"Dr." Chris Fenn - Bolloxwatch

fatbee

"My point (and one that Ric has made twice already..) is that you don't get an insulin spike when exercising"

Yes I know. And I'm not doubting it. I just wondered why and how. Ric says it's due to changes in hormonal response, and I'm not doubting that either. I was just asking which hormones and what response, that's all.

Ric_Stern/RST

fatbee wrote:

"My point (and one that Ric has made twice already..) is that you don't get an insulin spike when exercising"

Yes I know. And I'm not doubting it. I just wondered why and how. Ric says it's due to changes in hormonal response, and I'm not doubting that either. I was just asking which hormones and what response, that's all.

i dunno, perhaps you can't read, but i'm pretty certain i said that insulin response is reduced during exercise. if you want to read further i suggest you get a book on physiology. I believe you're trying to run before you can walk, and falling over your own feet.

ric

DaveyL

How can someone gain fat when they're eating absolutely nothing?

idaviesmoore

DaveyL wrote:

How can someone gain fat when they're eating absolutely nothing?

How indeed :shock:

SunWuKong

fatbee contact Dr Paul Gately from LMU I'm sure he'd be happy to help you with your programme. Being as they run courses on this stuff there has to peer reviewed studies on this subject. Unfortunately for the time being I do not have access to relevant (or irrelevant for that matter) journals. (quick google: http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/health/dietetics/research/obesity/features/apples.htm)

Just so I'm clear here you agree that diet and exercise have a bearing on insulin production. and you are suggesting that as insulin responds to blood sugar levels surely it's managing this that this that is key to weight management and not overall caloric intake? So therefore it's carbohydrate and GI that is key? Excess calories from fat wont make a person fatter then?

fatbee

Hi all !


DaveyL and idaviesmoore :

“How can someone gain fat when they're eating absolutely nothing?”

Because, as I’ve already said, the body catabolises lean tissue and insulin lays it down as fat. That’s how powerful a hormone insulin is.



Ric :

“but i'm pretty certain i said that insulin response is reduced during exercise”

What you actually said was :

“the insulin spike that can occur after consuming carbs is reduced/eliminated when you are exercising due to changes in hormonal response.”

(See, I can read !)

So I then asked :

“Which hormones and to what are they responding please?”

And you declined to answer.

Thanks you for your suggestion that i “get a book on physiology”. I might well do that. But I will still be left with the nagging suspicion that the reason for your reticence is that you don’t actually know the answer. Oh well.



SunWuKong :

“Just so I'm clear here you agree that diet and exercise have a bearing on insulin production. and you are suggesting that as insulin responds to blood sugar levels surely it's managing this that this that is key to weight management and not overall caloric intake? So therefore it's carbohydrate and GI that is key?”

Pretty much !

“ Excess calories from fat wont make a person fatter then?”

Well no, they very often will and do, but only in the presence of carbohydrate.

fatbee

Oh yes and thanks for the Leeds link - I'll check it out.

DaveyL

fatbee wrote:

DaveyL and idaviesmoore :

“How can someone gain fat when they're eating absolutely nothing?”

Because, as I’ve already said, the body catabolises lean tissue and insulin lays it down as fat. That’s how powerful a hormone insulin is.

Well that's impressive. I know nothing about this kind of stuff. Can you provide me with a link which explains all this and how it happens?

DaveyL

I just did a little search online for insulin and catabolism. Is this accurate?

http://terveys.blogspot.com/2006/08/ana ... sulin.html

"Insulin is anabolic in these ways:

1. Insulin tranfers blood glucose to the liver & to muscle cells to either be burned for energy, or to be synthesized (that is, built into) glycogen. Glycogen is "animal carbohydrate" which can be burnt (catabolized) when quick energy is needed for exercise or an emergency. Insulin is anabolic because it helps build glycogen.

[Edit: I misstated that. Actually, glycogen itself isn't burnt for energy. Rather, it's converted back into glucose (a conversion stimulated by the catabolic hormone glucagon) & the resulting glucose can then be burnt for energy.]

