Page 34 of 40 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 400

Thread: The metabolic advantage hypothesis page 34

  1. #331
    Prime-Animal's Avatar
    Prime-Animal is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    99
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by Sweet Leilani View Post
    I'm with Prime-Animal, there is so much contradictory info out there that it's hard to figure out what is what. I just finished reading this post and the above statement stuck with me. Then i hope on youtube and hit the next video on my feed and it's Nora Gedgaudes who goes on to say the following:

    "The main driver of muscle protein synthesis is not insulin, but the availability of essential amino acids, in particular Leucine. ....if you consume sufficient protein after a workout, adding extra insulin provoking carbs is not going to improve your anabolic response."

    - Ancestral Health Symposium 2012
    Honestly, I'm pretty hellbent on finding every factor that can optimize performance and health. Switching from bodybuilding/ conventional approach (although I was never really conventional) had proved to help me acquiring something very valuable. Patience. I stopped stressing. Instead realizing that I'm on the right path, and I'll figure it all out, just have to go with the flow and be aware of whatever it is my awareness needs to focus on in that moment.

    I find Leucine to be extremely anabolic. I feel a huge difference training with BCAAs compared to training without

    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post

    Now if you eat carbs with your protien, while ever BG is high, the amino's will be driven into muscle cells, anabolism at its finest, this can be for hours with the right carb meal. Opposingly to eating pure protein, where you are cycling between anabolism and catabolism.

    So yes, you can't build muscle without amino's, but eating carbs with your protein super charges muscle cell genesis.


    Sent from my iPhone
    I think that especially after a demanding workout, with out the ingestion of carbs, you are even FURTHER in the catabolic state (duh) and could then make gluconeogenesis target precious muscle mass amino acids.

    As we all know carbs are anabolic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Which is precisely why I don't tend toward the biochemistry as much as clinical trials. Biochem is good background noise to remember when I'm perusing a human trial or evaluating epidemiological studies. I believe Nora is right that the primary driver is sufficient proteins, but I would stipulate that you also need sufficient energy to drive the processes necessary to build lean mass. That energy does not have to be carbohydrate though. And it may not have to even be ingested fat. There are many verifiable studies of individuals gaining lean mass WHILE they lose body fat. Yes these are overweight individuals in which it occurs primarily, but it supports the fact that you carry with you Tens of thousands of calories worth of energy in the form of fat. As long as you have access to these stores and utilize them efficiently (i.e. eat nutrient dense so you have the cofactors needed), then you should have no problem with the energy end of what is needed to build lean mass.....
    I would say that biochem is really important. We find the biological mechanisms behind anabolism or catabolism, cell death and disease, as well as cell regeneration and proliferation. They give us science to lean on, and help link together to further our understanding of what we know vs what we don't.

    That being said, I believe I successfully figured out a solution on how to build muscle mass while on a deficit while I was doing my bodybuilding prep. I will however have to experiment further as I only went about a month into that part of the program before I hit the wall of overtraining (due to under eating, and not overtraining Ironically).

  2. #332
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    So how exactly does the body choose to "not process" polyuns in the blood? I call bullrush.
    Why?

    The human body temperature is 98.6 degrees F. Polyunsaturated fats have extremely low melting points. Arachidonic acid, for example, has a melting point of -56 degrees F. To put that into context, human body temperature is 113.4 degrees F cooler than boiling water. Human body temperature is 154.6 degrees F hotter than the melting point of arachidonic acid. To oxidize arachidonic acid in the body is like dipping your hand in boiling water plus another 41 degrees. Can you imagine? In order to oxidize PUFA, the body rapidly draws Vitamin E from your tissues to help combat the rapid polymerization. Do you wonder why nuts and seeds tend to be very high in Vitamin E? It is to protect the polymerization of the fragile fats. A person deficient in PUFA does not need much Vitamin E, but a person consuming lots of PUFA needs lots of Vitamin E. Factor in the average American having sky high PUFA intake AND a lack of fat soluble vitamins and you have the perfect storm of free radical damage.

    No, the body cannot efficiently oxidize PUFA as fuel, and even if you are Vitamin E replete, it is going to be far more stressful to oxidize PUFA for fuel than sugar or saturated fats. It is extremely unstable at human body temperatures, unless you think dunking your hand in superheated water is pleasant

    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    Low carb causes insulin resistance? What?
    Absolutely, for the mechanisms I outlined in my post.

    Well, the first thing is that LC eating rapidly induces insulin resistance. This is a completely and utterly normal physiological response to carbohydrate restriction. Carbohydrate restriction drops insulin levels. Low insulin levels activate hormone sensitive lipase. Fatty tissue breaks down and releases non esterified fatty acids. These are mostly taken up by muscle cells as fuel and automatically induce insulin resistance in those muscles.

    Hyperlipid: Physiological insulin resistance
    A great way to become insulin resistant is to not eat carbohydrate. A great way to become insulin sensitive is to eat a lower fat/higher carbohydrate diet. There is a reason why people that eat prolonged low carbohydrate diets eat a sweet potato, crash, then conclude they "can't eat carbs" - they're extremely insulin resistant. This, of course, can be mitigated fairly quickly by just eating carbohydrate regularly for a few days or weeks until their insulin sensitivity rebounds - this is not necessarily metabolic syndrome we are talking about, here.

