Weight, Nutrition and Fitness

Enzymes are biochemicals that act as catalysts. A catalyst is a substance that changes the rate of a chemical reaction, without being changed itself. There are a great number (more than 2500) of enzymes at work, keeping us alive. All enzymes are proteins. Proteins are substances containing amino acids.
Although there is a formal system for naming enzymes, many of them have names ending in –ase. Such names include the types of materials that the enzymes work with. Thus, if an enzyme works with fats (i.e. lipids), it will be called a lipase. If it works with table sugar (sucrose), it will be called sucrase. If it is concerned with milk sugar (lactose), it will be called lactase. There are some enzymes, however, whose names do not suggest anything about their nature. For example, pepsin is an enzyme that works in the digestive tract. Another would be rhodanese, which can be found in the liver and the kidneys.
An Example of an Enzyme in Action
Suppose that we dissolve 1 teaspoon of sucrose (table sugar) in a glass of water. It will remain a solution of sucrose in water, essentially forever. Then let us add a small amount of the enzyme sucrase (also called invertase). Immediately, the sucrose will split into equal amounts of glucose and fructose. Now we have a glass with a solution containing ½ teaspoon of glucose plus ½ teaspoon of fructose. This splitting of sucrose is often called the inversion of sucrose. Hence, the enzyme is sometimes called invertase.
It is important to understand that enzymes cannot make impossible reactions occur. There are two factors that determine whether or not a given reaction will occur. (Don’t be frightened by the two words introduced here; they’re really not that hard!)
· The first is called thermodynamics. This simply says that the total energy of the products must be less than the total energy of the starting materials. In other words, reactions can only take place in a downhill fashion, energetically speaking.
· The second factor is called kinetics, which simply refers to the speed of the reaction. In the reaction involving sucrose splitting to glucose and fructose, the energy considerations favor the reaction going forward, that is, splitting. The kinetics, on the other hand, are very, very slow under ordinary conditions, to such a point that no change will occur over many lifetimes. Once we add a bit of the enzyme sucrase, however, the kinetics, or speed of the reaction, increase dramatically. Usually, enzymes cause a reaction to run by a factor of thousands to trillions faster.
What is a co-enzyme?
A co-enzyme is a non-protein that helps some enzymes to do their jobs. Not all enzymes need co-enzymes, but those that do simply cannot function without them. Many of the B vitamins act as co-enzymes. Another example of a co-enzyme is zinc
Examples of Co-enzymes at Work
In the metabolism of glucose, there are several examples of the use of co-enzymes. The following co-enzymes are necessary in the various steps of the glucose metabolism: Vitamin B3 (niacin), Vitamin B1 (thiamin), pantothenic acid, and biotin. There are many more biochemical reactions that employ a multitude of enzymes and co-enzymes just to get us through the day.
The human body is a very complicated and efficient chemical factory. I sometimes wonder how it can work at all!

A lack of sleep can make you gain weight. Once again, it is the hormonal upset at work.

It was reported by Professor Francesco Cappuccio, of the University of Warwick (UK), in 2006, that a lack of sleep lowered the production of leptin and raised the production of ghrelin.

When you can’t get a good night’s sleep (repeatedly!), your body can’t produce adequate levels of leptin. Leptin is the hormone produced by your fat cells which tells you that you’ve had enough to eat. Without leptin, you still think you’re hungry.

Likewise, a lack of sleep interferes with the mechanism of formation of the hormone ghrelin, which is produced in your stomach. Ghrelin tells you that you are hungry, and its production is supposed to be suppressed when it senses glucose from your meal. Once again, when the ghrelin production is not suppressed, due to sleep deprivation, you think you are still hungrry.

Both these results of sleep deprivation tend to lead to overeating, which can cause one to become overweight, when overeating is more than very rare.

For more information on how these hormones work, please see my report on Hormones and Excess Weight.

For a free copy of my special report, entitled “Hormones and Excess Weight”, just send an e-mail to: HormoneReport@theweightlossresource.com, and I will be happy send it to you.

