-
Here is one that has been discussed [url=http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154]JAMA Network | JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association | Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance[/url] . Here [url=http://eatingacademy.com/books-and-articles/good-science-bad-interpretation]Good science, bad interpretation « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.[/url] and another interpretation here [url=http://freetheanimal.com/2012/06/jama-effects-of-dietary-composition-on-energy-expenditure-during-weight-loss-maintenance.html]JAMA: Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance | Free The Animal[/url].
There are very valid arguments to both keeping your total carb load low (for your activity level) and to not spiking your insulin on a repeated basis with frequent snacking...i.e. eating 2-3 full meals a day tops. I do recall reading that it takes far less amounts of insulin to turn fat burning off than it does to actually mobilize sugar from the bloodstream. But, if your not slurping on a 72oz pop and snacking all day long your levels of insulin should drop enough between feeding your face to burn some fat.
Following the Primal carb curve and staying very active while not snacking should do the trick for most people IMO.
-
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;933956]^There is actually a lot more research out there since then....literally a ton. I'm sure your google scholar works though.[/QUOTE]
It sure does. Here are a few studies I found noting absolute contribution of DNL to fat stores. They all seemed to overfeed their subjects by 50% with (extra) carbohydrates ranging from about 3-500 grams per day.
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC185982/]Short-term alterations in carbohydrate energy intake in humans. Striking effects on hepatic glucose production, de novo lipogenesis, lipolysis, and whole-body fuel selection.[/url]
[url=http://www.ajcn.org/content/48/2/240.short]Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man.[/url]
[url=http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/1/19.abstract?ijkey=9223c2f00b559333b3b9283099b8d3bc0ccabad6&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha]Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage.[/url]
[url=http://www.ajcn.org/content/73/2/253.full#ref-20]Postprandial de novo lipogenesis and metabolic changes induced by a high-carbohydrate, low-fat meal in lean and overweight men[/url]
[url=http://jas.fass.org/content/84/13_suppl/E94.ftp]Stable isotope methods for the in vivo measurement of lipogenesis and triglyceride metabolism[/url]
^That last link is the most important, since I know you're not going to bother even skimming these. Just read the section labeled "Significance of DNL in humans and animals"
Now, none of these studies were done later than 2005, and they go all the way back to the late 80s, so maybe my Google Scholar doesn't work as well as I thought it did. Maybe yours works better and can find this literal ton of research that's hiding from me.
So, let's compare two statements and take sides:
[I]De novo lipogenesis is not a significant pathway in the contribution to bodily fat stores in human beings.[/I]
[B]OR[/B]
[I]Ingestion of carbohydrates causes a rise in insulin levels, which results in the storing of carbohydrates as fat, contributing significantly to bodily fat stores.[/I]
Only one of them can be true, and only one of them is supported (rather uncontroversially) in the scientific literature. Yet Gary Taubes's anti-establishment--and admittedly, kinda slick and sexy--hypothesis holds more sway in the paleo community.
So the next time you wonder why nobody takes low carb/paleo seriously, there's your answer. We ignore real scientific literature in favor of holding up fucking journalists and other ne'er-do-wells as our dietary gods. I haven't even been in this community for a year and I'm more than a little jaded.
/rant
-
[QUOTE=Timthetaco;937398]It sure does. Here are a few studies I found noting absolute contribution of DNL to fat stores. They all seemed to overfeed their subjects by 50% with (extra) carbohydrates ranging from about 3-500 grams per day.
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC185982/]Short-term alterations in carbohydrate energy intake in humans. Striking effects on hepatic glucose production, de novo lipogenesis, lipolysis, and whole-body fuel selection. Short-term alterations in carbohydrate energy intake in humans. Striking effects on hepatic glucose production, de novo lipogenesis, lipolysis, and whole-body fuel selection.[/url]
[url=http://www.ajcn.org/content/48/2/240.short]Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man.[/url]
[url=http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/1/19.abstract?ijkey=9223c2f00b559333b3b9283099b8d3bc0ccabad6&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha]Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage.[/url]
[url=http://www.ajcn.org/content/73/2/253.full#ref-20]Postprandial de novo lipogenesis and metabolic changes induced by a high-carbohydrate, low-fat meal in lean and overweight men[/url]
[url=http://jas.fass.org/content/84/13_suppl/E94.ftp]Stable isotope methods for the in vivo measurement of lipogenesis and triglyceride metabolism[/url]
^That last link is the most important, since I know you're not going to bother even skimming these. Just read the section labeled "Significance of DNL in humans and animals"
Now, none of these studies were done later than 2005, and they go all the way back to the late 80s, so maybe my Google Scholar doesn't work as well as I thought it did. Maybe yours works better and can find this literal ton of research that's hiding from me.
So, let's compare two statements and take sides:
[I]De novo lipogenesis is not a significant pathway in the contribution to bodily fat stores in human beings.[/I]
[B]OR[/B]
[I]Ingestion of carbohydrates causes a rise in insulin levels, which results in the storing of carbohydrates as fat, contributing significantly to bodily fat stores.[/I]
Only one of them can be true, and only one of them is supported (rather uncontroversially) in the scientific literature. Yet Gary Taubes's anti-establishment--and admittedly, kinda slick and sexy--hypothesis holds more sway in the paleo community.
So the next time you wonder why nobody takes low carb/paleo seriously, there's your answer. We ignore real scientific literature in favor of holding up fucking journalists and other ne'er-do-wells as our dietary gods. I haven't even been in this community for a year and I'm more than a little jaded.
/rant[/QUOTE]
I'm a bit jaded, too, although maybe not for the same reasons. I've been doing "primal" for going on three years. I can easily overeat fat and meat, they don't fill me up, they add fat to my abs.
-
[QUOTE=BestBetter;932601]My n=1 with macros:
High fat + high carb = fat gain.
High fat + low carb = fat gain.
Low fat + high carb = fat loss in a healthy way (my top doesn't look emaciated)
Low fat + low carb = fat loss in a bad way (all from my top, stubborn fat on bottom half remains).
Everybody has a different situation going on, but for me, eating fat with or without carbs means instant fat gain, eating low fat means fat loss, so I really don't think the insulin response is as simple as most people make it out to be.
[/QUOTE]
I have found the same to be true for my body, despite my stubborn "VLC til I die!" former mindset. It worked very well for me for over a year and a half, until something changed and I hit a wall - HARD. I dug my heels in and lowered what was already a ridiculously low carb intake, and things only got worse.
Lower fat, moderate carb seems to be what my body wants and I'm finally supplying it. I cannot believe how much better I feel. If this changes, I won't hesitate to play around with the ratios, but for now, I've (finally) found my "sweet spot."
