Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why can't I look like Mark Sisson!?!?!

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

  • That isn't a fixed metabolism, that's symptoms of adrenaline lowering your appetite
    Make America Great Again

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
      That isn't a fixed metabolism, that's symptoms of adrenaline lowering your appetite
      You do understand that in life there are many causes of stress and fatigue... all of which can cause the release and a high reading of a adrenaline test.

      For instance of a person is feeling binges triggered every day by a sugary diet that could be incredibly stressful for them...

      And also that not every person who goes low carb ever has a high reading on any of the tests such as cortisol, adrenaline, or CO2... EVER. Those are outliers... not the norm.

      Their are also a crap load of things that can cause high cortisol production...

      Low CO2 is simply out of whack electrolytes... every HFLC'er I know is right on top of advocating making sure that people get in their bone broth and salt and such to maintain that.
      I don't consume sodium myself except for the bare minimum, but I do take potassium sups, and I actually have my CO2 tested... and guess what... always perfect!

      Oversimplification is lame.

      Also... SB is no longer Low Carb... she eats all sords of potatoes and stuff now, yet her ridiculously high out of control hunger did not return after she left low carb behind.

      Read the whole thing. It's not "adrenaline" causing her lowered hunger. Seriously.
      “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
      ~Friedrich Nietzsche
      And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

      Comment


      • I like the way every person thumps their own bible of metabolic pathways. Oh, enzyme Z metabolizes nutrient J but only on Sunday and when the cat is watching. Frankly, I don't buy ANY of it anymore. N=1 really is king. Even IF my gut is imperfect, avoiding starch DOES make sense. Eating excess fruit just DID make me fatter, and eating fat (and higher protein) made me thin. Eating a whole bar of dark chocolate here and there is no big deal, anymore than sprinting affects stress in the long-haul. We've over-thought this, and I think I'm getting off this train soon. Where are all the hipsters heading next, anyway? Video editing? That seems freshly expired enough for the general masses to take up and feel original about...
        Crohn's, doing SCD

        Comment


        • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
          You do understand that in life there are many causes of stress and fatigue... all of which can cause the release and a high reading of a adrenaline test.

          For instance of a person is feeling binges triggered every day by a sugary diet that could be incredibly stressful for them...

          And also that not every person who goes low carb ever has a high reading on any of the tests such as cortisol, adrenaline, or CO2... EVER. Those are outliers... not the norm.

          Their are also a crap load of things that can cause high cortisol production...

          Low CO2 is simply out of whack electrolytes... every HFLC'er I know is right on top of advocating making sure that people get in their bone broth and salt and such to maintain that.
          I don't consume sodium myself except for the bare minimum, but I do take potassium sups, and I actually have my CO2 tested... and guess what... always perfect!

          Oversimplification is lame.

          Also... SB is no longer Low Carb... she eats all sords of potatoes and stuff now, yet her ridiculously high out of control hunger did not return after she left low carb behind.

          Read the whole thing. It's not "adrenaline" causing her lowered hunger. Seriously.
          The difference is the shift from adaptive to dysadaptive. Without proper diet, stress response becomes a self-promoting cycle and it's far more likely to promote inflammation and continuous degeneration. They're your adaptive hormones for a reason. Assuming adequate health and diet, stress response reacts to situations then dials down appropriately causing no discomfort, long-term harm, or noticeable inflammation/side effects.

          You talk about oversimplification, then mention low co2 as only a symptom of messed up electrolytes? Co2 promotes cellular respiration.

          When carbon dioxide production is low, because of hypothyroidism, there will usually be some lactate entering the blood even at rest, because adrenalin and noradrenalin are produced in large amounts to compensate for hypothyroidism, and the adrenergic stimulation, besides mobilizing glucose from the glycogen stores, stimulates the production of lactate. The excess production of lactate displaces carbon dioxide from the blood, partly as a compensation for acidity. The increased impulse to breath (“ventilatory drive”) produced by adrenalin makes the problem worse, and lactate can promote the adrenergic response, in a vicious circle.

