Burning muscle

markens2

Looking for advice. I've recently started in a gym. One of these personal trainer kicking the **** out of you places.

I'm on a high protein low carb diet.

The trainer has said that cycling long distances (Galway from maynooth and back) will eat into muscle and not fat. Is there any truth in that and if so is there anything I can do to prevent it.

petethedrummer

Excessive long distances may cause some atrophy of fast muscle twitch fibres. But the gym work might mitigate that. Your body shape might not noticeabley change at all outside of some fat loss that may occur from the change in diet.

What are you trying to achieve anyway? how often are you going maynooth to galway and back and is it all in one go? And why?

Brian?

Keep yourself well supplied with food and it won't happen.

longshank

markens2 wrote: »

Looking for advice. I've recently started in a gym. One of these personal trainer kicking the **** out of you places.

I'm on a high protein low carb diet.

The trainer has said that cycling long distances (Galway from maynooth and back) will eat into muscle and not fat. Is there any truth in that and if so is there anything I can do to prevent it.

You want to cycle long distance and have big muscles? Sounds like you and your personal trainer need to read a few books! (That's not a smart arse reply, what your asking is too much to put in a post)

markens2

I signed up for the cycle before the gym. I aim to do one long cycle per month between now and august. Apart from them I will be doing about 80km a week commuting and 100km on a Saturday.
I don't have a goal as far as weight loss goes. I'm 83kg and 66ft. Just want to tone up a bit.

Inspector Coptoor

You're 66ft tall?
Jaysis.....

A bit of strength work will help your cycling.

As for the diet, as long as you're eating enough protein AND fat, the low carb but shouldn't be an issue.
You just wouldn't want to be going hell for leather on the cycling with no carbs on board.

longshank

markens2 wrote: »

I signed up for the cycle before the gym. I aim to do one long cycle per month between now and august. Apart from them I will be doing about 80km a week commuting and 100km on a Saturday.
I don't have a goal as far as weight loss goes. I'm 83kg and 66ft. Just want to tone up a bit.

It all depends what your limiter is and what your goal is. If your goal is cycling and your limiter is your endurance skip the gym and get as much time on the bike as you can manage (properly periodised). If you have the endurance and your limiter is your strength then go to the gym. If as it appears your aim is cycling but want to tone up a bit I would only go to the gym if it is not at the expense of time on the bike. (if by being toned you mean losing body fat that is)

ford2600

markens2

"I'm on a high protein low carb diet."

How low is your carb intake and also how high is your protein intake?

From what I've read you can get into difficulty on protein intake in excess of 35% of calories. That leaves 65% from carbs and fat.

It's up to you how you make up that 65%, either high fat or high carb will work.

FWIW with out setting out to I've lost noticeable body fat without losing weight by eating high fat, with carbs coming from veg and fruit. I guess that means I've more muscle but I haven't taken any objective measurement other than waist measurement and having to tighten belt an inch or so!

High fat works really well for endurance; was on bike for 12hrs Sunday. Other lads do similar on high carb, they just need to refuel more on road.

Whatever you do with nutrition, enjoy your food. Life is too short to make meal time a chore or penance

kuro_man

did you watch the fat vs sugar Horizon episode? The guy on the low carb high fat diet was considerable worse off than the guy on high carb low fat diet. he lost muscle mass because the body found it easier to convert muscle to sugar than fat, especially while training.

The final conclusion is that low-anything diet is all BS - you need fat, sugar and protein which you get from a normal balanced diet, avoid processed food (esp. trans fats) and don't exceed your calorie intake.

ford2600

kuro_man wrote: »

did you watch the fat vs sugar Horizon episode? The guy on the low carb high fat diet was considerable worse off than the guy on high carb low fat diet. he lost muscle mass because the body found it easier to convert muscle to sugar than fat, especially while training.

The final conclusion is that low-anything diet is all BS - you need fat, sugar and protein which you get from a normal balanced diet, avoid processed food (esp. trans fats) and don't exceed your calorie intake.

I wouldn't be using the horizon programme as a guide. It was a no carb and no fat diet that the twins were on.

Have a read here
http://optimumnutrition4sport.co.uk/2014/02/05/sugar-v-fat-horizon-bbc-documentary/

If you follow your argument that low anything is BS then the entire establishment low fat mantra since the mid 80's is BS?

