Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86

Thread: Storing fat WITHOUT insulin - ASP page 7

  1. #61
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    The low calorie diet they were put on reduced fat in their organs. Not fat intake. You're misunderstanding. The reduction of fat in the organs was responsible for the increase in insulin sensitivity, because the free fatty acids that ended up in non-adipose tissues are lipotoxic. They lost fat from their organs because they were on a low calorie diet, as anyone would expect. Any diet that reduces fat in the liver and pancreas is going to improve health.

  2. #62
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    The low calorie diet they were put on reduced fat in their organs. Not fat intake. You're misunderstanding. The reduction of fat in the organs was responsible for the increase in insulin sensitivity, because the free fatty acids that ended up in non-adipose tissues are lipotoxic. They lost fat from their organs because they were on a low calorie diet, as anyone would expect. Any diet that reduces fat in the liver and pancreas is going to improve health.
    There are several leaps in logic here. That's my point. I'm not arguing that it's correct (even if it would, I'm not sure how you think it disproves the observation that low carbohydrate diets can have benefits for the insulin resistant), just that your study doesn't prove what you claim it does.

  3. #63
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    ... just that your study doesn't prove what you claim it does.
    So you think the carbohydrate restriction helped the diabetes? Then why didn't the subjects' three month period of normal (over)eating patterns (which probably included lots of carbohydrates) and average weight gain of 6 pounds after the study undo the progress? I've already told you why, but you don't seem to believe me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    Following the intervention, participants gained 3.1  1.0 kg body weight over 12 weeks, but their HbA1c remained steady while the fat content of both pancreas and liver did not increase.

  4. #64
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    8,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    So you think the carbohydrate restriction helped the diabetes? Then why didn't the subjects' three month period of normal (over)eating patterns (which probably included lots of carbohydrates) and average weight gain of 6 pounds after the study undo the progress? I've already told you why, but you don't seem to believe me.
    You know that is interesting. It has been put by some people that getting fatter is healthy. It's when you can no longer process and store those excess calories (i.e. you stop getting fatter) that you run into the metabolic problems of diabetes and such. Makes sense really. Putting on fat in and of itself shouldn't be a destructive act for the body. It's storage. A healthy metabolism (like if you fixed your pancreas and liver) should really help you in this aspect. Maybe overweight does not equal unwell until oxidative stress and damage deems it so.

  5. #65
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Maybe overweight does not equal unwell until oxidative stress and damage deems it so.
    That seems to be the case, but I'm not sure if it happens as linearly as you say. It would also explain the paradox of the healthy obese, I should think.

  6. #66
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    That seems to be the case, but I'm not sure if it happens as linearly as you say. It would also explain the paradox of the healthy obese, I should think.
    Obesity increases the RISK that you will develop diabetes and similar metabolic issues. It does not make it a forgone conclusion. Being obese usually means there are a lot of confounding factors other than the weight going on in the obese individual's body which could eventually lead to diabetes such as excessive oxidative stress and damage, among other things as neckhammer pointed out. Usually, but not always, because the vast majority of the obese eat diets that are quite unhealthy (explains how they got there).

    Skinny people can still develop type 2 diabetes even if they maintain a normal weight range if their diet is just as unhealthy as a lot of obese individuals. I have seen this in action. It is not as simple as obese = insulin resistance/diabetes.

    That said, I will stay lean and not take the added risk.
    Last edited by Drumroll; 03-07-2013 at 06:38 PM.

  7. #67
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    No it doesn't. CICO says that there is about 3500 calories in a pound of body fat. How are you measuring your fat loss? With a scale? Well, there's a problem.

    When you lose weight, you lose a mix of fat, lean tissue and water. Losing a pound of fat is going to translate into more than a pound of weight loss if you're on a constant deficit because you will lose some percentage of lean mass in the process, which will fluctuate based on:

    a.) The aggressiveness of your deficit - larger calorie deficits will translate into more lean tissue loss.
    b.) The method you lost the fat - someone doing chronic cardio to lose that fat likely lost more muscle in the process.
    c.) Your weight training activity - lifting weights on a deficit will help preserve more lean mass.
    d.) Your own genetics - some people store fat more efficiently than others, some release it more easily than others.
    e.) How much water weight do you store per pound of fat? This could depend on so many factors!


