Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The metabolic advantage hypothesis

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
    My n=1: eat like warrior; look like warrior. Eat like rabbit; look like rabbit. :::grunt::: I will now go discover fire.
    I humbly think something is missing here: "eat like warrior" AND "behave /move like a warrior" will probably lead to "look like warrior". I have the feeling that missing the condition I added will make you "look like fat rabbit" ...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      Ketosis is a state the body has adapted to survive periods of extreme starvation. That is it. It is a method of supplementing glucose to the brain so the body doesn't consume lean mass (organs, muscles, connective tissue) as rapidly because gluconeogenesis is extremely catabolic and stressful. Since gluconeogenesis uses cortisol to break down the body into glucose, ketones help alleviate that severe stress.

      That is it. If anything, ketosis slows the metabolism. Hunger suppression is a natural side effect because if you are starving, your body tries to conserve energy, and from a natural standpoint, the only time the body would be in ketosis is when the food supply was bordering on starvation-levels. Forced ketosis is some new, weird, modern thing, which flies in the face of "paleo." Isn't it ironic?

      On the opposite end of the spectrum, diets high in protein and carbohydrate stimulate the metabolism. However, they also tend to stimulate hunger to go along with the rise in metabolism.

      In short, diets high in carbohydrate and low in fat tend to promote a more rapid metabolic rate than diets high in fat and very low in carbohydrate, but you'll probably be hungrier on the former diet than the latter - it is a consequence of the faster metabolism.

      But it isn't all that extreme of a difference. CICO is still gospel - you can't lose weight without an energy deficit, so you should be trying to eat the most nutritious diet possible that allows you to maintain the greatest deficit. Chasing after some "metabolic advantage" is fruitless because the thermic effect of food, while existing, is only in the 5-10% range and that really isn't going to make that big of a difference. The only time the story changes is if you're going to eat straight protein with no fat and carbs, but has anyone tried to do that for more than 2 or 3 days straight? It is almost impossible mentally. The reason why the "low carbohydrate metabolic advantage" nonsense was so incredibly stupid is it stated that calories don't count if insulin is low. Absolutely ridiculous since the body doesn't need insulin to store dietary fat as fat.
      I once did he velocity diet (only protein shakes) for 11 days. Horrible.

      I agree with above. One thing though that people dont seem to realize when talking about CICO and macro ratios is that certain diets elicit a much different metabolic response BECAUSE of the macro ratios and calories.

      Example, VLC diets usually suppress hunger like you said, they also lower metabolism and thyroid production to save energy since GNG is so demanding. So while you might eat much lower calories, you will also burn much less, couple that with malnutrition from such low calorie intake and suboptimal digestion, eventually CICO will catch up to your low calorie input and you will just be set up in a new lower functioning metabolism, unable to lose weight.

      Second example. VHC, high protein, may lead to a much higher calorie consumption due to increased energy production and a highly sped up thyroid and digestive system but at the same time you are using the energy efficiently, getting ample nutrition and setting your system up for a high gear metabolism.

      The two may let you lose the same amount of fat initially but long run, it seems clear to me is health promoting and which is metabolic death to be blunt. Of course variables, variables, variables, but the first example is very common in less knowledgeable, inexperienced and sometimes veteran low carbers (Moore).

      Comment


      • #18
        To my mind, the best is to eat with the natural amount of fats found in real foods and if you get ample amounts of proteins via meat and dairy, the fat should be there (unless you go for low fat stuff, which is not very natural in this case). That should cover most of your fat needs and it makes things tasty. More than that ? Maybe if you need a keto diet for some reasons other than weight loss (you can grow fat on a keto diet).

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Zach View Post
          I once did he velocity diet (only protein shakes) for 11 days. Horrible.

          I agree with above. One thing though that people dont seem to realize when talking about CICO and macro ratios is that certain diets elicit a much different metabolic response BECAUSE of the macro ratios and calories.

          Example, VLC diets usually suppress hunger like you said, they also lower metabolism and thyroid production to save energy since GNG is so demanding. So while you might eat much lower calories, you will also burn much less, couple that with malnutrition from such low calorie intake and suboptimal digestion, eventually CICO will catch up to your low calorie input and you will just be set up in a new lower functioning metabolism, unable to lose weight.

          Second example. VHC, high protein, may lead to a much higher calorie consumption due to increased energy production and a highly sped up thyroid and digestive system but at the same time you are using the energy efficiently, getting ample nutrition and setting your system up for a high gear metabolism.

