Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The metabolic advantage hypothesis

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

  • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
    ALTERATION OF THE FATTY ACID COMPOSITION OF BRAI... [J Neurochem. 1963] - PubMed - NCBI

    In experimentally induced DHA deficiency, the body synthesizes a DHA replacement, docosapentaenoic acid from ARA. Even in the absence of ARA, the body would convert oleate from carbohydrate into an ARA replacement(mead acid). Though, as said, these are all laboratory situations. Not only can mead acid perform all functions, but it is remarkably anti-inflammatory.

    Oh, and lowering n-3 intake to a level as low as 0.05% of calories does not affect DHA levels.
    This is just it. We know for a fact that while the body does not synthesize omega3/omega 6, it can synthesize replacements. It is also almost impossible to be "EFA-deficient" through a whole foods diet. There has never been, to my knowledge, any recorded death due to "lack of EFA consumption," so there is absolutely no reason to call EFA essential. We have ZERO data showing it is necessary to survive or be healthy, and any laboratory experiment can easily be confounded, as the original experiment that coined the term "EFA" was shown to be a simple B-vitamin deficiency.

    Arguing for omega's is incredibly stupid, especially when it is the most easily polymerized fat and isolated oils high in omega - canola, soybean, safflower, fish, corn - are all riddled with trans fats due to the nature of extraction and likely severely polymerized from sitting on store shelves. People forget that omega's are liquid at temps -100 degrees F. Putting isolated fish oil inside your body is equivalent to shoving your hand into a 300 degree oven!
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

    Comment


    • Now that EFA's have been totally rehashed without conclusion,
      What about the topic of metabolic advantage, I have not seen any evidence of this.
      This concept is often quoted alongside thyroid dysfunction with LC diets and I have not seen any evidence of this either.

      What's the deal with lactate, saw it popped up again a few pages back, lactate is just part of the body's normal processing of glucose, nothing untoward there.
      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

      Comment


      • Anyone have any evidence that any population getting most or all of its protein from fish or shellfish has any associated pathology?
        Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

        Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
          In the case of "EFA deficiency," the body produces something called "mead acid." What Derp is calling "EFA deficiency" is his way of saying "mead acid production." As long as there is a tiny amount of EFA consumed, the body does not produce mead acid.

          So, as you can see, there is a such thing as "EFA deficiency," but that does not make EFA essential because you can be "EFA deficient" and be healthy.


          There is no study that shows EFA's are actually essential. Your brilliant retort is to ask me to prove something doesn't exist. How exactly can you prove something doesn't exist? It is fundamentally impossible - I can tell you that there is a civilization of giant super-intelligent flamingos that live on Pluto and you cannot prove it doesn't exist. Does that make me correct? The fallacies do not stop with you.
          LOL this>>

          Comment


          • The quote in above post really say's nothing.
            The production of mead acid in absence of O3 & O6 could as much be called a desperate starvation response as the way Choco always places the production of Ketones, you provide no proof for either of these statements.
            As for being healthy in the absence of O3 & O6 you have clearly indicated there is no long term study that shows this.

            There is evidence that in some circumstances excessive consumption of O3 & O6 may have negative outcomes, but in smaller quantities there is no evidence to show they are harmful and as it is almost impossible to avoid some intake whilst eating a naturally healthy diet the argument is a waste of time.

            Come back to topic and prove the true existance of metabolic advantage.
            "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

            Comment


            • C'mon I really want to know about this metabolic advantage, is there really such a thing or is it just Peat fiction?
              "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

              Comment


              • @Omni
                I cannot say anything about Neckhammer's original question (see way back, 1st post) but if I have to say something, I would argue that you have a metabolic advantage if you prefer a nutrient rich diet rather than a nutrient poor diet at isocaloric content. Not sure there is much more we can really say to be honest, but that is probably because I am not very interested in knowing more

                Comment


                • I read the entire thread the other day, that's why I'm interested in the discussion.
                  I do agree though, likely the only metabolic advantage is through nutrient rich vs nutrient poor diet.
                  "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                    I read the entire thread the other day, that's why I'm interested in the discussion.
                    I do agree though, likely the only metabolic advantage is through nutrient rich vs nutrient poor diet.
                    And a peat diet is incredibly nutrient dense, shocking!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                      I read the entire thread the other day, that's why I'm interested in the discussion.
                      I do agree though, likely the only metabolic advantage is through nutrient rich vs nutrient poor diet.
                      I would like to address NH's original question and thus further this discussion for you Omni. His question was... Where is all this "carbs = metabolic advantage" coming from?

                      Here we go, buckle up.

                      This forum has been swindled, I call it the great carb swindle. For most of my time here, the following statement has reigned supreme.

                      "CARBS/SUGAR DONT MAKE YOU FAT". (Choco, Zach, JJ, all say this repeatedly)

                      A certain metabolic advantage as it is basically true. Carbs ingested on their own are very inefficiently stored in fat cells. But...

                      Just about nobody is asking how do we prevent gaining weight. We all want to know "HOW DO WE GET PRE-EXISTING FAT OUT OF FAT CELLS NOW?". For that question, the statement that "carbs don't make you fat" is irrelevant (you have been swindled), because the process that makes you fat cannot be simply reversed to make you unfat.