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

he lost muscle mass

The bod pod cannot measure muscle loss. It was an incorrect conclusion.

kuro_man wrote: »

because the body found it easier to convert muscle to sugar than fat, especially while training.

It depends on what you are doing and how adapted you are.

kuro_man wrote: »

The final conclusion is that low-anything diet is all BS - you need fat, sugar and protein which you get from a normal balanced diet, avoid processed food (esp. trans fats) and don't exceed your calorie intake.

They were both on ludicrous diets. It was an awful show biased towards the status quo and no sane person would recommend what either of them ate.

Also the OP is on a high protein diet not high fat. Not sure what that would entail.

kuro_man

ford2600 wrote: »

If you follow your argument that low anything is BS then the entire establishment low fat mantra since the mid 80's is BS?

Well, yes and no...the % content is taken as given by the balanced, varied diet and limited calorie intake. I don't believe you should subscribe to faddy or extreme diets which focus on a single food group.

ford2600

kuro_man wrote: »

Well, yes and no...the % content is taken as given by the balanced, varied diet and limited calorie intake. I don't believe you should subscribe to faddy or extreme diets which focus on a single food group.

Low fat has been standard government advice with 30 years.

Is it not a fad because it's been pushed for so long on sketchy science?

markens2

When I say low carb I should have been clearer. I'm on a low processed **** carb diet. Ie bread pasta that kind of stuff. Eating lots of veg and sweet potatoe. Avoiding ****ty food in general and trying to eat more lean meat and more veg.

I've had good success in the gym so far. Lost best part of 3 stone. I've been cycling as well so not sure how I've been losing it. I've gone fro 28% body fat to 19% body fat. So something is working. I'd just like to be sure one isn't cancelling the other out now.

ford2600

markens2 wrote: »

When I say low carb I should have been clearer. I'm on a low processed **** carb diet. Ie bread pasta that kind of stuff. Eating lots of veg and sweet potatoe. Avoiding ****ty food in general and trying to eat more lean meat and more veg.

I've had good success in the gym so far. Lost best part of 3 stone. I've been cycling as well so not sure how I've been losing it. I've gone fro 28% body fat to 19% body fat. So something is working. I'd just like to be sure one isn't cancelling the other out now.

If it works for you stay at it; you know more about what works for you than anybody else.

On the meat thing, if health is your goal in general, I'd be avoiding factory reared chicken and pig( which is most of it). Lamb and beef in Ireland is generally grass fed for most of year with strict controls on drug use and limited concentrated feed.

As someone who has been in commercial pig and hen units, I generaaly avoid as much as possible.

Best of luck with new regime and enjoy cycle

i_surge

ford2600 wrote: »

Whatever you do with nutrition, enjoy your food. Life is too short to make meal time a chore or penance

+1

kuro_man

ford2600 wrote: »

Low fat has been standard government advice with 30 years.

Is it not a fad because it's been pushed for so long on sketchy science?

All I am saying is that if you eat a varied, balanced diet with calories limited (avoiding highly processed foods), you won't have much else to worry about. You don't need to micro-analyse your dietary intake.

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

All I am saying is that if you eat a varied, balanced diet with calories limited (avoiding highly processed foods), you won't have much else to worry about. You don't need to micro-analyse your dietary intake.

I'm the opposite. I (roughly) analyse the macro nutrient content and don't worry about the caloric intake, it sorts itself out naturally.

I used to do as you do, but find this approach works better.

longshank

ford2600 wrote: »

Low fat has been standard government advice with 30 years.

Is it not a fad because it's been pushed for so long on sketchy science?

low fat is 'sketchy science' and the rock solid science says what? High Fat? Why has this high low fat issue become like religious beliefs...my own take on the science (or lack of) is everything in moderation (except exercise of course:D)

ford2600

longshank wrote: »

low fat is 'sketchy science' and the rock solid science says what? High Fat? Why has this high low fat issue become like religious beliefs...my own take on the science (or lack of) is everything in moderation (except exercise of course:D)

Where have I said that high fat is "rock solid" science?

I run quite well on high carb or high fat. I'm lucky, more people not so

I've done 200km plus cycles on both, and both have their merits. I prefer high fat but if I wanted to do a very quick long cycle I'll get more carbs in.

Take whatever you want in moderation, but some people can't and struggle with weight/health following the established mantra. have a look on nutrition and diet forum with people restricting calories, weighing portions, exercising and still gaining weight.

I don't have the answers, but am prepared to ask questions.

Eat less, exercise more doesn't work for everybody, why is that?

Brian?

markens2 wrote: »

When I say low carb I should have been clearer. I'm on a low processed **** carb diet. Ie bread pasta that kind of stuff. Eating lots of veg and sweet potatoe. Avoiding ****ty food in general and trying to eat more lean meat and more veg.

I've had good success in the gym so far. Lost best part of 3 stone. I've been cycling as well so not sure how I've been losing it. I've gone fro 28% body fat to 19% body fat. So something is working. I'd just like to be sure one isn't cancelling the other out now.

Your body will only burn muscle for fuel when muscle is the most convenient thing to burn, i.e. when your blood sugar is low. Keep your blood sugar up and it won't be a problem.

petethedrummer

markens2 wrote: »

Apart from them I will be doing about 80km a week commuting and 100km on a Saturday.

You shouldn't wither away with that training load. And I'd say it's more than enough to get you through this cycle. It's a 2 day charity thing yeah? You'll be fine.

Maybe do a couple of back to back cycles at the weekend to see what two long days in the saddle feels like. You could also go for a cycle with the other participants in advance to see where you're fitness level is in comparison.

longshank

ford2600 wrote: »

Where have I said that high fat is "rock solid" science?

I run quite well on high carb or high fat. I'm lucky, more people not so

I've done 200km plus cycles on both, and both have their merits. I prefer high fat but if I wanted to do a very quick long cycle I'll get more carbs in.

Take whatever you want in moderation, but some people can't and struggle with weight/health following the established mantra. have a look on nutrition and diet forum with people restricting calories, weighing portions, exercising and still gaining weight.

I don't have the answers, but am prepared to ask questions.

Eat less, exercise more doesn't work for everybody, why is that?

You seemed to have missed my ? After 'rock solid science'
Anyone who burns more calories than they consume and gains weight is breaking some fundamental rules of physics! And more likely making an error in their calculations somewhere along the line. The big question is the burning calories one -how many and how exactly that happens.

ford2600

longshank wrote: »

You seemed to have missed my ? After 'rock solid science'
Anyone who burns more calories than they consume and gains weight is breaking some fundamental rules of physics! And more likely making an error in their calculations somewhere along the line. The big question is the burning calories one -how many and how exactly that happens.

Given how complicated the biochemistry is Thermodynamic Laws are probably not the most helpful place to start

petethedrummer

longshank wrote: »

Anyone who burns more calories than they consume and gains weight is breaking some fundamental rules of physics!

Please do not invoke the laws of thermodynamics. They refer to closed systems. Your body is not a closed system, it has two big holes at either end. It processes and partitions all foods differently and the various macro nutrients have very different metabolic and hormonal effects on the body.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/

Your body is a sophisticated biological organism not a dumb calorie burning furnace.

longshank

ford2600 wrote: »

Given how complicated the biochemistry is Thermodynamic Laws are probably not the most helpful place to start

Maybe not but ignoring the fundamental laws is a worse place to start!!

longshank

petethedrummer wrote: »

Please do not invoke the laws of thermodynamics. They refer to closed systems. Your body is not a closed system, it has two big holes at either end. It processes and partitions all foods differently and the various macro nutrients have very different metabolic and hormonal effects on the body.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/

Your body is a sophisticated biological organism not a dumb calorie burning furnace.

Why do you say don't invoke the laws of thermodynamics and then link to 2 websites that invoke the laws of thermodynamics?
I think you have determined that I'm saying something that I'm not.

ford2600

longshank wrote: »

Maybe not but ignoring the fundamental laws is a worse place to start!!

You might have a look at Petethedrummers links in post above yours.

BTW as a mechanical engineer I use Thermodynamic Laws quite frequently.

kuro_man

petethedrummer wrote: »

Please do not invoke the laws of thermodynamics. They refer to closed systems. Your body is not a closed system, it has two big holes at either end. It processes and partitions all foods differently and the various macro nutrients have very different metabolic and hormonal effects on the body.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/

Your body is a sophisticated biological organism not a dumb calorie burning furnace.

The first law of thermodynamics is relevant...it says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If you gain weight then it must come from food. If you burn more calories through exercise and don't loose weight, then you are eating more. It is extremely easy to underestimate the calorie content of food and drink, and this is far more likely than some biology reason.

However, weight/BMI is not a good measurement of health unless you are seriously overweight; muscle mass helps remove cholesterol from blood stream, stored as energy in the muscles. We should concentrate on fitness, building muscle mass and loosing fatty tissue.
I am not qualified to decide how much carbohydrate my body needs to prevent it burning muscle, so I eat a wide variety of foods and consume very little alcohol and I let my body decide how it wants to store my energy needs.

longshank

ford2600 wrote: »

You might have a look at Petethedrummers links in post above yours.

BTW as a mechanical engineer I use Thermodynamic Laws quite frequently.

I did, and i dont get ur point?

mcgratheoin

Just a quick Q for the OP.

When you joined the gym and met the PT, did you outline what your goals were? It sounds as if the trainer's goals for you do not include a long cycle. You need to discuss with them exactly what you want to gain from your programme. There's no point telling a trainer you want to look like Arnie and then going off and doing long distance bike work on your own. Conversely, if you have told your trainer that this cycle is a goal you want to work towards, then their job is to help you towards that goal. If they can't do that, then find a new trainer.

petethedrummer

longshank wrote: »

Why do you say don't invoke the laws of thermodynamics and then link to 2 websites that invoke the laws of thermodynamics?

Both sites are dismissing the overly simplisitic use of the first law of thermodynamics to justify the calories in vs calories out argument for weightloss.

longshank

petethedrummer wrote: »

Both sites are dismissing the overly simplisitic use of the first law of thermodynamics to justify the calories in vs calories out argument for weightloss.

so the fundamental laws do apply (as I said) and it is the interpretation of how those calories are burnt that is the big question (as I said). Why do people go all fundamentalist on this topic and not willing to actually read what people are posting?

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

The first law of thermodynamics is relevant...it says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

.............in a closed system. Your body is not a closed system.

kuro_man wrote: »

If you gain weight then it must come from food. If you burn more calories through exercise and don't loose weight, then you are eating more

Kind of. It depends on the food consumed and your individual response to the food. Your body does not necessarily put each and every calorie over your BMR + energy expended in to fat storage. And you can be under the quota and still not lose weight.

kuro_man wrote: »

It is extremely easy to underestimate the calorie content of food and drink,

The calorie content of food, Basal Metabolic rate and calories burned during exercise are so wildly inaccurate that calorie counting is a cruel joke to play on people struggling to lose weight. IMO.

kuro_man wrote: »

and this is far more likely than some biology reason.

On the face of it, that logic seems correct and I would have believed it until I started reading up on it. Hormones play a huge part in weight gain/loss and where fat accumulates around the body. Men gain it predominantly around the belly. With women it tends to be below the waist. After women go through menopause and their hormone profile starts to look more like a male, the weight starts to accumulate around the belly.

Hormones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghrelin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin

If you accept that 1000kcals from Crisps, Chocolate & Cola is more fattening than 1000kcals from a Tuna Salad then you can't dismiss the hormonal and metabolic effect of different types of calories.

petethedrummer

longshank wrote: »

so the fundamental laws do apply (as I said) and it is the interpretation of how those calories are burnt that is the big question (as I said). Why do people go all fundamentalist on this topic and not willing to actually read what people are posting?

Yes they do apply when you look at a closed system but your body is not a closed system.

It can and does poop out excess fat consumed.
It quickly breaks down and absorbs refined carbohydrate and sends it to the fat (potential energy) to mainain blood glucose levels.
Over consumption of refined carbohydrate can turn off the fat burning pathways. Though they get turned on at night after a good sleep.
It expends more metabolic energy trying to get the energy out of protein than carbohydrate.
If you restrict food too much your body can go into a fat storage mode your BMR slows down and you can end up feeling cold,lethargic and driven to eat.

Again this is all about Metabolic and Hormonal effects governing energy in and out. And responses are individual.

Saying it's just calories in vs calories out is like saying to a beggar that Warren Buffet is richer than him because he has more money going in to his account than going out. It ignores all the reasons why the money is going in and not out of Buffett's bank account.

petethedrummer

longshank wrote: »

so the fundamental laws do apply (as I said)

Sure everything in the entire universe can be looked at using the laws of thermodynamics.

i_surge

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yes they do apply when you look at a closed system but your body is not a closed system.

It can and does poop out excess fat consumed.
It quickly breaks down and absorbs refined carbohydrate and sends it to the fat (potential energy) to mainain blood glucose levels.
Over consumption of refined carbohydrate can turn off the fat burning pathways. Though they get turned on at night after a good sleep.
It expends more metabolic energy trying to get the energy out of protein than carbohydrate.
If you restrict food too much your body can go into a fat storage mode your BMR slows down and you can end up feeling cold,lethargic and driven to eat.

Again this is all about Metabolic and Hormonal effects governing energy in and out. And responses are individual.

Saying it's just calories in vs calories out is like saying to a beggar that Warren Buffet is richer than him because he has more money going in to his account than going out. It ignores all the reasons why the money is going in and not out of Buffett's bank account.

Nice summary. Are there any good discussions of metabolic "signals" I can find somewhere without too much LCHF or die propaganda?

I read some stuff about the amount of certain amino acids needed to stimulate muscle growth before and found it interesting.

Budawanny

longshank wrote: »

You want to cycle long distance and have big muscles? Sounds like you and your personal trainer need to read a few books! (That's not a smart arse reply, what your asking is too much to put in a post)

have you seen James Cracknell?

petethedrummer

i_surge wrote: »

Nice summary. Are there any good discussions of metabolic "signals" I can find somewhere without too much LCHF or die propaganda?

You could try the Ben Greenfield fitness podcast. Though I don't agree with everything he says or every guest he has on. Particularly when it comes to supplements, "unipolar" magnet sleeping mats and compression socks. But he does discuss hormones, metabolic pathways, sleep and stress.

longshank

Budawanny wrote: »

have you seen James Cracknell?

Imagine what he would be like if he tried to bulk up!!!
Have you seen Chris Froome?

longshank

petethedrummer wrote: »

Saying it's just calories in vs calories out is like saying to a beggar that Warren Buffet is richer than him because he has more money going in to his account than going out. It ignores all the reasons why the money is going in and not out of Buffett's bank account.

I'd say the beggar wouldn't give a f**k about the reasons why the money is going in and not out of Buffett's account

kuro_man

petethedrummer wrote: »

.............in a closed system. Your body is not a closed system.

eh, yeah, the "open" system is the intake of energy i.e. food, so you cannot gain weight (stored energy) without it!

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

food, so you cannot gain weight (stored energy) without it!

I wouldn't argue the opposite.

It's when you start adding in the food that this energy/calorie balance model starts to fall apart.

i_surge

petethedrummer wrote: »

I wouldn't argue the opposite.

It's when you start adding in the food that this energy/calorie balance model starts to fall apart.

Not really to be fair....

A thought experiment - if you don't eat at all (zero calories), you'll waste away losing muscle, fat, bone density... the lot. Ever seen a fat famine victim?

The hormonal stuff is only important once at a relatively healthy weight and trying to improve body composition imo. Food quality or CHO/Protein/Fat ratios may help with willpower, cravings, satiety and all that stuff but that's to do with practical application of a calorie deficit not the principle itself.

Reduce calories less than expenditure over a long enough period ( Food In < BMR + Energy expenditure), balanced over say 3 months and it's impossible not to lose weight (not the same as fat loss) - do you not agree?

On a daily/weekly basis the food composition may matter more due to the hormonal effects you've mentioned but it will average out over time if a calorie deficit is maintained.

petethedrummer

i_surge wrote: »

A thought experiment - if you don't eat at all (zero calories), you'll waste away losing muscle, fat, bone density... the lot. Ever seen a fat famine victim?

Gary Taubes often cites the example of the PIMA Indians in the mid-1800s. Widespread obesity on very low calorie highly refined carbohydrate government rations.

i_surge wrote: »

The hormonal stuff is only important once at a relatively healthy weight and trying to improve body composition imo.

Why would hormones only matter around a normal weight. Would it not make more sense that someone overweight is more likely to have hormonal issues than someone at the correct weight?

i_surge wrote: »

Food quality or CHO/Protein/Fat ratios may help with willpower, cravings, satiety and all that stuff but that's to do with practical application of a calorie deficit not the principle itself.

Cravings and satiety are regulated by.......drumroll......HORMONES!

