Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The metabolic advantage hypothesis

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

  • Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    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
    Yeah, no, not really. Insulin also has a direct effect on lipid homeostasis(how do you think carbs get converted into fat)?

    Assuming you're taking a scientific stance and not just blurting out what all insulin and lipolysis low carbers parrot; every time you eat there is a change in adipose tissue TG lipolysis via the actions of insulin. cAMP-dependent changes that occur in response to insulin binding are effected by activation of phosphodiesterase which hydrolyzes cAMP rendering PKA much less active. activation of phosphodiesterase 3B occurs via PKB/Akt-mediated phosphorylation which itself is activated following the insulin binding of its receptor.

    The mechanism for insulin mediated reduction in TG lipolysis is due to the stimulation of phosphatase-1 which removes the phosphate from hormone sensitive lipase making it much less active. The activity of hormone sensitive lipase would also affected by phosphorylation of AMPK, so, the phosphorylation would inhibit. Inhibition of hormone sensitive lipase by AMPK might seem like it would be counterproductive because the release of fatty acids stored in TG would seem necessary to promote the production of ATP via fatty acid oxidation and the major function of AMPK is to shift cells to ATP production from ATP consumption(this is seen in the increased NAD+ production in fatty acid oxidation). This is explained when you realize that if the fatty acids that are released from TG are not consumed they will be recycled back into TGs at the expense of ATP consumption, so, inhibition of hormone sensitive lipase by AMPK mediated-phosphorylation is a mechanism to ensure that the rate of fatty acid release does not exceed the rate at which they are utilized either by exporting it out or oxidation(fat loss).

    Lipolysis creates excess NEFAs by design, it is not the sole regulation of weight loss. It's also a short blunt anyway as all things are regulated by rate-limiting steps.
    Make America Great Again

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      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.
      Ok blah blah blah, fat directly stored in to fat cells, yadda yadda yadda irrelevant how it got in there.

      How do we get it out?

      As neckhammer was alluding to, ain't no metabolic advantage from carbs when it comes to removing fat from adipose tissue.


      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
        Ok blah blah blah, fat directly stored in to fat cells, yadda yadda yadda irrelevant how it got in there.

        How do we get it out?

        As neckhammer was alluding to, ain't no metabolic advantage from carbs when it comes to removing fat from adipose tissue.


        Sent from my iPhone
        You get it out by eating less energy than you need to burn in a day. Did you read the post you quoted?

        I don't understand the webs you try to weave. You'd see a lot more success for yourself if you weren't so entrenched in dogma.
        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
          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.
          Its safe to say that we ate a lot of seafood in our ancestral past. The different is that it can from warm water oceans where fish are leaner and more saturated. As for crustations and mollusks, well they dont have much fat to begin with.

          Eating fatty fish like salmon every day can certainly be unhealthy because its not what we were designed to eat. Its hibernation food.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
            Yeah, no, not really. Insulin also has a direct effect on lipid homeostasis(how do you think carbs get converted into fat)?

            Assuming you're taking a scientific stance and not just blurting out what all insulin and lipolysis low carbers parrot; every time you eat there is a change in adipose tissue TG lipolysis via the actions of insulin. cAMP-dependent changes that occur in response to insulin binding are effected by activation of phosphodiesterase which hydrolyzes cAMP rendering PKA much less active. activation of phosphodiesterase 3B occurs via PKB/Akt-mediated phosphorylation which itself is activated following the insulin binding of its receptor.

            The mechanism for insulin mediated reduction in TG lipolysis is due to the stimulation of phosphatase-1 which removes the phosphate from hormone sensitive lipase making it much less active. The activity of hormone sensitive lipase would also affected by phosphorylation of AMPK, so, the phosphorylation would inhibit. Inhibition of hormone sensitive lipase by AMPK might seem like it would be counterproductive because the release of fatty acids stored in TG would seem necessary to promote the production of ATP via fatty acid oxidation and the major function of AMPK is to shift cells to ATP production from ATP consumption(this is seen in the increased NAD+ production in fatty acid oxidation). This is explained when you realize that if the fatty acids that are released from TG are not consumed they will be recycled back into TGs at the expense of ATP consumption, so, inhibition of hormone sensitive lipase by AMPK mediated-phosphorylation is a mechanism to ensure that the rate of fatty acid release does not exceed the rate at which they are utilized either by exporting it out or oxidation(fat loss).

            Lipolysis creates excess NEFAs by design, it is not the sole regulation of weight loss. It's also a short blunt anyway as all things are regulated by rate-limiting steps.
            I do read the science but I like to simplify the understanding,

            This is my understanding of it.

            Our whole metabolism hinges on ONE metric, blood glucose levels.

            If BG is high then the body stores every thing until BG reaches base level. When BG is high... Glucose gets stored as glycogen in the liver and muscle. Fat gets stored as TG in adipose tissue. Proteins get stored as cell structure. This is all driven off insulin

            If BG is low the body liberates energy from all sources until BG reaches base level.
            Liver Glycogen is converted to glucose. Trigs are liberated into FFA's and glycerol (FFA's reduce the body's glucose load). Proteins are converted to glucose with the amine eliminated. This is all driven by glycogen.

            The body doesn't detect fatty acids or amino's in the blood. What happens to them depends on what is happening with BG levels. So the body will continue to liberate fatty acids until BG normalises regardless of caloric load, proteins initially will be converted to glucose until BG normalisation, wich they will then get stored as cell structure, this will usually lead back to lowering BG and the cycle will repeat.

            I also understand all of the above actions aren't either on or off but on progressively turns on while the other progressively turns off.


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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
              You get it out by eating less energy than you need to burn in a day. Did you read the post you quoted?

              I don't understand the webs you try to weave. You'd see a lot more success for yourself if you weren't so entrenched in dogma.
              Ok cool, it's all CICO, got it.
              Now I don't ever want to hear from you about carbs being metabolically better than fat, if someone is struggling to lose weight, I will quote your above post when you tell them to eat less fat. Deal?


              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
                Ok cool, it's all CICO, got it.
                Now I don't ever want to hear from you about carbs being metabolically better than fat, if someone is struggling to lose weight, I will quote your above post when you tell them to eat less fat. Deal?


                Sent from my iPhone
                Carbs are metabolically better than fat.

                CICO is variable, not just the CI but the CO.

                But you know this already and just like trolling at the expense of people that want to get healthier.
                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
                  Carbs are metabolically better than fat.

                  CICO is variable, not just the CI but the CO.

                  But you know this already and just like trolling at the expense of people that want to get healthier.
                  Bahahaha your floundering. I'm definitely not trolling.

                  So my variability theory was wrong a few posts back because of CICO, CICO, CICO.

                  Now your right because CICO is variable? Wich is it? Who is the troll?


                  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
                    Bahahaha your floundering. I'm definitely not trolling.

                    So my variability theory was wrong a few posts back because of CICO, CICO, CICO.

                    Now your right because CICO is variable? Wich is it? Who is the troll?


                    Sent from my iPhone
                    You understand you're arguing with yourself, right? You understand that just like you can modify your "CI," you can modify your "CO" too, right? I can't spend all day arguing with someone that won't listen, or worse, knows it but just wants to cause problems.
                    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
                      I do read the science but I like to simplify the understanding,

                      This is my understanding of it.

                      Our whole metabolism hinges on ONE metric, blood glucose levels.

                      If BG is high then the body stores every thing until BG reaches base level. When BG is high... Glucose gets stored as glycogen in the liver and muscle. Fat gets stored as TG in adipose tissue. Proteins get stored as cell structure. This is all driven off insulin

                      If BG is low the body liberates energy from all sources until BG reaches base level.
                      Liver Glycogen is converted to glucose. Trigs are liberated into FFA's and glycerol (FFA's reduce the body's glucose load). Proteins are converted to glucose with the amine eliminated. This is all driven by glycogen.

