Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Varying between >50g and <50g carbs Low Carb Flu?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I was under the impression that the Inuit type diet was an example of a Ketogenic diet, where the diet is comprised wholly of animal products, primarily fat. The link below is one of the papers I read regarding this:
    Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Ketogenic diets and physical performance

    Once we get down to low carb I imagine there has to be fat metabolism taking place, but surely the trigger point for pure ketolysis is when blood sugar & muscle Glycogen needs to be replenished from fat only.
    Otherwise what distinguishes a Ketogenic (Low Carb) diet from a Low Carb diet or even a Medium Carb diet? All of these would have some degree of Ketolysis taking place.

    I will do some more reading on this, as I would like to know what the distinctions are?
    "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
      Thanks. I just got my five years post cancer check-up and everything came back all clear. Just because it's in your family doesn't make it inevitable. But you do have to be more cautious about preventative exams like mammograms and pap smears. My oncologist told me that the best thing I could do to prevent a recurrence was to get the excess weight off of me. That's when I went low carb. Survival is a much stronger motivator than vanity could ever be.
      That's great news and I am very happy for you.

      I agree that cancer is not inevitable for me. I am at high risk of female cancers due to a very high 2D:4D ratio, which is in the top percentile, and apparently high histamine is a risk factor too for oestrogen dominance.

      However, two of my maternal grandmother's four siblings are still alive in their late eighties/early nineties and are going great guns, so that gives me hope. They both have a lust for life.

      Sometimes I seriously curse having knowledge about this stuff.

      I am going to find it hard to lose more body fat because I know my body doesn't want to go much below around 29% body fat. So I don't believe I can reduce my risk of cancer in that respect. I wish I could.
      F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
        I think that "insidious weight gain" thing is probably true of people eating in that range if they are spending too much time watching Oprah and not exercising.
        So if I eat 160G/day of CHOs and don't exercise then I will automatically have insidious weight gain? This pseudo-scientific chart is quite possibly the worst marketing idea Sisson ever came up with.

        Screen-shot-2012-02-28-at-23.22.21.png

        Has this ever been clarified, revised, or is this still the Primal Blueprint doctrine when it comes to CHO intake?
        http://stackingplates.com/

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
          So if I eat 160G/day of CHOs and don't exercise then I will automatically have insidious weight gain? This pseudo-scientific chart is quite possibly the worst marketing idea Sisson ever came up with.
          He never meant it as absolute numbers or a one size fits all. Cut the guy some slack. It is a good rule of thumb place to start.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Omni View Post
            I was under the impression that the Inuit type diet was an example of a Ketogenic diet, where the diet is comprised wholly of animal products, primarily fat. The link below is one of the papers I read regarding this:
            Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Ketogenic diets and physical performance

            Once we get down to low carb I imagine there has to be fat metabolism taking place, but surely the trigger point for pure ketolysis is when blood sugar & muscle Glycogen needs to be replenished from fat only.
            Otherwise what distinguishes a Ketogenic (Low Carb) diet from a Low Carb diet or even a Medium Carb diet? All of these would have some degree of Ketolysis taking place.

            I will do some more reading on this, as I would like to know what the distinctions are?
            The Inuit are AN example but not the only one. And no, it does not have to be zero carb intake to trigger it, just very low.

            If you would like to look into this further you might try looking at the Johns Hopkins website. They are doing some great research about keto diets and epilepsy.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              He never meant it as absolute numbers or a one size fits all. Cut the guy some slack. It is a good rule of thumb place to start.
              If I am new to Sisson and the "Primal Blueprint" then how am I supposed to simply look at that diagram and determine it isn't a "one size fits all"? Is there some fine print I'm not privy to? It looks very intimidating and absolute to me?
              http://stackingplates.com/

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
                So if I eat 160G/day of CHOs and don't exercise then I will automatically have insidious weight gain? This pseudo-scientific chart is quite possibly the worst marketing idea Sisson ever came up with.

                [ATTACH]7842[/ATTACH]

                Has this ever been clarified, revised, or is this still the Primal Blueprint doctrine when it comes to CHO intake?
                I agree that it is pseudo-scientific.

                Anyone can eat just one meal a day with however many carbs they chose to eat and be guaranteed to go into ketosis.

                Because the liver can only load around 100-120 max of carbs. And hey - guess what - if the muscles are competing for carbs the liver won't take its fill.
                F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.

                Comment


                • #38
                  If he was to be less dramatic about it then I'd give him a pass but that wouldn't sell books, I suppose...
                  http://stackingplates.com/

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Imagine how badly the Primal Blueprint would work if the parameters were "eat as much of all these foods as you want" without anything to rein it in. You'd have all these sugarholics chasing down their ribeyes with whole watermelons. I'm sure that would work well for effortless weightloss.

                    At 100-150 carbs most people are going to a) limit the binge worthy stuff, b) maximize foods that fill you up for hours, and c) not suffer low carb flu or at least not for very long. The result is going to be weight loss for just about any adult who adheres to it.
                    Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Just did a bit of a search on "Low Carb Flu", seems this is the transition state of converting over to full Ketolysis, One link & Quote below:
                      The Science Behind The “Low Carb Flu”, and How To Regain Your Metabolic Flexibility &#45; GNOLLS.ORG

                      The Difference Between Beta-Oxidation and Ketosis
                      Here’s where I say something that might be controversial: I think going cold-turkey VLC (very low carb) or zero-carb makes the transition much harder, particularly for people who are already physically active.

