A proposal to explain the paradigm of calories and body weight

[Wigberto Marciaga]

An abstract:

Can there really be people who eat more than others and have a lower daily caloric expenditure and still weigh less? Perhaps many have wondered that, since conventional observations point towards that. There are people who eat more, spend fewer calories, and weigh less on the scale.

This seems to contradict the calorie paradigm, which maintains that it is in turn based on physics that maintains that the universe cannot create or destroy matter or energy. However, something that some seem to have been ignoring when addressing this topic is that even building a building requires energy. If you build a building you probably use more energy than if you tear it down and throw away the rubble.

The same thing happens in humans, and we call this anabolism (construction) and catabolism (net burning to produce energy). While anabolism builds more matter, despite its energy expenditure, catabolism destroys matter to produce energy. This proposed balance would explain the apparent phenomenon of thin people eating as much as fat people and still being thin.

Since the study on metabolic acceleration came out, led by Herman Pontzer and more (Herman Pontzer et al. ,Daily energy expenditure through the human life course.Science373,808-812(2021).DOI:10.1126/science.abe5017), we are left without an explanation for this matter. This study rules out that accelerated metabolism is the cause of some being thinner than others. In fact, the study changes many things, since it suggests that in stages of growth or greater weight gain is when the metabolism would be most accelerated, and that in stages of aging (+-60 years and older) when the most weight is usually lost. (fat and muscle) is when the metabolism would be less and less accelerated than throughout biological life. Metabolism would have to do with it, but through anabolism and catabolism.

But now I present to you this proposal for an explanation of this phenomenon.

P.S I am a new user, my name is Wigberto Marciaga, I am from Panama, an independent researcher (if you want, you can say amateur). Believer in Yeshu the Anointed.

Edited April 1 by Wigberto Marciaga

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Can there really be people who eat more than others and have a lower daily caloric expenditure and still weigh less? Perhaps many have wondered that, since conventional observations point towards that.

What observations are those?   Citations, please.  

2 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

This seems to contradict the calorie paradigm, which maintains that it is in turn based on physics that maintains that the universe cannot create or destroy matter or energy. 

Human metabolism is about chemical energy.  Conversion of matter to energy, as in fusion or fission, is not relevant to biochemistry.

 

2 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

While anabolism builds more matter, despite its energy expenditure...

It doesn't.  It breaks down food into amino acids and strings them together into chains called proteins.  Chemical energy to achieve this comes from carbohydrates (polysaccharides) broken down into glucose or, with ketosis, breaking down lipids to glucose.  Please learn some biochemistry.

2 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

This study rules out that accelerated metabolism is the cause of some being thinner than others.

I doubt this - and you need a clickable link to this study.  And a person's weight relates to more than one cause.  Faster metabolism can be one, balance of intestinal microflora and efficiency of gut absorption can be another.  Autoimmune disorders can also factor in, through inflammatory response in the small intestine and induced lesions.   Also, hormone levels, environmental toxins, fiber consumption, sensitivity to fermentable polysaccharides, etc.

2 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

But now I present to you this proposal for an explanation of this phenomenon.

Where is it?  Where's your data?  

Edited April 1 by TheVat
tyop

[Wigberto Marciaga]

35 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 Citations, please.  

Ok The Vat, hello, blessing

As for observations, well, they are observations. In fact, an easy way to observe it would be in sick people who, even if they consumed an adequate amount of calories, would be prone to losing weight and sarcopenia, such as cancer patients.

Anabolism depends on catabolism, as you mention. But at the end of "the equation" what will happen is that mass or matter has been gained. Any type of dough has a weight, in this case.

Regarding the study on metabolism cited, it seems to me that it remains the most complete carried out to date. Even Pontzer, who participated in the study, said he was surprised by the results. And Dr. William Li even said that it would lead to having to remove entire pages from the literature on this topic.

Reference:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/anabolism

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abe5017

Edited April 1 by Wigberto Marciaga

[swansont]

I would not be at all surprised to find that the ability to metabolize food is not uniform in all people (because what is?), and might be worse when you’re sick. Calories are an energy content, but the ability to access and exploit that energy varies.e.g. your gut biome might not break certain foods down as efficiently as someone else’s, or the bacteria might feast on it more before the nutrients can be utilized. I’m sure there are a lot more possibilities that someone more familiar with biology could point to. A lot of moving parts here.

I think the basics apply to the average person, and you have to acknowledge the variation in individuals. The concept of energy conservation is not endangered.

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

An abstract:

Can there really be people who eat more than others and have a lower daily caloric expenditure and still weigh less? Perhaps many have wondered that, since conventional observations point towards that. There are people who eat more, spend fewer calories, and weigh less on the scale.

This seems to contradict the calorie paradigm, which maintains that it is in turn based on physics that maintains that the universe cannot create or destroy matter or energy. However, something that some seem to have been ignoring when addressing this topic is that even building a building requires energy. If you build a building you probably use more energy than if you tear it down and throw away the rubble.

