Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marks position on Ketosis? Ketogenic vs Paleo.

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

  • #76
    Keto works great for me to get in the teens body fat wise but I generally won't do past 8 weeks where ill go to a carb cycling diet.

    Comment


    • #77
      We've gone through this so many times. I know you're steadfast in your ways and you'll never change regardless of what facts present itself, but I have one more go in me.

      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
      Show me how harmful it is then. You do realize that you will be relying on studies that require abnormally large quantities of PUFA without any of the normally associated vitamins and minerals.
      So given that statement, there are two scenarios to be examined.

      1.) Let's assume that only refined PUFA is bad and when it comes with "the normally associated vitamins and minerals" it becomes much less harmful, or even harmless. Well, sugar, when highly refined is not harmful at all. It is just as benign as oleic acid. If we consider MUFA to be perfectly safe, then highly refined sugar is also perfectly safe.

      The Advanced Glycation End Product, NGraphic-(Carboxymethyl)lysine, Is a Product of both Lipid Peroxidation and Glycoxidation Reactions


      CML is formed during incubation of RNase with PUFA. RNase (1 mM) was incubated with 100 mM arachidonate (○), linoleate (□), or oleate (▵) in PBS at 37°C, and aliquots were removed at indicated times. CML was measured by GC/MS as described under “Materials and Methods.”


      Comparison of CML formation in RNase from arachidonate or glucose. RNase (1 mM) was incubated with 100 mM arachidonate (○, replotted from Fig. 2), or 100 mM glucose (▵) in PBS. CML was measured by GC/MS as described under “Materials and Methods.” Data are expressed as described in the legend to Fig. 2.

      So at the very worst case scenario, refined sugar is just as harmless (or harmful) as oleic acid (MUFA) and well over an order of magnitude less harmful than arachidonic acid, commonly found in animal fats high in omega 6 (lard, poultry fat). And in the context of whole foods when the "the normally associated vitamins and minerals" are present, it appears that fruit sugar is just as healthy - if not superior to - fats from avocado and olives and much better than pork or poultry fat, especially from CAFO sources.

      2.) The "the normally associated vitamins and minerals" inherent to whole foods rich in PUFA don't completely mitigate the damage. Fish have high levels of PUFA in their tissues because it is liquid at freezing temperatures. Since fish swim around in very cold waters, if they had high levels of SFA and MUFA in their tissues like human, cows or pigs did, they would literally harden in water and be immobile. Similarly, since seeds germinate in colder temperatures (March - May), they require high levels of PUFA in the seed or else the plant would be unable to germinate. If almonds and sunflower seeds, for example, didn't have high levels of PUFA, they wouldn't sprout til much later in the spring, resulting in too short of a growing season (coconut has high levels of SFA because it exists in such a hot environment by comparison). The vitamin E is inherent to seeds high in PUFA to protect it from spoilage. Now, that Vitamin E may be just enough to protect the plant, which has been designed by Mother Nature to contain high levels of PUFA. How is that same amount of Vitamin E sufficient to protect humans upon consumption when Mother Nature designed us to have comparatively much lower levels of PUFA and survive at much higher temperatures? It's not unreasonable to believe the whole food is safer than some refined oil - it's downright logical and I believe it to be true - but to believe it is completely protectant is also foolish.

      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
      Your statement was complete and utter opinion. It is not backed by any scientific experimentation which makes it a hypothesis at best. To make such a causal relationship without considering the interactions of both PUFA and sugar/carbohydrates is just silly IMO (I suggest you learn those three little letters). You will not find a causal silver bullet to metabolic derangement. Its multifactoral and in many cases (such as pufa and fructose) its a synergistic detrimental effect.
      Read my post. Do you know what the word "largely" means?

      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
      It is caused (largely) by a diet rich in polyunsaturated fat, which damages your mitochondria and reduces your ability to oxidize glucose.
      The context is "mostly" - PUFA is the BIGGEST offender. Nowhere did I say that the only thing unhealthy on planet Earth is polyunsaturated fat. Metabolic syndrome is clearly multifaceted, but it is NOT caused by carbohydrate. It anything, carbohydrate is protectant and if the SAD was lower in carbs while maintaining the same fatty acid profile, we'd likely be getting even sicker faster. But I suppose when you have your agenda to push it is easier to misquote me and argue a straw man?

