Sagan. Like everyone else, I got chills when hed wax poetic about our place in the universe and our shared origins as star-stuff. But just because steak comes from the same star-stuff as a baked potato, isocaloric amounts of each do not have identical metabolic fates in our bodies when consumed.
We even have a study that examined this. For two weeks, participants either supplemented their diets with isocaloric amounts of candy (mostly sugar) or roasted peanuts (mostly fat and protein). This was added to their regular diet. After two weeks, researchers found that body weight, waist circumference, LDL, and ApoB (a rough measure of LDL particle number) were highest in the candy group, indicating increased fat mass and worsening metabolic health. In the peanut group, basal metabolic rate shot up and neither body weight nor waist size saw any significant increases.
Does this invalidate the relevance of energy balance? Of course not. Since the peanut groups metabolic rate increased, they expended more calories in response to added calories, thus remaining in balance. But it does elegantly and definitively invalidate the simplistic notion that all calories, especially added calories, are treated equally by the body.
Weight loss and fat loss are the same thing.
People dont want to lose weight. Losing weight is common parlance, but we really want to lose body fat and retain, or gain, muscle. And studies indicate that the macronutrient composition can differentially affect whether the weight lost is fat. Its not just about total calories.
Take the 2004 study from Volek that placed overweight men and women on one of two diets: a very low-carb ketogenic diet or a low-fat diet. The low-carb group ate more calories but lost more weight and more body fat, especially dangerous abdominal fat.
Or the study from 1989 that placed healthy adult men on high-carb or high-fat diets. Even though the high-carb group lost slightly more body weight, the high-fat group lost slightly more body fat and retained more lean mass.
Just weight doesnt tell us much. What kind of weight? Are we losing/gaining fat or muscle, bone, sinew, organ? Are we increasing the robustness of our colons and the number of bacterial residents (who, though small, carry weight and occupy space) from added prebiotic fiber intake? These factors matter for health. Id argue that theyre the only factors that actually matter when losing or gaining weight because they offer insight into our health and body composition.
Exercise helps you lose weight only by burning calories.
Most people think of exercise as a way to mechanically combust calories. And thats true, to a point. Exercise does burn calories, and this is a factor in weight loss. But it does lots of other cool things to our physiology that can assist with improving body composition, too.
Compared to something high intensity like burpees or something aerobic like running a 10k, lifting free weights doesnt burn many calories when youre lifting them. But it does improve insulin sensitivity, which reduces the amount of insulin we secrete for a given amount of carbohydrate and increases our ability to burn body fat. It increases muscle mass, which uses calories (protein). It strengthens connective tissue, which also uses calories. It even preserves metabolic rate during weight loss and boosts it for up to 72 hours post-workout. All these changes affect the fate of the calories we ingest.
If calories burnt were the most important factor, then the best way to lose weight would be to hammer it out with as much endurance exercise as you can withstand because thats the most calorie intensive. But studies show that combination training aerobic and resistance training leads to greater reductions in body fat than either modality alone.
Even aerobic exercise isnt just about mechanically burning calories. It also preferentially targets the reward regions of our brains, reducing the allure and spontaneously lowering our intake of junk food.
Counting calories allows us to accurately monitor food intake.
Youd think that, wouldnt you? Most foods at the grocery store have labels. Even restaurants are beginning to emblazon menus with calorie counts for each item. As humans, we implicitly trust the printed word. It looks so official and authoritative, and it spells out with great specificity exactly how many calories were about to eat.
Except studies show thats not the case. Whether its the nutritional information provided by restaurants, the calorie counts on supposedly low-calorie foods, or the nutritional labels on packaged foods, calorie counts are rarely accurate. Food manufacturers can even underreport calories by 20% and pass inspection by the FDA.
Maybe thats why people have so much trouble sticking to their allotted number of calories. If only reality would bend to the will of the label!
You may roll your eyes at some of these ideas because theyre so preposterous, but consider where youre coming from, where youre reading this. This is how the general public and, often, the experts and physicians advising their patients and writing policy approaches the question of fat loss. Sure, not everyone immersed in conventional wisdom holds every one of these myths to be true. And when theyre actually faced with the statement, few will claim that a calorie of steak is metabolically identical to a calorie of white sugar or that weight loss is the same as fat loss. But when calories in, calories out is the first line of attack against excess body fat, these are the kind of myths that become entrenched.
Its important to take them head-on.
No one wants to be fat. The obese know theyre obese. Theyve had calories in, calories out drummed into their heads for years. If it were really as simple as eating less and moving more, they wouldnt be obese. And yet here we are. That might be the biggest danger of the continued propagation of these myths they convince people that theyve failed at something simple, basic, and central to being a healthy, moral human being.
Well, theyre wrong. I dont deny the importance of calories. Calories absolutely count. And if someone has lost weight, they have necessarily expended more calories than they consumed. That said, there are some major misconceptions about calories, body weight, fat loss, and health. These calorie myths are often rooted in truth but presented in black-or-white terms that are useless at best, harmful at worst, and do little to help the average person lose body fat.
Lets dig right in.
Calories in, calories out is all you need to know.
Simple is nice. Simple is good. But overly simple is dangerously inaccurate, so lets break this statement down.
What does calories in refer to?
Calories in what we eat. We cant metabolize sunlight or oxygen. We cant feast on the souls of the damned. The food we eat determines calories in entirely. Simple.
Calories out is where it gets confusing. There are several components to calories out:
Resting energy expenditure the energy used to handle basic, day-to-day physiological functions and maintenance
Thermic effect of food the energy used to digest food and process nutrients
Active energy expenditure the energy used during movement (both deliberate activity like lifting weights, jogging, and walking, plus spontaneous activity like shivering and fidgeting)
Not so simple, is it? There are a lot more variables to consider.
Oh, and about those variables
Calories in and calories out are independent variables.
That would be nice. You could drop energy intake and maintain your resting metabolic rate while burning the same amount of energy digesting food (even though youre eating less of it) and working out. The fat would melt off at a predictable, constant rate. Anyone with basic arithmetic skills (or a calculator) could become a successful weight loss coach and very few people would be overweight.