The same thing happens in humans, and we call this anabolism (construction) and catabolism (net burning to produce energy). While anabolism builds more matter, despite its energy expenditure, catabolism destroys matter to produce energy. This proposed balance would explain the apparent phenomenon of thin people eating as much as fat people and still being thin.

Since the study on metabolic acceleration came out, led by Herman Pontzer and more (Herman Pontzer et al. ,Daily energy expenditure through the human life course.Science373,808-812(2021).DOI:10.1126/science.abe5017), we are left without an explanation for this matter. This study rules out that accelerated metabolism is the cause of some being thinner than others. In fact, the study changes many things, since it suggests that in stages of growth or greater weight gain is when the metabolism would be most accelerated, and that in stages of aging (+-60 years and older) when the most weight is usually lost. (fat and muscle) is when the metabolism would be less and less accelerated than throughout biological life. Metabolism would have to do with it, but through anabolism and catabolism.

But now I present to you this proposal for an explanation of this phenomenon.

P.S I am a new user, my name is Wigberto Marciaga, I am from Panama, an independent researcher (if you want, you can say amateur). Believer in Yeshu the Anointed.

 Indeed very hard to control for all the variables involved here. Purely anecdotally, my observation is that fatter people often eat more, and often they eat worse, i.e. more ready meals and junk food. Having said that, it is definitely not always the case, so there are other issues to do with varying propensity to convert calories to fat. Some of these effects appear to be hereditary.

 

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Interesting points swansont, excemist

As they mention, I also think that there are various reasons. Also, it regularly happens as excehmist mentions, as I have observed.

There are people who have more difficulty absorbing calories and nutrients from the foods they eat, such as those with celiac disease when they consume gluten, or those who have some condition in their intestinal microbiome that makes it difficult for them. Even diabetics who have difficulty converting the sugars they eat into useful sugars for their bodies.

However, if we start from the idea that there can be individuals who consume more calories than they expend without gaining weight or, at least, consume the same calories as they expend and be thin compared to other individuals (such as the Hadza of Tanzania that men consume and burn about 2,600 calories daily and are thin, according to research). The explanation could be more of a metabolic issue than anything else.

The Hadza are a tribe of hunter-gatherers who carry out long daily days of physical activity, but even so, at the end of the day they would not spend a surplus of calories compared to less active city people (When adjusted for weight and lean mass). This is evidence that humans, as has been observed in various species, have energy adjustments that allow them to avoid excessive calorie expenditure.

The explanation for the fact that they do not gain weight and remain thin, unlike what Herman Pontzer proposed, could be that their high amount of physical activity of low to moderate intensity, and then intense, predisposes them to have predominantly catabolic organisms that exert themselves. more about providing the body with the energy it needs daily than about increasing mass. Pontzer proposed that city dwellers ate more calories than Hadza people. Pontzer believed that exercise was practically useless for losing weight and maintaining a healthy weight.

Regarding obesity, we could also talk about a process of hypertrophy, as happens with muscles. This would be hypertrophy of adipose tissue. When we talk about hypertrophy, we are referring to anabolism.

In summary, my proposal is that the balance between anabolism and catabolism is what also maintains a balanced body weight. When this balance is broken, excess weight or obesity can occur.

I think this would be the main cause of weight gain in people who weren't sick in the first place. Then, it would become an endocrine problem, starting in stage 1 obesity with an increase in ghrelin, and in stage 2 onwards with leptin resistance, which leads obese people to, in effect, eat more. However, their bodies still have a predisposition to maintain body fat and accumulate it, also having greater energy efficiency.

Of course, these predispositions have genetic characteristics. Genetics would have a lot to do with it. But in my opinion we could not talk about a genetic disease, but rather genetics would only be a risk factor (probably not a determining factor). Clearly attributed genetic causes of obesity, such as familial Cushing's syndrome (related to excess cortisol), are considerably rare.

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

Calories are an energy content, but the ability to access and exploit that energy varies.e.g. your gut biome might not break certain foods down as efficiently as someone else’s, or the bacteria might feast on it more before the nutrients can be utilized. I’m sure there are a lot more possibilities that someone more familiar with biology could point to. A lot of moving parts here.

Indeed. From a quick skim it seems that the type of calories matter, as not all are similarly bioavailable (e.g. 100 kcal in cellulose provides no energy to humans as we cannot process it). The difference in energy conversion has been mentioned, but there is also evidence of genetic difference in various aspects in transport and storage of nutrients (especially fat deposition has been studied).  The way we are able to take up various nutrients and process them also changes throughout life, due to changes in our hormonal status (which in turn can change depending what we eat and are otherwise exposed to). Also activity has an impact, but not necessarily only the simplistic sense that more calories are burned (it often is not that much) but the way it changes how our body uses directs nutrient flow (and also effectiveness). 

In short, the biology is complicated and the physics of it (i.e. the calorie count) really only represents boundary conditions. I.e. the maximum theoretically a body can utilize from a given food source. How effective and in what form it processed is dependent on an immense number of factors.

