[QUOTE=Cryptocode;1123608][B]pklopp[/B], very good. Thanks[/QUOTE]
+ 1 for another amazing post. Thanks!
[QUOTE=Cryptocode;1123608][B]pklopp[/B], very good. Thanks[/QUOTE]
+ 1 for another amazing post. Thanks!
To the extent that your diet starts to approximate our thought experiment, you should expect to come closer and closer to the posited outcomes. How would you do this? Frequent meals consisting of relatively high levels of carbohydrate. Note, that it is not the absolute CHO level that is relevant here, but rather the persistent insulin elevation. This implies that eating at the same absolute CHO intake, but taking all your carbs at one sitting is a better strategy, because you only elevate insulin in a transient rather than persistent fashion.
Most people do not make this distinction and instead you get the somewhat simplistic "carbohydrates drive insulin drives body fat" argument.
It's not the outright lies that get you, it's the partial truth that does the most damage.
How relevant is this thought experiment to reality, or the original question? In your average normoinsulinemic person (like me, or other carbophiles on this forum), about how much glucose do you think it would require to achieve that kind of constant insulin level? I'm guessing more than anyone ever eats. Either way, your thought experiment only addresses insulin's effect on relative fat mass by its inhibition of lipolysis, not the potential for carbohydrates to add to fat mass, which in the context of a normal diet (especially a paleo diet) is very small.
[QUOTE=Timthetaco;1124070]How relevant is this thought experiment to reality, or the original question? In your average normoinsulinemic person (like me, or other carbophiles on this forum), about how much glucose do you think it would require to achieve that kind of constant insulin level? I'm guessing more than anyone ever eats. Either way, your thought experiment only addresses insulin's effect on relative fat mass by its inhibition of lipolysis, not the potential for carbohydrates to add to fat mass, which in the context of a normal diet (especially a paleo diet) is very small.[/QUOTE]
Of course it is somewhat impolite to do so, but let me answer your rhetorical question with one of my own : what is the dose response curve of NEFA suppression to insulin? Or in other words, how much do you have to raise insulin to achieve significant suppression of NEFA levels? In the original thought experiment, I mentioned 500 pmol/l as most certainly achieving maximal suppression. But at what insulin concentration would we achieve 50% of the effect? It turns out that the level required to do that is ... wait for it ... about 120 pmol/l, or not much over baseline.
As you astutely observed, my experiment precisely and very much intentionally addresses insulin's effect on relative fat mass by its inhibition of lipolysis, and only incidentally the effect of carbohydrates. Why is that? Because as you may have taken away from my point above about the dose response curve of NEFA suppression, it doesn't really take carbohydrates to significantly suppress NEFA levels, it merely takes eating. So, carbophobe or not, paleo or not, if you buy into the eat many small meals throughout the day approach, then you are effectively running around throughout the day suppressing NEFA levels because you keep flirting with that 120 pmol/l threshold pretty much constantly. Of course, if you are ambitious and want to achieve higher NEFA suppression such as was posited in the original experiment, just throw in foods that we know spike insulin ... or, as I said "frequent meals with relatively high carbohydrate content."
You are, of course, correct. I did leave something unsaid in my original post to tie it back to reality, as you understand it : "if you want to achieve on the order of 50% of the results of our thought experiment, just eat frequent small meals." In my defense, I did point out that meal frequency is probably the more relevant aspect when I alluded to the fact that it wasn't the carbohydrates per se that suppress NEFA, and that it is probably advisable to eat all of one's CHO in one meal.
Fair enough. Thanks for the response.
Pklopp - Glad to see you back. I'd like to bounce something off of you and see what you think.
The 'Potato Diet' is still getting lots of attention and most who try it lose weight rapidly. You tried it, but with added protein, and had poor results.
I have tried many experiments around the potato diet the past 6 months, and find it only seems to work when one consumes soley potatoes. I have exhaustively tracked my blood glucose in an attempt to figure out what is going on and I think your explanation a few posts back hits on the efficacy of the potato diet.
For instance, if I eat nothing all morning, then 1 pound of potato around noon and track my blood glucose, I see this in 30 minute intervals: 97 (just prior to eating), 145, 180, 120, 90, 85, 85 (3 hr point). In all cases, my blood glucose after 3 hours and beyond is about 10 points lower than my fasting blood glucose.
On the second meal of one pound of potato, I see this: 85 (prior to eating), 120, 140, 130, 100, 80, 85 (3 hr point).
In all cases, my second meal shows a much lessened blood glucose spike.
If I eat like this for 2 or more days in a row, I see a morning FBG in the high 90's and will register 'in ketosis' with urine strips. I can tell there is a change going on by the second day in that I get the metallic breath and urinate more frequently. I also lose about 1 pound a day, which seems to be almost all fat and no muscle.
If I eat fat or protein, even in seemingly trivial amounts, none of this happens. Blood glucose levels are blunted and I return to FBG levels, or higher, rather than lower. I'm thinking this has something to do with the high glycemic index of the potato starch which is causing an over-correction from the insulin and leading to the burning of fat in fast order.
If I try eating at a similar calorie level on chicken or vegetables, nothing like this happens. There are about 800kcal in 2lbs of potato. A diet of 800kcal of chicken per day for 2 days will result in a bit of weightloss, but it is quickly rebounded in a day or two, similar to fasting for 48 hours. The weightloss that comes from a low-cal protein 'fast' seems to be all water weight, while from a 'potato-fast' it seems to be mostly fat.
Ok this is why I believe low carb diets work better than any to reduce your body fat percentage.
It comes down to the [B]human brain[/B]
Yes it is true that only a calorific deficit reduces fat (doesn't matter which macro's) and it is true that insulin has little effect on fat loss.
What I believe it boils down to is our brains exclusively using glucose as its fuel source. As we are animals our bodies tend to "go with the path of least resistance", over the years of SAD eating, our brains find it easier to signal for another hit of glucose (carbs) from the fridge or cupboard or drive-through, than to do any "metabolic magic" and convert glucose from another source.
This leads to us eating carbs, not for nutriment or not for our bodies perceived energy requirements (yes i believe we have the inherent ability to control the amount of calories we eat) but for a quick top-up of brain fuel. The brain forcing us to constantly eat leads to a calorie surplus (fat gain), apply this to many humans and you got an obesity epidemic.
This is why every body gets the carb flu when they first convert from a SAD diet to low carb diet; our brains are significantly bad at converting glucose from other sources at that stage and needs a few weeks to "re-learn" how to do it. Once we have a good system going and our brain doesn't "freak out" at the first sign of blood glucose dropping I think good carbs can be reintroduced with little detrimental effect, probably even out of a "low carb" eating range.
[I]So there we have it, all the people flying the flag for carbs (tim, derp, zach etc) on this forum can be smug in their knowledge that they aren't wrong and it is truly a calorie excess that causes fat gain. To all the keto hounds and low carb defenders you are also right in that carbs (indirectly through the inherent laziness of our brains) has caused the great obesity epidemic.
Or you could just be wrong. ;)
[QUOTE=Zach;1123469]People are fat because they are lazy and eat too much of the wrong food, not from following health authories advice. The government still advocates whole foods and exercise, not mcdonalds and sitting on the couch.
Quit blaming others, take responsibility.[/QUOTE]
This is not the case with all people who are fat/overweight. I know lots of active people who follow CW that are over weight. I was one of them.
I have lost weight by reducing my sugar and grain intake, and processed food. I still eat Fruit, and dairy & Honey, so I still eat sugar. 30lb less of me and no one on this earth will convince me other wise that following the Paleo way of life is nothing but a good thing for me.
Anyone on here who thinks carbs in the form of white sugar or the crap they put in fizzy drinks, buns & cake is OK then you must be a Troll, right or wrong your just looking to wind people up.
Any new people to this forum, READ THE BOOK, and stick to the quite simple way of doing things. The forum is full of "experts" who can often confuse things considerably.
[QUOTE=otzi;1124564] The weightloss that comes from a low-cal protein 'fast' seems to be all water weight, while from a 'potato-fast' it seems to be mostly fat.
So what should the body burn for energy then on a low-cal protein fast? If the deficit as an example is 1000 kcal/day on eating chicken breast, from where comes the energy, it must come from somewhere???
[QUOTE=Philmont Scott;1121793]I know that this is a straw man argument. It papers all "low carb" by attempting to shoot down "no carb".
I need a polite and convincing response to this. Help?[/QUOTE]
What you quoted is absolute 100% concrete fact. Any rebuttal would be an outright lie.
[QUOTE=primalrob;1121808]most of that is ok. it might get the insulin resistance thing a little bit wrong, but the big problem is that it oversimplifies things. really, the best response is to tell this person to read Good Calories, Bad Calories. a high carbohydrate diet in the form of sugar will certainly lead to fat storage. playing around with safe starches, however, should be fine depending on a person's activity level.
my preferred response would be to ask that this person/organization report the same myth and facts about fat.[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree. If you look at the diet of most ripped bodybuilders, you'll see it's loaded with starch and sugar with minimal fat. From my experience, it's much easier to convert carbohydrate into lean mass than dietary fat. Good Calories, Bad Calories is purposefully misleading and not factual, it's a study in epidemiology, and the same stuff the paleosphere tears down every day with CW studies. It is no better. The only thing that should be taken from Good Calories, Bad Calories is that a diet full of whole foods and free of processed foods likely yields a better body composition and superior health. That's a no brainer.
A high carbohydrate diet high in sugar paired with heavy lifts and sprints is optimal for that lean, athletic build. A diet rich in fat will have you falling on your butt, floundering around with a lack of energy and probably a poor body composition due to an energy source that can't keep up with your activity level.
Sugar is not directly stored as fat. It needs to be converted through a relatively inefficient process. If you're sitting on your butt at work drinking soda, you'll probably get fat. But if you're sitting on your butt at work drinking a bulletproof coffee, the same thing is probably going to happen. Dietary fat is more efficiently stored as body fat than sugar. If you overconsume, you'll gain fat. Period.