Not fat, ideal body form, I’d even say: superior
post
I mean, if you aren't counting your calories and eating in a deficit, you're not going to lose weight.
Yup, I was doing keto for over a year to lose weight. Got to a healthy weight, stayed there for 3 months, and decided I wanted to gain weight to help build muscle. Put on 20 pounds while still being on keto. Then lost weight again to look leaner. It's all calories in, calories out. However some people find certain diet types to be easier and preferable to others.
LOL, I'm 5'2" and hover around 100 lbs, and I've had trouble gaining weight my whole life. Eating more doesn't seem to help much. But I have noticed the more I eat, the more I shit. Perhaps that's where all my calories are going 😭 .
Thanks! I've been to a few doctors over the years, and they didn't find any specific diagnosis. It was really a problem during my adolescence, at first delayed, then bang-o (and then I had all kinds of other things to worry about). Now that I'm past all that things have settled down, and my doc says I'm doing well. This is just my normal, he says.
It's all genetics. Some people gain a lot of weight easily, some eat as much as they can but still lose weight.
I'm 5'7 and 130lbs. It took me 3 years to gain 30lbs. Gaining more is legitimately impossible. There simply isn't enough time in a day to eat enough calories, unless I do nothing else.
I thought research said it is mostly how much you get calories and how much you spent, with genetics playing a smaller role
I am 5'9", was 125lb, bulked at the request of my husband, wanted to get to 135 but ended up at 150. I'm sure my proportions are more conventionally attractive now but it does a number on my self image, I was so attached to being thin. Guess what though...
I feel better at this weight physically, if not mentally. Everything works, nothing hurts. I feel so silly complaining about being at a medium weight but it is more than I have ever weighed when not pregnant and it fucks with me.
Having got here, it seems to want to stick, but I'm 57, that was not true for me before my 50s and I guess I'm glad I gamed the system by starting out underweight?
I would have thought that too... But I recently saw a youtube video about how we lose weight mostly through our breath! So maybe you're breathing too much?
Research shows that small amounts of physical fitness during the day can be just as beneficial as a full workout
A 2019 review of 19 studies looked at this question, involving more than 1,000 participants. It found multiple, shorter “chunks” of exercise in a day improved heart and lung fitness and blood pressure as much as doing one longer session.
And there was some evidence these chunks actually led to more weight loss and lower cholesterol.
honestly, makes sense. a lot of people don't want to dedicate a whole chunk of time out of their busy lives, but it's easy to squeeze in a set of squats or something between tasks
has nothing to do with eating a deficit in calories. you can workout all day everyday, but if you eat garbage mcdonalds and packaged food, you are not going to lose weight 'micro working out' or even full day workouts.
Well they can loose weight eating nothing but processed food, as long as its a caloric deficit
Yarp, about a decade ago after a break up I went on a 2 month bender, nothing but alcohol and fast food. Drink maybe 10-12 hours a day on average. So more than 2000 calories a day in drinks for sure, and idk what in fast food. But I walked everywhere to not get myself into DUI situations. I lost 20 pounds in 2 months.
Edit: Throw in the couple packs of cigarettes and you could call it super healthy
Lol, going through a similar situation right at this moment. Lost 7 kilos in a month eating barely anything and walking a lot to get my mind distracted from panicking about my bleak lonely future. Majority of calories I get are from vodka and whisky 🥃
Sorry to hear it stranger. If you ever need to rant or something feel free to dm me
But, and hear me out, fried potatoes.
Ahhhh to be young and without stomach problems again... Ahahah, I loved making fried potatoes in college alright. But now, alas, it's boiled potatoes time.
i was with you when you said fried but then potato and plural? hell yeah vote ayyy for grand senator
Tell this to the guy who ate nothing but McDonald’s for a month and lost 60 pounds (26kg)
Kevin Maginnis
Eh. Calories are... Tricky. What is a calorie? A unit of food which, when burned, will heat a gram of water by 1 degree Celsius. But your body isnt just a furnace, it's complex. And everyone is physiologically different - we aren't all running at the same efficiency (base metabolism). And not all calories are available. For example, fiber is not digestable and can't be absorbed by the digestive system and it also associates with simple sugars which also prevents them from being properly absorbed. So, eating whole fruits will result in absorbing less sugar than drinking juice which has the same total amount of sugar. Processing food - even just cooking it - makes calories more bioavailable.
For sure it can conceptually be boiled down to calories effectively absorbed and calories burned. But digging into what that actually means can actually be quite tricky.
You're making it sound trickier than it is. Nutrition data on all foods will already discount fiber from the calorie counts.
But in a sense you're also not wrong, that while calories are king when it comes to weight loss/gain, there are complications for that. For example if you give two different people the exact same food in the exact same amount of calories, they will gain or lose weight at different rates - highlighting the role of genetics. Another genetic factor related to calories only indirectly is how some people have much higher impulses to eat than others, making calories only a part of the story for their challenges with weight loss. I've also seen a headline for a study claiming that an amount of dairy caused more weight gain than the same amount of calories of peanut butter, though you may want to take that one with a grain of salt unless you actually see the study.
Personally I'm not a fan of measuring calories. Instead I use base knowledge to have ways to intuit calories more naturally. For example, I know that carbs and protein are 4 calories per gram, and fat is 9 calories per gram, making fat almost always the quickest way to make foods significantly more calorie dense. Other things can be very calorie dense too though, like sugary or other caloric beverages. Replacing those with water, coffee, or teas can be enough on its own for some people to start losing weight.
Some foods are more dense than others. Being that leafy greens and many other vegetables are naturally some of the least caloric foods you can eat, loading all of your meals full of them is an elegant way to reduce calorie consumption without needing to starve yourself. It also has the double benefit that high fiber foods are more satiating - they calm food cravings.
Point is, calorie management doesn't have to be a headache, and it doesn't mean a person has to starve themself.
I wasn't talking about fiber, but the sugars bound to fiber. Its very hard to accurately labele just the bioavailable calories, even if you account for things like fiber.
On the note of genetics, it's not just about metabolism. People have different abilities to even absorb the same calories. People have food intolerances, different rates at which they move food through the digestive tract, and different intestinal permeability.
This isn't meant as an excuse to eat junk and not pay attention to your food. But, I actually find more help in paying attention to food quality and listening to how your body interacts with different food. E.g., eat less processed food, be aware that eating fat slows digestion, pay attention to your intolerances, stop eating when full, cut out snacking (again, especially processed foods). If you do this, its very likely you won't need to count at all.
That's not to say that, if calorie counting works for you, then you shouldn't do it. Its just not the end all be all people act like it is. Pretty much any diet and paying more attention to what you eat in any way works: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32238384/
None of that actually matters when it comes to weight control. What matters is that the linear relationship is retained in your proxy measure of Calories. Meaning that if you eat two pieces of cake, you've doubled your Calorie intake compared to eating one piece.
Ok but my point is you're not just eating cake so its hard to keep track of the linear relationship sometimes. Calorie reporting can be incorrect and bodies are weird. That's all I'm saying.
Realistically, being on most any diet is equally effective. From simple calorie counting to the keto diet. It turns out that, if you find a diet you can stick to, then just kind of paying attention to what you're eating in a general sense works.
An example with an oversimplified diet to illustrate the point I think you're trying to make: You have a diet that's exclusively cake and you've determined that you need 2000 Calories of cake to maintain your weight. That 2000 Calories figure is an estimate and we don't know exactly how much of it we're actually absorbing. In reality, it's actually more like 1800 Calories. Now all of a sudden, you switch your diet to eating exclusively cookies. You measure out exactly 2000 Calories of cookies and eat the same thing every day. But your Calorie estimate is wrong and you're actually eating 2100 Calories of cookies per day. Now you gain weight on this supposed 2000 Calorie diet.