Even if it is calories in calories out, it's useless information. I could give people financial advice by saying its money in vs money out. Totally useless. If you get the food quality, macro nutrient content, sleep and stress levels right then there is no need to count calories. 1000 kCals from Coke, crisps and chocolate is more fattening than 1000 kCals from Tuna Salad. Calorie content is irrelevant.

If I wanted to blow up a building would I use 1,000,000 KCals of Dynamite or 1,000,000 kCals of Cornflakes? After all a calorie is a calorie! Surely the cornflakes would work. Energy is energy.

i_surge wrote: »

Reduce calories less than expenditure over a long enough period ( Food In < BMR + Energy expenditure), balanced over say 3 months and it's impossible not to lose weight (not the same as fat loss) - do you not agree?

Not necessarily. It may work temporarily. It may work permanently for someone who is just a little over weight. It depends on the type of food consumed. If it's low fat food, breads, fruit juices, cereals or any of that weightloss cardboard; your BMR will probably go down, which you can't help. Your inclination to expend energy will probably go down also. Mood may also suffer. High levels of endurance exercise (the type that is usually prescribed) will just make it worse.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't believe the body is a simplified calorie burning furnace. It's complex, full of bacteria(2Kg!), viruses, fungii, enzymes, hormones, has a powerful complex brain and an elaborate digestive system. All of which can become dis-regulated.

petethedrummer

BTW: Cals in Vs Cals out is another area where I disagree with Ben Greenfield! Still a good show though.

detones

Just back to the OP's original question (if there still around). It has been my experience that cycling does reduce your muscle mass.

I posted a thread a while back about the issue:

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056801685/1/#post81639318

I got some useful and very amusing insights. Today I have lost around 8kg (90kg to 82) since I started cycling. It's not all been fat but my gym work has also dramatically decreased . I believe maintaining or increasing muscle mass while partaking in essentially an endurance type activity is a hard task to achieve. It's not impossible but would take a huge amount of discipline, diet and effort for minimal gains. You're essentially trying to merge two disciplines that don't really coexist well together. I have found myself focusing more and more towards the cycling and compared to what I was, I feel like skinny whippet. I can be a bit of a vain fooker and miss having a "big" build but on the plus side I'm now a sh1t cyclist too ;-)

kuro_man

petethedrummer wrote: »

If you accept that 1000kcals from Crisps, Chocolate & Cola is more fattening than 1000kcals from a Tuna Salad then you can't dismiss the hormonal and metabolic effect of different types of calories.

Actually, I believe the 1000 kcals effect on weight will largely be the same - the difference in metabolic overhead is too small to be bothered about. The human body has evolved to assume food is scarce (or may be) so stores any excess calories very efficiently. This does not vary greatly between healthy individuals.

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

Actually, I believe the 1000 kcals effect on weight will largely be the same - the difference in metabolic overhead is too small to be bothered about.

Well then we'll never agree. So there's no point debating anymore

kuro_man wrote: »

The human body has evolved to assume food is scarce (or may be) so stores any excess calories very efficiently.

For a lot of human existence, glucose and fructose were not available all year round. Only late in summer when you would need to fatten up to get through a winter. Maybe from beehives, if you were brave enough. And the fruits were very different to the farmed varieties we eat now. Sure they can't even give monkeys bananas any more because they are so sugary. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monkeys-banned-from-eating-bananas-at-devon-zoo-9058856.html

Wheat has only been available widespread since the beginning of farming 10,000 years ago. I think it only arrive in Ireland 1000 years ago(open to correction). This dwarf wheat stuff we eat so much of was only developed in the 1950's. The GI load is as high as sugar. Higher depending on how it has been processed.

I'll never see weight as symptom of general over consumption. More a specific over consumption of refined carbohydrate. It appears to me to be protection mechanism against types of foods which humans are not adapted to consume in the current high volumes and a distortion of normal hormonal/metabolic regulation.

kuro_man

Weight gain is caused by a increase in calorie intake...the reasons why we consume more calories may be complicated and related to food contents/hormones but, at the end of the day, you can't gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn.

petethedrummer

kuro_man wrote: »

Weight gain is caused by a increase in calorie intake...the reasons why we consume more calories may be complicated and related to food contents/hormones but, at the end of the day, you can't gain weight unless you eat more calories than you burn.

I don't agree. damnits i wrote a long response but my browser crashed.