Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The metabolic advantage hypothesis

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

  • #91
    Have you ever been obese?
    Crohn's, doing SCD

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
      Provide some evidence that the metabolism slows greater than one's hunger on any kind of diet.
      Well there actually isn't any, which is part of the reason I started this thread in the first place. There are a couple people who think the "thermogenic effect of food" is somehow an an answer. Its not. It's theoretical closed system thinking. It doesn't pan out in human trials, so its therefore incomplete at best. Biochem is fun, but you can not automatically extrapolate known pathways to how the organism as a whole will react. That is why we do human trials. We do them in recognition that there are as of yet too many unknown variables when it comes to the biochemical and physiological interactions. Big differences are seen between: theory, in vitro, in vivo, animal trials, and human trials.

      Comment


      • #93
        nah. when you're fatter your metabolism is actually higher anyway, because all those fat stores require a huge amount of energy. when you drop the weight, your metabolism slows down naturally and you eat less.
        Make America Great Again

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
          Well there actually isn't any, which is part of the reason I started this thread in the first place. There are a couple people who think the "thermogenic effect of food" is somehow an an answer. Its not. It's theoretical closed system thinking. It doesn't pan out in human trials, so its therefore incomplete at best. Biochem is fun, but you can not automatically extrapolate known pathways to how the organism as a whole will react. That is why we do human trials. We do them in recognition that there are as of yet too many unknown variables when it comes to the biochemical and physiological interactions. Big differences are seen between: theory, in vitro, in vivo, animal trials, and human trials.
          the human body is adaptive, to lifestyle, to diet, to everything -- were it not, we'd have died out as a species long ago. to say that your body won't accommodate to certain changes(ie consuming more carbs, more protein, more calories) won't adjust your physiological state is false.
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
            the human body is adaptive, to lifestyle, to diet, to everything -- were it not, we'd have died out as a species long ago. to say that your body won't accommodate to certain changes(ie consuming more carbs, more protein, more calories) won't adjust your physiological state is false.
            I don't think what I said is disagreeing with this.

            SB was pointing out that low carb has appetite suppression as a quality and that may help people to lose weight. Choco claimed your metabolic rate may drop even lower than your appetite. Really there is no actual data to prove Choco's stance as most ad libitum studies on consumption favor a low carbohydrate diet for weight loss. So I think SB was looking for some evidence to the contrary, if choco wished to maintain a stance that so clearly went against several human trials.

            Oh, and if anyone is interested Pklopp did a nice post on very low calorie and starvation and all. He also did 5 weeks of very low calorie/ very low carb with a strength protocol to get "abs lean".....seriously.... "abs lean" isn't easy. As a man doing his level of activity I'd hate to live on 1500 calories a day for five weeks: http://cogitoergoedo.com/2013/06/06/enough-calories/
            Last edited by Neckhammer; 10-05-2013, 09:27 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
              I don't think what I said is disagreeing with this.

              SB was pointing out that low carb has appetite suppression as a quality and that may help people to lose weight. Choco claimed your metabolic rate may drop even lower than your appetite. Really there is no actual data to prove Choco's stance as most ad libitum studies on consumption favor a low carbohydrate diet for weight loss. So I think SB was looking for some evidence to the contrary, if choco wished to maintain a stance that so clearly went against several human trials.

              Oh, and if anyone is interested Pklopp did a nice post on very low calorie and starvation and all. He also did 5 weeks of very low calorie/ very low carb with a strength protocol to get "abs lean".....seriously.... "abs lean" isn't easy. As a man doing his level of activity I'd hate to live on 1500 calories a day for five weeks: | Cogito Ergo Edo
              yeah well I don't agree with that. I was always losing weight on VLC. Optimal is neither here nor there at this point.
              Make America Great Again

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                yeah well I don't agree with that. I was always losing weight on VLC. Optimal is neither here nor there at this point.
                Yeah, personally I had to add carbs (and subsequently calories) to stop weight loss after a few month. I was getting too thin/small according to some family members.

