RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,644
Posts: 5,427,998
Members: 24,811
Currently online: 516
Newest member: Damix

TrekToday headlines

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 23 2013, 06:27 AM   #61
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Wouldn't a soma manufacturer just erase the history of the previous drug called soma and make up a fake one, perhaps linked to the war in East Asia? Besides, their customer base doesn't have the attention span to get to the bottom of a Wiki page.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2013, 09:43 AM   #62
Deckerd
Fleet Arse
 
Deckerd's Avatar
 
Location: the Frozen Wastes
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

stj wrote: View Post

Except....practically everyone here talking about how they lost weight is also talking about their exercise regimen. Well, the simple physics also shows that exercise has nothing to do with weight loss.
That's far too simplistic. If you do more exercise you burn more calories. That's a fact.
__________________
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Deckerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23 2013, 05:40 PM   #63
GalaxyX
Rear Admiral
 
GalaxyX's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Deckerd wrote: View Post
stj wrote: View Post

Except....practically everyone here talking about how they lost weight is also talking about their exercise regimen. Well, the simple physics also shows that exercise has nothing to do with weight loss.
That's far too simplistic. If you do more exercise you burn more calories. That's a fact.
From a mathematical point of view it's simple. To lose "weight" you need to burn more calories than you eat.

From a real life point of view, the human body is an incredible machine, and it wants to stay in homeostasis. Meaning that if you take a 1 sided approach to losing weight, the body will compensate for it in the effort to stay the same.

So if you just sit there and simply eat less, the body will start to lower your metabolism to compensate for the missing calories. If you keep eating even less, the body will start to eat away at it's own proteins (muscle tissue and eventually internal organs) BEFORE it starts eating away at the fat.

This is killer, because the more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism is, and if you lose it, you're hurting your body's capacity to burn fat.

This is why exercise is an important part. It accelerates fat loss simply by burning calories, but at the same time forces the person to use their muscles, and switches the body into a muscle sparing mode (It figures you need the muscle because you're using it, so it is forced to start burning fat instead)

Cardio will work out your legs, but you need to work out your upper body also, and this is where weight lifting comes in.
__________________
Top Gear America: Jay Leno, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen. DONE!
GalaxyX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 09:29 AM   #64
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Regarding the mass and energy equation, and disregarding intestinal nuclear reactions:

mass_in = mass_out + mass_stored

energy_in = energy_out + energy_stored
which is

food + water input + oxygen input = pee + poop + sweat + CO2 output + weight_gain

and

food energy value (when burned with oxygen) + work_input (massage therapist, etc) = (poop + pee) energy value + work_output + waste heat
+ stored_energy_for_zombie_attacks

I hate to ask this, but have any of the diet and nutrition experts made people poop into a calorimeter and burned it to see what the output energy was? If not, this thread has enough people for a rough stab at a study. As we cook our poos and record the results with an iPhone ap we'll write, should we post the inflow versus outflow or keep that kind of private?
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 09:35 AM   #65
Deckerd
Fleet Arse
 
Deckerd's Avatar
 
Location: the Frozen Wastes
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

GalaxyX wrote: View Post

So if you just sit there and simply eat less, the body will start to lower your metabolism to compensate for the missing calories. If you keep eating even less, the body will start to eat away at it's own proteins (muscle tissue and eventually internal organs) BEFORE it starts eating away at the fat.

This is killer, because the more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism is, and if you lose it, you're hurting your body's capacity to burn fat.
I've heard this umpteen times now from various sources. I say bullshit. If you consume fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight. Metabolic changes mean that there will be times when the weight stays the same but it will start up again. Frankly the idea of someone becoming a skeletal, organless husk before their fat arse disappears is risible.
__________________
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Deckerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 24 2013, 03:19 PM   #66
GalaxyX
Rear Admiral
 
GalaxyX's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Deckerd wrote: View Post
GalaxyX wrote: View Post

So if you just sit there and simply eat less, the body will start to lower your metabolism to compensate for the missing calories. If you keep eating even less, the body will start to eat away at it's own proteins (muscle tissue and eventually internal organs) BEFORE it starts eating away at the fat.

This is killer, because the more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism is, and if you lose it, you're hurting your body's capacity to burn fat.
I've heard this umpteen times now from various sources. I say bullshit. If you consume fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight. Metabolic changes mean that there will be times when the weight stays the same but it will start up again. Frankly the idea of someone becoming a skeletal, organless husk before their fat arse disappears is risible.
Well yes the human body can only adapt so much, and it's not like it will eat ALL your muscle tissue before it touches the fat.

If you simply eat less without any exercise, the body will lower its metabolism very low, and will definitely burn fat, but it will also burn muscle, and this in turn will require you to eat less to keep in a calorie deficit, so it becomes progressively harder and harder to lose it. Once you get to your desired weight, it becomes harder to maintain it due to your body's low metabolism.

