Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Meticulous for 6 weeks... Still not fat adapted! Help!

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Pebbles67 View Post
    No Problem.
    The 5000 mg number comes from Phinney and Volek "The art and science of low carb living".
    Thanks.



    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Marks Daily Apple Forum mobile app
    Don't be so concerned about yesterday, or worried about tomorrow, that you forget to enjoy today.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
      Sorry, you'll have to filter out the sugar bugs. J3nn, Derpamix, Zach and a few others think candy = health, and push their glucose-loving ways on people truly interested in being fat-fueled.

      It took me six weeks to get fat adapted, where I could drink a stick of butter and have it all digest properly, etc. But this has me worried. I hope you're about 4 feet tall. Eat more, that might help!

      x2 about electrolytes.
      Um, I have never suggested anyone eat candy, except for chocolate, which you say you eat loads of. Libel much? I also don't equate sugar consumption with health. Way to oversimplify. Every human uses fat for fuel; some low-carb zealots think the entire population should suffer through painful transitions to use fat and ketones as primary fuels when it's not necessary. Having to go to great lengths to ensure your electrolytes are balanced via supplementation does not seem like an evolutionarily advantageous diet to me.
      | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

      “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

      Comment


      • #33
        J3NN, I'm sorry for lumping you with Zach and Derpy. I'm wondering, do you keep a glucose IV running while you sleep to stay out of ketosis?
        Crohn's, doing SCD

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
          That's just a suspicion I have as I no longer worry about how many carbs I consume (or don't consume) and never see any difference. What does result in a difference is if I just eat less period, and if I stay away from grains, seed oils and processed foods. Eat less = lose some weight. Avoid grains, seed oils and processed food = feel awesome and healthy.
          I've found the same. I think getting enough protein may impact how comfortable I am on fewer calories, but fat vs. carbs obtained from totally primal foods doesn't seem to make any difference in weightloss or satiety. At the moment I'm usually 120g carbs/day because that's where eating what I like puts me, and still, the lbs are still slowly dropping.

          I'm not sure what fat adapted really means. If it means being comfortable at <50g carbs/day, it might not be achievable for everyone. I am emotionally unhappy and physically uncomfortable if I deliberately push for less than 100g/day for more than a week. (Actually, that goes for any kind of macro manipulation. I find it 1000X more stressful than calorie counting.) Even so, I often skip breakfast and sometimes skip lunch too and feel great when I do. I'm pretty sure I'm not a dedicated sugar burner. That happened pretty painlessly over about 6 months just by steadily reducing grains and processed foods. I never felt badly, only better and better as every week went by. If you look at my sig, I was obese. And I had every physical sign of metabolic syndrome.

          I'm so glad i didnt find MDA until i was well on my way. I really think all the fat-adapted, sugar-burner, broken metabolism, carb curve stuff would have completely distracted me from focusing on fixing the crap quality of my diet and the crap quality of my emotional relationship with food and eating. My suggestion to the OP is to pay less attention to the "rules" and more attention to what makes you feel amazing.
          50yo, 5'3"
          SW-195
          CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
          GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
            J3NN, I'm sorry for lumping you with Zach and Derpy. I'm wondering, do you keep a glucose IV running while you sleep to stay out of ketosis?
            Nope. I also do IF. I think ketones are wonderful, I just havent felt the need to force my body into NK on a permanent basis. I'm a part-time fat-burner, just like everyone else who doesn't take measures to hack it. It can be a very beneficial hack for some people, no doubt. But some people are under the impression that they don't have fat-burning metabolisms at all. The whole fat-burning beast thing is misleading.
            Last edited by j3nn; 06-01-2013, 05:44 AM.
            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by j3nn View Post
              The whole fat-burning beast thing is misleading.
              And obviously makes some people perpetually grumpy.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Kmilloy View Post
                Hey... I'm curious where you get this "fact"... I've got a pretty decent understanding of hormone function, and I've certainly seen the evidence to support how sugar consumption impacts your cortisol levels, but I'm unaware of how fat metabolism affects you cortisol. Also, your body actually can't "become accustomed" to running on cortisol... Cortisol is a temporary measure to get you through stressful times. That's why chronic stress leads to adrenal fatigue, rather than the consistent energy and improved neural function that people report from being in a fat adapted state...


                High blood sugar is just another stress state caused by not having enough sugar, and your body provoking fight or flight hormones to supplement that.

