Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The metabolic advantage hypothesis

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

  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    We just read a lot and have experimented a lot of what we've read on ourselves.

    Not only have I had a lot of success modifying the standard Primal Blueprint prescription, I've seen great success in many others making the same prescription. I have several FAMILIES under my belt who have seen huge health benefits, so I practice what I preach and spread the word.

    Under no circumstances does that mean that we know everything, have it all figured out, etc. I'm confident that I know more than most, but even more confident that "most" know absolutely nothing (which isn't saying much for myself!) and still have a whole lot to learn.

    But I appreciate the compliment, thanks.

    I don't think omega 3 is beneficial. I think studies show "what they show" because people that tend to have higher intakes of omega 3 eat more whole foods - they consume wild fish regularly, meaning they're generally cooking their own meals instead of eating takeout and fried foods. Fish consumption is almost always correlated with health because fish is expensive and strong-flavored, so most people that eat fish are eating it because they're health-minded.

    I believe fish oil pills to be extremely toxic, more than soybean oil since it is an even more fragile at and refined the same way as soybean oil is. Studies show ALL canola and soybean oil contains trans fat because of the high-heat processing, and since fish oil is processed the same way and even more fragile, it stands to reason it contains the same or more trans fats, and will also be even more polymerized during refining and when ingested inside the body. Obviously, eating wild fish =/= fish oil pills since wild fish contain hundreds of compounds that could classify as anti-oxidants, so just because salmon oil is toxic doesn't mean fresh, wild salmon is.

    What is also important to note is that a lot of societies studied that show health benefits of fish also tend to consume a lot of coconut products, and the relatively lean warm water fish paired with coconut fats would actually be a rather low PUFA diet. Societies that eat lots of fatty cold water fish (ex. Inuit) are well-known for their haggard appearance and rapid aging, but confounding factors abound - harsh, cold environments, lack of carbohydrate, lack of sunshine 6 months out of the year, etc, could all contribute to the rapid aging.

    If you compare two people who eat perfectly Primally where one person eats all wild-caught salmon and the other eats all grassfed beef and lamb, I believe the latter will be healthier.

    I find Mark Sisson wrote a post yesterday slamming carbohydrate very depressing. He wrote that Russet potatoes =/= wild tubers, then stated that he wasn't healthy training on 750-1000g of carbohydrate daily. He made the Russet potato =/= wild tuber association, but never bothered to mention that he SELF-ADMITTEDLY got those carbs from pasta and ice cream back in the day, not fresh Russet potatoes. He then had a nice, big, fat advertisement under the post for his own fish oil pills. Sigh. I'm not selling anything. Believe what you want.
    I'm am in the same boat as you. I have changed SOO much of my diet, training, lifestyle approach CONTINUALLY over the last 6-7 years. As you eluded to, a love of reading as well as a desire to constantly learn has lead to a predominantly positive change in almost every aspect of my life.

    I'm really happy to hear that you've helped people make a positive change. I used to be really preachy when I first started learning about health and fitness. The problem I've come to accept (no matter how much it hurts) is you can't change people, who don't want to change. It isn't an efficient use of time, or a proper thing to do to someone who is unwilling to accept your albeit positive help.

    If only people could understand the problem poor food and lifestyle habits pose, particularly later on in life. It hurts when it's the people you love and care about, but in essence, you can only really ever save yourself.

    Your dedication to learning and properly educating yourself show, that's a quality I admire.

    Very interesting stance on omega-3s. You and derp really expanded my view on PUFAs. I literally was mindblown when you mention a lot of the information I'm still trying (and will take some time) to wrap my head around and understand a bit better. I cut out ALL the PUFA's, and I do believe I see some benefits already, albeit not the same drastic effect droping Gluten was. I am after all at a pretty healthy state.

