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

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

    This is an absolutely wonderful article that everyone should read:

    Andrew Kim Blog: Diet Dogma Rears Ugly Head Again: Become a Fat Burner, Eat Your Own Crap, and Live Longer

    My favorite quotation is where he references Mark Sisson's article itself:

    [...]this desire to push back Father Time has spawned and perpetuated some pretty awful ideas which have no basis in any reasonable level of evidence.

    One such idea, actually a few related ideas that I’ll roll into one idea here, is to limit the amount of glucose our cells burn over the course of a lifetime, so as to turn on a primitive stress response mechanism called autophagy, a process whereby cells degrade and recycle their dysfunctional components in the face of nutrient depleted conditions. Unfortunately, this necessarily entails burning proportionately more fatty acids for fuel (or what’s called being “fat adapted” in horribly egregious articles filled with wishful thinking like this one) and turning down thyroid functioning, or the rate at which we live, adaptations that are directly at odds with reaching our full potential as human beings.
    There are so many other good ones.

    Maintaining tissue responsiveness to hormones is, I believe, a key factor in slowing down the aging process. Consider Progeria, a syndrome famous for producing an apparent accelerated aging in children. Progeria is characterized by a massive reduction in the responsiveness of cells to all hormones – a defect thought to drive the degenerative conditions that appear in children with the condition.

    A cell’s responsiveness to hormones is most sensitive when the stress hormones, free amino acids, and free fatty acids in the blood are low. For example, a deficiency of growth hormone, a stress hormone secreted by the pituitary gland, leads to an inflated sensitivity to the hormone insulin in adulthood.
    Another feature of Progeria, which animal models of Progeria and the like have unexpectedly found, is an increase in autophagy – an effect touted as highly desirable among Paleo, low-carbohydrate, and caloric restriction advocates. The molecular mechanisms are not well understood, but it does help to explain, to me at least, why chronic dieters look so haggard and the opposite of healthy, vibrant, and attractive; sometimes, as if death has warmed over. Simply put, autophagy is an adaptive response to metabolic stress that when chronically activated drives premature aging by inducing catabolic processes that outpace the renewal ability of cells. An increased oxidization of fat in preference to glucose is a key feature underlying this downward metabolic shift, as well as an impairment of mitochondrial respiration and a decline in ATP levels.
    Whether we like it or not, autophagy will occur in all of our cells. It is a primitive form of protection that allows cells to dispose of misfolded proteins, misassembled protein complexes, damaged mitochondria, and so forth. There is absolutely no need or reason to force it to occur artificially with special diets – especially so if you’re already healthy. Undue misery is sure to follow from this self-imposed deprivation. Interestingly, all the conditions that bring about autophagy are at odds with the conditions that maximize our potential as organisms, and this entails the thyroid hormone and oxidation of glucose for fuel. I think it’s time for us to toss the idea of diet-induced autophagy into the pile with the other worthless dogmas that have done little more than leave the landscape of diet and nutrition understanding in disarray.
    This is wonderful stuff.

    Mark Sisson's core concept of The Primal Blueprint is a sound one - eat real, fresh, nutritious whole foods, avoid processed, low-nutrient/high anti-nutrient foods. But then he has to go and muddy the waters with groundless bullshit to create a unique product that he can trademark as his own and sell. On one hand he advocates whole foods, but on the other he advocates added fats. He has this ridiculous and groundless "Carbohydrate Curve" that completely undermines the consumption of real food - you can eat all the meat and eggs you want, but you have to count your fruits. It's a cardinal sin to add a 16 calorie packet of white sugar to your coffee, but it's okay to emulsify half a stick of butter in it.

    Huh?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no such thing as being "fat adapted." We burn fat and glucose for fuel simultaneously at all times. If at any time you are not burning fat and glucose, you are dead. The goal of this diet shouldn't be to avoid fat or carbohydrate or any specific macronutrient. It should be to try and maximize the nutrition we get for each calorie of food we eat. Displacing real food for oils does the same thing as ordering pancakes instead of eggs - you remove nutritious foods for low-nutrient garbage while taking in the same amount of calories. Our goal here should be to eat high quality whole foods that maximize our health. That is how you keep the metabolic rate the highest, and what we want here is to have a high resting metabolic rate. 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.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 11-06-2013, 11:32 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  • #2
    Doesn't the idea of fat adaption fall apart when you look at people who loose tons of weight on high carb diets? Obviously, they are burning fat while consuming and burning a lot of glucose.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hehe; now grab your swords everybody and get ready for an epic battle...
      "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


      • #4
        Battle of the dead horses. My money's on # 3. He's still got a rib that's not broken to smithereens on the left side somewhere.
        The Champagne of Beards

        Comment


        • #5
          dead-horse.gif

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by statikcat View Post
            Doesn't the idea of fat adaption fall apart when you look at people who loose tons of weight on high carb diets? Obviously, they are burning fat while consuming and burning a lot of glucose.
            You burn fat and glucose at all times. The only thing that changes is the ratio. Fat burning is dictated by carbohydrate consumption: eat more carbs and the ratio of fat-to-glucose burnt decreases. Eating more fat does not increase fat burning, so the phrase "eat fat to burn fat" is a total lie.

