Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gluconeogenesis

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
    This is typically why we store fat as energy, as it's much more dense, oxidizes slower, and is too complex and burdening to use as a main source of energy.
    I don't really see the connection between the first half of the sentence and the words I highlighted. Isn't it your opinion only ? After millions of years of evolution, if stored fat was so burdening and too complex to oxidize, why bother keeping this mechanism ? I think personally that it is great to have 2 sources of energy: one for slow pace activities and one for rapid bursts / fast action. There is a reason why we have only a limited storage capacity of glycogen ...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by dkJames View Post
      I don't really see the connection between the first half of the sentence and the words I highlighted. Isn't it your opinion only ? After millions of years of evolution, if stored fat was so burdening and too complex to oxidize, why bother keeping this mechanism ? I think personally that it is great to have 2 sources of energy: one for slow pace activities and one for rapid bursts / fast action. There is a reason why we have only a limited storage capacity of glycogen ...
      I was just inferring based on the fact it will always, in normal context, choose to oxidize glucose above fat. Since it's my inference, I guess you can say it's my opinion
      Make America Great Again

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
        I was just inferring based on the fact it will always, in normal context, choose to oxidize glucose above fat. Since it's my inference, I guess you can say it's my opinion
        Not so ... when your insulin level has returned to baseline, you oxidize free fatty acids released from your fat cells. That's what happens when you sleep and i.e. if you skip breakfast and lunch. Glucose will be used no doubt (stored right away after a meal and converted to glyco), if you actively use your muscles and glycogen is available. But otherwise, when you are not busy digesting and are not engaged in heavy workouts, fat is used. So what is exactly the "normal context" again ?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
          What are you talking about? -_- Bananas brown because they oxidize faster as referenced in my equation above. It has nothing to do with VLC. And bread is already oxidized. It was just about the equation and compositions.

          Seriously, why are you cherry picking useless abstracts when I'm not even addressing you?
          Snippy, snippy. I was merely pointing out the irrelevance of the browning banana an the counter to anything having to do with health or diet.

          Originally posted by dkJames View Post
          I don't really see the connection between the first half of the sentence and the words I highlighted. Isn't it your opinion only ? After millions of years of evolution, if stored fat was so burdening and too complex to oxidize, why bother keeping this mechanism ? I think personally that it is great to have 2 sources of energy: one for slow pace activities and one for rapid bursts / fast action. There is a reason why we have only a limited storage capacity of glycogen ...
          Exactly. Metabolic flexibility is a good thing.

          Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
          I was just inferring based on the fact it will always, in normal context, choose to oxidize glucose above fat. Since it's my inference, I guess you can say it's my opinion
          It "chooses" to burn the thing that is the most toxic first. This is why alcohol gets burned first, then excess glucose, then fats. This does not indicate a "preference" for glucose, merely that at high glucose levels in the blood you will die. The body is just protecting itself.

          Originally posted by dkJames View Post
          Not so ... when your insulin level has returned to baseline, you oxidize free fatty acids released from your fat cells. That's what happens when you sleep and i.e. if you skip breakfast and lunch. Glucose will be used no doubt (stored right away after a meal and converted to glyco), if you actively use your muscles and glycogen is available. But otherwise, when you are not busy digesting and are not engaged in heavy workouts, fat is used. So what is exactly the "normal context" again ?
          Exactly. In a metabolically flexible individual, (aka The Fat Burning Beast) this switching back and forth is a normal daily thing. Derp and Peat can keep trying to paint it as "stressful" but if that were so, humanity would have died out a long time ago.

          What is stressful is eating a super high carb diet for so long that your body becomes mal-adapted to burning fat for fuel. This is why sugar bees need to eat every three hours or so and keep sucking on those sweet drinks.

          Comment


          • #35
            You know, it would help if you actually stated something beyond your opinion, or Lustig's opinion, and backed it up with some actual scientific evidence that explains your "evolutionary" stance. I already formulated a post earlier, that broke it down into biological processes, and you chose to ignore it. Did you not understand it, or did you just not bother to do any research into it? It's all there, in textbooks, backed up by science.