4 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

The explanation for the fact that they do not gain weight and remain thin, unlike what Herman Pontzer proposed, could be that their high amount of physical activity of low to moderate intensity, and then intense, predisposes them to have predominantly catabolic organisms that exert themselves. more about providing the body with the energy it needs daily than about increasing mass. 

it is often not helpful to see catabolism and anabolism as competing activities. They are mostly cycles as well as reversible. For example, sugars can be catabolized to pyruvate and then acetyl-coA, the latter being the building blocks for fatty acids. We all have to synthesize proteins all the time and create the building block from catabolic pathways. The balance of these activities are therefore regulated on the molecular, rather than on the macro level.

Specifically in this example, intense activity requires significant maintenance of muscle mass, which requires a metabolism that sustains anabolic reactions for significant amount of structural (muscle) protein synthesis.

 

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Hi CharonY, blessing.

That's what I think, biology, more as nature itself than as science, can be very complex for researchers.

I think that the Hadza have to carry out anabolic processes, like everyone else, otherwise it would be unsustainable. The point is that I propose, as an explanation, that they carry out processes adjusted to their basic needs to keep their bodies alive in the environment in which they inhabit.

On the other hand, fat and obese people lose their balance and begin to hypertrophy adipose tissue in a disproportionate and unnecessary way.

Even this phenomenon that is hypertrophy, even at a molecular level, seems to be influenced by activities such as exercise. For example, some exercises such as weight lifting have been observed to lead to muscle hypertrophy. Similarly, it has been observed that hypertrophic pathways can be more or less functional (necessary for basic functions required in the habitat). For example, bodybuilding would produce less functional muscle mass gain than plyometrics.

Bodybuilders have an amount of muscle mass that could be considered excessive from a point of view of adaptation to the basic physical needs demanded by the environment. Similarly, obese people store more fat than they need.

As can be understood, both muscle hypertrophy and adipose tissue hypertrophy are anabolic processes.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

The point is that I propose, as an explanation, that they carry out processes adjusted to their basic needs to keep their bodies alive in the environment in which they inhabit.

This is true for all organisms, down to the cellular level.

3 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

On the other hand, fat and obese people lose their balance and begin to hypertrophy adipose tissue in a disproportionate and unnecessary way.

"Balance" is to vague. The processes are still balanced as the mechanisms remain unchanged. However, the circumstances (genetic, behavioral and environmental) promote fat accumulation. Just because it is considered non-beneficial in certain situations (e.g. when food is plenty) it does not mean it is unbalanced. That would be a judgement call.

 

3 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Even this phenomenon that is hypertrophy, even at a molecular level, seems to be influenced by activities such as exercise.

This again is trivial. Straining of organs and tissues triggers mechanisms that among other things can result in hypertrophy. I am not sure what the rest of the argument tries to say here in this context. It has little to do with balance. I think you have an "ideal" of sorts in mind and consider anything different as out of balance. But that is really a judgement call as biology just is. If you train a particular muscle in one arm, it will enlarge. Whether you consider that out of balance (e.g. relative to the other arm) is your call, but changes nothing regarding the underlying biology. It does not really care about that- the mechanisms are independent of such assumptions. 

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Hello again Charon Y,

I think that in the case of obese people it is evident that accumulating excess fat is unnecessary in the environment they inhabit with food available all year round. It doesn't seem to me that it is so much an ideal, but if it were, it would be an ideal of health. Obesity, instead of showing advantages for the survival and reproduction of individuals, seems to produce a negative effect.

Therefore, I think it would be more realistic to classify obesity as a condition similar to a pathology than a useful adaptation to adapt to the environment in which one is. At least in most cases of obesity, and perhaps in all.

The topic of muscular hypertrophy was an analogy. He proposed that just as environmental factors such as resistance exercise can modify the balance between anabolism and catabolism, increasing anabolic processes, in some cases, others environmental factors could also be causing hypertrophy of adipose tissue.

I think that simplifying the issue could be more to think that fat people eat more and that is why they are fat, than to consider that the main problem seems to be that they have anabolic processes that make it difficult for them to lose body fat and, on the contrary, lead them to store it in excess.

Regarding muscle functionality. On the one hand, strength can be gained without hypertrophy, or with minor hypertrophy, this could be achieved with methods such as plyometrics and other methods used by athletes. Not every activation of a muscle will produce muscle hypertrophy.

When I refer to something functional, it is when the system is modified to meet the needs of the environment. So the core point would be to distinguish what is necessary from what is unnecessary. The Hadza have a muscle mass adapted to the needs of hunter-gatherers. Thin men who travel great distances in search of food.

Is it necessary to store so much fat in an environment where people get food all year round? I think that in this case, the accumulation of fat is no longer functional. But, it is worse than that; it happens to be a health risk.

I think that up to this point we can maintain that an excessive anabolic process, I would say almost uncontrolled, is what leads some people to be fatter than others.

Likewise, a proper balance between anabolism and catabolism would lead to people having weights that have been observed to be healthy for humans.

And, likewise, an imbalance where catabolic processes are predetermined would lead to people being as thin as below their healthy weight.

Of course, determining a healthy weight is something that is still being debated, as I understand it. But at least, almost no one questions that obesity is not positive for humans and that an ideal of health could be to eradicate it.

Edited April 2 by Wigberto Marciaga

[Wigberto Marciaga]

It seems to me that this topic could enter into human health, but as you will understand, it can also be applied in veterinary medicine.

If you like, you can move it to the corresponding section, which I think would be health. When I opened this topic I was new to the forum.

In summary, what I propose is that the influence of metabolism on body weight does not have to do with whether it is slow or accelerated, but with the balance between anabolic and catabolic processes.

One of the reasons I would like to present this proposal in this forum is so that users can review it and give their opinion, as some have done before, on this. As we see, it has been recognized that this does not contradict the balance of matter and energy proposed by physics where the universe cannot create matter or energy by itself, nor can it destroy it.

This proposal not only seeks to provide an explanation, but also to open new areas of research on obesity and problems related to body weight in general. Remember the analogy, if exercise can induce muscle hypertrophy, there may be environmental factors that also influence adipose tissue hypertrophy.

Edited April 9 by Wigberto Marciaga

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

It seems to me that this topic could enter into human health, but as you will understand, it can also be applied in veterinary medicine.

If you like, you can move it to the corresponding section, which I think would be health. When I opened this topic I was new to the forum.

In summary, what I propose is that the influence of metabolism on body weight does not have to do with whether it is slow or accelerated, but with the balance between anabolic and catabolic processes.

One of the reasons I would like to present this proposal in this forum is so that users can review it and give their opinion, as some have done before, on this. As we see, it has been recognized that this does not contradict the balance of matter and energy proposed by physics where the universe cannot create matter or energy by itself, nor can it destroy it.

This proposal not only seeks to provide an explanation, but also to open new areas of research on obesity and problems related to body weight in general. Remember the analogy, if exercise can induce muscle hypertrophy, there may be environmental factors that also influence adipose tissue hypertrophy.

It seems like a statement of the obvious to say that body weight is determined by the balance between anabolic (i.e. building up) and catabolic (i.e. breaking down) processes. How could it be otherwise?  

It is also totally unnecessary to say that there is no violation of the laws of physics involved. Of course there isn't.  

This is not much of a theory, so far.  

[Wigberto Marciaga]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

It seems like a statement of the obvious to say that body weight is determined by the balance between anabolic (i.e. building up) and catabolic (i.e. breaking down) processes. How could it be otherwise?  

It is also totally unnecessary to say that there is no violation of the laws of physics involved. Of course there isn't.  

This is not much of a theory, so far.  

Hello, blessing exchemist

I agree with you, however, the literature has systematically focused on energy balance and metabolic acceleration, ignoring this that you and I are recognizing as obvious (but, as I say, it seems that it has gone unnoticed on the issue of weight bodily)

Something that could also be seen in everyday observations, people like marathon runners are very thin and powerlifters are very heavy, even obese.

I think bodybuilding, fitness and the marketing around this industry has had to do with this. That something that seems obvious has been ignored to give publicity or notoriety to anabolism (and anabolic supplements). (This is obviously an opinion that attempts to explain the possible cause of this issue)

This would not be just another example of what happens when marketing (in this case of gyms and supplements) interposes its interests in the progress of research?. It is possible that this is what happens, as has been achieved with another source of protein, such as whey, which is also presented as ultra-processed in some places and is called protein. (As it seems they try to make people think that there are no other proteins or protein sources, only commercial ones).

That would be another topic, but excess protein can also help you gain weight if carbohydrates are consumed in normal amounts in a diet. High protein diets don't surprise me for the majority, but they always try to make as many people as possible think that they need more protein and that they should resort to supplements.

In any case, we recognize that there is some obviousness in the matter. But although it may seem obvious, even recognized experts and universities have not been able to determine how much metabolism influences body weight, although they recognize that it influences, nor have I ever read that they have proposed something like what you are reading in this forum now.

If I'm not mistaken, this would be the first time this has been proposed anywhere on the internet (in English). Which is the balance between anabolism and catabolism and not metabolic acceleration, or slow metabolism, that influences body weight and obesity. Anabolic processes being the metabolic promoters of obesity.

[TheVat]

On 4/2/2024 at 6:30 AM, Wigberto Marciaga said:

As can be understood, both muscle hypertrophy and adipose tissue hypertrophy are anabolic processes.

Not exactly.  Conversion of carbs to triglycerides is not that simple.  The polymerization pathways of anabolism are a different process from adipose storage of triglycerides..

