Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Potato Diet....criticisms and metabolic theory

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

  • #46
    Caution! This is hijacked from Hyperlipid Hyperlipid: Protons: Zero fat. Peter has some good stuff but its not a light read. So have some BP coffee or whatever gets your brain going before proceeding!

    Protons: Zero fat
    A bit speculative here, read with caution!

    How do we lower free fatty acids? Obviously, with nicotinic acid. What does this do to insulin secretion in response to a glucose challenge? I'll just work through this figure from the same paper which gave us the insulinotropic effects of various FFAs a couple of posts ago.



    Section A is very simple, it just shows that they succeeded in clamping glucose at just over 200mg/dl, about 12mmol/l, ie just in to supraphysiological levels.

    Section B shows FFA levels, which they manipulated very carefully. All rats started at about 0.6mmol/l. Nicotinic acid lowered FFA levels to 0.1mmol/l. These are the black squares. Two other intervention groups were included. The white triangles had their lipolysis shut down using nicotinic acid but then had FFAs clamped back up again using a soyabean oil infusion (mostly omega 6 PUFA) and the black triangle group had an infusion of lard based lipids (a mix of lipids but with a significant palmitic acid content) to restore and hold FFAs at about 0.8mmol/l.

    The nicotinic acid group, with FFAs of 0.1mmol/l, cannot secrete insulin in response to glucose. Flat line at the bottom of graph C.

    The open squares are the control group. These rats show the normal response to an hyperglycaemic clamp. They reduce FFAs in response to the inhibition of lipolysis from secreted insulin, down to 0.2mmol/l. Insulin inhibits lipolysis. But the reduced FFAs also reduce insulin secretion. There is a balance struck with only a modest rise in insulin, sustained throughout the clamp. You can see this in section C, open squares.

    The two lipid infused groups have clamped glucose and clamped FFAs. They secrete insulin in proportion to the amount of palmitate in the lipid infusion. A bit extra over control if you use low F:N ratio omega 6 PUFA, a ton extra when you include some palmitate. Section D is simply a summary of this.

    Step by step at the mitochondrial level: The lower fatty acid supply results in decrease reduction of the CoQ couple in beta cells. This reduces the reverse electron transport and associated superoxide triggered by glucose as it feeds NADH in to complex I, so limits insulin secretion. You can virtually ablate the insulin response to glucose by eliminating beta cell fatty acid supply.

    Now, nicotinic acid is one way of reducing FFAs. There have to be other, perhaps more physiological, methods. Maybe we could use insulin per se? From food perhaps? Let's try eating around 40g of carbohydrate and look at the Spanish study graph again. Insulin rises from 50pmol/l to 75pmol/l. This is enough to reduce FFAs from 0.5mmol/l to just over 0.1mmol/l. Look at the FFAs, especially the circles between 120 and 300 minutes:



    Now (again, sorry!) look carefully at the insulin levels after the small carb load, bottom circles.



    By 180 minutes insulin is actually lower than fasting, and FFAs are still well below fasting levels too. The rat model appears to hold in humans, not what the study was looking at, and a small effect. But I think the effect is real.

    How about scaling this up to a massive dose of potato induced insulin and limiting dietary fat? Severely limiting dietary fat. And never mind pussy footing around at 40g of mixed carbs and protein. There is a limit to how low FFAs can be driven, and it seems safe to assume that a baked potato or three might just inhibit lipolysis maximally and keep it that low for rather a long time. But if you deprive beta cells of free fatty acids you blunt their ability to secrete insulin. Very, very high carbohydrate diets really ought to be able to inhibit lipolysis to the point where the knock on effect is the inhibition of insulin secretion, provided you don't supply exogenous fat. Look at the nicotinic acid treated rats...

    Once you get FFA levels low enough to inhibit insulin secretion you will start to move in to the sort of territory where insulin secretion might be blunted enough to allow hyperglycaemia. But the feedback effect of reduced insulin levels is also the re commencement of lipolysis. This will restore enough FFAs to maintain functional insulin secretion and so avoid potential hyperglycaemia, which the body tries to avoid. Of course you have to throw in the increased insulin sensitivity of muscles deprived of exogenously supplied FFAs too.