                Comment


                • #98
                  "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

                  In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

                  - Ray Peat

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                    the body protectively slows the metabolism during those times to prolong survival since the body consumes itself during such times. Your appetite suppression is your metabolism slowing down, if not, you'd starve to death, since your body is expecting x amounts of calories and x amounts of carbohydrates to fuel itself. It's effective short term, if you're actually starving, but it's not exactly a desirable long term weight loss plan since as soon as you start eating more food, you will likely balloon up since that's exactly what your body wants. 2 months on low carb, I couldn't eat more than 1.5k calories a day(I'm 6'3), dropped to 130lbs, but was sick as a dog -- and as soon as I started eating actual palatable food, I overate as a natural mechanism(I felt like I was starving) and immediately gained nearly 40lbs in a short time.
                    Thank you.
                    Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                    see dude? you eat 2k calories and are pretty active and weigh more than me. i eat 3.5k+ to maintain at 150lbs while being sedentary on most days. wouldn't this be a difference in metabolisms, ie; yours has slowed down to accommodate your way of eating? the exact point that i believe choco was inferring. thermic effect of food plays an important physiological role of daily energy expenditure, and thus the amount of calories you need to ingest and the nutrients you need to ingest become greater with higher body temperature.
                    Yes.

                    I eat more now than I was when I started Primal, I can lift approximately 50% more, yet I weigh 10 lbs less. My body better handles the calories I consume, and my hands and feet are typically always warm whereas before they were not. I still carry more body fat than I'd like - but I imagine it'll take many years of slow adipose tissue turnover to optimize my hormone patterns to the way I eat now.

                    I definitely BURN a lot more calories now, though. I'm always shaking my legs and bouncing them up and down when I'm sitting at work and I can't sit still for more than 30-40 minutes before I have to get up and walk around. I wasn't ever like this before. Yes, I eat more food but I also move around a lot more and lift more weight, so it is a balance. When I cut calories and carbohydrate, I get colder, I don't bounce around as much, I don't talk as much and I can't bring myself to move around. It really makes a huge difference.

                    The body scales your activity to your diet is what I've found. However, it's still CICO. The CO is just as variable as the CI.

                    At labor day, I was down to 140.5 lbs. Fairly effortlessly. I have been slowly gaining some weight since and I am up to 144 lbs. The plan is until March to get myself to about 160 lbs while greatly increasing my lifting in an attempt to pile on some muscle. It'll be interesting to see how much more I'm going to have to eat and how quickly the weight will come on. The goal is steak, eggs, cold potatoes, fruit and soluble fiber-based vegetables (cucumbers, tomatoes, carrots, peppers) while sedentary and steak, hot potatoes, plantains and nixtamalized corn (tortillas, polenta) and homemade ice cream while active. Last year I gained weight by adding nuts and cheese to everything since it was easy and delicious, and it came on very fast but it was about 40% fat/60% muscle. I'd like to see if I could do better by adding sugar and starch instead of fat.
                    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 10-05-2013, 10:53 AM.
                    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
                      when you drop the weight, your metabolism slows down naturally and you eat less.
                      I dunno, I still feel like I eat the same volume of food even now 225lbs lighter.

                      Comment


                      • The truth is most people are weight-stable most of the time. Even obese folks and famine victims stay within a narrow range for years at a time despite spontaneous/variable food. (When I used to plot 7-day kcal against weight change the relationship was very weak).

                        So there's a lot of homeostasis at work and any influence that overpowers it probably needs to be a substantial toxin or deficiency. Assuming the body will always reconcile energy balance with adipose influx/efflux is a mistake.
                        37//6'3"/185

                        My peculiar nutrition glossary and shopping list

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                          SB was pointing out that low carb has appetite suppression as a quality and that may help people to lose weight. Choco claimed your metabolic rate may drop even lower than your appetite. Really there is no actual data to prove Choco's stance as most ad libitum studies on consumption favor a low carbohydrate diet for weight loss. So I think SB was looking for some evidence to the contrary, if choco wished to maintain a stance that so clearly went against several human trials.
                          There is no data to support the Paleo Tale, yet this site full of people believe that ancient man never ate grains and legumes, so therefore they shouldn't, either.

                          What we know for a fact is that carbohydrate supports a faster metabolic rate than fat. What we also know for a fact is that higher protein consumption provides a better lean:fat mass ratio than a lower protein consumption.

                          Low carbohydrate dieting may add to weight loss by suppressing the appetite, however, I don't think this is due to carbohydrate suppression but rather the increase in protein, the decrease in empty calories (refined grains and refined added sugars) and increase in nutrition (from the increase in meat, eggs and cheese consumed) that tends to come along with it.

                          I can easily explain the appetite suppression due to the protein intake, increased fat soluble vitamin consumption and decreased anti-nutrient content that are completely by accident.

                          And since we here at MDA tend to avoid grains, refined sugars, seed oils and artificial ingredients in foods, a diet equal in vitamins, minerals and protein that skews from dietary fat to dietary carbohydrate is likely more advantageous because it generates more body heat.

                          The problem I see is that people around here tend to "add carbs" to their diet - not displace fat for carbohydrate. Or when they up their carbs, they drop their protein because they're adding fruit and starch at the expense of meat. You're doing it wrong, bro! Confounding factors abound!
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WeldingHank View Post
                            I dunno, I still feel like I eat the same volume of food even now 225lbs lighter.
                            I'm sure it feels that way. Try consuming 3000 calories of meat vs 3000 calories of chocolate cake. I bet the meat will make you feel much fuller. I bet 1,500 calories of meat will make you feel like you eat just as much.

                            People tend to eat towards their homeostasis. Your homeostasis now is vastly superior to what it was before thanks to your much healthier diet. You're getting all the same or more nutrition for a fraction of the calories. After all, hunger is not just a cry for energy but a cry for nutrition, so in theory the more nutrients per calories you consume, the less calories your body will cry out for. If the energy you take in does not provide enough nutrition, then you have to overeat energy to get the nutrition you need. BAM, obesity.
                            Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 10-05-2013, 11:04 AM.
                            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
                              They're often associated with Vitamin A deficiency (retinol). Vitamin E "deficiency" is on a case-by-case basis because the amount of Vitamin E you need is correlated with the amount of PUFA you consume. The higher your SFA:PUFA ratio, the less Vitamin E you need since your body draws Vitamin E out of storage to keep PUFA from polymerizing upon ingestion.

                              I strongly doubt any association at all with a "deficiency" in EFA's - mainly because there is no information showing they are necessary at all. Cod liver oil is extremely high in Vitamin A from retinol, so omega 3/6 is likely just a confounding factor there. If you were to give your son retinol from healthier sources like egg yolks or pastured dairy, it would probably be much safer. It's likely the "megadose" of vitamin A that did the trick, but there is definitely a law of diminishing returns.
                              Hm, well I don't know what the reason for mine was, but quite interestingly, I have drastically reduced my consumption of nuts in the last few months, and they are starting to disappear. Although at the same time, I have also reduced the amount of avenues in my life leading to stress, so I don't know if that is also a consideration? Overall inflammatory reaction?

                              Whichever the case, I don't think it's a Vitamin A issue since I eat plenty of liver and carrots.
                              My chocolatey Primal journey

                              Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
                                Hm, well I don't know what the reason for mine was, but quite interestingly, I have drastically reduced my consumption of nuts in the last few months, and they are starting to disappear. Although at the same time, I have also reduced the amount of avenues in my life leading to stress, so I don't know if that is also a consideration? Overall inflammatory reaction?

                                Whichever the case, I don't think it's a Vitamin A issue since I eat plenty of liver and carrots.
                                Less PUFA can compensate for a Vitamin E deficiency. Nuts are also at the top of the allergen/irritant list, so displacing them for meat and fruit can be potentially anti-inflammatory. There are a lot of explanations, but nuts are probably the least healthy Paleo-approved food, so if you do without them, I say go for it.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X