Marowit said:
I think you are gleaning the wrong message from research - which is quite easy to do even the article states it a few times.
Essentially it's crappy food that's super high in fat, which then in turn lead to morbid obesity, which then overloads adipose, which then causes adipose cells to break down, spilling fat into your bloodstream which is causing'metabolic disorder'. Not that being fat is O.K; nor that people with high metabolisms are some how hurting themselves by feeding themselves (they looked at a relatively rare condition in which people cannot make their own fat cells -- which is not the same has a high metabolism). That fat-cell-control essentially allowed them to look at what high fat diets were doing in the bloodstream (because they can't be stored.
Seldon2639 said:
In case people missed this:
A high-content diet which is turned into fat is actually better for the human body than the same diet which isn't turned into fat.
This is a half-truth. Yes, if you ate a hamburger and put all that fat into your bloodstream it'd be horrible (like the Albert Einstein Study shows). However, most people don't have the condition where they are unable to store fat...Also, it's not turned into fat; the fat is stored in adipose tissue (it's already fat).
I am sorry to be so knit-picky but this kind of article can be dangerous to laypersons who don't know how to digest scientific literature.
*Nods*
I did simply things quite a bit. At no point will I reject that not having the fat in your body in the first place is a good thing (yeah, I know, double-negative).
But, the point I've been trying to make (which is that given two people eating the same diet, and getting the same exercise, one may become fat, while the other stays thin; the thinner person would be in worse-health) is supported by the research.
Though, once you bring the whole metabolism thing into play, things do get trickier.
And it's impossible to tell at sight the difference between someone with a less efficient metabolism (who will be thinner and healthier) from those with fewer fat cells (who will be thinner and unhealthier). But, you're making an unfounded leap yourself; you assume that if someone does not lack adipose cells wholesale, any differences must be metabolic.
Marowit said:
Seldon2639 said:
If two people eat the same diet (and exercise the same amount), the one who gets fat will actually be healthier. The body's healthy response to fat build-up is to store it in antipode cells.
Again, with the half-truths. Yes, being able to store fat is important to being a healthy individual. Having a high metabolism does not mean you're unhealthy as your body is burning those calories...not just dumping fat into your blood stream...
Metabolic rates were not what was being studied in this article. They were studying the what effects fat had in the blood stream.
If you are Fat, not just overweight (or natural weight -- peoples natural weights vary obviously) you put too much stress on your adipose cells, which then rupture. This spills fat into your blood stream, causing these 'metabolic disorder' symptoms. The reason they say being able to store fat is protective, is because it prevents fat from building up in your bloodstream (when it's not being used). Not that being fat is cool, and skinny people are fucked.
Again, you're combating an arguable half-truth with another half-truth. They didn't discuss metabolic rates or efficiency. Also, again, "high" metabolism is a misnomer. It's high-efficiency (little heat loss, thus better conversion from chemical energy, thus needing more exercise to burn off the converted amount of one calorie) versus low-efficiency (higher heat loss, worse conversion, needing less exercise to burn off the converted amount of energy from one calorie).
But your unfounded assumption that if someone who has
some amount of adipose cells combined with
some efficiency of metabolism is thinner than someone with a
different amount of adipose cells and a
different efficiency of metabolism, it must be because Person A has a lower-yield metabolism, you're ignoring the very confounding variable the research addresses.
The point is that if two people have the same efficiency, one could
still become fatter or thinner based on varying levels of adipose tissue. In such a scenario, the thinner person would be in
worse health. If you're going to argue confounding variables, argue all of them, I suppose is my point.
Yes, if we assume massive differences in metabolic efficiency, things would be different, but that's neither respondent to my points nor relevant. Nor do we know how much of weight gain is determined by efficiency of metabolism versus quantity of adipose tissue. But, the statement I made does indeed stand.