    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    The more dead bodies a soldier steps over, the more he is resistant to the effects of seeing dead humans. The more paralysis ticks a dog gets the more they are resistant to ticks. The more antibiotics a microbe deals with the more resistant to antibiotics they are. The more weights a person lifts the more they can resist those weights. The more insulin u have in your blood (over time) the more resistant to insulin you become.
    Right. And you need more insulin to get sugar out of your blood when you consume lots of free fatty acids. Free fatty acids inhibit glucose oxidation, so consuming a lot of DIETARY FAT makes you insulin resistant. In the absence of fat, very little insulin is needed to remove sugar from your blood. Hence, high carb/low fat diets promote insulin sensitivity while high fat/low carb diets promote insulin resistance. You're thinking backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    Your (low carb=IR) theory would be the first time in earth history that something became resistant to something by reducing its exposure to that something.
    You need to understand what insulin resistance actually is. It's caused by fat, not carbs.

    Quote Originally Posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
    Also you still haven't read about T2 diabetes and IR. No scientist can pinpoint the cause of these 2 maladies.
    All they can do is measure that progressively (from IR to T2DM) the bodies insulin response is delayed and slowed all tho the correct amount of insulin is eventually released. If that is T2DM & IR, then IMO there can only be a few causes of those diseases...
    I didn't know that you knew the knowledge of every scientist on Earth. I think you mean "consensus." Great. There is no consensus that cholesterol and saturated fat is healthy. The consensus is actually the opposite - the popular opinion is that saturated fat and cholesterol increase the risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Do you agree with that consensus? Less fallacy, more fact.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  3. #333
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Free fatty acids inhibit glucose oxidation, so consuming a lot of DIETARY FAT makes you insulin resistant.
    Free fatty acids only come from adipose tissue, not dietary fat.

  4. #334
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    Free fatty acids only come from adipose tissue, not dietary fat.
    FFA's are released in an inversely-proportional relationship to carbohydrate consumption. Low carbohydrate diets create high levels of FFA's in the bloodstream. Given we are on MDA, virtually no one here is eating a low fat/low carbohydrate diet. In fact, such a diet is unsustainable. If you are eating a low carbohydrate diet, you are almost certainly consuming a rather high fat diet.

    Furthermore, adipose tissue comes from dietary fat, but that's not really the context of the discussion.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  5. #335
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    8,708
    If you like leucine, it looks like moose, seal and elk are pretty high in it. But eggs and whey are probably easier to come by and they are high in it.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Highest squat: 167.5 x 2. Current Deadlift: 190 x 3

  6. #336
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    FFA's are released in an inversely-proportional relationship to carbohydrate consumption. Low carbohydrate diets create high levels of FFA's in the bloodstream.
    As far as I know, increased FFA's as a result of a low carbohydrate diet isn't pathological. Do you have proof showing otherwise?

  7. #337
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    As far as I know, increased FFA's as a result of a low carbohydrate diet isn't pathological. Do you have proof showing otherwise?
    The more carbohydrate you consume, the higher the ratio of glucose:fat you will burn as fuel and vice versa. I'm not sure what you're asking. If you eat little carbohydrate, you will burn little for fuel because what you do have will be consumed mostly by the brain.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  8. #338
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,141
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime-Animal View Post
    I would say that biochem is really important. We find the biological mechanisms behind anabolism or catabolism, cell death and disease, as well as cell regeneration and proliferation. They give us science to lean on, and help link together to further our understanding of what we know vs what we don't.

    That being said, I believe I successfully figured out a solution on how to build muscle mass while on a deficit while I was doing my bodybuilding prep. I will however have to experiment further as I only went about a month into that part of the program before I hit the wall of overtraining (due to under eating, and not overtraining Ironically).
    What I mean is that biochemical models to lifestyle intervention doesn't always work. The problem is that many people erroneously believe that biochemistry is completely mapped out "hard" science when it is not. There are as many theories and still a significant number confounding variables at the biochemical level as there are at any other level of study including epidemiological. Not to mention the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to biology, so proving something in a test tube rarely pans out in vivo. So I find the most convincing studies to be the ones that are done on humans with all the associated biomarkers checked in conjunction with evolutionary science. These may be tougher to control for confounding factors, but its a real as it gets. I'm not saying biochem isn't important or that I don't study it.

    I learned long ago (can't recall the first place I read or heard it) that you can break things down as such, and I think it works in any scientific area as well:

    There are things you know you know
    Things you think you know
    Things you know you don't know
    Things that you don't know you don't know

    Its that last one there that really gets ya
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 10-23-2013 at 10:13 AM.

  9. #339
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    The more carbohydrate you consume, the higher the ratio of glucose:fat you will burn as fuel and vice versa. I'm not sure what you're asking. If you eat little carbohydrate, you will burn little for fuel because what you do have will be consumed mostly by the brain.
    Maybe I'm confusing what you mean. I'm thinking of pathological hepatic and peripheral insulin resistance due to lipotoxicity, not simply "insulin resistance" due to a lack of carbohydrates. The utilization of FFA's in the two contexts is completely different and a low carb diet won't necessarily lead to pathological insulin resistance. To my knowledge.

  10. #340
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,141
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    You need to understand what insulin resistance actually is. It's caused by fat, not carbs.
    QF....WTF...

Page 34 of 40 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... 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
  •