Page 20 of 40 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 400

Thread: The metabolic advantage hypothesis page 20

  1. #191
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    Lipolysis (fat catabolism) peoples IS THE ONLY WAY to lose fat. This is science there is no other way for fat to get out of adipose tissue (never mind how it got in there hey). High insulin levels retards lipolysis, low insulin levels accelerates lipolysis. This also is basic science.

    It is therefore logical to say the more time you spend in a day with high insulin (or blood glucose levels) the less
    time you are "losing fat" or in lipolysis.

    In conclusion if the question is about fat loss, don't let any body swindle you with the "carbs don't make you fat" metabolic advantage rhetoric. For losing body fat eating carbs puts you at a disadvantage as you have just effectively shut down lipolysis for a few hours.
    What's this about a fat loss "disadvantage"? Who's racing? Eating anything at all inhibits lipolysis temporarily; it's not a bad thing. If you're really serious about your all-lipolysis-all-the-time stance, then you probably don't like protein much, either. Not only does it stimulate insulin just like carbohydrates, it absorbs at a snail's pace.

  2. #192
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,606
    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    Anyone have any evidence that any population getting most or all of its protein from fish or shellfish has any associated pathology?
    Probably not. And that's probably because fish and shellfish aren't unhealthy. Do I think beef and lamb are superior? Yep, but both fish and shellfish are extremely nutritious, and contain all kinds of antioxidants that I would imagine would retard the polymerization of the oils. Not sure what it would do to your tissues overtime though if the only meat you eat are fatty fish, but that's extremely unrealistic.

    The Inuit are known for poor aging and looking haggard, but there are 100 different explanations why from harsh conditions, lack of carbohydrate, malnutrition during cold weather, who knows. I think it's safe to say you can enjoy fresh, wild caught fish in moderate quantities.

    It is worth mentioning that many studies that show fish-eating societies to be healthy tend to consume warm-water fish that are much leaner, and actually eat reasonably low protein diets. Japanese diets aren't exactly high in fat and protein.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  3. #193
    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
    This forum has been swindled, I call it the great carb swindle. For most of my time here, the following statement has reigned supreme.

    "CARBS/SUGAR DONT MAKE YOU FAT". (Choco, Zach, JJ, all say this repeatedly)

    A certain metabolic advantage as it is basically true. Carbs ingested on their own are very inefficiently stored in fat cells. But...

    Just about nobody is asking how do we prevent gaining weight. We all want to know "HOW DO WE GET PRE-EXISTING FAT OUT OF FAT CELLS NOW?". For that question, the statement that "carbs don't make you fat" is irrelevant (you have been swindled), because the process that makes you fat cannot be simply reversed to make you unfat.

    Lipolysis (fat catabolism) peoples IS THE ONLY WAY to lose fat. This is science there is no other way for fat to get out of adipose tissue (never mind how it got in there hey). High insulin levels retards lipolysis, low insulin levels accelerates lipolysis. This also is basic science.
    I can't tell if you're being purposely misleading or just confused and rambling.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  4. #194
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I can't tell if you're being purposely misleading or just confused and rambling.
    Yes I am rambling a bit, but show me I'm wrong, tell me there is another way to remove fat from adipose tissue, tell me that an insulin spike doesn't retard lipolysis. Tell me choco. Or maybe you could just tell me that carbs don't store as fat very well again for the 100th time.


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

  5. #195
    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
    Yes I am rambling a bit, but show me I'm wrong, tell me there is another way to remove fat from adipose tissue, tell me that an insulin spike doesn't retard lipolysis. Tell me choco. Or maybe you could just tell me that carbs don't store as fat very well again for the 100th time.


    Sent from my iPhone
    What we've said is that sugar is not directly stored as fat. Dietary fat is what is stored as fat. Sugar is stored as glycogen, so when you consume sugar, you store all the dietary fat you consume along with it. However, dietary fat is always directly stored as fat even in the absence of carbohydrate. Adding lots of sugar just adds a lot of excess calories, which prolongs the amount of time until you start burning stored body fat again.

    In the end, it all comes down to calories. Is it rare that your body actually converts sugar into fat? Yes, but it's also rare that you ever eat sugar without accompanying fat. CICO, CICO, CICO.

    Who the hell cares if an insulin spike retards lipolysis? If you consume a calorie deficit on 100% carbohydrate, you're still be burning just as much fat as if you consume an equal calorie deficit on 100% fat! A 500 calorie deficit will burn 500 calories of stored energy from the body regardless if you arrived there from a high carb or low carb diet.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  6. #196
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,390
    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    I would like to address NH's original question and thus further this discussion for you Omni. His question was... Where is all this "carbs = metabolic advantage" coming from?

    Here we go, buckle up.

    This forum has been swindled, I call it the great carb swindle. For most of my time here, the following statement has reigned supreme.

    "CARBS/SUGAR DONT MAKE YOU FAT". (Choco, Zach, JJ, all say this repeatedly)

    A certain metabolic advantage as it is basically true. Carbs ingested on their own are very inefficiently stored in fat cells. But...

    Just about nobody is asking how do we prevent gaining weight. We all want to know "HOW DO WE GET PRE-EXISTING FAT OUT OF FAT CELLS NOW?". For that question, the statement that "carbs don't make you fat" is irrelevant (you have been swindled), because the process that makes you fat cannot be simply reversed to make you unfat.

    Lipolysis (fat catabolism) peoples IS THE ONLY WAY to lose fat. This is science there is no other way for fat to get out of adipose tissue (never mind how it got in there hey). High insulin levels retards lipolysis, low insulin levels accelerates lipolysis. This also is basic science.

    It is therefore logical to say the more time you spend in a day with high insulin (or blood glucose levels) the less
    time you are "losing fat" or in lipolysis.

    In conclusion if the question is about fat loss, don't let any body swindle you with the "carbs don't make you fat" metabolic advantage rhetoric. For losing body fat eating carbs puts you at a disadvantage as you have just effectively shut down lipolysis for a few hours.


    Sent from my iPhone
    Yeah, no, not really. Insulin also has a direct effect on lipid homeostasis(how do you think carbs get converted into fat)?

    Assuming you're taking a scientific stance and not just blurting out what all insulin and lipolysis low carbers parrot; every time you eat there is a change in adipose tissue TG lipolysis via the actions of insulin. cAMP-dependent changes that occur in response to insulin binding are effected by activation of phosphodiesterase which hydrolyzes cAMP rendering PKA much less active. activation of phosphodiesterase 3B occurs via PKB/Akt-mediated phosphorylation which itself is activated following the insulin binding of its receptor.

    The mechanism for insulin mediated reduction in TG lipolysis is due to the stimulation of phosphatase-1 which removes the phosphate from hormone sensitive lipase making it much less active. The activity of hormone sensitive lipase would also affected by phosphorylation of AMPK, so, the phosphorylation would inhibit. Inhibition of hormone sensitive lipase by AMPK might seem like it would be counterproductive because the release of fatty acids stored in TG would seem necessary to promote the production of ATP via fatty acid oxidation and the major function of AMPK is to shift cells to ATP production from ATP consumption(this is seen in the increased NAD+ production in fatty acid oxidation). This is explained when you realize that if the fatty acids that are released from TG are not consumed they will be recycled back into TGs at the expense of ATP consumption, so, inhibition of hormone sensitive lipase by AMPK mediated-phosphorylation is a mechanism to ensure that the rate of fatty acid release does not exceed the rate at which they are utilized either by exporting it out or oxidation(fat loss).

    Lipolysis creates excess NEFAs by design, it is not the sole regulation of weight loss. It's also a short blunt anyway as all things are regulated by rate-limiting steps.
    Longing is the agony of the nearness of the distant

  7. #197
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    What we've said is that sugar is not directly stored as fat. Dietary fat is what is stored as fat. Sugar is stored as glycogen, so when you consume sugar, you store all the dietary fat you consume along with it. However, dietary fat is always directly stored as fat even in the absence of carbohydrate. Adding lots of sugar just adds a lot of excess calories, which prolongs the amount of time until you start burning stored body fat again.

    In the end, it all comes down to calories. Is it rare that your body actually converts sugar into fat? Yes, but it's also rare that you ever eat sugar without accompanying fat. CICO, CICO, CICO.

    Who the hell cares if an insulin spike retards lipolysis? If you consume a calorie deficit on 100% carbohydrate, you're still be burning just as much fat as if you consume an equal calorie deficit on 100% fat! A 500 calorie deficit will burn 500 calories of stored energy from the body regardless if you arrived there from a high carb or low carb diet.
    Ok blah blah blah, fat directly stored in to fat cells, yadda yadda yadda irrelevant how it got in there.

    How do we get it out?

    As neckhammer was alluding to, ain't no metabolic advantage from carbs when it comes to removing fat from adipose tissue.


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

  8. #198
    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
    Ok blah blah blah, fat directly stored in to fat cells, yadda yadda yadda irrelevant how it got in there.

    How do we get it out?

    As neckhammer was alluding to, ain't no metabolic advantage from carbs when it comes to removing fat from adipose tissue.


    Sent from my iPhone
    You get it out by eating less energy than you need to burn in a day. Did you read the post you quoted?

    I don't understand the webs you try to weave. You'd see a lot more success for yourself if you weren't so entrenched in dogma.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  9. #199
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Probably not. And that's probably because fish and shellfish aren't unhealthy. Do I think beef and lamb are superior? Yep, but both fish and shellfish are extremely nutritious, and contain all kinds of antioxidants that I would imagine would retard the polymerization of the oils. Not sure what it would do to your tissues overtime though if the only meat you eat are fatty fish, but that's extremely unrealistic.

    The Inuit are known for poor aging and looking haggard, but there are 100 different explanations why from harsh conditions, lack of carbohydrate, malnutrition during cold weather, who knows. I think it's safe to say you can enjoy fresh, wild caught fish in moderate quantities.

    It is worth mentioning that many studies that show fish-eating societies to be healthy tend to consume warm-water fish that are much leaner, and actually eat reasonably low protein diets. Japanese diets aren't exactly high in fat and protein.
    Its safe to say that we ate a lot of seafood in our ancestral past. The different is that it can from warm water oceans where fish are leaner and more saturated. As for crustations and mollusks, well they dont have much fat to begin with.

    Eating fatty fish like salmon every day can certainly be unhealthy because its not what we were designed to eat. Its hibernation food.

  10. #200
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    Yeah, no, not really. Insulin also has a direct effect on lipid homeostasis(how do you think carbs get converted into fat)?

    Assuming you're taking a scientific stance and not just blurting out what all insulin and lipolysis low carbers parrot; every time you eat there is a change in adipose tissue TG lipolysis via the actions of insulin. cAMP-dependent changes that occur in response to insulin binding are effected by activation of phosphodiesterase which hydrolyzes cAMP rendering PKA much less active. activation of phosphodiesterase 3B occurs via PKB/Akt-mediated phosphorylation which itself is activated following the insulin binding of its receptor.

    The mechanism for insulin mediated reduction in TG lipolysis is due to the stimulation of phosphatase-1 which removes the phosphate from hormone sensitive lipase making it much less active. The activity of hormone sensitive lipase would also affected by phosphorylation of AMPK, so, the phosphorylation would inhibit. Inhibition of hormone sensitive lipase by AMPK might seem like it would be counterproductive because the release of fatty acids stored in TG would seem necessary to promote the production of ATP via fatty acid oxidation and the major function of AMPK is to shift cells to ATP production from ATP consumption(this is seen in the increased NAD+ production in fatty acid oxidation). This is explained when you realize that if the fatty acids that are released from TG are not consumed they will be recycled back into TGs at the expense of ATP consumption, so, inhibition of hormone sensitive lipase by AMPK mediated-phosphorylation is a mechanism to ensure that the rate of fatty acid release does not exceed the rate at which they are utilized either by exporting it out or oxidation(fat loss).

    Lipolysis creates excess NEFAs by design, it is not the sole regulation of weight loss. It's also a short blunt anyway as all things are regulated by rate-limiting steps.
    I do read the science but I like to simplify the understanding,

    This is my understanding of it.

    Our whole metabolism hinges on ONE metric, blood glucose levels.

    If BG is high then the body stores every thing until BG reaches base level. When BG is high... Glucose gets stored as glycogen in the liver and muscle. Fat gets stored as TG in adipose tissue. Proteins get stored as cell structure. This is all driven off insulin

    If BG is low the body liberates energy from all sources until BG reaches base level.
    Liver Glycogen is converted to glucose. Trigs are liberated into FFA's and glycerol (FFA's reduce the body's glucose load). Proteins are converted to glucose with the amine eliminated. This is all driven by glycogen.

    The body doesn't detect fatty acids or amino's in the blood. What happens to them depends on what is happening with BG levels. So the body will continue to liberate fatty acids until BG normalises regardless of caloric load, proteins initially will be converted to glucose until BG normalisation, wich they will then get stored as cell structure, this will usually lead back to lowering BG and the cycle will repeat.

    I also understand all of the above actions aren't either on or off but on progressively turns on while the other progressively turns off.


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

Page 20 of 40 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •