Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 119

Thread: Marks position on Ketosis? Ketogenic vs Paleo. page 7

  1. #61
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Timber View Post
    Wouldn't an insulin resistant individual struggle with weight loss consuming a large amount of carbohydrates?
    Depends how much damage you've done to your body eating terrible foods for decades. That's why you have to experiment and find out what your upper and lower limits of fats, carbs and proteins are. Low carbohydrate diets cause physiological insulin resistance. The less carbs and more fat you eat, the more insulin resistant you become. Just like a higher fat/lower carb diet increases your body's ability to oxidize fat for fuel, a lower fat/higher carb diet increases insulin sensitivity and your body's ability to oxidize glucose. Metabolic derangement isn't caused by carbohydrate consumption, either. It is caused (largely) by a diet rich in polyunsaturated fat, which damages your mitochondria and reduces your ability to oxidize glucose. People on the SAD become fat and metabolically deranged because they eat the wrong types of fats and impaired glucose oxidization is the fallout. It's bad fats killing us all, not the carbs.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-09-2013 at 09:10 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  2. #62
    loafingcactus's Avatar
    loafingcactus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Timber View Post
    Wouldn't an insulin resistant individual struggle with weight loss consuming a large amount of carbohydrates?
    Yes, for the reasons Dilberry was discussing: there's about an 85% chance (in the USA) that person is obese, which means there is a very high likelihood they have an addictive response in the brain to carbohydrates (these studies are always done in very small groups, so I don't think it is fair to extrapolate but they generally get a result around 100%).
    “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” W. Edwards Deming
    Blogging at http://loafingcactus.com

  3. #63
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,637
    Quote Originally Posted by jakejoh10 View Post
    I agree that there are situations in which very low carb/ketogenic diets are beneficial. However, the problem arises when people are completely healthy and try to resort to extreme dieting tactics such as cutting out carbs in order to lose some fat. Like Choco said, cutting out a macronutrient just because some expert said that it's necessary is a surefire way to cause some serious issues, as we've seen over and over again with people on this forum.
    Sometimes a treatment, even a nutritional one such as ketosis, does not translate to prevention. What I mean is even though ketosis is shown to be good at stopping or reversing some cancers, treating various neurological disorders, and improving biomarkers in metabolic disorders.... that does not automatically make it the ultimate or only way to prevent these things. I'm very interested to see where the future science in these areas take us. Thats what keeps me coming back to study this area.

    I'm really not super interested in "which way is the best for getting lean". I don't find that particular vein of research in terms of ketosis to hold much promise. For the metabolically deranged of course its promising! But for the generally healthy meh, 6 of one and half dozen of the other.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 07-09-2013 at 09:36 AM.

  4. #64
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,637
    Quote Originally Posted by chocotaco369 View Post
    it is caused (largely) by a diet rich in polyunsaturated fat, which damages your mitochondria and reduces your ability to oxidize glucose. People on the sad become fat and metabolically deranged because they eat the wrong types of fats and impaired glucose oxidization is the fallout. It's bad fats killing us all, not the carbs.
    Absolute nonsense and not even worth entertaining. Every single word is made up and you will find no science - NONE - anywhere supporting this.

  5. #65
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Absolute nonsense and not even worth entertaining. Every single word is made up and you will find no science - NONE - anywhere supporting this.
    Yes, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that PUFA is harmful. Honestly, if you're going to troll, at least try and be half good at it.

    It's not like your body preferentially burns glucose over fats.

    It's not like cellular respiration is more efficient with glucose than fat and your body produces more ATP per calorie burning sugars than fats.

    It's not like free radicals aren't produced in more than an order of magnitude higher oxidizing PUFA than sugars while oxidizing sugars show the same benign effect as oleic acid, making them as healthy if not healthier than olive oil for fuel since olive oil is ~10% PUFA, and making sugar vastly healthier than bacon since bacon is extremely high in arachidonic acid.

    Oh, wait...
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-09-2013 at 09:56 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  6. #66
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by loafingcactus View Post
    Yes, for the reasons Dilberry was discussing: there's about an 85% chance (in the USA) that person is obese, which means there is a very high likelihood they have an addictive response in the brain to carbohydrates (these studies are always done in very small groups, so I don't think it is fair to extrapolate but they generally get a result around 100%).
    I have absolutely no idea why anyone believes this stuff. Where did this come from? Who exactly sold you on this line of thinking? And also, why is a chocolate chip cookie a carbohydrate? Why is a bag of Doritos a carbohydrate? Why is ice cream a carbohydrate? They are all traditionally higher in fats than carbs.

    There is a 100% chance you made up that "85%" number.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #67
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by loafingcactus View Post
    I think you are both saying pretty much the same thing. The addictive issues of changes in blood sugar are indisputable- it is sugar and not fat that is addictive inside. However, that fact that overeating requires careful engineering of food is also indisputable- it is perfectly engineered foods that are addictive outside. Make something too sweet, people stop eating. Make it too oily, people stop eating. It has to be that perfect edge of satisfying but not quite satisfying enough- that is what food engineers do.

    This is one reason why I don't think the obesity epidemic needs a fat OR a sugar tax. What it needs is a regulatory framework for engineered foods- set targets for satiety levels and either limit or tax how those are met. The food companies have scientists on their side; time to get some scientists working for the public. One food company exec tried to get a conversation started on voluntary guidelines and it went nowhere... This is a place begging for regulation.
    Yep your onto it loafing cactus. Massive food companies are all vying for carb addiction real estate. To compete for supermarket shelf space they start with carbs and add anything that makes it taste better than the competitors product. usually fat and salt.

