Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Rebuttal needed for Low Carb "Myth" statement

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
    pklopp, very good. Thanks
    + 1 for another amazing post. Thanks!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pklopp View Post
      To the extent that your diet starts to approximate our thought experiment, you should expect to come closer and closer to the posited outcomes. How would you do this? Frequent meals consisting of relatively high levels of carbohydrate. Note, that it is not the absolute CHO level that is relevant here, but rather the persistent insulin elevation. This implies that eating at the same absolute CHO intake, but taking all your carbs at one sitting is a better strategy, because you only elevate insulin in a transient rather than persistent fashion.

      Most people do not make this distinction and instead you get the somewhat simplistic "carbohydrates drive insulin drives body fat" argument.

      It's not the outright lies that get you, it's the partial truth that does the most damage.

      -PK
      How relevant is this thought experiment to reality, or the original question? In your average normoinsulinemic person (like me, or other carbophiles on this forum), about how much glucose do you think it would require to achieve that kind of constant insulin level? I'm guessing more than anyone ever eats. Either way, your thought experiment only addresses insulin's effect on relative fat mass by its inhibition of lipolysis, not the potential for carbohydrates to add to fat mass, which in the context of a normal diet (especially a paleo diet) is very small.
      Last edited by Timthetaco; 03-12-2013, 08:43 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
        How relevant is this thought experiment to reality, or the original question? In your average normoinsulinemic person (like me, or other carbophiles on this forum), about how much glucose do you think it would require to achieve that kind of constant insulin level? I'm guessing more than anyone ever eats. Either way, your thought experiment only addresses insulin's effect on relative fat mass by its inhibition of lipolysis, not the potential for carbohydrates to add to fat mass, which in the context of a normal diet (especially a paleo diet) is very small.
        Of course it is somewhat impolite to do so, but let me answer your rhetorical question with one of my own : what is the dose response curve of NEFA suppression to insulin? Or in other words, how much do you have to raise insulin to achieve significant suppression of NEFA levels? In the original thought experiment, I mentioned 500 pmol/l as most certainly achieving maximal suppression. But at what insulin concentration would we achieve 50% of the effect? It turns out that the level required to do that is ... wait for it ... about 120 pmol/l, or not much over baseline.

        As you astutely observed, my experiment precisely and very much intentionally addresses insulin's effect on relative fat mass by its inhibition of lipolysis, and only incidentally the effect of carbohydrates. Why is that? Because as you may have taken away from my point above about the dose response curve of NEFA suppression, it doesn't really take carbohydrates to significantly suppress NEFA levels, it merely takes eating. So, carbophobe or not, paleo or not, if you buy into the eat many small meals throughout the day approach, then you are effectively running around throughout the day suppressing NEFA levels because you keep flirting with that 120 pmol/l threshold pretty much constantly. Of course, if you are ambitious and want to achieve higher NEFA suppression such as was posited in the original experiment, just throw in foods that we know spike insulin ... or, as I said "frequent meals with relatively high carbohydrate content."

        You are, of course, correct. I did leave something unsaid in my original post to tie it back to reality, as you understand it : "if you want to achieve on the order of 50% of the results of our thought experiment, just eat frequent small meals." In my defense, I did point out that meal frequency is probably the more relevant aspect when I alluded to the fact that it wasn't the carbohydrates per se that suppress NEFA, and that it is probably advisable to eat all of one's CHO in one meal.

        -PK
        My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

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

        Comment


        • #34
          Fair enough. Thanks for the response.

          Comment


          • #35
            Pklopp - Glad to see you back. I'd like to bounce something off of you and see what you think.

            The 'Potato Diet' is still getting lots of attention and most who try it lose weight rapidly. You tried it, but with added protein, and had poor results.

            I have tried many experiments around the potato diet the past 6 months, and find it only seems to work when one consumes soley potatoes. I have exhaustively tracked my blood glucose in an attempt to figure out what is going on and I think your explanation a few posts back hits on the efficacy of the potato diet.

            For instance, if I eat nothing all morning, then 1 pound of potato around noon and track my blood glucose, I see this in 30 minute intervals: 97 (just prior to eating), 145, 180, 120, 90, 85, 85 (3 hr point). In all cases, my blood glucose after 3 hours and beyond is about 10 points lower than my fasting blood glucose.

            On the second meal of one pound of potato, I see this: 85 (prior to eating), 120, 140, 130, 100, 80, 85 (3 hr point).

            In all cases, my second meal shows a much lessened blood glucose spike.

            If I eat like this for 2 or more days in a row, I see a morning FBG in the high 90's and will register 'in ketosis' with urine strips. I can tell there is a change going on by the second day in that I get the metallic breath and urinate more frequently. I also lose about 1 pound a day, which seems to be almost all fat and no muscle.

            If I eat fat or protein, even in seemingly trivial amounts, none of this happens. Blood glucose levels are blunted and I return to FBG levels, or higher, rather than lower. I'm thinking this has something to do with the high glycemic index of the potato starch which is causing an over-correction from the insulin and leading to the burning of fat in fast order.

            If I try eating at a similar calorie level on chicken or vegetables, nothing like this happens. There are about 800kcal in 2lbs of potato. A diet of 800kcal of chicken per day for 2 days will result in a bit of weightloss, but it is quickly rebounded in a day or two, similar to fasting for 48 hours. The weightloss that comes from a low-cal protein 'fast' seems to be all water weight, while from a 'potato-fast' it seems to be mostly fat.

            Thoughts?

            Comment


            • #36
              Ok this is why I believe low carb diets work better than any to reduce your body fat percentage.

              It comes down to the human brain

              Yes it is true that only a calorific deficit reduces fat (doesn't matter which macro's) and it is true that insulin has little effect on fat loss.

              What I believe it boils down to is our brains exclusively using glucose as its fuel source. As we are animals our bodies tend to "go with the path of least resistance", over the years of SAD eating, our brains find it easier to signal for another hit of glucose (carbs) from the fridge or cupboard or drive-through, than to do any "metabolic magic" and convert glucose from another source.
              This leads to us eating carbs, not for nutriment or not for our bodies perceived energy requirements (yes i believe we have the inherent ability to control the amount of calories we eat) but for a quick top-up of brain fuel. The brain forcing us to constantly eat leads to a calorie surplus (fat gain), apply this to many humans and you got an obesity epidemic.

              This is why every body gets the carb flu when they first convert from a SAD diet to low carb diet; our brains are significantly bad at converting glucose from other sources at that stage and needs a few weeks to "re-learn" how to do it. Once we have a good system going and our brain doesn't "freak out" at the first sign of blood glucose dropping I think good carbs can be reintroduced with little detrimental effect, probably even out of a "low carb" eating range.

              So there we have it, all the people flying the flag for carbs (tim, derp, zach etc) on this forum can be smug in their knowledge that they aren't wrong and it is truly a calorie excess that causes fat gain. To all the keto hounds and low carb defenders you are also right in that carbs (indirectly through the inherent laziness of our brains) has caused the great obesity epidemic.
              A little primal gem - My Success Story
              Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

              Comment


              • #37
                Or you could just be wrong.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Zach View Post
                  People are fat because they are lazy and eat too much of the wrong food, not from following health authories advice. The government still advocates whole foods and exercise, not mcdonalds and sitting on the couch.

                  Quit blaming others, take responsibility.
                  This is not the case with all people who are fat/overweight. I know lots of active people who follow CW that are over weight. I was one of them.

                  I have lost weight by reducing my sugar and grain intake, and processed food. I still eat Fruit, and dairy & Honey, so I still eat sugar. 30lb less of me and no one on this earth will convince me other wise that following the Paleo way of life is nothing but a good thing for me.

                  Anyone on here who thinks carbs in the form of white sugar or the crap they put in fizzy drinks, buns & cake is OK then you must be a Troll, right or wrong your just looking to wind people up.

                  Any new people to this forum, READ THE BOOK, and stick to the quite simple way of doing things. The forum is full of "experts" who can often confuse things considerably.
                  Caution! My replies may contain traces of nuts!. My posts are just my opinion based on my experience with the primal way of life, there is no assurance it will work with others in the same way.

                  Started Primal 15th October 2012
                  Height 5'9"
                  Start weight 200lb
                  Loss so far 33.8lbs, now 166.2lb
                  Goal was 168lb's

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by otzi View Post
                    The weightloss that comes from a low-cal protein 'fast' seems to be all water weight, while from a 'potato-fast' it seems to be mostly fat.
                    Thoughts?
                    So what should the body burn for energy then on a low-cal protein fast? If the deficit as an example is 1000 kcal/day on eating chicken breast, from where comes the energy, it must come from somewhere???
                    "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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Philmont Scott View Post
                      I know that this is a straw man argument. It papers all "low carb" by attempting to shoot down "no carb".

                      I need a polite and convincing response to this. Help?
                      What you quoted is absolute 100% concrete fact. Any rebuttal would be an outright lie.
                      Originally posted by primalrob View Post
                      most of that is ok. it might get the insulin resistance thing a little bit wrong, but the big problem is that it oversimplifies things. really, the best response is to tell this person to read Good Calories, Bad Calories. a high carbohydrate diet in the form of sugar will certainly lead to fat storage. playing around with safe starches, however, should be fine depending on a person's activity level.

                      my preferred response would be to ask that this person/organization report the same myth and facts about fat.
                      I strongly disagree. If you look at the diet of most ripped bodybuilders, you'll see it's loaded with starch and sugar with minimal fat. From my experience, it's much easier to convert carbohydrate into lean mass than dietary fat. Good Calories, Bad Calories is purposefully misleading and not factual, it's a study in epidemiology, and the same stuff the paleosphere tears down every day with CW studies. It is no better. The only thing that should be taken from Good Calories, Bad Calories is that a diet full of whole foods and free of processed foods likely yields a better body composition and superior health. That's a no brainer.

                      A high carbohydrate diet high in sugar paired with heavy lifts and sprints is optimal for that lean, athletic build. A diet rich in fat will have you falling on your butt, floundering around with a lack of energy and probably a poor body composition due to an energy source that can't keep up with your activity level.

                      Sugar is not directly stored as fat. It needs to be converted through a relatively inefficient process. If you're sitting on your butt at work drinking soda, you'll probably get fat. But if you're sitting on your butt at work drinking a bulletproof coffee, the same thing is probably going to happen. Dietary fat is more efficiently stored as body fat than sugar. If you overconsume, you'll gain fat. Period.
                      Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 03-13-2013, 09:22 AM.
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Zach View Post
                        People are fat because they are lazy and eat too much of the wrong food, not from following health authories advice. The government still advocates whole foods and exercise, not mcdonalds and sitting on the couch.

                        Quit blaming others, take responsibility.
                        Do you know me? Do you know whether I'm fat or thin? Have you ever seen me blame anyone but myself for my weight? If not, stfu.
                        "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                        B*tch-lite

                        Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          I strongly disagree. If you look at the diet of most ripped bodybuilders, you'll see it's loaded with starch and sugar with minimal fat. From my experience, it's much easier to convert carbohydrate into lean mass than dietary fat. Good Calories, Bad Calories is purposefully misleading and not factual, it's a study in epidemiology, and the same stuff the paleosphere tears down every day with CW studies. It is no better. The only thing that should be taken from Good Calories, Bad Calories is that a diet full of whole foods and free of processed foods likely yields a better body composition and superior health. That's a no brainer.

                          A high carbohydrate diet high in sugar paired with heavy lifts and sprints is optimal for that lean, athletic build. A diet rich in fat will have you falling on your butt, floundering around with a lack of energy and probably a poor body composition due to an energy source that can't keep up with your activity level.

                          Sugar is not directly stored as fat. It needs to be converted through a relatively inefficient process. If you're sitting on your butt at work drinking soda, you'll probably get fat. But if you're sitting on your butt at work drinking a bulletproof coffee, the same thing is probably going to happen. Dietary fat is more efficiently stored as body fat than sugar. If you overconsume, you'll gain fat. Period.
                          I appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining in detail your carb theories unlike alot of the people who have similar views that just try to troll everyone.

                          Anyway I think you a little bit and the others to a greater degree are missing the elephant in the room. Yes all the pro carb studies that get talked about and even "your own" experiences are probably very true. but what you guys and the scientific studies miss is that western society is FAT, every where you look people are overweight or obese. Why is this? (pssst... they all eat high carb diets). somewhere there is a missing link between all the science and what is actually happening.

                          The other thing you high carb guys on this site miss is marksdailyapple.com has many 100's of thousands of subscribers, why are they all here? What are they looking for? Are they all here for the scientific studies and N=1 opinions getting sprouted in the forums? (nope) Or are they here because they heard somewhere that this shit really works? (you betcha).

                          To what you said above, you referenced ripped body builders and even tho your probably right about them it doesn't mean much. bodybuilders (and maybe you, I don't know) micro manage the shit outta their diets far more than any normal person would. Yes they might be able to get 100% effectiveness from eating that way. But why should most of us do that when we can get 90% effectiveness outta stocking our fridge with a list of primal foods out of mark's book and eating it when we get hungry.
                          A little primal gem - My Success Story
                          Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Zach View Post
                            People are fat because they are lazy and eat too much of the wrong food, not from following health authories advice. The government still advocates whole foods and exercise, not mcdonalds and sitting on the couch.

                            Quit blaming others, take responsibility.
                            You forgot to say eat more CARBS!
                            "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              Sugar is not directly stored as fat. It needs to be converted through a relatively inefficient process. If you're sitting on your butt at work drinking soda, you'll probably get fat. But if you're sitting on your butt at work drinking a bulletproof coffee, the same thing is probably going to happen. Dietary fat is more efficiently stored as body fat than sugar. If you overconsume, you'll gain fat. Period.
                              So if you are talking about efficient metabolic pathways, then you would have to also take on board that the body can only store, maybe 1.5kg of Glucose as Glycogen and probably 15kg of Fat in adipose tissue.
                              Therefore it would be natural to assume that these proportions would also have some significant bearing on our dietary mix if we are talking about most efficient storage and energy extraction.
                              Even taking into account high exercise levels, it would be extremly rare to need more than 300g of carbs, and even if they are low, it takes over 24 hours to replenish glycogen fully and is most receptive in the first hour after depletion.

                              So yes, maybe for body building and specific athletic disciplines, high carb, timing and refeeding may be relevant, but this does not translate to success on the Savanah, I have never seen images of HG's that look like body builders, surely if this was so they would all look like "Conan the Barbarian".
                              They usually come in fairly lean and reasonably strong, could they deadlift their own weight?, probably not, but that was not an adaptive advantage, they needed moderate strength, but speed and endurance was the key to survival.
                              "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                                but what you guys and the scientific studies miss is that western society is FAT, every where you look people are overweight or obese. Why is this? (pssst... they all eat high carb diets). somewhere there is a missing link between all the science and what is actually happening.

                                What are they looking for? Are they all here for the scientific studies and N=1 opinions getting sprouted in the forums? (nope) Or are they here because they heard somewhere that this shit really works? (you betcha)
                                You're deluded if you believe the western diet is only high in carbs. It's high in everything, including calories. It's also worth noting that the two most prominent sources of carbs in your average American's diet are wheat and sugar. Those, in addition to general overconsumption of processed food and fat, lead to obesity. You think you can become obese on a high carb diet consisting of fruit, potatoes, rice, cassava, corn, honey and maple syrup? That's a fuck of a lot harder than the SAD path. I used to eat 3000 calories at Outback before my entree even arrived. But I never overate; it was sugar/insulin/society/Dr. Oz's fault.

                                As for n=1, why do you only care about positive anecdotes? You don't appreciate the cognitive dissonance that stems from knowing not everyone succeeds on a low carb diet? If this shit really worked for everyone, Zach and Derpamix wouldn't even be here. They come from a website almost entirely dedicated to fixing struggling and frustrated low carb dieters.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X