Out of curiosity...

It's not MAD science...just disappointed.

Moderator: Gav

Postby damp_dave on Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:32 am

Wafath wrote:...eat foods that can be cut with the side of the fork...


And for another personal qurik, I hate cutting things with the side of a fork. I almost always have to use a knife, and it feels kind of weird when I don't. There are some things that a lot of people won't bother getting a knife out for (e.g., pancakes) that I will. I guess it just gives them another reason to look at me oddly... As if they needed another one! ;)

--dd
"I'll take a ride through Beverly Hills, just before dawn
And knock the little jockeys off the rich peoples' lawn
And before they get up, I'll be gone, I'll be gone..." --FZ
User avatar
damp_dave
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2000 12:00 am
Location: Silly-con Valley, CA

Postby towr on Sat Apr 08, 2006 6:12 am

CodeGuy wrote:No, you were right about spreading it out over the day. When someone doesn't eat often, their body thinks it's being starved. You get less energy and more fat storage.
I somehow doubt it.
For one, considering the context in which humans develloped, eating bits the whole day seems unlikely. So it can hardly be prerequisite.
And for goodness sake, we have a stomach to dose the amount of food going into the small intestines, we hardly have to dose it at the mouth as well. Besides, when my stomach's empty, I'll hear it, but that hardly ever happens unless I forget to eat.
I'm just not buying it. And from personal experience, I can say I haven't got any more ( if any) fat storage than others. Not that I'm saying that my case generalised to everyone, one would think there might some variation among people, after all.
It's probably also a matter of having a regular eating pattern, one way or another. My body knows when a new dose of food is due to arrive, no need for it to panic.

Are there even any long term studies on this?
towr
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: groningen,nederland

Postby CodeGuy on Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:21 am

Yes, there were studies from this. I got this from a health magazine.

And it comes *directly* from how humans developed. Humans have spent most of their existence being undernourished. Because of that, our bodies are built to save every last bit of nourishment that they can. Any time you go more than 3 hours without eating, your body shifts it's metabolism away from burning what you ate for energy and towards storing it for later use.
User avatar
CodeGuy
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 12:00 am
Location: LA,CA,USA

Postby the Siliconopolitan on Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:52 pm

It's fascinating to read about this knife/fork thing. I've heard before but forgotten (I seem to recall something about a Usanian spy getting picked up in Germany immediately he sat down to eat - prolly a myth).

What I think is fun is that I worry about how to properly eat dessert with a fork and spoon (just found out I've been doing it wrong), and I actually look askance at people who butter their rolls.

I'm just a right old snob, I suppose.
[i]Si les triangles faisaient un Dieu, ils lui donneraient trois c
User avatar
the Siliconopolitan
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: Odense, Denmark

Postby miss kyri on Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:15 pm

Dessert with a fork and a spoon?

What on earth are ya on about?
miss kyri
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:09 pm

Postby Crystalis on Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:59 am

CodeGuy wrote:Yes, there were studies from this. I got this from a health magazine.

And it comes *directly* from how humans developed. Humans have spent most of their existence being undernourished. Because of that, our bodies are built to save every last bit of nourishment that they can. Any time you go more than 3 hours without eating, your body shifts it's metabolism away from burning what you ate for energy and towards storing it for later use.


Yeah, I remember reading this somewhere, myself. I'll back codeguy on this.
-Proud to be a Sharply Shining Point!
-Schlurper of Newbies!
-OT Pope

Drink to the dead all you still alive,
we shall join them in good time.
Should you go crossing that silvery brook,
it's best to leap before you look.

Under Republicans, man exploits man. Under Democrats, it's just the reverse.
User avatar
Crystalis
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 2172
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Little Rock, AR USA

Postby Gav on Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:20 am

According to the National Institute of Health:

Fact: Studies show that people who skip breakfast and eat fewer times during the day tend to be heavier than people who eat a healthy breakfast and eat four or five times a day. This may be because people who skip meals tend to feel hungrier later on, and eat more than they normally would. It may also be that eating many small meals throughout the day helps people control their appetites.