          Citric acid cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          In the context of a healthy person(I will use myself as an example here) no one macronutrient causes any sort of abnormal side effects or discomfort. I'm able to eat what I please, when I please. I don't need to drastically lower calorie intake to lose weight, and I'm able to maintain weight eating to satiety and sometimes far beyond.
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
            I know your story pretty well, and it seems to me that you still don't really know if the reason why your metabolism improved is due to eating whole foods or low carb.
            Before I went low carb I was trying to do some kind of low fat, high carb paleo-ish half-attempt. I had yogurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast, low fat salads or sweet potatoes with cheese for lunch and whatever regular stuff for dinner (pasta sometimes but I tried small portions, Trader Joe's packaged stuff). I struggled with hunger and often gave in to the siren call of the almond croissants down at the coffee cart. The high fat, low carb turned it off instantly and I have not had pasta or almond croissants ever since.

            Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
            Also... SB is no longer Low Carb... she eats all sords of potatoes and stuff now, yet her ridiculously high out of control hunger did not return after she left low carb behind.

            Read the whole thing. It's not "adrenaline" causing her lowered hunger. Seriously.
            Yeah, here's a couple of recent days if I can remember:
            Monday:
            Scrambled eggs (at a restaurant so who knows what's in it)
            A giant "muffin" made of sweet potato, egg, coconut butter drizzled with a generous portion of honey
            Nuts
            Cheddar cheese
            Giant artichoke with mayonnaise and guacamole
            1/4 roast duck
            Wine
            Chocolate

            Yesterday:
            7.5 oz can of salmon
            Giant russet potato
            Half a quart of plain, full-fat goat yogurt
            Quarter pound of smoked salmon
            Extra dark chocolate
            Leftovers: curried rice, fish with Mexican seasoning, a little tuna salad, sweet potato, port cultlet "breaded" with ground almond
            More chocolate
            Wine

            I eat pretty big on all macros. I eat a lot more than I used to when I was always hungry but much fatter. Sometimes I go through a phase where I don't eat much for a while. I consider being flexible like that to be pretty much metabolically fixed, although it's possible that there may be some other metabolic problems. I probably still eat too much. But I eat more than I used to and am thinner than when I ate less and always felt hungry so I'm pretty happy.
            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

            Comment


            • No... I'm talking the reasoning for results on average lab tests and you are talking outliers.

              What causes satiety for you might promote hunger and binging in another person.
              That is why N=1 is so important.

              The same things simply do not work equally well for everyone.
              Nothing you or anyone else says is going to change that.
              “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
              ~Friedrich Nietzsche
              And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

              Comment


              • They can though. Only environmental factors can alter the way someone reacts to a substance. As an organism, we're not that different. It's just our experiences and habits that change that. In rare unfortunate cases, ailments and illnesses too. For the vast majority though, it simply isn't true.
                Make America Great Again

                Comment


                • Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                  Before I went low carb I was trying to do some kind of low fat, high carb paleo-ish half-attempt. I had yogurt, fruit and nuts for breakfast, low fat salads or sweet potatoes with cheese for lunch and whatever regular stuff for dinner (pasta sometimes but I tried small portions, Trader Joe's packaged stuff). I struggled with hunger and often gave in to the siren call of the almond croissants down at the coffee cart. The high fat, low carb turned it off instantly and I have not had pasta or almond croissants ever since.
                  Sounds like processed, not nutrient-dense, unfilling food, with a non-PB dinner to me. Where da meat?

                  I'm not seeing your logic in how ONLY LCHF helped to heal your body.
                  My chocolatey Primal journey

                  Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                    They can though. Only environmental factors can alter the way someone reacts to a substance. As an organism, we're not that different. It's just our experiences and habits that change that. In rare unfortunate cases, ailments and illnesses too. For the vast majority though, it simply isn't true.
                    Our metabolisms are a product of our gene-environment interaction. This interaction is complex and is a hot topic in epidemiology.

