Old Forum Philosophical body-fat
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
- Status
Matt
Level 3 Valued Member
To me, there is still a philosophical conundrum/contradiction regarding the idea that survival is the driving force shaping our development. Taking the ideas presented -
Hunger wants to regulate energy intake naturally (hormones as the Chief said) - and that is at a relatively lean storage level.
Emotions including feedback from pleasurable food, or the mind fearing lack or fearing survival over-rides this natural hunger to force an increase of storage to almost an unlimited level. This can cause disease - yet facilitate survival....?
Exercise or work, promoting strength and health - is non energy conserving (both not good for survival), while laziness conserves energy yet promotes disease.
So lack of available energy (ie. food) and fear of survival should promote energy conservation. Naturally we are non-energy conserving - so our healthy default setting is as if we aren't fearing a lack of energy or having our survival threatened.
Today we don't have the fear of survival driving force, yet we have the symptoms of living as if we did...
Hunger wants to regulate energy intake naturally (hormones as the Chief said) - and that is at a relatively lean storage level.
Emotions including feedback from pleasurable food, or the mind fearing lack or fearing survival over-rides this natural hunger to force an increase of storage to almost an unlimited level. This can cause disease - yet facilitate survival....?
Exercise or work, promoting strength and health - is non energy conserving (both not good for survival), while laziness conserves energy yet promotes disease.
So lack of available energy (ie. food) and fear of survival should promote energy conservation. Naturally we are non-energy conserving - so our healthy default setting is as if we aren't fearing a lack of energy or having our survival threatened.
Today we don't have the fear of survival driving force, yet we have the symptoms of living as if we did...
Mattsirpeace
Level 4 Valued Member
I'll paraphrase an analogy from Gary Taubes:
If there is a room full of people, and an "expert" explained that the reason there are people in the room is that more people entered the room than left the room, and for there to be fewer people in the room more people need to leave the room than enter the room, you would recognize that the guy is an idiot. The real reason is that there is an attraction or event, or the weather is bad, or something else.
So when I hear the addition/subtraction calorie theory, I can't believe the expert actually thinks he's explaining something.
Likely real causes of overfatness are micronutrient deficiencies or our bodies not knowing what to do with trans fat, omega 6s, fructose, late hours...
P.S.
Natural selection happens at the level of the gene. Richard Dawkins explained this in excruciating detail. Once you really, truly grasp that every organism, including yourself, is really just a gene vehicle, your worldview is turned inside out.
If there is a room full of people, and an "expert" explained that the reason there are people in the room is that more people entered the room than left the room, and for there to be fewer people in the room more people need to leave the room than enter the room, you would recognize that the guy is an idiot. The real reason is that there is an attraction or event, or the weather is bad, or something else.
So when I hear the addition/subtraction calorie theory, I can't believe the expert actually thinks he's explaining something.
Likely real causes of overfatness are micronutrient deficiencies or our bodies not knowing what to do with trans fat, omega 6s, fructose, late hours...
P.S.
Natural selection happens at the level of the gene. Richard Dawkins explained this in excruciating detail. Once you really, truly grasp that every organism, including yourself, is really just a gene vehicle, your worldview is turned inside out.
Mattsirpeace
Level 4 Valued Member
Matt & all, I was surfing around and found this energetic rant against the calorie theory:
http://www.paleorunner.org/2013/12/the-calorie-myth-jonathan-bailor.html
Oddly enough the author still recommends high-fiber, still subconsciously believing in calories. It's an infectious meme that's hard to shake; the calorie theory nudges you towards exercising to burn energy rather than applying stimulus to train for a specific adaptation. Nietzsche and Daniel Kahnemann have both pointed out that people prefer simple explanations instead of accurate explanations.
http://www.paleorunner.org/2013/12/the-calorie-myth-jonathan-bailor.html
Oddly enough the author still recommends high-fiber, still subconsciously believing in calories. It's an infectious meme that's hard to shake; the calorie theory nudges you towards exercising to burn energy rather than applying stimulus to train for a specific adaptation. Nietzsche and Daniel Kahnemann have both pointed out that people prefer simple explanations instead of accurate explanations.
Matt
Level 3 Valued Member
Thanks Matt for your last two posts. Quite insightful. While I haven’t listened to his full rant, it does seem like he is contradicting himself or sensationalising his claims. Infectious meme is right. Perhaps it gives people the psychological belief (falsely) of being in control.
The more I think about this topic, the more I am fascinated.
Wonder about adding into the mix the “fact” / belief / experience – that exercise gives you energy….
The more I think about this topic, the more I am fascinated.
Wonder about adding into the mix the “fact” / belief / experience – that exercise gives you energy….
ryanrbjj
Level 1 Valued Member
In short genetics. Muscle is costly metabolically. Fat is an energy reserve. The body is built for survival. So the more demand placed on the muscles the muscle the body requires. I believe this is passed on through generations through Natural selection. what our ancestors required were passed on through DNA. That is why some people I know have horrible diets and are still muscular and lean. If you trace their family tree, a lot of them We're laborers or workers that used those muscles every day.
this is just my unscientific opinion
this is just my unscientific opinion
Mattsirpeace
Level 4 Valued Member
Tim Noakes nails it:
http://youtu.be/-gmEKU1cZyU
http://youtu.be/-gmEKU1cZyU
Kyrinov
Level 5 Valued Member
I won't give a time-stamp because would require going back through the video but I watched with interest and an open mind until I saw his correlation graph regarding heart disease and Omega-6 consumption. Clearly junk science getting publicity by being contrarian - unless a regression based on about 8 data points which compares "Quebec Cree" to "Quebec Urban" to "USA" holds any validity. Dude's critique is based on a lack of clear correlation in the (rather large) data set relating cholesterol to heart disease but then clearly cherry-picked his own data points to create a correlation between Omega-6 and heart disease. Being the underdog doesn't excuse you from the same basic logical and epistemological principles that govern everyone else. If you're going to cherry pick your data like that you can create just about any correlation you want. Doing what he's doing, I bet I could make up a correlation between drinking Coca-Cola and reduced risk of cancer.
DrooksTr
First Post
"but why doesn’t it use some of the excess stored energy (fat) to grow muscle"
Lipids, carbs, and protein can all be stored in excess as fat, but the body can't create muscle from fat. However, if the body isn't getting enough energy (calories) or is overtrained, it could start using muscle as energy instead of fat, via gluconeogenesis. This could possibly lead to muscle loss and inadequate burning of fat.
Lipids, carbs, and protein can all be stored in excess as fat, but the body can't create muscle from fat. However, if the body isn't getting enough energy (calories) or is overtrained, it could start using muscle as energy instead of fat, via gluconeogenesis. This could possibly lead to muscle loss and inadequate burning of fat.
Matt
Level 3 Valued Member
While I agree and understand that Roberto, I guess my point was moreso (philosophically speaking) - we have heaps of energy stored as fat - yet the current understanding is that you need to "bulk up" ie. eat enough along with sufficient protein to be able to synthesize new muscle. Why doesn't the body use it's excess energy stores to do the same thing (assuming there is adequate protein intake - which is probably less than most realise, as long as there is sufficient energy/"calories" eaten)? With the earlier responses in mind, there again (like with other reasons for conserving energy) still seems to be a limit to this process - the body conserves its energy to a greater degree, rather than just going nuts using its abundant stored energy to build lots of muscle.
Paul Sellers
Level 5 Valued Member
Just came across this thread and it's an interesting one. Adipose tissue isn't just a sink for excess energy input through excessive consumption of food. It's also a dumping ground for toxins. Theory has it that this is why, when a person sheds body fat, they often feel dreadful for a while - it's the stored toxins being released. Theory also says if you cut out the toxins from your diet (and your environment) it should be easier to shed the flab.
Adipose tissue also works to balance the endocrine system so if your hormones are out of whack - for whatever reason - adipose tissue might increase or decrease in order to bring the system back into balance, or homeostasis. Body fat converts "excess" free T to estrogen, among other things. The infuriating thing is; if you go all out to increase your T levels in the hope of shifting your man-boobs your adipose tissue just converts more of it to estrogen - and your moobs get bigger, so be careful what you wish for...
Caveat - all or part of the above may well be horse feathers as I'm not a scientist - I just read a lot...
Adipose tissue also works to balance the endocrine system so if your hormones are out of whack - for whatever reason - adipose tissue might increase or decrease in order to bring the system back into balance, or homeostasis. Body fat converts "excess" free T to estrogen, among other things. The infuriating thing is; if you go all out to increase your T levels in the hope of shifting your man-boobs your adipose tissue just converts more of it to estrogen - and your moobs get bigger, so be careful what you wish for...
Caveat - all or part of the above may well be horse feathers as I'm not a scientist - I just read a lot...
The Scientist
Level 3 Valued Member
I'll give some input and clarification if I can:
1. Calories stored in adipose tissue absolutely can be used to increase muscle mass. Muscle protein synthesis requires two primary ingredients: protein and calories. The protein (and some of the calories) will have to be eaten, but some of the calories can come from stored fat. This has been documented in controlled experiments many times, and I have experienced it myself, going from a soft 200 lbs to a fairly lean and muscular 200 lbs over the course of a year of heavy lifting. My weight never fluctuated more than +/- 5 lbs the whole time, but my BF% dropped from ~22% to ~12%. The more overweight you are, the easier this is to do. People who are already overweight don't need bulk cycles, but as you get very lean it may become more necessary (if muscle gain is your only goal). The thing to remember is that when you try to trim back down later, you may lose some of that muscle, so be careful. For most people, trying to stay at least moderately lean (15% BF for men) all the time is the best option. Slow and steady over the long haul...
2. "Theory has it that this is why, when a person sheds body fat, they often feel dreadful for a while – it’s the stored toxins being released."
There is no evidence that this is true, and I'm pretty confident that it can't be true. It just doesn't make sense biochemically. There is no reason that fat loss would lead to a release of toxins as they would be dissolved in the lipid, not bound directly to triglycerides as they are released.
3. "Adipose tissue also works to balance the endocrine system so if your hormones are out of whack – for whatever reason – adipose tissue might increase or decrease in order to bring the system back into balance, or homeostasis."
I know the endocrine system is terribly complicated (even for people who study it carefully), but don't be tempted into making statements like this. It is much too vague to really mean anything. Adipose tissue produces several of its own endocrine hormones, and responds to many others produced by other organs. Recent research has put together several small parts of the puzzle, but the whole system is nowhere near being completely understood.
4. The science might be complicated, but the answer is not: eat real food and lift heavy things. A steady diet of (good quality) meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruit and moderate starches for your gut, plus a diet of DLs, swings, squats, pull-ups and presses for your muscles is almost everything you need. Add in lots of walking (avoid sitting all day) and you are in good shape. Of course, other checklist items like sleep and avoiding emotional stress or important, but I hope obvious.
1. Calories stored in adipose tissue absolutely can be used to increase muscle mass. Muscle protein synthesis requires two primary ingredients: protein and calories. The protein (and some of the calories) will have to be eaten, but some of the calories can come from stored fat. This has been documented in controlled experiments many times, and I have experienced it myself, going from a soft 200 lbs to a fairly lean and muscular 200 lbs over the course of a year of heavy lifting. My weight never fluctuated more than +/- 5 lbs the whole time, but my BF% dropped from ~22% to ~12%. The more overweight you are, the easier this is to do. People who are already overweight don't need bulk cycles, but as you get very lean it may become more necessary (if muscle gain is your only goal). The thing to remember is that when you try to trim back down later, you may lose some of that muscle, so be careful. For most people, trying to stay at least moderately lean (15% BF for men) all the time is the best option. Slow and steady over the long haul...
2. "Theory has it that this is why, when a person sheds body fat, they often feel dreadful for a while – it’s the stored toxins being released."
There is no evidence that this is true, and I'm pretty confident that it can't be true. It just doesn't make sense biochemically. There is no reason that fat loss would lead to a release of toxins as they would be dissolved in the lipid, not bound directly to triglycerides as they are released.
3. "Adipose tissue also works to balance the endocrine system so if your hormones are out of whack – for whatever reason – adipose tissue might increase or decrease in order to bring the system back into balance, or homeostasis."
I know the endocrine system is terribly complicated (even for people who study it carefully), but don't be tempted into making statements like this. It is much too vague to really mean anything. Adipose tissue produces several of its own endocrine hormones, and responds to many others produced by other organs. Recent research has put together several small parts of the puzzle, but the whole system is nowhere near being completely understood.
4. The science might be complicated, but the answer is not: eat real food and lift heavy things. A steady diet of (good quality) meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruit and moderate starches for your gut, plus a diet of DLs, swings, squats, pull-ups and presses for your muscles is almost everything you need. Add in lots of walking (avoid sitting all day) and you are in good shape. Of course, other checklist items like sleep and avoiding emotional stress or important, but I hope obvious.
Paul Sellers
Level 5 Valued Member
Perhaps my caveat should have read; "I'm not THE Scientist' ;o)
The advice in The Scientist's point 4 is sound - if exercise movements and loads match the conditions our bodies adapted to through evolutionary selection then you are (at least while you are exercising) using the body the way it's "meant" to be used. Same for the food - eat what a human being is adapted for and it (the body) will work properly. Conversely if you eat muck you will gum up the works.
There is also another issue with body fat I'd like to throw in - activity vs. exercise. I work like a demon when practicing kettlebells and my food intake is optimal but I still have a fair bit of body fat. I believe the reason is that I have a sedentary job and even though I get up and move every hour, at least, it's not enough. When I take a week or two off to decorate the house the fat starts to drop off and doesn't start to go back on until I've been back at work for a couple of weeks. Classic case of not using the body for the purpose for which it has adapted.
The advice in The Scientist's point 4 is sound - if exercise movements and loads match the conditions our bodies adapted to through evolutionary selection then you are (at least while you are exercising) using the body the way it's "meant" to be used. Same for the food - eat what a human being is adapted for and it (the body) will work properly. Conversely if you eat muck you will gum up the works.
There is also another issue with body fat I'd like to throw in - activity vs. exercise. I work like a demon when practicing kettlebells and my food intake is optimal but I still have a fair bit of body fat. I believe the reason is that I have a sedentary job and even though I get up and move every hour, at least, it's not enough. When I take a week or two off to decorate the house the fat starts to drop off and doesn't start to go back on until I've been back at work for a couple of weeks. Classic case of not using the body for the purpose for which it has adapted.
- Status