In reality, the amount and type of calories we eat affect the amount of energy we expend:
During calorie restriction, the body defends its body weight by lowering resting metabolic rate and reducing spontaneous physical activity. To keep weight loss going, you often have to lower food intake even more (to counteract the reduced metabolic rate) and remind yourself to fidget, tap your feet, twiddle your thumbs, and shiver (to recreate the missing spontaneous movement). And you have to do it again when the body readjusts.
Whole foods take more energy to process and digest than processed foods. In one example, subjects either ate a whole food sandwich (multigrain bread with cheddar cheese) or a processed food sandwich (white bread with cheese product). Both meals were isocaloric (same number of calories) and featured roughly identical macronutrient (protein, fat, carb) ratios. Those eating the multigrain sandwiches expended 137 calories postprandially (after their meal). The white bread group expended only 73 calories, a 50% reduction in the thermic effect of food.
Protein takes more energy to process and digest than other macronutrients. Compared to a low-fat, high-carb diet, a high-protein diet increased postprandial energy expenditure by 100% in healthy young women. And in both obese and lean adults, eating a high-protein meal was far more energetically costly (by almost 3-fold) than eating a high-fat meal.
Calories in affects calories out. The two variables are anything but independent of each other.
Weight gain is caused by eating more calories than you expend.
Calorie fetishists love pointing out that weight gain requires overeating. That is, everyone who gains weight necessarily ate more calories than they expended. Okay. Weve established that everyone agrees on this. But its just restating the issue. It doesnt tell us anything new or useful. Its merely descriptive, not explanatory.
To show you what I mean, lets do the same thing with other phenomena.
Why was Martin Luther King Jr. assassinated? Because someone pointed a sniper rifle at him and fired it.
Why did Usain Bolt win the 100 m final in the Beijing Olympics? Because he crossed the finish line first.
Why is the restaurant so crowded? Because more people entered than left.
These are technically true, but they ignore the ultimate causes. In Kings case, they fail to discuss racism, the civil rights movement, or the motivation of the shooter. They dont mention Bolts training, genetics, or his childhood. They dont discuss why the restaurant has attracted so many customers new menu, Valentines Day, graduation? They simply restate the original statement using different words. They just describe what happened.
Im interested in what truly causes us to eat more than we expend and/or expend less than we eat. I dont care to merely describe weight gain because that doesnt help anyone.
A calorie is a calorie.
Look. I loved Carl Sagan. Like everyone else, I got chills when hed wax poetic about our place in the universe and our shared origins as star-stuff. But just because steak comes from the same star-stuff as a baked potato, isocaloric amounts of each do not have identical metabolic fates in our bodies when consumed.
We even have a study that examined this. For two weeks, participants either supplemented their diets with isocaloric amounts of candy (mostly sugar) or roasted peanuts (mostly fat and protein). This was added to their regular diet. After two weeks, researchers found that body weight, waist circumference, LDL, and ApoB (a rough measure of LDL particle number) were highest in the candy group, indicating increased fat mass and worsening metabolic health. In the peanut group, basal metabolic rate shot up and neither body weight nor waist size saw any significant increases.
Does this invalidate the relevance of energy balance? Of course not. Since the peanut groups metabolic rate increased, they expended more calories in response to added calories, thus remaining in balance. But it does elegantly and definitively invalidate the simplistic notion that all calories, especially added calories, are treated equally by the body.
Weight loss and fat loss are the same thing.
People dont want to lose weight. Losing weight is common parlance, but we really want to lose body fat and retain, or gain, muscle. And studies indicate that the macronutrient composition can differentially affect whether the weight lost is fat. Its not just about total calories.
Take the 2004 study from Volek that placed overweight men and women on one of two diets: a very low-carb ketogenic diet or a low-fat diet. The low-carb group ate more calories but lost more weight and more body fat, especially dangerous abdominal fat.
Or the study from 1989 that placed healthy adult men on high-carb or high-fat diets. Even though the high-carb group lost slightly more body weight, the high-fat group lost slightly more body fat and retained more lean mass.
Just weight doesnt tell us much. What kind of weight? Are we losing/gaining fat or muscle, bone, sinew, organ? Are we increasing the robustness of our colons and the number of bacterial residents (who, though small, carry weight and occupy space) from added prebiotic fiber intake? These factors matter for health. Id argue that theyre the only factors that actually matter when losing or gaining weight because they offer insight into our health and body composition.
Exercise helps you lose weight only by burning calories.
Most people think of exercise as a way to mechanically combust calories. And thats true, to a point. Exercise does burn calories, and this is a factor in weight loss. But it does lots of other cool things to our physiology that can assist with improving body composition, too.
Compared to something high intensity like burpees or something aerobic like running a 10k, lifting free weights doesnt burn many calories when youre lifting them. But it does improve insulin sensitivity, which reduces the amount of insulin we secrete for a given amount of carbohydrate and increases our ability to burn body fat. It increases muscle mass, which uses calories (protein). It strengthens connective tissue, which also uses calories. It even preserves metabolic rate during weight loss and boosts it for up to 72 hours post-workout. All these changes affect the fate of the calories we ingest.
If calories burnt were the most important factor, then the best way to lose weight would be to hammer it out with as much endurance exercise as you can withstand because thats the most calorie intensive. But studies show that combination training aerobic and resistance training leads to greater reductions in body fat than either modality alone.
Even aerobic exercise isnt just about mechanically burning calories. It also preferentially targets the reward regions of our brains, reducing the allure and spontaneously lowering our intake of junk food.
Counting calories allows us to accurately monitor food intake.
Youd think that, wouldnt you? Most foods at the grocery store have labels. Even restaurants are beginning to emblazon menus with calorie counts for each item. As humans, we implicitly trust the printed word. It looks so official and authoritative, and it spells out with great specificity exactly how many calories were about to eat.
Except studies show thats not the case. Whether its the nutritional information provided by restaurants, the calorie counts on supposedly low-calorie foods, or the nutritional labels on packaged foods, calorie counts are rarely accurate. Food manufacturers can even underreport calories by 20% and pass inspection by the FDA.
Maybe thats why people have so much trouble sticking to their allotted number of calories. If only reality would bend to the will of the label!
You may roll your eyes at some of these ideas because theyre so preposterous, but consider where youre coming from, where youre reading this. This is how the general public and, often, the experts and physicians advising their patients and writing policy approaches the question of fat loss. Sure, not everyone immersed in conventional wisdom holds every one of these myths to be true. And when theyre actually faced with the statement, few will claim that a calorie of steak is metabolically identical to a calorie of white sugar or that weight loss is the same as fat loss. But when calories in, calories out is the first line of attack against excess body fat, these are the kind of myths that become entrenched.
Its important to take them head-on.
No one wants to be fat. The obese know theyre obese. Theyve had calories in, calories out drummed into their heads for years. If it were really as simple as eating less and moving more, they wouldnt be obese. And yet here we are. That might be the biggest danger of the continued propagation of these myths they convince people that theyve failed at something simple, basic, and central to being a healthy, moral human being.
#348
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
9 More Calorie Myths We Should All Stop Believing | Mark's Daily Apple
Con't below.
Yesterdays post introduced the major myths surrounding calories, weight loss, and human regulation of body weight, but there are some other serious misconceptions surrounding the topic that need clearing up. People can really get down on themselves when they listen to all the experts. Theyll weigh, measure, and count themselves into oblivion only to experience middling weight loss. Or maybe they lose weight but their energy tanks, their performance in the gym suffers, and their belt size doesnt get any better, suggesting muscle loss. Theyre basing their decisions and actions on myths, and myths just dont work. These myths do real harm, so its important to destroy them.
Today, Im going to focus on nine more.
The calorie count of a food is the sole determinant of its metabolic fate.
The way many people envision it, the only thing food does is provide energy for storage or immediate use.
But food is more than energy.
Protein, for example, is broken down into amino acids which provide the building blocks for human cells, muscles, and tissues. And yes, in extreme cases protein can provide energy, either through direct metabolism of the amino acids or conversion into glucose, but the vast majority of the protein we eat is directed toward structural roles. We build things with protein. And even when we do burn protein for energy, its not very efficient.
Food provides energy and raw material for building important things like muscle, cellular membranes, hormones, nerves, neurotransmitters, sperm, tears, new eyelashes, beards, or toenails. Anything the body does, or makes, or metabolizes, like convert serotonin into melatonin so you can fall asleep at night, requires both energy (to power the process) and raw materials. Food is both.
And even when food is just energy, its metabolizable energy. You have to expend energy to extract energy from that sweet potato and steak you just ate. Its not gross energy.
Calorie counting is the best way to lose weight.
Since we all agree that weight loss requires that a person expend more energy than they take in, counting them should be the only way to lose weight. Nearly everyone can count and do basic math, so why not just do a little addition and subtraction? Once the stark reality of the numbers lies in front of you and the true, physics-backed path to healthy weight loss reveals itself, youd have to acquiesce and give in and stop eating so much, you glutton, because Science implores you to and no one can deny Science.
The latest low-fat/low-carb diet study contradicts this: participants in the low-carb arm were told not to restrict calories by the researchers, yet calories were restricted and weight was lost. Detractors often point to this as proof that calories indeed matter. To me, this showcases that active consideration of calories is unnecessary. They lost weight and reduced calories without counting calories. Thats the good stuff, right?
Heck, even when you compare a strict calorie-counting diet with an ad libitum (at liberty) low-fat, high-carb diet, the calorie counters lose out and the ad libitum dieters have better weight loss retention after 2 years. Calorie counting just doesnt work for most people.
At the end of the day, if you consume more calories than you expend, you will gain fat.
Gotta love that phrase, at the end of the day. People drop this in comment sections and thats that: the debate is over, the argument won. Go home.
Except is that really the case? Weight is so non-specific. You might gain bone. You might gain muscle. You might gain glycogen. You might gain organ weight. You might gain newly repaired intestinal lining. And yeah, you might gain fat, but its not a foregone conclusion just because you gained weight.
Conscious regulation of ones energy intake and expenditure is possible.
Imagine if you had to maintain conscious control over every physiological process in your body. When you walked, youd say to yourself step left, step right, step left, step right all day long or you wouldnt get anywhere. To provide oxygen to your body, youd have to remember to breathe in and breathe out every few seconds. An hour or so before bedtime, youd will your pineal gland to begin secreting melatonin so you could sleep. After eating, youd have to alternately engage and relax your peristalsis muscles to create the undulation that forces food along the digestive tract. Performing a squat would require conscious orchestration of the contraction of dozens of agonist, antagonist, stabilizer, and synergist muscles at once. Life would get pretty unwieldy, wouldnt it?
So where do we get the idea that eating one of the most basic and essential physiological processes requires constant vigilance and number crunching? What did people do before the concept of a calorie was invented?
In metabolic ward studies where calories are counted for you and food is strictly weighed, measured, and provided by the researchers, calorie counting works pretty well. Subjective feelings of appetite are immaterial when you only have access to the food provided and you cant leave to get more.
In the real world, calorie counting doesnt work as well. If a free-living guy is ravenous from counting calories and he drives past a McDonalds, he has the option of stopping in for a McDouble (they still make those, right?) and fries. If a subject in a metabolic ward study is ravenous from having his calories counted for him and he has a fever dream of Ronald McDonald hand-feeding him fresh french fries, it doesnt matter because he doesnt have the option of eating any more food.
Besides, its not even possible to do it accurately without direct measurement. A group of normal weight men and women were blinded to one of two treadmill exercise sessions (burning either 200 or 300 calories). After the workout, they were taken to a buffet and told to eat as many calories as theyd just burned exercising. Both groups failed miserably.
First of all, they thought theyd burned way more calories than they actually had. The 200 calorie group guessed theyd burned around 825 calories. The 300 calorie group guessed close to 900 calories.
Second, they ate fewer calories than they estimated, but more than they actually burned. Every estimate they made was inaccurate.
And that was in normal weight individuals, the people who are least likely to have broken metabolisms and dysfunctional satiety mechanisms. If they cant accurately predict energy intake and expenditure, how is anyone supposed to? According to many researchers, self reports of calorie intake and expenditure are so poor that theyre more harmful than not even trying to count.
Everyone responds to calories equally.
For the most part, people all have the same basic physiological machinery. We all metabolize carbs, fat, protein, and other nutrients along the same pathways. We all use insulin to sequester glucose into cells, for example (even people who dont produce insulin will respond to injected insulin).
That said, we all have different capacities for using these pathways.
For instance, most overweight or obese people seem to do best on lower-carb, higher-fat diets. The literature is pretty clear on that. If youre insulin-resistant and overweight (which is most of the overweight population), going low-carb is the best, easiest way to control hunger, spontaneously reduce food intake, and lose weight and, most importantly, body fat. Hundreds of success stories from this site and others are further testament to that.
However, the relatively rare insulin-sensitive obese phenotype does better on calorie-counting low-fat diets. If youre obese and insulin sensitive, youll probably be able to lose more weight eating more carbs. Thats just a fact, and its just more proof that macronutrient ratios, personal history, hormonal status, and genetic background are relevant to the impact of calories.
Another example: Say youve got two men, both weighing 200 pounds and standing 6 feet tall. The first is active, fit, and muscular, sitting at 11% body fat. The second is sedentary and overweight, sitting at 30% body fat. If they eat an equal amount of baked potato, will those carbohydrates enjoy the same fate in both men?
The first guy has significantly more muscle. That means larger glycogen stores, the only way to store carbohydrate. The second guy has significantly less muscle, meaning he has less room to store carbohydrate as glycogen. Assuming both are equally glycogen depleted, in whose body will the greater portion of carbohydrates be sequestered as body fat?
The first guy is more likely to store the carbs as glycogen because his larger muscle mass confers greater storage capacity. The second guy is more likely to convert the carbs to fat. Once his liver and muscle glycogen stores fill up, any glucose that isnt immediately used for energy will be converted to fat. This isnt a huge acute contribution to overall fat gain, but it does illustrate the different metabolic fates the same number of calories can have in two different people of equal weight.
And we all know that guy who can eat a 2000 calorie meal without gaining an ounce. If you sit next to him while he eats, you can literally feel the heat emanate from his body. Or maybe hell start fidgeting, or get up to pace the room. Kids are often like that. You feed them a big meal and theyll be whizzing around the room, not to burn the calories off to avoid weight gain but because they just received a large influx of energy and its only natural for a kid to use it. That used to be me back in college.
Exercise affects appetite and inadvertent calorie intake differently in men and women. In men, the higher the exercises intensity, the lower the appetite. This is true across most studies. But theres also evidence that in women, intense exercise sprints, HIIT, circuit training actually has the potential to increase appetite and energy intake.
The only thing that might affect weight loss beyond calories in, calories out are your macronutrient ratios.
This is where we start getting somewhere. Most people will admit that different ratios of macronutrients (protein, fat, carbs) in the diet can affect weight loss. This is why bodybuilding cutting diets are made up of chicken breast and broccoli, not Coke and pizza. But theyll go no further than talking protein, fat, and carbs.
In reality, different subtypes of protein, carbs, and fat have different metabolic effects. Take protein. Whey promotes energy expenditure relative to other proteins, like tuna, egg, or turkey. Other studies have found that both whey protein and pea protein suppress the appetite to a greater degree than milk protein or a combination of whey and pea protein. Meanwhile, fish protein eaten at lunch suppresses subsequent energy intake more than a beef protein lunch.
Take carbs. In one (rat) study, isocaloric amounts of honey and table sugar had different effects on bodyweight. The rats who ate honey gained less bodyweight and body fat (particularly that really hard-to-burn epididymal pad fat we all hate so much!) than the sugar-fed rats.
Take fat. In one study, isocaloric amounts of either industrial (not grass-fed ruminant) trans-fat or a blend of monounsaturated and saturated fat were given to human subjects. Those eating the trans-fat experienced greater increases in body fat and waist circumference. There was no difference in overall bodyweight, of course, so I guess the CICO fanatics win this one, but the two different fat sources clearly had different metabolic fates.
There are more examples of each, but even just one is enough to dismantle the claim.
The results from studies apply to every individual human.
Lost in all the blog chatter about this or that study is the fact that the faceless participants whose bodies were discussing are individuals. The individual experiences of these individual subjects dissolve into the mean, the average presented in the abstract. If youre lucky, youll get a +/- indicating the range of responses. But every subject from every study ever conducted has had unique reactions to the experiment.
For instance, theres the single low-calorie subject from this study who experienced no reduction in liver fat. Everyone but him saw improvements. Should that guy disregard his own experience because the studys conclusion about the effect of dieting on liver fat in the average person said otherwise?
You are not a statistic. This goes for every study out there, but its especially pertinent for diet studies. I know many people whove had paradoxical responses to various dietary interventions, responses that the studies dont really capture. Are they all lying?
The concept of a calorie is applicable to the complexity of human metabolism.
Sometimes, I like to dream that were bomb calorimeters.
Our stomachs are buckets full of water (thats where those the human body is 75% water claims originate). Suspended inside those stomach buckets is a smaller sack, called a bomb. A tube runs from our mouths and feeds directly into the bomb. When we eat something, the food goes down the tube and into the bomb. As we chew, a series of tendons attached to our jaws rub together to produce a spark. The heat travels down into the bomb to ignite the food. A separate tube runs from our lungs to the bomb carrying pure filtrated oxygen. The food combusts and the heat generated is distributed throughout the body to give us energy. The beauty of digesting our food in the bomb is that its a closed system, shut off and free of influence from the outside universe, so we know that what we put into the bomb is exactly what well get out of digesting it. Meat, potatoes, kale, Pepsi its all pure unadulterated raw fuel and it all burns equally. Its all heat energy.
Unfortunately, thats not how the human body works.
Today, Im going to focus on nine more.
The calorie count of a food is the sole determinant of its metabolic fate.
The way many people envision it, the only thing food does is provide energy for storage or immediate use.
But food is more than energy.
Protein, for example, is broken down into amino acids which provide the building blocks for human cells, muscles, and tissues. And yes, in extreme cases protein can provide energy, either through direct metabolism of the amino acids or conversion into glucose, but the vast majority of the protein we eat is directed toward structural roles. We build things with protein. And even when we do burn protein for energy, its not very efficient.
Food provides energy and raw material for building important things like muscle, cellular membranes, hormones, nerves, neurotransmitters, sperm, tears, new eyelashes, beards, or toenails. Anything the body does, or makes, or metabolizes, like convert serotonin into melatonin so you can fall asleep at night, requires both energy (to power the process) and raw materials. Food is both.