Here's a look at the topic....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985254/

The worldwide epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes has greatly increased interest in the biology and physiology of adipose tissues. Adipose (fat) cells are specialized for the storage of energy in the form of triglycerides, but research in the last few decades has shown that fat cells also play a critical role in sensing and responding to changes in systemic energy balance. White fat cells secrete important hormone-like molecules such as leptin, adiponectin, and adipsin to influence processes such as food intake, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion. Brown fat, on the other hand, dissipates chemical energy in the form of heat, thereby defending against hypothermia, obesity, and diabetes. It is now appreciated that there are two distinct types of thermogenic fat cells, termed brown and beige adipocytes. In addition to these distinct properties of fat cells, adipocytes exist within adipose tissue, where they are in dynamic communication with immune cells and closely influenced by innervation and blood supply. This review is intended to serve as an introduction to adipose cell biology and to familiarize the reader with how these cell types play a role in metabolic disease and, perhaps, as targets for therapeutic development.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Hello, blessing exchemist

I agree with you, however, the literature has systematically focused on energy balance and metabolic acceleration, ignoring this that you and I are recognizing as obvious (but, as I say, it seems that it has gone unnoticed on the issue of weight bodily)

Something that could also be seen in everyday observations, people like marathon runners are very thin and powerlifters are very heavy, even obese.

I think bodybuilding, fitness and the marketing around this industry has had to do with this. That something that seems obvious has been ignored to give publicity or notoriety to anabolism (and anabolic supplements). (This is obviously an opinion that attempts to explain the possible cause of this issue)

This would not be just another example of what happens when marketing (in this case of gyms and supplements) interposes its interests in the progress of research?. It is possible that this is what happens, as has been achieved with another source of protein, such as whey, which is also presented as ultra-processed in some places and is called protein. (As it seems they try to make people think that there are no other proteins or protein sources, only commercial ones).

That would be another topic, but excess protein can also help you gain weight if carbohydrates are consumed in normal amounts in a diet. High protein diets don't surprise me for the majority, but they always try to make as many people as possible think that they need more protein and that they should resort to supplements.

In any case, we recognize that there is some obviousness in the matter. But although it may seem obvious, even recognized experts and universities have not been able to determine how much metabolism influences body weight, although they recognize that it influences, nor have I ever read that they have proposed something like what you are reading in this forum now.

If I'm not mistaken, this would be the first time this has been proposed anywhere on the internet (in English). Which is the balance between anabolism and catabolism and not metabolic acceleration, or slow metabolism, that influences body weight and obesity. Anabolic processes being the metabolic promoters of obesity.

No, I don't agree that anyone is ignoring the obvious. It is you, rather, that seems to be ignoring the obvious, namely that the rate of metabolism must have an input on where the balance lies between weight gain processes and weight loss processes.

But it seems to me the term "metabolism" is potentially a source of confusion if we are not careful to specify what we mean by it. To my understanding (I am not a biologist and stand to be corrected by better informed people here) metabolism is all the processes that extract energy by oxidising the "food* " an organism takes in, whether this be for heat, for mechanical work done by the organism, or for biochemical synthesis, i.e. conversion to fat, bone, muscle etc.  I gather metabolic rate is in fact often measured by oxygen uptake (This applies only to aerobic organisms obviously). So a faster metabolic rate could serve to enable a higher rate of doing mechanical work, or to generate more heat, or to build up body tissues. But the food also provides the building block for building body tissues, so any food used for that is not metabolised.  

It is an observed fact that doing a lot of mechanical work requires a larger oxygen uptake, indicating a higher metabolic rate, and that as expected athletes eat a lot more than sedentary people, without becoming fat.  So you can't argue that metabolic rate is not relevant. Regarding your comments about weightlifters vs marathon runners, it is the runners who have the higher oxygen uptake, by far, indicating a higher metabolic rate.

 

* I take "food" to comprise all the sources of chemical energy taken in by the organism, so it would not include radiation taken in through photosynthesis, for instance.

[Wigberto Marciaga]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Not exactly.  Conversion of carbs to triglycerides is not that simple.  The polymerization pathways of anabolism are a different process from adipose storage of triglycerides..

Here's a look at the topic....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985254/

The worldwide epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes has greatly increased interest in the biology and physiology of adipose tissues. Adipose (fat) cells are specialized for the storage of energy in the form of triglycerides, but research in the last few decades has shown that fat cells also play a critical role in sensing and responding to changes in systemic energy balance. White fat cells secrete important hormone-like molecules such as leptin, adiponectin, and adipsin to influence processes such as food intake, insulin sensitivity, and insulin secretion. Brown fat, on the other hand, dissipates chemical energy in the form of heat, thereby defending against hypothermia, obesity, and diabetes. It is now appreciated that there are two distinct types of thermogenic fat cells, termed brown and beige adipocytes. In addition to these distinct properties of fat cells, adipocytes exist within adipose tissue, where they are in dynamic communication with immune cells and closely influenced by innervation and blood supply. This review is intended to serve as an introduction to adipose cell biology and to familiarize the reader with how these cell types play a role in metabolic disease and, perhaps, as targets for therapeutic development.