I argue that this doesn't matter either. If you see that you're gaining weight, then it means you're eating too much. Reduce your Calorie target and you'll be back on track. In a real world scenario, you're going to have a much more varied diet than only cake or only cookies, and each item will come with their own measurement errors. But for most people, their diets are varied in a fairly consistent way, so these errors are also consistent on average. If you ever make changes in your diet (e.g. completely cut out McDonald's), you'll change both your estimated Calorie intake and target like in the example above. Adjust your numbers accordingly based on how your bodyweight moves and you're good.
Of course, other ways of dieting are also effective. It depends mostly on what you can adhere to and your goals.
Yeah, exactly, calories in vs calories out is just another myth that feeds the diet industry's bottom line. It's not accurate. Like bmi used to be the big thing, but that's not an accurate measurement system at all.
Calories in calories out is literally just the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. It's a fact.
Where it gets tricky is that the actual equation has quite a lot of variables.
You could, for example, increase your passive energy requirements with this micro dose of exercise situation. Does it raise your body temp (or rather the demands to maintain it at homeostasis) for a longer period of time and thus increase calories demanded that way?
Or, like a lot of fitness studies, it's fucking junk because it trusts self reported calorie intakes.
I get where you're going, a human body isn't quite comparable to those factors though, it's a bit more complex than that, because what you're trying to do is kick in a chemical reaction to release hormones to signal to your fat cells to release them, and that they no longer need to be stored.
In that premise you need to look at why your body stores fat, and in what mechanisms it releases them.
Fat is seen by the body as more of a battery, to save itself (you) if shortages should occur, which is kinda where the calories in vs calories out come from. Right, but, that's a temporary, survival mechanism that you're trying to kick in there, and when you tell your body you don't need to be in survival mechanism mode, any more, it goes, "oh, look, we're resting, that fat that I stored saved us, I need to save more"
You can't continually operate in a calorie deficit, and exercising more than you intake. It's not sustainable long term. Your body will try and bounce back to it's "normal".
Calories in and of themselves don't have one static notion or rule, summing up all things edible to calories is entirely deceptive, in and of itself. Food offers different nutrients, and your body is really good at making the essential nutrients it needs, out of chemical reactions, from whatever you put in, other than some essential amino acids, which is can't make on its own. But also, different foods do different things to your digestive system on the way through.
Calling all food calories, and trying to reduce it to a same action product, in the first part of the equation (calories in) is like saying anything with computing powers, is the same and can and does the same actions, but you can't send emails with your alarm clock.
Different foods offer different energy output and productions in the body. You won't get the same energy levels from fibre that you do from protein. So summing up all food into one label like that, ignores so many chemical factors that occur in the body when you digest food, and how different foods operate in said meat machine.
Not all calories are equal, so the premise is inaccurate, in that summation.
Calories out, similarly ignores huge wafts of data, chemical reactions, hormone functions, metabolic rates, genetics, gender (it has only ever been a model tested, if you can call it that, on males), age, and more. It, also similarly ignores the base systems of the body, and why it stores fat, what happens if you release fat in the wrong way, and the rubber band effect, that causes. I could go into so much detail about that part, but I'm already waffling.
I don't know if thermodynamics matches how a human body sets off a chain reaction to release fat cells, but if I were to relate it to energy, which thermodynamics is a form of. Because we're talking about a very complex system of chemical reactions. It's a way too simplistic thing to relate it to, because the human body has so many hormones that all combined do so many different coded locks and key processes in the body. Adrenalin is a hormone, dopamine is a hormone, even histamine (allergy reactions) are hormones. And they all signal different actions to and within different cells of the body.
Whereas energy, in physics is a very simplistic thing that reacts the same every time, in so much as that they have equations that math it out, every time. You can calculate the energy loss, resistance, voltage, amps etc, and they're the same, because it's one form, not a complex system, which a human body is. It's also not going to equate to the same calculable set of parameters in every human body, like you can with energy. Energy is "a" being equal to "c" divided by "b", and it will always be the same. Every human body absorbs and processes different nutrient intake differently.
