A Unique Weight Loss Living Style Pattern

[Jericho]

"Talking 30 to 60 minute napping after lunch has more effects than letting brain have a rest. Another important effect of it is to let digestive system get enough blood to absorb nutrients from foods." Brain’s weight is about 2% of body weight, but it consumes about 20% of your daily energy consumption in normal condition. If you are thinking, it takes more energy. So taking napping after lunch can yield more energy to digestive system, and let digestive system obtain sufficient blood to carry nutrients into your body. Digestive system needs enough blood/energy to work for you.

Ok, I call bull**** on this one. Do you really believe that the brain needs less blood at any moment? It needs the same blood 24/7. As far as the energy, the brain still uses all that energy for body regulation and did you forget the subconsious and dreaming?

 

[caiqipp]

Ok, I call bull**** on this one. Do you really believe that the brain needs less blood at any moment? It needs the same blood 24/7. As far as the energy, the brain still uses all that energy for body regulation and did you forget the subconsious and dreaming?

Sorry, I can't understand a part of your very gentle English.

Here might be the scientific evidence you called:

"Brain energy consumption

Although the human brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization."

From Wikipedia, under "Brain".

 

[Jericho]

I'm not arguing the 20% of your energy part..I'm debating the comment that when you sleep that you will need less blood to the brain that can go to digestion.


Proof please.



Also, seeing how this is about weight loss here, if the energy that would be used for thinking goes to digestion as you claim when you sleep, then the net loss of calories is the same. However, I argue if you are awake, you are still digesting but you are using more energy being aware and thinking.

So wouldn't you do better staying awake and burning energy with an awake mind and STILL digesting? Your arguement only works if it is one or the other. The body doesn't work that way.

 

[caiqipp]

I'm not arguing the 20% of your energy part..I'm debating the comment that when you sleep that you will need less blood to the brain that can go to digestion.


Proof please.



Also, seeing how this is about weight loss here, if the energy that would be used for thinking goes to digestion as you claim when you sleep, then the net loss of calories is the same. However, I argue if you are awake, you are still digesting but you are using more energy being aware and thinking.

So wouldn't you do better staying awake and burning energy with an awake mind and STILL digesting? Your arguement only works if it is one or the other. The body doesn't work that way.

I thought it's obvious. We all know that heart pulse while sleeping is slower that awaking, is it correct? You can go to Wikipedia, see "Pulse". It means less blood is sent to everywhere, including brain, is it correct?

 

[shygemini]

Wikipedia is a really bad scientific source, because it is not scientific at all.

That being said, the old idiom 'rest and digest' exists for a reason. When you are resting, more energy gets put to your digestive system than to other systems of your body. HOwever this does not include the brain. Your brain gets a constant supply of energy/blood no matter what (unless you are in health trouble). This is one of the reasons why it is said not to swim for 2 hours after eating, to give your body time to digest food. If you are exercising, then energy is taken away from the digestive system.

That being said, there is no reason to sleep rather then just sit and relax in terms of digestion.

 

[caiqipp]

Wikipedia is a really bad scientific source, because it is not scientific at all.

That being said, the old idiom 'rest and digest' exists for a reason. When you are resting, more energy gets put to your digestive system than to other systems of your body. HOwever this does not include the brain. Your brain gets a constant supply of energy/blood no matter what (unless you are in health trouble). This is one of the reasons why it is said not to swim for 2 hours after eating, to give your body time to digest food. If you are exercising, then energy is taken away from the digestive system.

That being said, there is no reason to sleep rather then just sit and relax in terms of digestion.

Jericho:

... the brain still uses all that energy for body regulation ...

Let's exchange role now. May I ask you and Jericho to give reference to what you've claimed (the bold phase above)? It's easy, right? Once you give reliable (more reliable than Wikipedia) science reference(s) that explicitly and directly confirms what you claimed, I'll correct what I posted.

Proof please. [Copy]

 

[shygemini]

Quote from the abstract : The brain gives priority to regulating its own adenosine triphosphate (ATP) concentration. In that postulate, the peripheral energy supply is only of secondary importance. The brain has two possibilities to ensure its energy supply: allocation or intake of nutrients. The term 'allocation' refers to the allocation of energy resources between the brain and the periphery.

END QUOTE

So in essence, the brain ensures at all times that it has a constant energy supply.


Here is a classical study showing that the brain's energy needs do not change during sleep:

 

[Jericho]

Let's exchange role now. May I ask you and Jericho to give reference to what you've claimed (the bold phase above)? It's easy, right? Once you give reliable (more reliable than Wikipedia) science reference(s) that explicitly and directly confirms what you claimed, I'll correct what I posted.

Proof please. [Copy]

That's kinda the problem I'm having with your advice caiqipp. You have been throwing these things out there but when people ask you for something to back it up, you can't. Then you try to make us prove instead. We can.

