Saturated fat helps insulate your nerves and optimizes the immune system

CausticSymmetry Sun Sep 05, 2010 8:07 am

misterE - Refined sugars and refined carbohydrate most likely. If you mix ultra healthy saturated fat with a poison like refined sugar, then that can help, but saturated fat isn't need to make the visceral fat.

Processes fats we agree are bad.

misterE Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:04 am

CausticSymmetry wrote:misterE - Refined sugars and refined carbohydrate most likely. If you mix ultra healthy saturated fat with a poison like refined sugar, then that can help, but saturated fat isn't need to make the visceral fat.

What about these studies that show carbohydrates (yes, even sugar) does not turn into body-fat?

[1] De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects.
[2] Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man.
[3] Effect of carbohydrate overfeeding on whole body and adipose tissue metabolism in humans.
[4] De novo lipogenesis during controlled overfeeding with sucrose or glucose in lean and obese women.

blackjack Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:42 am

Since carbs dont make me fat, im going to eat cake all day tommorow.

CausticSymmetry Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:54 am

misterE - For fun, I decided to take a look at one of your references.

Sure enough it was from 1988. And not unusual in the sense that the study proved the opposite of the stated opinion.

So I list will list the study and then explain it.

Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man
KJ Acheson, Y Schutz, T Bessard, K Anantharaman, JP Flatt and E Jequier
Institute of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

The metabolic balance method was performed on three men to investigate the fate of large excesses of carbohydrate. Glycogen stores, which were first depleted by diet (3 d, 8.35 +/- 0.27 MJ [1994 +/- 65 kcal] decreasing to 5.70 +/- 1.03 MJ [1361 +/- 247 kcal], 15% protein, 75% fat, 10% carbohydrate) and exercise, were repleted during 7 d carbohydrate overfeeding (11% protein, 3% fat, and 86% carbohydrate) providing 15.25 +/- 1.10 MJ (3642 +/- 263 kcal) on the first day, increasing progressively to 20.64 +/- 1.30 MJ (4930 +/- 311 kcal) on the last day of overfeeding. Glycogen depletion was again accomplished with 2 d of carbohydrate restriction (2.52 MJ/d [602 kcal/d], 85% protein, and 15% fat). Glycogen storage capacity in man is approximately 15 g/kg body weight and can accommodate a gain of approximately 500 g before net lipid synthesis contributes to increasing body fat mass. When the glycogen stores are saturated, massive intakes of carbohydrate are disposed of by high carbohydrate- oxidation rates and substantial de novo lipid synthesis (150 g lipid/d using approximately 475 g CHO/d) without postabsorptive hyperglycemia.

In "English" this means that once your glycogen stores are depleted, the energy potential converts into brand new fat storage.

Further, the muscles store about 400 grams of glycogen (assuming they are completely empty) and the liver stores about 80 grams (also assuming it is empty). The brain stores none, since it uses glucose immediately.

So if one simply eats a modest amount of carbohydrate and/or sugar, it will convert to fat when the glycogen storage capacity is full. This is very easy to do and does not require a massive amount of food.

If you exercise like a Pritikin-programmed rabbit, or a hamster on a treadmill, there is a way to prevent the new fat if glycogen can be used for energy before it is full.

CausticSymmetry Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:07 pm

Thought I'd show what a real hamburger looks like, since some I've seen some unflattering pictures on this thread designed to make a healthy food look unappealing.

Behold, a grass-fed burger! Contains Carnosine, a powerful anti-glycating, anti-aging nutrient. Could be one of the reasons why vegetarians have higher AGE's. And grass-fed contains high CLA and carnitine for lean muscle mass.

"the fat you eat is the fat you wear" - Page 5 Zzzzzz10

"the fat you eat is the fat you wear" - Page 5 Zzzzzz10

thissucks Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:28 pm

CausticSymmetry wrote:misterE - For fun, I decided to take a look at one of your references.

Sure enough it was from 1988. And not unusual in the sense that the study proved the opposite of the stated opinion.

CausticSymmetry wrote:
In "English" this means that once your glycogen stores are depleted, the energy potential converts into brand new fat storage.

Hahahaha! Seriously misterE, why do you keep insisting on posting these old studies and embarrassing yourself? Shocked

Mr. Clean Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:47 pm

Humans are not natural meat eaters it seems...

http://www.imminst.org/forum/topic/42588-why-humans-arent-designed-to-eat-meat/

1. Humans have no natural desire to consume meat.

We have no "taste" for it. When people think of eating meat, they immediately think of barbequed ribs or a filet mignon from Outback. Carnivores are primarily after the nutrient-rich organs. If someone were to put a bowl of cherries and a pig's pancreas side by side, which one are you going for?

2. Humans have no natural capability to consume meat.

Leave your ripped up caveman theories at the door. In the wild, humans are epic fail in the carnivore arena. Comparatively speaking, we aren't strong, we aren't fast, we can't smell, we can't see at night, we can't jump high, we can't swim naturally, we can't stay quiet enough to hunt, we have no claws and our teeth and jaws are useless. And, most importantly, unlike all carnivores, we have no hunting or killing instinct. It's a different story when some cute waitress brings your kill to the table with a bottle of K.C. Masterpiece.

All carnivores are capable of killing at birth or shortly thereafter. For the first 13 years of life it is highly unlikely that a human male (much less, a female) could have a prayer of getting hold of a wild animal and killing it. And this is when you are growing the most!

3. Our digestive tracts aren't designed for it.
I won't go too much into this one as there is tons of information on this. Just try swallowing fresh, raw meat whole. Better yet, give it to an infant.

4. Meat is not nutritionally imperative to humans.
All ten essential amino acids as well as every other nutrient for optimum health are found in plants. You get your protein the same place the animals get it - from foods that grow out of the ground. There is a huge misconception about this as the vast majority of people have no understanding of how amino acids work. They believe that not eating meat cannot be "healthy" because of the flabby vegetarian with no energy they see at the office. It should be noted that most vegetarians eat like crap.

Mr. Clean Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:53 pm

Fat that is consumed via a low carb diet DOES get stored as flab.

http://weight-loss-methods.suite101.com/article.cfm/why-does-a-low-carb-diet-plan-stop-working

Fat Storage Low Carb Diet Misunderstandings

Many low carb dieters believe they cannot store dietary fat on a low carb diet without high insulin levels, that low insulin always creates a favorable environment for fatty acid mobilization and utilization. However, fat storage and mobilization are accomplished quite differently.

When fats are eaten, Acylation Stimulating Protein, or ASP, rises significantly. This rise does not occur from glucose. Elevated ASP levels are independent of insulin and cause all dietary fats not immediately needed for fuel to be stored in fat cells. This is opposite to the way insulin stays unchanged from eating fats and rises from glucose levels.

MisterE, even if someone eats a high sugar diet that is low in protein and low in fat, they can still be very flabby Razz

blackjack Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:08 pm

Carnivores are primarily after the nutrient-rich organs. If someone were to put a bowl of cherries and a pig's pancreas side by side, which one are you going for?

That's only because we have been conditioned to eat sweet fruit over organ meats...

Traditional people would always pick meat over plant foods.

blackjack Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:09 pm

Comparison Between the Digestive Tracts of a Carnivore, a Herbivore and Man
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html

Guest Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:10 pm

If anybody questions why I decided to suddenly leave Immortalhair.org, this time-wasting bullshit would be a very astute guess.

blackjack Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:11 pm

All carnivores are capable of killing at birth or shortly thereafter. For the first 13 years of life it is highly unlikely that a human male (much less, a female) could have a prayer of getting hold of a wild animal and killing it. And this is when you are growing the most!

True, but it's very easy to catch insects, fish, small reptiles, and small game.

When your entire life depends on catching/hunting your skill level is quite amazing even at young ages.

Mr. Clean Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:20 pm

action<reaction wrote:If anybody questions why I decided to suddenly leave Immortalhair.org, this time-wasting bullshit would be a very astute guess.

Would you like some cheese ...with your whine? Razz

CausticSymmetry Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:49 pm

Attention:

In the interest of keeping this forum only on hair issues can we stop the diet debates?

I really doubt that anyone is going to change their opinions.

If this keeps up, I'll have no choice but to ban. This forum was once an exclusive place to talk about hair loss using natural methods. As the founder, I intend to keep it that way.