    So is it possible to eat an ad lib, calorie unrestricted diet based on near pure carbohydrate and lose weight? Working from the premise that lowered insulin is a pre requisite for hunger free weight loss, as I always do, the answer is possibly yes. We all remember Chris Voight on his all potato diet (plus 20ml of olive oil, low in palmitate, per day) who lost a great deal of weight over a few weeks, the rate of weight loss accelerating as the weeks progressed? I had a think about it here, well before I had any inkling as to what might be happening in the electron transport chain.

    We need to know what the interaction of insulin and FFAs was during this particular n=1 self experiment, and we don't. The rats suggest to me that insulin levels were initially raised post prandially and FFAs were not then available from peripheral adipocytes. Assuming the fall in lipolysis persisted in to the post-absorptive period (the primary function of insulin, especially at low levels, is the inhibition of lipolysis rather than facilitation of glucose diffusion, we've all read Zierler and Rabinowitz) we have a method for limiting insulin secretion late post prandially using reduced free fatty acid levels.

    As an aside I personally wonder it might be the ectopic lipid supplies typically found in muscle, liver and visceral adipocytes which might still be available for metabolism by the tissues when exogenous supplies are shut down. It reminds me of how metformin most likely depletes ectopic lipid to improve insulin sensitivity, despite having complex I inhibition as its primary action. You need lipid from somewhere. So reducing FFA supply by inhibiting systemic lipolysis may well be a route to lower fasting insulin levels. Especially if you are not far in to metabolic syndrome.

    Once ectopic lipid becomes depleted then lipolysis would accelerate in peripheral adipocytes as systemic insulin resistance falls and fasting insulin levels too, which might be what was reported as progressively increasing weight loss by Chris Voight. Insulin levels would be low, especially during fasting, and appetite low at the same time due to hypoinsulinaemia facilitated lipolysis, much as appetite is low under LC induced hypoinsulinaemic eating. There is more than one way to skin a.... Oops let's not complete that phrase!

    What would happen to a healthy person under these conditions, long term, is anyone's guess. Chis Voight gave up after a few weeks when weight loss became alarmingly rapid. But we know from the crucial study by the vegan apologist Barnard that, for diabetic people at least, that a long term, whole food, low sucrose and low fat diet is a complete disaster, once the initial weight loss ceases.

    This is playing with fire (possibly near literally, at the mitochondrial level) if you are a diabetic. Please don't go there.

    But the physiology of weight loss on ultra low fat diets is basically comprehensible, especially once you look at lipids and superoxide at the ETC level, and what the body needs to function effectively. Running your metabolism on pure glucose would induce, theoretically, an infinite glucose sensitivity and low fasting insulin. If we do reductio ad absurdum you would end up with no fat stores and experience death from hypoglycaemia if you ever depleted your glycogen stores. Mitochondria like (saturated) fatty acids. Fatty acids keep them in control.

    I think someone in obesity research used Chris Voight's experience to support some cock and bull story about food reward and a set point of body fat. We can wait for the recant on that one, if you could care less about it. The biochemistry is, as always, the fascinating stuff.

    Peter

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Owly View Post

      Second of all, there's the question of whether eating *only* potatoes for a couple of weeks at a time is a healthy way to lose weight. [...] I'd guess that Neckhammer is trying to question the latter, not the former, in this thread.
      Right. That is how I read the question too. It is not whether a person eats some potato, or rice as part of their eating plan. I do it. It's whether eating only potatoes for 10-14 days is healthy.

      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
      Caution! This is hijacked from Hyperlipid Hyperlipid: Protons: Zero fat. Peter has some good stuff but its not a light read. So have some BP coffee or whatever gets your brain going before proceeding!
      oh gosh...I need that in "english," I don't understand "scientish"

      But I think the conclusion is the important part, I just need someone to explain it a little more fully:
      This is playing with fire (possibly near literally, at the mitochondrial level) if you are a diabetic. Please don't go there.