 

[caiqipp]

That's kinda the problem I'm having with your advice caiqipp. You have been throwing these things out there but when people ask you for something to back it up, you can't. Then you try to make us prove instead. We can.

Have you got any such proof about napping? Napping could have different energy consumption mode from sleeping.

While I'm looking into the link, could you show references about "all staple foods have the same absorption rate"?

Thanks.

 

[Jericho]

I'll take a look but I'm wondering why we are the ones having to back up why your claims are iffy when usually it is the presenter who actually has to show the proof.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I'll take a look but I'm wondering why we are the ones having to back up why your claims are iffy when usually it is the presenter who actually has to show the proof.

I have proof that caiqipp doesn't know what in the HELL he's talking about.

Reference: THIS ENTIRE THREAD

 

[Jericho]

If I am reading this correctly, blood blow slows as you enter deeper sleep but that flow increases as you enter rapid eye movement. In other words, the blood flow does change constantly as you go in and out of REM. Dreaming takes place during REM, which stands for Rapid Eye Movement. It is thus called, because your eyes move rapidly back and forth under the eyelids. REM sleep takes place in the fourth stage of sleep and accounts for 15-20% of our sleep time. From the point you fall asleep, it takes 30-90 minutes before you start dreaming. We cycle through the 4 stages of sleep and may enter the REM stage 4-7 times in one night. During REM, our blood pressure and heart rate fluctuate and increase.During REM our bodies are completely immobile and our muscles remain completely relaxed. We may shift in our bed throughout the night, but this does not happen when we are in REM. This is commonly known as "REM Paralysis".

All this said, you said 30-60 minute 'nap', which would put you into REM. Thus your blood flow will fluxuate and brain activity will flux as well.


Is it enough to actually make any sort of real change to weight loss? Unlikely since the calorie amount difference for that short of time would be dismissable.

----------------------------------------------------

As far as food absorption, I'm not exactly sure what the debate is. No one would argue that food absorbs at different rates. Generally very little of any of the food we eat will be absorbed through the gastric mucosa, except things like alcohol which can in part make its way through. Fats, oils proteins and carbohydrates will be almost totally be absorbed in the small intestine after further emulsification and digestion upon entering the duodenum.

How fast a substance is absorbed and where it is absorbed in the digestive tract depends on: what the food substance
is, what other foods are consumed with it, individual differences, what medications one might be using, and a host of other considerations. Water and ethanol are rapidly consumed, even in the mouth and esophagus to some
extent, and are absorbed almost completely in the stomach. Fats, which require bile need to pass the gall bladder ducts (if you have a gall bladder) or the liver in order to be digested. This occurs in the small intestine. Complex carbohydrates require a long time to break down into simple sugars, such as glucose. That is why long distance runners load up with carbohydrates several hours before a race, not just 20 minutes. That would make them very nauseated. In addition, their digestion requires insulin that empties from the pancreas in the small intestine. (Peter Faletra Ph.D. )

The question is, what does this have to do with weight loss? I guess I'm missing the connection here. Could you explain better?

 

[shygemini]

Have you got any such proof about napping? Napping could have different energy consumption mode from sleeping.

While I'm looking into the link, could you show references about "all staple foods have the same absorption rate"?

Thanks.

Yes, i CAN certainly show proof for anything in those articles. Perhaps you do not know what a peer reviewed article is. That means that for years, scientists have built on eachother's work in order to develop new understandings and theories about various subjects. So yes, if we go back far enough (and not all is available online) we can find proof about anything stated in those articles. Even those comments which do not require references, since they are well established facts in the scientific community. Some journals have been around for over 100 years.

However, I am not going to keep looking things up, when it is clear that even when you are provided with evidence stating you are wrong, you will not admit it.

 

[caiqipp]

I'll take a look but I'm wondering why we are the ones having to back up why your claims are iffy when usually it is the presenter who actually has to show the proof.

Here is where the problem is. Looks like I have to show some basic logic knowledge introduced in middle school:

1. If one raises a 100% positive or negative assertion (usually with IS, ARE, DOES [NOT], MUST [NOT]), s/he has responsibility to give direct and explicit evidence to support his or her claim.

2. If one raises an uncertain statement (usually with COULD, SHOULD, IT IS POSSIBLE …), s/he could give weaker or indirect evidence, but don’t have to give strong and direct evidence. If one wants to claim that such an uncertain statement is 100% incorrect, then this person has responsibility to give strong and direct proof to completely negative such statement.

From beginning, I never claim this pattern is scientific, or 100% correct for everyone. And I clearly said what I raised is ASSUMPTION, meaning that they are not certain yet as of now (of iffy). I usually use SHOULD, COULD, etc. to present some ideas that have no strong scientific support. But you keep asking scientific evidence for the assumptions I rose while I told already that as of know, to my best knowledge, there has not been evidence to 100% support or 100% negative the assumption. If I had scientific evidence, then I won’t say what I said is ASSUMPTION, but it should be a part of science already.

Now it is you want to 100% negative the assumptions or uncertain statements. The responsibility to raise evidence is at your side now. The reason is: even if there is no strong and explicit support, the assumption can stay, just like the Four-Color Conjecture stayed there for decades without strict math proof. But an attempt to 100% negative an assumption does need the same level of strong and strict support as raising a 100% positive or negative assertion, because in the process, you usually create other 100% positive or negative assertion to try to negative assumption. For example, you claimed the following 100% positive or negative assertions:

1. As far as the energy, the brain still uses all that energy for body regulation. Post# 101. (Here you use verb “uses” and word “all”, which are strong 100% positive claim.)

2. There is no food that “brings fats out of one's body”. Post# 72. (Here you use “is no”, this is 100% negative claim).

So it is reasonable for me to ask you to give strong support(s) to what you claimed.

The support of an assumption/conjecture could be very weak, such as some facts from practice. For the Four-Color Conjecture, the presenter might just have this support: for the maps he tried, there is no exception found. This support can’t make the Conjecture be a theorem, but is enough to support the assumption. For my assumptions, I have the result of my practice nd my wife’s practice to support. It is enough.

Now it’s your turn to raise strong scientific support(s) for all the claims you created, for negative my assumption or uncertain statements. I don’t HAVE TO give evidence to support my assumption or such statements, as long as our practice supports.

You don’t have to agree what I said. Just borrow a book about debating, read it.

Again, if this post is too straight forward, sorry about it.

Will be out of town for days, will post and reply once back.

 

[shygemini]

Your posts are full of absolutes (must, should, do, do not etc). I am done this discussion, as you clearly have no desire to even try to back up your claims (thus admitting they are unfounded).

 

[Jericho]

So I see, it is all about splitting hairs on wording for you.

I think I am going to leave this joke of a thread behind.

 

[caiqipp]

Your posts are full of absolutes (must, should, do, do not etc). I am done this discussion, as you clearly have no desire to even try to back up your claims (thus admitting they are unfounded).

I've made changes to the original post (post# 100 on page 7). I removed what I explained, but just keep what Mr. Liu said.

But if you google "nap health", you will find articles claiming that napping is good for health, etc. Mr. Liu's explanation might not be exact, but napping could be good for health in some ways -- looks like this is true.

 

[caiqipp]

...

All this said, you said 30-60 minute 'nap', which would put you into REM. Thus your blood flow will fluxuate and brain activity will flux as well.


Is it enough to actually make any sort of real change to weight loss? Unlikely since the calorie amount difference for that short of time would be dismissable.

----------------------------------------------------

As far as food absorption, ...
)

The question is, what does this have to do with weight loss? I guess I'm missing the connection here. Could you explain better?

Since Jericho might not get into this thread, the answer here is for who are interested in this thread.

Originally, the pattern is to get good health, not for weight loss. But facts are: if one is over-weighted, then s/he gets weight loss while getting better health. In other words, the weight loss is matter-of-course while getting good health. This is why the pattern lets you do not eat anything with bad residues that could hurt you health, and lets you do everything that is helpful to better health.

If different foods may have different absorption rates, then selecting foods does matter for weight loss. What we should do is to make a food intake pattern, which has foods with lower absorption rate for the nutrients that are too many in our body (Carbohydrates and Fats), and which has foods with higher absorption rate for foods that is lack of in our body (vitamins and proteins, etc).

That's the connection. This pattern focuses on your health, so it has no any negative impacts to me, as other diet plans I tried have. And I don't have to be hungry while doing body weight control, I can eat until full but still be able to lose weight. What is the best is -- my health is back to somewhere when I was about 30 years old.

 

[caiqipp]

Red meat does contain good nutrients for our health, while it contains saturated fat. Studies show that saturated fat could cause some diseases, including heart disease.

But I drink the broth made by 0.5 pound of grounded beef everyday for more than 3 years, the result is: my heart pain is gone, and my health is much better and in a very good shape I never had after 30 or 35 years old. My wife got the same result too. This fact might mean that a health dietary rule “do not eat red meat” or “limit red meat intake” could be wrong, well, could be right conditionally too. It could be wrong if you can avoid saturated fat intake while eating red meat. Before reading Mr. Liu’s book, I never heard any meat cooking method, which can avoid fat intake. The broth is the important factor to make this pattern unique.

 

[Jeanette401]

Interestingly, a recent study indicates that the risk of heart disease seems to be correlated with processed meats, not with unprocessed meats, regardless of saturated fat intake.



So eat red meat without worrying about the saturated fat - worry about the processed meats instead.

In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb.