Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gluconeogenesis

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

  • Gluconeogenesis

    Hi guys,
    What does this study mean exactly? I don't know where to place it. (:
    Thanks!

  • #2
    Originally posted by toscamulder View Post
    Hi guys,
    What does this study mean exactly? I don't know where to place it. (:
    Thanks!
    Google is your friend.

    Comment


    • #3
      No, I know what gluconeogenesis is. I mean what the study means. What does it say exactly. Like an abstract.

      Comment


      • #4
        You did not link to a study. Gluconeogenesis is not a study, it is a natural process. Please link to the study in question.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh, my fault! Maybe it didn't 'paste', sorry haha. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full.pdf

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by toscamulder View Post
            Hi guys,
            What does this study mean exactly? I don't know where to place it. (:
            Thanks!
            Two words: Metabolic advantage.

            Of course, the study didn't look at stress hormone levels either....
            Last edited by magicmerl; 04-18-2013, 05:00 PM.
            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


            • #7
              "Although gluconeogenesis is thought to be relatively stable in humans, a high-protein diet, especially in the absence of carbohydrates, may stimulate gluconeogenesis"

              It means their original belief (quoted above) was wrong. Of course we in PB know that if you don't eat any sugar or carbs, your body will make the glucose (gluconeogenesis) it needs. They are calling this increased EE. The increased part means that the body expends more energy in gluconeogenesis than it does if it were to just use the glucose you fed it. And that means a Metabolic Advantage.
              "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cryptocode View Post
                It means their original belief (quoted above) was wrong. Of course we in PB know that if you don't eat any sugar or carbs, your body will make the glucose (gluconeogenesis) it needs. They are calling this increased EE. The increased part means that the body expends more energy in gluconeogenesis than it does if it were to just use the glucose you fed it. And that means a Metabolic Advantage.
                It does not mean metabolic advantage.

                Protein has a higher burn rate than carbohydrate or fat. It is difficult to metabolize, and it takes more energy to do so. However, people on low carbohydrate diets have slower metabolisms than people on high carbohydrate diets assuming equal protein content and you maintain proper saturated:unsaturated fat ratios. The reason why is people with low carbohydrate intake have a slower thyroid and their mitochondria puts out less CO2, which means impaired cellular respiration.

                Gluconeogenesis is an emergency mechanism. Glucose is so essential to your body that it will devour its own muscle and connective tissue to get it. It is far more essential than dietary fat. The brain comes first, and even in full blown ketosis, the body requires more sugar than fat each day. It'll get it any way it has to, even if it is has to suck it from your other organs.

                Your body does not want to be in gluconeogensis for prolonged periods of time. The end result may be hypothyroidism, adrenal fatigue and the diseases of society that come along with metabolic failure (i.e. cancer). The Inuits are probably the most notable low carbohydrate society, and they are well-known for their rapid aging.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  The reason why is people with low carbohydrate intake have a slower thyroid and their mitochondria puts out less CO2, which means impaired cellular respiration.
                  Philosophy and assumption, which are not without their confounders, hence can not be expressed as a universal law.
                  Low carb diets do not result in thyroid dysfunction in all individuals.
                  Low thyroid levels do not result in metabolic dysfunction in all individuals.
                  CO2 output is not a direct measure of metabolic efficiency, look at Respiratory Quotient (coefficient), Glucose is 1 and fat is 0.7, that is because when fat is utilised for metabolism a significant portion, Hydrogen, is metabolised to H2O to release energy, so will never show as CO2. Therefore when carbohydrate is metabolised there will always be more CO2 in the blood than when fat is, this doesn't have any direct relationship to metabolism.


                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  Gluconeogenesis is an emergency mechanism. Glucose is so essential to your body that it will devour its own muscle and connective tissue to get it. It is far more essential than dietary fat. The brain comes first, and even in full blown ketosis, the body requires more sugar than fat each day. It'll get it any way it has to, even if it is has to suck it from your other organs..
                  Again your philosophy, all other data suggests that the minimum daily requirement for glucose comes down to about 50g of which most can be derived from glyceride's left over once fatty acids are metabolised from trig's, leaving a small requirement which needs about 50g of lean protein to be used in gluconeogenesis.
                  What is the minimum requirement for saturated fat in the abscence of dietary saturated fat?
                  Does the body have to use glucose and breakdown other tissues to satisfy this minimum requirement?
                  How is this different to the essential glucose requirement?
                  The same type of argument that you use could be applied to propose that fat is the most important nutrient.


                  Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                  Your body does not want to be in gluconeogensis for prolonged periods of time. The end result may be hypothyroidism, adrenal fatigue and the diseases of society that come along with metabolic failure (i.e. cancer). The Inuits are probably the most notable low carbohydrate society, and they are well-known for their rapid aging.
                  Again assumption and philosophy, where is your data, all the conditions you mention are rampant in the SAD diet, surely this is not considered low carb, there is no basis whatsoever for your statement. The low carb studies that I have seen that associate low thyroid function all used Omega 6 oils as the fat component of the diet and we all know what that means.
                  As for Inuit, I haven't seen anything detrimental with regard to ageing, and even if there is data, has this been compared to societies with equal extremes of environmental conditions?

                  As for the study, only glanced through it so far, but only really shows that if the body is presented with excess protein it needs to get rid of it, in the abscence of glucose it will do the conversion, what would be the outcome if the same level of protein was used and adequate glucose was provided with glycogen stores full, would the energy equation still be the same, more info is required to determine what the study is really saying.
                  Last edited by Omni; 04-19-2013, 11:40 PM.
                  "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Nicely refuted, Omni.

                    Assumption+philosophy+reading a Ray Peat web site=/=evidence or facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have tried to read the Peat/Roddy stuff on a number of occassions and I find it extremely difficult going, the bulk of it seems to be based on a philosophical presumption and then gathering obscure data to support this presumption.

                      It does not attempt to answer the confounders of it's own philosophy and with the language being generally emotive and derogatory immediately to me suggests a weak argument, although I am open to new information all the time their writing style is not conducive to their cause.

                      I am not hard core low carb, don't need to be and where I am suits me fine, but like religious fervour, when their is a declaration of the one true god, my ears prick up, you get a bit sick of the parroting, "eat more sugar, eat more sugar, eat more sugar"
                      "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Omni View Post
                        I have tried to read the Peat/Roddy stuff on a number of occassions and I find it extremely difficult going, the bulk of it seems to be based on a philosophical presumption and then gathering obscure data to support this presumption.

                        It does not attempt to answer the confounders of it's own philosophy and with the language being generally emotive and derogatory immediately to me suggests a weak argument, although I am open to new information all the time their writing style is not conducive to their cause.

                        I am not hard core low carb, don't need to be and where I am suits me fine, but like religious fervour, when their is a declaration of the one true god, my ears prick up, you get a bit sick of the parroting, "eat more sugar, eat more sugar, eat more sugar"
                        You pretty much nailed it on the Peat stuff. I tried to read it a long time ago. It really is a house of cards built on a premise that if incorrect comes tumbling down. And there is more then enough evidence to suppose that premise is questionable. Then you look at the citations and a high percentage of them are rat models from 70+ years ago.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Omni View Post
                          I have tried to read the Peat/Roddy stuff on a number of occassions and I find it extremely difficult going, the bulk of it seems to be based on a philosophical presumption and then gathering obscure data to support this presumption.

                          It does not attempt to answer the confounders of it's own philosophy and with the language being generally emotive and derogatory immediately to me suggests a weak argument, although I am open to new information all the time their writing style is not conducive to their cause.

                          I am not hard core low carb, don't need to be and where I am suits me fine, but like religious fervour, when their is a declaration of the one true god, my ears prick up, you get a bit sick of the parroting, "eat more sugar, eat more sugar, eat more sugar"
                          Right, because there is no religious fervor over VLC. :eyeroll:

                          The truth is a VLC diet is inherently stressful and will lower metabolism/reduce thyroid output. Now if you would like to argue if that is necessarily harmful, go ahead. But dont try to say that VLC (enough to elicit gluconeogenesis) does not do these things.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            One more time.

                            There is a difference between a metabolic adjustment and a pathological condition.

                            VLC is not everybody's cup of tea and is not pushed onto everybody (the low carb police are not out to get you).

                            But ketosis is a normal bodily state. Ray Peat can keep saying it's stressful and harmful but that doesn't make it true.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
                              But ketosis is a normal bodily state. Ray Peat can keep saying it's stressful and harmful but that doesn't make it true.
                              Who the hell is Ray Peat? He sounds like a knucklehead.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X