            Glucose is not a toxin, it has specific metabolites designed to process it, unlike ethanol(alcohol), which has to be filtered out only by the liver because it has no place else to go. No idea why you make this stupid comparison, it just makes you look ignorant, and I don't believe you are; just incredibly biased, as evident by the fact you can only play cheerleader to people who share your opinion and repeatedly jump into threads only to gang up on someone else and +REP!!11 your friends.

            My point on bananas was only pointless to you, because it wasn't addressed to you in the first place, and I was using an example as to the composition of carbohydrates and why they oxidize faster in all context. Read the first posts if you want. It has nothing to do with diet, because I never intended it to. You did that yourself.

            Oxidation of sugar promotes metabolism in many ways, like sparing oxygen consumption. It produces more carbon dioxide than oxidizing fat does, because sugar increases krebs cycle activity and inhibits toxic damage to proteins(this is why many people recommend sugar along with protein). The glycation of proteins occurs under stress, when less carbon dioxide is being produced, and the proteins are normally protected by carbon dioxide.


            I agree that it's nice to have fat to fall back on, and oxidizing saturated fats isn't inherently harmful, but it's just that, it's a back-up response. You can agree or disagree.
            Last edited by Derpamix; 06-04-2013, 05:28 PM.
            Make America Great Again

            Comment


            • #36
              I really don't think that on a Primal website I should have to "back up" an evolutionary template for health. Read Mark's book if you want citations. And I think citing a pediatric endocrinologist's writings and lectures (Dr. Robert Lustig) someone who deals with obese six month old children with type 2 diabetes is a fine way to back up a stance on sugar. You choose to be dismissive of his work. That doesn't make him wrong.

              If you think that an evolutionary rationale for a way of eating is such bunk I will ask you once again. Why are you even still here?
              I think on some (perhaps subconscious) level, you really know it's right. It's either that or you secretly have a crush on me.

              I agree that burning glucose for fuel in a metabolically healthy person is not inherently evil. That what I said about switching back and forth being the hallmark of a healthy metabolism. Unfortunately, there are a lot of less than healthy metabolisms out there.

              I know you will roll your eyes at this but permit me a WWGD analogy. Grok finds a bee hive and smokes out the bees and stuffs himself and the tribe senseless on honey. Well functioning metabolisms handle this just fine, the extra glucose is cleared from the bloodstream and stored as fat. But the problem comes when we eat every day as if we just found another honey comb and don't even have to do any work to get it other than open the jar. Eventually the system can't handle the constant overload. This leads to metabolic dysfunction.

              Comment


              • #37
                The problem is Lustig is a loon, who really doesn't seem to get his information from anywhere in particular, he's been debunked million of times before, and just seems to base his "theory" on strawman arguments and guesswork. He defends his knowledge on how many hits his youtube video gets. Also, last I checked, he derives most of calories from carbs anyway, just in the form of starch, and only demonizes fructose and sugar(no idea why, like I said, he's a loon)

                I dismiss his work because he's wrong in every way. I would guess that he probably draws inspiration from John Yudkin, who wrote some books(comic strips, really) full of inaccurate epidemiologies, such as the fact it seems as though many of these studies ignore entirely the bigger picture, like how sugar stimulates metabolism, which in turn creates a need for more nutrients in the body, but they're quick to point out that sugar was present. Example: In 1793, a cargo vessel was shipwrecked in the Carribean. The 5 survivors lived on rum and sugar for 9 days. They were found to be in an unusually bad way. They point out sugar, when they were living off rum for 9 days? Too funny. This isn't even the worst of it. Ray Peat addresses most of these, and debunks them himself.

                The body can handle hundreds of grams of glucose, as it's used in tons of processes, there is no reason to believe it would ever be overloaded, and your theory assumes that once the body has an abundance of energy, it simply has no idea what to do with it, and shuts down. This isn't the case. I only agree with you in that metabolically healthy people should be able to handle either situation easy enough, I can, despite living life as a sugar bee, I disagree completely when you claim that fat should be the primary source of fuel. This is just wrong in every context, as shown repeatedly. Also, the frequency in which it should be switched.

                Even pklopp infers there isn't much difference between fat and carbs in what we're discussing, this is because once fat gets to beta oxidation, it shares similarities with the TCA cycle.

                There is too much guesswork involved in socio-anthropology to make it a valid argument to use.
                Last edited by Derpamix; 06-05-2013, 04:07 AM.
                Make America Great Again

                Comment


                • #38
                  Again, you calling Lustig a loon and Yudkin's work's comic strips doesn't make them wrong. It just makes you dismissive of anything that disagrees with your guru. (Whom I could very well call names but choose not to.)

                  Sugar: The Bitter Truth - YouTube

                  Pure, White and Deadly by John S. Yudkin - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I'm not watching that shit again. I find Oprah more enlightening.
                    Make America Great Again

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                      I'm not watching that shit again. I find Oprah more enlightening.
                      I didn't post them for you to watch/read but rather for people with open minds who actually might like to learn something on the subject.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                        I didn't post them for you to watch/read but rather for people with open minds who actually might like to learn something on the subject.
                        oh lord you're funny
                        Make America Great Again

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Some glucose is good, some fat is good, we all now that. They both can be obtained from real healthy foods, which are good as well. What else is there to say really ?

                          This thread is about gluconeogenesis.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by secret agent girl
                            ChocoTaco369,
                            and
                            Derpamix,

                            It seems you are both implying that LC is not a good choice - am I understanding your positions? I think my impression must be wrong, otherwise I'm not sure why someone with such beliefs would hang out around here. I must be missing something...?

                            This is a sincere question to try and make sense of what I'm reading here.
                            These two have bought hook line and sinker into a single persons hypothesis (Ray Peat). Basically its all based on a philosophy that anything that increases certain hormones like cortisol or glucagon (since its been shown cortisol isn't necessary to induce gluconeogenesis) is inherently stressful and harmful. From there he extrapolates that sugar is necessary at all times, otherwise you may get an increase in glucagon stimulating gluconeogenesis and increased "stress". But we all know that there are many forms of hormesis (good stress), so I've never bought into. Oh, and he would rather you have a tachycardia with a permanently elevated body temp.

                            Not to mention that the literature tends to show improved markers from fasting, exercise, and in low carb dieting...... all of which Peat frowns upon. Just read some stuff on exercise and fasting if the high fat low carb stuff scares you. These are both stressors that the Peat ideal would have you believe inhibits good health. It would take some monumental effort of cherrypicking to prove such a thing because an overwhelming majority of the literature says that they improve almost every known health marker.
                            Last edited by Neckhammer; 06-06-2013, 07:05 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by secret agent girl
                              ChocoTaco369,
                              and
                              Derpamix,

                              It seems you are both implying that LC is not a good choice - am I understanding your positions? I think my impression must be wrong, otherwise I'm not sure why someone with such beliefs would hang out around here. I must be missing something...?

                              This is a sincere question to try and make sense of what I'm reading here.
                              Why not hang around here? Choco eats whole foods that include fruits and tubers. Primal is not necessarily a LC diet. PB has a medical condition that necessitates eating HFLC and others do well on that too. Primal is a whole foods kind of umbrella that can include even people who eat the majority of their carbs from fruit and starches. I eat that way and am very healthy. I don't feel like I don't belong here because I don't eat HFLC. Whole food eating encompasses a wide spectrum.

                              And just like eating higher carbs and sugar would be disastrous for PB's health, eating HFLC would be equally disastrous for someone else. I feel like crap unless I eat a lot of fruit - LC doesn't suit me at all and neither does the BAS or lots of veggies. This forum isn't just for one strict method or point of view.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Zanna View Post
                                Why not hang around here? Choco eats whole foods that include fruits and tubers. Primal is not necessarily a LC diet. PB has a medical condition that necessitates eating HFLC and others do well on that too. Primal is a whole foods kind of umbrella that can include even people who eat the majority of their carbs from fruit and starches. I eat that way and am very healthy. I don't feel like I don't belong here because I don't eat HFLC. Whole food eating encompasses a wide spectrum.

                                And just like eating higher carbs and sugar would be disastrous for PB's health, eating HFLC would be equally disastrous for someone else. I feel like crap unless I eat a lot of fruit - LC doesn't suit me at all and neither does the BAS or lots of veggies. This forum isn't just for one strict method or point of view.
                                This.
                                100%.



                                However...
                                The fear mongering against LC that is constantly going on from some of the high carb crown is down right ridiculous.
                                “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
                                ~Friedrich Nietzsche
                                And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X