Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Some thoughts from a still new PBer.

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Actually since you mention it the similarities go beyond stimulating the same "feel good" brain hormones and reward centers. Both are quite detrimental to health as they are consumed by most people... they both undergo extensive processing to arrive at a very concentrated product. Chewing a fibrous piece of sugar cane or even a coca leaf is obviously not going to get you the same "high" as pounding straight sugar or snorting straight coke. In essence good luck getting enough of either substance to reach toxicity and/or addictive behavioral feedback patterns in whole form.... I don't see this happening with fat to be frank. The problem with fat is normally the displacement of healthy ones with oxidized rancid veggie oils.... not some sort of process induced reward overindulgence.
    Thats why i hate when when people use sugar as a blanket statement for anything sweet. Even i dont eat raw sugar, i have no need for it.

    As for fat, no. Pure fat is a very low reward food and needs to be combined with another taste to really hit the reward center.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
      It's not entirely fair of me to do this since you've just started and you're really excited, but

      I was very curious so I tried to read through these articles but I really couldn't understand much of them so I wonder if you could explain them in simpler terms.

      I'm trying to find a way that works and am having luck with PB, with less fruit than I started out with. I would like to understand why it's working. Right now Taubes book is making a lot of sense but, like I said, I am no scientist.

      This is the first in my life I've found things claiming facts other than conventional wisdom and it makes sense that conventional wisdom isn't working because, obviously, we're all becoming fat or obese but within this new idea there are tons of viewpoints and it's very confusing for me.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by the_walrus0 View Post
        I was very curious so I tried to read through these articles but I really couldn't understand much of them so I wonder if you could explain them in simpler terms.

        I'm trying to find a way that works and am having luck with PB, with less fruit than I started out with. I would like to understand why it's working. Right now Taubes book is making a lot of sense but, like I said, I am no scientist.

        This is the first in my life I've found things claiming facts other than conventional wisdom and it makes sense that conventional wisdom isn't working because, obviously, we're all becoming fat or obese but within this new idea there are tons of viewpoints and it's very confusing for me.
        Put as simply as possible:

        Gary Taubes ignores the vast majority of lean people who live on carbs as a primary source of energy. He also ignores the several other more prominent blood sugar regulation factors such as cortisol, growth hormone, and probably the biggest, potassium. What is seen as insulin activity is only accounted for partly by actual insulin.
        Make America Great Again

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by the_walrus0 View Post
          I was very curious so I tried to read through these articles but I really couldn't understand much of them so I wonder if you could explain them in simpler terms.

          I'm trying to find a way that works and am having luck with PB, with less fruit than I started out with. I would like to understand why it's working. Right now Taubes book is making a lot of sense but, like I said, I am no scientist.

          This is the first in my life I've found things claiming facts other than conventional wisdom and it makes sense that conventional wisdom isn't working because, obviously, we're all becoming fat or obese but within this new idea there are tons of viewpoints and it's very confusing for me.
          I don't remember what all is in there. I'm not able to view all of them right now because my Adobe Reader doesn't work too well, but I included studies that seem to counter the main points of his theory. Basically he claims (or claimed, I don't know where his beliefs lie these days) that eating carbohydrates stimulates the release of insulin, which if done too often induces insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia (too much insulin in the blood) in addition to making you fat and harming your liver/raising your triglycerides.

          One of the studies discusses how the great majority of liver fat in a fatty liver comes from free fatty acids rather than fatty acids created through de novo lipogenesis (making fat from carbohydrates). A couple of them show substantial DNL doesn't really kick in until glycogen stores (carbohydrate storage in our muscles and liver) are full, and it contributes very little to body fat once it does. But that can generally be avoided (probably never entirely, but that's not a bad thing) by exercising. There's an overfeeding study in there showing excess fat is stored more efficiently than carbohydrates (DNL requires more energy, so less is stored). Two of the studies I included simply for a few choice lines. This is one of them:

          It is important to recognize, however, that DNL still contributed a small fraction of total adipose TG storage in the free-living subjects studied here, even with the higher estimates here from the 2H2O method. Nonessential FA represent about one-half of stored adipose FA. If 20% of nonessential FA come from DNL, ∼10% of total stored FA derive from DNL. This contrasts with rodents, where long-term 2H2O administration results in up to 70% of palmitate deriving from the DNL pathway in animals on low-fat diets.
          That's important because you read a lot about rats in Good Calories, Bad Calories. Whether he was aware of the significant species-specific effect of DNL when writing the book I can't say, but it's important to know there is a difference. The last study also discusses species-specific rates of DNL near the bottom.

          There's another study discussing the role of DNL in the formation and clearance of VLDL, which is there to ease general paranoia about carbohydrates raising triglycerides.

          Earlier today I was looking for a good study to put in there about lipotoxicity resulting from increased free fatty acids causing beta cell dysfunction (diabetes), which is relevant to his theory for two reasons. First, he claims elevated insulin traps fatty acids inside cells, yet the obese typically have higher levels of FFAs. The two ideas aren't compatible. Second, there's been research demonstrating FFAs can damage beta cells and are important in the development of diabetes. That counters the claim that after a while your pancreas just gets sick of making insulin and goes on worker's strike, leading to diabetes. I haven't been able to find anything in the literature to debunk that idea because, frankly, it's a silly low carb myth.

          I... think that about covers it. I came away from the book thinking eating any amount of carbohydrates would cause insulin to store them as fat and hurt my weight loss efforts, but it's not true. It took a fairly extensive amount of un-brainwashing to get where I am now. Carbohydrates don't contribute the most to stored body fat, they don't give you diabetes, and they don't cause insulin to lock fat away never to be used again.

          Again, this isn't to dissaude you from trying a low carb diet. They're good for quick weight loss and ketosis (generally) feels really good. I just don't think it's something that should necessarily be sustained forever, and it absolutely does not work the way Gary Taubes describes in his books.

          I hope any of that makes sense. I'm open to clarifications or corrections (articles by Gary Taubes don't count).

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
            I probably shouldn't do this since you are very close minded on the subject and you really like to confuse people, but



            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/ma...anted=all&_r=0


            Respect!

            Comment


            • #51
              Good for you....it's tough getting on top of BED.

              I used to be an awful binge eater - sugar, fat, starchy carbs - hey, I didn't discriminate. Primal eating has gone a long way towards ridding me of this, however I've also done a lot of work on my mindset and confidence. I disagree with those who say that food is simply fuel and a means of providing energy - well, I mean, yes, technically it is - but it is also something to be enjoyed and shouldn't be a constant battle. Somewhere along the way I've managed to move away from needing the immediate gratification to being much more interested in the vitality and energy good, nutrient dense food brings me. Believe me, it has taken a good few years of practice, but with it has decreased the need to binge until it completely stopped.

              All the best of luck. Approach it with an open and positive mind, and don't mind the naysayers, and you'll get there.

              Comment

              Working...
              X