      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
      You can eat PUFA at quite high levels as long as it is not in the presence of fructose. Same in the vice versa.... high fructose load and low PUFA.

      Well I say that as I have read some studies in such regard, but when I tried to find them I come up with this instead:

      http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v...cn201035a.html

      "Conclusions:

      Children with fatty liver detected sonographically have metabolic features of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Their diets are high in fructose and low in polyunsaturated fatty acid. Their activity patterns are sedentary. These lifestyle features may contribute to liver damage and can be a focus for therapeutic intervention."

      Of course they were focusing on O3, so I'm not going to rely heavily on this study alone. Just thought it was funny that when I go to find something showing fructose is OK without too much PUFA this is what I get.
      Did you even read that "study?"

      There is zero information. None. Zip. Nada. They took a bunch of fat, prediabetic children and drew what conclusions exactly? What were the sources of saturated fats, polyunsaturated fats, fructose and sucrose? There are no details anywhere. All we know is that these kids, who were already very ill and overweight, were extremely sedentary and ate large caloric surpluses regularly. I can only assume of highly processed foods. Are the saturated fats trans fats by any chance? Let's not forget hydrogenated soybean oil is a saturated fat - an artificially saturated fat. Or was it organic virgin coconut oil? What is a "low PUFA diet?" Since the AHA recommends PUFA to be around 15% total calories - an absolutely enormous amount of PUFA - having a diet of 10% PUFA could be "a diet low in polyunsaturated fat" while actually being a diet very high in polyunsaturated fat! Because there is no context of diet anywhere, no descriptions and not even a scientific method, what you posted is exactly useless.
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
        Absolute nonsense and not even worth entertaining. Every single word is made up and you will find no science - NONE - anywhere supporting this.

        lol.... Ok I'm done. I think its enough to prove a point.
        Do you remember how the human metabolism works from 9th grade biology class? The body has multiple metabolic processes where the end result is to create ATP as an energy source. Glucose makes more ATP than fat. Since ATP is largely made in the mitochondria, in order to maximize the metabolic rate, you need to give the body a regular supply of glucose. Cutting glucose intake for fat intake will slow the efficiency that the body can create ATP. This is often shown in blood tests by testing CO2 levels. Cellular respiration produces CO2 as a byproduct, so someone with a slower metabolism (a low carber) should be producing less CO2 than someone with a faster metabolism (a higher carber). But keep trolling.
        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
          It's not gunna be easier, you haven't given the person any reason to stop visiting the fridge every 2 hours like the've been doing their whole friggin lives.
          How exactly does carbohydrate make a person "visit the fridge" every 2 hours?

          Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
          The only way they gunna stop visiting the fridge is if there isn't any carbs in there.
          What? White potatoes are one of the most satiating foods on planet Earth. They top the "Satiety Index." Why do you believe what you believe? Have you actually tried eating a higher carb/lower fat diet made of real food or do you think potatoes are the same thing as doughnuts?

          Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
          Once the month is up and the fridge is only a source of nutrition (not low blood sugar relief) I'm gunna advise them to read the myriad of posts where you advocate your non macro restricting, whole food eating, primal eating protocol, it's a F$@kin doozie.

          Yes I did just make that up. It's called "my hypothesis" but because you've been on these boards for 2.5 years and seem to be the boss round these parts, you probably have no time for it.
          Meanwhile the light bulbs are all coming on for the lesser folk. Enjoy.

          Edit: If mark didn't have a low carb component to his protocol, this site and his book would've been a complete failure, because it just wouldn't have worked. Where he fails is in his warnings of the long term effects low carb eating has on our metabolism.

          I bet any of you that sing the praises of high carbs like Zach, derp, you, j3nn etc etc, did LC at one stage long enough to shrug off the addiction effects. But because you's changed the course of MDA paleo history by fighting the "all carbs are bad" dogma, you cannot allow yourself to see the true effects carbs have for many millions of people who haven't had the good fortune of going LC for a month.


          Sent from my iPhone
          I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.

