Page 21 of 27 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 269

Thread: Why can't I look like Mark Sisson!?!?! page 21

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Account closed
    Posts
    1,534
    Primal Fuel
    In related news, Germans love Mark...

  2. #202
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by oxide View Post
    Silly me, I thought we should meter our carb intake because our bodies were evolved to burn fat for energy, you know, the whole Grok thing. We have the DNA to make both fat-burning hormones and sugar burning hormones. But we evolved on eating fat and protein, so the fat-burning set of hormones is more efficient and causes fewer digestive problems etc. Sure, fat burners eat fewer calories, but that's more of a side effect than a strict Primal tenet.
    You have a fundamental lack of understanding as to what the Primal Blueprint actually is. You also have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the human metabolism works. There are no "fat burners" and "sugar burners." There is no such thing as a "fat burning beast." People with actual knowledge of health and nutrition rail against Mark for this. These are marketing terms because Mark is a businessman first. If you are not burning fat, you are dead. If you are not burning sugar, you are dead. The reason why the Primal Blueprint is successful for most is because when you eat less processed foods for more whole foods, you become better sated on fewer calories because 100g of carbohydrate from a potato will keep you a lot fuller than 100g of carbohydrate from wheat flour, and 500 calories from eggs is going to keep you fuller than 500 calories of Lean Cuisine, all while being more nutritious and providing wellness. The Primal Blueprint causes weight loss for one reason and one reason only - it makes it easier to maintain a caloric deficit. You just don't know you're calorie starving yourself because virtually no one's homeostasis will provide an appetite for a 50+lb weight surplus on a whole foods diet.

    You were evolved to burn fat and glucose as fuels, which is why you are burning both at all times. Most traditional societies eat more carbohydrate than fat. The reason why is because life evolved around the Equator where fruit and starch is everywhere and lean game meat is prevalent. We did not emigrate as a species to cold weather climates where fatty game is common until a few thousand years ago. You probably descended from people that ate more starch than anything else with relatively lean protein.

    The end result - eat everything. If you don't consume glucose in your diet, your body will make it by breaking down your muscles, which is far less efficient. You're a sugar burner at all times as well. Choose your source - real food or muscles.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  3. #203
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by canio6 View Post
    Really? Sounds and looks like a cheese omelet/scramble with hashbrowns to me. Though in this case there are a couple more eggs than the traditional 3 you might get in a restaurant and the hashbrowns are not fried. I'm not sure I would eat it cold, but it certainly doesn't sound outlandish.
    I love it cold! It is so much more flavorful. The flavors there intensity. You may be surprised how much more taste an egg has cold vs hot, especially with the rich, creamy goat cheese. Try it! Make an omelet with goat cheese, toss it in the fridge and eat it 3 hours later. It's really excellent.

    I thought the potatoes would be weird, too, but again, I could swear they taste better cold.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  4. #204
    canio6's Avatar
    canio6 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    S. Arizona
    Posts
    11,609
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I love it cold! It is so much more flavorful. The flavors there intensity. You may be surprised how much more taste an egg has cold vs hot, especially with the rich, creamy goat cheese. Try it! Make an omelet with goat cheese, toss it in the fridge and eat it 3 hours later. It's really excellent.

    I thought the potatoes would be weird, too, but again, I could swear they taste better cold.
    I'll have to give this a try. I try to stay out of the LC/HF/What-the-f*ck-ever wars, but I can always appreciate good, real food.
    somehow I manage to leave my intelligence and decorum at the door wherever I go. I doubt your journal will be an exception to that - not on the rug

    What the F&#* is a decorum? - Mr. Anthony

  5. #205
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,697
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    The end result - eat everything. If you don't consume glucose in your diet, your body will make it by breaking down your muscles, which is far less efficient. You're a sugar burner at all times as well. Choose your source - real food or muscles.
    I agree with most of what you are saying, but don't let us forget that the body also makes glucose from dietary protein, so breakdown of muscles can be held in check when dieting by keeping ingested protein higher...