      But the physiology of weight loss on ultra low fat diets is basically comprehensible, especially once you look at lipids and superoxide at the ETC level, and what the body needs to function effectively. Running your metabolism on pure glucose would induce, theoretically, an infinite glucose sensitivity and low fasting insulin. If we do reductio ad absurdum you would end up with no fat stores and experience death from hypoglycaemia if you ever depleted your glycogen stores. Mitochondria like (saturated) fatty acids. Fatty acids keep them in control.
      Female, age 51, 5' 9"
      SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

      Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
      2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Sabine View Post
        Thanks for this thread- good to have a neutral spot to discuss, without bringing down those using the potato thread to get support for their efforts.

        I've read some of the potato threads, but just from interest to see what people were talking about, not from a desire to do it myself. One thing that puzzles me is the talk of satiety. I know you can eat a good VOLUME of potatoes on this plan, but is no one having difficulties with the insulin reactions causing cravings for more food, regardless of physical FULLNESS?

        I know that when I am riding the sugar/starch rollercoaster, I can want to eat, even if my stomach is physically full, because of what my insulin levels are telling me.

        But I don't see this discussed.
        Hi Sabine,

        Maybe it's because I don't have any insulin issues, but I have not had any cravings on the potato-only diet. I have done it for the last 7 days and have hunger getting less each day. Initially, I was ready to try it for a couple days but honestly couldn't see my self going the entire 10-14 days. My assumption is that I would be crazed with hunger and cravings coupled with a decreasing desire / ability to do workouts, especially weight lifting. I was prepared to do just walking and some yoga. I was also prepared to stop immediately if I bend down to hold a pose or pick up laundry and get hit with dizziness or nausea.

        None of that happened. No cravings, aside from smelling roasted meat I cooked for the family and wanting to dive into the crispy skin, but that was just in my head - it wasn't the "OMG, I need to EAT everything" kind of craving. Just a "wow, that smells tasty" feeling.

        Re: workouts . . . This is where I was really surprised. My energy is super high - I've been getting tons of housework done, have been walking everywhere, taking multiple yoga/Pilates classes and also doing my 60 minute weight lifting class, which is really intense, even when I'm eating my usual primal foods. I killed it at my class eating just potatoes - didn't need to reduce my weights and had a ton of energy to do all of the push-ups, planks etc that are part of the class. I waited until I was several days into just potatoes to try that class because it is so intense. No bad side effects at all. I'm going to continue until Friday, then will go back to my usual foods.

        Like gopintos, I have moved into a smaller jean size and have visibly lost weight in my stomach. Not posting pics because that's not my thing but I know my body and know how my clothes are fitting. I also know when food I'm eating is affecting my energy or making me feel bad and would have instantly stopped with the potatoes had that happened.

        To me, this is a very doable, short-term experiment that has worked out very well for me. And I certainly don't think it is doing me any damage. To see people commenting about this like it's wrong, wrong, wrong, when I have seen those same posters talk about fasting for several days makes me scratch my head in confusion. At the end of the day, if you think this is silly or stupid, don't do it. It's accomplished what I wanted so I'm happy with it.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Owly View Post
          Second of all, there's the question of whether eating *only* potatoes for a couple of weeks at a time is a healthy way to lose weight. This is the one I feel concern over (for the record, I also question the wisdom of multi-day fasting for weight loss). I don't argue that people are getting results, but I worry about the health effects and what kind of weight is being lost since it's quite possible that the astonishing numbers seen on the scale are partly attributable to loss of muscle and bone mass as well as fat loss.

          Yes, that is correct. And glad to see regular fasting ("wisdom of multi-day fasting for weight loss") lumped in also, because to question one really is to question the other, imo. (and all the others also)

          Now, I also get there are other factors and that is probably the real question. What those particular nutrients are doing to our bodies. Just like someone had to first learn what does CO do to us when we use it only, or what does Kraut do to us when we use it only, or what does it do when we eat only protein, etc. So someone has to be the first to experiment and try to figure it out.