                Derp gets all his factoids from the same place. The alter of the Holy Ray Peat. A guy who is actually a scientist but then has a bunch of folks like Danny Roddy and Matt Stone out interpreting his works for the masses. Derp lives on cigarettes, soda, candy, copious amounts of sweetened coffee, highly sweetened milk and OJ, plus other illegal substances with an occasional piece of liver and has the nerve to come here and preach about health. Eating the liver and the fact that he is only a bit past 20 are probably the only reasons his lifestyle hasn't killed him yet. Consider the source of your info around here.
                At least I know what glycolysis is ba dum tish

                I don't post for health reasons, btw, I just like science. I want to die, if it means discovering more.
                Last edited by Derpamix; 06-01-2013, 08:28 PM.
                Make America Great Again

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Derpamix View Post


                  High blood sugar is just another stress state caused by not having enough sugar, and your body provoking fight or flight hormones to supplement that.
                  This is a great diagram, but I think you might be taking the message out of context. The "stress hormone" (epinephrine, norepinephrine, adrenaline) fight-or-flight response is an acute, fast acting response. It occurs 1) to give you energy by mobilizing glucose stores (if, say, you need to run from a bear or deal with a more modern day sudden stressor) or 2) because your blood sugar dips too low, which is dangerous. They're kind like light switches... They turn on gluconeogenesis (opposite of glycolysis) and other metabolic processes to stabilize the blood sugar and give you the energy you need. But once the light switch has been turned on, you don't need to keep pressing it. The stress hormone response may get the ball rolling, but its not what keeps it in motion. So, for the first few days of a VLCD, you're right, you've undoubtably induced a stress state, but it's very temporary. Those hormones are very short acting. They're meant to deal with short-term stressors, and they actually become ineffective after any sort of prolonged exposure (hence why stimulants that work on this pathway become less and less effective the longer you use them).


                  "We see things not as they are, but as we are"
                  - John Milton

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Kmilloy View Post
                    This is a great diagram, but I think you might be taking the message out of context. The "stress hormone" (epinephrine, norepinephrine, adrenaline) fight-or-flight response is an acute, fast acting response. It occurs 1) to give you energy by mobilizing glucose stores (if, say, you need to run from a bear or deal with a more modern day sudden stressor) or 2) because your blood sugar dips too low, which is dangerous. They're kind like light switches... They turn on gluconeogenesis (opposite of glycolysis) and other metabolic processes to stabilize the blood sugar and give you the energy you need. But once the light switch has been turned on, you don't need to keep pressing it. The stress hormone response may get the ball rolling, but its not what keeps it in motion. So, for the first few days of a VLCD, you're right, you've undoubtably induced a stress state, but it's very temporary. Those hormones are very short acting. They're meant to deal with short-term stressors, and they actually become ineffective after any sort of prolonged exposure (hence why stimulants that work on this pathway become less and less effective the longer you use them).


                    "We see things not as they are, but as we are"
                    - John Milton
                    Read this: it addresses your responses, and it's where that diagram is from.

                    Low Blood Sugar Basics – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)
                    Make America Great Again

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                      Read this: it addresses your responses, and it's where that diagram is from.

                      Low Blood Sugar Basics – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)
                      The article actually doesn't address my point (which I now realize I may not have fully articulated), but it is interesting.

                      My point really was that low sugar intake does not equal low blood sugar. Your body is perfectly capable of making any and all glucose it needs from protein and fat. Low sugar intake may temporarily cause low blood sugar if your body has become accustomed to exogenous sources of glucose, but it adapts really quickly. There's a temporary increase in stress hormones, which kicks off a cascade of metabolic processes that stabilize your blood sugar, and everything's kosher. Unless, of course, you give your body a bunch of exogenous sugars, in which case it gets lazy, stops making its own sugar, and the whole, process starts again. So the article is definitely right about poor for choices, hypoglycaemia and stress hormones, but the poor food choices are not too little sugar, but too much.


                      "We see things not as they are, but as we are"
                      - John Milton

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Kmilloy View Post
                        The article actually doesn't address my point (which I now realize I may not have fully articulated), but it is interesting.

                        My point really was that low sugar intake does not equal low blood sugar. Your body is perfectly capable of making any and all glucose it needs from protein and fat. Low sugar intake may temporarily cause low blood sugar if your body has become accustomed to exogenous sources of glucose, but it adapts really quickly. There's a temporary increase in stress hormones, which kicks off a cascade of metabolic processes that stabilize your blood sugar, and everything's kosher. Unless, of course, you give your body a bunch of exogenous sugars, in which case it gets lazy, stops making its own sugar, and the whole, process starts again. So the article is definitely right about poor for choices, hypoglycaemia and stress hormones, but the poor food choices are not too little sugar, but too much.


                        "We see things not as they are, but as we are"
                        - John Milton
                        you forget the fact ingestion of protein causes release of insulin since insulin is required to metabolize amino acids. insulin brings blood sugar down. all you get by creating your own is an inefficient way of putting your body on a blood sugar rollercoaster.
                        Make America Great Again

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                          you forget the fact ingestion of protein causes release of insulin since insulin is required to metabolize amino acids. insulin brings blood sugar down. all you get by creating your own is an inefficient way of putting your body on a blood sugar rollercoaster.
                          Hmmm... This is not my understanding of how metabolism works, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for the interesting discussion though!


                          "We see things not as they are, but as we are"
                          - John Milton

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            neither insulin nor blood sugar are your enemies despite what glorified broscience majors try to tell you in order to push their agenda. or that ridiculous carb curve that insinuates you can eat a surplus of calories from fat and not gain weight as long as you eat fewer than 50g of carbs.

                            all macronutrients play some key role in our bodies, it's not the macronutrients fault that modern diets or stress have screwed with our bodies enough to render them ineffective at processing necessary functions. you don't improve the symptoms by bandaging the problem, instead of fixing the cause though. this just creates new problems. another problem with modern medicine.
                            Make America Great Again

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              ]High blood sugar is just another stress state caused by not having enough sugar.
                              How much sense does that make: High blood sugar is caused by not eating enough sugar?????

                              Originally posted by Kmilloy View Post
                              This is a great diagram, but I think you might be taking the message out of context. The "stress hormone" (epinephrine, norepinephrine, adrenaline) fight-or-flight response is an acute, fast acting response. It occurs 1) to give you energy by mobilizing glucose stores (if, say, you need to run from a bear or deal with a more modern day sudden stressor) or 2) because your blood sugar dips too low, which is dangerous. They're kind like light switches... They turn on gluconeogenesis (opposite of glycolysis) and other metabolic processes to stabilize the blood sugar and give you the energy you need. But once the light switch has been turned on, you don't need to keep pressing it. The stress hormone response may get the ball rolling, but its not what keeps it in motion. So, for the first few days of a VLCD, you're right, you've undoubtably induced a stress state, but it's very temporary. Those hormones are very short acting. They're meant to deal with short-term stressors, and they actually become ineffective after any sort of prolonged exposure (hence why stimulants that work on this pathway become less and less effective the longer you use them).
                              Nicely summarized.

                              Originally posted by Kmilloy View Post
                              My point really was that low sugar intake does not equal low blood sugar. Your body is perfectly capable of making any and all glucose it needs from protein and fat. Low sugar intake may temporarily cause low blood sugar if your body has become accustomed to exogenous sources of glucose, but it adapts really quickly. There's a temporary increase in stress hormones, which kicks off a cascade of metabolic processes that stabilize your blood sugar, and everything's kosher. Unless, of course, you give your body a bunch of exogenous sugars, in which case it gets lazy, stops making its own sugar, and the whole, process starts again. So the article is definitely right about poor for choices, hypoglycaemia and stress hormones, but the poor food choices are not too little sugar, but too much.
                              Originally posted by Kmilloy View Post
                              Hmmm... This is not my understanding of how metabolism works, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for the interesting discussion though!
                              You are so incredibly patient and polite in the face of nincompoopery.

                              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              that ridiculous carb curve that insinuates you can eat a surplus of calories from fat and not gain weight as long as you eat fewer than 50g of carbs.
                              Mark never said all you can eat fat/protein buffet. His book has a whole chapter about calorie targeting and #8 of the famous 17 Reasons Why You Aren't Losing Weight is a very concise answer :"You're eating too much."

                              You're at those strawmen again.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                                How much sense does that make: High blood sugar is caused by not eating enough sugar?????

                                Mark never said all you can eat fat/protein buffet. His book has a whole chapter about calorie targeting and #8 of the famous 17 Reasons Why You Aren't Losing Weight is a very concise answer :"You're eating too much."

                                You're at those strawmen again.
                                Guess that's worse than ad hominems that are completely irrelevant huh? ie; my personal habits which I never advocate to anyone or bring up at all.

                                Also, who is using straw man arguments now? Picking out something probably referenced after he realized he was completely wrong about his insulin theory. I wasn't even talking about that, just the carb curve that doesn't mention anything you just said, so... lol.

                                And it does make sense if you actually read what I write, you'd rather just repeatedly call me an idiot instead though because you don't agree.
                                Make America Great Again

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X