No, I know what gluconeogenesis is. I mean what the study means. What does it say exactly. Like an abstract.
You did not link to a study. Gluconeogenesis is not a study, it is a natural process. Please link to the study in question.
Last edited by magicmerl; 04-18-2013 at 06:00 PM.
Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like the Perfect Health Diet a lot.
Griff's cholesterol primer
5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
bloodorchid is always right
"Although gluconeogenesis is thought to be relatively stable in humans, a high-protein diet, especially in the absence of carbohydrates, may stimulate gluconeogenesis"
It means their original belief (quoted above) was wrong. Of course we in PB know that if you don't eat any sugar or carbs, your body will make the glucose (gluconeogenesis) it needs. They are calling this increased EE. The increased part means that the body expends more energy in gluconeogenesis than it does if it were to just use the glucose you fed it. And that means a 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.
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.
Low carb diets do not result in thyroid dysfunction in all individuals.
Low thyroid levels do not result in metabolic dysfunction in all individuals.
CO2 output is not a direct measure of metabolic efficiency, look at Respiratory Quotient (coefficient), Glucose is 1 and fat is 0.7, that is because when fat is utilised for metabolism a significant portion, Hydrogen, is metabolised to H2O to release energy, so will never show as CO2. Therefore when carbohydrate is metabolised there will always be more CO2 in the blood than when fat is, this doesn't have any direct relationship to metabolism.
What is the minimum requirement for saturated fat in the abscence of dietary saturated fat?
Does the body have to use glucose and breakdown other tissues to satisfy this minimum requirement?
How is this different to the essential glucose requirement?
The same type of argument that you use could be applied to propose that fat is the most important nutrient.
As for Inuit, I haven't seen anything detrimental with regard to ageing, and even if there is data, has this been compared to societies with equal extremes of environmental conditions?
As for the study, only glanced through it so far, but only really shows that if the body is presented with excess protein it needs to get rid of it, in the abscence of glucose it will do the conversion, what would be the outcome if the same level of protein was used and adequate glucose was provided with glycogen stores full, would the energy equation still be the same, more info is required to determine what the study is really saying.
Last edited by Omni; 04-20-2013 at 12:40 AM.