Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 173

Thread: Andrew Kim Absolutely Crushes the Ridiculous Notion of Being "Fat Adapted" page 9

  1. #81
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by delaporte448 View Post
    If you disagree with Mark Sisson so much, why are you part of his forum?
    Please read the thread. If everyone agreed no forums on the internet would exist. The exact purpose of a forum is to talk about disagreements. The better question is if you agree with Mark Sisson so much, why are you part of his forum?
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  2. #82
    OneDeltaTenTango's Avatar
    OneDeltaTenTango is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    915
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Sugars have generally less impact on blood glucose levels because of the fructose component, which isn't very insulinogenic and must be broken down in the liver. A person with strong insulin resistance would likely have better luck eating fruits than starches. Fruits are more challenging for the body to metabolize than starches, so the "calorie burn" is higher eating fruits than starches. Starches are superior for workout recovery because they are easier to metabolize and are more preferentially stored as muscle glycogen than fruits.

    Personally, I don't care. I eat both. I would recommend limiting refined sugar just like I recommend limiting refined fats since they are high calorie/low nutrient. Meats for fats, fruits and tubers for glucose.
    Thx

  3. #83
    drjoyous's Avatar
    drjoyous is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    south lake tahoe, california
    Posts
    158
    Hi Dil--
    sounds like you're agreeing with me. There are many people with knowledge on these forums and many without. If one listens only to those who seem "nice" or speak with some subjective notion of "perfect," well, that's the way marketing and politicians work. I guess I prefer to read the posts of those who are knowledgeable (exactly the people you noted) and not expect any one of them to have the 'perfect' answer for me.
    I guess i never was one to go in for gurus of any ilk...

  4. #84
    mikekola's Avatar
    mikekola is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Krakow, Poland
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Being "fat adapted" doesn't exist. People who are severely insulin resistant feel better excluding carbohydrate because it keeps their blood sugar stable. It isn't because of some kind of "fat adaptation." You're simply taking the issue of blood sugar spikes out of the equation.
    Cutting out the rest of conventional low-fat wisdom, just a few questions:
    1. How do you explain "low-carb induction flu"? That is very *real* thing.

    2. Do you want to imply that muscle fat adaptation and brain ketone adaptation is non-existent? Tell that to cyclists, training for months/years to burn fat efficiently.

    3. Nobody, Mark included, didn't suggest anywhere that there's just 0/1 switch like "sugar burning" and "fat burning" ONLY. It's *obvious* both processes take place at the same time, regardless of the diet you are on. It's probably just a matter of balancing it. Clearly, from low/med carbers experience it does seem to work. If your perfect "insulin resistance" of a high-carber means crashes every 2 hours and ravenous sugar craving likewise, I'm not going back to it, even if that was the healthiest thing on the planet. Not to mention the evolutionary perspective- Grok couldn't have lived that way for long.

    4. Show me a 150g of carbs a day person with "physiological insulin resistance". That one disappears completely for me, once I get over 60-70grams a day, and I'm not a small guy and not inactive On a 100-150g of carbs a day diet (per average, of course), I managed to drop 60lbs and made my FBG go down from 89 to 73. So much for your fantasy.

    Michal
    Last edited by mikekola; 11-07-2013 at 08:47 AM.

  5. #85
    excursivey's Avatar
    excursivey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    681
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    I don't want people to be me, I want them to think objectively and find their own path.
    My goodness, I never woulda thought of that on my own...
    Breathe. Move forward.

    I just eat what I want...

  6. #86
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by mikekola View Post
    Cutting out the rest of conventional low-fat wisdom, just a few questions:
    1. How do you explain "low-carb induction flu"? That is very *real* thing.
    The human body wants to burn fat and glucose in unison. Dietary fat is the "steady" backbone while glucose comes in to provide energy for more intensive activity. Glucose is a more efficient substrate than fat in the sense that the same stored calories of glucose can fuel more intense activity than fat. It delivers you more oxygen in a sense. When you suddenly cut out glucose out of nowhere, your body goes into an energy deficit. It can't efficiently get the fuel it needs, so it is forced to rely more on fat - a less efficient source of energy. You have to wait for your body to become more insulin resistant so you can more efficiently oxidize free fatty acids. That's essentially what you're waiting for - physiological insulin resistance to kick in.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikekola View Post
    2. Do you want to imply that muscle fat adaptation and brain ketone adaptation is non-existent? Tell that to cyclists, training for months/years to burn fat efficiently.
    I don't understand your point. You're always burning some level of fat, glucose and ketones. What changes are the ratios. Your argument is kind of silly because your example is people cycling hundreds of miles - a completely unnatural activity that you have to force the human body to adapt to. It isn't healthy, you know, and trying to emulate that comes at the expense of your own health. Furthermore, you have to understand the context of ketones. When you drop carbohydrate lower than the requirement for the brain, it comes from your muscles. In times of famine when food is scarce, if your body only ran purely on glucose, it would waste your muscles at a very high rate. Ketone production allows for glucose supplementation of the brain - it is an evolutionary mechanism in place to decrease the human body's muscle wasting in times of starvation by reducing the brain's need for glucose. Being in ketosis, evolutionarily speaking, is a really bad sign because it means you're probably starving. Why do you think ketones tend to increase concentration? When food is scarce, you better be able to throw that spear more precisely and kill your prey. I don't understand why someone would want to be in ketosis. It is emulating starvation, and it slows your metabolism. Why do you think it has a hunger-suppression effect?

    Quote Originally Posted by mikekola View Post
    3. Nobody, Mark included, didn't suggest anywhere that there's just 0/1 switch like "sugar burning" and "fat burning" ONLY. It's *obvious* both processes take place at the same time, regardless of the diet you are on. It's probably just a matter of balancing it. Clearly, from low/med carbers experience it does seem to work. If your perfect "insulin resistance" of a high-carber means crashes every 2 hours and ravenous sugar craving likewise, I'm not going back to it, even if that was the healthiest thing on the planet. Not to mention the evolutionary perspective- Grok couldn't have lived that way for long.
    I disagree. People do not know that. The average person has no idea the basics on health, and if they try something and it starts working for them, they'll probably believe anything they read by that author. I find it very misleading and poorly explained. It reads more like dogma than science.

    Where does this "sugar crash" myth come into play? I certainly don't have it. That's a product of insulin resistance, which is a problem with fats, not sugars. Avoiding carbohydrate is going to make that crash worse during times when you DO eat carbs since you're just increasing your level of insulin resistance.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikekola View Post
    4. Show me a 150g of carbs a day person with "physiological insulin resistance". That one disappears completely for me, once I get over 60-70grams a day, and I'm not a small guy and not inactive On a 100-150g of carbs a day diet (per average, of course), I managed to drop 60lbs and made my FBG go down from 89 to 73. So much for your fantasy.

    Michal
    What are you talking about? This is a logical fallacy. You cut calories substantially and you lost weight. That's great. It doesn't really matter how you did it. The Carbohydrate Curve had absolutely nothing to do with your success. If anything, it was probably the fact all the protein you ate kept you a lot fuller on less calories, and the extra nutrition found in whole foods resulted in less of a metabolic slowdown during your prolonged period of unintentional calorie restriction.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #87
    mikekola's Avatar
    mikekola is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Krakow, Poland
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    You have to wait for your body to become more insulin resistant so you can more efficiently oxidize free fatty acids. That's essentially what you're waiting for - physiological insulin resistance to kick in.
    So we can become fat-adapted more or less after all.. You admit it yourself. The discussion how/to what extend this is healthy or not is a different story. But- you can become fat adapted, contrary to what you wrote above.

    Where does this "sugar crash" myth come into play? I certainly don't have it. That's a product of insulin resistance, which is a problem with fats, not sugars. Avoiding carbohydrate is going to make that crash worse during times when you DO eat carbs since you're just increasing your level of insulin resistance.
    Ask an average high-carber how often he/she needs to eat. Ask an average low-fat dieter how often he/she eats...
    I was a *true* low-fatter myself. I ate 5-6 times a day, tons of carbs. Now I eat twice a day, no need to eat more frequently. Of course- can do that, if that's what social convention requires
    That's the difference we're talking about.

    What are you talking about? This is a logical fallacy. You cut calories substantially and you lost weight. That's great. It doesn't really matter how you did it. The Carbohydrate Curve had absolutely nothing to do with your success.
    Yeah right, I was blessed by heavens and, all of a sudden, cut out my calories, out of thin air.
    BTW- Stupid fat boys, gluttony and sloth, right? If only they knew that they need to "cut calories"... but nobody told them that, right?
    Seriously:
    The calories cut-of was a *result*, not a cause. And that happened for a *reason*- cutting carbs, lowered insulin, lowered hunger. Simple.

    Michal
    Last edited by mikekola; 11-07-2013 at 09:39 AM.