    What choco fails to see is that, going from a SAD moderate/high carb diet directly into a primal moderate/high carb diet, is a much harder task, than going LC for month then going moderate/high carb primal.

    The reason is dieters are still going to be shithouse at making their own glucose and still resort to trips to the fridge to deal with dropping blood glucose. Their bodies are still gunna think carbs are "on tap", free for all body systems to use at will.

    When you do LC for a month your body learns very quickly to partition glucose usage for brain only, muscles learn not to steal serum glucose for fuel and burn fat instead, lest the brain will get pissed off. Hence the low carb flu.

    If your body has got the idea of carb partitioning its gunna start pulling fat out of reserves to run the muscles in a cal deficiency situation. If it hasn't learn't to do this yet, muscles are still gunna be fighting the brain for glucose that gets added every 2-3 hours from the fridge. I will admit they won't have as large a calorie intake as a sad dieter, but it will still be difficult to eat below cal requirements and pull fat out of reserves.



    Sent from my iPhone
    A little primal gem - My Success Story
    Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

  8. #68
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    What choco fails to see is that, going from a SAD moderate/high carb diet directly into a primal moderate/high carb diet, is a much harder task, than going LC for month then going moderate/high carb primal.
    Actually I didn't fail to see it. You just completely made that up. How exactly is it harder? If anything, going to a vastly less restricted menu (a Primal eating plan with zero macro-based eating restrictions) is going to be far easier for someone converting from eating everything and anything under the sun. How exactly does forcing someone that previously ate anything and everything into a tiny little needlessly restricted box make their life easier?

    Do you know what the "low carb flu" is? It's your body struggling to construct new metabolic pathways to oxidize fat with more efficiency. You took away glucose - a much more energy-rich substrate - out of nowhere one day and forced your body to oxidize fats - a much less energy-rich substrate - all the time. So you suddenly crash. It seems to me that switching out flour for fruits and potatoes - providing the same energy-rich substrate without all the toxins and a lot more vitamins - would be a much easier and healthier transition. When the "low carb flu" passes, it's your body adjusting to a slower metabolism. I'm not trying to slow my metabolism simply for the sake of being "a fat burning beast." Whatever that is supposed to mean.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 07-09-2013 at 10:02 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  9. #69
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,637
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Yes, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that PUFA is harmful. Honestly, if you're going to troll, at least try and be half good at it.
    Show me how harmful it is then. You do realize that you will be relying on studies that require abnormally large quantities of PUFA without any of the normally associated vitamins and minerals.

    Your statement was complete and utter opinion. It is not backed by any scientific experimentation which makes it a hypothesis at best. To make such a causal relationship without considering the interactions of both PUFA and sugar/carbohydrates is just silly IMO (I suggest you learn those three little letters). You will not find a causal silver bullet to metabolic derangement. Its multifactoral and in many cases (such as pufa and fructose) its a synergistic detrimental effect.

    You can eat PUFA at quite high levels as long as it is not in the presence of fructose.
    Same in the vice versa.... high fructose load and low PUFA.

    Well I say that as I have read some studies in such regard, but when I tried to find them I come up with this instead:

    http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v...cn201035a.html

    "Conclusions:

    Children with fatty liver detected sonographically have metabolic features of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Their diets are high in fructose and low in polyunsaturated fatty acid. Their activity patterns are sedentary. These lifestyle features may contribute to liver damage and can be a focus for therapeutic intervention."

    Of course they were focusing on O3, so I'm not going to rely heavily on this study alone. Just thought it was funny that when I go to find something showing fructose is OK without too much PUFA this is what I get.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 07-09-2013 at 10:03 AM.

  10. #70
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Actually I didn't fail to see it. You just completely made that up. How exactly is it harder? If anything, going to a vastly less restricted menu (a Primal eating plan with zero macro-based eating restrictions) is going to be far easier for someone converting from eating everything and anything under the sun. How exactly does forcing someone that previously ate anything and everything into a tiny little needlessly restricted box make their life easier?
    It's not gunna be easier, you haven't given the person any reason to stop visiting the fridge every 2 hours like the've been doing their whole friggin lives.

    The only way they gunna stop visiting the fridge is if there isn't any carbs in there.

    Once the month is up and the fridge is only a source of nutrition (not low blood sugar relief) I'm gunna advise them to read the myriad of posts where you advocate your non macro restricting, whole food eating, primal eating protocol, it's a F$@kin doozie.

    Yes I did just make that up. It's called "my hypothesis" but because you've been on these boards for 2.5 years and seem to be the boss round these parts, you probably have no time for it.
    Meanwhile the light bulbs are all coming on for the lesser folk. Enjoy.

    Edit: If mark didn't have a low carb component to his protocol, this site and his book would've been a complete failure, because it just wouldn't have worked. Where he fails is in his warnings of the long term effects low carb eating has on our metabolism.

    I bet any of you that sing the praises of high carbs like Zach, derp, you, j3nn etc etc, did LC at one stage long enough to shrug off the addiction effects. But because you's changed the course of MDA paleo history by fighting the "all carbs are bad" dogma, you cannot allow yourself to see the true effects carbs have for many millions of people who haven't had the good fortune of going LC for a month.


    Sent from my iPhone
    Last edited by dilberryhoundog; 07-09-2013 at 10:39 AM.
    A little primal gem - My Success Story
    Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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