Hello TheVat, blessing

It seems to me that any conversion that leads to maintaining either fat or glucose in the body is an anabolic process. Well, the definition of catabolism would be when molecules are broken down to generate energy, not even to generate the fuel itself. Glucose and triglycerides are fuel, when they are burned and not when they are produced, their catabolic process would be.

In that same sense, not only can triglocerdia be used catabolically, sometimes the body can even burn muscle tissue.But the production of matter, be it triglycerides or muscle tissue, would enter into anabolic and not catabolic processes, despite the fact that it is understood that the purpose of fat, like triglycerides in particular, is to generate energy.

All types of fat, like all matter, are generated by anabolic processes. When burned, as in the case of brown fat, this would be its catabolism.

And whenever we talk about hypertrophy or hyperplasia we would be talking about anabolism and not catabolism.

9 minutes ago, exchemist said:

• Posted 5 minutes ago
  
•  

No, I don't agree that anyone is ignoring the obvious. It is you, rather, that seems to be ignoring the obvious, namely that the rate of metabolism must have an input on where the balance lies between weight gain processes and weight loss processes.

But it seems to me the term "metabolism" is potentially a source of confusion if we are not careful to specify what we mean by it. To my understanding (I am not a biologist and stand to be corrected by better informed people here) metabolism is all the processes that extract energy by oxidising the "food* " an organism takes in, whether this be for heat, for mechanical work done by the organism, or for biochemical synthesis, i.e. conversion to fat, bone, muscle etc.  I gather metabolic rate is in fact often measured by oxygen uptake (This applies only to aerobic organisms obviously). So a faster metabolic rate could serve to enable a higher rate of doing mechanical work, or to generate more heat, or to build up body tissues. But the food also provides the building block for building body tissues, so any food used for that is not metabolised.  

It is an observed fact that doing a lot of mechanical work requires a larger oxygen uptake, indicating a higher metabolic rate, and that as expected athletes eat a lot more than sedentary people, without becoming fat.  So you can't argue that metabolic rate is not relevant. Regarding your comments about weightlifters vs marathon runners, it is the runners who have the higher oxygen uptake, by far, indicating a higher metabolic rate.

 

* I take "food" to comprise all the sources of chemical energy taken in by the organism, so it would not include radiation taken in through photosynthesis, for instance.

This is not necessarily the case, although intuition suggests that at first glance. Something basic in biology is that the larger organism has a higher metabolic rate. For example, a sedentary bear burns many more calories even when resting than an active mouse (of course, this is an exaggerated comparison).

Now, muscles are metabolically more active than fat, so maintaining muscle mass may require more calories than maintaining adipose tissue (but obviously, if you don't maintain it with calories, the muscle will be lost). So perhaps powerlifters are not as far behind in caloric expenditure as marathoners.

And if we also add studies with hunter-gatherer tribes, such as the Hadza, or athletes themselves, which suggest that there are adjustments in energy expenditure so as not to exceed the amount of calories that can be consumed with physical activity, and even (case of hunter-gatherers), daily calories. For example, one of the oldest studies I read by H. Pontzer states that the Hadza burn the same daily calories as much less active people (this was also observed in comparison of zoo and wild animals). That is to say, it seems that there are energy adjustments that prevent exceeding caloric expenditure with exercise.

What I wanted to raise with this is the seemingly obvious fact that anabolic activities lead to weight gain (either muscle or fat, or both), while catabolic activities lead to weight loss. These different exercises are like environmental factors that seem to influence people's physical constitution.

Of course, there is the option of saying that powerlifters eat more than marathon runners, which could be true, the question would be, how much more is enough to explain their large weight differences?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

It seems to me that any conversion that leads to maintaining either fat or glucose in the body is an anabolic process. Well, the definition of catabolism would be when molecules are broken down to generate energy, not even to generate the fuel itself. Glucose and triglycerides are fuel, when they are burned and not when they are produced, their catabolic process would be.

That is not quite correct. Catabolism simply refers to break down more complex to simpler molecules. Energy is released in the process, but does not necessarily generate biologically usable energy (e.g. simply released as heat). Only certain chemical steps (e.g. substrate level phosphorylation) recover energy, rest has to go through additional processes such as respiration. The metabolites are not just simply fuel, they are also building blocks for other molecules.

 

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

o my understanding (I am not a biologist and stand to be corrected by better informed people here) metabolism is all the processes that extract energy by oxidising the "food* " an organism takes in, whether this be for heat, for mechanical work done by the organism, or for biochemical synthesis, i.e. conversion to fat, bone, muscle etc.  I gather metabolic rate is in fact often measured by oxygen uptake (This applies only to aerobic organisms obviously). So a faster metabolic rate could serve to enable a higher rate of doing mechanical work, or to generate more heat, or to build up body tissues. But the food also provides the building block for building body tissues, so any food used for that is not metabolised.  

