|
On April 28 2020 22:22 Uldridge wrote:
Neither you nor I have provided sound evidence for assumptions. Again, I'm not going to put my foot down on how nutrients can become shielded from absorption or breakdown by fiber, but I'm calling it plausible when you literally have a ball of undigestible fiber in your stomach.
As long as I don't see hard physiological data, I'll keep saying it's plausable.
The stomach does not digest carbohydrates. There is no hard physiological data for this because it simply doesn't happen. It's not in the realm of possibility. You are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
|
Okay, I've delved a bit deeper into fiber nutrition, simply because physiology has always been kind of interesting to me.
First off I need to make a correction, mainly due to my ignorance on the subject, as well as clear some things up:
Soluble fiber does exist. Fiber is simply defined as components that are edible, but can't be digested by ourselves.
This means certain types of carbohydrates, not just lignin or cellulose that are hydrated, will go into solution, making the fiber soluble. This is basic biochemistry and I'd simply not considered it because I was only thinking one dimensionally about fiber.
Secondly, I have to agree that there's no significant digestion of carbohydrates happening in the stomach. There are enzymes dumped in the stomach, but none of them are glycosidases and I thought hydrochloric acid might do some acid hydrolysis, but this doesn't appear to be significant at all.
Okay, now let's get to the meat of Emnjay's question:
In se, calories, or the things that provide the chemical energy known as calories, like sugars and fat and amino acids are not absorbed in the stomach, but the small intestine, so omitting this small oversight we can talk about how fiber and more specifically soluble fiber might impact nutrient absorption. So I think we can come to an interesting synthesis for Emnjay here.
I've read these papers (reviews actually) on the subject to get myself a bit more acquainted with the subject:
Effects of Dietary Fiber and Its Components on Metabolic Health by Lattimer & Haub
Does Dietary Fiber Affect the Levels of Nutritional Components after Feed Formulation? by Adams et al
Ultimately I have many more questions than when I started out, but at least now I have something relevant to say on this topic.
The first review by Lattimer & Haub cover different types of fiber and the effects of soluble and insoluble fibers on obesity and diabetes.
On fiber and obesity:
-Increase fiber intake decreases energy absorption by dilluting the energy availability.
-Soluble fiber induces the production of 2 peptides (GLP-1 and PYY) which makes you feel more saturated
-Insoluble fibers added to the diet, invariably of it being high or low in fat, made body weight reduce, possibly due to shortened transit time. Shorter transit time means less digestion and absorption
-The divide between soluble and insoluble fiber makes their relation to weight loss not that straightforward. The data becomes messy and contradictory.
On fiber and diabetes:
-Tpye of carbohydrate is very significant on glycemic load -- try to eat as many complex carbohydrates as possible
-Increased consumption of dietary fiber has an inverse correlation with the incidence of diabetes
-Soluble fiber delays post feeding blood glucose and insulin levels, possibly due to its viscosity -- there's no discussion of it hindering the availability of glucose
-There's an interesting hypothesis where soluble fiber makes the gut ferment this into short chain fatty acids (SCFAs), which then inhibit the glucose transporters (GLUT-4), thus decreasing the absorption rate of glucose due to soluble fiber.
On the fiber components:
-Arabinoxylan (soluble): slows glucose uptake due to high viscosity
-Inulin (soluble?): increases the feeling of saturation, reported to increase mineral uptake (but this is disputed for calcium in the review by Adams et al)
-Beta-glucan (soluble): increases viscosity, lowers cholesterol levels and delays glucose uptake, which lowers peak glucose levels. The processing of these glucans is important: longer, more unprocessed chains have a more noticable effect while short chains, which you might become by cooking, barely have an effect.
-Pectin (soluble): digested by microflora, increases viscosity, mostly provides health benefits
-Bran:
Quoting the review here:Bran is the outer most layer of a cereal grain and consists of the nucellar epidermis, seed coat, pericarp and aleurone. The aleurone consists of heavy walled, cube shaped cells which are composed primarily of cellulose. It is low in starch and high in minerals, protein, and fat. However, due to its thick cellulosic walls, these nutrients are virtually unavailable for digestion in monogastric species.
Is a mix of soluble and insoluble fibers, decreases peak glucose levels, also seems to have an effect on lipids (lowers cholesterol).
-Cellulose (insoluble): not too many studies that are directly translatable to human.
-Resistant Starch (soluble): 4 types which all exert different effects; gist of it is that is lowers peak glucose levels.
The review by Adams et al goes more in depth on the bioavailability of minerals, proteins and vitamins and lipids.
Small summary: some minerals are retained by fiber, others aren't. Different fibers have different effects on the minerals
Most fiber decreases protein metabolism
High fiber seems to decrease cholesterol levels due to a higher bile production
Vitamins don't seem to be affected by fiber levels
This is quite the informative paper, I quite like it, it had exactly what I was looking for.
There was something else I partly read by Dello Stofallo et al. (Dietary Fiber and Availability of Nutrients: A Case Study on Yoghurt as a Food Model), but all I can say about it is the following:
Fibers generally delay gastric entrance, but decrease transit time.
There was an experimental set up where different retentions where measured, but I honestly wasn't all that interested in plowing through it.
Lastly there's this molecule I came across, called phytic acid, which wikipedia has the following to say about:
Phytic acid has a strong binding affinity to the dietary minerals, calcium, iron, and zinc, inhibiting their absorption.[1][31] Phytochemicals like polyphenols and tannins also influence the binding.[32] When iron and zinc bind to phytic acid, they form insoluble precipitates and are far less absorbable in the intestines. This process can therefore contribute to iron and zinc deficiencies in people whose diets rely on these foods for their mineral intake, such as those in developing countries[33][34] and vegetarians.[35]
My conclusion is the following: soluble fiber likely has an impact on your peak glucose level, but depends on which fiber you're consuming. It is possible that lipids and sterols are ejected without being digested, it is possible that your glucose uptake is also hindered. Your transit time shouldn't neccesarily be affected, which make it possible for everything that should be digested, will be digested (except for resistant starches and the aforementioned sugats/lipids due to the effects of the fiber).
|
Ty. I should’ve said “gut” or “digestive tract” instead of stomach in my post. Also should’ve mentioned insoluble fiber was the type I meant. The post clarifying between the two types was educating (now I know why some fibers are listed as calories in nutritional facts)
Shorter transit time means less digestion and absorption
This answers my question. Ty.
|
Shorter transit time is due to insoluble fiber though, not soluble fiber.
|
The bit you want to look at from "Effects of Dietary Fiber and Its Components on Metabolic Health by Lattimer & Haub" is + Show Spoiler +Substantial research has been conducted to evaluate the effect of dietary fiber and body weight, most all of which show an inverse relationship between dietary fiber intake and change in body weight. Tucker and Thomas [1] supported this statement in a study consisting of 252 middle aged women. They observed that over a 20 month period participants lost an average of 4.4 lbs due to an 8 g increase in dietary fiber per 1000 kcal. This weight loss was primarily due to decreased body fat. It should be recognized that the correlation between dietary fiber and weight change was independent of many other potential factors including age, baseline fiber and fat intakes, activity level, and baseline energy intake.
Koh-Banerjee et al. [31] concur with the above findings and also suggest a dose-response relationship. They reported that for every 40 g/d increase in whole grain intake, weight gain decreased by 1.1 lbs. Moreover, bran seemed to play an important role in the reduction of weight gain by 0.8 lbs per 20 g/d intake.
Dietary fiber’s ability to decrease body weight or attenuate weight gain could be contributed to several factors. First, soluble fiber, when fermented in the large intestine, produces glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY) [32]. These two gut hormones play a role inducing satiety. Second, dietary fiber may significantly decrease energy intake [1]. Women who consumed increased levels of fiber tended to also have a decreased consumption of dietary fat. Third, dietary fiber may decrease a diets metabolizable energy (ME), which is gross energy minus the energy lost in the feces, urine and combustible gases. Baer et al. [33] observed that an increased consumption of dietary fiber resulted in a decrease in the ME of the diet. This may be attributed to the fact that fat digestibility decreased as dietary fiber increased. Also, as dietary fiber intake increases, the intake of simple carbohydrates tends to decrease. Although, dietary fiber still contributes to the total caloric content of a diet, it is much more resistant to digestion by the small intestine and even somewhat resistant in the large intestine.
It should also be noted that the inverse relationship between dietary fiber and ME was independent of dietary fat. Therefore, ME decreased as dietary fiber increased in both high and low fat diets. However, when dietary fiber was split into soluble and insoluble fiber, the results were much more inconclusive. Soluble fiber decreased ME when added to a low fat diet but increased ME when added to a high fat diet [33]. It is not really known how dietary fat changes the effects of soluble fiber. Isken et al. [34] showed supportive data in mice consuming a high fat diet. Mice showed an increased weight gain when soluble fiber was added to a high fat diet. There are several mechanisms that may explain how soluble fiber could increase ME or weight gain. First, bacterial populations in the large intestine increase due to an increase in soluble fiber consumption [35]. This could result in increased fermentation and utilization of short chain fatty acids thereby increasing energy absorption. Second, soluble fiber enlarges in the GI and forms a viscous material which delays intestinal transit time [36]. Subsequently, this increase time in the GI tract may allow for more complete digestion and absorption. Conversely, some believe this increase viscosity has an opposite effect and retards absorption [26]. More research is needed in this area.
Insoluble fiber seems to have the opposite effect to that of soluble. When insoluble fiber intake was increased in mice consuming a high fat diet, body weight decreased [34]. Research in sows demonstrated that insoluble fiber decreased energy digestibility while it increased with soluble fiber intake [37]. The mode of action behind these findings may be due to the fact that insoluble fiber causes an increased rate of passage through the GI tract [38]. This would be expected to result in diminished digestion and absorption of nutrients.
According to the data presented above, both soluble and insoluble fiber may lead to weight loss. However, there seems to be a relationship between the type of diet (high or low fat) and the type of fiber consumed. Insoluble fiber may play a more important role for weight loss during consumption of a high fat diet. Since resistant starch is a constituent of dietary fiber and undergoes the same digestion as insoluble fiber, comparing resistant starch and insoluble fiber may give us a better understanding of how dietary fiber can be used to treat and prevent obesity. Adding resistant starch to a diet dilutes its ME, but not to the degree of insoluble fiber [39].
Numerous studies [31,40] have found the same inverse relationship between dietary fiber and weight gain. However, the data are more inconsistent when comparing soluble and insoluble. Thus, although increasing dietary fiber in general has a favorable effect on body weight, more research is warranted to determine the optimal dietary fibers for the purpose of weight management.
"Does Dietary Fiber Affect the Levels of Nutritional Components after Feed Formulation? by Adams et al" is concerned more with minerals and doesn't go into carbohydrates at all, but does note that
+ Show Spoiler +Dietary fiber and prebiotics affect the host animal by regulating blood glucose or insulin levels and stool bulking effects, increasing the acidity of the gut, and constructive synthesis of SCFAs, decreasing intestinal transit time, stimulating the growth of intestinal microbes, and increasing blood parameters. Dietary fiber may affect the dynamics of nutrients uptake and gut microflora.
Simply put, you should be eating fibre as part of a healthy diet anyways, not because you are concerned about weight loss, though it may or may not help.
|
My TV is in a dark corner and ceiling light doesn't work. Where should I position standing lamp to prevent eyestrain? Or is it better to leave the light off?
|
I have a minor translation related question to ask. The sentence in question is "The total travel cost should be reported as a total figure/multiplication of travels."
So the first half of the sentence is clear. If you traveled for 30$, and 10$ and 25$, you should report the total amount, 65$. But what in god's name is multiplication of travels? To my knowledge, multiplication means rampant growth of the mathematic operation to multiply numbers.
What does it supposed to mean? Also, is that "/" means dividing, or "either/or"? Driving me nuts.
|
United States42570 Posts
On May 12 2020 02:39 Volband wrote:
I have a minor translation related question to ask. The sentence in question is "The total travel cost should be reported as a total figure/multiplication of travels."
So the first half of the sentence is clear. If you traveled for 30$, and 10$ and 25$, you should report the total amount, 65$. But what in god's name is multiplication of travels? To my knowledge, multiplication means rampant growth of the mathematic operation to multiply numbers.
What does it supposed to mean? Also, is that "/" means dividing, or "either/or"? Driving me nuts.
Presumably if you bought a train ticket for $6/day for 5 days you would report $30. That’s all that makes sense to me. But you’re right, it’s an extremely poorly put together sentence. Perhaps a google translate generated one.
|
'Multiplication of travels' in this case is synonymous with a general 'increase of travel costs' (I think). Thesaurus is your the best source for synonyms and double meanings. Multiplication synonyms on thesaurus.com
|
I'm also on the sside of KwarK. If you did N time a fixed travel (with a fixed price), then you multiply its price by N.
Sounds obvious, but if it is an "official" (in any way) document, then you never know...
|
It is an official document. Travel price can have two variables: one is unit cost (a fixed price for certain travels, ie. if you meet the criteria for it, you get 600 euros, no questions asked), the other is additional expenses (things which are not included in the unit cost, ie. how much you traveled with a rental car, so it's calculated by km/h).
So my understanding is that total travel cost means unit cost (let's say 1*600 euros) and other travel expenses (let's say 145 euros for rental car), which would make it 745 euros total. Simple enough.
But that /multiplication of travels irks me. The document has proper grammar, and so far every "/" in "X/Y" meant either-or, so I doubt it means divide here. It makes sense when we talk about unit costs, as you can just multiply them by the amount of times you met the criteria for it, but you can't do it with the variable travel cost, yet it is clearly talking about TOTAL travel cost. This is the whole paragraph:
Travel cost - cost linked to return ticket between European countries and all local travel costs from the place of residence to the place of deployment. The unit cost is 600 EUR (regardless of the distance and transfers involved). The total travel cost should be reported as a total figure/multiplication of travels.
Edit: Okay, actually - reading this after your interpretations - it is clear now that they only mean the unit cost here. The variable cost if for a different column. Thanks! Though even now that I understand, it feels so weirdly worded.
|
On May 12 2020 03:22 Volband wrote:
It is an official document. Travel price can have two variables: one is unit cost (a fixed price for certain travels, ie. if you meet the criteria for it, you get 600 euros, no questions asked), the other is additional expenses (things which are not included in the unit cost, ie. how much you traveled with a rental car, so it's calculated by km/h).
So my understanding is that total travel cost means unit cost (let's say 1*600 euros) and other travel expenses (let's say 145 euros for rental car), which would make it 745 euros total. Simple enough.
But that /multiplication of travels irks me. The document has proper grammar, and so far every "/" in "X/Y" meant either-or, so I doubt it means divide here. It makes sense when we talk about unit costs, as you can just multiply them by the amount of times you met the criteria for it, but you can't do it with the variable travel cost, yet it is clearly talking about TOTAL travel cost. This is the whole paragraph:
Travel cost - cost linked to return ticket between European countries and all local travel costs from the place of residence to the place of deployment. The unit cost is 600 EUR (regardless of the distance and transfers involved). The total travel cost should be reported as a total figure/multiplication of travels.
Edit: Okay, actually - reading this after your interpretations - it is clear now that they only mean the unit cost here. The variable cost if for a different column. Thanks! Though even now that I understand, it feels so weirdly worded.
Yeah, it's badly worded. But presumably that also includes things like people traveling in their own car and getting refunded per km of travel, in which case they need to justify it as "allowance per km" * "km travelled to the destination"
|
I have a question in regards to a potential firearm (handgun) purchase (so mainly anyone who works in US law enforcement could probably answer this ezpz). I'm going to include probably unnecessary details but the question will be tagged at the end.
As far as I know, the only sure-fire way to cover whether or not a firearm is potentially stolen or otherwise illegitimate would be to run the serial # through a federal database for which regular citizens do not have access. The would-be purchase is in a state where private sales are permitted. The would-be purchaser is already a handgun owner and has already had background checks done for that - there is no attempt to circumvent the law. The would-be purchaser has run the serial number through a stolen gun database, but that only includes serials that have been submitted to that particular site (it isn't every problematic number.) The would-be purchaser highly values his privacy and the privacy of the would-be seller.
THE QUESTION: If a person were to request the police to check a serial number, and it comes back stolen, is that person putting themselves in a situation where they would need to answer some followup questions? Would they be required to supply any additional information about how they came across it, etc?
|
United States42570 Posts
Surely this is a classic case of the 5th. You cannot be required to self incriminate. You'd be charged with possession but you never have to answer any questions you don't want to about criminal activity.
|
|
|
On May 13 2020 11:07 JimmiC wrote:
I think he is asking if he would need to rat out the current owner or not.
Yes, this is the concern.
|
You will get their attention if you ask them to run a third party check that comes back hot. If you don’t want their attention, don’t do it.
|
I appreciate the input. I suppose if the would-be seller isn't willing to submit to that check, that's a good enough sign to evade the entire situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
