A nutrition riddle..

El_Dangeroso

One for all the nutrition nerds like moi..:)

If a pound of bodyfat = 3,500 calories of energy

and..

A pound of oil (454g) = 4,086 calories..

If you theoretically drank a pound of oil and absorbed all the calories into your fat tissue (lets say with a bolus of sugar to take into account any energy costs in digestion etc.), you would theoretically store greater than a pound of new body fat, 1.16lb to be specific.

How is it possible to gain more weight than the original weight of the food?

First person to the correct answer gets bragging rights.:D

bp1989

Possibly your body needs more water to digest it, so it will therefore retain more water...of course, it's mostly just water weight.

EileenG

Digestion itself requires a certain amount of calories, usually cited as 10% of the food eaten, but if you were eating a pound of fat, there would be virtually no insulin response to help turn the fat eaten into energy or to store it, some more would be wasted in digestion.

El_Dangeroso

EileenG wrote: »

Digestion itself requires a certain amount of calories, usually cited as 10% of the food eaten, but if you were eating a pound of fat, there would be virtually no insulin response to help turn the fat eaten into energy or to store it, some more would be wasted in digestion.

The hypothetical would be that you are starving and emaciated and would store every calorie as adipose tissue, you don't need insulin to gain weight if your body wants to. But dead on about the the cost of digestion, which gets rid of 400 cals, but there's still more left over..

bp1989 wrote: »

Possibly your body needs more water to digest it, so it will therefore retain more water...of course, it's mostly just water weight.

Dang, you people are quick! Took me much longer

So yep, the oil is pure lipids., but the storage of the calories from the oil causes the cells to add more infrastructure along with the stored calories. Most of a cell is water. You also have more flesh and that involves more blood vessels, lymphatic vessels, blood volume and interstitial fluid.

bp1989

Brags :pac:

Sapsorrow

Damn it! I'm too late! I figured you'd need more water but I derived that from knowing that you need water to store carbs and guessed from there :pac:

Sapsorrow

Got any more fellow nerdling?

Mellor

Wouldn't the simpler phrasing be that body fat is 85% fat, with the rest water.
So 1 pound of food fat makes up just over a pound of body fat.

El_Dangeroso

Ok, here's another one..

What are HDL and LDL?

corkcomp

yawn

Faith

corkcomp wrote: »

yawn

Please don't bother posting if it's not constructive.

Macha

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Ok, here's another one..

What are HDL and LDL?

Types of cholesterol? Although I'm not sure the difference between bodily and dietary cholesterol..

Sapsorrow

No thats has too be too straightforward there has to be a twist... is the answer that they are the same thing just with different densities?

bp1989

LDL is essentially bad cholesterol; HDL is good. That's as far as my knowledge goes on the subject!

El_Dangeroso

Good tries all but HDL and LDL are lipoproteins that carry cholesterol, since your blood stream is water based and water and fat don't mix, and it wouldn't do to have all your cholesterol rising to the top of you!

Here's one that I have no clue what the answer is so less of a riddle.

Why does every study show that slightly overweight people (BMI 25-28) tend to live longer and get less diseases of ageing than their normal weight counterparts?

sharky86

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Why does every study show that slightly overweight people (BMI 25-28) tend to live longer and get less diseases of ageing than their normal weight counterparts?

Whoop! I'll live longer in a nuclear winter!

Sapsorrow

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Why does every study show that slightly overweight people (BMI 25-28) tend to live longer and get less diseases of ageing than their normal weight counterparts?

Hmmm I wonder does it have something to do with the study design and possible flaws in the conclusions due to the limitations of that type of work, like presumably it's observational studies (can't really imagine an intervention trial to make people overweight ). still can't quite put my finger on it though. Unless our idea of a appropriate BMI range isn't really ideal in terms of chronic disease prevention.

brianthebard

I imagine those who are only slightly overweight on the bmi would have a higher percentage of muscle than the average person in the normal category and thus proportionately less affected by ageing?

corkcomp

brianthebard wrote: »

I imagine those who are only slightly overweight on the bmi would have a higher percentage of muscle than the average person in the normal category and thus proportionately less affected by ageing?

That's pretty much what I was thinking.. Even though in the case of someone who was skinny fat I can't see how being over average bmi would help! I'm just hoping people who really need to lose fat won't see this thread as a get out of jail ticket

Sapsorrow

corkcomp wrote: »

That's pretty much what I was thinking.. Even though in the case of someone who was skinny fat I can't see how being over average bmi would help! I'm just hoping people who really need to lose fat won't see this thread as a get out of jail ticket

This observation is mentioned a lot I'm sure most people would have heard it mentioned before this thread.

Good thinking Brian, hadn't thought of that seems likely the failure take muscle mass into consideration relative to fat mass is the prinary flaw of the BMI method afterall.

brianthebard

corkcomp wrote: »

That's pretty much what I was thinking.. Even though in the case of someone who was skinny fat I can't see how being over average bmi would help! I'm just hoping people who really need to lose fat won't see this thread as a get out of jail ticket

I'm not sure that people who would be 'skinny fat' fit into the just overweight category though, they'd be much more likely to be within the "normal" weight category, while in reality being more unhealthy than those who have a slightly above average level of muscle mass. In addition as they grew older and lost muscle after the age of thirty they would become more 'skinny fat' without realising it and without the bmi changing, thus leading to further age related health implications.

Imo sapsorrow I think in the majority of cases the bmi scale is a sufficient measure of people's healthy weight, most people will not have enough muscle to push them into the overweight or obese category without having a physically exerting job or using weight training for a while.

corkcomp

brianthebard wrote: »

Imo sapsorrow I think in the majority of cases the bmi scale is a sufficient measure of people's healthy weight, most people will not have enough muscle to push them into the overweight or obese category without having a physically exerting job or using weight training for a while.

thats pretty much the best message for readers to take from this thread. ive said it before, but anyone who is over weight according to BMI and is that way because of a high muscle mass knows who they are. think waist size IMO..

Sapsorrow

corkcomp wrote: »

thats pretty much the best message for readers to take from this thread. ive said it before, but anyone who is over weight according to BMI and is that way because of a high muscle mass knows who they are. think waist size IMO..

I would agree but then my personal experience of using the BMI scale does make me doubt it. I'm 5ft 9 (nearly 10)" so tall by most standards and a small size ten and by no means overweight at all I'm fairly toned (granted being young probably has a lot to do with that) for someone who never exercises and yet my BMI has always been borderline overweight at 25 which just doesn't make sense to me (I don't carry any weight on my midriff either so I'm not a size ten with a big belly hanging out of my jeans). I have a small bone frame too so that doesn't explain it. It definately needs to be taken with a pinch of salt imo and isn't something I'd reccomend dieters to obsess about.

metamorphosis

Very true - if you are not active, don't exercise and do not have a good diet relative to your life and your bmi is in the overweight/obese category then it is not due to muscle mass ... unless you are a genetic freak!

El_Dangeroso

It's definitely not down to muscle. Some studies were based on body fat % and the same phenomenon was noted.

My own theories would be that most 'naturally' skinny people aren't doing anything special to stay that way, same as most people. So that when they eat **** diets there's no 'buffer-zone' of the adipose tissue to store all the excess crap they consume. Skinny type II diabetics are known to be less diet compliant in general compared to their overweight counterparts.

Either that or sub-clinical digestive issues that ensure a good waistline but worsen health outcomes in the long run by inhibiting absorption of important, cancer and disease preventing fat-soluble vitamins.

Or maybe when illness hits a little extra fat helps provide quick calories for energy to fight the illness, people who are recovering from illness need more cals, maybe that extra reserve gives them an edge.

Plus most people who become ill are past middle-age in our society, when people become really thin over 50 they look ill and gaunt, not healthy. There's that famous saying about women having to choose between their face and their backside over 40.

Still not sure though, hopefully some research will hammer out why in the next few years.

EileenG

Just thinking out loud, it seems to me that many of the skinny people I know are skinny because they smoke or drink instead of eating. They may have an excellent figure, but they are not particularly healthy. Someone who is on the wrong side of the BMI range is more likely to be aware of health implications, and to try to do the odd bit of exercise, or eat some fresh food occasionally.

Of course, there are mad healthy people with low bodyfats who really work at it, but they are in a minority.

Khannie

Cool thread!

I'd agree with the smoke / drink thing. I see really skinny people in the city who look like death warmed up. I just want to feed them vegetables.

It's rare that you see very old people who are heavy though. I know that's anecdotal, but I think it's a fair observation.

corkcomp

Khannie wrote: »

It's rare that you see very old people who are heavy though. I know that's anecdotal, but I think it's a fair observation.

very true, I cant remember the last very over weight person I saw in their 70's 0r 80's .. then again a lot of over weight people die in late middle age from heart attacks.. not being morbid but its true..

Sapsorrow

Khannie wrote: »

It's rare that you see very old people who are heavy though. I know that's anecdotal, but I think it's a fair observation.

Thats frailty kicking in, the older people get being skinny is the danger, the have higher nutritional requirements and generally eat less for various reasons and literally wither away, it's a very sad thought really. One of my lecturers worked as a public health nutritionist before trying to help elderly people in institutions with this problem, I was never really aware of it before being taught by her. It's also a metabolic thing.

Sapsorrow

EileenG wrote: »

Just thinking out loud, it seems to me that many of the skinny people I know are skinny because they smoke or drink instead of eating. They may have an excellent figure, but they are not particularly healthy. Someone who is on the wrong side of the BMI range is more likely to be aware of health implications, and to try to do the odd bit of exercise, or eat some fresh food occasionally.

Ya my mum who's nearly 60 now is on the podgy side (thats how I like mums to be better for cuddles ) although she is exceptionally short which doesn't help and she's eats healthier than anyone I know. She's so strict with herself because she's paranoid of putting on more weight, she's very bad for not exercising barr walking and gardening though. Healthy and strong as a horse though runs in her side of the family so fingers crossed for moi!

Of ya and then of course my dad who's about 6 ft 2" and really lean eats loads of junk all the time, showed up at my house yesterday with 2 jumbo packets of biscuits and 4 big bars for tea! Of course he's on meds for blood pressure etc as a result.

EileenG

Khannie wrote: »

It's rare that you see very old people who are heavy though. I know that's anecdotal, but I think it's a fair observation.

The scary thing is that the only old people you see normally are the very healthy ones. Most old people are pretty much confined to their house, except maybe for the odd careful outing to somewhere with level floors and accessible parking.

I know quite a few old people who are very skinny and frail, and pretty much housebound. A lot of them have osteoporosis (one in three Irish women) and are scared to go anywhere.

Hmmm, maybe the osteoporosis is a factor? That's one place where a bit of extra weight is a real advantage.

Mellor

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Here's one that I have no clue what the answer is so less of a riddle.

Why does every study show that slightly overweight people (BMI 25-28) tend to live longer and get less diseases of ageing than their normal weight counterparts?

I actually think I know the answer to this. In one of those weird coincidences I came across it recently.

It's called the body fat paradox.
It's a paradox as its not actually true and its due to the way studies are measured.
Basically they record things the weight, BMI of people who are sick, terminal or have died. The results show that These results show a disproportionate number of overweight weight people compares with a sample of people from the same demographic.

The reason is simple. When people become sick, they tend to lose weight. Dragging the collective BMI of that group down. It was likely the overweight people getting sick, after months of treatment, and sickness, they were underweight.

El_Dangeroso

Mellor wrote: »

I actually think I know the answer to this. In one of those weird coincidences I came across it recently.

It's called the body fat paradox.
It's a paradox as its not actually true and its due to the way studies are measured.
Basically they record things the weight, BMI of people who are sick, terminal or have died. The results show that These results show a disproportionate number of overweight weight people compares with a sample of people from the same demographic.

The reason is simple. When people become sick, they tend to lose weight. Dragging the collective BMI of that group down. It was likely the overweight people getting sick, after months of treatment, and sickness, they were underweight.

There are some prospective studies showing the same thing too though, as in measure BMI and then follow people for 10 years and see who gets sick/dies.