          The two may let you lose the same amount of fat initially but long run, it seems clear to me is health promoting and which is metabolic death to be blunt. Of course variables, variables, variables, but the first example is very common in less knowledgeable, inexperienced and sometimes veteran low carbers (Moore).
          On thing I think people need to accept is that "abs lean" is not the norm. It just isn't going to be able to be maintained by 90+% of us. Even contest dieters who cut to absolutely obscene levels of body fat that allow you to see every striation of the human body do so over 12 weeks. They're not "ripped" the other 40 weeks out of the year. They tend to carry the "12% body fat pooch" - you can make out your abs when you flex and have fat around the belly button unflexed. You'll have a little jiggle when you run. That's normal and that's healthy.

          If you look how body builders cut, though, the first thing to go is fat. They generally eat on the order of ~40-50% protein, around 20% fat with the other 30-40% carbohydrate, bulked before and after their workouts. Calories are often averaging a 20-25% deficit. You can mentally get by eating that way when you know you only have to do it for 2-3 months and it's over for the rest of the year, but to do that all the time to maintain a very lean physique is just ridiculous. I learned a long time ago that I will bounce between 11-15% off and on. That's just how it goes for me. Could I cut lower? Yea, but the diet monotony isn't worth the mental stress to see minor physical changes. It isn't worth taking chocolate, ice cream, alcohol and great cuts of steak completely out of my diet.
          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
            I humbly think something is missing here: "eat like warrior" AND "behave /move like a warrior" will probably lead to "look like warrior". I have the feeling that missing the condition I added will make you "look like fat rabbit" ...
            Absolutely! I was going for brevity.
            "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

            B*tch-lite

            Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

            Comment


            • #21
              The only people who seem to be able to maintain very low bodyfat percents are people who have been lean their entire lives. Once someone creates the fat stores, i think its very hard to keep them empty. I think its possible with the right diet, but it might not be worth it if you body is fighting you. Much better to be in a healthy metabolic state and carry around 10-15% bodyfat then be in a constant energy deficit to walk around at 5-9% all year. Eventually the body will win and you will balloon. Same with using chronic exercise to achieve this, you wont be able to keep it up forever.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Zach View Post
                Much better to be in a healthy metabolic state and carry around 10-15% bodyfat then be in a constant energy deficit to walk around at 5-9% all year. Eventually the body will win and you will balloon. Same with using chronic exercise to achieve this, you wont be able to keep it up forever.
                What? Why can't we all walk around like the guy in the video below, why must it be so difficult;

                "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                - Schopenhauer

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Zach View Post
                  The only people who seem to be able to maintain very low bodyfat percents are people who have been lean their entire lives. Once someone creates the fat stores, i think its very hard to keep them empty. I think its possible with the right diet, but it might not be worth it if you body is fighting you. Much better to be in a healthy metabolic state and carry around 10-15% bodyfat then be in a constant energy deficit to walk around at 5-9% all year. Eventually the body will win and you will balloon. Same with using chronic exercise to achieve this, you wont be able to keep it up forever.
                  Adipocyte turnover is something like 10% annually, meaning it could take years or even a decade of maintaining a significantly leaner physique for that to be established as the "new norm." That's also why people tend to bail on diets so quickly because it immediately doesn't show benefits. It takes YEARS of strict diet adherence for your body to recycle the fat cells holding onto toxins. For example, if you are hypothyroid due to years of high intakes of polyunsaturated fats, it will take up to a DECADE of a low polyunsaturated fat diet for you to cleanse those damaged cells from your body. Realistically, I've been paleo-ish for 3 years, but only specifically lower PUFA for about a year. And I am SLOWLY dropping my setpoint. 142-145 lbs seems to be my normal now, and it used to be about 10 lbs more when I ate considerably more fat and less carbs but still paleo (and I couldn't lift nearly as much as I can now!)...but it is a slow, slow road. People need to learn adherence and patience. Hell, I had bumps under my triceps MY ENTIRE LIFE - little tiny red patches - and they just went away about 6 months ago. It took over 2 years of grain and vegetable oil avoidance for my skin to clear up sufficiently, and I started this lifestyle at the baby age of 24. Can you imagine someone beginning at 40? Or 50? With a slower adipocyte turnover and decades more of toxins in their bodies?

                  It is a slow road, folks, and it is important to be diligent.

                  I wonder is something like the new "cool sculpting" procedures are a faster workout for the adipocyte turnover issue since the procedure kills the fat cells. Even if the body replaces the fat cells, you could technically replace "pre-paleo" adipocytes with "post-paleo" adipocytes, giving the fat cells a much lower composition of PUFA. This could potentially lead to a faster metabolic rate.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Super interesting stuff, i was thinking about this as well. I would be really interested to see a kid grow up on a Peat type diet. I would do this with my son but its almost impossible to regulate food sources from everywhere and im such a pushover.

                    One thing that i think about a lot is the disconnect between someone who was born healthy and eating their natural diet and someone who was born comprimised and adopting a "natural diet". The former will be able to thrive on that diet while others with compromised metabolisms will never be able to acclimate to. This is why a paleo or whole foods diet does not work wonders for some. Coming at it from a viewpoint of rebuilding health and slowing stress/aging is a much smarter option. Like above with limiting PUFA to bare minimums for years so that the body has time to cycle it out in favor of better fats. And obviously with extreme emphasis on hormonal, digestion and metabolic function which all overlap. Just telling people to eat natural foods (meat and veggies) is not enough to return to baseline health, especially in those who have been compromised since birth or before.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                      What? Why can't we all walk around like the guy in the video below, why must it be so difficult;
                      That's disgusting.
                      Everything is bad for something - How do you feel today?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Zach View Post
                        Super interesting stuff, i was thinking about this as well. I would be really interested to see a kid grow up on a Peat type diet. I would do this with my son but its almost impossible to regulate food sources from everywhere and im such a pushover.

                        One thing that i think about a lot is the disconnect between someone who was born healthy and eating their natural diet and someone who was born comprimised and adopting a "natural diet". The former will be able to thrive on that diet while others with compromised metabolisms will never be able to acclimate to. This is why a paleo or whole foods diet does not work wonders for some. Coming at it from a viewpoint of rebuilding health and slowing stress/aging is a much smarter option. Like above with limiting PUFA to bare minimums for years so that the body has time to cycle it out in favor of better fats. And obviously with extreme emphasis on hormonal, digestion and metabolic function which all overlap. Just telling people to eat natural foods (meat and veggies) is not enough to return to baseline health, especially in those who have been compromised since birth or before.
                        I would estimate it would be a lot like traditional cultures in the South Pacific where the majority of their calories come from starchy tubers, fruits, coconut and very lean white fish. The fats in their diet are almost entirely saturated due to the animal sources being so very lean, so they're basically existing on sugars, starches and MCT's. They tend to be extremely lean.

                        I imagine someone who has the foundation of a very stable fatty acid structure are more resistant to the inflammatory effects of grains. I imagine a person who grew up on red meat and coconut are far less likely to have food allergies and lactose/gluten intolerance due to a strong gut lining that resists leakage. My opinion.
                        Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          I would estimate it would be a lot like traditional cultures in the South Pacific where the majority of their calories come from starchy tubers, fruits, coconut and very lean white fish.
                          The public health chapter in Jared Diamond's World Until Yesterday describes how beer bellies went from nearly 0% to universal in Papua New Guinea over 30 years. Taro and sago are somewhat stigmatized as rural bumpkin fodder in favor of anything with an English label...
                          37//6'3"/185

                          My peculiar nutrition glossary and shopping list

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            Hell, I had bumps under my triceps MY ENTIRE LIFE - little tiny red patches - and they just went away about 6 months ago. It took over 2 years of grain and vegetable oil avoidance for my skin to clear up sufficiently, and I started this lifestyle at the baby age of 24.
                            Oh, is that what those were? I've always had these, although my face has always been as smooth as a baby's butt. I still have them, and have avoided GMO's and PUFA's, for the most part, for 2 years.
                            My chocolatey Primal journey

                            Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
                              Oh, is that what those were? I've always had these, although my face has always been as smooth as a baby's butt. I still have them, and have avoided GMO's and PUFA's, for the most part, for 2 years.
                              I once heard they are caused by vitamin A and E deficiencies. Of course, a vitamin E deficiency generally signals too much PUFA in the tissue - the higher your SFA:PUFA ratio, the less vitamin E you need. Like anything else, the cause could be multifaceted. Whatever the cause, it is due to too much of something bad, not enough of something good or a mixture of both!
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                                On thing I think people need to accept is that "abs lean" is not the norm. It just isn't going to be able to be maintained by 90+% of us. Even contest dieters who cut to absolutely obscene levels of body fat that allow you to see every striation of the human body do so over 12 weeks. They're not "ripped" the other 40 weeks out of the year. They tend to carry the "12% body fat pooch" - you can make out your abs when you flex and have fat around the belly button unflexed. You'll have a little jiggle when you run. That's normal and that's healthy.

                                If you look how body builders cut, though, the first thing to go is fat. They generally eat on the order of ~40-50% protein, around 20% fat with the other 30-40% carbohydrate, bulked before and after their workouts. Calories are often averaging a 20-25% deficit. You can mentally get by eating that way when you know you only have to do it for 2-3 months and it's over for the rest of the year, but to do that all the time to maintain a very lean physique is just ridiculous. I learned a long time ago that I will bounce between 11-15% off and on. That's just how it goes for me. Could I cut lower? Yea, but the diet monotony isn't worth the mental stress to see minor physical changes. It isn't worth taking chocolate, ice cream, alcohol and great cuts of steak completely out of my diet.
                                Amen.
                                Breathe. Move forward.

                                I just eat what I want...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X