Thanks for viewing! Continent Coming Soon!

View Post

shared via

About Low Fat Raw Vegan Diet

Welcome to Jolita Brilliant’s Blog!

Coming Soon!

What is a Low Fat Raw Food Diet?

View Post

shared via

Chat w Raw Cane Juice Guy. LA February Local Farmers Market


View Post

shared via

My Spartan Race Experience 2012 Tri State NY


View Post

shared via

Fat balance versus energy balance

Fat balance versus energy balance

When losing “weight,” you want a selective process.  You want to lose fat, not essential lean mass, which includes essential water (i.e. not water of edema), muscle, organs, and glycogen. 
When a person adopts a low carbohydrate diet, the body continues for several days to draw down glycogen stores to fuel the brain and muscles.  Glycogen stores typically amount to about 300 to 400 g in the average subject, 100 g of which can reside in the liver. The body stores glycogen in combination with water in a ratio of about 3 g water for each 1 g of glycogen.  Thus, on a low carbohydrate diet, initial depletion of glycogen can alone account for up to 1.2 to 1.5 kg, creating an illusion of rapid change in body composition.
As noted by Flatt,  “The body ignores that 1 g of fat contains more than twice the energy present in 1 g of carbohydrate, an element of information needed to determine the energy balance.”(1) The body does not regulate energy balance; it regulates the balances of carbohydrate, protein, and fat, each of which has its own economy.
Ingested carbohydrate, protein, and fat differ markedly in their potential fates:
Utilization in structures of glycomolecules
Utilization for repair and maintenance of tissues
Utilization for repair and maintenance of cells
Oxidation to support body functions
Conversion to glucose; oxidation to support body functions (only in a carbohydrate deficient system)
Oxidation to support body functions
Oxidation to produce heat
Conversion to glucose; oxidation to produce heat (only in a carbohydrate deficient system)
Storage as body fat
Storage as glycogen (500 to 600 g)
Conversion to glucose; storage as glycogen (only in a carbohydrate deficient system)
Conversion to body fat
Conversion to body fat
Numerous studies have shown that the concept of energy balance does not strictly apply to human metabolism because of the different ways the body manages the separate economies of  fat, protein, and carbohydrate.  
As an example, Miller and Mumford did three experiments involving overfeeding humans with a supplement of 1300-1500 kcal per day, either high in protein (~15%) or low in protein (~2.7%). [2 full text]   Fat content of high- and low- protein diets was held constant, so high protein diets were reduced in carbohydrate, and vice versa. 
Their data showed large deviations from predictions of the energy balance hypothesis.  Subjects overfed a low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet consistently gained less weight than predicted by the increased kcaloric intake; in fact, some subjects on low protein diets lost weight despite consuming an excess of 8-10,000 kcal in a week. 
In one experiment, subjects on low protein diets overconsumed an average of 35, 230 kcal but gained only 0.9 kg, compared to the energy balance prediction of  5.9 kg. In contrast, subjects getting the excess kcalories from higher protein foods gained an average of 3.7 kg, two-thirds of the amount predicted by the energy balance equation.  Miller and Mumford ruled out significant loss of lean mass by multiple methods of estimating body composition, including whole body potassium, skinfold, nitrogen balance, and urinary creatinine, none of which indicated significant change in lean body mass in these subjects.
These data indicated that, given the same excess “energy” intake,  higher protein intake increases body weight gain compared to higher carbohydrate intake. These data clearly contradict the energy balance idea as well as the idea that high protein diets have a metabolic advantage over high carbohydrate diets; on the contrary, they suggest that high carbohydrate diets have the metabolic advantage. 
Prewitt et al [3 full text] found that women (black, Hispanic, white, and Asian) assigned to a 60% carbohydrate, 20% fat diet required 14-28% (average 19%) higher caloric intake to maintain weight than when assigned to a 44% carbohydrate, 37% fat diet (protein intake was constant at ~19%).  Despite efforts to maintain stable body weight on the lower fat intake by increasing carbohydrate intake,  the subjects lost an average of 11% of body fat (2.5 kg) over 24 weeks. 
Grams, Not Calories
In the nutritional biochemistry literature, research along these lines has led to the realization that the body deals with substrate balances, not energy balance.   That means, the body has a fat balance, protein balance, and carbohydrate balance, the latter two of which it appears to regulate. 
Since the body processes each nutrient (protein, fat, carbohydrate) differently, we can’t reduce them to hypothetically equivalent kcalories with equivalent fates.  Ironically, this has become the battle cry of advocates of low carbohydrate diets, when the data (some of which I cited above, some below) overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that high carbohydrate diets have the “metabolic advantage” over low carbohydrate diets.
To lose body fat, you must create a metabolic situation in which the body oxidizes more fat than it deposits in stores, which we can call ‘negative fat balance.’  This could occur through increased oxidation of fat relative to deposition, or decreased deposition relative to oxidation, or both. 
Hill et al tested nutrient balance in humans using diets high and low in carbohydrate or fat. [5] Figure 2 shows the nutrient oxidation rates for protein, fat, and carbohydrate at baseline, and three different experimental diets.  The high fat diet supplied 20 percent of calories from each protein and carbohydrate, and 60 percent from fat.  The high carb diet supplied 20 percent of calories from each protein and fat, and 60 percent from carbohydrate.  The mixed diet supplied 20 percent of calories as protein, 35 percent as carbohydrate, and 45 percent as fat. 

Click for larger version

As shown, on the high fat and “mixed” diets, the subjects oxidized (“burned”) more fat than either carbohydrate or protein, and on the high carbohydrate diet, they oxidized more carbohydrate than either fat or protein.  Notice that protein oxidation was essentially the same regardless of diet, because all diets had equivalent proportion of protein.  This confirmed the long-known fact that carbohydrate spares fat oxidation.  From this figure, you might naturally conclude that eating a low carbohydrate diet will lead to fat loss by increasing fat oxidation.
The next figure shows the balance (intake minus oxidation) of protein, fat, and carbohydrate on each of the diets.

Click for larger version

On the 60% fat diet, the subjects were in slight negative fat balance (burning more fat than consumed) on day three, but by day seven, they were in positive fat balance (burning less fat than consumed)—hence, on day seven they were storing dietary fat in adipose.  This happened despite the fact that they had increased fat oxidation.  Decreasing dietary carbohydrate forced the body to burn more fat, but because they were consuming a high fat diet, they were consuming more fat than they could burn in a day, resulting in a positive fat balance….increasing adipose.
In contrast, the subjects on the 45% fat and 20% fat diets were in negative fat balance—burning more fat than consumed—on all measured days, with those on the 20% fat diets in the greatest negative fat balance—losing body fat at the greatest rate.
Note that this means that on the same kcaloric intake, when the subjects ate a 60% fat diet, they were accumulating body fat, but when they ate a 45% or 20% fat diet,  they were losing body fat…and they lost fat faster on the 20% fat diet than on the 45% fat diet.
Notice also that when the subjects were on the 60% carbohydrate diet they had positive protein balance at both measured days, but when on either the 60% or 45% fat diets, by day seven they were in slight negative protein balance—burning more protein than consumed.  That means they were burning up lean mass, despite a high (20% of calories) protein, kcalorically adequate diet.  This happened because carbohydrate is protein-sparing.  In other words, eating adequate carbohydrate prevents the use of body protein to produce glucose or glycogen; eating too little carbohydrate leads to the body breaking down lean mass to generate carbohydrate.   This is why many people find it difficult to maintain and especially to build lean mass on a low carbohydrate diet.
What about carbohydrate?  All diets showed positive carbohydrate balance.  This means they were storing carbohydrate, in the form of glycogen, at time of measurement.  Humans are continuosly oxidizing carbohydrate, but intermittently feeding on carbohydrate.  Given adequate dietary carbohydrate, our body’s will maintain a positive carbohydrate balance during the day, because we don’t eat at night. This carbohydrate gets burned at night during sleep, when not eating.   Hill et al comment:
As noted above, the body does not regulate energy balance, it regulates balance of nutrients.   The body has different ways of handling each nutrient, in general it avoids converting glucose into fat since it needs glucose and can store it as glycogen.
In the case of carbohydrate, we know that when carbohydrate intake increases, the body increases carbohydrate usage and converts some (about 10%) to heat (thermogenesis), and it stores any excess carbohydrate as glycogen.  It appears that the body regulates carbohydrate stores (glycogen) by increasing carbohydrate oxidation when carbohydrate is abundant and reduces glucose oxidation when dietary carbohydrate is scarce (to conserve glycogen).  Experiments involving overfeeding 500 grams of carbohydrate daily have shown that the body converts very little of this to fat, and only after prolonged overfeeding; after seven days of such overfeeding people produce only about 5-10 g of fat via conversion of glucose.[7]  Furthermore, conversion of glucose to fatty acids consumes about 25% of the energy in the glucose.  
In the case of dietary fat, when you eat more grams of fat than you burn, you will store those grams of fat in fat stores; the body has no other way to store them, and most research shows most fats do not have a thermogenic action.  The high prevalence of obesity shows that the body does not regulate fat storage effectively.  Since it avidly stores fat without regulation, this suggests that evolutionary diets did not have much fat (avid storage would evolve as a response to scarcity).
So, if you consume 10 g excess fat daily, you will directly store those grams of fat in fat stores.  Over a month, those 10 g of fat add up to 300 g, or about  three quarters of a pound.  The body does not calculate the kcaloric value of those grams of fat; the kcaloric value is simply irrelevant to the body.  I repeat, energy balance is irrelevant.  The body has no means of regulating “energy,” a theoretical entity; it only shuffles grams of substances like fat, carbohydrate, and protein.
When you eat fewer grams of fat than you burn, you will release fat from fat stores.  Eat 10 g less fat daily than you burn, and you will lose 300 g of fat per month; to lose one pound of fat weekly, you need to create a fat deficit of about 65 g daily (i.e. consume 65 g less fat than you burn).   
You might be able to achieve this on a low carbohydrate diet, and you might not.  If eating a low carb diet allows you to eat less fat than you burn daily, you will lose fat, and if it doesn’t you will not.  On the other hand, regardless of theoretical “energy” intake, if eating a low carbohydrate diet results in your consuming more fat than your body burns daily, you will increase your body fat day by day. 
In my experience, many people increase fat intake well beyond fat oxidation when eating low carbohydrate diets, in spite of reduced kcalorie intake.
The body does not store “energy,” it stores fat or carbohydrate, gram by gram.  A gram of fat is a gram of fat; if you don’t burn it, you will store it.   


Small Houses You Can Build Yourself

Eco-Friendly Tiny Houses 

Tiny houses are compact structures hand built from green building materials. Tiny houses are so small they’re easily moveable; they can be quite practical for a single person interested in living a green lifestyle at low cost. Environmentally friendly tiny houses are designed and built with a small footprint - small homes/small buildings require fewer resources to build and they use a minimal amount of land and energy.

Tiny houses are for people not from the stuff nation. Environmentally friendly sustainable tiny houses are meant for people who can entertain themselves …Peter King

A tiny house is small enough to be towed by a truck or carried on a flat bed trailer so you can take your home with you if you decide to relocate or just feel the need to change your view. Tiny houses are similar to RVs in that they’re mobile, except they’re more like rustic cabins or cabanas. In the grand old days of railroad travel, people of means owned and traveled in private railroad cars. Tiny houses in the smallest versions have about the same amount of space as a large RV or railroad car, and a tiny house can be just as luxurious or as simple as you like.

The level of sophistication you design and build into your tiny home is fully customizable. Many tiny house home builders create a separate bath house nearby, to leave more living space and create a private sanctuary for bathing and personal care.

Photo: This is my favorite Tiny House design by Tumble Weed Homes The WeeBee

This lens won a Purple Star of Excellence! It’s also been blessed by Squidoo Angels.

On August 2, 2011 Eco-Friendly Tiny Houses was named Squidoo Lens of the Day. I’m so thankful for these awards of excellence - this is one of my favorite lenses.

What’s a Tiny House?

Tiny houses are small scale minimalist structures, often on wheels

Tiny house framing - the studs and roof trusses for a small handbuilt cabin made from locally harvested lumberTiny houses are compact hand built home structures that measure from 100 to 300 square feet. Tiny houses are designed and built from green building materials. You can build a tiny house on a wheeled platform and haul your home around the countryside or you can place a tiny house on piers and move it to a new location on a flatbed truck or trailer when you need to relocate. Or, you can just build it in place as a permanent structure.

Because a tiny house is basically smaller than 300 square feet, it’s most suited to a single person or couple who desire to simplify living. Some tiny house designs resemble miniature Victorian cottages, complete with gable window frames and a small porch. Others are simpler structures, compact but cute little cabins with built in cubbies, small scale fixtures and appliances, and convertible furniture modules to maximize space and minimize clutter.

Photo: Lee Hansen Original tiny house design under construction at ebb and flow organic farm.


Using Recycled Materials in a Sustainable Tiny Home

During demolition, salvage building materials for reuse

Doug Hoch, installing a handbuilt window made from recycled glass blocks

Our small house was originally built as a summer cottage in 1950. The owners also operated an ice cream stand in a nearby town. The shop had windows made from glass blocks - all the rage in the fifties, and popular once again. They had some glass blocks left over from the store, so they used them in their little cottage. The glass blocks were still strong in the late 1990s when it was time to expand the little cottage into a year round home.

When my husband Doug (that’s him in the photo) removed a kitchen wall from the cottage as he was remodeling, he had to remove dozens of glass blocks. After demolition, Doug cleaned and salvaged the blocks. A few years later he designed an interior window for our home that combined the blocks with scraps of Saltillo tile left over from the floor in our back entry area.

In the photo Doug was fitting and cementing each glass block into the octagon shaped window frame he built by hand. The triangular shapes with plywood hold the glass blocks in place; after the block cement dried, he covered the plywood wedges with triangular pieces of tile. The result is a one-of-a-kind window between our kitchen and bathroom made from new and old salvaged materials.


Tiny House Tour #1 - Peter King, Stuck in Vermont Profile

Stuck in Vermont - 100 Square Foot Tiny House

In Johnson, Vermont (one of the coldest places in the contiguous US states) take a tour of 3 different tiny houses. Tiny houses are for people who don’t need lots of stuff, and are ideal if you have a larger home but need a bit of space - they make ideal poetry cabins, art studios, play houses or guest rooms. If you’re into a green lifestyle and don’t need lots of space, you can live in a tiny house all the time or just on weekends in minimalist style.

Note: Peter mentions in this video that for houses under 100 square feet many towns don’t require a building permit. Check your local building code or township regulations if your tiny house is not on wheels.

We fell in love with Vermont, and in November 2010 we bought a small house (not a tiny house, but definitely not a big home) as our second home. We plan to retire to our small home in Vermont - until then, our home in New England in a small town is a bit of heaven, in a community that values sustainable living and welcomes artists with open arms. We’re in the planning stages for adding a garage and sunporch to our home. Both will be designed to follow sustainable construction practices and use salvaged architectural components.
Stuck in Vermont 105: Tiny Housesby StuckinVermont | video info

432 ratings | 160,979 views
curated content from YouTube

Tiny Houses in Vermont

Peter King, Vermont tiny house builder with a 10x10x10 house and a tiny house model he uses to teach folks how to build their own small houses.


Tiny Homes and Tiny Houses

Small is Beautiful, as these small house photos demonstrate

Tiny houses are not a new idea, they’re a couple of old ideas in revival. The idea of living in a small house the size of a vacation cottage appeals to more and more people who want to reduce their footprint, live a green lifestyle, and own a home for less than $30,000.

The Conestoga wagon and wooden wagons used for homes years ago were the forerunners of tiny houses and RVs. RVs and tow-along campers or trailers have been popular as temporary or vacation travel homes for many years. The tiny house concept takes the idea up a notch to the level of a hand built small house permanent home … with a green living focus.

How To Save Your Teeth On A Raw Food Or Vegan Diet

I dont think advertising is wrong, I just think the totally wrong values are being presented.

How To Drink More Water & Lose More Fat