Evil. Evil. Evil.
22 posts • joined 23 Nov 2014
I'm on a high fat diet and have my first six-pack in 20 years. My calories are through the roof. My body has become better at burning fat. Stay off the carbs. Stay off the sugar. Eat as much as you like or don't. Fat is so high calorie that I generally don't feel hungry if I forget a meal..
There is a period of adjustment, when the gut microbia that normally are used to carbs are getting fat breakfast lunch and dinner, but after that all is dandy.
1) "Thank you for alerting me to it - it is without a doubt an interesting finding"
You're welcome. Of course it would be very old news to you if you spent more time at the bar in the better class of "denier" blogs, rather than frivoling away your life eating lentils at the Skeptical Science cafe:-D.
"Effectively, what they are saying is that the earth's potential ability to trap shortwave radiation is far greater"
I thought you may focus on that bit, rather than the ability to trap LW being less. Or the part about LW radiative forcings being quick to pass through the system (in-built warming my foot).
2) Congratulations are in order. You manage to combine this quote from Donohoe:
“I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen. We would actually see the absorption of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.”
and this quote from me:
"We should see less LW escaping to space. But we see more 5 Wm^-2 more."
... without, any irony, or it seems, seeing any connection! You even add (despite having seen the NASA graph) that the GHG's are "trapping" more radiation. Chapeau! You aren't going to let those annoying facts or reason get in the way of your conclusion. No Sir.
"It does indirectly via the Greenhouse effect."
It doesn't make sense. The only way that earth can lose the energy that the sun inputs to it is by radiating it away. It's radiated away by radiative gasses. Increasing them increases the ability to radiate. The emissivity is increased.
"Ah, yes", say the people with physics 'O'level, "but absorbtion is also increased". That's true, and if you split it up into layers - and fix all the molecules in those layers in space - then on a layer by layer basis, less emssion is given out from the top of each layer. However the layers in the real world aren't fixed (there aren't any layers either...). Heat rises in the real world. Stratosphere height rises.
What we need is Real world observations! They should say who is right.
If increasing GHG's reduce emissivity the outgoing LW radiation (OLR) should fall.
If increasing GHG's increase emissivity then OLR should rise.
@ Leslie Graham
"If you are not 'alarmed' by these figures then you're clearly not paying attention."
There's a bit more to those figures than you are letting on. Firstly it's only one main area of Antarctica that's losing land ice. True it's the massive western ice sheet, but there's something you missed out on saying: That it's always been losing ice to sea as far as can be told. It's a moving glacier, they speed up and slow down based on many factors particularly the topography underneath the glacier.
Have a look at the GRACE image: HERE. It's only that one area around the WAIS that's losing land ice. To the north, Antarctica is *gaining* land ice, just as they are gaining sea ice.
The interesting thing is: the only area that's losing land ice is the area with high geothermal activity....
See Schroeder et al: :
>>"This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. "
Note - NOT climate change. See also: Here
For global warming to have effected the WAIS we would need to see a rise in southern ocean temperatures. What do we see?
"However, in general, the Southern Ocean as a whole is showing a weak interannual cooling trend in SST."
So, yes the WAIS is moving faster as far as we can tell. If huge chunks calf it will raise sea levels. But is it "melting due to climate change"? No. It's not.
"CO2 (and some other gases, notably Methane) causes a greenhouse effect has been known since the 19th century - it is a very well established theory."
The view you seem to have of how the GHE works in real life is wrong. Read Donohoe et al.
"In all my years reading these comments"
Ahh so MUCH snark. So LITTLE facts by way of reply. The canonical view, the Arrhenius view, of AGW is that GHGs absorb LW radiation. The path length for a photon to escape to space is therefore made longer and there's more energy (heat) in the system.
But that's not how it works.
1)Donohoe et al (and the GCMs as it turns out) throw Arrhenius under a bus. He shows temperature changes are due to changes in absorbed solar, rather than changes in LW.
2) We should see less LW escaping to space. But we see more 5 Wm^-2 more.
3) How can an increase in radiative gasses - which are the main way our planet can lose heat - NOT result in our planet losing more heat? If We are outputting more energy (as shown by the graph in 2)), and receiving more or less constant energy in, the amount if energy in the system must fall. As per my animation.
Hey Up Lomax,
" The obvious problem is that equlibrium will be reached at a higher temperature. You might want to pause and think for a moment here."
[pause] and you may want to have a look at the chart again. You seem to have brushed over it. It's the timeseries of outgoing long-wave radiation from the earth. What we have been told we should expect with increasing GHGs is that less heat is radiated to space as it is "trapped" by GHGs**
But what do we actually see in the plot? MORE LW radiation is escaping to space! Around 5Wm^-2 more! It seems that changes in surface temperatrure (for whatever reason) are corrected by changes in OLR very quickly. It's a very efficient self-regulaing mechanism
** [yes "trapped" is the wrong word - the escaping radiation has a longer path length is better - but "trapped" in the newspaper parlance].
"Fat however has been associated with heart disease"
"Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease"
"Every fat person is eating too much. "
How can it be then that thin people can eat too much, and still be thin? Energy in Vs Energy Out only applies to certain people?
The relationship between calories consumed and how fat you are, is at best fuzzy, at worst completely broken. Gut microbia are a huge part of the picture (see my links below).
"Where I struggle to believe you is in regard to the number of calories consumed"
We've all heard the tales of women who "just look at a cream cake" and pile on the pounds, compared to people who can "eat what they like" and not get fat. Is there something in it? Or just an urban legend? El Reg readers are obviously interested in techy stuff. A simple equation between energy in and energy out is very attractive, but the processes of how the body deals with the food you give it cannot be reliably modelled by that equation. Have a read of:
and this http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7816697&fileId=S0007114510000176
and all the links in this search:
and wrt Fat, this:
(as well as the paper linked to by the OP).
It''s better for your brain:
Restrictling calories will "work". You will lose weight, but it stresses the body (in the sense that stress hormones increase).
"I can't imaging what you think happens to this "more efficiently" processed fat IF you don't actually use the calories it contains "
Well, at the risk of upsetting the readers, It's gets flushed down the loo! Look, I can sense you are disbeleiving. But I can definitely tell you that I now eat multiples of the amount of fat I used to (mostly butter), I never restrict my calories in any way. I eat as much meat as I like, as many vegetables as I like, eggs, cheese, bacon, foie gras.. My calories are through the roof. Yet I now have, for the first time in 20 years - a six-pack. I do no excercise.
I just don't eat wheat, or sugar.
" Food is measured in calories for a very good reason."
The reason is wrong. The relationship is broken. It's all about how the body processes the fuel, not how much fuel you give it.
"Or do you really believe the bacteria in your gut can metabolise excess fat in the diet without consequence".
No. I *know* that. I don't just think it. As you say fat is fuel. You may want to store it - I want to burn it. And I do. On this diet I feel that I "kick ass" as I have energy to burn. I'm not posturing It's how I feel.
"which is flatulence with a vengeance"
The interesting thing is now I don't have flatulence when I always used to. In fact everything is better in that department. I have energy through the day, I don't peak and crash. I don't crave (the opiods in) wheat.
Try it. You'll like it! We have bacon...!
I used to work for the Wine and Spirit Association. There's also a huge "problem" of smuggled alcohol. The reason *why* there is a huge market in smuggled tobacco and booze is that ... it's worth it!
The Swiss had a problem with people bringing in Tobacco and Booze from France/Italy/Germany but they, unlike the UK government, took the sensible option: they reduced duty. They actually raised *more* revenue as a result as it was no longer worth the bother of smuggling.
And... "this is now significantly contributing to smoking related drains on the NHS."... you did not read the article did you?