2. Insulin transfers excess blood glucose, that is more than the body needs for its immediate energy requirements or for replenishment of its glycogen stores, to fat cells for storage as adipose (fat) tissue. Insulin is anabolic because it helps build body fat.

3. Insulin transfers amino acids in the blood for uptake by the muscle cells to be synthesized into proteins for muscle growth. Insulin is anabolic because it helps build muscle."

Seems to imply insulin is implicated in building muscle (not breaking it down).

I'd love to hear more about lean tissue being broken down and stored as fat.

SunWuKong

fatbee the journal of obesity has several of their studies but public access is restricted to abstract only.

OK I get what you're saying. Have you checked out the paleo diet for athletes, you'll probably like that? I don't because I love bread!!

Well no, they very often will and do, but only in the presence of carbohydrate.

Not a dietician so don't know if this is true! I could be a nutrionist though and so can anyone who wants to be.

idaviesmoore

fatbee wrote:

Hi all !


DaveyL and idaviesmoore :

“How can someone gain fat when they're eating absolutely nothing?”

Because, as I’ve already said, the body catabolises lean tissue and insulin lays it down as fat. That’s how powerful a hormone insulin is.



Ric :

“but i'm pretty certain i said that insulin response is reduced during exercise”

What you actually said was :

“the insulin spike that can occur after consuming carbs is reduced/eliminated when you are exercising due to changes in hormonal response.”

(See, I can read !)

So I then asked :

“Which hormones and to what are they responding please?”

And you declined to answer.

Thanks you for your suggestion that i “get a book on physiology”. I might well do that. But I will still be left with the nagging suspicion that the reason for your reticence is that you don’t actually know the answer. Oh well.

“ Excess calories from fat wont make a person fatter then?”

Well no, they very often will and do, but only in the presence of carbohydrate.

Like your style FatBe, but I rather think the 'eating too much, not doing enough' hypothesis fits the bill as well as yours does

SunWuKong

3. Insulin transfers amino acids in the blood for uptake by the muscle cells to be synthesized into proteins for muscle growth. Insulin is anabolic because it helps build muscle."

This is increased sensitivity to insulin after exercise where the recovery window comes from, it's of varying length depending on the study that is read. (Sorry fatbee don't have a citation but there are several studies out there, even some not sponsored by maximuscle, SIS and the like ). But basically if protein and carbs are had together after exercise it is generally beneficial for recovery.

I suppose the levels of each of these food types is dependent on the individual. If fat loss is key then recovery and muscle development will be beneficial but you obviously have to watch your total calorie intake. Personally I need a fair of protein after training.

windchill

In general in science it is a dangerous way to go on to start by being convinced of a idea and then trying to find evidence for it. You look at the evidence first. I suspect strongly that "eating too much and not exercising much makes you fat" will attract fewer viewers to your programme than "it is all insulin" will.
It will also convince some of those people who don't wish to change their lifestyle that it is OK- what can you do when you're a helpless victim of the 21st century disease "lipogenic hyperinsulinaemia". :roll:

Ric_Stern/RST

fatbee wrote:

Hi all !


DaveyL and idaviesmoore :

“How can someone gain fat when they're eating absolutely nothing?”

Because, as I’ve already said, the body catabolises lean tissue and insulin lays it down as fat. That’s how powerful a hormone insulin is.

so, that'd explain why we have fat anorexic's then?

Ric :

“but i'm pretty certain i said that insulin response is reduced during exercise”

What you actually said was :

“the insulin spike that can occur after consuming carbs is reduced/eliminated when you are exercising due to changes in hormonal response.”

(See, I can read !)

So I then asked :

“Which hormones and to what are they responding please?”

And you declined to answer.

i thought i said it was insulin (as in "the insulin spike is reduced").