But imagine if you told everyone, instead, to find a long term comfortable sustainable diet rich with variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes and beans, nuts, meats. Less, ideally no, processed foods or junk foods, and just moved their body frequently and regularly, nothing big, just something. Minimally. (that not being the entirety of it) how many businesses and whole bodies of corporations does that message, put out of business?
This is untrue. Calories in vs calories out continues to be, and will always be the center point of weight loss. It's just complicated by other factors like genetics, finding each individual calorie needs, and following diet and lifestyle patterns that are effective and sustainable.
See but I think we're both actually saying the same thing. The amount of factors that go into calories in vs calories out, essentially makes it unusable. Just looking at calories as a base whole product, not the individual piece of food and the nutrients it provides, is mad. By that rationale you could just live on oranges. They're calories, or junk food. Calories.
It's not calculable, how one individual body absorbs, processes, and then manufactures the essential nutrients it needs, from "calories". It's essentially saying how much food in vs how much food burning out. But that's not how fat is turned from fat to energy consumption, by the human body. It has nothing about the essential needs of the body.
It's a myth perpetuated by diet industry that only keeps you on the hamster wheel of weight loss and, for most people not genetically gifted, never really works. Or only works short term but then your body goes into survival mode, and stacks it all, and more, back on.
Here's a an article that might help say things better than I am. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2023/07/05/its-time-to-bust-the-calories-in-calories-out-weight-loss-myth.html
question, you point out the diet industry, but how do you feel about the fast food industry purposely making their food addictive just to make a profit, health be damned?
I was trying to count calories for my soup, some ingredients had calories on the package, but vegies and meat didn't, so I went to online calculators. None of them were capable of measuring ingredients in grams - I have kitchen scales so can easily weight raw ingredients and put them in the calorie calculator, but all of them measure food in servings instead of concrete number, like what is one serving of my soup? And are the calories for raw ingredient going to be the same after being cooked? The only way to measure calories is to dehydrate it, burn in a special chamber and count the ammount of excluded energy. You can find people onlain making claims like "I've eaten 2017 kcals today", but like how did you measure that 17 kcals with such a precision? The measurements I got from online calculators gave me a 500 kcal range of error, as in a serving of my soup could be 400 kcals or 900 kcal and again those are just estimates made from combining known calories of raw ingredients. Calories are for scientists and experiments, without equipment you can't actually calculate the calories, just like you can't really measure how many calories did you burn during the workout, again the range of error is huge, it's good to keep in mind the calories in calories out idea, but actually measuring them is not for the 99% of thr population
Calorie counts on food are an approximation, sure, but it's not unreliable. If someone eats roughly X amounts of calories every day and they lose/gain weight at Y rate, then the exact amount isn't as important.
I think, for some people, calorie counting is frutrating. Personally, I'm a bit too neurotic for it. I get really caught up in the details and coutning every calorie right and then frustration when the calories are reported incorrectly or if mutliple sources give different calorie values for the same raw ingredient. I honestly get so obsessive when I try to calorie count it becomes a borderline eating disorder. And, in fact, calroie counting has resulted in eating disorders for many people.
I think it's good for a lot of other people. But, when it boils down to it, any diet you can stick to is the right diet for you. Seriously, research has shown time and time again that, after a few months, most diets have the same weight loss results for most people if they stick to it. So I personally don't find the "its just calories in and out" rhetoric thats really popular to always be the most correct or helpful statment.
Dunning Kruger.
Your body is so much more complicated than a function that takes calories as input and outputs an expected result. You need more than just calories, you need nutrients. A nutrient deficient person does not burn calories the same way a person with a balanced diet does.
Like just think for a second. Is the only variable of food that matters is calories, then why do you need vitamins? Why do we split calories into categories like protein, carbs, veggies, fruits, etc? Why can you get a PhD in nutrition if it's only as simple as calories in calories out?
The simple answer is it's not simple. Asserting that it is when it isn't creates some terrible narratives around exercise, diet, and body image.