                    Our behaviours cannot alter our genotype but they can alter some of our more volatile epigenetics (e.g. upregulating fat-burning metabolism over the course of just a few weeks through switching to a low to moderate carb and high fat diet).

                    However, our behaviours cannot modify longer-term inherited epigenetic factors, i.e. those determined by the behaviours, ultimately the environment of our grandparents immediately preceding the conception of our parents. World War II rationing and post-war rationing have been identified in significant studies as being a contributing factor towards the current obesity epidemic among the middle aged via longer-term epigenetic modifications that attenuate after a few generations and promote the thrifty phenotype.

                    Disentangling gene/environment influences is not a trivial matter. It turns out that Darwin and Lamarck were both correct regarding their postulated modes of inheritance. Even though Darwin vocally ascribed to Lamarck's theories, this was brushed over by binary-thinking theorists that came to dominate in his wake. They became mislabelled as 'Darwinists' - mislabelled because they made the completely unfounded assumption that Darwinism and Lamarckianism had for some crazy reason to be mutually exclusive.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by paleo-bunny View Post
                      Our metabolisms are a product of our gene-environment interaction. This interaction is complex and is a hot topic in epidemiology.

                      Our behaviours cannot alter our genotype but they can alter some of our more volatile epigenetics (e.g. upregulating fat-burning metabolism over the course of just a few weeks through switching to a low to moderate carb and high fat diet).

                      However, our behaviours cannot modify longer-term inherited epigenetic factors, i.e. those determined by the behaviours, ultimately the environment of our grandparents immediately preceding the conception of our parents. World War II rationing and post-war rationing have been identified in significant studies as being a contributing factor towards the current obesity epidemic among the middle aged via longer-term epigenetic modifications that attenuate after a few generations and promote the thrifty phenotype.

                      Disentangling gene/environment influences is not a trivial matter. It turns out that Darwin and Lamarck were both correct regarding their postulated modes of inheritance. Even though Darwin vocally ascribed to Lamarck's theories, this was brushed over by binary-thinking theorists that came to dominate in his wake. They became mislabelled as 'Darwinists' - mislabelled because they made the completely unfounded assumption that Darwinism and Lamarckianism had for some crazy reason to be mutually exclusive.
                      I find your take on Darwin particularly interesting, thanks.

                      I know that experiences and nutrition of a pregnant mother are known to affect the expression of genes in the offspring, like allergies, metabolic rate, brain size, and intelligence. I was pointing at that in my post, I just failed to be more specific or clarify.

                      I've recently just read over Ray Peat's article on genes, co2, and adaptation.

                      "One of the cultural trends that makes genetic determinism attractive is the theory of radical individualism, something that has grown up with protestant christianity, according to some historians. Roger Williams' work in nutrition seemed to be powered by this idea of individual genetic uniqueness, and in his case, the idea led him to some useful insights--he suggested that the environment could be adjusted to suit the highly specific needs of the individual. This idea led to the widespread belief that nutritional supplements might be needed by a large part of the population. Extreme nurturing of the deviant individual is the opposite extreme from the Lorenzian-Hitlerian solution, of eliminating everyone who wasn't a perfect Aryan specimen.

                      But Williams' genetic doctrine assumed that our nutritional needs were primarily inborn, determined by our unique genes. However, there is a famous experiment in which rats were made deficient in riboflavin, and when their corneal tissue showed evidence of the vitamin deficiency, they were given a standard diet. However, the standard diet no longer met the needs of their eye tissue, and during the remainder of the observation period, only a dose of riboflavin several times higher than normal would prevent the signs of deficiency. A developmental change had taken place in the cornea, making its vitamin B2 requirement abnormally high. If we accept the epigenetic, developmental idea of metabolic requirements, our idea of nurturing environmental support would consider the long-range effects of environmental adequacy, and would consider that much disease could be prevented by prenatal support, and by avoiding extreme deficiencies at any time. Williams himself emphasized the importance of prenatal nutrition in disease prevention, so he wasn't a genetic totalitarian; combining the idea of unique genetic individuality with the recognition that malnutrition causes disease, led him to believe in the necessity for nutitional adequacy, rather than to the extermination of the sick, weak, or different individuals.

                      The idea of "genetic determinism" says that our traits are the result of the specific proteins that are produced by our specific genes. The doctrine allows for some gradations, such as "half a dose" of a trait, but in practice it becomes a purely subjective accounting for everything in terms of mysterious degrees of "penetrance" of genes, and interactions with unknown factors. Proteins, that supposedly express our genetic constitution, include enzymes, structural proteins, antibodies, and a variety of protein hormones and peptide regulatory molecules. Every protein, including the smallest peptide (except certain cyclic peptides), contains at least one amine group, and usually several. Amine groups react spontaneously with carbon dioxide, to form carbamino groups, and they can also react, nonenzymically, with sugars, in the reaction called glycation or glycosylation. These chemical changes alter the functions of the proteins, so that hormones and their "receptors," tubules and filaments, enzymes and synthetic systems, all behave differently under their influences. (The proteins' electrical charge, relationship to water and fats, and shape, change quickly and reversibly as the concentration of carbon dioxide changes; in the absence of carbon dioxide, these properties tend to change irreversibly under the influence of metabolic stress.)

                      This is the clearest, and the most powerful, instance of metabolic influence on biological structure. That makes it very remarkable that it has been the subject of so few publications. I think the absence of discussion of this fundamental biological principle can be understood only in relation to the great importance it has for a new understanding of development and inheritance--it is an easily documented process that will invalidate some of the most deeply held beliefs of most of the people who are influential in science and politics."

                      Your take?
                      Make America Great Again

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
                        Sounds like processed, not nutrient-dense, unfilling food, with a non-PB dinner to me. Where da meat?

                        I'm not seeing your logic in how ONLY LCHF helped to heal your body.
                        Meat at dinner. Yogurt, fruit, nuts, sweet potatoes, cheese, salad not primal blueprint approved? Not nutritious?

                        I wasn't doing primal blueprint at first anyway. I was just trying to go a little more paleo than my usual, to see if trying to replace some of the wheat products with more paleo options might help.

                        My usual at the time was yogurt, fruit and granola; pastries, cookies and candy, sandwiches, huge piles of pasta (sauce with sausage in it) or burritos (chicken fajita filling). Kinda typical sorta trying to be healthy, meat as a condiment, not too much fat, not on a diet CW.

                        I switched to creme fraiche, cheese with butter, meat and bacon and low carb veggies at first. Hunger was gone. That's all I really wanted was to not be so hungry so I could exercise the weight off.

                        I don't think anybody here has any idea what it's like to hike a long distance trail, what that hunger feels like. It is incredible. I called it The Beast. This hunger took a full year to subside after the hike was over but still was there any time I exerted myself. I could not exercise for fear of unleashing The Beast. I also couldn't go too hungry without unleashing The Beast. I felt resigned to slow weight gain forever if I could not find a solution.

                        I don't know if LCHF is the ONLY thing that could have saved me, but it was the only thing I tried that actually worked. I tried a lot of things. LCHF actually killed The Beast. I could exercise again and the hunger wouldn't come back. I could fast and the hunger wouldn't come back. I could eat less, I could eat more. The weight reduced on its own. I don't know what else to tell you.

                        I don't have to eat LCHF anymore but I'm really glad I found it. It will be my secret weapon for how to survive another long distance hike. I will bring as much fat with me as I can, gorge on protein whenever I can and when I get off the trail I will do LCHF to quickly recover and keep any lost weight off.
                        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by justyouraveragecavemen View Post
                          Mark!!

                          What kind of shampoo/conditioner do you use??
                          LOL.

                          (And that wasn't a lie )
                          "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

                          In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

                          - Ray Peat

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                            I find your take on Darwin particularly interesting, thanks.

                            I know that experiences and nutrition of a pregnant mother are known to affect the expression of genes in the offspring, like allergies, metabolic rate, brain size, and intelligence. I was pointing at that in my post, I just failed to be more specific or clarify.