                      Beta-oxidation (fat-burning) occurs nearly continually, and produces much of our energy at rest once insulin has cleared any sugar spike out of our system. However, our body does have some requirement for glucose, which it satisfies in the short-term primarily by having the liver make it—a process called gluconeogenesis.

                      If we eat zero carbs, or very few, over a period of time, our body enters a state called ketosis, in which some of our tissues that used to require glucose shift over to burning ketone bodies, which are alternative products of fat metabolism. And while it is true that our brains and hearts actually run more efficiently on ketones, it takes several weeks for our bodies to fully adapt. Meanwhile, we lack energy for high-effort activities, because our muscles are depleted of glycogen, which is made from glucose.
                      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
                        If I am new to Sisson and the "Primal Blueprint" then how am I supposed to simply look at that diagram and determine it isn't a "one size fits all"? Is there some fine print I'm not privy to? It looks very intimidating and absolute to me?
                        Like I said, a good place to start. From there you have to find out what works for you.
                        How can somebody be intimidated by a graph?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Omni View Post
                          Just did a bit of a search on "Low Carb Flu", seems this is the transition state of converting over to full Ketolysis, One link & Quote below:
                          The Science Behind The “Low Carb Flu”, and How To Regain Your Metabolic Flexibility - GNOLLS.ORG

                          The Difference Between Beta-Oxidation and Ketosis
                          Here’s where I say something that might be controversial: I think going cold-turkey VLC (very low carb) or zero-carb makes the transition much harder, particularly for people who are already physically active.

                          Beta-oxidation (fat-burning) occurs nearly continually, and produces much of our energy at rest once insulin has cleared any sugar spike out of our system. However, our body does have some requirement for glucose, which it satisfies in the short-term primarily by having the liver make it—a process called gluconeogenesis.

                          If we eat zero carbs, or very few, over a period of time, our body enters a state called ketosis, in which some of our tissues that used to require glucose shift over to burning ketone bodies, which are alternative products of fat metabolism. And while it is true that our brains and hearts actually run more efficiently on ketones, it takes several weeks for our bodies to fully adapt. Meanwhile, we lack energy for high-effort activities, because our muscles are depleted of glycogen, which is made from glucose.
                          See, it doesn't have to be zero.
                          I know a lot of people do suffer horribly, or at least they write about it dramatically here. The durartion, however varies greatly. All I know is that I never had anything but a wonderful rush and a giant surge in energy from going into ketosis. Not every Body is the same.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by StackingPlates View Post
                            If he was to be less dramatic about it then I'd give him a pass but that wouldn't sell books, I suppose...
                            I don't see it as dramatic. Simplistic perhaps. And yes, simple sells books, and CDs, and supplements. He never said this was a public service.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                              And yes, simple sells books, and CDs, and supplements. He never said this was a public service.
                              Actually that isn't true as he repeatedly operates under the notion that he just wants to help people. I believe his goal is 10 million people helped as per a recent blog post?

                              I also disagree that "simple" sells books. What sells is promising folks a way to "cheat the system". All "diets" have to have a gimic, or something that distances them from "calories in versus calories out" or "eat less and move more".

                              Amazon.com: The Bestselling Diet Books on the Market

                              Find one on the list that doesn't have a BS gimmick...

                              Originally posted by Paleobird
                              How can somebody be intimidated by a graph?
                              Are you purposefully being an apologist or just trying to be argumentative? I'm going to assume you've read the book where that graphic came from, no? If you fancy yourself on the intelligent side as it relates to nutrition and human physiology then try to put yourself into the mind of someone who is utterly clueless and desperate. Now, look at this picture again and honestly tell me this wouldn't put the fear of God in you when it comes to CHOs? Make special note of large "danger zone", "obesity and illness", "store more fat", and "insidious weight gain" verbiage in bold.

                              Read through all the threads started by the CHO fearing posters in this forum if you need more convincing...pseudo science + large influence = dangerous combination.

                              carb-curve1.jpg
                              http://stackingplates.com/

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                See, it doesn't have to be zero.
                                I know a lot of people do suffer horribly, or at least they write about it dramatically here. The durartion, however varies greatly. All I know is that I never had anything but a wonderful rush and a giant surge in energy from going into ketosis. Not every Body is the same.
                                Yeah, starting to get the picture, but would like to get something a bit more definative that "low carb intake"
                                The link above had another one:
                                The Ketogenic Diet for Health
                                Got a bit of a guideline on going into the process, the general reccomendation is to gradually reduce the carbs, then 0 carb for at least 30 days to get a feel for it and allow the body to fully adapt.
                                I checked out some of the epilepsy stuff as well, as I do have a significant interest in the diet:disease connections, as you say the majority is very low carb, but I will keep hunting as I would like to get a clearer understanding of which systems convert over to ketones at the varying carb intakes.
                                "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X