    I saw it yesterday, and read it just now to see what you were talking about. It is in my opinion a slightly negative stance to a high carb approach, particularly to people who train HARD. Not saying Mark never did, but it's a different metabolic stress being an endurance athlete/ explosive athlete. Also as you mention, he may have never tried 600g + of Paleo friendly carbs, although he isn't necessarily going to probably ever need that amount again.


    Originally posted by Terry H View Post
    " I'm not selling anything. Believe what you want"

    SO what? Let us weigh the case being made instead of the insinuation that selling something is inherently evil.

    BTW a cracking good article relevent to this thread:

    | Cogito Ergo Edo
    I think in the sense that he is preferential to a high fat diet (because he thrives on it) and has never really given what he was dismissing a shot, because he doesn't need that carb load anymore.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      Do you realize what you even said? You said: "In metabolic syndrome, a person burns free fatty acids even in the presence of glucose because they can't get glucose into their mitochondria to oxidize it as fuel."

      Even when you agree with me, you can't actually say you do. You're not here to learn, you're here to argue.

      You just said above that a person who is insulin resistant cannot efficiently get glucose out of their bloodstream fast enough to oxidize it efficiently. This causes, as you put it, a "delayed and slowed insulin response." The first half post agrees with me even though you state you don't agree, then your second half contradicts the first half. So, in one post:

      1.) You agree with me.
      2.) You state you disagree with me even though you actually agree.
      3.) You disagree with yourself.

      If a person cannot shuttle glucose out of their bloodstream fast enough because of a "delayed and slowed insulin response," how can they "burn either substrate just as well?" Dude, you're a mess.
      NO. There is a difference and stop being hyperbolic.

      Your are looking at it from the wrong end. My explanation sais that... Due to delayed and slowed insulin response FFA's and glucose are ADDED to the already high BG level blood, due to glucagon still acting upon the bodies energy stores, when it should be shut off by a timely insulin response.

      Your explanation sais that due to a blockage at the mitochondrial level, glucose can't be REMOVED from the blood. Because of this, insulin release is affected. Your wrong for these reasons....

      Insulin comes first mate, if the pancreas and BG level detection is healthy as your theory suggests, then it will under all circumstances release the correct amount of insulin quickly, your theory's cell problems are downstream from hormone release.

      If your diabetic can metabolise fat as per normal because as you say they are "the ultimate fat burning beast" why do we see high fat levels as well as glucose levels in the blood of diabetics? Shouldn't fat levels be normalised under your theory?

      So for the record I have never said it was a mitochondrial or glucose oxidising problem, you said all that malarkey. You are trying to explain scientific observation (hi serum FFA's and BG, delayed insulin) with bogus, dodgy theories.

      Why?

      Agenda, dogma (hates PUFA's gunna pin every metabolic problem on it).


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

      Comment


      • What of the people that I know who have cured their metabolic syndrome on a diet that cuts out ONLY flour and sugar. I know two people who are members of a larger group who have that as the diet prescription. Soybean and other industrial oils are still okay. Wheat and other grains are still okay, so long as they are whole or at most, rolled, never ground into flour. French fries and potato chips would be okay, but not ice cream or pasta or corn chips. Fruit is fine but sugar in its many forms is not.

        One has seen his symptoms of metabolic syndrome vanish while the other has lost 130lbs. Both have seen a dramatic mood change and one has gone off anti-depressants. Their stories are the same as others in their group. They are not low carb, not low PUFA and not paleo but somehow they are healing their diabetes, insulin resistance, high blood pressure, neuropathy, obesity, depression and other problems with this simple change.
        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

        Comment


        • Good post. Experience is a good teacher.

          Comment


          • I know a guy who knows a guy that lived to 105 and smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day, did lines of cocaine, and drank like a fish.

            I don't think we can use personal experience or isolated examples as proof of anything.
            Make America Great Again

            Comment


            • Calorie Cage Match! Sugar (Sucrose) Vs. Protein And Honey (There Is No Such Thing As A “Calorie”, Part VI) - GNOLLS.ORG

              Hey, Choco and Derp (or anyone else who cares), J. Stanton just wrote another piece to his 'No such thing as a calorie' series. This one is heavy into sugar calories. Could you guys take a look and see how it fits into your feelings on sugar and calories?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Terry H View Post
                " I'm not selling anything. Believe what you want"

                SO what? Let us weigh the case being made instead of the insinuation that selling something is inherently evil.

                BTW a cracking good article relevent to this thread:

                | Cogito Ergo Edo
                Ah, now I see why Pklopp stopped posting in this thread. He went and wrote a blog post about it. Nice .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                  I am personally alluding to hepatic insulin resistance, which is induced by the excess accumulation of FFAs. Within the hepatocyte, metabolites of the FFA re-esterification accumulate. These excess FFAs cause relocation of several protein kinase isoforms, from the cytosol to the membrane compartment. The membrane isoforms phosphorylate the intracellular portion of the insulin receptor which results in impairment of insulin receptor interaction with downstream insulin signaling proteins. These are all cut of the same thing, usually anyway. Obesity is just hypoxia of the cell leading to the activation of cellular stress response pathways causing autonomous inflammation and the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, much the same as the interference from FFAs.

                  I still feel the way it was stated as "fat causes insulin resistance" is very misleading. Basically you have expounded on a mechanism of cell signaling. That does not prove in any sense that the ingestion of any type of fat is the culprit in the development of insulin resistance. I think we have all read studies that have induced IR through a variety of macro and lifestyle changes.... including non-dietary contributors like sleep deprivation, sepsis, and statin drugs just to name a few.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post

                    [B][I]I find Mark Sisson wrote a post yesterday slamming carbohydrate very depressing....
                    I was actually quite proud of Mark on this. He didn't exactly draw a line in the sand and state that potato's are evil, but he did let his stance be known. It's good that he put himself out there on such a controversial issue. People have been speculating on if he had changed his mind on certain things of late.... well now you don't have to. He obviously sticks by his carb curve idea for the average person and doesn't think domestic tubers are an essential contributor to health. I tend to agree.

                    You know of all the people I have had the chance to observe implementing a paleo/primal diet in real life within the context of a 150g carbs/day or less protocol every one of them have reported great improvement to their health. No negative side effects. The only place I find any contention about this, ironically, is on this board. I'm just glad to have such real life experience with people, otherwise I might get the erroneous idea that this diet doesn't work as written for the vast majority.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                      What of the people that I know who have cured their metabolic syndrome on a diet that cuts out ONLY flour and sugar. I know two people who are members of a larger group who have that as the diet prescription. Soybean and other industrial oils are still okay. Wheat and other grains are still okay, so long as they are whole or at most, rolled, never ground into flour. French fries and potato chips would be okay, but not ice cream or pasta or corn chips. Fruit is fine but sugar in its many forms is not.

                      One has seen his symptoms of metabolic syndrome vanish while the other has lost 130lbs. Both have seen a dramatic mood change and one has gone off anti-depressants. Their stories are the same as others in their group. They are not low carb, not low PUFA and not paleo but somehow they are healing their diabetes, insulin resistance, high blood pressure, neuropathy, obesity, depression and other problems with this simple change.
                      The thing is though, once you cut out wheat and sugar, you are inadvertently cutting out a whole swathe of chemicals that almost certainly aren't good for you. So was eating the flour and the sugar the problem? Or was it undustrialised food?

                      We currently use sugar in our kombucha, and i'm sure that some of it's still there when we drink it (since it's not sour like vinegar). And we've been experimenting with sourdough pizza as well.

                      *maybe* most of the problem was the chemical cocktails of processed food? Maybe it was the hyperpalatibility? Maybe it was the O6 oils in the food?