I'm sure there's scientific evidence I could dig up, but I don't need it, because I have ample empirical evidence, not only in my own body, but in friends I see at the gym and even my own family.

Back in 2004-2005, When I was lifting heavy weights, I was burning so many calories that I was eating 2 large pizzas a day just to maintain my bodyweight. People would think I was nuts and couldn't understand why I wasn't getting fat
__________________
Top Gear America: Jay Leno, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen. DONE!
GalaxyX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2013, 01:58 AM   #67
RAMA
Vice Admiral
 
RAMA's Avatar
 
Location: NJ, USA
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

BMR is the most important factor, the amount of calories you need while at rest. Accounting for body size, activity level and some other factors, you can calculate what you need to function, but to lose weight you need to reduce this amount by 500-700 calories, It is almost impossible not to lose weight in this manner. Its no fad, just sound weight loss. To increase body weight, you need to do the opposite.

There are plenty of online calculators to accomplish this.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan
RAMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2013, 04:13 PM   #68
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Deckerd wrote: View Post
stj wrote: View Post

Except....practically everyone here talking about how they lost weight is also talking about their exercise regimen. Well, the simple physics also shows that exercise has nothing to do with weight loss.
That's far too simplistic. If you do more exercise you burn more calories. That's a fact.
Exercise has to do with redistributing body weight from fat to muscle, which is difficult enough. The only way that exercise commonly affects weight is by water loss from sweat. And the overwhelming majority of the posts in this thread are actually concerned with converting body fat, not reducing body weight. Muscular development requires a great deal of discipline. But it's a different kind of discipline from going hungry, which is how body weight is lost.

The problem is that only extremely large amounts of exercise or many hours of heavy physical labor to burn enough calories to make a difference. The numbers just don't add up, and the simplistic thinking is to imagine the numbers don't matter. The only practical way for the vast majority of people to make exercise burn enough calories to make a difference is to first restrict caloric intake.

The post above correctly states this in a different form. It also correctly states that the restriction should be rather small. The reason is that large caloric restrictions for more than a day or two does cause undesired effects, such as loss of muscle instead of fat. The post however doesn't state that the healthful weight loss regimen is 1.) rather slow, making the discipline much harder to maintain for no visible results, and 2.) can be accompanied by changes in the BMR. Which brings us back in one sense to the possible role of intestinal bacteria. There's also a role played by roughage but I don't know much about that.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31 2013, 05:47 PM   #69
Pingfah
Admiral
 
Pingfah's Avatar
 
Location: Cornwall, UK
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

stj wrote: View Post

Exercise has to do with redistributing body weight from fat to muscle, which is difficult enough. The only way that exercise commonly affects weight is by water loss from sweat. And the overwhelming majority of the posts in this thread are actually concerned with converting body fat, not reducing body weight.
I was under the impression that burning fat (turning it into energy) and building muscle are two separate things.

Certainly all the rowing and walking I do has never helped me build muscle (it did help me lose weight though, not that I had a great deal to lose), building muscle didn't happen until I started to lift weights, and increase the amount of weight I was lifting incrementally, and I didn't need any fat to convert to achieve that.
__________________
So it goes.
Pingfah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2013, 02:09 PM   #70
Venardhi
Vice Admiral
 
Venardhi's Avatar
 
Location: Constant transit
Send a message via AIM to Venardhi Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Venardhi
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Pingfah wrote: View Post
stj wrote: View Post

Exercise has to do with redistributing body weight from fat to muscle, which is difficult enough. The only way that exercise commonly affects weight is by water loss from sweat. And the overwhelming majority of the posts in this thread are actually concerned with converting body fat, not reducing body weight.
I was under the impression that burning fat (turning it into energy) and building muscle are two separate things.
That would be the correct impression.
__________________
"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Maffia." - Winston Niles Rumfoord.
Venardhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2013, 03:13 PM   #71
Deckerd
Fleet Arse
 
Deckerd's Avatar
 
Location: the Frozen Wastes
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Yeah I'm calling stj's post mostly non-factual.
__________________
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Deckerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 1 2013, 04:25 PM   #72
Robert Maxwell
Not Your Toy
 
Robert Maxwell's Avatar
 
Location: A broken roof
View Robert Maxwell's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Robert Maxwell Send a message via AIM to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Robert Maxwell Send a message via Yahoo to Robert Maxwell
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Deckerd wrote: View Post
Yeah I'm calling stj's post mostly non-factual.
It certainly skips a few steps in the process.

I'd actually never heard before that exercise doesn't burn fat. I would assume that if you either keep your caloric intake the same or reduce it, but add exercise, you are burning more calories than you did before. Worst case (if you still have a caloric surplus), you are converting less of it into fat. Best case, you are burning fat because you have a caloric deficit. Exercise damages the muscle fibers, and protein intake repairs them and builds more.