In my mind this is overcomplicating things a bit. Metabolism is in the simplest form conversion of one biomolecule (metabolite) into another. Depending on the individual reactions it can require or release energy and the energy might be lost (as heat) or recovered biochemically.

The sum of all processes (or metabolic activities) at rest is referred to as basal metabolism, which sometimes is conflated with the energy expenditure for said metabolic activities. Technically it would be more correct to refer to the energy portion as basal energy expenditure (BEE).

Importantly, BEE is the largest energy expenditure (something in the order of 70-80% of total energy expenditure). I.e. doing exercise does only requires a fairly limited amount of extra energy relative to the basal metabolism.

The interesting but well-known bit is that basal metabolism is dependent on a lot of factors, including age, activity, but also body weight. For example, maintaining a highly active lifestyle is associated with an increase in basal metabolism (and hence, BEE). But sometimes burst of high activities (and higher associated energy expenditure) can partially be compensated by a reduction of BEE, so that the total expenditure does not change proportionately to the activity. Folks with less body weight, or after losing body weight also have a reduced BEE(which might contribute to the yo-yo effect).

 

 

Also, I think the attempt to link overall energy expenditure to specific metabolic processes is flawed. There are many, sometimes competing activities going on at the same time involving different cell types, tissues and so on. There is no way way to measure them in vivo and unfortunately quite a few folks start to speculate about them without really having the data to support it on that level of detail. This has resulted in a lot of proposed diets, supplements, exercises and whatnot which for the most part simply not evidence-based. I.e. we cannot gain a deeper understanding of processes by speculating harder. At some point we first have to think about a) what data do we need and b) how can we get them (or is it possible to get them in the first place).

[Wigberto Marciaga]

Hello CharonY, blessin, good day.

The studies by H. Pontzer that I read use that the most advanced method currently used to measure total daily energy expenditure (24 hours). This would be the double labeled water method.

With this method, the researchers were able to observe that, contrary to what was assumed, the most active people could have a lower basal metabolism. This is what is known as energy compensation and would occur to avoid excessive calorie expenditure that would end up putting biological survival at risk.

Pontzer found that although the Hadza carried out so much physical activity, at a metabolic level, adjusting their physical build, their daily energy expenditure was practically the same as that of less active people. This, as you will understand, leads us to think that they probably compensated with other activities and spent fewer calories at rest. That is, your basal metabolism would be lower. Not only because they weigh less, but because your cells they burn very few calories at rest.

Medlinepluss, on the topic of whether exercise increases resting metabolism, has classified it as a myth. Exercise would only help increase your metabolism high during your practice and shortly after.

Now, if my proposal is correct, using Pontzer's research, a scenario that could emerge in research using chemical tools to measure energy expenditure is that, for example, a marathon runner would burn on average about 3000 calories a day, but would consume between 4500 and 5000 calories daily. Contrary to expectations, you do not burn more calories than you consume, but rather you consume excess calories. Therefore, it would be explained by suggesting that the catabolic tendency also prevents excessive absorption of calories from the diet. But in an anabolic environment the reverse would happen, as many calories as possible would be absorbed from the diet. Following that example, a 200-pound man who expends 3,500 calories daily and eats 4,500 to 5,000 calories would weigh 200 pounds, while the marathon runner in a similar condition might weigh 140 pounds or less.

Possible explanations could be found not only in human cells and human metabolism, but also in the bacteria and microorganisms found in the human body.

This is a proposal, what is missing, it seems to me, are more experiments.

Refereces:

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000893.htm

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22848382/

[CharonY]

It seems to me that you are making a conclusion that the authors are not making. The authors found similar TEE, but your assumption is because physical activity should increase TEE, but it doesn't, it means that the basal metabolism is lower (thus preserving energy). However, this is not what the authors conclude. Rather (and in agreement with other studies) the conclusion is that physical activity has little effect and that differences in adiposity is linked to calorie intake. I.e. it does not support the notion of a difference in energy expenditure (and certainly states nothing about specific anabolic or catabolic functions).

 

On 4/10/2024 at 3:35 AM, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Medlinepluss, on the topic of whether exercise increases resting metabolism, has classified it as a myth. Exercise would only help increase your metabolism high during your practice and shortly after.

This is not what I was referring to. Studies have shown that folks with active lifestyles, on average have a slightly higher baseline metabolism (a random one is here, but there is a glut of papers like those out there https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijes/vol11/iss2/2/). However, the effect size is often fairly small and relies on longer-term activities (but it is possible that over even longer time, the body adapts). But as a whole this really just suggests again that the largest determinant is usually calorie intake. 

Another factor is that BMR is also dependent on body composition and I think studies in athletes suggest higher BMR in athletes in part because of higher fat free mass. But I am not sure what the current state of the art there is.  There is of course also a whole area where folks discuss the issues with calorig measurement techniques, but this is probably beyond the scope of this discussion.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought.
As far as I can tell,  there could be two "versions" of me.
One has a tendency to open the blood vessels near the skin, and the other tends to restrict them.
Both are capable of maintaining the same core body temperature ; but they have different "power requirements" (because they have different skin temperature).

