[QUOTE=Drumroll;1330127]So we should all just eat a 100% protein diet in order to maximize metabolic burn and the thermic effect. Then everyone would be lean and no weight issues, this debate wouldn't be happening, and everyone would be happy.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.[/quote]
Law of diminishing returns. Eating a protein content so high that carbohydrate content isn't enough would require the body to burn protein - conversion of amino acids into glucose. This is done primarily by cortisol, so the constant state of gluconeogenesis would overtime become an extremely stressful environment. I would predict a crushed libido, no energy and strong hypothyroidism. High protein =/= all protein as protein is not an efficient energy source, unlike fat and carbohydrate.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1330129][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url][/QUOTE]
Oh lordy Choco, learn to tell when someone is being sarcastic and/or using a bit of hyperbole. ;)
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1330129][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
Law of diminishing returns. Eating a protein content so high that carbohydrate content isn't enough would require the body to burn protein - conversion of amino acids into glucose. This is done primarily by cortisol, so the constant state of gluconeogenesis would overtime become an extremely stressful environment. I would predict a crushed libido, no energy and strong hypothyroidism. High protein =/= all protein as protein is not an efficient energy source, unlike fat and carbohydrate.[/QUOTE]
just imagine that lactate
pretty sure without sufficient co2 the thermogenic effects wouldn't be there
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1330045]I eat more now than I was when I started Primal, I can lift approximately 50% more, yet I weigh 10 lbs less. My body better handles the calories I consume, and my hands and feet are typically always warm whereas before they were not. I still carry more body fat than I'd like - but I imagine it'll take many years of slow adipose tissue turnover to optimize my hormone patterns to the way I eat now.
I definitely BURN a lot more calories now, though. [/QUOTE]
I eat more now, too and burn a lot more too. A lot more. But when I was losing weight, I was also eating my body fat, so I did not need to have large plates of food and really did not need to burn a lot of calories as the stress of that probably would have interfered with weight loss by causing me to become hungry and eat more than I should.
Now I want to get stronger so I eat larger amounts of food to support my lifting but I also sprint 2x a week in the hope that I will not get fat. It's a balancing act I struggle with.
I carry far more body fat than anyone would say is desirable, but any efforts toward reduction in body fat only result in a slowing of strength improvements for me as well as general malaise, increased hunger, decreased energy expenditure. Things are not the same now as they were when I was fatter.
Macro ratios do not make one bit of difference for me now, except that some ratios support my efforts to get strong and do HIIT and some support my efforts when I'm doing lots of LISS or am sedentary.
My metabolism is higher now than it used to be because of the exercise I do. I have more metabolically expensive tissue (muscle) and more mitochondria (from the sprinting.) It's also probably subjectively higher now because I no longer sit in an air-conditioned office all day and I can't remember the last day it was truly cold. Air-conditioning is probably 50% of why a lot of women are cold. The other 50% is because women are taught from the very first day they open a magazine at age 9 or so that they should aim for 1200 calories a day and tons of slow cardio in the "fat burn" zone to get that Kate Moss look. The first leap our minds take is well, if I can do 1000 calories on the treadmill and eat 1000 calories for the day or maybe even 800, I will get there faster. And thus begins the process that breaks our metabolisms.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1330095]Simply due to thermic effect of food. More body heat generated.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zach;1330113]And better hormone support.[/QUOTE]
So I take it you two would agree that it is a completely theoretical stance. There is no evidence demonstrated by human trials. And back to the original post it would seem to be counter to the work cited so often in metabolic ward studies correct? In fact many studies actually do not tend to agree with your assessments when it comes to hypocaloric states associated with people trying to lose weight:
To let you know what I'm looking for here are just a couple of examples that would seem to counter your stance:
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3702673]The effect of varying carbohydrate content of a v... [Metabolism. 1986] - PubMed - NCBI[/url]
The effect of varying carbohydrate content of a very-low-caloric diet on resting metabolic rate and thyroid hormones.
Mathieson RA, Walberg JL, Gwazdauskas FC, Hinkle DE, Gregg JM
Metabolism 1986 May;35(5):394-398
Twelve obese women were studied to determine the effects of the combination of an aerobic exercise program with either a high carbohydrate (HC) very-low-caloric diet (VLCD) or a low carbohydrate (LC) VLCD diet on resting metabolic rate (RMR), serum thyroxine (T4), 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (T3), and 3,5,3'-triiodothyronine (rT3). The response of these parameters was also examined when subjects switched from the VLCD to a mixed hypocaloric diet. Following a maintenance period, subjects consumed one of the two VLCDs for 28 days. In addition, all subjects participated in thrice weekly submaximal exercise sessions at 60% of maximal aerobic capacity. Following VLCD treatments, participants consumed a 1,000 kcal mixed diet while continuing the exercise program for one week. Measurements of RMR, T4, T3, and rT3 were made weekly. Weight decreased significantly more for LC than HC. Serum T4 was not significantly affected during the VLCD. Although serum T3 decreased during the VLCD for both groups, the decrease occurred faster and to a greater magnitude in LC (34.6% mean decrease) than HC (17.9% mean decrease). Serum rT3 increased similarly for each treatment by the first week of the VLCD. Serum T3 and rT3 of both groups returned to baseline concentrations following one week of the 1,000 kcal diet. Both groups exhibited similar progressive decreases in RMR during treatment (12.4% for LC and 20.8% for HC), but values were not significantly lower than baseline until week 3 of the VLCD. Thus, although dietary carbohydrate content had an influence on the magnitude of fall in serum T3, RMR declined similarly for both dietary treatments.
[B]Comments: they split 12 women into two groups of 6. Half were given a 1000-calorie low-carb diet, the other half a 1000-calorie high-carb diet. The metabolic rate of the low-carbers declined by 12.4%, the metabolic rate of the high-carbers declined by 20.8%.[/B]
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12921877]Effect of hypocaloric meals with different macronu... [Nutrition. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI[/url]
We investigated the effect of hypocaloric mixed diets with different proportions of carbohydrate, protein, and fat on resting metabolic rate and the thermic effect of food in obese women.
Three mixed hypocaloric diets were consumed in random order during separate periods lasting 7 d each. Between each dietary period there was a washout period of 10 d. Diet 1 had a higher proportion of energy from carbohydrate (72%), diet 2 had a higher proportion of energy from protein (43%), and diet 3 had a higher proportion of energy from fat (68%). Indirect calorimetry and lung function tests were done after the completion of each 7-d diet. Seven obese women, ages 22 to 45 y and with body mass indexes of 32 to 59 kg/m(2), participated in the study. Oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production, resting metabolic rate, and the thermic effect of food by indirect calorimetry were measured. Lung function tests included spirometry in the seated and upright positions, arterial blood gas analysis, and maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures.
There were no statistically significant differences in the resting metabolic rate and the thermic effect of food resulting from the three diets. The mean resting metabolic rates (kJ/d) were 7453 +/- 1446 for diet 1, 7461 +/- 1965 for diet 2, and 7076 +/- 2048 for diet 3. The mean thermic effects of food (kcal/min) were -0.02 +/- 0.07 for diet 1, -0.01 +/- 0.25 for diet 2, and 0.05 +/- 0.13 for diet 3. Lung function tests were normal before and after the hypocaloic diets: partial pressure of oxygen (mmHg) values were 81 +/- 13, 77 +/- 8, and 78 +/- 11 for diets 1 to 3, respectively; and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (mmHg) were 37 +/- 4, 37 +/- 3, and 37 +/- 4 for diets 1 to 3, respectively.
Obese women with normal lung function tests and consuming mixed hypocaloric diets showed no alteration in resting metabolic rate and a reduced or absent thermic effect of food independently of the macronutrient composition.[/B]
Hope this better illustrates what I consider evidence. Just stating "it's the thermic effect" doesn't cut it, so if thats all you got then I guess we'll just wrap things up now.
You consider studies that lasted a month or lessas evidence? Conclusion, adrenalin is a powerful hormone.
Also your own study shows that t3 is lowered and rt3 is elevated by a vlc diet. Give that more then a month and see what happens. Actually Neck, you know what happens. Dont know why you like to play dumb.
one month, obese, liberating lots of fat stores, likely insulin resistant, and it showed mean free t3 dropped. thyroid exerts its effects on metabolic rate for a fairly long period. you're going to have to do better than that Neck.
[QUOTE=Zach;1330290]You consider studies that lasted a month or lessas evidence? Conclusion, adrenalin is a powerful hormone.
Also your own study shows that t3 is lowered and rt3 is elevated by a vlc diet. Give that more then a month and see what happens. Actually Neck, you know what happens. Dont know why you like to play dumb.[/QUOTE]
They aren't "my" studies. I'm just showing what sort of evidence I would like to see if its out there in support of someones stance. If you have such studies that back your stance that last longer than a month I'd love to see them. I understand T3 is effected by carbohydrate. But, I also understand that this does not seem to translate to a significant change in RMR based on that study, and others.
So if T3 is high but basal metabolic rate is not effected what do you end up with? Simply that the extra T3 is necessary to metabolize blood sugar perhaps? I read some of this at this site: [url=http://aworldlymonk.wordpress.com/]A Worldly Monk | The Body Electric[/url]
I have read a lot of studies, and never come across one that shows carbs thermic effect leads to subsequent increased metabolic rate in isocaloric conditions. When something is stated OVER AND OVER on here as if it is law....and people are even ridiculed for questioning it I expect there to be at least one good trial to support such a claim. I'm just putting it out there.
Oh, and please understand I'm not the one making a claim..... The claim is that a high carb diet increases metabolic rate via thermic and hormone effect. I was focusing on that.
I seriously thought you were smarter then this.
[QUOTE=Zach;1330304]I seriously thought you were smarter then this.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why....
I'm simply reversing the roles. When the high carb community came in (which is fine btw) there was a lot of questioning and great deal of inquiry as to the evidence about certain things that low carbers held as "truths". Its not a bad thing. It helped many re-examine why things work as they do and what evidence really was there and was not. There was plenty that was being said in a rather authoritative manner by low carbers that really was not backed by evidence to a great extent. The concept of a metabolic advantage to low carb eating was one such statement.
I see the same thing happening with the high carb POV, so I'm reversing the roles. I'm asking for the evidence, if there is any on this metabolic advantage. Thats all. Cause you see when it was up to the low carbers to prove there was one for a low carb approach....well in isocaloric trials, it was quite hard to find something substantial. But, at the same time I saw nothing to suggest the that high carb was better.