                      The body doesn't detect fatty acids or amino's in the blood. What happens to them depends on what is happening with BG levels. So the body will continue to liberate fatty acids until BG normalises regardless of caloric load, proteins initially will be converted to glucose until BG normalisation, wich they will then get stored as cell structure, this will usually lead back to lowering BG and the cycle will repeat.

                      I also understand all of the above actions aren't either on or off but on progressively turns on while the other progressively turns off.


                      Sent from my iPhone
                      So, insulin resistance is the key feature of obesity and the cause of fat gain. What is shown to cause insulin resistance? Excessive circulating FFAs.

                      Note: insulin's effects are numerous, right down to hypothalamic control of appetite. to say one must blunt insulin to lose weight is pretty absurd.
                      Last edited by Derpamix; 10-14-2013, 10:43 AM.
                      Make America Great Again

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        You understand you're arguing with yourself, right? You understand that just like you can modify your "CI," you can modify your "CO" too, right? I can't spend all day arguing with someone that won't listen, or worse, knows it but just wants to cause problems.
                        When I first started here choco, carb wars didn't exist. It was the Great CICO wars. Your stance was that CICO was irrefutably solid.
                        Do you remember some guy arguing that CICO was dynamic. That a change in one side didn't automatically lead to a deficit in the other. That the body could adjust its output to meet its input.

                        That guy was me.

                        You tried to roast the fuck out me for having that stance. Now you have that same view as me. I schooled the great choco but he won't ever admit it.



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

                        Comment


                        • I honestly stopped counting daily calories a long time ago, except for experimenting. I find that I can literally eat endless amounts of fruit and sugar when my fat is kept low and not gain an ounce of weight. I am insulin sensitive, and have a well functioning thyroid, so I eat as much as I possibly can(when I remember) to keep those functioning top tier.

                          Currently drinking a 64oz cup of cane sugar cola. SHIEEET INCOMING 'BEETUS.
                          Make America Great Again

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                            So, insulin resistance is the key feature of obesity and the cause of fat gain. What is shown to cause insulin resistance? Excessive circulating FFAs.

                            Note: insulin's effects are numerous, right down to hypothalamic control of appetite. to say one must blunt insulin to lose weight is pretty absurd.
                            It's fruitless. He has his gods to worship. He won't recognize that TEF influences the "CO" portion of the "CICO" equation.

                            If you tell him dietary fat is what's almost always stored as fat and carbohydrate isn't directly stored, he'll tell you you can't lose fat when insulin is high.

                            When you tell him you need a calorie deficit is all that's needed to lose fat, that somehow negates that dietary fat is generally what's stored as fat.

                            When you mention CICO, then TEF suddenly doesn't exist.

                            It is this weird, convoluted thought process that's somehow strung together sporadically using fallacies to make arguments. It's like trying to find your way through a hedge maze.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              So, insulin resistance is the key feature of obesity and the cause of fat gain. What is shown to cause insulin resistance? Excessive circulating FFAs.

                              Note: insulin's effects are numerous, right down to hypothalamic control of appetite. to say one must blunt insulin to lose weight is pretty absurd.
                              No excessive circulating FFA's are the RESULT of insulin resistance and more so T2 diabetes.

                              What happens is the body is still running glucogenisis and lipolysis (releasing FFA's and glucose) even tho BG had been spiked by a carb meal. A person with IR has a delayed insulin response, the insulin can't turn off lipolysis if it's not there. .

                              Medbio/insulin & glucagon (Google it I can't link it on my phone)


                              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
                                When I first started here choco, carb wars didn't exist. It was the Great CICO wars. Your stance was that CICO was irrefutably solid.
                                Do you remember some guy arguing that CICO was dynamic. That a change in one side didn't automatically lead to a deficit in the other. That the body could adjust its output to meet its input.

                                That guy was me.

                                You tried to roast the fuck out me for having that stance. Now you have that same view as me. I schooled the great choco but he won't ever admit it.



                                Sent from my iPhone
                                You're delusional.

                                Carbohydrate supports a higher "CO" than fat does. That doesn't negate CICO, it supports it. You are making no sense.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X