          I know for me with a regular fast (though I can't do absolute water fast, or havent yet anyways) I can lose some pounds on the scale but I always gain it back when I go back to eating - and eating primally clean. However after a couple of tator days and then going back to eating, I continued to lose weight (but then again for me, I was also changing around my macros)

          The other thing I noticed was the inches lost. I have been IF for months and months, and some of my measurements havent moved since July. And then bam! Arms are smaller, waist is smaller, hips are smaller, 3"below my belly button is really smaller - new jean size smaller - and not just for a day. The number on the scale might go up & down (I have added ST now so that might be why) but the inches have stayed off.
          65lbs gone and counting!!

          Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
            Caution! This is hijacked from Hyperlipid Hyperlipid: Protons: Zero fat. Peter has some good stuff but its not a light read. So have some BP coffee or whatever gets your brain going before proceeding!
            Will have to read this after my head quits spinning
            Thanks for digging and sharing!
            65lbs gone and counting!!

            Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
              I'm sorry you were offended by my post about "why so many crash diets" or whatever the title. I actually was disturbed that there were 4 or 5 potato diet topics and 2 African mango topics right on the first page and it was like WTF? Whatever happened to just eating nutritionally dense food in adequate portions and following the PB Fitness to whatever ability you have?
              No worries. I guess I took issue because all the things ppl try, are all hacks or "fads", liking fasting or high/low this or that, yet no one was calling that silly. And had the tator stuff not been posted, I would still be stuck spinning my wheels. And on that fad thread, ppl say all you have to do is eat this and this, and when you ask ppl what exactly do you need to do, Or like you said, "in adequate portions" the standard answer is 'well it is different for everyone, you just have to experiment" And when someone finally posted, okay try to eat this in this portion, some ppl are questioning it. If it had been called, try this for a carb re-feed, ppl wouldnt have thought twice about it and probably many ppl, like myself, would not have even read it. I didnt think I needed to carb refeed. I thought I was just suppose to eat this one way and stick it out, be patient, give it time - cuz it works when you just follow the plan.

              And it was my missing piece of the puzzle. Now re-reading stuff, I am seeing that many ppl dont stay on LC/HF, for some it is only temporary (egads! another fad/crash diet!) That they have initial weight loss but then have to increase some carbs. That part was not sinking in for me. And then viola! increase your carbs by eating tators! It was just what I needed.

              Okay that is not what all this thread is about, and I get that. I get it is the issue with starches and insulin and muscle cannibalism all that good sciency stuff. And it is good to question and voice concerns. It is not just about bashing though it might feel like it sometimes.
              65lbs gone and counting!!

              Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

              Comment


              • #52
                Alan, FatBellyFrog, and Zanna- thanks for reporting back with your experiences regarding cravings. Interesting to read.

                Comment


                • #53
                  From the Hyperlipid post on page 5:

                  I did some interpretations of a few paragraphs of the article. What do you think? That was fun.
                  My interpretations in bold italics.

                  "As an aside I personally wonder it might be the ectopic lipid supplies typically found in muscle, liver and visceral adipocytes which might still be available for metabolism by the tissues when exogenous supplies are shut down. It reminds me of how metformin most likely depletes ectopic lipid to improve insulin sensitivity, despite having complex I inhibition as its primary action. You need lipid from somewhere. So reducing FFA supply by inhibiting systemic lipolysis may well be a route to lower fasting insulin levels. Especially if you are not far in to metabolic syndrome.

                  If you do not have severe metabolic syndrome, if you eat zero fat, the fat needed for body functions comes from the fat found in your muscles, liver, and visceral fat. The diabetes drug, Metformin, also depletes these fat stores while improving insulin sensitivity. Reducing fat intake may help make you insulin sensitive.