  6. #206
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,723
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    The end result - eat everything. If you don't consume glucose in your diet, your body will make it by breaking down your muscles, which is far less efficient. You're a sugar burner at all times as well. Choose your source - real food or muscles.
    This is just as oversimplified and flat out wrong than the "insulin hypothesis" is then. Probably what gets you called out so frequently. You tell people "they just don't get it" then end your whole post with some garbage as such. Your just wrong man. And you have no evidence to the contrary. Since you love the CICO thing recognize you cant have it both ways. I want you to find me some isocaloric studies showing reduced lean mass on a keto or low carb diet to a greater degree than that of any other diet. I won't hold my breath.

    And "traditional societies" may do whatever they please, but you have to define traditional further to get at the gritty details. Are you speaking of traditional agricultural societies? Then your right. If your speaking of traditional hunter gatherer societies then your way off.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 01-22-2013 at 10:01 AM.

  7. #207
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    I agree with most of what you are saying, but don't let us forget that the body also makes glucose from dietary protein, so breakdown of muscles can be held in check when dieting by keeping ingested protein higher...
    You can...but the difference in feel is enormous. Getting your glucose from actual bioavailable sources like fruit and starch versus overconsuming protein and fibrous vegetables to try and meet those demands...you feel like a slug doing the latter. There really is a such thing as going too high in protein. If I skew protein too high for too long, energy levels crash. It's a bad feeling. Again, you're forcing your body to create its own essential ingredients using an emergency metabolic pathway. It's not ideal.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  8. #208
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    This is just as oversimplified and flat out wrong than the "insulin hypothesis" is then. Probably what gets you called out so frequently. You tell people "they just don't get it" then end your whole post with some garbage as such. Your just wrong man. And you have no evidence to the contrary. Since you love the CICO thing recognize you cant have it both ways. I want you to find me some isocaloric studies showing reduced lean mass on a keto or low carb diet to a greater degree than that of any other diet. I won't hold my breath.

    And "traditional societies" may do whatever they please, but you have to define traditional further to get at the gritty details. Are you speaking of traditional agricultural societies? Then your right. If your speaking of traditional hunter gatherer societies then your way off.
    What are you talking about?

    The brain uses on average 180-200g of glucose a day. You can supplement that with ketones, but you will always need some amount of glucose. If you are not consuming that glucose, then you have to make that glucose. That glucose will come from protein. If you do not have a surplus of protein in your diet, then it comes from lean tissue.

    How is this an oversimplification exactly?

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

    In terms of weight and fat loss, at the end of 6 weeks both groups had lost roughly the same amount of weight (6.3kg for the ketogenic diet, and 7.2 kg for the non-ketogenic diet; this was not statistically significant). As well, the loss of body fat was the same (3.4 kg in the ketogenic diet and 5.5 kg in the non-ketogenic diet; again this was not statistically different even if the non-ketogenic diet seems to have lost ~4 pounds more fat). There was no significant change in fat free mass for either diet.
    What I love about these studies is that they consistently prove one thing: it all comes down to the energy deficit. This study is particularly interesting for two reasons:

    1.) While not statistically significant, the balanced diet of equal caloric deficit mildly outperformed the ketogenic diet.

    2.) In ketogenic diets, you typically drop more water weight than on higher carbohydrate diets. Not only did the non-ketogenic diet marginally outperform the ketogenic diet, when you factor in the water weight confounding factor...well, it even further skews the study out of keto's favor.

    If there is truly any advantage to ketogenic dieting, it is entirely hunger-blunting effects that translate into a deeper spontaneous calorie deficit. Since calories were controlled, that's why you see no significant deviations. It's all CICO, baby.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 01-22-2013 at 10:20 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  9. #209
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,723
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    What are you talking about?

    The brain uses on average 180-200g of glucose a day. You can supplement that with ketones, but you will always need some amount of glucose. If you are not consuming that glucose, then you have to make that glucose. That glucose will come from protein. If you do not have a surplus of protein in your diet, then it comes from lean tissue.

    How is this an oversimplification exactly?
    ^Because what you say here. Does not equal this:

    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    The end result - eat everything. If you don't consume glucose in your diet, your body will make it by breaking down your muscles, which is far less efficient. You're a sugar burner at all times as well. Choose your source - real food or muscles.
    The latter is an obvious omission of the sources of glucose to attempt to make a very incorrect claim.

    And then your McDonald thing....hell I'll even quote lyle:

    "Researchers recruited 20 overweight subjects (which they admitted was a small sample size), both men and women and placed them on either a ketogenic low-carbohydrate diet (essentially an Atkins type of diet) or a moderate-carbohydrate non-ketogenic diet (like the Zone and it’s worth noting that Barry Sears is one of the authors on the paper) for 6 weeks. Exercise was not performed."

    So in a VERY small sample size of people (whom I'm sure should we look at individual data we could find some issues) there was this study done by Barry Sears author of "The Zone" between an atkins like model and a zone type model....and to my complete astonishment the zone diet fared slightly, but not statistically significantly better in some measurements.

    ^For real? This study is your smoking gun for "keto and low carb will eat your lean mass"? Pfffft....Gimme a break!

  10. #210
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    The latter is an obvious omission of the sources of glucose to attempt to make a very incorrect claim.
    No, they say the exact same thing. Glucose must either be dietary or it comes from lean mass. You're trying to turn it into something it isn't my creating assumptions that never existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    And then your McDonald thing....hell I'll even quote lyle:

    "Researchers recruited 20 overweight subjects (which they admitted was a small sample size), both men and women and placed them on either a ketogenic low-carbohydrate diet (essentially an Atkins type of diet) or a moderate-carbohydrate non-ketogenic diet (like the Zone and it’s worth noting that Barry Sears is one of the authors on the paper) for 6 weeks. Exercise was not performed."

    So in a VERY small sample size of people (whom I'm sure should we look at individual data we could find some issues) there was this study done by Barry Sears author of "The Zone" between an atkins like model and a zone type model....and to my complete astonishment the zone diet fared slightly, but not statistically significantly better in some measurements.

    ^For real? This study is your smoking gun for "keto and low carb will eat your lean mass"? Pfffft....Gimme a break!
    Nice try with the selective quoting. Read further:

    1500 calories were given total.
    Ketogenic dieters were given 33g of carbohydrate a day, which is 9% of total calories.
    "Low carb" dieters were given 157g of carbohydrate a day, which is 42% of total calories.

    How many people in this thread consider 42% total daily calories a "low carbohydrate diet?" 157g/day is in Mark Sisson's "insidious weight gain" area of the (ridiculous) Carbohydrate Curve. They're eating that much on a massive deficit, and it's being call "low carbohydrate."

    Stop trying to intentionally mislead people. These are very overweight people eating within the "insidious weight gain" area of the Carbohydrate Curve and they lost more weight than the keto people eating the same calories. Whether or not it's statistically significant or not is irrelevant because the study proves that it's all about CICO. And as I pointed out earlier (which you ignored), the study did not account for the water weight loss the keto people would have also encountered, which would further skew the results in the "42% calories from carbohydrate" group's favor. If any conclusions are to be drawn, it is that ketogenic diets lower metabolic rate, or at the very even struggle to break even with more moderate approaches to dieting. The ketogenic dieters also had a smaller percentage of the weight loss come from fat mass than the non-ketogenic higher carbohydrate dieters, which is indicative of more lean mass loss from ketogenic dieting.

    This was nothing close to an "Atkins type of diet" as you attempted to indicate.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 01-22-2013 at 11:05 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

Page 21 of 27 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •