|
2006/12/23, 08:13 PM
Ok, I try not to get too 'scientific' for folks, but this may well be worth the read. Have hesitated to post this, but to the more astute of you, it may be an eye opener.
Leptin is a master Controller hormone produced by fat in adipose tissue making fat an essential part of the endocrine system which includes the thyroid gland, adrenal glands and sex glands. It also controls insulin and other hormones. Leptin’s primary function is to make a 'phone call to the brain', which controls eating behavior, to let it know if there is too much or too little leptin present in the fat cells. If too much leptin is present (indicating fat storage), the brain releases adrenaline to stimulate the fat cells to release energy to cause fat loss. The metabolism is triggered to work at full capacity to move fat out of storage and lower the appetite. This works perfectly for the normal weight person. When leptin works properly, high leptin tells you they are full and not to eat, so it’s natural not to be hungry after dinner or before bed. Leptin cycles frequently throughout the day, providing energy and alertness. Leptin levels are highest during the first few hours of sleep and fall to their lowest level in the morning.
If you are obese, the phone call is blocked. The brain is not aware of how much fat is in the fat cells, so it continues to send the signal to manufacture leptin to fill the cells. The metabolism now thinks it is in starvation mode and slows down signaling the thyroid to slow as well. At the same time, the appetite increases to stimulate weight gain. Leptin is responsible for addictive and compulsive eating behavior. The urge and craving to eat becomes uncontrollable. This process is referred to as leptin resistance. And since insulin production stimulates leptin production, insulin resistance and adrenaline resistance (caused by stress) are present as well. All of this can lead to adult onset diabetes. If one is corrected, the others should correct as well. When leptin resistance occurs, the body thinks it is starving and the liver stops making active thyroid
Unfortunately, all you need do is think the word “diet,” and the body thinks it’s going into starvation mode, even if it is significantly overweight. So it slows down the metabolism as soon as calories are restricted. Discouragingly, sometimes you may be on a 1200 to 1500 calorie diet and the weight just won’t drop. And of course, no one believes you aren’t “cheating.”
Even if there is a weight loss, leptin is the main cause of weight gain after dieting. Once you start to eat more calories, leptin commands the calories toward weight gain. Those cells joyously want to be filled back up and even multiply so that more food can be stored as fat. This is why it is common for you to gain back all the weight lost plus even more. Food cravings become uncontrollable and nighttime eating increases. Only after all of the weight has been regained will the leptin signal the metabolism to work to full capacity again. Unfortunately, fat cells have a tendency to become larger and multiply faster as we age and leptin resistance becomes even more of an issue.
Now the good news......Fish to the rescue?? We all know by now how good fish is for you, but seems it may be even more beneficial for dieters(anyone trying to lose weight) Read on...(make darns ure you read the conclusion if you bothered to read the above part of the post at all).
Effect of fish diets and weight loss on serum leptin concentration in overweight, treated-hypertensive subjects.
ORIGINAL PAPERS
Journal of Hypertension. 22(10):1983-1990, October 2004.
Mori, Trevor A a; Burke, Valerie a; Puddey, Ian B a; Shaw, Jonathan E b; Beilin, Lawrence J a
Abstract:
Background: Leptin, a circulating hormone secreted from adipocytes, is an index of adiposity and is reduced by caloric restriction and weight loss. A recent population study suggested that dietary-derived 3 fatty acids lower leptin levels independent of body fat.
Objective: To examine whether dietary fish enhanced the effects of weight loss on serum leptin levels, in 69 overweight, treated hypertensive men and women.
Methods: Participants were randomized to a daily fish meal, a weight-reduction regimen, the two regimens combined or a control group for 16 weeks.
Results: A total of 63 individuals completed the study. Weight fell 5.6 +/- 0.8 kg with energy-restriction. Blood pressure (BP) reductions in the combined fish-weight loss group were twice that seen with either intervention alone. At baseline, in all groups combined, serum leptin levels correlated with serum insulin (r = 0.307, P = 0.014), but not with body weight. The greatest change in serum leptin occurred in the fish-weight loss group (control, 0.60 +/- 0.76 ng/ml; fish, 1.20 +/- 0.79 ng/ml; weight loss, -1.40 +/- 1.05 ng/ml; fish-weight loss, -5.08 +/- 1.64 ng/ml). In the fish-weight loss group, the change in serum leptin was predicted by changes in serum insulin (r = 0.488, P = 0.038), 24-h BP (systolic BP (SBP): r = 0.435, P = 0.060; diastolic BP (DBP): r = 0.563, P = 0.018) and 24-h heart rate (0.584, P = 0.028). Using general linear models, there was a significant fish x weight-loss interaction (P = 0.008) on post-intervention serum leptin after adjustment for baseline levels, independent of post-intervention insulin.
Conclusion: A daily fish meal as part of a weight-reducing regimen was more effective than either measure alone at reducing leptin levels. Reductions in leptin may be related to the substantial fall in BP seen with the fish-weight loss program.
--------------
Maximus from Gladiator....Strength and Honor!
|
|
|
|
2006/12/23, 08:35 PM
wow...I really do have a distaste for fish...and to eat it daily..hard to consider,but this does sound like me...would fish oil have the same effect as a serving of fish??I've yet to start a fish oil regiment...maybe this will finally light the fire.
--------------
\\"If you had one shot...or one oppurtunity to seize all you ever wanted...in one moment...would you capture it...or just let it slip\\"
eminem
|
|
2006/12/23, 09:10 PM
I would highly recommend fish oil. (for a multitude of reasons)
--------------
Maximus from Gladiator....Strength and Honor!
|
|
2006/12/23, 09:13 PM
I do both most of the time with the Oil and Salmon or Tuna but from what I read in another BB1 post Fish Oil IS YOUR GREATER WAY TO ABTAIN THE OMEGA 3's and in this article it's refering to the Omega 3's.
So also like BB1 has stated in even another post when buying Fish Oil avoid the Omega 3, 6, 9 and shoot for the Omega 3 versions. Just make sure it says Omega 3 and not Omega 3,6,9 and I would buy Enteric coated if I were you!
I get mine at Walmart for 12 buck and 250 caps a Jar.
|
|
2006/12/23, 09:15 PM
To KC..unfortunately, leptin levels are usually higher in women. The good news is that in studies done, researchers found the leptin levels of women who ate fish to be less than half that of both the female and male vegetarians.
--------------
Maximus from Gladiator....Strength and Honor!
|
|
2006/12/23, 09:16 PM
KC I give fish Oils Caps to my Kids every morning, Enteric Coated and they always say Yummm Vanilla Daddy I love Vanilla, exept the time my youngest had to see for her self why daddy said not to ever bite the caps and I doubt she'll ever do that again!
|
|
2006/12/23, 09:19 PM
There is some interesting stuff going on with for instance Tuna...to wit a lawsuit filed against Star Kist, Bumble Bee, and Chicken of the sea.....
California Sues Tuna Manufacturers
Laurie Budgar
7/1/2004 5:18:46 PM
Canned tuna manufacturers should have warned consumers about the potentially toxic mercury levels in their products, said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in a suit filed June 21 against the makers of StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea tuna.
California's Proposition 65, in effect since 1986, requires manufacturers to warn consumers if their products contain known carcinogens or reproductive toxins. Mercury and methylmercury have been known since the late 1980s to cause cancer and reproductive difficulties. "Prenatal exposure to mercury can cause serious disabilities in infants and children," such as mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness and developmental disabilities, Lockyer said.
In March 2004 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency advised consumers to limit fish and shellfish consumption to 12 ounces per week, or 6 ounces for adolescent girls and women of childbearing age.
Lockyer's office tested albacore and light canned tunas for sale in California and found that both varieties have higher levels of mercury than is generally deemed safe.
"The levels of mercury in canned tuna that are sufficient to trigger the requirement to post a Prop 65 warning are substantially lower than for, quote unquote, "safe exposure,'" said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer's office. Nonetheless, the AG's tests found levels that exceed both Proposition 65 levels and those established by the FDA and EPA in March.
"We're not trying to eliminate tuna from people's diets. We're trying to enforce the law and protect the health and safety of California women and children," Lockyer said in a news release.
Added Dresslar, "People need to be fully informed about how much canned tuna they eat, especially if they're in the at-risk categories."
Physicians for Social Responsibility, a nonprofit group of more than 24,000 members nationwide, takes a similar stance. "We don't think the FDA/EPA guidelines go far enough in protecting women and children," said Susan Marmagas, director, environment and health program for PSR. The group, along with the Association for Reproductive Health Professionals, has released a brochure and wallet guide for consumers that helps them balance decisions about eating fish for their health.
If the California suit is successful, the companies involved—Del Monte, Bumble Bee Seafoods and Tri-Union Seafoods—would be liable for fines up to $2,500 per day for each violation, dating back to 2000. The suit also would require tuna companies to post warnings on can labels or store signage.
The U.S. Tuna Foundation holds that manufacturers should not be liable because the mercury occurs naturally in deep-water fish. According to a USTF news release, Proposition 65 pertains only to substances that manufacturers add to their products, rendering the suit unwarranted. "This suit is not grounded in science and will needlessly scare consumers away from affordable foods that are good for them," said David Burney, USTF executive director.
"They have the burden of proving that in the Prop 65 litigation," Dresslar said. "We don't think it's a burden they can meet." Besides, he added, "There's plenty of evidence out there that shows a substantial part of the mercury exposure comes from manmade sources."
California is the only state that has this kind of law, Dresslar said, so it's unlikely to affect consumers or retailers in other states.
But other observers say that costs for canned tuna could go up across the board as a result of the suit. Manufacturers would have to spend money to make sure that the cans with warning labels don't make it to stores outside of California, and would likely recoup that cost at the cash register.
--------------
Maximus from Gladiator....Strength and Honor!
|
|
2006/12/23, 09:28 PM
Yeah, I eat alot of Tuna and at times it scares me.
I usually put away about 5 oz daily but at this point in my life and until it changes it's cheaper then Salmon of which I perfer better then Tuna, I love Salmon.
|
|
2006/12/23, 09:32 PM
Yeah, if you notice that lawsuit...it was filed in 2004.
--------------
\"If it ain\'t broke, you aren\'t trying.\" -Red Green
|
