Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Storing fat WITHOUT insulin - ASP

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

  • #61
    The low calorie diet they were put on reduced fat in their organs. Not fat intake. You're misunderstanding. The reduction of fat in the organs was responsible for the increase in insulin sensitivity, because the free fatty acids that ended up in non-adipose tissues are lipotoxic. They lost fat from their organs because they were on a low calorie diet, as anyone would expect. Any diet that reduces fat in the liver and pancreas is going to improve health.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
      The low calorie diet they were put on reduced fat in their organs. Not fat intake. You're misunderstanding. The reduction of fat in the organs was responsible for the increase in insulin sensitivity, because the free fatty acids that ended up in non-adipose tissues are lipotoxic. They lost fat from their organs because they were on a low calorie diet, as anyone would expect. Any diet that reduces fat in the liver and pancreas is going to improve health.
      There are several leaps in logic here. That's my point. I'm not arguing that it's correct (even if it would, I'm not sure how you think it disproves the observation that low carbohydrate diets can have benefits for the insulin resistant), just that your study doesn't prove what you claim it does.
      The Champagne of Beards

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
        ... just that your study doesn't prove what you claim it does.
        So you think the carbohydrate restriction helped the diabetes? Then why didn't the subjects' three month period of normal (over)eating patterns (which probably included lots of carbohydrates) and average weight gain of 6 pounds after the study undo the progress? I've already told you why, but you don't seem to believe me.

        Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
        Following the intervention, participants gained 3.1  1.0 kg body weight over 12 weeks, but their HbA1c remained steady while the fat content of both pancreas and liver did not increase.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
          So you think the carbohydrate restriction helped the diabetes? Then why didn't the subjects' three month period of normal (over)eating patterns (which probably included lots of carbohydrates) and average weight gain of 6 pounds after the study undo the progress? I've already told you why, but you don't seem to believe me.
          You know that is interesting. It has been put by some people that getting fatter is healthy. It's when you can no longer process and store those excess calories (i.e. you stop getting fatter) that you run into the metabolic problems of diabetes and such. Makes sense really. Putting on fat in and of itself shouldn't be a destructive act for the body. It's storage. A healthy metabolism (like if you fixed your pancreas and liver) should really help you in this aspect. Maybe overweight does not equal unwell until oxidative stress and damage deems it so.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
            Maybe overweight does not equal unwell until oxidative stress and damage deems it so.
            That seems to be the case, but I'm not sure if it happens as linearly as you say. It would also explain the paradox of the healthy obese, I should think.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
              That seems to be the case, but I'm not sure if it happens as linearly as you say. It would also explain the paradox of the healthy obese, I should think.
              Obesity increases the RISK that you will develop diabetes and similar metabolic issues. It does not make it a forgone conclusion. Being obese usually means there are a lot of confounding factors other than the weight going on in the obese individual's body which could eventually lead to diabetes such as excessive oxidative stress and damage, among other things as neckhammer pointed out. Usually, but not always, because the vast majority of the obese eat diets that are quite unhealthy (explains how they got there).

              Skinny people can still develop type 2 diabetes even if they maintain a normal weight range if their diet is just as unhealthy as a lot of obese individuals. I have seen this in action. It is not as simple as obese = insulin resistance/diabetes.

              That said, I will stay lean and not take the added risk.
              Last edited by Drumroll; 03-07-2013, 06:38 PM.
              "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                No it doesn't. CICO says that there is about 3500 calories in a pound of body fat. How are you measuring your fat loss? With a scale? Well, there's a problem.

                When you lose weight, you lose a mix of fat, lean tissue and water. Losing a pound of fat is going to translate into more than a pound of weight loss if you're on a constant deficit because you will lose some percentage of lean mass in the process, which will fluctuate based on:

                a.) The aggressiveness of your deficit - larger calorie deficits will translate into more lean tissue loss.
                b.) The method you lost the fat - someone doing chronic cardio to lose that fat likely lost more muscle in the process.
                c.) Your weight training activity - lifting weights on a deficit will help preserve more lean mass.
                d.) Your own genetics - some people store fat more efficiently than others, some release it more easily than others.
                e.) How much water weight do you store per pound of fat? This could depend on so many factors!


                And here it goes, round and round. While you cannot simultaneously build muscle and lose fat in an instant, you can do it over a period of weeks or months. Mild overeating centered around heavy weight training, followed by mild undereating centered around being sedentary or light cardiovascular exercise, is a good way to make sure you are losing mostly fat at times of energy deficits and gaining mostly muscle at times of energy surpluses.

                I weigh about 10 lbs less than when I started my Primal journey over 2 years ago, yet I can benchpress 40 lbs more, I can deadlift 150 lbs more and squat 50 lbs more. Macro composition plays a role in body composition, nutrient timings play a role in body composition, the aggressiveness of calorie surpluses and deficits affect where our gains and losses in fat mass and lean mass come from, we miscalculate our TDEE with generalized formulas, we misinterpret how many calories we actually take in and we do crazy things like starvation diet and ruin our metabolic rate, but CICO is always perfect. The problem is with the individual because most people just don't understand how to lose weight properly.
                My experience says that you are completely incorrect. I have lost 16 pounds. I have increased the diameter or my thighs by 1 inch each. I have increased the diameter of my arms by .5 inches each. My waist (measured across my navel) is down 4.5 inches. I am obviously gaining muscle as well.

                I am eating almost 1000kcal more per day before going Paleo.

                Your theories do not explain my results. Therefore, I believe your theories are incomplete.
                "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  Weight loss is entirely caloric. It doesn't matter if it's fat, carbs or protein. Excess dietary fat is stored directly as body fat. Excess dietary carbohydrate is converted into fat. Excess dietary protein is converted into glucose which is then converted into fat. If you overeat, you gain weight. Period. It's calories-in-calories-out. Your best bet is to find the foods that keep you fullest longest so you eat the least, or adopt heavy weight training so when you do overeat, you're more likely to gain a better muscle:fat ratio.
                  Over simplifying the issue. Macronutrients along with other factors, ie exercise and sleep, drive hormones, which drive the level of calories needed. So to say its only calories may be true, but macronutrients will change hormones which changes what the level is

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Consistent starvation over a long period will no doubt lead to weight loss, but this is unhealthy and each individual's health will deteriorate respective to that individual.

                    After starvation period is over, there may be a time interval for binging and the weight that was lost would be gained and then some.

                    If a person eats the right food for that individual and at the right time, then those foods and the energies from those foods will assist the individual's ultimate goal (losing weight, gaining weight, losing fat, gaining muscle).

                    If a person does not choose the correct foods that match his or her ultimate goal then side effects happen on top of an unachieved ultimate goal.

                    There are always stories about the obese person who feasts only on carrots and goes to the gym 4-5 times per week, but cannot seem to lose weight. Likewise there are the stories of the skinny person who eats everything, all the junk, all the fast foods, all the candy, sugary sweets etc. and does not gain a pound/kilo.

                    I feel CICO is wrong and at the very least, certainly incomplete. Humans are not just "physics", we are more than that. We are biological, anatomical, physiological, pharmcoketical....etc.

                    To only attribute a partial law of physics to humans and the way humans ingest, digest, metabolize, absorb, utilize, excrete foods/energy is deeply flawed.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
                      That seems to be the case, but I'm not sure if it happens as linearly as you say. It would also explain the paradox of the healthy obese, I should think.
                      Outside of the CICO debate, which seems that CICO works perfectly in the little black box where they determine calorific values of foods, but there seems to be too many confounding factors in application to individuals across the board.

                      I am interested in point's raised about healthy weight, where it appears that the body can maintain a healthy profile without specifically adhering to an artificial image of health, i.e. lean and mean.

                      This makes more sense to me as it would only seem logical that those thet could store some fat in the good times would have a greater survival rate than those that were absolutely relient on a lean profile for good health.

                      It also rolls into the "weight plateau", where my personal belief is it is the bodies choice to be there and artificially pushing it can not be healthy, instead it is a response to an environmental nutrient profile, primarily the defficiency in specific micronutrients and the only way to shift this equilibrium naturally is to provide rich sources of micronutrients and let the body do what it does best, the only proviso being that adequate physical movement and lower stress levels are also maintained.

                      So to get true health is not about counting calories and standing on the scales in front of the mirror, it is about eating well, getting plenty of exercise and letting your body do all the required adjustments.
                      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                        My experience says that you are completely incorrect. I have lost 16 pounds. I have increased the diameter or my thighs by 1 inch each. I have increased the diameter of my arms by .5 inches each. My waist (measured across my navel) is down 4.5 inches. I am obviously gaining muscle as well.

                        I am eating almost 1000kcal more per day before going Paleo.

                        Your theories do not explain my results. Therefore, I believe your theories are incomplete.
                        If you've lost 16 lbs, you've created a caloric deficit. All it sounds that's happening is that you started lifting weights and exercising, so now you have a higher TDEE. So, you started exercising, you can consume more food and gain muscle while still losing weight...what part of this is a surprise?

                        Either your activity level is higher so your TDEE is higher, you're consuming less calories than you think you are, you're exercising smarter or some combination of all three. That's all that's happened here. It's pretty typical.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                          I'd wager that has much to do with carbs having half the calories of fat per gram but also taking more energy to digest and absorb. Plus, they tend to give most people immediate energy to burn resulting in improved workouts or additional everyday movement.
                          Drive by comment shooting here : carbs are the most efficient macronutrient to metabolize, then fat, then protein.

                          -PK
                          My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

                          Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            As much as it pains me to say this, I find myself agreeing in part with Taco. My only saving grace here is that I'm only partially agreeing with him .

                            This is a very interesting thread because it cuts to the core of the body composition debate, such as it is. Further, the thread touches on almost all of the fundamental misconceptions regarding diet out there that have made this process so confusing to so many people.


                            Calories Count, Always Have, Always Will

                            Calories are simply a unit of measure for energy, so all calories are equivalent by definition. To deny or debate this is tantamount to not understanding the children's riddle : "Which is heavier? A ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?" If you don't understand the riddle, find a kid and have them explain it to you.

                            The problem with calories is that nobody eats calories, we all eat nutrients, and then we metabolize them. The amount of energy that you extract from a steak may be markedly different from the amount of energy that I would derive from it, assuming of course that we could somehow get exactly identical steaks on our plates. Incidentally, you would also have to force us both to chew the steak an identical number of times to ensure that the surface area presented to digestive enzymes were identical. And while we're on the subject of digestive enzymes, you'd better find a way to ensure that we both secrete identical amounts of hydrochloric acid, among other things. It would also be very helpful if you could somehow control the amount of time that steak took to transit each of our respective digestive tracts to ensure that it was exposed to equivalent digestion and absorption processes.

                            Unless you are some minor deity, you have no hope of controlling the myriad of variables that affect how any two individuals process nutrients. This means that in the end, it is virtually impossible to ascertain the caloric content of nutrients in isolation because we need to consider every nutrient within the context of a specific individual's metabolism. We can generalize, but specific instances need to be taken on their own merits. You are not what you eat ... you are what you assimilate.

                            All is not lost, however. If you were willing to subject yourself to living in a metabolic ward, we could precisely measure your caloric expenditure and substrate utilization using calorimetry. We could then pretty much arbitrarily modify your body weight and composition by tightly controlling the calories we administered to you, more or less independent of the nutrient composition of your diet, with the proviso that we didn't induce any deficiencies.

                            I put the blame squarely on Gary Taubes for this needless debate, as he's actually put forward the notion that he doesn't believe that thermodynamics applies to biological systems. While for the most part I respect the man and his writings, this is one area where the wheels fall off his train of thought. What Taubes is probably trying to say is that equilibrium thermodynamics don't apply to biological systems. And if that is indeed what he is meaning to say, then I agree with him. Biological systems are not systems at equilibrium, far from it, they actually fall under a relatively new area of thermodynamics that is being actively explored and elaborated : dissipative systems. This is a fascinating area of study, but it is far too involved to get into it in a forum post! If this sort of thing is your cup of tea, you should definitely consider doing some readings in this area. Two particularly good books on the topic: Biological Thermodynamics, which is the more technical read, and Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life which is more suitable for casual reading. In the interest of full disclosure, those are Amazon affiliate links, so if you do wind up buying a book, I get a nominal amount to spend my on my coffee.


                            Excess Carbohydrates Are Not Preferentially Converted to Fat ( De Novo Lipogenesis - DNL )

                            Excess carbohydrates _can_ participate in DNL, but you would have to eat significantly in excess of your caloric requirements in order for this to happen. Rather than being stored as adipose tissue, excess carbohydrates go into hepatic glycogen storage. Once the liver's capacity to store glycogen has been exceeded, then DNL will occur. Your liver has abundant excess capacity for absorbing glucose, something on the order of an excess intake of 500g before starting to synthesize additional fatty acids:

                            Originally posted by Am JClin Nutr 1988;48:240-7.
                            Glycogen storage capacity in man is 15 g/kg [of] bodyweight and can accommodate gain of ~500g before net lipid synthesis contributes to increasing body fat mass. When the glycogen stores are saturated, massive intakes of carbohydrate are disposed of by high carbohydrate-oxidation rates and substantial de novo lipid synthesis (150 g lipid/d using ~475 g CHO/d) without postabsorptive hyperglycemia.
                            Practically speaking, however, the above doesn't do you too much good, since the resulting "high carbohydrate-oxidation rates" displaces oxidation of other energy substrates, such as protein ( yayiii! ) and lipids ( boo!! ). Since you are left with greater levels of circulating lipids, this gets you increased lipid re-esterification ( i.e. your adipose tissue reabsorbs the fatty acids that it previously released, so net net, you "gain" fat ).

                            This same principle, substrate availability, works for all macro nutrients. If you have high levels of circulating amino acids, for example, guess what your metabolism will oxidize? In oxidizing more protein, however, the body will be oxidizing less of the other substrates, which means that again, there will be more circulating fatty acids to be re-esterified in your adipose tissues.

                            The exact same thing happens with high levels of exogenously sourced fatty acids. I don't care how ketogenic your diet may be, if you are eating 5000 kcal. of fat a day, you will gain adipose tissue mass. Period.


                            All Diets Eventually Culminate at an Equilbrium, Even If They Kill You

                            The body has the capacity to convert mass into energy, and energy into mass. In situations of energy surplus, two things broadly happen : 1) surplus energy is converted to mass, and 2) energy expenditure increases. The converse is true in cases of deficits, surplus mass is converted to energy, and energy expenditure is curtailed. Neither of these situation can be carried on indefinitely. Chronic energy shortages culminate in the organism starving to death, whereas chronic surpluses get you metabolic syndrome. At both ends of the spectrum, one can be arguably said to have achieved weight stability. Between these two extremes lie an infinity of non-pathological equilibria that reflect a particular organism's energy context at a given point in time. The only question is whether you will be satisfied with what you see in the mirror at the particular equilibrium point that you achieve on any given dietary intervention.

                            If you were to take a sample of individuals with type II non insulin-dependent diabetes, you would find that in general, they are weight stable. They have rather poor body composition metrics, even poorer metabolic health metrics, but they have achieved a weight gain plateau. In fact, full blown metabolic syndrome develops precisely around the point where they achieve the weight equilibrium, because that is precisely the point when the body stops responding to insulin, and fat accretes at the same rate as it leaks out of adipose tissue. Net net, zero change in weight, but a metabolic train wreck.

                            On the flipside of this, when you are losing weight, your metabolism is actively changing to accommodate its energy context reality, and since there is a shortfall, a number of things happen. As I've already mentioned, first and foremost, the response to an acute energy shortfall is for the body turn to converting mass into energy ... this is what weight loss means. Generally, the body converts fat to energy, that's precisely what it's there for, but it will also utilize expendable protein stores eventually. Incidentally, the way you indicate to your body which protein stores are not expendable is to use them ( i.e. work the muscles you intend to keep ), which is why you find so many skinny-fat people out there who have tried to achieve a "beach body" via diet alone.

                            If the energy shortfall is chronic, then the secondary metabolic response is to attempt to utilize less energy overall. This entails an endocrinological response, and the principal actor there is a reduction in T3 levels, which in turn down regulates many catabolic processes in the body, most notably thermogenesis. Eventually, your metabolism either succeeds in curtailing energy use, at which point you are again weight stable, or it does not, and you are on an E ticket ride to starvation city.

                            Ok, enough for now. It's getting late, I'm sleep deprived, and I find myself ranting ...

                            -PK
                            Last edited by pklopp; 03-08-2013, 08:10 PM. Reason: Forgot to add book links.
                            My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

                            Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              If you've lost 16 lbs, you've created a caloric deficit. All it sounds that's happening is that you started lifting weights and exercising, so now you have a higher TDEE. So, you started exercising, you can consume more food and gain muscle while still losing weight...what part of this is a surprise?

                              Either your activity level is higher so your TDEE is higher, you're consuming less calories than you think you are, you're exercising smarter or some combination of all three. That's all that's happened here. It's pretty typical.
                              Pretty big assumptions you are making about my activity level don't you think?
                              "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by itchy166 View Post
                                Pretty big assumptions you are making about my activity level don't you think?
                                No.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X