Weight loss through cycling

[clackers]

Check out the BBC Horizon documentary, Why are thin people not fat? http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com.a ... t-fat.html

Please don't tell me we're going by yet another TV program, CasualCyclist!

The methodology is appalling.

Perhaps it's because of my background in physical sciences, but these "experiments" violate fundamental principles of controlling variables and even sampling sizes.

Let's take just the first linked article at the end of that blog you refer to.

Sample sizes typically have to be in the hundreds to be meaningful. You don't need many test subjects if the quantity you're trying to measure does not vary very much (all the formulas for determining this involve the standard deviation), but as a proxy quantity, BMR in people can average around 1500 and according to Wikipedia might be as low as 1000 and as high as 2400, so you will need an extremely large number of guinea pigs.

I can imagine that for a drug to be certified by the FDA or to end up on the PBS, it may be that thousands of participants have to be tested before sign-off happens.

But this was sixteen individuals ... sheesh!

All too typical, I'm afraid, of 'studies' promoting this wonder product or method versus that.

Often, self-reporting is the way the evidence is collected, which as Winston has pointed out, can make the whole thing almost worthless.

Now, I understand that that's often the only way a PhD candidate can afford their study, but hey, cheap science can be bad science!

The experiment was to take naturally thin people, up their food intake to 5,000 kcal and see what happens ...

That eating more will have anything more than a short term and limited effect on BMR has definitely not been found, not even by the following academic study, which again suffers from a sample size of sixteen. (What is it with these people??? And why do their results, which might usefully act as suggestions for a real study, get publicized? And why do people lap them up reading them?)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16741271

The "Do More, Eat Less" is the received wisdom, as the Australian Institute of Sport points out, wisely steering clear of the various prescriptive (and seemingly religious) ways of reducing calories (Atkins vs Veganism vs Paleo, etc).

http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition ... eight_loss

[clackers]

So given food calories are determined by burning... Do we consider the way the human body actually absorbs the energy?

Not quite sure what you mean, Comedian.

If you mean what happens after consumption, your glycogen is topped up, you're constantly burning at your BMR, you're doing physical activity, and anything not burnt is converted to fat, around 8,000 calories each kilo ... waste not, want not! (The Tour de France riders, Paul and Phil remind us, consume about 7,000 calories a day and are in danger of losing weight ... hmm, must be something they're doing!)

If you want to really try to calorie count, you can make your model of it a little more sophisticated by deducting IIRC 10% off your carbs, 20% off your protein and 2% off your fat because of the energy required to digest them.

You would also then need to subtract those amounts from your BMR otherwise you're double counting, since digestion is traditionally part of that number.

[casual_cyclist]

So given food calories are determined by burning... Do we consider the way the human body actually absorbs the energy?

That's old - it's done through computer modelling these days (info from sogood years ago). What it doesn't take into account is digestion cost (processing) and digestion efficiency (the specific bacteria in your large intestine) which determine how much energy value you get from those calories. Throw in the individuals response to calories (metabolic response etc.)... Calories is just a general indicator.

I agree. I'm not sure it's a particularly useful indicator either. The other thing about calories is that there is a limit to how much energy that can be exctracted from a "meal". Using rice for example, if you ate 1 cup, you could extract a certain amount of energy, I'm not sure that 2 cups would give you twice the amount of energy but I am sure that 4 cups would not give you 4 times the energy (calories). Eat 4 cups of rice in a meal and you are going to waste some of that because that is more food than your body can process at once. Ok, maybe I am wrong about the amount but at some point there is a diminishing return in increasing the volume. I don't actually know if it is 3 cups, 4 cups, 5 cups or more. It also may vary between different people.

[casual_cyclist]

Back to sugar bashing. http://gameauland.com/thatsugarfilm/whatisthesugarfilm

As part of the film, our host and director, Damon Gameau, who has eaten little to no sugar in the past 2 years is putting himself through a 'Super Size Me' inspired adventure of consuming 40 teaspoons of sugar per day found in common food and drinks. This is only marginally above the average daily amount consumed by teenagers world wide.

Watch the trailer here: http://gameauland.com/that-sugar-film-teaser-trailer/

He is also blogging his mad experiement day by day with day one starting here: http://gameauland.com/thatsugarfilm/2013/8/1/day-1

Makes for fascinating reading. I find this experiement REALLY interesting. Some thoughts so far:
- there is so much refined sugar added to "normal" foods, even savoury foods like chicken tonight
- people seem to drink a lot of calories
- 18 teaspoons for a low fat smoothie is LOADS!
- excess sugar may cause sleeplessness but sleepiness may cause people to eat more sugar
- when he put actual sugar on his food, he threw up by the end of the day even though he didn't eat more sugar than a lot of people do in a day. How come if people eat it in thier food they don't throw up but if you add it to food they do?
- "and I pretended to go to the toilet but secretly scoffed my raspberry banana muffin and lipton iced tea lime flavoured beverage perched on the toilet seat"
- "Shorter fuse, less patience, not as alert or present and very quick to fatigue". I was not aware the excess sugar consumption could make someone so cranky!
- serving sizes on packets and containers are actually a joke
- people commenting that they hope he is under medical supervision when he is not eating more sugar than a lot of the general public... who are not under medical supervision for eating what they see as "normal food"

Seriously though, there seems to be a LOT of sugar in processed foods. Something has gone seriously wrong with our food supply. It is no wonder so many people are fat.