And even when food is just energy, its metabolizable energy. You have to expend energy to extract energy from that sweet potato and steak you just ate. Its not gross energy.
Calorie counting is the best way to lose weight.
Since we all agree that weight loss requires that a person expend more energy than they take in, counting them should be the only way to lose weight. Nearly everyone can count and do basic math, so why not just do a little addition and subtraction? Once the stark reality of the numbers lies in front of you and the true, physics-backed path to healthy weight loss reveals itself, youd have to acquiesce and give in and stop eating so much, you glutton, because Science implores you to and no one can deny Science.
The latest low-fat/low-carb diet study contradicts this: participants in the low-carb arm were told not to restrict calories by the researchers, yet calories were restricted and weight was lost. Detractors often point to this as proof that calories indeed matter. To me, this showcases that active consideration of calories is unnecessary. They lost weight and reduced calories without counting calories. Thats the good stuff, right?
Heck, even when you compare a strict calorie-counting diet with an ad libitum (at liberty) low-fat, high-carb diet, the calorie counters lose out and the ad libitum dieters have better weight loss retention after 2 years. Calorie counting just doesnt work for most people.
At the end of the day, if you consume more calories than you expend, you will gain fat.
Gotta love that phrase, at the end of the day. People drop this in comment sections and thats that: the debate is over, the argument won. Go home.
Except is that really the case? Weight is so non-specific. You might gain bone. You might gain muscle. You might gain glycogen. You might gain organ weight. You might gain newly repaired intestinal lining. And yeah, you might gain fat, but its not a foregone conclusion just because you gained weight.
Conscious regulation of ones energy intake and expenditure is possible.
Imagine if you had to maintain conscious control over every physiological process in your body. When you walked, youd say to yourself step left, step right, step left, step right all day long or you wouldnt get anywhere. To provide oxygen to your body, youd have to remember to breathe in and breathe out every few seconds. An hour or so before bedtime, youd will your pineal gland to begin secreting melatonin so you could sleep. After eating, youd have to alternately engage and relax your peristalsis muscles to create the undulation that forces food along the digestive tract. Performing a squat would require conscious orchestration of the contraction of dozens of agonist, antagonist, stabilizer, and synergist muscles at once. Life would get pretty unwieldy, wouldnt it?
So where do we get the idea that eating one of the most basic and essential physiological processes requires constant vigilance and number crunching? What did people do before the concept of a calorie was invented?
In metabolic ward studies where calories are counted for you and food is strictly weighed, measured, and provided by the researchers, calorie counting works pretty well. Subjective feelings of appetite are immaterial when you only have access to the food provided and you cant leave to get more.
In the real world, calorie counting doesnt work as well. If a free-living guy is ravenous from counting calories and he drives past a McDonalds, he has the option of stopping in for a McDouble (they still make those, right?) and fries. If a subject in a metabolic ward study is ravenous from having his calories counted for him and he has a fever dream of Ronald McDonald hand-feeding him fresh french fries, it doesnt matter because he doesnt have the option of eating any more food.
Besides, its not even possible to do it accurately without direct measurement. A group of normal weight men and women were blinded to one of two treadmill exercise sessions (burning either 200 or 300 calories). After the workout, they were taken to a buffet and told to eat as many calories as theyd just burned exercising. Both groups failed miserably.
First of all, they thought theyd burned way more calories than they actually had. The 200 calorie group guessed theyd burned around 825 calories. The 300 calorie group guessed close to 900 calories.
Second, they ate fewer calories than they estimated, but more than they actually burned. Every estimate they made was inaccurate.
And that was in normal weight individuals, the people who are least likely to have broken metabolisms and dysfunctional satiety mechanisms. If they cant accurately predict energy intake and expenditure, how is anyone supposed to? According to many researchers, self reports of calorie intake and expenditure are so poor that theyre more harmful than not even trying to count.
Everyone responds to calories equally.
For the most part, people all have the same basic physiological machinery. We all metabolize carbs, fat, protein, and other nutrients along the same pathways. We all use insulin to sequester glucose into cells, for example (even people who dont produce insulin will respond to injected insulin).
That said, we all have different capacities for using these pathways.
For instance, most overweight or obese people seem to do best on lower-carb, higher-fat diets. The literature is pretty clear on that. If youre insulin-resistant and overweight (which is most of the overweight population), going low-carb is the best, easiest way to control hunger, spontaneously reduce food intake, and lose weight and, most importantly, body fat. Hundreds of success stories from this site and others are further testament to that.
However, the relatively rare insulin-sensitive obese phenotype does better on calorie-counting low-fat diets. If youre obese and insulin sensitive, youll probably be able to lose more weight eating more carbs. Thats just a fact, and its just more proof that macronutrient ratios, personal history, hormonal status, and genetic background are relevant to the impact of calories.
Another example: Say youve got two men, both weighing 200 pounds and standing 6 feet tall. The first is active, fit, and muscular, sitting at 11% body fat. The second is sedentary and overweight, sitting at 30% body fat. If they eat an equal amount of baked potato, will those carbohydrates enjoy the same fate in both men?
The first guy has significantly more muscle. That means larger glycogen stores, the only way to store carbohydrate. The second guy has significantly less muscle, meaning he has less room to store carbohydrate as glycogen. Assuming both are equally glycogen depleted, in whose body will the greater portion of carbohydrates be sequestered as body fat?
The first guy is more likely to store the carbs as glycogen because his larger muscle mass confers greater storage capacity. The second guy is more likely to convert the carbs to fat. Once his liver and muscle glycogen stores fill up, any glucose that isnt immediately used for energy will be converted to fat. This isnt a huge acute contribution to overall fat gain, but it does illustrate the different metabolic fates the same number of calories can have in two different people of equal weight.
And we all know that guy who can eat a 2000 calorie meal without gaining an ounce. If you sit next to him while he eats, you can literally feel the heat emanate from his body. Or maybe hell start fidgeting, or get up to pace the room. Kids are often like that. You feed them a big meal and theyll be whizzing around the room, not to burn the calories off to avoid weight gain but because they just received a large influx of energy and its only natural for a kid to use it. That used to be me back in college.