  8. #88
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by mikekola View Post
    So we can become fat-adapted more or less after all.. You admit it yourself. The discussion how/to what extend this is healthy or not is a different story. But- you can become fat adapted, contrary to what you wrote above.
    Mark makes the notion that the average American is a "sugar burner" and eating Primally will make you into a "fat burner." That isn't what's happening at all. The rate at which you are burning fat:glucose is always changing inside the body. The "carb flu" isn't your body becoming more "fat adapted" - it was always adapted to burning fat - it's your body adjusting to doing the same processes on less readily available energy. In many of these cases, your metabolism is actually SLOWING since you're forcing your body to adapt to rely on a less abundant source of fuel. You're still burning sugar, just less of it on average. If you want to force your body to operate unnecessarily slowly and force a starvation-style metabolic rate on it at all times, you're free to do so, but it isn't making you better "adapted" to burning fat. It's downregulating its metabolic rate to compensate for a chronic energy deficit.


    Quote Originally Posted by mikekola View Post
    Ask an average high-carber how often he/she needs to eat. Ask an average low-fat dieter how often he/she eats...
    This is completely meaningless. You cannot prove that "high carbers" have more or less energy crashes than "low carbers." Furthermore, most people that claim to have eaten a "low fat" diet around here never did. Hurrah for selective memory.

    Quote Originally Posted by mikekola View Post
    I was a *true* low-fatter myself. I ate 5-6 times a day, tons of carbs. Now I eat twice a day, no need to eat more frequently. Of course- can do that, if that's what social convention requires
    That's the difference we're talking about.
    What exactly is a "true low fatter?" Does that mean you ate a ton of cereal, bread, pasta, refined sugar and juice/soda, the typical high calorie/micronutrient-starved diet? Most people that claim to have eaten low fat did not eat low fat. Try a diet of lean meats, fruits and starches in whole form, which I'm sure you've never tried. Americans have the highest dietary fat intake in the world and one of the lowest intakes of carbohydrate as a percentage of their total daily calories. Somehow, that's never been acknowledged around here.




    Isn't that funny? In terms of macro %'s, Americans eat one of the lowest carb diets on Earth. Why are we so fat and sick?

    Quote Originally Posted by mikekola View Post
    Yeah right, I was blessed by heavens and, all of a sudden, cut out my calories, out of thin air.
    BTW- Stupid fat boys, gluttony and sloth, right? If only they knew that they need to "cut calories"... but nobody told them that, right?
    Seriously:
    The calories cut-of was a *result*, not a cause. And that happened for a *reason*- cutting carbs, lowered insulin, lowered hunger. Simple.

    Michal
    I would argue it was probably due to increased protein and vastly more micronutrients, supporting a higher TDEE at almost all times and wasn't the carbs at all. It's the fact you were eating far less empty calories and probably a lot more meat. You may have done better trading some fat for more carbs, keeping calories equal, since carbs have a higher average burn rate than fat.
    Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 11-07-2013 at 10:09 AM.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  9. #89
    Markbt's Avatar
    Markbt is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Sugars have generally less impact on blood glucose levels because of the fructose component, which isn't very insulinogenic and must be broken down in the liver. A person with strong insulin resistance would likely have better luck eating fruits than starches. Fruits are more challenging for the body to metabolize than starches, so the "calorie burn" is higher eating fruits than starches. Starches are superior for workout recovery because they are easier to metabolize and are more preferentially stored as muscle glycogen than fruits.

    Personally, I don't care. I eat both. I would recommend limiting refined sugar just like I recommend limiting refined fats since they are high calorie/low nutrient. Meats for fats, fruits and tubers for glucose.

    You're making some sense here. One point that should be made is that not all fruit is equal. For example, berries are better (in terms of nutrient to calorie ratio) than something like watermellon or grapes with a much higher sugar content.

    About the refined sugar and refined fat, this also makes sense if a person is trying to restrict calories. People who are not restricting calories may find that refined fats such as butter, coconut oil, or MCT oil may produce a better response than refined sugars.

    This may be due to insulin resistance or other problems caused by years of eating crap and it may not be. Obviously with issues like diabetes and insulin resistance, refined sugars generally seem to be a bigger health risk for the average person than refined fats, assuming that the sugars or fats are high quality and low in toxins.

    Fats, besides being high in calories, are relatively harmless. Sugars tend to be more problematic to the general population due to the insulin response required to process them. Quality real food products, whether fat or sugar, shouldn't be a problem for HEALTHY people, as long as they aren't consumed in excessive quantities. the definition of excessive is obviously different for each person's unique physiology. Obviously junk like rancid trans fat soy oil or high fructose corn syrup have no place in anyone's diet, regardless of macronutrient ratios.

  10. #90
    MEversbergII's Avatar
    MEversbergII is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Lexington Park, MD
    Posts
    2,156
    What I am curious about is what defines an "empty" calorie in your paradigm. I'd think that my fat-intensive olive oil's additional inclusions (vit E, etc) would be just as not empty as a carb-intensive white potato's inclusions (selenium, etc).

    M.

Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •