Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 102

Thread: Gluconeogenesis page 2

  1. #11
    Omni's Avatar
    Omni is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    978
    Primal Fuel
    I have tried to read the Peat/Roddy stuff on a number of occassions and I find it extremely difficult going, the bulk of it seems to be based on a philosophical presumption and then gathering obscure data to support this presumption.

    It does not attempt to answer the confounders of it's own philosophy and with the language being generally emotive and derogatory immediately to me suggests a weak argument, although I am open to new information all the time their writing style is not conducive to their cause.

    I am not hard core low carb, don't need to be and where I am suits me fine, but like religious fervour, when their is a declaration of the one true god, my ears prick up, you get a bit sick of the parroting, "eat more sugar, eat more sugar, eat more sugar"

  2. #12
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    I have tried to read the Peat/Roddy stuff on a number of occassions and I find it extremely difficult going, the bulk of it seems to be based on a philosophical presumption and then gathering obscure data to support this presumption.

    It does not attempt to answer the confounders of it's own philosophy and with the language being generally emotive and derogatory immediately to me suggests a weak argument, although I am open to new information all the time their writing style is not conducive to their cause.

    I am not hard core low carb, don't need to be and where I am suits me fine, but like religious fervour, when their is a declaration of the one true god, my ears prick up, you get a bit sick of the parroting, "eat more sugar, eat more sugar, eat more sugar"
    You pretty much nailed it on the Peat stuff. I tried to read it a long time ago. It really is a house of cards built on a premise that if incorrect comes tumbling down. And there is more then enough evidence to suppose that premise is questionable. Then you look at the citations and a high percentage of them are rat models from 70+ years ago.

  3. #13
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    I have tried to read the Peat/Roddy stuff on a number of occassions and I find it extremely difficult going, the bulk of it seems to be based on a philosophical presumption and then gathering obscure data to support this presumption.

    It does not attempt to answer the confounders of it's own philosophy and with the language being generally emotive and derogatory immediately to me suggests a weak argument, although I am open to new information all the time their writing style is not conducive to their cause.

    I am not hard core low carb, don't need to be and where I am suits me fine, but like religious fervour, when their is a declaration of the one true god, my ears prick up, you get a bit sick of the parroting, "eat more sugar, eat more sugar, eat more sugar"
    Right, because there is no religious fervor over VLC. :eyeroll:

    The truth is a VLC diet is inherently stressful and will lower metabolism/reduce thyroid output. Now if you would like to argue if that is necessarily harmful, go ahead. But dont try to say that VLC (enough to elicit gluconeogenesis) does not do these things.

  4. #14
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    One more time.

    There is a difference between a metabolic adjustment and a pathological condition.

    VLC is not everybody's cup of tea and is not pushed onto everybody (the low carb police are not out to get you).

    But ketosis is a normal bodily state. Ray Peat can keep saying it's stressful and harmful but that doesn't make it true.

  5. #15
    KimchiNinja's Avatar
    KimchiNinja is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Seoul
    Posts
    1,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    But ketosis is a normal bodily state. Ray Peat can keep saying it's stressful and harmful but that doesn't make it true.
    Who the hell is Ray Peat? He sounds like a knucklehead.

  6. #16
    queenofwands's Avatar
    queenofwands is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Mackay, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1
    Huh?

  7. #17
    Techie's Avatar
    Techie is offline Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    It does not mean metabolic advantage.

    Protein has a higher burn rate than carbohydrate or fat. It is difficult to metabolize, and it takes more energy to do so. However, people on low carbohydrate diets have slower metabolisms than people on high carbohydrate diets assuming equal protein content and you maintain proper saturated:unsaturated fat ratios. The reason why is people with low carbohydrate intake have a slower thyroid and their mitochondria puts out less CO2, which means impaired cellular respiration.

    Gluconeogenesis is an emergency mechanism. Glucose is so essential to your body that it will devour its own muscle and connective tissue to get it. It is far more essential than dietary fat. The brain comes first, and even in full blown ketosis, the body requires more sugar than fat each day. It'll get it any way it has to, even if it is has to suck it from your other organs.

    Your body does not want to be in gluconeogensis for prolonged periods of time. The end result may be hypothyroidism, adrenal fatigue and the diseases of society that come along with metabolic failure (i.e. cancer). The Inuits are probably the most notable low carbohydrate society, and they are well-known for their rapid aging.
    Your body only needs 30-50g of glucose per day either from carbs or broken down from protein, and only the brain needs glucose to begin with.

    Your body will easily burn 150g of fat per day for the rest of your body that can use fatty acids and ketones for energy.

  8. #18
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    531
    Sigh ...

    If anyone wants a really good book on metabolism, this one is hard to beat: Metabolic Regulation: A Human Perspective

    If you read through that book, and this means you Choco, you may come across some interesting facts regarding lactate and pyruvate and obligate glycolytic cells and tissues.

    When we talk of "obligate glycolitic" tissues, we are using the word obligate in the sense of obligation, or something that is mandatory, that one must do. Therefore, obligate glycolytic tissues and cells are forced to use glycolysis as their energy source. Normally, the end product of glycolysis, pyruvate, enters the electron transport chain where it generates a whole lot more additional ATP than glycolysis alone. The electron transport chain is part of mitochondrial membranes, so, if you want to use the electron transport chain, you'd better have a whole bunch of mitochondria.

    Obligate glycolytic cells do not possess mitochondria so they lack the physical structures necessary to further oxidize pyruvate. Now, as mentioned, the end product of glycolysis is pyruvate and or lactate, both of which are water soluble, that is, they dissolve and circulate in plasma. This is important because while we can measure quantities of lactate in the blood, we do not observe any meaningful levels of pyruvate or lactate in the urine, or in other words, we do not excrete these substances, rather we recycle them. This recycling is ... gluconeogenesis.

    So, every second of every day that you are alive, every single red blood cell you possess is merrily churning out glycolytic end products which are carried in the plasma to the liver where they are recycled back into glucose which is then shipped back into the blood stream, or stashed away as glycogen in order to keep those busy little blood cells alive. Gluconeogenesis at its finest. To characterize a process that is ongoing every second of every day in the vast majority of higher order organisms, and certainly in all mammals, as "an emergency mechanism" is nothing but delusional hysteria, or to be kind, represents a gross misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the process.

    Furthermore, as to "your body does not want to be in gluconeogensis for prolonged periods of time." You're right, whereas a want is a desire, for your body, gluconeogenesis is a _need_ : a condition necessary for sustaining life.

    As far as CO2 production is concerned ... man, Taco, you must make this stuff up as you go along, don't you?

    Most organic compounds such as fatty acids, glycerol, carbohydrates and amino acids that have undergone deamination ( removal of the NH3, or amine, group ) have the general complete oxidation formula :

    CxHyOz + (x + y/4 - z/2) O2 ---> x CO2 + (y/2) H2O

    So the only thing governing CO2 production is the number of carbons in the molecule undergoing oxidation, not lower thyroid activity impacting mitochondrial energy output. Armed with this equation we can predict that the complete oxidation of glucose will yield 6 CO2 molecules, palmitic acid 16, oleic acid 18, alanine ( an amino acid ) 3. The magic is all in the substrate. If all we're after is increasing CO2 output, oxidizing dietary fat is the way to go. Want to minimize CO2 production? Then oxidize some specific short chain amino acids like alanine.

    Finally, regarding the study that started this all, it is not very controversial, pretty standard stuff. It is well known that ingested protein stimulates protein synthesis, some of it is directly oxidized, and some amino acids can participate in gluconeogenesis. As there is a limit to how much protein synthesis can occur over a given time frame, when you overeat protein, where overeating merely means exceeding your capacity for protein synthesis, increasing amounts will be shunted into the oxidation and gluconeogenesis pathways.

    This study merely set out to confirm that the high thermic effect of protein was due in large part to the relative inefficiency in the gluconeogenetic pathway. Which they effectively confirmed. Move along ... nothing to see here.

    -PK
    Last edited by pklopp; 05-17-2013 at 07:37 AM.
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

    Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

  9. #19
    cori93437's Avatar
    cori93437 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    central FL
    Posts
    6,715
    Pssst...

    I've said this before and I'll say this again...
    I'm HFLC, I also have a brain condition and take a medication that "can" cause some of the conditions that Choco thinks that HFLC can cause such as low CO2. So I get tested regularly for CO2 and other markers, and I've had my every other test under the sun performed because I'm a special goddam snowflake... the vampires take blood; they test for all the things.


    My CO2 is always in the med-high normal range. Not low.
    My cortisol has never been elevated.

    HFLC helps me control that brain condition and is recommended by my Neurologist as perfectly safe... the doctor does not recognize that HFLC is a cause of any of the things that Choco suggests.
    I'm under watch and need to be regularly tested because of the medication I have to take. No other reason.
    Last edited by cori93437; 05-16-2013 at 09:41 PM.
    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche
    And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.


  10. #20
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,371
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    pklopp:

    If you're only looking at the carbons in the molecule undergoing oxidation, the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in carbs is equal to water. Lipids(fat) contain a lot less oxygen atoms in proportion to hydrogen and carbon, ergo, when fat is degraded it requires a lot more oxygen to oxidize fat to water and co2. So, how exactly, is fat better for producing co2? By wasting more of it? I'm not understanding your logic.
    nihil

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •