Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Andrew Kim Absolutely Crushes the Ridiculous Notion of Being "Fat Adapted"

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

  • Originally posted by Gilleh
    That's what I don't get -
    It's clear that you disagree with Choco. It's not your first time doing it, probably won't be the last.
    Why do you continue?

    BTW, my stools are more profound than bloodorchid. I gain nothing from reading her posts. Never have, never will.
    A lot of people disagree with Choco. Many of them continue to disagree with him when he is wrong. Why? Because he is wrong and they want to put the correct information out there.

    If your stools are more profound than Bloodorchid, you should try to get them a book deal or go on the lecture circuit. If Sarah Palin can make $100,000 for an incoherent speech, you should be able to make millions! I much prefer Bloodorchid, pretty and funny!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by vh67 View Post
      A lot of people disagree with Choco. Many of them continue to disagree with him when he is wrong. Why? Because he is wrong and they want to put the correct information out there.

      If your stools are more profound than Bloodorchid, you should try to get them a book deal or go on the lecture circuit. If Sarah Palin can make $100,000 for an incoherent speech, you should be able to make millions! I much prefer Bloodorchid, pretty and funny!
      ++++++++++++++++++++1
      and thank you.
      Starting Weight: 197.5
      Current Weight: 123
      Far healthier!

      Comment


      • So I take a rather long break from the Forum and come back to find the same old voices having the same old discussions. I have basically stopped focusing on my macros just eat whole real foods - eat organic and local when possible, consume pastured meats, free range poultry and eggs, wild fish and eat local and seasonal fruits and vegetables. Pretty simple really.
        Recent Blog: http://www.peakperformanceradio.net/...y-john-saville

        https://www.facebook.com/PaleoJourne...?ref=bookmarks

        Comment


        • Oh ye of little faith.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by canuck416 View Post
            So I take a rather long break from the Forum and come back to find the same old voices having the same old discussions. I have basically stopped focusing on my macros just eat whole real foods - eat organic and local when possible, consume pastured meats, free range poultry and eggs, wild fish and eat local and seasonal fruits and vegetables. Pretty simple really.
            Imagine...

            http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
            Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gilleh
              That's what I don't get -
              It's clear that you disagree with Choco. It's not your first time doing it, probably won't be the last.
              Why do you continue?

              BTW, my stools are more profound than bloodorchid. I gain nothing from reading her posts. Never have, never will.
              Why don't you ask why he continues to post such inflammatory threads? I get the feeling some people just like to be the contrarian, even in an already marginalized WOE such as paleo. But really do either he or I need a reason? Even if I completely agreed and just wished to waste my time playing devils advocate would that not be enough? I'm not emotionally invested either way. Honestly its like 99% boredom and 1% just pointing out where his logic falls apart. Its not that hard to do. You got choco originals like this:

              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
              Please read the thread. If everyone agreed no forums on the internet would exist. The exact purpose of a forum is to talk about disagreements. The better question is if you agree with Mark Sisson so much, why are you part of his forum?
              So I'm here not to champion Mark, but because I do very much agree with the vast majority of what is the PB. If all of us (as in those living this way) left, what would this site have to offer? People normally come to the forum looking for PB based answers. Then they get lamblasted with threads that start like this one. If it goes unopposed it looks like everyone just agrees with the OP. That would be sad.
              Last edited by Neckhammer; 11-10-2013, 07:58 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                We want the energy of youth - flush skin, high body temperatures, we want to be able to breathe out of our noses alone comfortably without being "mouth breathers," we want a heart rate of around 70, etc. We don't want to be cold and clammy with pale skin and a low heart rate, requiring constant mouth-breathing because our blood oxygen levels are so low from inefficient mitochondria. These are signs of aging and DEATH, not youth and LIFE. This is what carbohydrate restriction and autophagy gets us. Why we would want to emulate rapid aging is beyond me.
                These threads never have much constructive debate due to Choco's tone, but if I can defend a fellow taco, I'd like to echo this sentiment. All the research I've seen on the effect of low carb and ketogenic diets shows that they mimic the physiological patterns seen in stress, illness and starvation, so the logic that a low carb diet somehow confers a benefit to longevity and health doesn't follow. An adaptive response to a forced stress rather than an unintentional stress is still a response to... stress.

                While I can't begrudge anyone with a defect in carbohydrate metabolism adopting a low carb diet for therapeutic reasons, I'm more concerned about otherwise healthy young men adopting such an eating pattern based on low carb propaganda. To that end, I'll continue to defend carbohydrates for health and longevity until a low carb advocate can present compelling proof that these stressors promote good health and longevity in anything other than a nematode.

                Comment


                • From the other side of the table all that spews forth is high carb propoganda.

                  As for Choco, it's the content more than his delivery of it.
                  It is littered with opinion and parroting rhetoric that he has commited to memory from some source.
                  In particular is this obsession with a High BMR as expressed by body temp & heart rate, my suspicion is that this comes from a Ray Peat philosophy, it is true that a low BMR is associated with depressed thyroid function, let me parrot a line here.
                  "Corrolation does not prove Causation"
                  Anyone who knows about thyroid dysfunction, knows that Hypothyroidism also has a broad set of symptoms associated with it and these vary with different individuals, there is multiple layers of symptoms in thyroid conditions & the thyroid dysfunction is just another level of symptoms but the true cause lies much deeper, so think of the onion, the thyroid dysfunction is probably the 4th layer in, still plenty more to go beyond that.
                  When you understand this, you will realise that some of the symptoms described may indicate thyroid dysfunction or not, there is plenty of variation in metabolism variation to make one wary of assuming a broad brush approach in making simplistic assumptions.
                  Lower thyroid levels can be expressed without other symptoms, lower BMR can also be expressed without any negative symptoms and conversly peripheral circulation problems can be expressed whilst BMR & Thyroid remain normal, hence I can only assume that Choco and some others really have no idea about thyroid function.

                  So lower thyroid function & BMR may be an indication of a body in a disease state or may just as easily be an indicator of a body in good health and at peace as there is no threat in sight.

                  I eat moderate carbohydrate, have a low heart rate and body temp, I work hard, dont feel cold and clammy, breathe through my nose, have good reflexes, etc. etc., so basically no other negatives, therefore I present myself to you as a "Black Swan" to the Low carb thyroid BMR hypothesis and it only takes one black swan to disprove the hypothesis, so for Choco et al it's back to the drawing board to revise the hypothesis.

                  In addition to that if one was really interested in the topic, one would have already done the research and realised there are plenty of Black Swans in the primal and keto spheres and would never have proposed such a weak hypothesis.

                  The whole starvation, stressor, keto hypothesis is on the same shaky foundation, simplistic assumptions.
                  "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                    I think it's a myth that being "fat-adapted" is the reason for stable energy without crashes and unpleasant hunger symptoms. There are many people who eat relatively high-carb diets and have the same experience, so that right there debunks it. I think it is actually quality protein that levels out the highs and lows.
                    Good point, and very interesting.

                    However, why I dropped lunch I found that my high protein breakfast needed to have more fat added to it to drive away gnawing hunger at 4pm. So I think you need some fats as well.
                    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 j3nn
                      I think it's a myth that being "fat-adapted" is the reason for stable energy without crashes and unpleasant hunger symptoms. There are many people who eat relatively high-carb diets and have the same experience, so that right there debunks it. I think it is actually quality protein that levels out the highs and lows.
                      Post above caught my eye,
                      I think it all depends how you define it and maybe the terminology needs to be rephrased.
                      It is a fact that if you cannot effectively access adipose tissue fat stores in the absence of dietary intake then you do have a metabolic dysfunction, whether you want to call it fat adaptation or something else.

                      Basically one should be able to go a couple of days, even a week possibly without any food and remain in a good physical and psychological state, provided water & sleep is adequate, so if you behaviour becomes erratic because your next meal is delayed, then on the savannah you become the next meal.

                      The correction needs to be made as to whether a low carb diet is required for this adaptation or metabolic repair to take place.

                      I've always been in the moderate carb range, IF 20/4 and sometimes go 44/4 without any loss of function whilst continuing to do hard work, so consider myself "fat adapted" in the sense that I rely fully on fat reserves and gluconeogenesis for a significant period of my fasting.
                      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Timthetaco View Post
                        These threads never have much constructive debate due to Choco's tone, but if I can defend a fellow taco, I'd like to echo this sentiment. All the research I've seen on the effect of low carb and ketogenic diets shows that they mimic the physiological patterns seen in stress, illness and starvation, so the logic that a low carb diet somehow confers a benefit to longevity and health doesn't follow. An adaptive response to a forced stress rather than an unintentional stress is still a response to... stress.
                        Your taco comment restored my faith in humanity. You sir are a scholar and a gentlemen.

                        I'm beginning to also believe your sentiment. I find that too low levels of carbs, and it slows your metabolism. I was loosing weight (and a good portion muscle) till it eventually stopped.

                        What I will say is that I had a positive experience with IF and rather enjoyed fasting 12 hours daily/ an occasional 24 hour fast. Maybe a little mixing of each would be best.



                        Originally posted by Omni View Post
                        Post above caught my eye,
                        I think it all depends how you define it and maybe the terminology needs to be rephrased.
                        It is a fact that if you cannot effectively access adipose tissue fat stores in the absence of dietary intake then you do have a metabolic dysfunction, whether you want to call it fat adaptation or something else.

                        Basically one should be able to go a couple of days, even a week possibly without any food and remain in a good physical and psychological state, provided water & sleep is adequate, so if you behaviour becomes erratic because your next meal is delayed, then on the savannah you become the next meal.

                        The correction needs to be made as to whether a low carb diet is required for this adaptation or metabolic repair to take place.

                        I've always been in the moderate carb range, IF 20/4 and sometimes go 44/4 without any loss of function whilst continuing to do hard work, so consider myself "fat adapted" in the sense that I rely fully on fat reserves and gluconeogenesis for a significant period of my fasting.
                        You say that we should be able to go a week without food and be in physical condition, but I believe you should have said we COULD'VE. We live in a time where food is readily accessible, and until we read and learned about IF, or the potential benefits of fasting, eating was the norm. We've lost the conditioning to that, because we've been conditioned to eat every so often. It's not feast or famine anymore. On a side not I feel great while fasting, but it's not optimal for my goals of muscle building and maintaining a body that was a decent amount of muscle.

                        I found that the low carb phase I entere did help kickstart the fat metabolism, but I felt being in it too long started to slow down my overall metabolism. Gluconeogenesis is a demanding process when you got some muscle that demands quite a bit of amino acids!

                        Comment


                        • Feast & Famine is alive and kicking in even the most affluent of countries, not to mention the rest of the world, for most of us genetically speaking it was likely a regular experience 3-4 generations back so I don't think we've evolved away that far yet, and that adaptation is too important to throw away on the basis of 3-4 glutonous generations.

                          As for the muscle issue, that is applying artificial conditional rules to optimal health, significant muscle mass may under specific circumstances have endowed an evolutionary advantage, but in most cases would have been a disadvantage that required extra maintenance and may well have constricted an individuals all round performance.
                          When you apply conditional rulings such as this or <5% body fat for muscular exposure, marathon running, aesthetic criteria body weight and shape, longevity etc. means that optimal health is compromised and is one of the reasons these discussions never go anywhere, because there always seems to be a hidden factor people don't reveal.
                          It is simply imposssible to drive your body down to <5% body fat and then expect it to perform well under IF conditions, there's no give there, the body is already at the doorway to starvation, so low carb & IF will be a dismal failure for these people, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with low carb or IF though.

                          Hence dietary and metabolic response will be similar within a similar subgroup, but not within others, I'm not quite sure exactly where I place myself but am aiming somwhere in the mid to upper ranges across the board, but likely have unidentified factors that may be skewing my own approach so still looking around.
                          Last edited by Omni; 11-10-2013, 08:43 PM.
                          "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                          Comment


                          • I think the "fat adapted" thing should be more precisely termed "metabolic flexibility." If you eat a high carbohydrate diet and have metabolic flexibility you are healthy. If you don't, then you aren't so healthy. With metabolic flexibility you can tap into your fat stores for energy as needed no matter what your regular diet is. Without it, your body resists using your fat stores and instead demands more food all the time. I know a lot of young people don't believe this state exists, but believe me, it does and you don't have to be fat to experience it.
                            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                              Feast & Famine is alive and kicking in even the most affluent of countries, not to mention the rest of the world, for most of us genetically speaking it was likely a regular experience 3-4 generations back so I don't think we've evolved away that far yet, and that adaptation is too important to throw away on the basis of 3-4 glutonous generations.

                              As for the muscle issue, that is applying artificial conditional rules to optimal health, significant muscle mass may under specific circumstances have endowed an evolutionary advantage, but in most cases would have been a disadvantage that required extra maintenance and may well have constricted an individuals all round performance.
                              When you apply conditional rulings such as this or <5% body fat for muscular exposure, marathon running, aesthetic criteria body weight and shape, longevity etc. means that optimal health is compromised and is one of the reasons these discussions never go anywhere, because there always seems to be a hidden factor people don't reveal.
                              It is simply imposssible to drive your body down to <5% body fat and then expect it to perform well under IF conditions, there's no give there, the body is already at the doorway to starvation, so low carb & IF will be a dismal failure for these people, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with low carb or IF though.

                              Hence dietary and metabolic response will be similar within a similar subgroup, but not within others, I'm not quite sure exactly where I place myself but am aiming somwhere in the mid to upper ranges across the board, but likely have unidentified factors that may be skewing my own approach so still looking around.
                              I never said that feast and famine is gone, or that it's fasting effects are of ill health, just that in my goal to get stronger, and pack on more muscle mass, you want to tip the scale in the anabolic side, and not catabolic. The autophagic side of the fasting equation insures recovery even without nutrient intake which is an amazing feat our bodies have developed.

                              I also don't believe that in the current state we are in, more muscle mass is disadvantageous. I believe it's more advantageous to be stronger, faster, maybe a little bigger (no need to overdo it). I mean think of it, if we get stronger and optimize growth gene patterns in our genes, then we will grow stronger and stronger in each subsequent generation.

                              All this to say that our feast/famine adaptation has insured the survival of countless humans, but why not focus on being as physically strong and expressing great useful genes that a few generations ago were not possible, due to the limitation of food, we don't possess?

                              But like you said it depends on your goals! All those instance you mentioned are perfect examples. I really like that you mentioned dietary and metabolic conditions vary from person to person. As that's 100% the case, no two people are exactly alike(perhaps similar). Not even twins!! Lol

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                                I think the "fat adapted" thing should be more precisely termed "metabolic flexibility." If you eat a high carbohydrate diet and have metabolic flexibility you are healthy. If you don't, then you aren't so healthy. With metabolic flexibility you can tap into your fat stores for energy as needed no matter what your regular diet is. Without it, your body resists using your fat stores and instead demands more food all the time. I know a lot of young people don't believe this state exists, but believe me, it does and you don't have to be fat to experience it.
                                +1

                                I couldn't go more than 5 hours without starvation kicking in. The max i've gone after licking up the fat metabolism was 32 hours. But then I HAD to eat lol. Could not sleep that second night on no food lol

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X