Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating carbs with fat?

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

  • Neither of Feltham's "high carb" protocols would agree with my system, though it is an interesting concept, having 100 people do these.

    I think that 5000 calories per day is more like a gimmick. It would make more sense for each person's intake to be keyed to their maintenance calorie requirement.
    Last edited by eKatherine; 05-27-2014, 09:34 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DavidBeersAuthor View Post
      This is laughable. In fact, all the responses to Sam's experiment are laughable. I cannot wait for NuSI to begin testing this with randomized dieters to stop all this nonsense talking.

      The guy did three different diets, all twenty one days long (for a total of over two months of dieting), and on each one showed that calories in/calories out is naive at best. All the responses have been--well, what was he doing BEFORE? I bet he stopped taking drugs! It needs to be longer than 21 days!

      The fact of the matter is, the guy did the exact same protocol that Taubes and others are saying needs to be done, and showed that insulin is the primary culprit in fat gain, and that carbohydrates are driving this. I'm really hoping Pklopp has something to say, because everyone else's responses have been a joke. He did what you're saying he couldn't do, and then you're trying to rationalize it away. 'Nobody can lose fat by raising calories unless changing other parameters.'--HE JUST DID IT. Unless you're saying he's a liar, which I guess you are. I realize this is n=1, and when I corresponded with Taubes about it, his response was: I want 100 of him randomly chosen, and then using a control group. Still, this n=1 is a direct slap into the face to the calories in/calories out crowd, and rather than thinking--hey, this open to discussion, lets see what might have happen--excuses come out in droves.
      I personally believe the NuSI studies are going to find in support of the ability to eat excess fat and not gain fat in a very low carb setting. At least in active individuals with low body fat to begin with. It probably comes out pretty close to the famous steak and eggs diet in terms of macro content. At least if one cooks everything in butter.

      And it makes complete sense in regards to what we know about insulin and it's antagonists.

      I think people with excess body fat are going to have a harder time with it - they certainly aren't going to loose much of any fat in the process. They may not store nearly as much fat as one would predict - but there will be some.

      I bet his stools were greasy - as the body does indeed have a way of just not assimilating everything it takes in if it doesn't need it.
      What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DavidBeersAuthor View Post
        This is laughable. In fact, all the responses to Sam's experiment are laughable. I cannot wait for NuSI to begin testing this with randomized dieters to stop all this nonsense talking.

        The guy did three different diets, all twenty one days long (for a total of over two months of dieting), and on each one showed that calories in/calories out is naive at best. All the responses have been--well, what was he doing BEFORE? I bet he stopped taking drugs! It needs to be longer than 21 days!

        The fact of the matter is, the guy did the exact same protocol that Taubes and others are saying needs to be done, and showed that insulin is the primary culprit in fat gain, and that carbohydrates are driving this. I'm really hoping Pklopp has something to say, because everyone else's responses have been a joke. He did what you're saying he couldn't do, and then you're trying to rationalize it away. 'Nobody can lose fat by raising calories unless changing other parameters.'--HE JUST DID IT. Unless you're saying he's a liar, which I guess you are. I realize this is n=1, and when I corresponded with Taubes about it, his response was: I want 100 of him randomly chosen, and then using a control group. Still, this n=1 is a direct slap into the face to the calories in/calories out crowd, and rather than thinking--hey, this open to discussion, lets see what might have happen--excuses come out in droves.
        I have not said he is “a liar” so far – but it’s another possibility that cannot be ruled out! So what did he eat the last week before starting his 21 days “experiment”? What did he eat the week after going off his 21 days diet? As I can see, he measured body-composition by using photos, tape measure and the scale and water fluctuations can indeed be very betrayal, especially by such short term diets!

        What about a little skepticism when somebody claims that something extraordinary happened as he does? When anybody pretends to overturn basic knowledge and common sense by a n=1 experiment, at least show some intellectual honesty…
        "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


        • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
          What about a little skepticism when somebody claims that something extraordinary happened as he does?
          It's not extraordinary, it's just a data point. Perhaps the extraordinary claim is the one you make, since it it is based 99% on hearsay and "common sense" misreading of science. And when I say this, I mean to say that of 100 people making this claim, 99% cannot explain what the scientific method is or in what way physics support their position.

          You are free to set up your own experiment. Let us know how it comes out, in addition to posting daily updates and videos as Sam did.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
            It's not extraordinary, it's just a data point. Perhaps the extraordinary claim is the one you make, since it it is based 99% on hearsay and "common sense" misreading of science.
            Not extraordinary??? Eat more than the double of your normal diet as long as it is mostly fat and proteins and lose fat and get leaner by doing that. This is “common sense” or backed by science or the personal "experience" for most people at this board?
            Last edited by Gorbag; 05-27-2014, 10:13 AM.
            "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


            • Originally posted by gdot View Post
              I personally believe the NuSI studies are going to find in support of the ability to eat excess fat and not gain fat in a very low carb setting. At least in active individuals with low body fat to begin with. It probably comes out pretty close to the famous steak and eggs diet in terms of macro content. At least if one cooks everything in butter.

              And it makes complete sense in regards to what we know about insulin and it's antagonists.

              I think people with excess body fat are going to have a harder time with it - they certainly aren't going to loose much of any fat in the process. They may not store nearly as much fat as one would predict - but there will be some.

              I bet his stools were greasy - as the body does indeed have a way of just not assimilating everything it takes in if it doesn't need it.
              Agree with this. Well said.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by gdot View Post
                I personally believe the NuSI studies are going to find in support of the ability to eat excess fat and not gain fat in a very low carb setting. At least in active individuals with low body fat to begin with. It probably comes out pretty close to the famous steak and eggs diet in terms of macro content. At least if one cooks everything in butter.
                The steak and egg diet works because it makes you eat less, that’s something completely different than the n=1 experiment guy did. In fact carbs (and sufficient proteins!) will be muscle sparing if you are lean and doing lots of training, so the high fat diet will be more optimal for people starting out dieting when having lots of body fat and a relatively sedentary lifestyle…
                "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


                • Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                  The steak and egg diet works because it makes you eat less, that’s something completely different than the n=1 experiment guy did. In fact carbs (and sufficient proteins!) will be muscle sparing if you are lean and doing lots of training, so the high fat diet will be more optimal for people starting out dieting when having lots of body fat and a relatively sedentary lifestyle…
                  I understand your skepticism.

                  But I have a slightly different take on how the steak and eggs diet works. In my mind it works because:

                  It provides enough calories for daily energy needs to be met by fat intake. Since the body is already 'tuned' to run on fat this becomes it's preferred fuel (over protein). It's getting absolutely all it needs.

                  It provides enough protein that the body can not only meet it's needs for protein but it can convert as much of it as it must to store as glycogen.

                  BUT - because the body has all the fuel it needs in fat, and because it's 'wasteful' to convert any more protein than needed into glucose, it simply dumps excess the excess protein and fat (pardon the pun - dumps! HA!)

                  Adding carbs of course, stimulates more of an insulin response and shoots it all to hell.

                  I call this sloppy bodybuilding eating. I used to know guys that lived on butter when they were cutting.
                  What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gdot View Post
                    I understand your skepticism.

                    But I have a slightly different take on how the steak and eggs diet works. In my mind it works because:

                    It provides enough calories for daily energy needs to be met by fat intake. Since the body is already 'tuned' to run on fat this becomes it's preferred fuel (over protein). It's getting absolutely all it needs.

                    It provides enough protein that the body can not only meet it's needs for protein but it can convert as much of it as it must to store as glycogen.

                    BUT - because the body has all the fuel it needs in fat, and because it's 'wasteful' to convert any more protein than needed into glucose, it simply dumps excess the excess protein and fat (pardon the pun - dumps! HA!)

                    Adding carbs of course, stimulates more of an insulin response and shoots it all to hell.

                    I call this sloppy bodybuilding eating. I used to know guys that lived on butter when they were cutting.
                    I think you forget the major organ that needs the glucose gotten from proteins: the brain! The latter is the glucose sink in these conditions. Muscles will prefer fat most of the time (just to keep their integrity as they are always metabolically active) and will learn to spare glycogen in the absence of dietary carbs. But the brain cannot do without glucose, even when ketones can partially compensate. And the last thing: we all have a big energy store in the form of body fat. The SnE diet forces your body to tap into it.

                    About the insulin, remember that proteins promote insulin production. But they also promote glucagon production to keep bllod glucose levels within range. So the end result is that insulin in this case does not inhibit fat burning. In the presence of carbs, glucagon is useless so the effect of insulin on fat burning (decrease) is more effective. One can argue that it is actually an absence of glucagon that promotes fat storage

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gdot View Post
                      I understand your skepticism.

                      But I have a slightly different take on how the steak and eggs diet works. In my mind it works because:

                      It provides enough calories for daily energy needs to be met by fat intake. Since the body is already 'tuned' to run on fat this becomes it's preferred fuel (over protein). It's getting absolutely all it needs.

                      It provides enough protein that the body can not only meet it's needs for protein but it can convert as much of it as it must to store as glycogen.

                      BUT - because the body has all the fuel it needs in fat, and because it's 'wasteful' to convert any more protein than needed into glucose, it simply dumps excess the excess protein and fat (pardon the pun - dumps! HA!)

                      Adding carbs of course, stimulates more of an insulin response and shoots it all to hell.

                      I call this sloppy bodybuilding eating. I used to know guys that lived on butter when they were cutting.
                      Well, in absence of enough carbs the body will break down protein to get glucose. The brain in ketosis will still need a high percentage of glucose. Also, all anaerobe training; weight training, sprints, intervals etc., will still be highly depending on glucose. Nobody denies that you can cut weight on butter and fat, if in a calorie deficit and getting enough proteins, but the muscle loss will accelerate dramatically if training hard, especially below 10 – 12 % of body fat…
                      "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


                      • Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
                        I think you forget the major organ that needs the glucose gotten from proteins: the brain! The latter is the glucose sink in these conditions. Muscles will prefer fat most of the time (just to keep their integrity as they are always metabolically active) and will learn to spare glycogen in the absence of dietary carbs. But the brain cannot do without glucose, even when ketones can partially compensate. And the last thing: we all have a big energy store in the form of body fat. The SnE diet forces your body to tap into it.

                        About the insulin, remember that proteins promote insulin production. But they also promote glucagon production to keep bllod glucose levels within range. So the end result is that insulin in this case does not inhibit fat burning. In the presence of carbs, glucagon is useless so the effect of insulin on fat burning (decrease) is more effective. One can argue that it is actually an absence of glucagon that promotes fat storage
                        I haven't forgotten. But the brain doesn't NEED more than 100 calories a day in glycogen. Once it's up and running on ketones.

                        So in the presence of excess fat and very limited carbs will the body expend the energy to convert protein to glycogen for the brain in general - or just the bare minimum required for it's essential function. After all - fat is plentiful!

                        It's all totally subjective - but there have been other overfeeding studies that resulted in very little weight gain - one recently in which people were massively overfed protein powder. Didn't change much of anything.
                        Last edited by gdot; 05-27-2014, 02:43 PM.
                        What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by gdot View Post
                          I haven't forgotten. But the brain doesn't NEED more than 100 calories a day in glycogen. Once it's up and running on ketones.
                          Even in ketosis the brain will still use around 50% from glucose and that alone should be around 250 - 300 calories. But if you are also doing weight training, sprinting or hard cardio etc., then you will need much more than that!

                          And if little or no dietary carbs - then the body must ramp up neoglucogenesis for sure...
                          "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


                          • Your numbers don't match mine in terms of glucose need in the brain.

                            How Much Glucose Does the Brain Really Need? | Mark's Daily Apple

                            30 grams of glucose minimum per day is 120 calories.

                            Again - I'm not really saying I have a real clue here - just thinking out loud.
                            What have you done today to make you feel Proud?

                            Comment


                            • The brain will use between 120 and 150 grams of glucose per day and in ketosis around 50% of energy will come from ketone bodies. So I calculate 60 – 75 gram of glucose that counts for 4 calories per gram = 240 – 300 calories. Maybe some sources will say that the brain can utilize a higher percentage of ketone bodies but I believe 50 % is a conservative estimate.

                              Anyhow, if training hard the demand of glucose will be urgent, so the breakdown of proteins for glucose will be ramped up dramatically in lack of dietary carbs…
                              "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


                              • Im wondering- would The quality of carbs affect body fat distribution/ loss and gain? I.e. I imagine there would be a difference if you ate HF and got 100g carbs / day from all veg and fruit vs white rice or starchy carbs due to the insulin spike from starchy carbs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X