[clackers]

The other thing about calories is that there is a limit to how much energy that can be exctracted from a "meal". Using rice for example, if you ate 1 cup, you could extract a certain amount of energy, I'm not sure that 2 cups would give you twice the amount of energy but I am sure that 4 cups would not give you 4 times the energy (calories). Eat 4 cups of rice in a meal and you are going to waste some of that because that is more food than your body can process at once. Ok, maybe I am wrong about the amount but at some point there is a diminishing return in increasing the volume. I don't actually know if it is 3 cups, 4 cups, 5 cups or more. It also may vary between different people.

Certainly, CC, a bit of a race happens.

Your body can process say, 70g of the starch in that rice (most of the weight of many foods is water, of course) in an hour.

Digestion takes place over several hours, naturally, but if material remains undigested by the time it passes bacteria further down the intestines, they have an unexpected feed and bloating/cramps can be the result.

People who are fructose intolerant know all about this - they have trouble processing it fast enough.

[casual_cyclist]

The other thing about calories is that there is a limit to how much energy that can be exctracted from a "meal". Using rice for example, if you ate 1 cup, you could extract a certain amount of energy, I'm not sure that 2 cups would give you twice the amount of energy but I am sure that 4 cups would not give you 4 times the energy (calories). Eat 4 cups of rice in a meal and you are going to waste some of that because that is more food than your body can process at once. Ok, maybe I am wrong about the amount but at some point there is a diminishing return in increasing the volume. I don't actually know if it is 3 cups, 4 cups, 5 cups or more. It also may vary between different people.

Certainly, CC, a bit of a race happens.

Your body can process say, 70g of the starch in that rice (most of the weight of many foods is water, of course) in an hour.

Digestion takes place over hours, of course, but if material remains undigested by the time it passes bacteria further down the intestines, they have an unexpected feed and bloating/cramps can be the result.

People who are fructose intolerant know all about this - they can't process it at all.

I wonder if this is what is happening with the 30BAD people. Perhaps they are consuming such a volume of a particular food that they can't extract all of the calories from that food. It would certainly help to explain why people who are claiming to eat 4,000 or 5,000 calories a day but are using much less energy than that are not gaining weight.

[clackers]

I wonder if this is what is happening with the 30BAD people. Perhaps they are consuming such a volume of a particular food that they can't extract all of the calories from that food. It would certainly help to explain why people who are claiming to eat 4,000 or 5,000 calories a day but are using much less energy than that are not gaining weight.

While it's possible, they haven't indicated bad digestion.

Nail on head I think is your simpler possibility that their claims might not bear a rigorous Price Waterhouse audit.

A couple of the anti obesity treatments involve drugs rendering you unable to process fat ... it comes out the tradesman's entrance.

Filmmaker Kevin Smith (Clerks, Mallrats, et al) described his traumatizing time on the medication. He said it worked but you couldn't trust the resulting flatulence and it was unwise to go anywhere without a spare pair of underpants.

[Comedian]

So given food calories are determined by burning... Do we consider the way the human body actually absorbs the energy?

That's old - it's done through computer modelling these days (info from sogood years ago). What it doesn't take into account is digestion cost (processing) and digestion efficiency (the specific bacteria in your large intestine) which determine how much energy value you get from those calories. Throw in the individuals response to calories (metabolic response etc.)... Calories is just a general indicator.

I agree. I'm not sure it's a particularly useful indicator either. The other thing about calories is that there is a limit to how much energy that can be exctracted from a "meal". Using rice for example, if you ate 1 cup, you could extract a certain amount of energy, I'm not sure that 2 cups would give you twice the amount of energy but I am sure that 4 cups would not give you 4 times the energy (calories). Eat 4 cups of rice in a meal and you are going to waste some of that because that is more food than your body can process at once. Ok, maybe I am wrong about the amount but at some point there is a diminishing return in increasing the volume. I don't actually know if it is 3 cups, 4 cups, 5 cups or more. It also may vary between different people.

That's what I was getting at! Just because food A when burnt gives X calories - doesn't mean it's digested that way. Food B might give off less energy when burnt but be more efficiently processed by the body so actually gives you more energy.