Thanks you for your suggestion that i “get a book on physiology”. I might well do that. But I will still be left with the nagging suspicion that the reason for your reticence is that you don’t actually know the answer. Oh well.

you'd be wrong. i at least, have peer reviewed published research in a related area of nutrition and physiology. perhaps if you weren't so flippant and were somewhat more approachable you'd get a better response. additionally, by due diligence i meant get a book out and do some reading on the issues surrounding metabolism and physiology etc. Surely, if you're researching for a TV documentary (or whatever it was) you'd be able to get a book and do some reading or are you just trying to make headlines, or am i your mother hand holding you to an answer?

SunWuKong :

“Just so I'm clear here you agree that diet and exercise have a bearing on insulin production. and you are suggesting that as insulin responds to blood sugar levels surely it's managing this that this that is key to weight management and not overall caloric intake? So therefore it's carbohydrate and GI that is key?”

Pretty much !

“ Excess calories from fat wont make a person fatter then?”

Well no, they very often will and do, but only in the presence of carbohydrate.

i challenge to you to eat only lard from now on at a level that exceeds your current daily energy intake and to see what happens.

Ric_Stern/RST

fatbee wrote:

SunWuKong :

“Just so I'm clear here you agree that diet and exercise have a bearing on insulin production. and you are suggesting that as insulin responds to blood sugar levels surely it's managing this that this that is key to weight management and not overall caloric intake? So therefore it's carbohydrate and GI that is key?”

Pretty much !

“ Excess calories from fat wont make a person fatter then?”

Well no, they very often will and do, but only in the presence of carbohydrate.

so, is it insulin or carbohydrate that makes people fat? one minute it was too much insulin and now it's CHO.

ric

myoplexman

Interesting debate. I used to think that obesity was simply caused by calories in greater than calories out equalled a touch of the bicylce pump so to speak. I think in general terms this may be right but there are a lot of contributing factors such as body types, genetics, stress, age, health, etc, etc. In short 2 people could do the same training and eat the same things and will probably have slightly different results with regards to weight and performance. We are all different hence why I will never be a Lance armstrong no matter how much I train or what I eat. I think a lot of mags don't point this out and will continue to encourage the latest nutritional must :roll:

Ric_Stern/RST

myoplexman wrote:

Interesting debate. I used to think that obesity was simply caused by calories in greater than calories out equalled

in general it is (excluding metabolic disorders)

I think in general terms this may be right but there are a lot of contributing factors such as body types, genetics, stress, age, health, etc, etc. In short 2 people could do the same training and eat the same things and will probably have slightly different results with regards to weight and performance.

these factors don't stop the equation being correct. That is, each of us will 'burn' different amounts of energy for the same activity, will have different metabolism's, etc.

ric

Tom Butcher

Today it's insulin - 20 years ago it always used to be a thyroid condition.

scherrit

Just out of interest, how hard is it to get qualified as a nutritionist? I only ask because I've heard more twaddle being spouted by said nutritionists than any other life form....

I ought to qualify that... what I hear coming from them just sounds unspeakably unscientific.... so for example what I've heard passed onto clients has been stuff that is at the very edge of improbability, where one ill-controlled low subject number trial has been done and paid for by a supplement company....

Similarly, the articles in CPlus on nutrition and occasionaly the answers to readers nutritional questions have been a bit non-scientific whereas (for example) the long article on knee health was brilliant and well supported.
Just my 2p.
S.

fatbee

Hi scherrit!

“I've heard more twaddle being spouted by said nutritionists than any other life form....”

Never was a truer word spoken IMO.

“how hard is it to get qualified as a nutritionist?”

How hard is it? I’ll show you :

I’m a nutritionist!

There how hard was that? No really, I am! I’ve just decided.

No, actually that’s not quite good enough – Dr. Chris Fenn is a “Nutritionist” and I don’t think she’s terribly good (in case you hadn’t noticed!)

So I am :

A NUTRITIONAL THERAPIST.

There, that sounds more impressive doesn’t it? Like it sounds as if I know some stuff that you don’t – you know, science and shit - and furthermorely, that I can use it to help you . . . feel better / get slimmer / go faster / be better in bed / not get cancer / live longer . . . all that, you know, like, health stuff. But only if you pay me!