          I have done ketogenic dieting for months and did low carb for about 2 years. I was tired of being fat and sluggish, so I ditched it and now consume more carbs than fat. As I result, I can pick really heavy things up, carry a lot less body fat, can run a lot further, sleep better, have a much higher body temperature and feel so much better the idea of returning to that lifestyle is about as appealing to me as going vegan.
          Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-09-2013, 08:46 PM.
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by j3nn View Post
            +1! Take the fat out of ice cream or cookies and they don't taste too good! Also, I think textures can be addictive. Cereal that's been left to soak up too much milk is disgusting, but when the milk is cold and the cereal is crunchy, it's like crack.
            The food industry spends billions each year on marketing to discover how to make foods more addictive. Refined fats are just as ubiquitous as refined sugars. They may be even more common nowadays. The SAD is about as high in fat as it is high in carbs. What the SAD really is is a low protein, high PUFA, high grain, low nutrition, high calorie diet. I don't know why people believe what they believe. I don't know why someone looks at a doughnut and blames carbs for the addicting and fattening properties of the pastry when they are just as high in fat. But it makes my head hurt.
            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
              It's not gunna be easier, you haven't given the person any reason to stop visiting the fridge every 2 hours like the've been doing their whole friggin lives.

              The only way they gunna stop visiting the fridge is if there isn't any carbs in there.

              [...]


              I bet any of you that sing the praises of high carbs like Zach, derp, you, j3nn etc etc, did LC at one stage long enough to shrug off the addiction effects. But because you's changed the course of MDA paleo history by fighting the "all carbs are bad" dogma, you cannot allow yourself to see the true effects carbs have for many millions of people who haven't had the good fortune of going LC for a month.
              Ha.... wut?

              On MONTH FIVE of my Very Very VLC diet I was constantly ravenous (but not for carbs, so there goes your addiction theory) and my body was literally not functioning correctly.

              On a diet moderate-high in sugar, I am naturally eating about 300-400 less calories without even trying (so there goes your fridge theory).
              Is it weird in here, or is it just me?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by ombat View Post
                Ha.... wut?

                On MONTH FIVE of my Very Very VLC diet I was constantly ravenous (but not for carbs, so there goes your addiction theory) and my body was literally not functioning correctly.

                On a diet moderate-high in sugar, I am naturally eating about 300-400 less calories without even trying (so there goes your fridge theory).
                Yea, I'm not sure where he got the 'visiting the fridge every two hours' nonsense. And even worse: he blames this constant hunger on carbs. Ridiculous.
                My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  How exactly does carbohydrate make a person "visit the fridge" every 2 hours?
                  Get over your self, I don't hate carbs, carbs can't talk or persuade any body. The person in the situation has a potential life threatening situation on their hands, their blood glucose is dropping, if they don't arrest this they die. Over time this person has learnt that the quickest, easiest way to avert this situation is by adding carbs exogenously (by mouth). Millions of people find the same exogenous carb solution to their potentially life threatening "blood glucose dropping" situation. Where are the exogenous carbs housed? in the fridge of course. How long does it take for an obese westerners blood glucose to start dropping? 2-3 hours.
                  mix these 3 together and you get what i'm talking about. A person who visits the fridge every 2-3 hours to get their dose of life saving carbs. Of course any free thinking person could also see that the carbs might be in a fast food joint or the cupboard, so they don't HAVE to visit the fridge, but they still have to arrest their dropping blood glucose the quickest way they know how every few hours.

                  for sure it's not the only way to arrest dropping blood glucose, but humans being lazy makes this the case. Food companies take great advantage of this, every junk food on the planet has a carb component, only some junk foods have either fat or salt or flavorings to make them taste better than the competitors carb based offerings, but EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS CARBS.

                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  What? White potatoes are one of the most satiating foods on planet Earth. They top the "Satiety Index." Why do you believe what you believe? Have you actually tried eating a higher carb/lower fat diet made of real food or do you think potatoes are the same thing as doughnuts?
                  Man I love white potatoes, fruit, dairy, honey, all the good carbs, I can eat them all day long, I probably eat more carbs than 90% of the people on this board. Get off this topic, you cannot try to ruin my argument by saying i hate and don't eat carbs, I EFFEN LOVE EM. I'd give you a run for your money in the carb eating stakes. however...

                  The second my body notices a drop in blood sugar I don't go raceing for the fridge, I get some awesome metabolic tools that i trained, from when I first started primal eating and MAKE MY OWN FRIGGIN GLUCOSE. Also since going primal my muscles have learn't to not freely pull glucose from my serum. they feed off FFA's most times, leaving glucose for the organs that need it. making the spikes and troughs of my blood glucose much less noticeable. gees my muscles are smart. Id guess your metabolism does the same kind of things when faced with dropping blood glucose. This doesn't mean that millions of westerners default to exogenous carb consumtion to arrest blood glucose dropping

                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.