[toolonglegs]

If having basically fruit smoothies... 2 600Kcal smoothies within in 60-90min for breakie... how much can the body realistically process and how much just passes through being that it is basically liquid sugar?.
I sit in the office a hell of a lot more than I used to!.

[clackers]

That's what I was getting at! Just because food A when burnt gives X calories - doesn't mean it's digested that way. Food B might give off less energy when burnt but be more efficiently processed by the body so actually gives you more energy.

Doesn't work that way, Comedian.

You're burning fat or glycogen.

Basically, the foods you're taking in are converted into these common currencies.

Why two?

Because the fat requires so much oxygen to burn it can't provide for your athletic feats.

The glycogen is a useful buffer that is super responsive and can work with or without enough oxygen - it's a two trick pony!

[casual_cyclist]

If having basically fruit smoothies... 2 600Kcal smoothies within in 60-90min for breakie... how much can the body realistically process and how much just passes through being that it is basically liquid sugar?.
I sit in the office a hell of a lot more than I used to!.

That's exactly what I want to know. You would have to test it in a controlled environment and repeat on a large enough sample of people.... expensive! But the results would be really, really interesting. My view is that there would likely be a wide range of individual responses.

[clackers]

If having basically fruit smoothies... 2 600Kcal smoothies within in 60-90min for breakie... how much can the body realistically process and how much just passes through being that it is basically liquid sugar?.
I sit in the office a hell of a lot more than I used to!.

It's not coming through unprocessed, TLL.

Otherwise your Khyber Pass would be experiencing terrible symptoms familiar to those with lactose intolerance.

1200 calories is a huge amount if your lifestyle is less active than it used to be.

Could you manage with just one of those smoothies each morning?

The attraction is you could lose a pound a week ... (yep, they're that fattening, never mind how natural they are).

[casual_cyclist]

Sugar Toxic to Mice in 'Safe' Doses, Test Finds

"Our results provide evidence that added sugar consumed at concentrations currently considered safe exerts dramatic adverse impacts on mammalian health," the researchers say in a study set for online publication Tuesday, Aug. 13 in the journal Nature Communications.

This has interesting implication for those "experts" who are making the claim that sugar is not "toxic".

"We have shown that levels of sugar that people typically consume -- and that are considered safe by regulatory agencies -- impair the health of mice."

Should we be concerned about something that is toxic to mice? Not necessarily. On the other hand, considering that refined sugar added to food is nonnutritive (provides energy but not nutrition), it is difficult to see the justification for not reducing levels to below dietary guidelines.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111722.htm

[casual_cyclist]

How do studies on mice relate to humans? This study is really interesting and provides evidence that in mice the timing of food is more important in regulating body weight than the number of calories consumed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084430.htm

While these studies are interesting, they are not particularly useful unless replicated in humans. In one followup study:

Follow up in a human study indicates that "Eating late may influence the success of weight-loss therapy. Novel therapeutic strategies should incorporate not only the caloric intake and macronutrient distribution—as is classically done—but also the timing of food."

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v37/n ... 2229a.html

This supports the idea that the timing of calories might be more important than the number of calories.

Another study compared a larger breakfast in one group (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) with a larger dinner in another group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner).

The study found that

The BF group showed greater weight loss and waist circumference reduction. Although fasting glucose, insulin, and ghrelin were reduced in both groups, fasting glucose, insulin, and HOMA-IR decreased significantly to a greater extent in the BF group. Mean triglyceride levels decreased by 33.6% in the BF group, but increased by 14.6% in the D group. Oral glucose tolerance test led to a greater decrease of glucose and insulin in the BF group. In response to meal challenges, the overall daily glucose, insulin, ghrelin, and mean hunger scores were significantly lower, whereas mean satiety scores were significantly higher in the BF group.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0/abstract

I would conclude that early research supports the idea that timing of calories is important in managing body weight but that followup research is needed. I would also like to look at the results of studies that indicate that timing of calories is not important to see how the study design differed from those above but can't be bothered doing a search.

[clackers]

This has interesting implication for those "experts" who are making the claim that sugar is not "toxic".

While I think 'toxic' is an inflammatory word, there's no doubt it's overused in a lot of purchased foods.

The above example smoothie may contain three different types, including lactose in the milk.

That different metabolizing paths are used explains how a sports gel can give you an extra boost - they can contain both sucrose and fructose.

[twizzle]

Another study compared a larger breakfast in one group (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) with a larger dinner in another group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner).

I know I linked somewhere previously re. insulin response and timing, that showed that insulin responses to food in the morning are higher than at other times of the day, the useful infomation being that food timing has an effect on hormonal response. The suggestion from the article was to have that first meal mainly as protein rather than carbs to reduce the amount of calories being deposited as fat.

[cyclotaur]

Another study compared a larger breakfast in one group (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) with a larger dinner in another group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner).

Also ...

Results
The BF group showed greater weight loss and waist circumference reduction. Although fasting glucose, insulin, and ghrelin were reduced in both groups, fasting glucose, insulin, and HOMA-IR decreased significantly to a greater extent in the BF group. Mean triglyceride levels decreased by 33.6% in the BF group, but increased by 14.6% in the D group. Oral glucose tolerance test led to a greater decrease of glucose and insulin in the BF group. In response to meal challenges, the overall daily glucose, insulin, ghrelin, and mean hunger scores were significantly lower, whereas mean satiety scores were significantly higher in the BF group.
Conclusions
High-calorie breakfast with reduced intake at dinner is beneficial and might be a useful alternative for the management of obesity and metabolic syndrome.

So the old adage applies? - "Breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dine like a pauper."

[toolonglegs]

If having basically fruit smoothies... 2 600Kcal smoothies within in 60-90min for breakie... how much can the body realistically process and how much just passes through being that it is basically liquid sugar?.
I sit in the office a hell of a lot more than I used to!.

It's not coming through unprocessed, TLL.

Otherwise your Khyber Pass would be experiencing terrible symptoms familiar to those with lactose intolerance.

1200 calories is a huge amount if your lifestyle is less active than it used to be.

Could you manage with just one of those smoothies each morning?

The attraction is you could lose a pound a week ... (yep, they're that fattening, never mind how natural they are).

If I cut one out I would be hungry... I have a fair few days only on smoothies and fruit / salad.... It seriously takes a huge amount to full you up. I am having a hot meal most evenings, very low fat... Basically Indian type dishes, sometimes with rice.
If I cut out anymore I would be losing weight too quickly, still doing 300-350 kms per week fairly hard.

[casual_cyclist]

If having basically fruit smoothies... 2 600Kcal smoothies within in 60-90min for breakie... how much can the body realistically process and how much just passes through being that it is basically liquid sugar?.
I sit in the office a hell of a lot more than I used to!.

It's not coming through unprocessed, TLL.

Otherwise your Khyber Pass would be experiencing terrible symptoms familiar to those with lactose intolerance.

1200 calories is a huge amount if your lifestyle is less active than it used to be.

Could you manage with just one of those smoothies each morning?

The attraction is you could lose a pound a week ... (yep, they're that fattening, never mind how natural they are).

If I cut one out I would be hungry... I have a fair few days only on smoothies and fruit / salad.... It seriously takes a huge amount to full you up. I am having a hot meal most evenings, very low fat... Basically Indian type dishes, sometimes with rice.
If I cut out anymore I would be losing weight too quickly, still doing 300-350 kms per week fairly hard.

But your "smoothies" don't have milk (lactose) right? clackers, did you think this was a milk based smoothie?

[toolonglegs]

No, just fruit... don't think clackers thought there was milk in there though.

[casual_cyclist]

In Programmed to be Fat we ask the question: Are chemicals, not calories, making us fat?

Eat less, move more. That’s been the prevailing weight-loss strategy for years now, but even obesity experts acknowledge that few people who lose weight manage to keep it off.

Meanwhile, in research labs, frogs, mice and zebra fish exposed to minuscule amounts of estrogen replacement drugs, dioxins, bisphenol A and other chemicals are getting fat – very fat.
More related to this story

The phenomenon is so striking that some scientists believe that common chemicals, dubbed obesogens, are messing with our hormonal systems and the natural balance of “calories in, calories out.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le4085893/

This early days and the documentary is upfront that this is "controversial new science" and "is raising suspicion". Still, it will be interesting to watch.

http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episod ... e-fat.html

[clackers]

If I cut out anymore I would be losing weight too quickly

Okay. People would be jealous of that situation, but it's not desirable either.

[clackers]

No, just fruit... don't think clackers thought there was milk in there though.

I did, so let's make that *two* sugar types.

(Goes back to banana, milk and honey smoothie)

[clackers]

This early days and the documentary is upfront that this is "controversial new science" and "is raising suspicion". Still, it will be interesting to watch.

Well, I'll be interested too ... but only when a 'cause of the day' has clinical trials with results replicated across different researchers.

Researchers prematurely going to the press (seeking publicity and funding) happens in the physical sciences alright (check cold fusion and NASA life on Mars scandals), but it's rampant in the medical fields.

If you accept one miracle back pain cure, accept 'em all, I say.

[toolonglegs]

I have a female friend who is literally addicted to one of the most "chemically" products around... Diet Coke. She drinks close to 4 liters a day... No other fluids whatsoever . She isn't skinny ( nor is she obese ) .