Exercise affects appetite and inadvertent calorie intake differently in men and women. In men, the higher the exercises intensity, the lower the appetite. This is true across most studies. But theres also evidence that in women, intense exercise sprints, HIIT, circuit training actually has the potential to increase appetite and energy intake.
The only thing that might affect weight loss beyond calories in, calories out are your macronutrient ratios.
This is where we start getting somewhere. Most people will admit that different ratios of macronutrients (protein, fat, carbs) in the diet can affect weight loss. This is why bodybuilding cutting diets are made up of chicken breast and broccoli, not Coke and pizza. But theyll go no further than talking protein, fat, and carbs.
In reality, different subtypes of protein, carbs, and fat have different metabolic effects. Take protein. Whey promotes energy expenditure relative to other proteins, like tuna, egg, or turkey. Other studies have found that both whey protein and pea protein suppress the appetite to a greater degree than milk protein or a combination of whey and pea protein. Meanwhile, fish protein eaten at lunch suppresses subsequent energy intake more than a beef protein lunch.
Take carbs. In one (rat) study, isocaloric amounts of honey and table sugar had different effects on bodyweight. The rats who ate honey gained less bodyweight and body fat (particularly that really hard-to-burn epididymal pad fat we all hate so much!) than the sugar-fed rats.
Take fat. In one study, isocaloric amounts of either industrial (not grass-fed ruminant) trans-fat or a blend of monounsaturated and saturated fat were given to human subjects. Those eating the trans-fat experienced greater increases in body fat and waist circumference. There was no difference in overall bodyweight, of course, so I guess the CICO fanatics win this one, but the two different fat sources clearly had different metabolic fates.
There are more examples of each, but even just one is enough to dismantle the claim.
The results from studies apply to every individual human.
Lost in all the blog chatter about this or that study is the fact that the faceless participants whose bodies were discussing are individuals. The individual experiences of these individual subjects dissolve into the mean, the average presented in the abstract. If youre lucky, youll get a +/- indicating the range of responses. But every subject from every study ever conducted has had unique reactions to the experiment.
For instance, theres the single low-calorie subject from this study who experienced no reduction in liver fat. Everyone but him saw improvements. Should that guy disregard his own experience because the studys conclusion about the effect of dieting on liver fat in the average person said otherwise?
You are not a statistic. This goes for every study out there, but its especially pertinent for diet studies. I know many people whove had paradoxical responses to various dietary interventions, responses that the studies dont really capture. Are they all lying?
The concept of a calorie is applicable to the complexity of human metabolism.
Sometimes, I like to dream that were bomb calorimeters.
Our stomachs are buckets full of water (thats where those the human body is 75% water claims originate). Suspended inside those stomach buckets is a smaller sack, called a bomb. A tube runs from our mouths and feeds directly into the bomb. When we eat something, the food goes down the tube and into the bomb. As we chew, a series of tendons attached to our jaws rub together to produce a spark. The heat travels down into the bomb to ignite the food. A separate tube runs from our lungs to the bomb carrying pure filtrated oxygen. The food combusts and the heat generated is distributed throughout the body to give us energy. The beauty of digesting our food in the bomb is that its a closed system, shut off and free of influence from the outside universe, so we know that what we put into the bomb is exactly what well get out of digesting it. Meat, potatoes, kale, Pepsi its all pure unadulterated raw fuel and it all burns equally. Its all heat energy.
Unfortunately, thats not how the human body works.
#349
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Con't.
The scientists all agree that a calorie is a calorie.
I contend that no one truly believes a calorie is a calorie. Even the researchers who claim perfect parity between different caloric sources in esteemed scientific journals contradict themselves in their own papers.
We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another.
No argument here.
In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.
Small errors. Mistakes were made, nothing to see here, move along. Dont worry yourself over the margins. It all evens out in the end.
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets.
Its just one third of the difference in weight loss. Thats nothing at all!
As such, a calorie is a calorie.
Even though we just explained how a calorie is not a calorie, a calorie is a calorie.
Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.
In other words, our simplistic calories in, calories out approach is inadequate and other mysterious mechanisms are responsible for the difference in weight loss between diets. But trust us, a calorie is still a calorie!
Were all on the same page here. Some of us just cant admit it.
I contend that no one truly believes a calorie is a calorie. Even the researchers who claim perfect parity between different caloric sources in esteemed scientific journals contradict themselves in their own papers.
We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another.
No argument here.
In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.
Small errors. Mistakes were made, nothing to see here, move along. Dont worry yourself over the margins. It all evens out in the end.
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets.
Its just one third of the difference in weight loss. Thats nothing at all!
As such, a calorie is a calorie.
Even though we just explained how a calorie is not a calorie, a calorie is a calorie.
Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.
In other words, our simplistic calories in, calories out approach is inadequate and other mysterious mechanisms are responsible for the difference in weight loss between diets. But trust us, a calorie is still a calorie!
Were all on the same page here. Some of us just cant admit it.
#350
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Quit eating grains and Omega6 oils.
Eat pastured meat, seafood, and lots of veggies of different colors, emphasis on brassica (sulfurous) veggies, greens (magnesium rich), and fermented foods.
Basically a paleo diet with mostly veggies by volume.
Dr Wahl's one-year pilot study showed all subjects but one showed improvement with her protocol. AFAIK a bigger study is forthcoming.
Eat pastured meat, seafood, and lots of veggies of different colors, emphasis on brassica (sulfurous) veggies, greens (magnesium rich), and fermented foods.
Basically a paleo diet with mostly veggies by volume.
Dr Wahl's one-year pilot study showed all subjects but one showed improvement with her protocol. AFAIK a bigger study is forthcoming.
#351
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here's something I learned from Rhonda Patrick.
Eating some carbs (and probably also protein) every 3 hours is exceedingly bad advice.
Our cells' mitochondrial DNA (RNA?) undergo error-checking and repair. However this is down-regulated by insulin. It takes 4-5 hours for insulin to go back down to baseline after a meal. Eating carbs every 3-4 hours will keep insulin up. It produces insulin resistance and ever higher insulin levels, and prevents mitochondrial repair. This leads to rapid aging and mitochondria-related degenerative diseases and IIRC increases cancer risk.