On a more humerous note, I always enjoy the ads that one sees on the Internet, which advertise that with their program, you will lose weight while you sleep. That’s very funny! Everyone loses weight while they sleep, whether they are on a diet or not! As a matter of fact, anytime you are not eating or drinking, you are certain to lose weight — for example even between breakfast and lunch. Remember that a person’s weight is simply the result of input minus output. If your input is zero between breakfast and lunch, and you are standing sitting, walking, talking ,etc. or simply breathing, maintaining a heartbeat, keeping a reasonably constant body temperature, having a thought, hearing a sound, etc., you are consuming energy. Since you haven’t taken anything in during that period, but you have spent energy, you have lost some weight. Perhaps it was very little, if you were relatively inactive, or perhaps it was measurable, if you worked hard physically. But you lost weight, whether asleep or awake, as long as you weren’t eating or drinking.

Summary
Small amounts of some trans fats occur naturally. They are produced during the digestive process of ruminants, such as cows and sheep. Thus we get some very small amounts of trans fats from their meat and their dairy products. Whether these natural trans fats are harmful or not is debatable.
The real problem is with man-made trans fats. These have been around for about a century or so, but never in the amounts we have today. They are used in many processed foods to enable the manufacturers to extend the shelf life. Thus, you can buy old bakery goods, and they will still taste all right. The problem is that you pay a price with your health.
For those who would like to see what is involved in the trans fats situation from a chemist’s perspective, I’ve tried to walk the reader through the process of hydrogenation and offer a look at the products formed.   Watch for future posts here on this topic

There is a bewildering array of terms out there to tell us why we should choose one brand of product over another. Many of these have to do with either the caloric content, the fiber content, or the fat content, of the product. Fortunately, there are some real definitions mandated by the government, so we don’t have to just guess what those claims mean.

Fat-free means that there has been no fat or oil added to the product, and it contains less than 1/2 gram of fat per serving.

Low fat means that the product contains 3 grams or less fat per serving

Less fat means that the product has 25 % or less fat than the product it’s being compared to.

Light means that the product contains 50 % or less fat than the product it’s being compared to.

Reduced fat means that the product contains 25 % less than the normal product.

High Fiber means that the product contains 5 grams or more per serving.

For Meat and Fish

Extra Lean means the meat or fish contains less than: 5 grams of total fat, 2 grams of saturated fat and 95 mg of cholesterol per 100 grams (about 3 oz) of meat or fish.

Lean means the meat or fish contains less than: 10grams of total fat, 4.5grams of saturated fat and 95 mg of cholesterol per 100 grams (about 3 oz) of meat or fish.

The basal metabolic rate (BMR) is defined as the number of calories your body needs to just perform the minimum activities during the day. These include such things as breathing, heartbeat, maintaining body temperature, etc. It does not include the calories required for walking, running, dancing or any other type of voluntary exercise.
Those with a lot of muscle mass tend to have a high basal metabolic rate, making it easier for them to lose weight. Those with a lot of fatty tissue have a lower BMR, making it harder for them to lose weight. Tall people tend to have a higher metabolic rate than shorter ones. The BMR for men is usually higher than that for women.
The good news is that the non-genetic contributions to our BMR can be changed.
Fasting (such as skipping breakfast) or starvation tends to yield a lower BMR, making it harder to lose weight.
Exercise tends to raise the BMR, making it easier to lose weight.
We have all heard of people who have a thyroid problem which affects their BMR. This is heard about more often than it occurs, I believe.
Obviously, it is usually desirable to have a high BMR. One way to raise our BMR is to be physically active, the more the better. Exercise develops muscle mass, which increases the BMR.
As we get older (past 20 or so), our basal metabolic rate decreases at a rate of 2 % to 5 % per decade. We can partially ameliorate that loss by increasing our physical activity, as well as reducing our caloric intake.
It is possible to estimate our basal metabolic rate by calculation. There are equations, called the Harris-Benedict equations, which provide a rough estimate, based on weight, gender and age. These are presented below.  The units are: wt in lb, height in inches, age in years.
Men
BMR = 66.473 + (6.238 x wt) + (12.708 x height) - (6.755 x age)
Women
BMR = 655.0955 + (4.338 x wt) + (4.698 x height) - (4.676 x age)
The BMR obtained from these equations would be only a rough estimate of the calories needed per day to just survive, with no voluntary exercise.