            What matters is how much lower the "CI" part is relative to the "CO." People on high carb/low fat diets that lose weight simply maintained a lower CI than their CO. The best diet is the one that maximizes your "CO" while minimizing your "CI." The macro ratios may vary from person to person, but chances are it'll be an extremely nutrient-dense diet.
            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
              Hehe; now grab your swords everybody and get ready for an epic battle...
              Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
              Battle of the dead horses. My money's on # 3. He's still got a rib that's not broken to smithereens on the left side somewhere.
              Step right up, step right ladies and gents. You'll see horse abuse the likes ya neva knew existed

              my favorite is where he insults marks ideas on marks own forum. Not just disagree, insult
              beautiful
              yeah you are

              Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
              lol

              Comment


              • #8
                This is a good article. It is very difficult to understand, however. My basic takeaway is that there are different phenotypes for whether you are prone to obesity or not or for basically anything having to do with metabolism. Your body can change its response to energy inputs after environmentally-induced experiences.

                Basically, sweeping statements that x is wrong and y is right are incorrect because individual bodies are not static, let alone entire populations.

                Biology's response to dieting: the impetus for weight regain | Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology
                Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post

                  ** dogmatic criticism of diet dogma snipped **

                  Mark Sisson's core concept of The Primal Blueprint is a sound one - eat real, fresh, nutritious whole foods, avoid processed, low-nutrient/high anti-nutrient foods. But then he has to go and muddy the waters with groundless bullshit to create a unique product that he can trademark as his own and sell. On one hand he advocates whole foods, but on the other he advocates added fats. He has this ridiculous and groundless "Carbohydrate Curve" that completely undermines the consumption of real food - you can eat all the meat and eggs you want, but you have to count your fruits. It's a cardinal sin to add a 16 calorie packet of white sugar to your coffee, but it's okay to emulsify half a stick of butter in it.

                  ** more sanctimonious ranting snipped **
                  Please provide a link to support the straw man in bold above. I won't hold my breath. Mark has said that he enjoys sugar in his coffee, by the way. He's not above criticism but there's no reason to do it in that manner.
                  LastBottleWines

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Can we just sum up this mega-thread before it starts?

                    Kim crushes nothing. Choco agrees with his hypothesis as if its a mathematical law anyhow. Silliness ensues. Another monster thread about nothing clogs the front page with idiocy. Movin on.
                    Last edited by Neckhammer; 11-06-2013, 01:08 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hawkward View Post
                      Please provide a link to support the straw man in bold above. I won't hold my breath. Mark has said that he enjoys sugar in his coffee, by the way. He's not above criticism but there's no reason to do it in that manner.
                      You need me to provide link support that people around here are okay with adding fats but not adding sugars?

                      Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum
                      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's more fun to be protein adapted, anyway .
                        In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

                        This message has been intercepted by the NSA, the only branch of government that listens.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                          Can we just sum up this mega-thread before it starts?

                          Kim crushes nothing. Choco agrees with his hypothesis as if its a mathematical law anyhow. Silliness ensues. Another monster thread about nothing clogs the front page with idiocy. Movin on.
                          Kim absolutely does. Kim is being factual, Mark is marketing a different approach. Fat absolutely is not the "preferred" fuel of the human body. The human body needs to burn fat and glucose simultaneously, and given its druthers, it will burn sugar as fuel because it is more efficient metabolically. Fat is not as robust, so it supports a slower metabolic rate, and the body always prefers the more efficient pathway.

                          What fat is is the preferred storage fuel. It is much easier for the body to store dietary fat as body fat than it is to store sugar as body fat. That is actually fairly challenging and inefficient. The human body has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to store fat efficiently to get us through famine, and we are products of that evolution. If you want to get fattest easiest, choose to overeat dietary fat. If you would like to fuel intense activities, choose sources of dietary sugars.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                            Basically, sweeping statements that x is wrong and y is right are incorrect because individual bodies are not static, let alone entire populations.
                            Yes thank you. This times 1000.
                            I don't believe there is one correct way of eating for everybody, and I don't believe there is one correct way of eating for a person through every stage of their life

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                              Kim absolutely does. Kim is being factual, Mark is marketing a different approach. Fat absolutely is not the "preferred" fuel of the human body. The human body needs to burn fat and glucose simultaneously, and given its druthers, it will burn sugar as fuel because it is more efficient metabolically. Fat is not as robust, so it supports a slower metabolic rate, and the body always prefers the more efficient pathway.

                              What fat is is the preferred storage fuel. It is much easier for the body to store dietary fat as body fat than it is to store sugar as body fat. That is actually fairly challenging and inefficient. The human body has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to store fat efficiently to get us through famine, and we are products of that evolution. If you want to get fattest easiest, choose to overeat dietary fat. If you would like to fuel intense activities, choose sources of dietary sugars.
                              So lean meat and naught else, then?

                              This is what I take away from your posts re: getting rid of excess body fat.

                              M.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X