11 Apr 14
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wheat-gluten-newly-confirmed-promote-weight-gain
Remarkably, they found that, relative to the gluten-fed mice, the gluten-free animals showed a reduction in body weight gain and adiposity, without changes in food intake or lipid excretion.
Two groups of mice are given the same amount of calories, but one group shows a reduction in body weight? If a calorie is a calorie, then how can this be true?
My explanation is that the body is a fuel consuming machine. Let the machine consume energy at a higher rate, then the machine will burn more energy and store less energy. In other words, some foods can lower a person's metabolism. How does the metabolism get lowered? You screw with a person's hormonal system.
Epigenetics might come into play here too. Epigenetics is a new field when it comes to how the body works. It is basically all about gene expression and what turns on or off certain genes.
12 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarThis is not terrifically new. Many diet regimens, such as Weight Watchers, assign more "points" for X calories of simple carbohydrates than for X calories of protein. Thus, you blow your daily allotment of points faster if you eat more sugary foods versus foods high in protein. Fiber content, meanwhile, has the effect of reducing the point value of a portion.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wheat-gluten-newly-confirmed-promote-weight-gain
[b]Remarkably, they found that, relative to the gluten-fed mice, the gluten-free animals showed a reduction in body weight gain and adiposity, without changes in food intake or lipid excretion.
Two groups of mice are given the same amount of calories, but one group sho ...[text shortened]... e body works. It is basically all about gene expression and what turns on or off certain genes.[/b]
The body can convert sugar into fat without expending much energy. Proteins, or even fats, take more energy to convert.
13 Apr 14
Originally posted by SoothfastI don't think you really understood what the link was saying.
This is not terrifically new. Many diet regimens, such as Weight Watchers, assign more "points" for X calories of simple carbohydrates than for X calories of protein. Thus, you blow your daily allotment of points faster if you eat more sugary foods versus foods high in protein. Fiber content, meanwhile, has the effect of reducing the point value of a po ...[text shortened]... ar into fat without expending much energy. Proteins, or even fats, take more energy to convert.
13 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI don't think it's realistic to expect people to follow links.
I don't think you really understood what the link was saying.
Bear in mind with these things that the way they measure calorific content is by burning the food and measuring how much heat is released. This is not the same as what one's body does with food. Interesting that the gluten content is important.
13 Apr 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHow about reading a quote that I put in bold?
I don't think it's realistic to expect people to follow links.
Bear in mind with these things that the way they measure calorific content is by burning the food and measuring how much heat is released. This is not the same as what one's body does with food. Interesting that the gluten content is important.
Do you find the specific mention of gluten interesting or the fact that what food contains can effect weight gain?
20 Apr 14
Originally posted by EladarFrom this article the following paragraph is extracted:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wheat-gluten-newly-confirmed-promote-weight-gain
[b]Remarkably, they found that, relative to the gluten-fed mice, the gluten-free animals showed a reduction in body weight gain and adiposity, without changes in food intake or lipid excretion.
Two groups of mice are given the same amount of calories, but one group sho ...[text shortened]... e body works. It is basically all about gene expression and what turns on or off certain genes.[/b]
"Sometimes we forget that food is not simply a source of energy, or the material building blocks for the body, but a source of information as well. The way in which food directly interacts with the genes, gene expression, or gene product structure and function, is the object of study of the burgeoning new field of nutrigenomics. Wheat, like anything we attempt to use as food, contains both energy/matter and information that the body will use to maintain its genetic integrity or that may interfere with it."
They seem to know that food is a source of information, but seem to ignore how information could get into food. It obviously gets in there from the information in the DNA, but how could information get into the DNA unless something or someone with intelligence put it there. For it is known from experience that information only originates from an intelligent mind like that of man.
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is a term for people like you: Confirmation bias. You are so addled with your belief you cannot accept anything that refutes your mythologies like your love of ancient Egyptian mythology.
From this article the following paragraph is extracted:
"Sometimes we forget that [b]food is not simply a source of energy, or the material building blocks for the body, but a source of information as well. The way in which food directly interacts with the genes, gene expression, or gene product structure and function, is the object of study of the bu ...[text shortened]... nown from experience that information only originates from an intelligent mind like that of man.[/b]
The same goes for so-called scientists who start with an agenda and try to prove their really stupid arguments that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
That is not science no matter how many degrees the dudes have. Science goes like this: I wonder how X happened? So they come up with a hypothesis. Then look for evidence of it. Oops, that's no good. Go to hypothesis #2. Look for evidence. A bit better, go with hypothesis #3, look at evidence, AHA, that fits the evidence really well, and a new discovery is born,.
Your dudes on the other hand, have no #2, no #3 and so forth, only the one really stupid one, that the Earth is 6000 years old and they fully believe the ancient Egyptian tale about the 6 day creation.
Then they distort, lie, bully, try legislation, change any scientific fact to their ends not to learn any new truth but to bend the will of the population to their sick POV. As I have said before that is not even CLOSE to real science, it is weaponizing science for political ends, doing whatever it takes to kill evolution and the old Earth history which has been proven time and time again but your buddies use outdated and well refuted techniques to try to win over converts.
Like I said, that is not science in action, that is politics and sick politics at that.
You are all TCM in the 21st century where none of you belong.
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou remain willingly ignorant and ignore the fact that information only originates from an intelligent mind. You refuse to use your mind to use reason and logic to come to the only logical conclusion.
There is a term for people like you: Confirmation bias. You are so addled with your belief you cannot accept anything that refutes your mythologies like your love of ancient Egyptian mythology.
The same goes for so-called scientists who start with an agenda and try to prove their really stupid arguments that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
That is ...[text shortened]... ics and sick politics at that.
You are all TCM in the 21st century where none of you belong.
22 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIsn't it a fact that you are an evilutionist, Jonah? And the only source of evilutionism is from creational sources? And that you are proud of never have read anything about evolution?
You remain willingly ignorant and ignore the fact that information only originates from an intelligent mind. You refuse to use your mind to use reason and logic to come to the only logical conclusion.
Isn't that a clear sign that you are indeed a willingly ignorant?