when you say "refeed" what exactly do you mean? Just carb intake of 20g? 50? 100? I'm a little new to a "refeed" requirement and would like to understand it.
[QUOTE=sting;1229283]Thanks Dragonfly i actually was reading their blog today for the first time :) and actually read that article link you posted did you agree that protein don't turn into glucose?
Nearly every diabetic seems to think it does Hmm[/QUOTE]
The diabetics are actually correct, but they don't quite have the pathway sorted. The article link also argues somewhat along the same lines.
It's not :
increased substrate => increased gluconeogenesis => increased glucose
What is actually happening is:
increased substrate => increased gluconeogenesis => increased glycogenesis
Whether or not your increased gluconeogenesis manifests as circulating glucose depends on hormonal signalling with respect to glycogenolysis ( i.e. whatever our old friend glucagon gets up to )
I've largely given up even having a stance on this, but for the record my blood sugar has been checked three times and is always 69. Fasted or non-fasted, and once about four hours after I ate as much meat as I could. So it's anecdotal and avoids all the bad science you all sling, but excess protein doesn't seem to elevate MY blood sugar, anyway.
[QUOTE=Cryptocode;1229362]A BIG positive outcome of the study was that calories in = calories out is wrong.[/QUOTE]
I know right? :)
Sometimes it scares me how smart I am. The first time I ever heard of "CICO" I just intuitively I knew it was the stuff dumb people say. Hehehe.
The basics are demonstrated once again:
* HDL goes up
* TRI goes way down
* Metabolic rate goes up
Translated: you get thin and don't have a heart attack. Why? Evolution.
It varies by person so please nobody say something stupid like "well not for everyone". We already know that.
[QUOTE=Cryptocode;1229362]A BIG positive outcome of the study was that calories in = calories out is wrong. Low carb has a definate metabolic advantage.[/QUOTE]
No. The study has no outcome. Let me explain what it means when the confidence intervals cross. It is like this:
On a scale of 1-10 for what people think of beauty, red flowers came out as a 3 [but because you didn't ask enough people, if you did a bigger group the number may be 2 - 5].
Yellow flowers came out as a 4 [but it could be between 3 - 6].
You cannot say from this that people think yellow flowers are more beautiful than red flowers. It could be that if you did the study again, red would be a 5 and yellow would be a 3.
By the way, even when confidence intervals don't cross, the standard expectation that you will get at least a 95% confidence interval means that there is a 1 in 20 chance that if you do the study again you will get a different answer (that is what the author would be claiming anyway, in reality in medical studies it never works out to be that highly likely).
This whole gluconeogenesis thing....
Ok, my understanding of it at this point from my readings is.... Yes it is substrate dependent, but only to a point. The key term in that blog post is "excess" protein. You don't get a perpetual increase in gluconeogensis with every gram of protein that you eat over a certain threshold. What is excess? I don't know, but I'm sure if you dug in you could find a point at which increasing protein no longer increased gluconeogenesis. I believe that to be the point of the blog post. So some questions to be asked might be how much do you have to limit substrate bellow that particular cutoff point to get the effect you are looking for.... or if you don't eat the protein how low can you go before the body starts to find it endogenously? Surely the answers are lifestyle and health history dependent. I definitely don't have any population data or trials on my hard drive that gives any definitive answers but, those are questions I'd be asking if I were doing my own diabetic N=1.
[QUOTE=loafingcactus;1230002]No. The study has no outcome. Let me explain what it means when the confidence intervals cross. [/QUOTE]
Hehe I for one grasp math but find it dull compared to the power of intuition. Come on, we know CICO is wrong. Lets just party. :)
there is also the mTor activation. Avoiding this is the reason Rosedale suggests moderating protein. And protein does induce an insulin response in addition to glucagon. I've been doing low protein and it has been the most successful low carb dieting I've ever done. I think the flaw with most people who do moderate or low carb is excess protein intake and it ruins the effects and causes them to feel cravings.