"whereas now the average grocery store loaf has a long list of polysyllabic words."
Spot on. The worst thing to happen to bread was the Camden & Chorleywood method*. I wonder if fast bread like this gives the yeast time to break down the gluten. Could it be why we have more gluten-sensitive people?
"If you eat enough they will. 8000 cals/kg."
I'm on a high-fat diet right now, and I can tell you: you are wrong. The two relationships between i) calories and how much you weigh, and ii) eating fat making you fat are both wrong.
If you wanted to run a 4-min mile, the best way to do so is to run. A lot. If you want to make your body process fat more efficiently, the best way to do so is eat more fat. If you also give your body "easy" calories in sugar and carbs, it'll burn those and store fat. If you don't it'll burn the fat.
That's the confusion. People see that fatties are eating a lot of fat (but also lots of carbs) and *assume* it's the fat that makes them fat. It's not. It's the carbs. Eating fat does not make you fat anymore than eating carrots makes you into a carrot. It'll change your body to a ketone based energy burner rather than glucose based.
My intake in calories is (most likely) double what it was, but I have my first six-pack in 20 years. It's all down to changing the balance of bacteria that are needed to process food (ketone based Vs glucose based). Calories are nothing to do with it.
I wouldn't say it's a missing piece of the puzzle. It's more like the canary in the coal-mine, that shows current thinking to be wrong.
People are fat for one reason only: their body is not processing fat. They are lacking the right bacterial mix to process it, whereas other people don't. The way round that is either by "poo transfer" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/23/poo_insertion_therapy/, or by EATING MORE FAT. If you feed a body ONLY fat, the body has to get pretty darn efficient at processing it.
I'm on a high-fat diet and have my first six-pack for 20 years....
"It's no good blaming others."
People should take responsibility for themselves, sure, but it is worth blaming others- if "others" are the ones giving the government "healthy eating" guidelines - because the advice they give is plain wrong. They demonize the most energy dense, long-burning, foodsource - Fat, and praise quick-fix sugary fuits and opiod containing wheat.
If people ate more fat, and less (read no) wheat they will lose fat, as their bodies will process fat more efficiently. It becomes great fuel instead of a spare tyre. If they ate no sugar (inc fruits) or rich carbs their bodies bacteria will shift to fat burning mode. If they drowned their vegetables in butter, and ate the fat on their meat there would be no obesity crisis.
Thanks Mr Worstall. These people need challenging at every opportunity.
One criticism though. You maintain the link with eating fat and being fat. That link, is at best, fuzzy, and at worst completely broken.
I've been on a high-fat diet for a couple of months and have the first six-pack I've had for twenty years. Without excercise. And I feel fantastic. The reason people are fat is because their body is inefficient at processing fat. If their body receives other fuel sources (glucose) then their body will burn those preferentially and store the fat. If most of your calories are fat (ketones) then your body *must* burn it to get energy - and it does. The bacteria doing the work change.
Feed one twin the same as the other, and one may get fat, the other not. Exactly the same food. The difference is one twin has bacteria that burns fat effectively, while the other doesn't.
There's nothing wrong with fat. Butter is good. Oils are good. Deep frying is probably bad, but in general fat is good long burning energy (think coal) while "healthy" carbs are short burning energy (think a handful of twigs). I have energy all day, compared to people who peak and crash all day. Wheat also has opiods - which explains the craving to eat....
If you want the body to be more efficient at burning fat - feed it fat. Avoid carbs. (But also eat lots of veggies - dripping in butter). The body burns the stored fat in the spare tyre just as easily as it burns the fat you feed it.
Also my calorific intake is (I would think - I don't measure) much higher than previously. But I lost weight. So the link between calories and fat is also broken.
I'd advise people to look up the Paleo diet and the Bulletproof diet. They work (I'm proof). You don't count calories. You eat as much as you like. You never go hungry. And you lose weight.
Aside from that - a great article.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020