Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lots of fat, with no starch or carbs? Or vice versa?

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

  • Lots of fat, with no starch or carbs? Or vice versa?

    If you fuel your body with a lot of fat, say a stick of butter, or a half cup of coconut oil per day, then throw a sweet potato and rice on top of that, doesn't your body burn the potato and rice first, storing the fat? So, if you choose the sweet potato or rice, should you limit additional fat? Eating high fat and any amount of starch has resulted in instant weight-gain for many a primal-eating person.Is it lots of fat- sans carbs and starch? Or carbs and starch-sans fat?
    Or, is it- protein and veg, sans additional fat and starch?

    P.S. sans= without, for the laymen.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Rasputina View Post
    If you fuel your body with a lot of fat, say a stick of butter, or a half cup of coconut oil per day, then throw a sweet potato and rice on top of that, doesn't your body burn the potato and rice first, storing the fat? So, if you choose the sweet potato or rice, should you limit additional fat? Eating high fat and any amount of starch has resulted in instant weight-gain for many a primal-eating person.Is it lots of fat- sans carbs and starch? Or carbs and starch-sans fat?
    Or, is it- protein and veg, sans additional fat and starch?
    Why would anyone eat a stick of butter followed by rice? What kind of crazy weird shit is that?
    Remind me not to come to your house for dinner - lol
    Last edited by Silky; 08-16-2012, 06:23 PM.
    My photo diary of my primal diet on wordpress

    My primal journal on MDA.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Silky View Post
      Why would anyone eat a stick of butter followed by rice? What kind of crazy weird shit is that?
      Remind me not to come to your house for dine ear -lol
      I don't eat a frakkin stick of butter, followed by rice, lol. I actually don't usually eat either. I do, occasionally eat full-on buttery-ass popcorn, but that's rare and special

      Comment


      • #4
        Fat gets stored easily no matter what you eat it with. Which doesn't matter at all as long as you're eating within caloric balance it gets released for fuel during meals. The only reason people would gain weight eating starch is if they're not adjusting they're fat/protein when adding starch. You can't expect to add another 400 calories a day and not gain weight.

        Comment


        • #5
          The insulin released when the carbohydrate is ingested causes the body to store fat. Thus if you don't eat the carbohydrate, you don't get the insulin released and your body is less likely to store the fat (or store as much of it). At least that's how I understand it . This is why it's a very bad idea to eat foods both high in fat AND high in carbohydrates.

          Comment


          • #6
            Protein stimulates an insulin release. Pretty much everything you eat is going to cause an insulin response.

            Comment


            • #7
              It not the fact there is an insulin response it it the size the insulin response.
              Last edited by Dirlot; 08-16-2012, 09:58 PM.
              Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
              PS
              Don't forget to play!

              Comment


              • #8
                That's basically irrelevant.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Are you saying a high sugar hit, causing a high insulin hit leading to a blood sugar crash and increased hunger is the same as a protein slowly ingested over a prolonged low level insulin rise at a low level?
                  Oh please explain...
                  Last edited by Dirlot; 08-16-2012, 09:57 PM.
                  Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
                  PS
                  Don't forget to play!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Dirlot View Post
                    It not the fact there is an insulin response it it the size the insulin response.
                    Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
                    That's basically irrelevant.
                    How is that irrelevant? Please explain, then, how you could take in EXACTLY the same number of calories on one diet (say low fat, high carb) and gain weight, but on a high fat low carb diet you can lose weight with the same number of calories?? To me the answer is: insulin.

                    There was a study conducted back in the 50s that put people on 1000 calorie a day diets. One group had 90% fat, one had 90% protein, and one had 90% carb. Those on the carb diet actually put ON weight, while those on the high fat diet lost about 0.9lbs A DAY (those on the protein lost a bit less, about 0.6lbs a day from memory).

                    Obviously the energy intake was the same BUT the result was very, very different.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oh please no. Not the carb wars again.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        Oh please no. Not the carb wars again.
                        * insulin wars.

                        Originally posted by Dirlot View Post
                        Are you saying a high sugar hit, causing a high insulin hit leading to a blood sugar crash and increased hunger is the same as a protein slowly ingested over a prolonged low level insulin rise at a low level?
                        Oh please explain...
                        No, I'm saying that 300 calories of yogurt is no more fattening than 300 calories of chicken, despite that fact that it produces double the insulin response. The glycemic index index isn't always correlated to the insulin response.

                        Originally posted by Iron Fireling View Post
                        How is that irrelevant? Please explain, then, how you could take in EXACTLY the same number of calories on one diet (say low fat, high carb) and gain weight, but on a high fat low carb diet you can lose weight with the same number of calories?? To me the answer is: insulin.

                        There was a study conducted back in the 50s that put people on 1000 calorie a day diets. One group had 90% fat, one had 90% protein, and one had 90% carb. Those on the carb diet actually put ON weight, while those on the high fat diet lost about 0.9lbs A DAY (those on the protein lost a bit less, about 0.6lbs a day from memory).

                        Obviously the energy intake was the same BUT the result was very, very different.
                        Some cereals and pastas have the lowest insulin score of any foods. That' doesn't mean they can't be considered fattening. If lower insulin was the only key to fat loss then the insulin lowering drug diazoxide would actually be prescribed for weight loss.
                        The Pawan and kedwick study from the 1950's was bogus. Even the authors admitted it didn't count for anything because the people they used in the study were unreliable and were cheating and stealing food which was unaccounted for.

                        The re done those studies several times in actual controlled environments and the studies have shown no statistical significant fat loss when calories and protein have been controlled.
                        Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no meta... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
                        OBJECTIVE:

                        We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.
                        DESIGN:

                        Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 34.4 +/- 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with approximately 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; approximately 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.
                        RESULTS:

                        Mean (+/-SE) weight losses (6.3 +/- 0.6 and 7.2 +/- 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood beta-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood beta-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum gamma-glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet.
                        CONCLUSIONS:

                        KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.
                        Last edited by Forgotmylastusername; 08-17-2012, 12:35 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well, if a stick of butter is below your needs for fat and energy, then if you eat enough carbohydrate to stimulate an insulin rise, some of that fat is going to go into storage and some of will be burned but since it was below your needs, you will get hungry again and your body will ask for more. So you'll basically be undereating and getting fat.

                          But if a stick of butter is below your needs for fat and energy and you eat it with something else, like maybe a big pile of vegetables, then your body has no insulin telling it to send a portion toward fat storage. So since it's less energy than you need, your body will instead burn that stick of butter and then turn to its own fat for the remainder of its energy needs. You won't get hungry because your body will believe it's been fed.

                          But if a stick of butter is above your needs for fat and energy, no matter what you do, some of it will be stored as body fat.
                          Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                            Well, if a stick of butter is below your needs for fat and energy, then if you eat enough carbohydrate to stimulate an insulin rise, some of that fat is going to go into storage and some of will be burned but since it was below your needs, you will get hungry again and your body will ask for more. So you'll basically be undereating and getting fat.
                            I disagree. If you are undereating, then after the fat is stored, it will get burned again because where in the world is your energy going to come from when you're undereating? 400 calories of pure butter will be burned just as much as 400 calories of mixed rice and butter.
                            My chocolatey Primal journey

                            Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
                              I disagree. If you are undereating, then after the fat is stored, it will get burned again because where in the world is your energy going to come from when you're undereating? 400 calories of pure butter will be burned just as much as 400 calories of mixed rice and butter.
                              It'll get burned again only if you don't raise up your insulin over and over. That's how you end up in the vicious circle of weight gain. And you can end up there on a calorie deficit. I know because it happened to me.
                              Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X