                      Lipolysis (fat catabolism) peoples IS THE ONLY WAY to lose fat. This is science there is no other way for fat to get out of adipose tissue (never mind how it got in there hey). High insulin levels retards lipolysis, low insulin levels accelerates lipolysis. This also is basic science.

                      It is therefore logical to say the more time you spend in a day with high insulin (or blood glucose levels) the less
                      time you are "losing fat" or in lipolysis.

                      In conclusion if the question is about fat loss, don't let any body swindle you with the "carbs don't make you fat" metabolic advantage rhetoric. For losing body fat eating carbs puts you at a disadvantage as you have just effectively shut down lipolysis for a few hours.


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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                        Lipolysis (fat catabolism) peoples IS THE ONLY WAY to lose fat. This is science there is no other way for fat to get out of adipose tissue (never mind how it got in there hey). High insulin levels retards lipolysis, low insulin levels accelerates lipolysis. This also is basic science.

                        It is therefore logical to say the more time you spend in a day with high insulin (or blood glucose levels) the less
                        time you are "losing fat" or in lipolysis.

                        In conclusion if the question is about fat loss, don't let any body swindle you with the "carbs don't make you fat" metabolic advantage rhetoric. For losing body fat eating carbs puts you at a disadvantage as you have just effectively shut down lipolysis for a few hours.
                        What's this about a fat loss "disadvantage"? Who's racing? Eating anything at all inhibits lipolysis temporarily; it's not a bad thing. If you're really serious about your all-lipolysis-all-the-time stance, then you probably don't like protein much, either. Not only does it stimulate insulin just like carbohydrates, it absorbs at a snail's pace.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by peril View Post
                          Anyone have any evidence that any population getting most or all of its protein from fish or shellfish has any associated pathology?
                          Probably not. And that's probably because fish and shellfish aren't unhealthy. Do I think beef and lamb are superior? Yep, but both fish and shellfish are extremely nutritious, and contain all kinds of antioxidants that I would imagine would retard the polymerization of the oils. Not sure what it would do to your tissues overtime though if the only meat you eat are fatty fish, but that's extremely unrealistic.

                          The Inuit are known for poor aging and looking haggard, but there are 100 different explanations why from harsh conditions, lack of carbohydrate, malnutrition during cold weather, who knows. I think it's safe to say you can enjoy fresh, wild caught fish in moderate quantities.

                          It is worth mentioning that many studies that show fish-eating societies to be healthy tend to consume warm-water fish that are much leaner, and actually eat reasonably low protein diets. Japanese diets aren't exactly high in fat and protein.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                            This forum has been swindled, I call it the great carb swindle. For most of my time here, the following statement has reigned supreme.

                            "CARBS/SUGAR DONT MAKE YOU FAT". (Choco, Zach, JJ, all say this repeatedly)

                            A certain metabolic advantage as it is basically true. Carbs ingested on their own are very inefficiently stored in fat cells. But...

                            Just about nobody is asking how do we prevent gaining weight. We all want to know "HOW DO WE GET PRE-EXISTING FAT OUT OF FAT CELLS NOW?". For that question, the statement that "carbs don't make you fat" is irrelevant (you have been swindled), because the process that makes you fat cannot be simply reversed to make you unfat.

                            Lipolysis (fat catabolism) peoples IS THE ONLY WAY to lose fat. This is science there is no other way for fat to get out of adipose tissue (never mind how it got in there hey). High insulin levels retards lipolysis, low insulin levels accelerates lipolysis. This also is basic science.
                            I can't tell if you're being purposely misleading or just confused and rambling.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              I can't tell if you're being purposely misleading or just confused and rambling.
                              Yes I am rambling a bit, but show me I'm wrong, tell me there is another way to remove fat from adipose tissue, tell me that an insulin spike doesn't retard lipolysis. Tell me choco. Or maybe you could just tell me that carbs don't store as fat very well again for the 100th time.


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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
                                Yes I am rambling a bit, but show me I'm wrong, tell me there is another way to remove fat from adipose tissue, tell me that an insulin spike doesn't retard lipolysis. Tell me choco. Or maybe you could just tell me that carbs don't store as fat very well again for the 100th time.


                                Sent from my iPhone
                                What we've said is that sugar is not directly stored as fat. Dietary fat is what is stored as fat. Sugar is stored as glycogen, so when you consume sugar, you store all the dietary fat you consume along with it. However, dietary fat is always directly stored as fat even in the absence of carbohydrate. Adding lots of sugar just adds a lot of excess calories, which prolongs the amount of time until you start burning stored body fat again.

                                In the end, it all comes down to calories. Is it rare that your body actually converts sugar into fat? Yes, but it's also rare that you ever eat sugar without accompanying fat. CICO, CICO, CICO.

                                Who the hell cares if an insulin spike retards lipolysis? If you consume a calorie deficit on 100% carbohydrate, you're still be burning just as much fat as if you consume an equal calorie deficit on 100% fat! A 500 calorie deficit will burn 500 calories of stored energy from the body regardless if you arrived there from a high carb or low carb diet.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X