                            I've recently just read over Ray Peat's article on genes, co2, and adaptation.

                            "One of the cultural trends that makes genetic determinism attractive is the theory of radical individualism, something that has grown up with protestant christianity, according to some historians. Roger Williams' work in nutrition seemed to be powered by this idea of individual genetic uniqueness, and in his case, the idea led him to some useful insights--he suggested that the environment could be adjusted to suit the highly specific needs of the individual. This idea led to the widespread belief that nutritional supplements might be needed by a large part of the population. Extreme nurturing of the deviant individual is the opposite extreme from the Lorenzian-Hitlerian solution, of eliminating everyone who wasn't a perfect Aryan specimen.

                            But Williams' genetic doctrine assumed that our nutritional needs were primarily inborn, determined by our unique genes. However, there is a famous experiment in which rats were made deficient in riboflavin, and when their corneal tissue showed evidence of the vitamin deficiency, they were given a standard diet. However, the standard diet no longer met the needs of their eye tissue, and during the remainder of the observation period, only a dose of riboflavin several times higher than normal would prevent the signs of deficiency. A developmental change had taken place in the cornea, making its vitamin B2 requirement abnormally high. If we accept the epigenetic, developmental idea of metabolic requirements, our idea of nurturing environmental support would consider the long-range effects of environmental adequacy, and would consider that much disease could be prevented by prenatal support, and by avoiding extreme deficiencies at any time. Williams himself emphasized the importance of prenatal nutrition in disease prevention, so he wasn't a genetic totalitarian; combining the idea of unique genetic individuality with the recognition that malnutrition causes disease, led him to believe in the necessity for nutitional adequacy, rather than to the extermination of the sick, weak, or different individuals.

                            The idea of "genetic determinism" says that our traits are the result of the specific proteins that are produced by our specific genes. The doctrine allows for some gradations, such as "half a dose" of a trait, but in practice it becomes a purely subjective accounting for everything in terms of mysterious degrees of "penetrance" of genes, and interactions with unknown factors. Proteins, that supposedly express our genetic constitution, include enzymes, structural proteins, antibodies, and a variety of protein hormones and peptide regulatory molecules. Every protein, including the smallest peptide (except certain cyclic peptides), contains at least one amine group, and usually several. Amine groups react spontaneously with carbon dioxide, to form carbamino groups, and they can also react, nonenzymically, with sugars, in the reaction called glycation or glycosylation. These chemical changes alter the functions of the proteins, so that hormones and their "receptors," tubules and filaments, enzymes and synthetic systems, all behave differently under their influences. (The proteins' electrical charge, relationship to water and fats, and shape, change quickly and reversibly as the concentration of carbon dioxide changes; in the absence of carbon dioxide, these properties tend to change irreversibly under the influence of metabolic stress.)

                            This is the clearest, and the most powerful, instance of metabolic influence on biological structure. That makes it very remarkable that it has been the subject of so few publications. I think the absence of discussion of this fundamental biological principle can be understood only in relation to the great importance it has for a new understanding of development and inheritance--it is an easily documented process that will invalidate some of the most deeply held beliefs of most of the people who are influential in science and politics."

                            Your take?
                            My take is - interesting post - yes our phenotype is very dynamic and I believe we have the power to shape it when we invest effort in doing so. I would become depressed rather quickly if I resigned myself to genetic determinism.

                            My inclinations and philosophy are holistic and humanistic (if that's the right word) - I do not sit easily with reductionist thought or determinism on any level - political, scientific or otherwise (I'm essentially a libertarian/liberalist, and if that means sitting on the fence, so be it) Having said that I believe that an acceptance of fate on some levels provides sweet release.

                            This reminds me of having long given up arguing with philosphers for the existence of free-will. Not because I can fault their arguments. An essential element of being human is to assert the existence of free will despite being unable to rationally argue for its existence.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by justyouraveragecavemen View Post
                              Mark!!

                              What kind of shampoo/conditioner do you use??
                              Well, if he is a true primal, he is no-pooing
                              Take a walk on the wild side.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X