So what qualifications do I have? Well er, none actually. But you know what? That doesn’t matter. I can perfectly legally call myself a “nutritional therapist” and there’s nothing you, or anyone else can do about it. Ha ha!

But I’m still worried about my credibility and professional prospects (as a professional nutritional therapist) so, I’ve now decided I do need some qualifications after all.

So. I passed O-Level Chemistry and Physics (GCSE for younger viewers) in 1976. (Just..) Chemistry, that’s molecules and stuff, and Physics is heat and energy and such. Can't actually remeber any of it. But no matter! They’ll do. Oh, and I passed Cycling Proficiency.*

Now while we’re at it. I’m a doctor. No, really I am! I have a PhD. I’d never before thought that the Doctorate in Philosophy that I received for writing an essay about the work of Soren Kierkegaard, qualified me to advise people about their health and fitness. But I’ve changed my mind. So there!

So, I give you :

Dr. Fatbee – Qualified Nutritional Therapist

Anyone got a problem with that ?

*I lied about Cycling Proficiency

fatbee

Tom Butcher wrote:

Today it's insulin - 20 years ago it always used to be a thyroid condition.

Sorry Tom, but 20 years ago it was THOUGHT to be thyroidal (by some people anyway.) But it was insulin then and it's insulin now. Just as it has been for millions of years - humans and their predecessors have basically had the same digestive and endocrine systems for that long.

To reiterate. If you put on fat it’s due to the presence of insulin, and if you burn it off it’s due to the absence of it.

Ain’t no other way it happens.

fatbee

Crumbs Ric! Do you really not understand this?

"so, is it insulin or carbohydrate that makes people fat? one minute it was too much insulin and now it's CHO"

It's both! Put very simply, carbs make insulin and insulin makes bodyfat. No insulin no bodyfat.

Go, as they say, figure.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

x

rob_spedding

Whether you agree with what Chris -or any other nutrition writer - is up to you. I'm the editor of Cycling Plus and worked for many years on Runner's World. Some things nutrition experts write is great and some of it is, well....

Anyway, Fatbee, I'll answer a question you posed in your first post regards the editorial teams GCSEs. Well, mine anyway - a C in chemistry and a B in physics. A long time ago, not much nutirition involved and as a dull as hell, if I remember rightly.... As for Chris Fenn. She has a pHD so has every right to call herself a 'Dr'. Just like you. That said - I do feel she is more qualified than you to offer nutrition advice... In her own words:

" I have a BSc (honours) degree in Agricultural Sciences from Nottingham University. In my final year, I specialised in Biochemistry, Food Chemistry and Human Nutrition. I chose this course of study to give me a broad background and understanding about how food is produced and processed, as well as the impact on health once it is swallowed. I continued in the academic world as a Lecturer (Grade A) at The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, lecturing in Nutrition and Food Sciences. I was part of the team which put together the new BSc honours degree course for Dietetic students.

At this time, I also carried out my research and completed my thesis for my PhD. This is registered at Aberdeen University. I am not a medical doctor. The topic of my PhD research was exercise physiology. Most of my research centred around rehydration and substrate utilisation during endurance exercise.

With this background and level of academic success, I have been considered an expert in my field and described as "one of the UK's leading nutritionists". Nevertheless, I also decided to register as an Accredited Nutritonist with the Institute of Biology and Nutrition Society. I then set up my own business as a Nutriton Consultant. My focus is now on education (through my books as an author, BBC radio and TV work, magazines and seminars). Since I no longer work within academia and carry out my own laboratory based research, I have let my accreditation registration lapse.

As an independent nutritionist, I am not associated with the Food Standards Agency. Their advice, on most aspects of food policy, tends to favour intensive agriculture and the interests of large food manufacturers. I prefer to take a more holistic view and consider all aspects of food production."

Rob

fatbee

“i challenge to you to eat only lard from now on at a level that exceeds your current daily energy intake and to see what happens”

Well you’ll forgive me if I decline actually to rise to your challenge – neat lard is hardly pleasant to eat.

But for the record, somebody doing so would lose stored body fat and lean tissue, quite dramatically.

I wouldn’t recommend it as a lifestyle choice – you need to eat protein to preserve muscle mass, and there are loads and loads of vitamins, minerals and other healthful micronutrients in carby foods like fruit and veg.

But in general, somebody eating nothing but fat will lose weight, no matter how many calories they ingest.

I know you won’t believe me, but it’s still true.

Ric_Stern/RST

fatbee wrote:

“i challenge to you to eat only lard from now on at a level that exceeds your current daily energy intake and to see what happens”

Well you’ll forgive me if I decline actually to rise to your challenge – neat lard is hardly pleasant to eat.

But for the record, somebody doing so would lose stored body fat and lean tissue, quite dramatically.

I wouldn’t recommend it as a lifestyle choice – you need to eat protein to preserve muscle mass, and there are loads and loads of vitamins, minerals and other healthful micronutrients in carby foods like fruit and veg.

But in general, somebody eating nothing but fat will lose weight, no matter how many calories they ingest.

I know you won’t believe me, but it’s still true.

You're damn right i won't believe you, and frankly i'm not interested in taking this conversation further with you. I believe that if you want to challenge established ideas *you* are going to have to come up with some actual evidence to support your claims, which you've not done. On the other hand i believe that you've been rude to Dr Chris Fenn in a most unprofessional manner. I have zero idea whether her article is good, bad or indifferent (i've not read it). Irrespective of whether her article is good or bad, and irrespective of whether *you* think you were being 'funny', i feel that you've simply produced an ad homien attack (e.g. ""Dr." Chris Fenn - Bolloxwatch").

So, i'll finish my comment to you with this: if you want to disprove generally accepted science while trying to be a professional (your TV documentary) how about producing some peer reviewed evidence or evidence based on first principles.

cheers
ric

Ric_Stern/RST

fatbee wrote:

“i challenge to you to eat only lard from now on at a level that exceeds your current daily energy intake and to see what happens”

Well you’ll forgive me if I decline actually to rise to your challenge – neat lard is hardly pleasant to eat.

But for the record, somebody doing so would lose stored body fat and lean tissue, quite dramatically.

I wouldn’t recommend it as a lifestyle choice – you need to eat protein to preserve muscle mass, and there are loads and loads of vitamins, minerals and other healthful micronutrients in carby foods like fruit and veg.

But in general, somebody eating nothing but fat will lose weight, no matter how many calories they ingest.

I know you won’t believe me, but it’s still true.

You're damn right i won't believe you, and frankly i'm not interested in taking this conversation further with you. I believe that if you want to challenge established ideas *you* are going to have to come up with some actual evidence to support your claims, which you've not done. On the other hand i believe that you've been rude to Dr Chris Fenn in a most unprofessional manner. I have zero idea whether her article is good, bad or indifferent (i've not read it). Irrespective of whether her article is good or bad, and irrespective of whether *you* think you were being 'funny', i feel that you've simply produced an ad homien attack (e.g. ""Dr." Chris Fenn - Bolloxwatch").

So, i'll finish my comment to you with this: if you want to disprove generally accepted science while trying to be a professional (your TV documentary) how about producing some peer reviewed evidence or evidence based on first principles.

cheers
ric

fatbee

OK Ric

"so, that'd explain why we have fat anorexic's then?"


Er, no it wouldn't then.

The two examples I gave involved patients/subjects having insulin exogenously administered. In the absence of any such artificial intervention, somebody undergoing (for whatever reason) chronic caloric restriction, will experience very low levels of insulin and, as a consequence, very high levels of glucagon - the exact opposite of the phenomenon I was describing. Since insulin is anabolic and glucagon catabolic, the anorexic will suffer significant loss of both lean tissue and body fat. As we know.

Do by all means continue to leave posts relating to your understanding of this subject, but please, if you can, leave off on the casual, sarcastic references to serious, distressing and potentially fatal medical conditions.

There’s a good lad.

Ric_Stern/RST

fatbee wrote:

OK Ric

"so, that'd explain why we have fat anorexic's then?"


Er, no it wouldn't then.

The two examples I gave involved patients/subjects having insulin exogenously administered. In the absence of any such artificial intervention, somebody undergoing (for whatever reason) chronic caloric restriction, will experience very low levels of insulin and, as a consequence, very high levels of glucagon - the exact opposite of the phenomenon I was describing. Since insulin is anabolic and glucagon catabolic, the anorexic will suffer significant loss of both lean tissue and body fat. As we know.

Do by all means continue to leave posts relating to your understanding of this subject, but please, if you can, leave off on the casual, sarcastic references to serious, distressing and potentially fatal medical conditions.

There’s a good lad.

I said i wouldn't but respond further...

but how come you get people with undiagnosed diabetes who are overfat but produce little to no insulin? How come you get endurance athletes who eat huge amounts of carbohydrates (often including large amounts of very glycaemic CHO) who are painfully thin. How come you get vegetarians who are in general often leaner than the omnivirous people, yet who eat a predominance of carbohyrates?

Ric

scherrit

Slightly OT (again) but there are a few decent sites where some crusader has tried to assemble a medium brow but still scientific view of the state of play in nutrition for interested parties (like a lot of us athletes and coaches) who don't have time to do a degree in nutrition etc

Try:http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/introduction-and-why-i-created-this.html
if the link doesn't work, just google junkfood science - there are a few other sites....

"bandolier" for medicine, "sense about science" and "bad science" also look useful.

If you can bear looking in a body bulding mag, "muscular development" seems to track recent papers in nutrition and conditioning (with an obvious bias towards stregth) with a potted summary and view of the latest state of play.

As an aside, I've found that combat in cleated cycling shoes doesn't work so well.....
S.

fatbee

Hi Rob

many, many thanks for upping the ante and taking things to the Editorial level.

Since you’ve taken the time and trouble to do so, I will now avoid any further attempts at irony and/or humour and keep things entirely straight.

Chris Fenn’s CV is indeed long and impressive, and I genuinely mean that. And of course she is infinitely better qualified as a result to give advice than I, and I also acknowledge the subject-relevance of her PhD.

However, I do still question the validity of calling oneself “Doctor”, in this context. Can you as Editor please then explain your decision gradually to remove the “Dr.” bit from her by-line? If you’ve considered the description valid and useful over the years, what’s changed now?

And the trouble is, if I now recognise the validity both of Dr. Fenn’s bona fides, and your decision as Editor to include her work in your publication, I can now only put some of what she writes and you print, down to lazy journalism on her part and poor editing on yours.

I’d like to be wrong. So can you please explain the following part of the article in question (which I now see is also featured on the website) ?

“If you ride three times a week and eat a slab of fruit cake each time, you will need to ride for 57 minutes to burn this off, plus an extra two hours to shift 1lb of excess fat each week.
Swap the fruit cake for malt loaf and you only need to ride for 28 minutes, and you start your fat burning regime much sooner.”

(Your/her italics BTW.)

Take an overweight cyclist/reader who has already tried and failed to lose unwanted body fat, and now turns to you as Editor of Cycling Plus and your nominated diet/fitness doctor for help. He hopes and expects to find the same sort of good and useful advice that he has experienced with technical and kit-buying recommendations from the likes of, just for instance, the excellent Hilary Stone and the equally brilliant Paul Smith.

What do you, as the person who decided to print this, expect him to get from it? How did you imagine that he would put this advice into action, and how did you think success in doing so could be demonstrated? What is the science behind it and where can I get my hands on the relevant fruit cake and malt loaf respectively?

Because in the absence of coherent answers to these questions, I really cannot conclude anything other than that she just casually knocked it off, and you then printed it without much thought or consideration.

But I really do hope to be proved wrong, and I look forward to hearing from you!

fb