Mr. Clean Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:03 pm

Don't worry CS. Every since that damn Nausicaan stabbed me through the heart - after they - cheated during a game of dom-jot, I figured out it is wise to avoid unnecessary and pointless bickering over the insignificant details Razz

misterE Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:28 am

CausticSymmetry wrote:

In "English" this means that once your glycogen stores are depleted, the energy potential converts into brand new fat storage.

Once instant energy needs are met and glycogen is full only then does a small amount of carbohydrates turn into triglycerides, which are then shoved in the fat-cells for the next famine… agreed?

Remember that one gram of fat is more than twice the concentration of calories than carbohydrate. Plus don't forget dietary-fats aren't the preferred fuel for the brains, muscles, or Krebs-cycle and are not used instantly for energy like carbohydrates and come as a secondary source of fuel; an emergency source if you will, plus dietary-fats can't be stored as glycogen either. So what happens? It turns directly into body-fat, increasing estrogen, inflammation and insulin-resistance.

CausticSymmetry wrote:

So if one simply eats a modest amount of carbohydrate and/or sugar, it will convert to fat when the glycogen storage capacity is full. This is very easy to do and does not require a massive amount of food.

It is not easy to do on a high-fiber diet. It would be very hard to due on a diet rich is vegetables, beans, rice, and potatoes. Dietary-fiber fills you up without much calories, stabilizes blood-sugar and reduces the estrogen load.

Soda-pop on the other hand has no fiber and is easy to over consume, dirking about five 12oz cans of coca-cola is enough empty-carbs to meet your instant energy needs and fill up your glycogen stores with enough left over to force the body to produce some triglycerides without any protective fiber, phytonutrients, vitamins or minerals.

However it is more fattening to eat one tablespoon of coconut-oil or olive-oil than it is to drink five coca-colas. Yes the five coca-colas have much more calories, but for the reasons we agree with mentioned above, the sugar in the coca-cola is not directly stored as body-fat unlike the oil.

misterE Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:33 am

CausticSymmetry wrote:

Behold, a grass-fed burger! Contains Carnosine, a powerful anti-glycating, anti-aging nutrient. Could be one of the reasons why vegetarians have higher AGE's. And grass-fed contains high CLA and carnitine for lean muscle mass.

Don't forget the SHBG lowering animal-protein, estrogenic animal-fat, oxidized-fat, oxidized-cholesterol and heterocyclic-amines!

DM5 Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:40 am

Mr. E-

This is your last warning.............................................................................. Your posts don't add up. They are quoted verbatim from Mcdougal. Then they are quoted out of context as you persist once you are proven wrong. This is not good for new forum members and will be tolerated no longer! No more misleading! I have given you numerous chances to move the forum forward but you would rather play ego and keep us lagging.

Stop now or be gone!

misterE Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:08 am

CausticSymmetry wrote:Attention:

In the interest of keeping this forum only on hair issues can we stop the diet debates?

I really doubt that anyone is going to change their opinions.

If this keeps up, I'll have no choice but to ban. This forum was once an exclusive place to talk about hair loss using natural methods. As the founder, I intend to keep it that way.

CS, I'm know you agree that diet plays a very huge role in the onset and hormonal regulation of baldness, so my argument is that our discussion of diet is very crucial for hair-growth. My views (even thou alternative to the views of the majority of the people on the forum) should be available to newcomers. Debates are great, this is not a bad-thing. People need to hear both sides, that way they can make up their own mind. Not even hairlosstalk.com would ban me for something like this, because over there huge debates go on and they know it is good (think I'm bad, try debating with Bryan Shelton...good grief). They banned me because another member and I realized they were sponsored by Merck-pharmaceuticals. This forum would be absolutely useless if people can't share their view without persecution... and that is what also makes the site so great; this site fractals off here and there into overlaying subjects (diet, supplements, exercise, genetics, Monsanto, nano-bacteria, spirituality, holistic-medicine, etc.)

TheFunkyStumpfighter Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:31 am

You don't have views, you have McDougall's views. People have gone well out of their way for months now to show you why these views are inaccurate at best, and downright misleading at worst, but you simply ignore any attempts at discussion or simple education and move on to the next thread with the same set of comments proven wrong in the last one. This is not about "persecution", this is about you being either too stubborn or too dull to learn from the people you try to force your views on.

Also, I've seen your posts on the other sites. You were well on your way to getting banned over there far before you decided to bring up the Merck thing, and for the same reason you are well on your way from getting banned here. Of course, you seem to be incapable of learning from your own actions, so you will likely just go somewhere else and claim the people here, on the most progressive natural hair loss forum on the net, persecuted you for your views.

Get off of your cross.

ubraj Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:34 am

CausticSymmetry wrote:Attention:

In the interest of keeping this forum only on hair issues can we stop the diet debates?

I really doubt that anyone is going to change their opinions.

If this keeps up, I'll have no choice but to ban. This forum was once an exclusive place to talk about hair loss using natural methods. As the founder, I intend to keep it that way.

Here is a good article and what's in bold is important for those that disagree like what happened last time.

Excerpts from the article
"Internet Trolls"
Copyright © 2001 by Timothy Campbell
July 13 2001 Edition
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

What is an Internet Troll?

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Why does it Matter?

Some people -- particularly those who have been online for years -- are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.

<...snip...>
The Webmaster's Challenge

When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed -- more on this later.

The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.

Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the Webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.

Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?

Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself.

What about Free Speech?

When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.

While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.

Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.

The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.

When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.

The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbor has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

Directo Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:30 am

misterE wrote: People need to hear both sides

You too. And you don't.

misterE wrote:This forum would be absolutely useless if people can't share their view without persecution..

Poor MisterE, he is persecuted
Keep arguing, you will lose at this game because you are not here for share your view but bring your bullshits and then ignoring argument from others.

Lord_Justin13 Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:20 pm

Looks kind of like a group stoning to me. Neutral

zerx Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:12 pm

misterE wrote:
CS, I'm know you agree that showing off how many studies I can google plays a very huge role in the onset and growth of my ego, so my argument is that our discussion of diet is very crucial for my ego. My views (even thou alternative to the views of the majority of the idiots on the forum) should be available to newcomers so that they know of me! Debates are great, this is not a bad-thing. People need to hear both sides especially mine, that way they can make up their own mind and become vegans ASAP. Not even hairlosstalk.com would ban me for something like this, because over there huge egos are welcomed and they know Im the best (think I'm bad, try debating with Bryan Shelton...what an amateur). They banned me because another member and I, after googling some studies on ego boosting drugs, accidentally realized they were sponsored by Merck-pharmaceuticals. This forum would be absolutely useless if people can't hang out without knowing how awesome veganism is... and that (veganism) is what also makes the site so great; this site fractals off here and there into overlaying subjects (diet, supplements, exercise, genetics, Monsanto, nano-bacteria, spirituality, holistic-medicine, and other random things I know through google)

Unbelievable!

tonyj Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:44 pm

misterE wrote:
CausticSymmetry wrote:Attention:

In the interest of keeping this forum only on hair issues can we stop the diet debates?

I really doubt that anyone is going to change their opinions.

If this keeps up, I'll have no choice but to ban. This forum was once an exclusive place to talk about hair loss using natural methods. As the founder, I intend to keep it that way.

CS, I'm know you agree that diet plays a very huge role in the onset and hormonal regulation of baldness, so my argument is that our discussion of diet is very crucial for hair-growth. My views (even thou alternative to the views of the majority of the people on the forum) should be available to newcomers. Debates are great, this is not a bad-thing. People need to hear both sides, that way they can make up their own mind. Not even hairlosstalk.com would ban me for something like this, because over there huge debates go on and they know it is good (think I'm bad, try debating with Bryan Shelton...good grief). They banned me because another member and I realized they were sponsored by Merck-pharmaceuticals. This forum would be absolutely useless if people can't share their view without persecution... and that is what also makes the site so great; this site fractals off here and there into overlaying subjects (diet, supplements, exercise, genetics, Monsanto, nano-bacteria, spirituality, holistic-medicine, etc.)

Bizarre rantings and ravings. Maybe MisterE is better off just quoting McDougall's newsletter or website.

Sponsored content

"the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Saturated fat helps insulate your nerves and optimizes the immune system

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Saturated fat helps insulate your nerves and optimizes the immune system

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"

Re: "the fat you eat is the fat you wear"