You are not making sense. If I'm a football player and use 3000 calories a day working out, I will lose weight. When you're counting calories, do you put the exercise factor in?
Yes, calories matter, but working out is usually part of it. This is because it burns calories at the time, but continues to speed up your metabolism.
Our bodies are meant to move, plus counting calories is a defeating process. I'm not saying eat crap, but try to eat healthier and move your ass.
just as beneficial as a full workout
So if a full workout doesn't do much for losing weight, these small amounts of physical fitness can be "just as beneficial"?
That's not saying much hah.
Eating in a deficit? Yes, counting calories? No. There's times I lose weight just because of activity load. Hell I did a 3 hour bike ride on Sunday that burned around 2000 calories. When ski touring season hits I'll probably lose a bunch of weight. I get that most folks can't do activities like that, but there's a lot more to fitness than just your body fat. If I loose weight due to exercise it's usually 10 lbs but over the summer I went from 180 to 165 without thinking once about my calorie intake.
The joy of youth.
Yeah, you're definitely an outlier in this lol. Most people who need to lose weight cannot (or, realistic, don't want to) exercise enough to create a deficit without also changing their diet. You sound like you're already at a healthy weight and have an appetite that makes it easy to maintain, which is fucking awesome, but a lot of people have too much of an appetite to lose weight strictly by working out.
I mention it because I really don't feel like an outlier. Sure it took me a couple years to get where I am, but I've also had a lot of setbacks from when I started as well. Obviously someone 250-300lbs is going to have a hard time since exercise is murder on their joints. but most folks aren't morbidly obese. If you enjoy it, getting up to 5 days a week of cardio won't take that long (3-5 months?) then you can really get into the fun long workouts. But I think the problem is that most folks don't have something they enjoy. If exercise wasn't playing I'm not sure I would do it, but because it is I want to do it. If anything my enjoyment and not having debilitating injuries is what makes me an outlier.
a seal abs and muscles were built, because they swim all the time. they can hold thier breath for 30minutes, i think some others can hold longer. the southern elephant seal holds the record at 2hours.
another fun fact is when seals/sea lions deep dive they it automatically shuts down thier digestive system. also seals can survive on thier blubbler and fat for quite a long time too. they have mechanisms that allow them to extact alot of oxygen into thier tissues, blood.
seals are quite fast in the water, seal lions even faster. seals do have trouble on land, as the have to act like a caterpillar, while sea lions can walk and run/
southern elephant seal holds the record at 2hours
Don't want to think how the scientists made them compete for this record
Are we drunk or just 8 years old?
I thought this was interesting, TLDW is that exercising in cold (water/environment) increases appetite after, so it's not great for a person that's trying to lose weight
I'll fall back on my default null hypotheses here.
- The effect is probably minimal if it exists at all.
- If there is any effect, it is probably negligible if you are doing the big things right.
- Your body is smart, and responds to changes in its environment with an eye towards improved survival and fitness. It is not a simple CICO machine.
So suppose we have an overweight person who is trying to lose weight. They hear about cold water exposure, and how being cold burns more calories. So they start running 10 miles every day at 5 am wearing nothing but a t shirt and shorts in the middle of winter. Then they go to starbucks, buy some hfcs with a touch of coffee, and go work at their office job that they hate because capitalism or something. Almost certainly, this person's jounts would start to give out quite quickly, but let's say they hate themselves enough to keep at it all winter. At the end of winter, I would be unsurprised if they gained weight. Sure, they exercised in the cold - but more importantly they were over training, consuming a poor diet, and living an otherwise stressful life. One of the body's best defences against coming hard times is to store calories for future use - by increasing appetite, decreasing subconscious calorie burning, and shunting resources towards fat storage rather than, say, growth and maintenance of muscle, skin, hair, etc.
On the other hand, suppose we have the same individual. They start with the premise that their body is already great, but they would like it to be better, and the way they will achieve this is via having fun and living well. Thus, their fat loss program consists of learning how to ice skate at the town park after work, going snowshoing on the weekends with their local hiking group, adopting a journalling routine before bedtime, and frequently inviting friends over for dinner parties where they make sure the emphasis of the meal is on protein and vegetables. They also open up to friends about how they aren't really motivated in their job, and their network of friends helps them gain the skills and industry contacts necessary to get a job that is more to their liking where they get to do interesting and meaningful work with other people whose company they enjoy. At the end of the winter, I would expect this individual to have lost fat despite exercising in the cold. While fat is good for energy storage and insulation, hiking and ice skating are activities where the body generally benefits from having a lower bodyweight - and warmth can be achieved via increased muscle activation rather than fat insulation. Meanwhile, they were spending a lot of time in beautiful natural environments, interacting with people they liked, eating healthy food, sleeping well, and working towards improving their lives in all aspects. "Things are good and I can expect them to get better" is the antithesis of the doom and gloom stress that will likely drive weight gain. Instead, the body will think "the present is not bad, and the future looks easy - and meanwhile, this extra weight is hindering my ability to move easily. May as well get rid of it."
This is why we find hot people hot. In the past when calories were scarce, a high bodyfat percentage indicated that in the hard times you were living in, this person had access to a lot of calories, and you could expect this trend to continue. These days, life is relatively easy, and storing excess calories is an indication that a person finds life to be hard. A lithe person's body indicates that they have rarely experienced difficulties beyond their abilities, and that they generally live a happy life. This is a good indication of genetic fitness, and hence, they are hot. Same reason why having good skin, healthy hair, a cheerful and outgoing demeanor, and perky tits are hot - they indicate a prolonged state of positive life circumstances which potential mates could generally count on to continue.
I'll fall back on my default null hypotheses here.
The effect is probably minimal if it exists at all. If there is any effect, it is probably negligible if you are doing the big things right. Your body is smart, and responds to changes in its environment with an eye towards improved survival and fitness. It is not a simple CICO machine.
you could hypothesize and these rambling thought experiments...or you could watch the video, and see there are several studies saying the effect exists and isn't minimal
Same reason chimps are built like trucks without having to train a lick. Superior genetics baby.
I was looking into that recently, specifically gorillas, just because it’s such a common sentiment that humans have to work so hard and eat so particularly to build muscle but gorillas are naturally jacked.
It turns out they have a lot going for them in that regard
So first of all they low key do actually strength train. They use their strength to break and process vegetation. These dudes will straight up rip a tree apart with their bare hands. It’s pretty crazy. It’s also how they spend most of their time.
Like they literally wake up at 6am, do a crazy workout, eat a ton, take a nap, then do another crazy workout, eat another ton, then go to bed. Every day. It's basically the same routine Arnold ran when training for the olympia.
The other thing that comes up is how they mostly eat plants but humans need tons of protein. This part is the most fascinating to me.
So humans have a concept of “essential amino acids (essential proteins)”. There’s like over 500 aminos in general, and for the most part if we need one for any particular bodily function, our bodies can just make them out of whatever. EDIT: this has caused some confusion further down, apologies. As I explained to another user I wanted to be selective about the depth of every specific biological mechanism for the sake of brevity. However I should mention the aminos are not created out of thin air, but through the breakdown of other proteins consumed in the diet. The exceptions are these 9 particular aminos which we require, but cannot create ourselves, so we have to get them directly from our diets.
Humans also have relatively pathetic digestive systems. There’s an entire large category of plant matter we consume that we simply cannot process, and it passes through us. We call this material “fiber”, and it’s still very important for us to eat, but nonetheless it is simply not broken down into energy or other building blocks.
Gorillas do not suffer from either of these limitations. Their bodies can produce all necessary amino acids, and they can break down fiber.
So with all this, when you look at their diet as a whole, (which is about 40lbs per day of plants, and keeping in mind the plants are simply more nutritive to them biologically, and their neutrality towards the specific amino profile of their food), when you crunch the math, they actually end up eating slightly higher than the daily protein value recommended for high level human bodybuilders.
That coincidence totally blew my mind. Like we’re so closely related and require the same basic conditions for muscle growth, but achieve it in such parallel yet unrelated ways. Totally awe inspiring
What the fuck? There's 20 amino acids. And I'll bet you anything that the same amino acids are essential to gorillas and humans. We are weird creatures and our genetics stand out among the great apes but that's too much difference.
Gorilla digestive systems are longer and they have this special thingie that I've forgotten the name of to help with plant matter digestion. They aren't like ruminants so they can't really digest fiber but also don't think they are coprophages like rabbits.
Humans have massive brains that suck up a bunch of energy. We use the brain so our bodies don't have to do as much work. Carrying around more muscle than you have to is a recipe for being out-competed (e.g. Neanderthals). But if something like the myostatin gene is knocked out or it's expression is reduced by generic mutation then we also build a lot more muscle. The only issue is that we don't have millions of years of evolution for that situation to match the rest of our bodies.
Hey,
So the confusion here comes from the application of the term ‘essential’
The reason humans differentiate between essential/not is because it is “essential” for us to ingest those amino acids directly in our diet, because we cannot synthesize them ourselves.
Gorillas do not have a separate “essential” category because they can synthesize everything they need. This is not to suggest they do not physiologically “need” the ones we deem as essential, simply that they can make them.
As an aside, the special thing you’re thinking of is just their gut bacteria. There’s a ton of specific biological information I left out as the comment was already getting too long, and I didn’t really feel like the exact mechanism of action there was critical
I just wanted to let you know that I found your comments very interesting! Also, what would happen if adding human got a fecal transplant from a gorilla? Asking for a friend
Maybe when they throw their poo at you, they're simply trying to share their superior gut biome
Thank you! Most likely the human would not inherit gorilla powers, although it’s certainly worth investigating
For those unaware, emerging research on fecal transplants is crazy! Very worth looking into. It seems like to some extent, characteristics can be transferred from one person to another. Like giving a transplant from a fit person to an untrained overweight person can spontaneously result in weight loss and increased muscle mass, for a period of time. The world is truly an incredible and mysterious place!
No?
Like, read this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20095763
If their bodies were able to synthesize all the amino acids they need they couldn't get an amino acid deficiency syndrome.
because they can synthesize everything they need.
What are you talking about. Pretty much every animal lacks the ability to synthesize certain amino acids. No animal can rearrange the carbon skeletons of 11 out of the 21 amino acids relevant to animal protein (cysteine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, tyrosine, and valine), so the ability to synthesize certain amino acids necessarily relies on the presence of the amino acids that share the same carbon structure. See here, which talks about the essential/non-essential categorization as being outdated and needing to be understood as a sliding scale in which synthesizing even non-essential amino acids carries a cost, and that eating complete proteins in a species-appropriate ratio is still necessary for animals to thrive.
Gorillas consume something like 20-30% of their calories from protein depending on the ratio of low protein fruit to high protein leaves in their diets. Their plant food sources just don't have all that much in the way of energy, so even the small amounts of protein in any given leaf is made up for the fact that they're eating up to 40 kg of food per day.
The truth is, gorillas do consume quite a bit of protein. Plant matter, like pretty much any living organism, has protein. Leaves are relatively high in protein compared to other plant foods. Let's not forget, broccoli has more protein per 100 calories than steaks do.
So no, gorillas are not capable of freely synthesizing the amino acids they need. The truth is that they're eating a lot of protein from various sources at different amino acid ratios and using those amino acids pretty efficiently.
What are you talking about
Why are people so rude when critiquing a bodybuilding gorilla post on a shit posting community?
Anyway, as I have apologized to the other user who took umbrage with my glossing over of a particular biological detail, so now I apologize to you. Yes, you are correct that the essential amino acids are not synthesized out of just anything, but through a specific process which requires other amino acids acquired through the breakdown of protein consumed in the diet. I have edited my post to provide specific clarify to this point.