The implication of this statement is that it has only been shown that people who skip meals tend to weigh more, while people who eat many small meals tend to weigh less, but that the mechanism (or causality) is not really known. It seems to be postulated that the mechanism has to do with the end resulting food intake and not with human metabolism.

So says that one statement.
Last edited by Gav on Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lates...

Darren "Gav" Bleuel
(Nukees, an atomic comic)
User avatar
Gav
Keenspot Whipping Boy
 
Posts: 4024
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 11:59 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA Disposition: pissy

Postby Sidhekin on Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:29 am

I think the assumption is that a more constant blood sugar level leads to less feeling of hunger, and so a smaller consumption in sum.

All I know is that I need my breakfast.
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'

The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
User avatar
Sidhekin
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 11:49 pm
Location: Bergen, Norway

Postby Gav on Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:39 am

Indeed. The important thing to note is that, unlike what many people both here and elsewhere have assumed (myself included), it is not presumed that the body "assumes it's starving and therefore stores more fat per calorie consumed." That's the impression that many "health articles" in newspapers and popular magazines has been giving off.

It brings us back to the only definitively proven method for weight loss, which is the "thermodynamics diet." Ie: Consume fewer calories than you use.
Lates...

Darren "Gav" Bleuel
(Nukees, an atomic comic)
User avatar
Gav
Keenspot Whipping Boy
 
Posts: 4024
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 11:59 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA Disposition: pissy

Postby CodeGuy on Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:51 pm

Sidhekin wrote:I think the assumption is that a more constant blood sugar level leads to less feeling of hunger, and so a smaller consumption in sum.

All I know is that I need my breakfast.


Yes, blood sugar levels is a significant factor in this process. Insulin affects body fat storage.
User avatar
CodeGuy
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 12:00 am
Location: LA,CA,USA

Postby Sidhekin on Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:56 pm

Gav wrote:it is not presumed that the body "assumes it's starving and therefore stores more fat per calorie consumed."

Ah. When you put it like that, I guess I can see it. It just does not specify what mechanism is involved when the body "stores more fat per calorie consumed".

Ignoring imperfections in metabolism: Every calorie consumed is either burnt or stored.

More fat is stored per calorie consumed if a smaller percentage of the calories consumed are burnt (duh). This might happen
  • if our consumption is increased, which might happen because we are hungry, or if you prefer "because our bodies think we're starving", or
  • if our activity is decreased, which might happen because we get tired and sluggish with low blood sugar levels, or if you prefer "because our bodies think we're starving".

Which is not to say that I know more than I did two hours ago -- I'm just guessing.
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'

The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
User avatar
Sidhekin
Keenspot Despot
 
Posts: 1356
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 11:49 pm
Location: Bergen, Norway

Postby towr on Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:09 am

Well, I certainly wouldnt' suggest skipping breakfast.
Although it may just be common wisdom that it's the most important meal of the day rather than science fact.

Lunch on the other hand.. I really don't feel like I could even eat lunch these days; I'm just not hungry at that time any more. I'm adjusted to breakfast and dinner.
I suppose if anyone has a spare kit handy, I could always have a look at my bloodsugar levels throughout the day.. But I'm still betting my stomach does what it's supposed to..
towr
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: groningen,nederland

Postby CodeGuy on Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:34 am

towr wrote:But I'm still betting my stomach does what it's supposed to..


The stomach is a digestive organ, not a storage organ. The stomach doesn't regulate how fast you use food energy or how often you need more food.

Food is actually only in the stomach for about four hours.
User avatar
CodeGuy
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 12:00 am
Location: LA,CA,USA

Postby towr on Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:08 am

CodeGuy wrote:
towr wrote:But I'm still betting my stomach does what it's supposed to..


The stomach is a digestive organ, not a storage organ. The stomach doesn't regulate how fast you use food energy or how often you need more food.
It does some preprocessing, but it hardly absorbs any nutrients from the food. So how often you need more food, does depend on how much it stores and how quickly it releases it to the intestines; since that's where the eventual uptake of nutrients takes place.

Food is actually only in the stomach for about four hours.
(longer if a meal includes fatty foods)
And I'd expect it depends on how much you eat, and it might vary among people quite a bit.
towr
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: groningen,nederland

Postby CodeGuy on Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:29 am

towr wrote:it hardly absorbs any nutrients from the food.


I never said that it did.

towr wrote:So how often you need more food, does depend on how much it stores and how quickly it releases it to the intestines; since that's where the eventual uptake of nutrients takes place.


Nutrients isn't what we're talking about. The discussion up to now has been about energy. Your body gets energy from 3 places: blood sugar, fat, and (if necessary) by breaking down muscles. The human body has certain ways in which it produces these things.

Towr, you keep saying stuff that just isn't true. The stomach breaks down food in preparation for the intestines. That's it. That's all it does. It does it at a set rate depending on the contents, not on how full it is.

If you eat skip lunch your stomach is not going to release food into the intestines any more slowly. Going long times without eating shifts what your body produces to fat instead of to protein.

And of course it'll do that anyway if you eat too much food, which is part of the most important detail of watching your *total* food intake. A lot of people don't like lunch because they eat too big a breakfast, then they get home at night and eat too big a dinner because they're so hungry.

Towr, can you site any sources from *anywhere* backing up the claims you've made? I really think you need to read up on how the body actually works instead of just guessing so much.
User avatar
CodeGuy
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 12:00 am
Location: LA,CA,USA

Postby towr on Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:53 am

CodeGuy wrote:Nutrients isn't what we're talking about. The discussion up to now has been about energy.
I count that among the nutrients, personally..
towr
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: groningen,nederland

Postby towr on Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:37 am

CodeGuy wrote:Towr, can you site any sources from *anywhere* backing up the claims you've made?
I might get back to that, once I figure out what supposedly false claims I made that don't directly relate to my personal experience and dietary habits (which haven't been the subject of scientific research and which thusly I can't refer to articles about)

In the meanwhile, perhaps the caloric restricion article at wikipedia might be of interest.. It also mentions some experiments on eating every other day.. (Which is a rather further leap from foregoing lunch habitually)
towr
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: groningen,nederland

Postby towr on Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:31 am

On how long the food is in the stomach;
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pa ... ansit.html
Remember that these are estimates of average transit times, and there is a great deal of variability among individuals
Doesn't seem to be quite exactly 4 hours.. but I'd still rather know the actual variation.

You'll have to help me to identify all those eroneous claims I've made, cause I can't find anything much I've claimed at all..
towr
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: groningen,nederland

Postby CodeGuy on Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:24 pm

Towr, you've convinced me. I now believe that skipping lunch is quite healthy because the stomach will spread the food from breakfast out over a 10 hour period.

I also believe that gall bladder problems come from having too much black bile and not enough yellow bile, and I believe that headaches are caused by a little gnome with a hammer in my head.

Also, by paying attention to how much gas I needed to give my car, I figured out all the details of how a catalytic converter works.

Thanks for clearing everything up, Towr!
User avatar
CodeGuy
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 12:00 am
Location: LA,CA,USA

Postby towr on Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:09 am

CodeGuy wrote:Towr, you've convinced me. I now believe that skipping lunch is quite healthy because the stomach will spread the food from breakfast out over a 10 hour period.
Ah, what a shame, and just after you convinced me that I must be fat, lethargic and starving all day. And that for the past six years without me noticing..
And that depite humanity never having had 5 meals aday for millions of years, that we must nevertheless have evolved such that it's the only way we can survive in good health..
towr
Grand Poobah Keenspotter
 
Posts: 606
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: groningen,nederland

Postby miss kyri on Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:52 am

towr wrote:
CodeGuy wrote:Towr, you've convinced me. I now believe that skipping lunch is quite healthy because the stomach will spread the food from breakfast out over a 10 hour period.
Ah, what a shame, and just after you convinced me that I must be fat, lethargic and starving all day. And that for the past six years without me noticing..
And that depite humanity never having had 5 meals aday for millions of years, that we must nevertheless have evolved such that it's the only way we can survive in good health..


As long as were being sarcastic can we be sarcastic about things that were actually said and not some random quasi-related things?

*shakes head*
miss kyri
Keenspotter Supreme
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:09 pm

 
Previous

Return to Nukees

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests