Is it Fatism?

Mark671 said

Theta Aeterna said

Tarmoo said

Back in 2016 I was obese with a BMI of 33. After being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I switched to a Low Carb High Fat (LCHF) diet which reduced my HBA1C from 99 to 42 in 6 months (over 48 is diabetic, over 42 is pre-diabetic). My BMI dropped down to 28 as I lost over 12Kg. I wasn’t trying to lose weight, but it was a side effect of the low carb ketogenic diet.

I discovered that body fat comes from excess blood glucose which is converted to fat via insulin. Carbohydrates are highly addictive, more so most people find it hard to reduce, which is why Ozempic is so popular for people without the self-control to change their diet to regulate blood sugar levels and weight loss.

People with type 2 diabetes can expect 10 fewer years life expectancy if they don’t get diabetes under control. As I am 71 now, I would have only another 5 years to live if didn’t control my blood sugars. I now have a Dexcom One+ CGM (continuous glucose monitor) which is a handy way to measure blood glucose all day. The reason why diabetics don’t live as long is because of glucose spikes. This video is quite interesting …

 

Edited by Tarmoo

Ok, as somebody who had to and enjoyed to study biochemistry and physiology, I would like to correct things. This guy in the video is known to misunderstand facts and pathways so I will add my 2 cents for the ones who are interested.

1) Carbs, Proteins and Fats increase Insulin. All 3. The difference is in speed of absorption. What changes the balance in insulin spikes is fibre. Fruits when eaten as a whole won't create insulin spikes. A lean beef will. 

2) Glucose won't turn into fat. It is either burned or turned into glycogen or other sugars like joint fluids, nuclear sugars, Hyaluronic acid, connective tissue etc. The reason why kids get overactive or we can't sleep well with too much sugar is the body needing to burn it.

3) Fructose is the one that is converted to fat or Glycogen. Fructose is also necessary to free Testosterone in the blood stream. Low Fructose means less fun. Our older Photographers, this is my gift to you :)

4) Cakes, chocolate etc have high sugar and high fat, which is an unnatural combination for our metabolic signalling system. The sugar is burned as much as possible and the readily "packed and stored
 energy" in fat is just...well stored, since fat is already the safe and dense format we use to store energy.

5) Carbs are absolutely necessary for sexual health, DNA/RNA production, joint and connective tissue health, brain function and any explosive movement from lifting from your chair to climbing stairs. Fat will not do that for you. For more detail check Creatine Phosphate, Aerobic and Anaerobic ATP production and of course types of muscle fibres.

6) This one is for the people who really want to understand the role of Insulin and how Sugar is transported and used, why we call something Insulin resistance or Diabetes type II

Muscle and Brain Tissue run primarily on Sugar. To achieve that, there are tiny chemical helpers called GLUT4 (Glucose transporters. different tissues have different types) which are necessary to transport sugar around the cell.

Since the Brain and big muscle groups use the most sugar, they have the most glucose transporting units. The job of Insulin is to SIGNAL the intake of. sugar and other macros to the cells wall. It's like the delivery truck driver nocking at the door! Insulin is also a growth factor to increase muscle mass. It is used in body building for that.

When we consume high sugar and high fat at the same time,  the cells become unable to pick up all the energy sources. This confuses the cells and stops them from having enough GLUT4s ready to transport sugar. Also the position of the molecules change (closer to the door waiting becomes sitting and chatting somewhere else). So the amount of sugar circulated in the blood stream increases because the cells do not pick up the sugar. More insulin is produced to keep the door bells ringing. When the sugar is not picked up and more Insulin is needed, we call it insulin resistance.

#1 reason for insulin resistance is high body fat and lack of explosive movement. Emptying the glycogen in the muscles and reducing the intake of fat that is stored around the muscle cells makes the muscle hungry again, which increases GLUT4 production and reduces the need of insulin signalling.

Long story short: Reduce fat, eat fruit, have fun and move. 

That's interesting, thanks. So a whole orange is healthier food than orange juice, even if the juice is extracted from the orange you would have eaten whole?

What counts as explosive action? The term makes me think of a 100 metre runner coming off the blocks or a cyclist sprinting for the finish. It would be interesting to know where the threshold is, since there are reports that it is the 'explosive' exercise done in relatively small doses that does the most good.

Ie, I chop my own logs, which seems quite explosive to me, but would it meet the threshold?

Edited by Mark671

Edited by Mark671

Sugar is used mostly for fast twitch muscles. Chopping wood is a great example, especially if you use your largest and strongest muscles too, which are the quads, glutes and hamstrings. Slow and steady work that is doable while happily chatting is not very sugar intensive but rather fat burning.

Lifting your whole body through jumps or leaps are great. Easy or harder squats, deadlifts, carrying heavy things, fast movements like pulling, throwing and other movements like jumping jacks, lunges, most ball games or even brisk walks need sugar to work. Sprinting on bike or on your legs or climbing stairs as fast as you can are the "highest" sugar burning movement patterns. But high intensity movement longer than 2-3 minutes in total are detrimental to older demographics. High stress on central nervous system if you are not used to comes with a heavy cost.

One can use protein to convert to sugar, but that increases the workload of the liver thanks to the extra nitrogen to be excreted from burning protein.

You are right about the juice. Fibre keeps the sugar supply slow but steady, which we need. 

Theta Aeterna said

Mark671 said

Theta Aeterna said

Tarmoo said

Back in 2016 I was obese with a BMI of 33. After being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I switched to a Low Carb High Fat (LCHF) diet which reduced my HBA1C from 99 to 42 in 6 months (over 48 is diabetic, over 42 is pre-diabetic). My BMI dropped down to 28 as I lost over 12Kg. I wasn’t trying to lose weight, but it was a side effect of the low carb ketogenic diet.

I discovered that body fat comes from excess blood glucose which is converted to fat via insulin. Carbohydrates are highly addictive, more so most people find it hard to reduce, which is why Ozempic is so popular for people without the self-control to change their diet to regulate blood sugar levels and weight loss.

People with type 2 diabetes can expect 10 fewer years life expectancy if they don’t get diabetes under control. As I am 71 now, I would have only another 5 years to live if didn’t control my blood sugars. I now have a Dexcom One+ CGM (continuous glucose monitor) which is a handy way to measure blood glucose all day. The reason why diabetics don’t live as long is because of glucose spikes. This video is quite interesting …

 

Edited by Tarmoo

Ok, as somebody who had to and enjoyed to study biochemistry and physiology, I would like to correct things. This guy in the video is known to misunderstand facts and pathways so I will add my 2 cents for the ones who are interested.

1) Carbs, Proteins and Fats increase Insulin. All 3. The difference is in speed of absorption. What changes the balance in insulin spikes is fibre. Fruits when eaten as a whole won't create insulin spikes. A lean beef will. 

2) Glucose won't turn into fat. It is either burned or turned into glycogen or other sugars like joint fluids, nuclear sugars, Hyaluronic acid, connective tissue etc. The reason why kids get overactive or we can't sleep well with too much sugar is the body needing to burn it.

3) Fructose is the one that is converted to fat or Glycogen. Fructose is also necessary to free Testosterone in the blood stream. Low Fructose means less fun. Our older Photographers, this is my gift to you :)

4) Cakes, chocolate etc have high sugar and high fat, which is an unnatural combination for our metabolic signalling system. The sugar is burned as much as possible and the readily "packed and stored
 energy" in fat is just...well stored, since fat is already the safe and dense format we use to store energy.

5) Carbs are absolutely necessary for sexual health, DNA/RNA production, joint and connective tissue health, brain function and any explosive movement from lifting from your chair to climbing stairs. Fat will not do that for you. For more detail check Creatine Phosphate, Aerobic and Anaerobic ATP production and of course types of muscle fibres.

6) This one is for the people who really want to understand the role of Insulin and how Sugar is transported and used, why we call something Insulin resistance or Diabetes type II

Muscle and Brain Tissue run primarily on Sugar. To achieve that, there are tiny chemical helpers called GLUT4 (Glucose transporters. different tissues have different types) which are necessary to transport sugar around the cell.

Since the Brain and big muscle groups use the most sugar, they have the most glucose transporting units. The job of Insulin is to SIGNAL the intake of. sugar and other macros to the cells wall. It's like the delivery truck driver nocking at the door! Insulin is also a growth factor to increase muscle mass. It is used in body building for that.

When we consume high sugar and high fat at the same time,  the cells become unable to pick up all the energy sources. This confuses the cells and stops them from having enough GLUT4s ready to transport sugar. Also the position of the molecules change (closer to the door waiting becomes sitting and chatting somewhere else). So the amount of sugar circulated in the blood stream increases because the cells do not pick up the sugar. More insulin is produced to keep the door bells ringing. When the sugar is not picked up and more Insulin is needed, we call it insulin resistance.

#1 reason for insulin resistance is high body fat and lack of explosive movement. Emptying the glycogen in the muscles and reducing the intake of fat that is stored around the muscle cells makes the muscle hungry again, which increases GLUT4 production and reduces the need of insulin signalling.

Long story short: Reduce fat, eat fruit, have fun and move. 

That's interesting, thanks. So a whole orange is healthier food than orange juice, even if the juice is extracted from the orange you would have eaten whole?

What counts as explosive action? The term makes me think of a 100 metre runner coming off the blocks or a cyclist sprinting for the finish. It would be interesting to know where the threshold is, since there are reports that it is the 'explosive' exercise done in relatively small doses that does the most good.

Ie, I chop my own logs, which seems quite explosive to me, but would it meet the threshold?

Edited by Mark671

Edited by Mark671

Sugar is used mostly for fast twitch muscles. Chopping wood is a great example, especially if you use your largest and strongest muscles too, which are the quads, glutes and hamstrings. Slow and steady work that is doable while happily chatting is not very sugar intensive but rather fat burning.

Lifting your whole body through jumps or leaps are great. Easy or harder squats, deadlifts, carrying heavy things, fast movements like pulling, throwing and other movements like jumping jacks, lunges, most ball games or even brisk walks need sugar to work. Sprinting on bike or on your legs or climbing stairs as fast as you can are the "highest" sugar burning movement patterns. But high intensity movement longer than 2-3 minutes in total are detrimental to older demographics. High stress on central nervous system if you are not used to comes with a heavy cost.

One can use protein to convert to sugar, but that increases the workload of the liver thanks to the extra nitrogen to be excreted from burning protein.

You are right about the juice. Fibre keeps the sugar supply slow but steady, which we need. 

That's very good of you, thanks. I hope your profession involves communication - you communicate detail in a very clear way. It's quite rare. 

Mark671 said

Theta Aeterna said

Mark671 said

Theta Aeterna said

Tarmoo said

Back in 2016 I was obese with a BMI of 33. After being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I switched to a Low Carb High Fat (LCHF) diet which reduced my HBA1C from 99 to 42 in 6 months (over 48 is diabetic, over 42 is pre-diabetic). My BMI dropped down to 28 as I lost over 12Kg. I wasn’t trying to lose weight, but it was a side effect of the low carb ketogenic diet.

I discovered that body fat comes from excess blood glucose which is converted to fat via insulin. Carbohydrates are highly addictive, more so most people find it hard to reduce, which is why Ozempic is so popular for people without the self-control to change their diet to regulate blood sugar levels and weight loss.

People with type 2 diabetes can expect 10 fewer years life expectancy if they don’t get diabetes under control. As I am 71 now, I would have only another 5 years to live if didn’t control my blood sugars. I now have a Dexcom One+ CGM (continuous glucose monitor) which is a handy way to measure blood glucose all day. The reason why diabetics don’t live as long is because of glucose spikes. This video is quite interesting …

 

Edited by Tarmoo

Ok, as somebody who had to and enjoyed to study biochemistry and physiology, I would like to correct things. This guy in the video is known to misunderstand facts and pathways so I will add my 2 cents for the ones who are interested.

1) Carbs, Proteins and Fats increase Insulin. All 3. The difference is in speed of absorption. What changes the balance in insulin spikes is fibre. Fruits when eaten as a whole won't create insulin spikes. A lean beef will. 

2) Glucose won't turn into fat. It is either burned or turned into glycogen or other sugars like joint fluids, nuclear sugars, Hyaluronic acid, connective tissue etc. The reason why kids get overactive or we can't sleep well with too much sugar is the body needing to burn it.

3) Fructose is the one that is converted to fat or Glycogen. Fructose is also necessary to free Testosterone in the blood stream. Low Fructose means less fun. Our older Photographers, this is my gift to you :)

4) Cakes, chocolate etc have high sugar and high fat, which is an unnatural combination for our metabolic signalling system. The sugar is burned as much as possible and the readily "packed and stored
 energy" in fat is just...well stored, since fat is already the safe and dense format we use to store energy.

5) Carbs are absolutely necessary for sexual health, DNA/RNA production, joint and connective tissue health, brain function and any explosive movement from lifting from your chair to climbing stairs. Fat will not do that for you. For more detail check Creatine Phosphate, Aerobic and Anaerobic ATP production and of course types of muscle fibres.

6) This one is for the people who really want to understand the role of Insulin and how Sugar is transported and used, why we call something Insulin resistance or Diabetes type II

Muscle and Brain Tissue run primarily on Sugar. To achieve that, there are tiny chemical helpers called GLUT4 (Glucose transporters. different tissues have different types) which are necessary to transport sugar around the cell.

Since the Brain and big muscle groups use the most sugar, they have the most glucose transporting units. The job of Insulin is to SIGNAL the intake of. sugar and other macros to the cells wall. It's like the delivery truck driver nocking at the door! Insulin is also a growth factor to increase muscle mass. It is used in body building for that.

When we consume high sugar and high fat at the same time,  the cells become unable to pick up all the energy sources. This confuses the cells and stops them from having enough GLUT4s ready to transport sugar. Also the position of the molecules change (closer to the door waiting becomes sitting and chatting somewhere else). So the amount of sugar circulated in the blood stream increases because the cells do not pick up the sugar. More insulin is produced to keep the door bells ringing. When the sugar is not picked up and more Insulin is needed, we call it insulin resistance.

#1 reason for insulin resistance is high body fat and lack of explosive movement. Emptying the glycogen in the muscles and reducing the intake of fat that is stored around the muscle cells makes the muscle hungry again, which increases GLUT4 production and reduces the need of insulin signalling.

Long story short: Reduce fat, eat fruit, have fun and move. 

That's interesting, thanks. So a whole orange is healthier food than orange juice, even if the juice is extracted from the orange you would have eaten whole?

What counts as explosive action? The term makes me think of a 100 metre runner coming off the blocks or a cyclist sprinting for the finish. It would be interesting to know where the threshold is, since there are reports that it is the 'explosive' exercise done in relatively small doses that does the most good.

Ie, I chop my own logs, which seems quite explosive to me, but would it meet the threshold?

Edited by Mark671

Edited by Mark671

Sugar is used mostly for fast twitch muscles. Chopping wood is a great example, especially if you use your largest and strongest muscles too, which are the quads, glutes and hamstrings. Slow and steady work that is doable while happily chatting is not very sugar intensive but rather fat burning.

Lifting your whole body through jumps or leaps are great. Easy or harder squats, deadlifts, carrying heavy things, fast movements like pulling, throwing and other movements like jumping jacks, lunges, most ball games or even brisk walks need sugar to work. Sprinting on bike or on your legs or climbing stairs as fast as you can are the "highest" sugar burning movement patterns. But high intensity movement longer than 2-3 minutes in total are detrimental to older demographics. High stress on central nervous system if you are not used to comes with a heavy cost.

One can use protein to convert to sugar, but that increases the workload of the liver thanks to the extra nitrogen to be excreted from burning protein.

You are right about the juice. Fibre keeps the sugar supply slow but steady, which we need. 

That's very good of you, thanks. I hope your profession involves communication - you communicate detail in a very clear way. It's quite rare. 

Thank you so much, very nice of you. Yes, I am also an advisor and have top explain things constantly to people with other professions and talents/skills and experiences than mine.

I forgot to tell how burning protein will produce more uric acid and overload the kidneys and increase the acidity of your urine.

Hope this info helps you out.

BTW, if you are overweight or want to lose some pounds, slow and steady burns more fat, while you keep the sugar for your brain. This reduces cravings but burns more fat and keeps the central nervous system and your immune system happy!

Edited by Theta Aeterna

As JonC pointed out earlier in this thread, what the OP's sister observed was survivorship bias - ie the over-75s are slimmer on average because a greater proportion of the overweight population die before 75 than the slim population.  I don't believe this is related to children these days being fatter on average than children in the 1970s/80s or a generation being healthier because of rationing during the 1940s/50s, but both of these phenomena could also be true.

The classic example of survivorship bias was the study of bullet holes on returning aircarft during World War II.  Instead of adding extra armour where most planes had bullet holes (which is what most people would immediately think to do), they added amour to areas that showed the least damage, because that's where the planes that didn't return from missions had been hit.

Chris Green said

As JonC pointed out earlier in this thread, what the OP's sister observed was survivorship bias - ie the over-75s are slimmer on average because a greater proportion of the overweight population die before 75 than the slim population.  I don't believe this is related to children these days being fatter on average than children in the 1970s/80s or a generation being healthier because of rationing during the 1940s/50s, but both of these phenomena could also be true.

The classic example of survivorship bias was the study of bullet holes on returning aircarft during World War II.  Instead of adding extra armour where most planes had bullet holes (which is what most people would immediately think to do), they added amour to areas that showed the least damage, because that's where the planes that didn't return from missions had been hit.

Spot on Chris Green ! My sister’s view was simply that the fat ones were mostly dead before 75.  She didn’t offer a critique of ‘why?’ But the debate over these pages has been very interesting.  And a lot would apply to her.  She is late 60s and has only recently moved into the ‘only slightly overweight category’.  Her younger  husband too has only recently found out he has Type 2 diabetes and has ‘taken steps’ by losing weight.

My sixpence-worth is that weight loss is not a function of what or when we eat (pace the late Dr Mosley) but how and why.  I was overweight (though not obese ever) for most of my life after university.  4 years ago I started applying Paul McKenna's weight loss principles.  I lost 3 stones in 9 months and have kept it off.  I eat everything: carbs, chocolates, cakes, pies when I feel like it but mostly eat healthily…..and drink wine more than I should.  My BP medication has been halved and my cholesterol is ‘perfect’ according to my GP.  I walk 4-5 miles a day but otherwise don’t exercise.  Hopefully this will see me past 75 fir my sisters jabs to come….😝

Chris Green said

 don't believe this is related to children these days being fatter on average than children in the 1970s/80s or a generation being healthier because of rationing during the 1940s/50s, but both of these phenomena could also be true.

...

Some of us remember the 1970s fairly clearly, and for those who don't and earlier,  a few photographs have survived the events since. Fewer of today's pictures of children playing around school, to which in those days most mostly went, or at home etc may go on to be available to future historians.

There is also copious data from, eg, weighing children.

In the decades of the 1940s and 50s this was partly driven by people trying to starve the population, or having recently done so, and to guide adjustments to rations if necessary.

So believe what you like.

A lot of extra weight on children comes from being filled with microplastics, PCBs, Heavy metals and other toxins. Most kids in the 70s and 80s did not have this level of pollution in everything they eat and drink. The stress on adrenal glands, liver and fat tissue is enormous. Constant stress on any tissue causes inflammation, which increases cortisol levels, which in turn reduces energy output and increases weight gain. Add to that lack of fresh and quality food and too many calories without enough fibre and micro nutrients, a disaster is inevitable.

Another factor is fortified foods, which are fortified with synthetic vitamins and inorganic mineral sources, where both can have negative impact, especially Vitamin E, Inorganic Selenium, Folic Acid (Yes, crazy) etc... 

Theta Aeterna said

A lot of extra weight on children comes from being filled with ...

That's not all complete balls.

Chris Green said

As JonC pointed out earlier in this thread, what the OP's sister observed was survivorship bias - ie the over-75s are slimmer on average because a greater proportion of the overweight population die before 75 than the slim population.  I don't believe this is related to children these days being fatter on average than children in the 1970s/80s or a generation being healthier because of rationing during the 1940s/50s, but both of these phenomena could also be  true…

Not difficult to see evidence, if one wants to.

1970 Isle of Wight festival audience:

Woodstock, 1969

Huw said

Chris Green said

As JonC pointed out earlier in this thread, what the OP's sister observed was survivorship bias - ie the over-75s are slimmer on average because a greater proportion of the overweight population die before 75 than the slim population.  I don't believe this is related to children these days being fatter on average than children in the 1970s/80s or a generation being healthier because of rationing during the 1940s/50s, but both of these phenomena could also be  true…

Not difficult to see evidence, if one wants to.

1970 Isle of Wight festival audience:

Woodstock, 1969

I remember from the 70s and 80s. We ate more "basic" food which had less ingredients and more nutrients per calorie. We also moved waaay more. We were less polluted ( from personal hygiene to pesticides) and the world population was around 3,6 Billion compared todays 8.1. We depleted the soil massively in the 90s and 2000s. Our food has less nutrients per calorie, almost only 1/10 compared to 80s. I have to analyse ingredients all the time and the nutrient density compared to USDA or other Nutrient analysis data from the 90s is frighteningly low. I was in contact with a Dutch expert and scholar (R.I.P JAAP) who was an expert in soil quality and degradation, had hours long discussions with him about this topic. The data he could demonstrate was alarming.

They need much bigger fields for modern pop festivals....

Huw - coincidentally, about a year ago there was a TV documentary about Woodstock; when watching it, the almost complete absence of 'fuller figured' people was very conspicuous.  That was 1969 - less than a generation ago. 

[EDIT - I, too, was slim in those days. Not any more, though. :(]

I'm surprised there is still debate about this. It is obvious that the modern processed food diet is responsible for the obesity crisis. 

All the thinking should be going into how to convince people to make the transitionally from processed food to cooking from scratch.

People say, Oh, modern life doesn't give you the time for that, and yet people still spend on average over two hours per day watching television (statistic doesn't include time spent on line).

I think it's probable the idea that modern life forces you to eat processed food comes from the people who make processed foods. 

It isn't even any good. I tried one of Marks and Spencer's best ever wow my goodness best taste award pies, and it was just about edible. Just.

Mark671 said

People say, Oh, modern life doesn't give you the time for that, and yet people still spend on average over two hours per day watching television (statistic doesn't include time spent on line).

Modern life may not give you the *framework* to do that.

Do you know how many people in the UK live in houses where the only proper kitchen is shared by multiple different families?

The number of licensed HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) is falling but there are still half a million of them. That means at least 2.5 million people and at least 1 million family units, sharing kitchens with people they are not related to. (These figures do not, AFAIK, include shared-house student tenancies and student acommodation).

There's thought to be another 150,000 or so unlicensed HMOs.

So these are places where multiple families are crammed into accommodation not unlike bedsits, where the bathroom is shared, the room may have a hotplate and a tiny fridge, but one large and inadequate kitchen is shared by everyone (and often is part of an open plan space).

(HMO rules even allowed landlords not to count children as "residents" until seven years ago.)

Millions of people in the UK do not have the facilities, full stop, to cook from scratch safely and healthily for their families. Many of these tenants will risk being evicted by unscrupulous landlords if they tried to cook properly in their rooms. 

This explains the popularity of mini fridges and air fryers, which are replacing the crappy little hotplates that bedsit tenants used to use.

Food is politics. Telling people to cook from scratch is an irrelevance to so many until they actually have the ability and the right to.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Huw said

bad john my wife made me promise to give up motorbikes at 20 (she was nursing in Bristol).

After I died on - or more accurately off - my motorbike, my wife was asked why she was letting me ride motorbikes again. She replied that it was my choice and my passion; why would she stop me?

I used to love playing squash when I was in my 20s and was sad to give it up because there weren't any cheap and local facilities.  My ankles love me for it.

I'd like to play it again but at 62 and with many reconstituted bits and other knackered ones, that would not be a good idea.

As to the OP's question, others have nailed it on the head: the over 75s have made it that far probably because they're not overweight or have heart problems.

50 to 60 years old is the sweet point it seems to me: if you make it past that, you may do well.

Oh and I blame McDonalds and the other fast food chains for the rise in obesity.

Edited by RHM.Photo