                  Once ectopic lipid becomes depleted then lipolysis would accelerate in peripheral adipocytes as systemic insulin resistance falls and fasting insulin levels too, which might be what was reported as progressively increasing weight loss by Chris Voight. Insulin levels would be low, especially during fasting, and appetite low at the same time due to hypoinsulinaemia facilitated lipolysis, much as appetite is low under LC induced hypoinsulinaemic eating. There is more than one way to skin a.... Oops let's not complete that phrase!

                  Once all the freely available fat is gone, your body will use the other fat sources like subcutaneous fat. This would explain why Chris Voight continued to lose weight on an all-potato diet. On an all-potato diet, you would expect low fasting insulin and low appetite. This same scenario is noted in Low Carb eating. There is more than one way to skin a [I'm guessing he wanted to say 'potato']

                  What would happen to a healthy person under these conditions, long term, is anyone's guess. Chis Voight gave up after a few weeks when weight loss became alarmingly rapid. But we know from the crucial study by the vegan apologist Barnard that, for diabetic people at least, that a long term, whole food, low sucrose and low fat diet is a complete disaster, once the initial weight loss ceases.

                  What would happen if we continued to eat an all-potato diet forever? Chris Voight quit after a few weeks because he was losing too much weight. A Vegan study showed that a low sucrose, low fat, long-term diet is disastrous for diabetics.

                  This is playing with fire (possibly near literally, at the mitochondrial level) if you are a diabetic. Please don't go there.

                  Don't do a long-term potato diet if you are diabetic.

                  But the physiology of weight loss on ultra low fat diets is basically comprehensible, especially once you look at lipids and superoxide at the ETC level, and what the body needs to function effectively. Running your metabolism on pure glucose would induce, theoretically, an infinite glucose sensitivity and low fasting insulin. If we do reductio ad absurdum you would end up with no fat stores and experience death from hypoglycaemia if you ever depleted your glycogen stores. Mitochondria like (saturated) fatty acids. Fatty acids keep them in control."

                  An all-potato diet is pretty simple: Running your metabolism on pure glucose would create unlimited glucose sensitivity and low fasting insulin. If we extend the experiment to it's end, we deplete ALL the body's fat and you die of low blood glucose.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I haven't tried the all-potato diet, and I don't plan on trying it because I'm not out to lose weight.

                    But, after I saw the potato diet thread, and since my boyfriend loves them, I decided to add potatoes back into my diet. I read an article once about our bodies being adept at digesting foods our ancestors ate. Like, our more recent than Grok ancestors. I'm half Irish--not to mention a former french-fry lover--so it makes sense that my body likes potatoes. They're quick, easy, tasty, they fill me right up... I cut mine into wedges a little thicker than chips and fry them in coconut oil with a bit of salt. Delish.

                    I think our bodies like having a few carbs to play around with--it keeps us from entering starvation mode, so our metabolism doesn't slow way down... maybe that has something to do with why eating only potatoes speeds weight loss? Or maybe there's a lot of folks with some Irish blood on these forums!

                    Also, re: protein... I bet a lot of people here won't agree with my thoughts, but I think most of us eat a lot more protein than we need. Or we work out too much, creating an artificial need for more protein... I am probably one of the less active users here, I walk or bike a few times a week, do yoga regularly, lift when I have a chance, and occasionally run sprints on the track at the local high school... I weigh 125ish at 5'5" and would guess that I eat around 60g of protein a day, usually in the form of 1-2 servings of meat/eggs, plus lots of veggies, some nuts and/or dark chocolate, and a bit of fruit.

                    My approach to primal is to do what feels right to you... forget other people's input when it goes against your instincts. If you feel good eating only potatoes (I would not feel good on a no or low-fat diet, if I don't eat fat for awhile I almost always end up either crying or close to it...) then keep doing it, if you feel good doing something else, do that. There's no reason we should be getting on each others' case!
                    Last edited by 2ndChance; 11-12-2012, 11:43 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Sabine, you're welcome

                      Otzi, cheers for the breakdown.