If both versions consumed the same number of calories, either one would gain weight, or the other would lose it.

There are, of course, other possibilities for how a similar outcome could occur; gut bacteria variation would be an obvious place to look.

[Mendel191]

On 4/1/2024 at 10:04 AM, swansont said:

I would not be at all surprised to find that the ability to metabolize food is not uniform in all people (because what is?), and might be worse when you’re sick. Calories are an energy content, but the ability to access and exploit that energy varies.e.g. your gut biome might not break certain foods down as efficiently as someone else’s, or the bacteria might feast on it more before the nutrients can be utilized. I’m sure there are a lot more possibilities that someone more familiar with biology could point to. A lot of moving parts here.

I think the basics apply to the average person, and you have to acknowledge the variation in individuals. The concept of energy conservation is not endangered.

This is basically why I don't belive in calorie counting or anything that tries to count them, I recently saw a video which investigated how mukbang eaters don't get fat, the short answer is that they don't absorb all the calories that they are eating, now how would any person what % of calories from their food they are actually absorbing in their system...

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Mendel191 said:

This is basically why I don't belive in calorie counting or anything that tries to count them, I recently saw a video which investigated how mukbang eaters don't get fat, the short answer is that they don't absorb all the calories that they are eating, now how would any person what % of calories from their food they are actually absorbing in their system...

OTOH if that fraction of calories utilized is roughly constant, then eating more/fewer calories means you are absorbing more/fewer calories. 

[TheVat]

Similar points seem to recycle in this thread.  12 days ago I posted

And a person's weight relates to more than one cause.  Faster metabolism can be one, balance of intestinal microflora and efficiency of gut absorption can be another.  Autoimmune disorders can also factor in, through inflammatory response in the small intestine and induced lesions.   Also, hormone levels, environmental toxins, fiber consumption, sensitivity to fermentable polysaccharides, etc.

Many studies have shown that the usual suspects in weight control are consistently factors - overall average level of physical activity, total calorie intake, proportions of fiber and anti-nutrients (like lectins, phytates, agglutinins, raffinose, protease inhibitors, alpha-amylase inhibitors, et al), types of protein consumed (fish takes less energy to catabolize than red meat, e.g.) and as oft-repeated....balance of gut bacteria.  My career intersected with this area of study for about four years and I learned again and again how complex is the matter of metabolizing food and how little we still know.  For example, I learned that Caesarian birthed children often diverge considerably from their parents in metabolism because their gut bacteria are less derived from the maternal gut colony.  (I'll spare you the details)  

Generally, based on what we've found so far:  walk everywhere, eat lots of plants with lots of fiber, and skip desserts and sweet juices.  If you have a choice between ultra processed food and something yanked from the ground, pick the latter.  Rakes not leaf blowers.  Stairs not elevators.  Etc.  It's mostly sticking with the game plan and getting a little closer to the hunter -gatherer that is your DNA blueprint.  Good luck.

 

[CharonY]

Since it has popped up a couple of times, I want to stress that the role of the gut microbiota is unclear. Especially relating to energy consumption, activity and weight gain/loss, it is very unclear whether changes in the composition are just associated with larger changes or whether they are affecting it. There have been fecal transplantation studies, but not on a scale necessary to deal with these high dimensional data sets. I.e. it is one of these areas where I think hype might have outrun the evidence a fair bit. There is also a bit of an issue with incongruent approaches as there are studies that measure things  very differently (e.g. microbiologists vs nutritionists) leading to uneven data interpretation. This is generally not an issue in the long run as at some point the more robust results get elevated but more than a decade in, I still a lot of noise.

[TheVat]

44 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Since it has popped up a couple of times, I want to stress that the role of the gut microbiota is unclear.

For sure.  I saw a good review of the current published material on this a few years back.  Found it. June 2020.

Here is abstract and link:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7333005/

The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Obesity in Adults and the Role of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics for Weight Loss

The link between the gut microbiome and obesity is not well defined. Understanding of the role of the gut microbiome in weight and health management may lead to future revolutionary changes for treating obesity. This review examined the relationship between obesity and the gut microbiome, and the role of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for preventing and treating obesity. We used PubMed and Google Scholar to collect appropriate articles for the review. We showed that the gut microbiome has an impact on nutrient metabolism and energy expenditure. Moreover, different modalities of obesity treatment have been shown to change the diversity and composition of the gut microbiome; this raises questions about the role these changes may play in weight loss. In addition, studies have shown that supplementation with probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics may alter the secretion of hormones, neurotransmitters, and inflammatory factors, thus preventing food intake triggers that lead to weight gain. Further clinical studies are needed to better understand how different species of bacteria in the gut microbiome may affect weight gain, and to determine the most appropriate doses, compositions, and regimens of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics supplementation for long-term weight control.