Quickest way to lose weight?

[Leeds Spur]

I think the word I'm looking for is OWNED

 

[uksb]

I asked you if you know what an isotope is, because you wrote this:



Nitrogen is not "a form of protein as an isotope". Nitrogen is an atom. Atoms come as different isotopes depending on the number of neutrons in the nucleus. Nitrogen comes is a few forms, the stable 14-N and 15-N, plus the radioisotope 16-N and possible some other unstable ones. Isotopes can only change in nuclear reactions and play no role in biology.

Many molecules in the body contain nitrogen, nearly all the 14-N isotope, regardless of the molecule, whether small amounts of dissolved nitrogen gas, amino acids, nucleic acids or proteins. One group of these molecules, the amino-acid form polymers known as proteins. Isotopes don't come into it. And heat doesn't cause either proteins or nitrogen gas to become acid. This is complete nonsense.

This is elementary stuff that you learn in school. You spout complete nonsense with no scientific basis and then get defensive when challenged on it. Its not a question of appearing superior or refusing to engage. I did try and engage in my first couple of posts (note my reply to Scara) but all you do is quote irrelevant material cut and pasted form articles.



Pretty much any biological chemistry would confound you.



You ask me to tell what I know of non-protein nitrogen. Then you quote some text about lactic acid. Lactic acid does not contain nitrogen so what has it to do with what you are trying to talk about?

Now uric acid does contain nitrogen. It and urea and the main way we excrete nitrogen after protein. But apart from contain the word acid in its name, how does it relate to your theory. You are just finding fragments of text including the word acid and joining them together.



If you are using amino-acids as a source of energy you are in deep trouble. You only start breaking down protein and using the amino-acids for energy during starvation and by that time many things will be going wrong. Most amino-acid catabolism doesn't go through glucose. Most amino-acids get converted in to molecules that can enter the citric acid cycle (not this is not about body acids but the main energy producing metabolic pathway) than feeds the mitochondrial electron transport chain.

The bit about urea has some truth, but it doesn't demonstrate anything about the effects of " immersion in oxygen rich water with rich amounts of magnesium sulphate and natural sodium". There is no logical connection between the bits of text you quote and your conclusions. You jump straight from something on notrogen metabolism to immersion in oxygen rich water and magnesium sulphate. You seem to be confusing buffering with bathing.

You ask me to engage in a discussion at the same time as saying I have no credibility with you. I'm glad I don't, as that would imply I speak the same gibberish. You don't have a theory that can be discussed in an intelligent way because all you do is quote a series of pseudo-scientific ... no, not pseudo-scientific as that more throught out ... mumbo-jumbo is a better term.

If you are serious about a discussion. Lay out your theory and at least make logical connections between the parts. Don't cut and paste irrelevant bits of text just because they mention the same word. But start by looking up the meaning of isotope, because if you think isotopes are involved you are creating a whole new biochemistry.

Don't want this post to be lost at the bottom of the previous page.

 

[jts1882]

Don't want this post to be lost at the bottom of the previous page.

I think it would be better that the whole discussion was forgotten and we return to the weight loss topic. This clearly is not relevant.

Of course, the diet field has a load of charlatans, but one of the biggest problems is that what works for one person, doesn't work for all. You can't escape the fact that the balance of calories in and calories consumed is what determines weight loss/gain. The biggest problem for most people is they find diets difficult to maintain. Some people will favour lots of small meals, while some prefer one big meal. Some people prefer low carb or low fat, others something else. In the end its the diet that people can stick to that is the most effective for them.

 

[Leeds Spur]

Hear hear!

 

[THFC]

The problem for me is always what can be a healthy snack, and what are you classing as a small meal, for me would be unsatisfying. I am 6ft and 14.5 stone, I cannot just have salad for dinner or I will wake up the next day needing a big breakfast, and if I skip breakfast will crave a big dinner. I tried eating cashew nuts last week as a snack, not eating breakfast but this got just boring, I need some variety or I will start craving the dinners of legend again. If I have scrambled egg on toast - am I a bad man? what do you suggest as the meals for this little and often diet?

 

[THFC]

fudge this, i'm going mental i'm going out for a full english, will consider the consequences later! does the full english count as 1 meal? or two?

 

[southstand1882]

fudge this, i'm going mental i'm going out for a full english, will consider the consequences later! does the full english count as 1 meal? or two?

A high quality full English is a healthy meal, packed with protein, good fats and few carbs

Have two mate

 

[THFC]

This is where I am eternally confused, surely if I had three full english brekkies a day, I would end up like Simon Cowell (fat judging by the picture I saw in the Sunday Mirror whilst eating my Full English)

 

[DHSF]

This is where I am eternally confused, surely if I had three full english brekkies a day, I would end up like Simon Cowell (fat judging by the picture I saw in the Sunday Mirror whilst eating my Full English)

Yeah if you lavished it with sunflower oil and butter on toast etc.

You can get good quality bacon and sausages now which dont contain much bad fats. Dont get tesco value brick as that stuff is made out of the leftovers from the leftovers.

 

[Gifter]

I asked you if you know what an isotope is, because you wrote this:

It'd get to long if I quote it all.

Rinsed!

But, I'm thankful, as I'm now reading up furiously and already I have found I am not wrong (or as wrong!) in the essence of my premise. But I'm rubbish at articulating it, I’ll obviously accede that!

Sorry for being childishly antagonistic JTS. It’s poor form.

You explained well about the Nitrogen atom having nothing to do with 'Nitrogen in a form of protein as an isotope' (Nitrogen as an isotope of cell protein, better?). Though I think it is correct as a means of labelling the cellular protein which is rich in an isotope of nitrogen (pre-conversion to non-toxic ammonia/urea), perhaps is a better way of putting it? maybe that is incorrect terminology still, hoo-hum.

It does not discount the rest of the premise that magnesium, sulphur, sodium and oxygen is excellent to aid protein cell synthesis and the removal of waste (toxic nitrogen in this focus), essentially enabling the removal of excess acids from cell tissues, the blood etc.

In the daily catabolic cycle cellular proteins release their Nitrogen, converted by cells into amide nitrogen of nontoxic glutamine, which is then processed by the liver which releases non-toxic ammonia, which the kidneys may then excrete as Urea (if the body has enough magnesium, sodium and oxygen!), leaving the amino acids liberated and re-utilised largely (75%).

You saying catabolism is mute is wrong IMO, when 1-2% A DAY of protein turnover occurs throughout the body (this is the base of catabolic cycle if you will). It is to ignore 'protein turnover' as a factor, and stick rigidly to anabolic good, catabolic bad, this is to simplistic it appears, it may not be good to raise this above 1-2% but that is a different topic.

"Protein turnover is believed to decrease with age in all senescence organisms including humans. This results in an increase in the amount of damaged protein within the body. It is unknown if this is a cause or consequence of aging but it seems likely that it is in fact both. The damaged protein results in a slower protein turnover which then results in more damaged protein causing an exponential increase in damage to all protein within the body and to aging."

The above describes what I meant ''Nitrogen in the form of protein as an isotope'' (IMO) = damaged protein, stored protein which has not converted the nitrogen into a healthy form.

If someone is 'working out' a lot, the body stops processing Uric Acid, this was why I copied part of the article and mentioned the ammonia smell (which is the bodies defence against acidosis), in this scenario (or when the person's urea cycles are compromised) might it not stand to reason that they will accumulate more of these cell proteins which have a toxic nitrogen isotope? Toxic Urea may accumulate in joints/muscle etc as it fails to convert to waste.

There is a reason to 'cool down' after training, why is this? Might is be this 'cool down' enables the body to process out the lactic acid (which if not addressed is much more likely to leave muscles sore, well the lactate side), plus it triggers the restart of uric acid processing? What happens if we don't cool down? Like the cold shower after the hot bath.

Does it not seem reasonable to think that diets are very often overly rich in toxic Nitrogen (due to poor soil, pesticides, preservatives, fertilizers, isolates etc), which then settles within cellular proteins causing problems?

I'm not claiming this is exactly right, as JTS is obviously right that my understanding of the underlying mechanisms is poor

 

[jts1882]

It'd get to long if I quote it all.

Rinsed!

But, I'm thankful, as I'm now reading up furiously and already I have found I am not wrong (or as wrong!) in the essence of my premise. But I'm rubbish at articulating it, I’ll obviously accede that!

Sorry for being childishly antagonistic JTS. It’s poor form.

Fair enough. Let's start again.

You explained well about the Nitrogen atom having nothing to do with 'Nitrogen in a form of protein as an isotope' (Nitrogen as an isotope of cell protein, better?). Though I think it is correct as a means of labelling the cellular protein which is rich in an isotope of nitrogen (pre-conversion to non-toxic ammonia/urea), perhaps is a better way of putting it? maybe that is incorrect terminology still, hoo-hum.

Nitrogen is a isotope of cell protein. No, this is incorrect. All atoms exist as various isotopes. 14-N and 15-N are natural isotopes of nitrogen. Nitrogen in proteins can be of any isotope. Chemical reactions generally don't favour one isotope over another (I can't think of any examples, although possible there are with hydrogen isotopes). There is certainly no need to discuss isotopes when discussing the biochemistry and related physiology because the chemistry is nearly always independent of isotope. There might be a need if discussing research papers using radioisotopes to trace the metabolic pathways or for various scanning (NMR, PET), but that's not an issue here.

Just to get the terminology clear, proteins are molecules that contain nitrogen atoms (nearly all of the 14-N isotope). We only need to discuss atoms and molecules. Proteins are polymers of amino-acids so the source of the nitrogen is amino-acids, either the diet (essential amino-acids) or converted from another (non-essential amino-acids). We can't use nitrogen gas and rely on plants for our nitrogen (directly or through the food chain) and many plants rely on bacteria in turn.

It does not discount the rest of the premise that magnesium, sulphur, sodium and oxygen is excellent to aid protein cell synthesis and the removal of waste (toxic nitrogen in this focus), essentially enabling the removal of excess acids from cell tissues, the blood etc.

That statement is too vague for a useful premise. There would be no biology without those atoms in various forms. All metabolic reactions require a suitable ionic environment (Na, K, Mg) and the body has sophisticated homoeostatic mechanisms to maintain this. Oxygen (as dissolved gas) is needed for aerobic respiration in mitochondria. Sulphur and oxygen are components of many essential molecules, including amino-acids.

However, I think I see where you are getting misled. Many biochemicals are acids. All this means is that at neutral pH they exist as an anionic form in solution (i.e releasing a hydrogen ion). Most of these molecules are very weak acids and have negligible effects on acid-base balance in the blood or in cells. Just because it includes acid in the name doesn't mean it plays a normal role in acid-base balance. The body and cells have homoeostatic mechanisms maintaining it a the optimum pH levels. The principle is to regulate the cellular environment to allow the cellular activity to occur as requires and not to let the cellular activity change the environment. Thus the removal or production of amino-acids by protein synthesis or breakdown is unimportant for acid base balance under normal conditions. It only becomes a problem when there is excessive protein breakdown (e.g. starvation) or when there are kidney problems leading to acidosis.

In the daily catabolic cycle cellular proteins release their Nitrogen, converted by cells into amide nitrogen of nontoxic glutamine, which is then processed by the liver which releases non-toxic ammonia, which the kidneys may then excrete as Urea (if the body has enough magnesium, sodium and oxygen!), leaving the amino acids liberated and re-utilised largely (75%).

You saying catabolism is mute is wrong IMO, when 1-2% A DAY of protein turnover occurs throughout the body (this is the base of catabolic cycle if you will). It is to ignore 'protein turnover' as a factor, and stick rigidly to anabolic good, catabolic bad, this is to simplistic it appears, it may not be good to raise this above 1-2% but that is a different topic.

anabolic good, catabolic bad. This is not a scientific concept and doesn't make any sense. Anabolism refers to the metabolic pathways where small molecules are made into bigger ones (protein sysnthesis, glycogen synthesis, and fat production). Catabolism refers to the metabolic pathways breaking down the large molecules into small ones. You need both to function. It makes no sense to talk about a "catabolic cycle" as catabolism is one direction (towards bigger molecules) so you would need to refer to an anabolism-catabolism cycle. But this is unnecessary jargon for synthesis and breakdown, which is clearer and more meaningful.

When proteins or any macromolecules are broken down we need to get rid of the products or re-use them. Most carbon can be converted to CO2 utilising the energy generating pathways and respiration. There needs to be another method for nitrogen and that is where the kidneys play a role (uric acid and urea excretion). When I said amino-acid catabolism it meant these pathways by which amino-acids are further broken down into CO2 and nitrogen containing molecules for excretion. The nitrogen in the amino-acids gets converted to uric acid and urea and is excreted by the kidneys. I don't think your concept of toxic nitrogen is useful. These are perfectly normal processes and it is only a toxicity issue when the kidney has problems and can't get rid of the urea and acidosis develops. And its not the nitrogen per se that is toxic but the chemical effects of the molecules containing the nitrogen if their concentrations get too high.

"Protein turnover is believed to decrease with age in all senescence organisms including humans. This results in an increase in the amount of damaged protein within the body. It is unknown if this is a cause or consequence of aging but it seems likely that it is in fact both. The damaged protein results in a slower protein turnover which then results in more damaged protein causing an exponential increase in damage to all protein within the body and to aging."

The above describes what I meant ''Nitrogen in the form of protein as an isotope'' (IMO) = damaged protein, stored protein which has not converted the nitrogen into a healthy form.

And now you jump to something only tangentially related. During ageing many things go wrong. A decrease in protein turnover would lead to more damaged protein. But it doesn't make sense to talk about nitrogen in healthy or unhealthy form. It has more to do with chemical changes to the protein that prevent it functioning properly. The nitrogen is apart of the protein structure and is just trapped there, just as carbon, nitrogen and sulphure molecules are. It has little to do with toxic nitrogen or nitrogen excretion.

''Nitrogen in the form of protein as an isotope'' Again, this phrase is meaningless. All nitrogen is one isotope of nitrogen or the other and it doesn't matter which (99.7% is 14-N). The proteins contain nitrogen atoms as part of their structure but the nitrogen will mostly be trapped and inert (part of the protein structure rather than reactive).

If someone is 'working out' a lot, the body stops processing Uric Acid, this was why I copied part of the article and mentioned the ammonia smell (which is the bodies defence against acidosis), in this scenario (or when the person's urea cycles are compromised) might it not stand to reason that they will accumulate more of these cell proteins which have a toxic nitrogen isotope? Toxic Urea may accumulate in joints/muscle etc as it fails to convert to waste.

There is a reason to 'cool down' after training, why is this? Might is be this 'cool down' enables the body to process out the lactic acid (which if not addressed is much more likely to leave muscles sore, well the lactate side), plus it triggers the restart of uric acid processing? What happens if we don't cool down? Like the cold shower after the hot bath.

And some more leap. The body's homoeostatic mechanisms don't stop when exercising. While some functions like digestion are slowed down when the sympathetic nervous system is activated (fight-flight), I doubt the liver and kidney stop handling urea. There is a simpler explanation for the observation during exercise. Urea is mainly excreted by the kidneys but some is excreted in the sweat. During exercise the amount of sweat increases dramatically so the urea excretion through sweat increases proportionally. This is not a sign that the body has stopped processing urea.

Does it not seem reasonable to think that diets are very often overly rich in toxic Nitrogen (due to poor soil, pesticides, preservatives, fertilizers, isolates etc), which then settles within cellular proteins causing problems?

I'm not claiming this is exactly right, as JTS is obviously right that my understanding of the underlying mechanisms is poor

So far you haven't really come up with a definition of what you mean by toxic nitrogen. The ammonia produced during protein break down would be toxic if allowed to build up (and would mess with the acid-base balance), but its quickly converted to urea. Urea, if not excreted, would be toxic but that's only a problem when the kidneys malfunction. None of this has anything to do with diet. Nitrogen in toxic pesticides could be a problem, but then again carbon or sulphur or anything in a toxic pesticide will be a problem. Its not a nitrogen issue.

My problem with your arguments over diet is that they over simplify things and ignore the extensive homoeostatic mechanism that have evolved over billions of years. Cells contain many mechanisms to regulate their steady-state ionic composition, pH and concentration of various molecules. The purpose is to control the internal environment so cellular mechanism determine what biochemical and physiological reactions occur. That way the cell responds to stimuli appropriately and is not hostage to the external environment. A second level of homoeostasis occurs in multicellular organisms where organ systems act to regulate the blood and interstitial fluid compositions. So for humans the cellular reactions are protected from the external environmental conditions by two levels of homoeostasis.

We can consider the contents of the gut as the external environment (topologically it is). The chemical contents of the gut are several steps away from the cells and how they behave. Molecules in the gut are generally broken down to small ones for absorption into the blood and these absorbed molecules processed by various organs (notably the liver). A lot of systems act to limit changes in blood composition of different molecules (e.g. the glucose-insulin response). All these systems are "designed" to keep the blood composition and subsequently the cellular compositions within narrow ranges optimum for cell function, not to allow them to be regulated by the the external environment (including diet). So when things are working properly, our functioning is protected from the changing environment and diet.

Now this doesn't mean what you eat is not important (this is where you accuse me of jumping all over the place again ). We do need certain essential molecules, some vitamins, amino acids and fatty acids that we can't synthesize ourselves. We can overload our intrinsic regulation by consuming large amounts of some foods, especially sugar and some fats, but it takes years of a bad diet to have an affect. A normal sensible diet will usually be sufficient to allow our internal mechanism to control how we function.

You really should read up on homoeostasis and how we regulate our internal environment. You might like it as its all about "balancing" different reactions and maintaining a steady-state. Starting with cellular mechanisms and then moving up from more complex systems like the endrocine and nervous systems we have far better ways of regulating our internal function than balancing what we eat.

 

[ArcspacE]

So far you haven't really come up with a definition of what you mean by toxic nitrogen.

It's a loose definition - largerly founded by the 'organic' food mega-billion dollar industry in order to justify its existence and over-priced products to the 'libertines'

There was a good Futurama episode on this - Season 6, I believe

 

[Gifter]

And some more leap. The body's homoeostatic mechanisms don't stop when exercising. While some functions like digestion are slowed down when the sympathetic nervous system is activated (fight-flight), I doubt the liver and kidney stop handling urea. There is a simpler explanation for the observation during exercise. Urea is mainly excreted by the kidneys but some is excreted in the sweat. During exercise the amount of sweat increases dramatically so the urea excretion through sweat increases proportionally. This is not a sign that the body has stopped processing urea.

Thanks JTS, alot of stuff to read up later this week.

One part bolded is not correct according to my understanding, well partially, I suspect that although they do not stop processing it the lactic acid build up inhibits it's elimination. Though the sweat part made me re-read it incase it was a missing factor I hadn't looked for before.

This study shows that Uric Acid builds in the blood when exercise has been undertaken to the level which produces oxygen shortfall (lactic build).

http://www.jbc.org/content/110/1/107.full.pdf

Going to a gig in Brighton tonight, will read up tomorrow night if I have time, then be back to test your patience later this week.

 

[southstand1882]

What is your job jts1882?

 

[Ginolius]

Fantastic posts Jts1882, really well written. As I've said to gifter before his apparent willingness to believe anything he reads based on anecdotal evidence and long words he only partially understands is concerning,but the level of endorsement he then gives that confused advice is frightening.

He obviously reads into things a lot but for someone who has claimed that modern medicine is full of brainwashing liar's, the ease at which the alternative medicine industry does it to him is rather ironic.

Great to see someone who can articulate the science so well point out the flaws in his logic.

Diet isn't rocket science and if you start thinking on a molecular level as a healthy human being you're massively over thinking things.

 

[ArcspacE]

He obviously reads into things a lot but for someone who has claimed that modern medicine is full of brainwashing liar's, the ease at which the alternative medicine industry does it to him is rather ironic.

As I've outlined before - it's a clear case of counter-brainwashing (not in a derogatory sense) by another profit-driven (schocker!) industry.

 

[jts1882]

Thanks JTS, alot of stuff to read up later this week.

One part bolded is not correct according to my understanding, well partially, I suspect that although they do not stop processing it the lactic acid build up inhibits it's elimination. Though the sweat part made me re-read it incase it was a missing factor I hadn't looked for before.

This study shows that Uric Acid builds in the blood when exercise has been undertaken to the level which produces oxygen shortfall (lactic build).

http://www.jbc.org/content/110/1/107.full.pdf

Going to a gig in Brighton tonight, will read up tomorrow night if I have time, then be back to test your patience later this week.

That paper was written in 1935, before most metabolic pathways had even been discovered.I also could say, I mentioned urea and we were discussing nitrogen disposal from protein (not purines, e.g. DNA and RNA break down), but lets see what that paper says.

The paper does show a decrease in uric acid excretion during strenuous exercise. The footnote mentions that blood uric acid is up marginally (10%) while lactate is up fourfold. No errors are given so the significance is unknown. The unchanged creatinine excretion leads them to conclude that kidney function is not altered and they argue that its uric acid production in the liver that is reduced. They don't show the change in the liver directly and the role for lactate is based on correlation alone. There is no mechanism proposed, not surprising for the time and state of knowledge on metabolism then. I can't see how uric acid and lactic acid metabolism would interfere with each other.

That given, I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this or how it relates to the diet ideas.

P.S. Lactic acid doesn't cause oxygen shortfall, its the other way round. Lack of oxygen in the muscles prevents mitochondrial respiration so glucose is metabolized to lactic acid.

 

[southstand1882]

That paper was written in 1935

In 1935, smoking was healthy, and meals were eaten out of tins

 

[Richie]

This is where I am eternally confused, surely if I had three full english brekkies a day, I would end up like Simon Cowell (fat judging by the picture I saw in the Sunday Mirror whilst eating my Full English)

Here's the problem I think many people have, they think certain meals are inherantly unhealthy. In reality if you choose the right food and cooking methods, things like english breakfasts and burgers aren't actually that abd for you if you use good quality ingredients

 

[WookieD]

This is a good read if you want to do some light reading on cholesterol and fats good & bad.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-full-story/