                  I have done ketogenic dieting for months and did low carb for about 2 years. I was tired of being fat and sluggish, so I ditched it and now consume more carbs than fat. As I result, I can pick really heavy things up, carry a lot less body fat, can run a lot further, sleep better, have a much higher body temperature and feel so much better the idea of returning to that lifestyle is about as appealing to me as going vegan.
                  You want a medal, you just proved my point.

                  At some stage in your recent dieting history your body was forced to make its own glucose and apportion it properly between muscles and brain, this happened because you went low carb and keto for a long enough time. From what I have read the same thing happened to derp, zach, ombat (just said she did it) and ME, we all went LOW CARB for a while. Now our bodies don't give a fuck if we are running low on glucose, we just make some more, non of us are carb addicted.

                  the fact that you busted out going low carbs FOR A LONG TIME is not relevant. haha your body probably decided "I am sick of making effing glucose for this clown, feed me some exogenious carbs and give me a rest" <<< this is not carb addiction, this is the opposite, its your body wanting a rest from the stress of making its own glucose all day every day.
                  A little primal gem - My Success Story
                  Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                    The food industry spends billions each year on marketing to discover how to make foods more addictive. Refined fats are just as ubiquitous as refined sugars. They may be even more common nowadays. The SAD is about as high in fat as it is high in carbs. What the SAD really is is a low protein, high PUFA, high grain, low nutrition, high calorie diet. I don't know why people believe what they believe. I don't know why someone looks at a doughnut and blames carbs for the addicting and fattening properties of the pastry when they are just as high in fat. But it makes my head hurt.
                    They don't spend a cent on making us eat junk food vs good food, they don't have to, If its got carbs, the masses will come (to exogenously satisfy their need to stop blood glucose dropping). What they do spend billions of dollars on is marketing and research to make their addictive carb product more appealing than the other companies addictive carb product.
                    coke isn't in battle with water filter companies, they're in battle with Pepsi. All big food companies are vying for a place in the carb addiction realestate, how do they do this, by adding fat, salt, flavorings, texture enhancers etc etc to their products.
                    A little primal gem - My Success Story
                    Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                      They don't spend a cent on making us eat junk food vs good food, they don't have to, If its got carbs, the masses will come (to exogenously satisfy their need to stop blood glucose dropping). What they do spend billions of dollars on is marketing and research to make their addictive carb product more appealing than the other companies addictive carb product.
                      coke isn't in battle with water filter companies, they're in battle with Pepsi. All big food companies are vying for a place in the carb addiction realestate, how do they do this, by adding fat, salt, flavorings, texture enhancers etc etc to their products.
                      What are these "foods" that "got carbs?" Why do you think cookies and Doritos are "carbs" even though they're higher in fat than carbs?
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        What are these "foods" that "got carbs?" Why do you think cookies and Doritos are "carbs" even though they're higher in fat than carbs?
                        FFS big difference between "got carbs" and "are carbs". KFC chicken has "got carbs" (in the breading), who gives a f$@k whether a cookie has more fat or carbs, whether it's technically fat or carbs. IT'S GOT CARBS IN IT. Every junk food on the planet has "GOT CARBS" in it, sure they mightn't technically be classified as carbs, but they "got carbs" and that's good enough for the obese person with the dropping blood sugar. Stop splitting hairs man.


                        Sent from my iPhone
                        A little primal gem - My Success Story
                        Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          Do you remember how the human metabolism works from 9th grade biology class? The body has multiple metabolic processes where the end result is to create ATP as an energy source. Glucose makes more ATP than fat. Since ATP is largely made in the mitochondria, in order to maximize the metabolic rate, you need to give the body a regular supply of glucose. Cutting glucose intake for fat intake will slow the efficiency that the body can create ATP. This is often shown in blood tests by testing CO2 levels. Cellular respiration produces CO2 as a byproduct, so someone with a slower metabolism (a low carber) should be producing less CO2 than someone with a faster metabolism (a higher carber). But keep trolling.
                          Sorry, but we have several low carbers on this board that actually test CO2 levels regularly and show to be on the high end of normal. Reductionistic theory sure does tend to fall apart when faced with cold hard reality. Your claims on ATP and energy partitioning are dubious at best and flat out wrong at worse. Sure carb turnover is quicker but you get more ATP per molecule from fat

                          "Recent research suggests the yield is only 31 ATP per glucose molecule, as the ATP pay-out ratios for NADH & FADH2 are 2.5 and 1.5 respectively, rather than 3.0 and 2.0 as has been assumed for the past 50 years! "

                          Interesting cause texts have put it erroneously at 38 ATP for years.

                          "Beta oxidation in the mitochondrial matrix.....AcetylCoA enters Krebs cycle, combing with OA to form citrate and subsequently release CO2 and H+....Produces lots of energy, with 1 stearic acid molecule (-> 9 acetyl CoA) producing 146 ATPs."

                          Carbohydrate, Protein and Lipid Metabolism Notes « gasexchange.com

                          Seems we can make ATP just fine with fat.

                          An ever increasing faster metabolism DOES NOT = BETTER. This is a priori that we disagree on so any subsequent argument you are attempting to make based on such is just going to fall on deaf ears. You will have to prove such a statement first and foremost and I do not believe for an instant that it can be proven to any significant degree.

                          You see, the problem is that the body is not as reductionistic in its workings as the study of biochemical pathways in isolation would have you believe. Sure it works to teach a 9th grader about the krebs cycle (I actually didn't learn biochem till college, so I guess you went to a better public school), but it does absolutely squat when it comes to managing a real live human being.

                          Great for creating hypothesis to test in clinical trials though! So if you have that sort of data then I'll take a look, but I really am not all that interested in the study of biochemical pathways in a vacuum. Hell, I'd argue that epidemiological studies and anecdotal evidence is more relevant. Biochem pathway analysis rarely relates to real life for the simple fact that its not all known. There are yet too many things to be discovered.... otherwise all low carbers would have low CO2 levels based on your analysis.... we already know thats a fallacy.

                          My stance is only that fat is a viable energy source for most people as long as they aren't hitting glycolytic workouts several times a week. For that you do need to burn carbs. But for sitting in your office typing at your computer don't be suckered into thinking you need more sugar or else your metabolic rate will suffer. Thats just absurd.

                          In the end though I continue to study this stuff and I'm about to do some work on oxidative stress so I'll let ya know if I learn something that changes my current thoughts.
                          Last edited by Neckhammer; 07-10-2013, 08:11 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Dragonfly View Post
                            Heehee, Neckhammer! You lasted longer than I did. I find the "ignore" option really helpful.
                            Dang! Got sucked back in. Aw well. It's not like I let counterranting on the interwebs effect my sunny disposition

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                              FFS big difference between "got carbs" and "are carbs". KFC chicken has "got carbs" (in the breading), who gives a f$@k whether a cookie has more fat or carbs, whether it's technically fat or carbs. IT'S GOT CARBS IN IT. Every junk food on the planet has "GOT CARBS" in it, sure they mightn't technically be classified as carbs, but they "got carbs" and that's good enough for the obese person with the dropping blood sugar. Stop splitting hairs man.
                              I'm not splitting hairs. I'm letting you explain yourself so everyone can see how ridiculous you sound. Who cares if something has "got carbs in it?" Why do you think carbs are the problem? Your stance is that 1g of carbohydrate is just as addictive as 100g of carbohydrate right? And that all carbohydrates are addictive meanwhile fat isn't addictive at all?
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                                who gives a f$@k whether a cookie has more fat or carbs, whether it's technically fat or carbs. IT'S GOT CARBS IN IT..
                                Below is a very highly rated recipe for a very basic chocolate chip cookie.

                                Anna's Chocolate Chip Cookies Recipe - Allrecipes.com

                                When you punch it into Fitday exactly as described you get this:



                                45% calories from fat
                                51% calories from carbs
                                4% calories from protein

                                We can split hairs - you need some butter to grease the pan, maybe you like a sweeter cookie, maybe you like a less sweet cookie, maybe you like darker chocolate chips which will skew the fat intake a bit higher...we'll say roughly there is an even fat/carbs spread.

                                Below we have the nutrition facts of regular ol' Doritos:




                                140 calories
                                8g fat (51% total calories)
                                16g carbohydrate (45% total calories)
                                2g protein (5% total calories)

                                Again, pretty equal fat/carb spread.

                                And your contention is it's the carbs and the fat isn't a problem? My contention is if you removed the fat from these "foods," they'd lose all their appeal and taste pretty terrible.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X