What can we do to help ourselves in this sea of cholesterol-breeding high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)? Although it would be very difficult in our society to completely eliminate HFCS from our diets (unless we could use a time machine to take us back to the 1960s), we should do our best to avoid those products. For example, I love cookies. I have noticed that most cookies contain HFCS. I simply look for those brands (there are a few) that don’t contain the high fructose corn syrup.
Cookies are just one example. It sometimes seems that high fructose corn syrup is everywhere. For example, you will find it in most cold cereals, most crackers, most pancake syrups, most fruit punches, many canned fruits, many jams and jellies, some barbeque sauces, most commercial breads, and the list goes on and on. There are a few things we can do to minimize our consumption of HFCS, however. You can choose pure maple syrup over the cheap pancake syrup. You can read the labels on canned fruit and select only those without HFCS. You can read the ingredients on the cereal boxes, and select one of the brands that shows more interest in your health than in their bottom line. You can carefully select jams, jellies or preserves that favor the integrity of their product rather than stoop to the use of HCFS. You can seek out those bakeries or house brands that refuse to adulterate their bread with this cheap sweetener.  You simply must become an ingredient label reader for your own good.  At this point, the only person looking out for you and your family is you.  Our government goes to the highest bidder in the auction, which, unfortunately, doesn’t even allow its constituents in the auction hall.
Granted, it’s a lot of work at first. Eventually, however, you can build a list of items that will help you to minimize the damage that our food processing industries are doing to our health. As a general rule, the higher the degree of processing, or the more lengthy the list of ingredients, the lower the quality of the food product. And if you’d like to get an idea just how pervasive high fructose corn syrup is in the American diet, take a look at this list:

http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/

foods_and_products_containing_high_fruct

I think you’ll be shocked at how many foods contain HFCS.
And here’s list of foods that don’t contain HFCS:
http://no-hfcs.tripod.com/

Since it seems well established that a high cholesterol level is one (of several) risk factors for cardiovascular problems, such as heart attacks and strokes, it would only make sense to try to keep our cholesterol level down in a normal range. This is not a condemnation of cholesterol. We absolutely need cholesterol to function. In addition to what we ingest, some of our cholesterol is manufactured by our own liver. But we certainly don’t need these massive amounts of fructose, which push our cholesterol levels way up.
The liver can convert glucose somewhat, and fructose much more so, to triglycerides. These in turn lead to increased levels of low density lipoproteins (LDL, the bad cholesterol) and reduced levels of high density lipoproteins (HDL, the good cholesterol).
I believe that the case could be made for a good correlation between sugar consumption and cardiovascular disease. I also believe an even stronger correlation could be made between the consumption of high fructose corn syrup and cardiovascular disease. Time will tell whether or not I am correct.
There is more bad news about HFCS. When we consume sucrose, the glucose produced then, in turn, produces a hormone called leptin. Leptin, which is produced in the fat cells, is the hormone that tells us when we’ve had enough to eat. Fructose does not produce leptin. So, when you’re hungry, and you eat or drink something containing HFCS, you will tend to remain hungry, and consequently, you may easily overeat.
There is another hormone called ghrelin. This is the hormone produced by your stomach to tell you that you are hungry. Sucrose, by way of its product glucose, suppresses the production of ghrelin, telling you that you are no longer hungry. Fructose does not suppress the production of ghrelin, so you remain hungry. Once again, the tendency is to overeat.
In the next post, I will discuss some ways we can try to avoid this curse.

On November 6, 1984, the two largest soft drink manufacturers in the US, CocaCola and Pepsi, made public the fact that they weren’t going to take it any more. They were going to replace the artificially high priced sucrose by HCFS in the US. In other countries, where the price of sucrose was more reasonable, such steps weren’t necessary. But they weren’t going to become victims of the crazy US corporate welfare schemes in favor of the sugar industry.
Over time, they were joined by many, if not most, of the other US manufacturers that used sucrose in their products. In one sense, you can’t blame them. On the other hand, look around. In my opinion, the use of HCFS is an important factor in the overweight/obesity crisis that we are facing in America today. I realize that there are indeed other factors, but the preponderance of HCFS is certainly one of them - an important one. I realize that a one-to-one correspondence between the consumption of HFCS and the frequency in obesity in the US, from 1966 to the present, is not a proof of causality. But do you really believe it’s just a coincidence?
These corporate welfare schemes to benefit the sugar growers have far-reaching detrimental consequences on both the US economy and the economy of other countries.  In order to understand these matters and how your tax dollars at work have helped to create the High Fructose Corn Syrup problem, you may want to visit this reference:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp
In the next post, I’ll discuss cardiovascular risks, cholesterol and the hormones associated with hunger and a sense of fullness.

Today, our dietary sources of fructose today are almost infinite, over and above sucrose, fruits and honey. Look at the list of ingredients on any of the foods you buy. You’ll find high fructose corn syrup on a staggering range of them. Our processed food producers have elected to give us a superhighway to high cholesterol as a nation. It’s bad enough that we consume too much sugar (sucrose). These folks are making us into mainliners, giving us a shot of the bad stuff directly. Why? Profits! And, in part, your tax dollars at work - to the detriment of your health!
The reason that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has become such a dominant factor in the US diet can be traced directly to politics and corporate welfare. Since 1816, the sugar industry has owned enough politicians to ensure that they gained a protectionist position regarding imports of sugar, and they also receive subsidies in the billions of dollars per year. These things have allowed the American sugar industry to keep the price of sugar much higher than the average retail price of sugar paid by the rest of the world. They get to charge us more, and our tax dollars make it easy for them to take us to the cleaners, both coming and going.
What’s that you say about Free Trade and the Global Market? Get serious. Those are political slogans, not facts!
In a rare moment of serving the American people, Congress dropped the sugar quotas in June of 1974. Reagan re-instated the idea of sugar import quotas in May of 1982. I’m not taking a partisan stand here, because both Democrats and Republicans have sold out the American people on this topic.
In the next post, I’ll discuss the development of and the incredible growth of the HFCS industry.

Linus Pauling was a great chemist who won two Nobel prizes – one in Chemistry and a second in the Peace prize.  When he says something about fructose, it only makes sense to listen to him.  He said that too much fructose was a major cause of high cholesterol.  Some fructose is quite normal.  We get it in fruits, in honey and from sucrose (ordinary sugar).  When we eat sugar, our digestive system splits it in half.  One half becomes glucose, which is vital to life.  The other half becomes fructose.  When societies consume a lot of sugar, their cholesterol levels go up on average.  Now along comes high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
This product completely bypasses the beneficial glucose that we get when we ingest sugar.  In future posts, I will present the damage this product does to many aspects of our weight maintenance efforts and our general health.  For now, I would like you to reflect on the fact that in the 1960’s, Americans did not consume even one ounce of high fructose corn syrup - period!  Today, the average consumption of HFCS per person in the US is more than 60 pounds per year.  The severity of the overweight problems in the US closely track the consumption of HFCS.  This is no coincidence. HFCS is a synthetic product.  It does not occur in nature.

Today, HFCS is the dominant sweetener (55 %) in the US, with sales of over $4.5 billion per year.   Look around. Most Americans are now overweight. Yes, it’s true that we don’t get enough exercise. It’s also true that we eat too much — and part of that overeating is due to HFCS.

In the next post, I’ll tell you how corporate welfare (as a result of government sellout) has given birth to the HFCS industry.