Am I wrong or isn't that basically the process?
__________________
It's all false love and affection
I has a blag.
Robert Maxwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2013, 11:02 PM   #73
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Cybertron
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Sometimes I wish I could throw fireballs in RL. Seems like an easy way to manage calorie burning.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2013, 01:28 AM   #74
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

If intestinal bacteia play a role in obesity, shouldn't different kinds of bacteria play a role in nmalnutrition? I should think so. Thus, this article is interesting: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...nutrition.html

Pingfah wrote: View Post
I was under the impression that burning fat (turning it into energy) and building muscle are two separate things.
The energy for exercise has to come from somewhere. If you've restricted your caloric intake, some of the fat will be used (though as far as I know to replace the calories from the carbohydrates, which are more quickly used.) But that is the only connection. Without caloric restriction, exercise doesn't burn enough fat to cause weight loss. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Certainly all the rowing and walking I do has never helped me build muscle (it did help me lose weight though, not that I had a great deal to lose), building muscle didn't happen until I started to lift weights, and increase the amount of weight I was lifting incrementally, and I didn't need any fat to convert to achieve that.
No, you also needed protein to build muscle. You probably increased your caloric intake to do this. This site, http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist4.htmur, estimates that a 205 lb. person vigously rowing an exercise machine will burn 791 calories. Per hour. This site, http://www.fitwatch.com/phpscripts/v...egetable%20oil, estimates that a large french fries is 578 calories.

An hour of vigorous rowing 3/4ths undone by one fast food side? This numerical disparity between calories burned by exercise and intake is why exercise plays no important role in losing weight. It's diet. Exercise (and protein) plays a role in building muscle. The people who connect exercise and weight loss (the majority of the posters if you look back) are the ones connecting the two. In your personal anecdote, I'd say either you spend hours exercising or your diet was already restricted to barely enough calories to maintain your weight. Long hours of exercise do wear on the joints.

Venardhi wrote: View Post
That would be the correct impression.
In addition to the role that fat provides in powering the muscular activity in the first place, there is another connection, which is the tendency for people who have gained weight under a muscular building regimen, to have their weight remain in the form of fat when they end close adherence to their program. Fortunately this is not universal.

Deckerd wrote: View Post
Yeah I'm calling stj's post mostly non-factual.
Since you apparently don't understand the point about the numbers not adding up, your opinion just comes off as innumerate.

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
I'd actually never heard before that exercise doesn't burn fat.
You haven't now either. I wrote:
The problem is that only extremely large amounts of exercise or many hours of heavy physical labor to burn enough calories to make a difference. The numbers just don't add up, and the simplistic thinking is to imagine the numbers don't matter. The only practical way for the vast majority of people to make exercise burn enough calories to make a difference is to first restrict caloric intake.
To finish up:

I would assume that if you either keep your caloric intake the same or reduce it, but add exercise, you are burning more calories than you did before. Worst case (if you still have a caloric surplus), you are converting less of it into fat. Best case, you are burning fat because you have a caloric deficit. Exercise damages the muscle fibers, and protein intake repairs them and builds more.

Am I wrong or isn't that basically the process?
Of course that's basically the process. (I'm not going to quibble about any difference between damage and stress, or the role of steroids.) Again, the thing is, the numbers don't add up. Exercise just doesn't burn enough calories to play a significant role. Except for water weight loss, which can be quite encouraging in successfully restricting diet.

Come to think of it, exercise time isn't spent eating, so there's that aspect too. But that's not what anyone has been talking about either.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.

Last edited by stj; February 4 2013 at 01:59 AM.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2013, 02:20 AM   #75
Venardhi
Vice Admiral
 
Venardhi's Avatar
 
Location: Constant transit
Send a message via AIM to Venardhi Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Venardhi
Re: Obesity linked to a gut bacteria

Under your theory, people without fat on them cannot gain muscle. There is some truth to that, but not in the way you think.

Building muscle requires 3 things: Stress damage on muscle tissue, adequate energy source/nutritional intake for rebuilding said muscle and the correct hormones/genetics/body-composition to encourage it.

Fat barely plays into it, except as an additional energy source if necessary. Body builders generally gain fat and muscle at the same time, then lose the fat afterwards because most people's bodies resist adding muscle when that extra energy source isn't available.

Losing fat generally also generally means losing muscle mass unless you had comparatively little to begin with.

You don't have reality on your side in this.
__________________
"There is no reason why good cannot triumph as often as evil. The triumph of anything is a matter of organization. If there are such things as angels, I hope that they are organized along the lines of the Maffia." - Winston Niles Rumfoord.
Venardhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.