Eating some carbs (and probably also protein) every 3 hours is exceedingly bad advice.
Our cells' mitochondrial DNA (RNA?) undergo error-checking and repair. However this is down-regulated by insulin. It takes 4-5 hours for insulin to go back down to baseline after a meal. Eating carbs every 3-4 hours will keep insulin up. It produces insulin resistance and ever higher insulin levels, and prevents mitochondrial repair. This leads to rapid aging and mitochondria-related degenerative diseases and IIRC increases cancer risk.
#352
Moderator
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/moderator.png)
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,884
Total Cats: 3,075
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Here's something I learned from Rhonda Patrick.
Eating some carbs (and probably also protein) every 3 hours is exceedingly bad advice.
Our cells' mitochondrial DNA (RNA?) undergo error-checking and repair. However this is down-regulated by insulin. It takes 4-5 hours for insulin to go back down to baseline after a meal. Eating carbs every 3-4 hours will keep insulin up. It produces insulin resistance and ever higher insulin levels, and prevents mitochondrial repair. This leads to rapid aging and mitochondria-related degenerative diseases and IIRC increases cancer risk.
Eating some carbs (and probably also protein) every 3 hours is exceedingly bad advice.
Our cells' mitochondrial DNA (RNA?) undergo error-checking and repair. However this is down-regulated by insulin. It takes 4-5 hours for insulin to go back down to baseline after a meal. Eating carbs every 3-4 hours will keep insulin up. It produces insulin resistance and ever higher insulin levels, and prevents mitochondrial repair. This leads to rapid aging and mitochondria-related degenerative diseases and IIRC increases cancer risk.
#353
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/smod.png)
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Quit eating grains and Omega6 oils.
Eat pastured meat, seafood, and lots of veggies of different colors, emphasis on brassica (sulfurous) veggies, greens (magnesium rich), and fermented foods.
Basically a paleo diet with mostly veggies by volume.
Dr Wahl's one-year pilot study showed all subjects but one showed improvement with her protocol. AFAIK a bigger study is forthcoming.
Eat pastured meat, seafood, and lots of veggies of different colors, emphasis on brassica (sulfurous) veggies, greens (magnesium rich), and fermented foods.
Basically a paleo diet with mostly veggies by volume.
Dr Wahl's one-year pilot study showed all subjects but one showed improvement with her protocol. AFAIK a bigger study is forthcoming.
#357
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Body IOŽ FM #15 | Dr. Rhonda Patrick - BODY.IOŽ
You can download the MP3 on iTunes.
#358
Boost Pope
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/supporter1.gif)
![](/mt2011/images_td/ranks/smod.png)
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,339
Total Cats: 6,793
![Default](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I found something new for Jason to be afraid of and warn us all about. They're still going on about leaky gut, but this time they're blaming a cause which is difficult to avoid- so we can all be wrong.
(It also claims deliberate corporate malfeasance, so that's another plus.)
Toxic herbicide triggers leaky gut and brain damage - NaturalNews.com
Toxic herbicide triggers leaky gut and brain damage
Thursday, January 15, 2015 by: Jonathan Landsman
(NaturalNews) This is a warning for all of humanity. Since 1974, we are seeing a dramatic rise in chronic diseases such as, autism, cancer and a wide variety of autoimmune and metabolic disorders. And, according to undeniable statistics, the cause is directly connected to the growing use of the herbicide glyphosate.
On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour, discover the connection between glyphosate toxicity and autism, digestive problems, Alzheimer's disease plus much more. If you're a healthcare provider - do NOT miss this program.
Genetically manipulated food crops fuel the rise in cancer rates and digestive disorders
According to Dr. Seneff, "we found strong correlations for cancers of the liver, kidney, bladder/urinary and thyroid." In addition, Seneff says 'obesity deaths, lipoprotein metabolism disorder deaths, and diabetes incidence and prevalence also showed strong correlations with glyphosate use and GE crop growth.' To make matter worse, this toxic chemical is destroying the quality of our air, water and food supply.
Most people do not know that when they consume foods polluted with glyphosate, a patented 'biocide', healthy gut bacteria get killed - leading to leaky gut syndrome, chronic inflammation and intestinal disease. Plus, as you may know, glyphosate is an 'endocrine disruptor' - which means it can tell cells to die prematurely; prevent nutrients from being absorbed and damage DNA.
On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour, you'll learn about the dangers of glyphosate plus, more importantly, what you can do to protect your health from one of the deadliest substances on Earth.
Groundbreaking study: Glyphosate is being fed to children with cancer in hospitals
Thanks to the effort of Moms Across America, "a national coalition of Unstoppable Moms", a study was conducted on the feeding tube liquid used in a pediatric rehabilitation hospital - where one of the group's supporters is employed. And the results were quite disturbing.
According to Moms Across America, "Microbe Inotech lab detected 6 out of 20 (30%) of Pediasure samples from the same batch tested positive at levels above 75ppb at 800-1110 X higher than has been shown to destroy gut bacteria in chickens (.1ppb). Only 50ppT ( trillion) was shown to cause liver, kidney and sex hormone changes in rats. These samples were sent by a Moms Across America supporter. This is the exact brand used in the pediatric rehabilitation hospital where she worked and was fed patients needing tube feeding in critical care."
The response to this study has been overwhelming. And, healthcare professionals around the world are speaking out:
"As a mother I am very disturbed by these results. Working as a pediatric Physical Therapist I met children with feeding issues who depend on tube feedings for their entire lives. Children who experience trauma and are recovering from car accidents, shootings, cancers, surgeries and other illnesses may require these tube feedings for days, weeks, or years. I have long questioned the nutritionally poor and inflammatory ingredients in these feedings but am devastated to find out that they are contaminated with poison. Our most vulnerable children, and our children healing from overwhelming trauma, deserve better." - Sarah Cusack, MPT, CHHC
"Eeh gads, glyphosate in Pedisure is frightening. As a cardiologist concerned about herbicides, we now know that RoundUp effects heart tissue and facilitates serious heart rhythm problems. To think we are exposing infants to this same toxin cannot be tolerated." - Joel Kahn MD
"I find it astonishing that babies and children with cancer are being provided with nutrients through a feeding tube that are contaminated with glyphosate. It ought to be obvious to medical professionals that it is essential to assure that as few toxic chemicals as possible are present in enteral nutrition provided to seriously ill children. This is a direct delivery system for glyphosate to the blood and to the tissues. It should be undeniable that certified organic sources are the only viable option in such a situation."- Dr. Stephanie Seneff
Monsanto's Roundup weed killer destroys human health. The scientific data is crystal clear - glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes massive damage within the body. If you're suffering with chronic disease; having reproductive issues; experiencing behavioral or mental problems - do NOT miss our next show
Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She has a Bachelor's degree from MIT in biology with a minor in food and nutrition, and a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, also from MIT.
Her research has focused on understanding the effects of certain environmental toxicants, such as aluminum and glyphosate, on human physiology. She proposes that a low-micronutrient, high-carbohydrate diet, combined with excess exposure to environmental toxicants, and insufficient sunlight exposure to the skin and eyes, play a crucial role in many modern conditions and diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, gastrointestinal problems, Alzheimer's disease and autism.
Monsanto lies to the general public. Profiting off consumer ignorance, companies like Monsanto say that genetically manipulated (GM) foods - polluted with the weed killer glyphosate - are 'substantially equivalent' to non-GM foods. On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour, Dr. Stephanie Seneff reveals the scientific truth about glyphosate, it's connection to autism and other diseases plus how to protect your health.
![Biggthumpup](https://www.miataturbo.net/images/smilies/biggthumpup.gif)
Toxic herbicide triggers leaky gut and brain damage - NaturalNews.com
Toxic herbicide triggers leaky gut and brain damage
Thursday, January 15, 2015 by: Jonathan Landsman
(NaturalNews) This is a warning for all of humanity. Since 1974, we are seeing a dramatic rise in chronic diseases such as, autism, cancer and a wide variety of autoimmune and metabolic disorders. And, according to undeniable statistics, the cause is directly connected to the growing use of the herbicide glyphosate.
On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour, discover the connection between glyphosate toxicity and autism, digestive problems, Alzheimer's disease plus much more. If you're a healthcare provider - do NOT miss this program.
Genetically manipulated food crops fuel the rise in cancer rates and digestive disorders
According to Dr. Seneff, "we found strong correlations for cancers of the liver, kidney, bladder/urinary and thyroid." In addition, Seneff says 'obesity deaths, lipoprotein metabolism disorder deaths, and diabetes incidence and prevalence also showed strong correlations with glyphosate use and GE crop growth.' To make matter worse, this toxic chemical is destroying the quality of our air, water and food supply.
Most people do not know that when they consume foods polluted with glyphosate, a patented 'biocide', healthy gut bacteria get killed - leading to leaky gut syndrome, chronic inflammation and intestinal disease. Plus, as you may know, glyphosate is an 'endocrine disruptor' - which means it can tell cells to die prematurely; prevent nutrients from being absorbed and damage DNA.
On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour, you'll learn about the dangers of glyphosate plus, more importantly, what you can do to protect your health from one of the deadliest substances on Earth.
Groundbreaking study: Glyphosate is being fed to children with cancer in hospitals
Thanks to the effort of Moms Across America, "a national coalition of Unstoppable Moms", a study was conducted on the feeding tube liquid used in a pediatric rehabilitation hospital - where one of the group's supporters is employed. And the results were quite disturbing.
According to Moms Across America, "Microbe Inotech lab detected 6 out of 20 (30%) of Pediasure samples from the same batch tested positive at levels above 75ppb at 800-1110 X higher than has been shown to destroy gut bacteria in chickens (.1ppb). Only 50ppT ( trillion) was shown to cause liver, kidney and sex hormone changes in rats. These samples were sent by a Moms Across America supporter. This is the exact brand used in the pediatric rehabilitation hospital where she worked and was fed patients needing tube feeding in critical care."
The response to this study has been overwhelming. And, healthcare professionals around the world are speaking out:
"As a mother I am very disturbed by these results. Working as a pediatric Physical Therapist I met children with feeding issues who depend on tube feedings for their entire lives. Children who experience trauma and are recovering from car accidents, shootings, cancers, surgeries and other illnesses may require these tube feedings for days, weeks, or years. I have long questioned the nutritionally poor and inflammatory ingredients in these feedings but am devastated to find out that they are contaminated with poison. Our most vulnerable children, and our children healing from overwhelming trauma, deserve better." - Sarah Cusack, MPT, CHHC
"Eeh gads, glyphosate in Pedisure is frightening. As a cardiologist concerned about herbicides, we now know that RoundUp effects heart tissue and facilitates serious heart rhythm problems. To think we are exposing infants to this same toxin cannot be tolerated." - Joel Kahn MD
"I find it astonishing that babies and children with cancer are being provided with nutrients through a feeding tube that are contaminated with glyphosate. It ought to be obvious to medical professionals that it is essential to assure that as few toxic chemicals as possible are present in enteral nutrition provided to seriously ill children. This is a direct delivery system for glyphosate to the blood and to the tissues. It should be undeniable that certified organic sources are the only viable option in such a situation."- Dr. Stephanie Seneff
Monsanto's Roundup weed killer destroys human health. The scientific data is crystal clear - glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes massive damage within the body. If you're suffering with chronic disease; having reproductive issues; experiencing behavioral or mental problems - do NOT miss our next show
Stephanie Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She has a Bachelor's degree from MIT in biology with a minor in food and nutrition, and a PhD in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, also from MIT.
Her research has focused on understanding the effects of certain environmental toxicants, such as aluminum and glyphosate, on human physiology. She proposes that a low-micronutrient, high-carbohydrate diet, combined with excess exposure to environmental toxicants, and insufficient sunlight exposure to the skin and eyes, play a crucial role in many modern conditions and diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, gastrointestinal problems, Alzheimer's disease and autism.
Monsanto lies to the general public. Profiting off consumer ignorance, companies like Monsanto say that genetically manipulated (GM) foods - polluted with the weed killer glyphosate - are 'substantially equivalent' to non-GM foods. On the next NaturalNews Talk Hour, Dr. Stephanie Seneff reveals the scientific truth about glyphosate, it's connection to autism and other diseases plus how to protect your health.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 01-26-2015 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Leaky guT, not guY.