Have you read my post? Because the back half of your comment simply restates what I was saying about their diet. Thank you for providing supporting links.
Finally, you should edit your own post to clear up some misconceptions you may be spreading. The researchers in your link argued (ineffectively, as the current paradigm of essential/non-essential is still being printed in textbooks more than a decade later) against the concept because they believed it would be better to also include many non-essential aminos in a new category called “functional” amino acids. It should also be made clear that this proposed paradigm exists in the context of optimizing chicken feed, and at no point rebuts the fact that the essential amino acids are themselves ultimately essential
at no point rebuts the fact that the essential amino acids are themselves ultimately essential
I'm taking issue with your claim that no specific amino acids are essential for gorillas. That's wildly implausible, given that pretty much any animal studied has shown that animals all have essential amino acids, and that mammals generally require the same 9 amino acids as nutritionally essential. Even ruminants, whose gut microbes can synthesize many of the essential amino acids, still have issues if they don't separately consume enough of those amino acids, because the rumen microbes can't actually provide enough for their metabolic needs.
Yes, essential amino acids are essential. No, gorillas are not some kind of sole exception in animals to that general principle. They just get enough from their relatively high protein plant diets.
You are simply factually mistaken about the nature of herbivores generally. You are also, intentionally or not, engaging in equivocation between the concepts of what is nutritionally required to eat and what is biologically required to function further down the line. You are also engaged in an ongoing adjustment of your argument, apparently just for the sake of argument, without addressing the serious issues with your argument as it was originally presented.
For these reasons I’m not terribly interested in an ongoing dialogue with you on this topic. It’s simply not a productive use of my time to keep on reading large papers you link to but haven’t read yourself, then correcting the claims you make that the evidence you provide doesn’t support. I also do not feel any need to directly address the false claims you falsely accuse me of making, when my above posts already clearly contradict them. I trust that readers with a genuine interest will be able to navigate these posts without issue, and then delve into the textbooks worth of fully unsimplified research if it strikes their fancy to do so.
Have a good day
The question was: how do gorillas get so muscular on a mostly plant based diet?
The correct answer is: they eat a shitload of protein that is present in the plants they eat, by consuming 20-30% of their calories from protein and eating 25-40kg of food per day.
Your answer included factually incorrect claims about how gorillas can synthesize any amino acid so that the concept of nutritionally essential amino acids don't apply to them.
To add to what carnelian replied, there are actually more than 20 amino acids. Archaea and bacteria domains use a couple different ones, making 23 or so known amino acids used. There are also tons of possible and some (like 700+, that I remember being taught, lol) documented examples of different amino acids, because all that it takes to be an amino acid is the basic carbon structure with the carboxylic acid and the nitrate group in their correct positions, with an R group that defines which amino acid you're dealing with.
also don't think they are coprophages like rabbits.
Gorillas do selectively engage in coprophagy in certain situations, depending in large part on their nutrition and diet. Certain fruits in their diet, and the accompanying seeds in their shit, increase the likelihood that they'll go back for seconds.
So you’re saying that the theory about über und unter mensch is real, but that the über mensch isn’t white and proud but rather blackish and hairy?
I'd like to have a gorilla digestive system now. 🥲
Yup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blubber
Blubber is the primary fat storage layer for some mammals, especially for those that live in water. It is particularly important for species that feed and breed in different parts of the ocean. During these periods, the animals metabolize fat. Blubber may save energy for marine mammals, such as dolphins, in that it adds buoyancy while swimming.
Blubber has advantages over fur (as in sea otters) in that, though fur retains heat by holding pockets of air, the air expels under pressure (i.e., when the animal dives). Blubber, however, does not compress under pressure. It is effective enough that some whales can dwell in temperatures as low as 4 °C (40 °F). While diving in cold water, blood vessels covering the blubber constrict and decrease blood flow, thus increasing blubber's efficiency as an insulator.
That's right, they're Marines.
top 97 comments