                      It does seem the science is pointing to the near total lack of fat as a primary driver behind the results. As a low-carb advocate for many years and now a "primal" kind of guy, it seems positively bizarre for me to be even considering a 'low-fat diet' but it it works..?


                      AC

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by AlanC View Post

                        Otzi, cheers for the breakdown.

                        It does seem the science is pointing to the near total lack of fat as a primary driver behind the results. As a low-carb advocate for many years and now a "primal" kind of guy, it seems positively bizarre for me to be even considering a 'low-fat diet' but it it works..?


                        AC
                        Which means that any food can be eaten in the absence of fat and the same result can be achieved... ? Is that what this study is indicating?
                        Female, age 51, 5' 9"
                        SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

                        Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
                        2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by jojohaligo View Post
                          Which means that any food can be eaten in the absence of fat and the same result can be achieved... ? Is that what this study is indicating?
                          Not really. It wouldn't work with just eating protein, since protein can't be used directly for energy--only carbs and fat can be used for energy. Protein contains the building blocks for cellular metabolism, ie. amino acids.

                          However, this study does indicate that eating mainly fat or eating mainly starch would lead to the same end result...fat loss. People around here routinely do both and experience good results.

                          What I like about the potato diet, is that potatoes are extremely satiating and contain all of the amino acids needed for cell functioning. I think the success of the potato diet is that you are immediately placed into a fat deficit and the body will immediately begin to strip fat from your body to get the fat it needs to function.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Here's my conundrum with this whole debate...

                            FACT: If you have insulin (above a certain amount) circulating in your blood, fat won't be released from any fat cell.
                            FACT: Low blood glucose leads to the release of fat from fat cells

                            Theoretically, then, eating a ketogenic or VLC diet would create a condition where your insulin would never rise and fat would be constantly released from fat cells.

                            On the other side, eating just potatoes for two weeks, you create huge insulin surges 2 or 3 times a day when you eat, stopping any fat loss from occurring during those times of increased insulin.

                            In reality, while eating ketogenic or VLC, there is something else going on...Gluconeogenesis, a metabolic pathway that results in the generation of glucose from non-carbohydrate substrates. Your body produces all the glucose it needs, even creates a surplus, which can raise your fasting insulin levels and prevent release of fat from fat cells.

                            In reality, while eating a short-term potato diet, the spike in insulin following the ingestion of the potatoes at mealtime, creates hyper-insulin sensitivity and quickly clears the blood of excess glucose, leaving nothing but body fat for energy.

                            I don't think either method is optimal for the long-term, barring a medical condition (epilepsy, etc..) that requires a ketogenic diet for health reasons.
                            Last edited by otzi; 11-12-2012, 12:49 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by otzi View Post
                              Here's my conundrum with this whole debate...

                              FACT: If you have insulin (above a certain amount) circulating in your blood, fat won't be released from any fat cell.
                              I haven't read much of the debate, but what happens then when you are depleted of glucose and glycogen and eat letís say some pure whey protein isolate that will make insulin skyrocketing? Glycogenesis from protein is a very slow ongoing process, as I understand, so the body can't get enough glucose from synthesizing amino acids fast enough. Where does the body get the rest of its energy from when there is not enough glucose/glycogen available?
                              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                              - Schopenhauer

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by otzi View Post
                                Here's my conundrum with this whole debate...

                                FACT: If you have insulin (above a certain amount) circulating in your blood, fat won't be released from any fat cell.
                                Right, insulin suppresses lipolysis because its purpose is to get energy out of the blood and into tissues where it belongs. When you need energy again and you don't eat, your body releases fat from adipose tissue. Normal physiology. "High insulin" is only a problem in the context of hyperinsulinemia, which is brought about by insulin resistance, and I'm not aware of any evidence for the idea that if you eat too much starch, your pancreas simply gets tired of producing insulin and ends up breaking. That's low carb speculation.

                                What I'm interested to know is just how much lean mass a person could lose doing this. If you're eating half your normal calories, obviously your body has to make up the difference, but it seems like it would be far more efficient to break down fat than deaminate protein for energy...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X