                      Maybe it's not sugar and wheat.
                      Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                      Griff's cholesterol primer
                      5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                      Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                      TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                      bloodorchid is always right

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                        Could you guys take a look and see how it fits into your feelings on sugar and calories?
                        I had forgotten it for a while, but I just remembered that rodents have markedly higher rates of de novo lipogenesis than human beings, so I'm not surprised a diet of 40% sugar would be more fattening than a diet of over 50% protein in mice.
                        Last edited by Timthetaco; 10-24-2013, 05:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                          Ah, now I see why Pklopp stopped posting in this thread. He went and wrote a blog post about it. Nice .
                          Yes. It would seem that his blog post would have exceeded the forum post length....
                          Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                          Griff's cholesterol primer
                          5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                          Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                          TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                          bloodorchid is always right

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                            I was actually quite proud of Mark on this. He didn't exactly draw a line in the sand and state that potato's are evil, but he did let his stance be known. It's good that he put himself out there on such a controversial issue. People have been speculating on if he had changed his mind on certain things of late.... well now you don't have to. He obviously sticks by his carb curve idea for the average person and doesn't think domestic tubers are an essential contributor to health. I tend to agree.

                            You know of all the people I have had the chance to observe implementing a paleo/primal diet in real life within the context of a 150g carbs/day or less protocol every one of them have reported great improvement to their health. No negative side effects. The only place I find any contention about this, ironically, is on this board. I'm just glad to have such real life experience with people, otherwise I might get the erroneous idea that this diet doesn't work as written for the vast majority.....
                            Yes, experience is a great teacher. As you probably noticed there is a part 2 coming up to Pklopp's latest (http://cogitoergoedo.com/2013/09/12/...alorie-part-i/ which I am definitely looking forward to. Thanks for your contributions here.
                            Last edited by Terry H; 10-24-2013, 06:41 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                              The thing is though, once you cut out wheat and sugar, you are inadvertently cutting out a whole swathe of chemicals that almost certainly aren't good for you. So was eating the flour and the sugar the problem? Or was it undustrialised food?

                              We currently use sugar in our kombucha, and i'm sure that some of it's still there when we drink it (since it's not sour like vinegar). And we've been experimenting with sourdough pizza as well.

                              *maybe* most of the problem was the chemical cocktails of processed food? Maybe it was the hyperpalatibility? Maybe it was the O6 oils in the food?

                              Maybe it's not sugar and wheat.
                              But he still eats O6 oils and wheat and other grains. Just not flour (ground grain of any kind) and sugar. He still is a compulsive overeater (I've witnessed some binges) and is still somewhat fat. He was a gourmet before and still is now, so it's not like he made a dramatic drop in junk food. He mainly ate a lot of pasta before he adopted the diet change. His metabolic syndrome is gone and so is his now-thin wife's. They are members of a group called Food Addicts in Recovery Anonymous.
                              Last edited by sbhikes; 10-24-2013, 07:04 PM.
                              Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                                Calorie Cage Match! Sugar (Sucrose) Vs. Protein And Honey (There Is No Such Thing As A “Calorie”, Part VI) - GNOLLS.ORG

                                Hey, Choco and Derp (or anyone else who cares), J. Stanton just wrote another piece to his 'No such thing as a calorie' series. This one is heavy into sugar calories. Could you guys take a look and see how it fits into your feelings on sugar and calories?
                                I'm not too fond of J. Stanton, or his his articles. I just saw this, and Timthetaco said it all.
                                Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                                I still feel the way it was stated as "fat causes insulin resistance" is very misleading. Basically you have expounded on a mechanism of cell signaling. That does not prove in any sense that the ingestion of any type of fat is the culprit in the development of insulin resistance. I think we have all read studies that have induced IR through a variety of macro and lifestyle changes.... including non-dietary contributors like sleep deprivation, sepsis, and statin drugs just to name a few.
                                I am not talking so much about the ingestion of them at this point. Though they have to be ingested to get to that point, but lots of fat to release said toxins makes you more prone.
                                Make America Great Again

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X