    And here it goes, round and round. While you cannot simultaneously build muscle and lose fat in an instant, you can do it over a period of weeks or months. Mild overeating centered around heavy weight training, followed by mild undereating centered around being sedentary or light cardiovascular exercise, is a good way to make sure you are losing mostly fat at times of energy deficits and gaining mostly muscle at times of energy surpluses.

    I weigh about 10 lbs less than when I started my Primal journey over 2 years ago, yet I can benchpress 40 lbs more, I can deadlift 150 lbs more and squat 50 lbs more. Macro composition plays a role in body composition, nutrient timings play a role in body composition, the aggressiveness of calorie surpluses and deficits affect where our gains and losses in fat mass and lean mass come from, we miscalculate our TDEE with generalized formulas, we misinterpret how many calories we actually take in and we do crazy things like starvation diet and ruin our metabolic rate, but CICO is always perfect. The problem is with the individual because most people just don't understand how to lose weight properly.
    My experience says that you are completely incorrect. I have lost 16 pounds. I have increased the diameter or my thighs by 1 inch each. I have increased the diameter of my arms by .5 inches each. My waist (measured across my navel) is down 4.5 inches. I am obviously gaining muscle as well.

    I am eating almost 1000kcal more per day before going Paleo.

    Your theories do not explain my results. Therefore, I believe your theories are incomplete.
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  8. #68
    Primal Bill's Avatar
    Primal Bill Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Weight loss is entirely caloric. It doesn't matter if it's fat, carbs or protein. Excess dietary fat is stored directly as body fat. Excess dietary carbohydrate is converted into fat. Excess dietary protein is converted into glucose which is then converted into fat. If you overeat, you gain weight. Period. It's calories-in-calories-out. Your best bet is to find the foods that keep you fullest longest so you eat the least, or adopt heavy weight training so when you do overeat, you're more likely to gain a better muscle:fat ratio.
    Over simplifying the issue. Macronutrients along with other factors, ie exercise and sleep, drive hormones, which drive the level of calories needed. So to say its only calories may be true, but macronutrients will change hormones which changes what the level is

  9. #69
    StephenHLi's Avatar
    StephenHLi is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Framingham, MA
    Posts
    179
    Consistent starvation over a long period will no doubt lead to weight loss, but this is unhealthy and each individual's health will deteriorate respective to that individual.

    After starvation period is over, there may be a time interval for binging and the weight that was lost would be gained and then some.

    If a person eats the right food for that individual and at the right time, then those foods and the energies from those foods will assist the individual's ultimate goal (losing weight, gaining weight, losing fat, gaining muscle).

    If a person does not choose the correct foods that match his or her ultimate goal then side effects happen on top of an unachieved ultimate goal.

    There are always stories about the obese person who feasts only on carrots and goes to the gym 4-5 times per week, but cannot seem to lose weight. Likewise there are the stories of the skinny person who eats everything, all the junk, all the fast foods, all the candy, sugary sweets etc. and does not gain a pound/kilo.

    I feel CICO is wrong and at the very least, certainly incomplete. Humans are not just "physics", we are more than that. We are biological, anatomical, physiological, pharmcoketical....etc.

    To only attribute a partial law of physics to humans and the way humans ingest, digest, metabolize, absorb, utilize, excrete foods/energy is deeply flawed.

  10. #70
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    979
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    That seems to be the case, but I'm not sure if it happens as linearly as you say. It would also explain the paradox of the healthy obese, I should think.
    Outside of the CICO debate, which seems that CICO works perfectly in the little black box where they determine calorific values of foods, but there seems to be too many confounding factors in application to individuals across the board.

    I am interested in point's raised about healthy weight, where it appears that the body can maintain a healthy profile without specifically adhering to an artificial image of health, i.e. lean and mean.

    This makes more sense to me as it would only seem logical that those thet could store some fat in the good times would have a greater survival rate than those that were absolutely relient on a lean profile for good health.

    It also rolls into the "weight plateau", where my personal belief is it is the bodies choice to be there and artificially pushing it can not be healthy, instead it is a response to an environmental nutrient profile, primarily the defficiency in specific micronutrients and the only way to shift this equilibrium naturally is to provide rich sources of micronutrients and let the body do what it does best, the only proviso being that adequate physical movement and lower stress levels are also maintained.

    So to get true health is not about counting calories and standing on the scales in front of the mirror, it is about eating well, getting plenty of exercise and letting your body do all the required adjustments.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 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
  •