87 replies to this topic

[Hebbeh]

In really trying to understand your dietary philosophy, misterE, you seem to be trying to distinguish between complex carbs (grains (bread, pasta), potatoes, rice, beans) and simple sugars (fructose may be an exception in certain circumstances but we've agreed on that).....but at the end of the day, all those complex carbs and starches are just broken down to a simple sugar...glucose.

I know. Glucose is the body's primary fuel. When you deprive the body of glucose, like on a ketogenic diet, the body breaks down muscle tissue and converts amino-acids into glucose (gluconeogenesis), which is not good. Starch is long complex chains of glucose. Sugar is glucose combined with fructose. Too much sugar can increase triglycerides because of the fructose fraction, but starch doesn't increase triglycerides. So even thou starch breaks down into glucose (a simple sugar), doesn't mean that it is the same as eating table-sugar. Table-sugar contains fructose, starch doesn't. The best source of glucose is grains, beans and potatoes.

Putting the wrong “fuel” in the body causes metabolic-syndrome. When you put the wrong "fuel" in the body, it creates an environment that causes disease. Since the human body is desired to run off glucose, putting in other sources of calories other than glucose will cause problems. Look what Americans fuel their body with: fructose, fat, and protein. Is it any wonder why "energy" drinks are so popular? Without the glucose, the human body becomes sluggish, the metabolism slows, you can't think clearly, you're fatigued, etc.

Sounds good but there are some flaws in your logic.

Glucose is the "primary" fuel only for anaerobic activities which would be sprinting or weight lifting. Glucose is only used to fuel short intense spurts of activity...after which you can sprint no longer and the body switches over to the aerobic energy system predominately fueled by fat. The longest race historically considered a sprint is the 400 meters...and few athletes can sprint an entire 400 meters before the muscles have had to switch to fat as the primary fuel. Any race or activity lasting more than a minute (or 2 in highly trained world class athletes) is fueled by the aerobic energy system and fueled by fat. If you are going to exercise...and I hope you are going to make it worth your while and exercise for more than a minute or 2....you tell me which is the body's preferred source of fuel?

And in regards to ketogenic diets, the body no longer needs glucose. Metabolically it has shifted to burning fat and/or ketones exclusively. There is no need for glucose, and as such, no gluconeogenesis will occur (beyond the first couple days while the body is making the metabolic shift). And it is precisely for this reason that ketogenic diets are so immensely popular with bodybuilders....so that they can get shredded down to 5% and below body fat levels while losing very little of the hard earned lean mass.

I'm not sure where you're getting all this misleading and patently false information but with all due respect, you have much to learn Grasshopper. The facts I have stated are backed up by both science and anecdotal evidence of top athletes from the last 50 years.

Edit: and in regards to "can't think clearly", the brain actually runs better on ketones than glucose. That is one reason ketogenic diets are recommended for epileptics. You seriously should try it sometime...once your brain gets going on ketones, I'm betting you'll be a believer. Of course you have to suffer for a few days through the metabolic transition and accompanying brain fog which isn't pleasant but after 2 or 3 days you'll find yourself flying and running on high...trust me!

Edited by Hebbeh, 07 August 2012 - 04:56 AM.

[rwac]

Glucose is only used to fuel short intense spurts of activity...after which you can sprint no longer and the body switches over to the aerobic energy system predominately fueled by fat. The longest race historically considered a sprint is the 400 meters...and few athletes can sprint an entire 400 meters before the muscles have had to switch to fat as the primary fuel. Any race or activity lasting more than a minute (or 2 in highly trained world class athletes) is fueled by the aerobic energy system and fueled by fat. If you are going to exercise...and I hope you are going to make it worth your while and exercise for more than a minute or 2....you tell me which is the body's preferred source of fuel?

And when you run out of carbs and switch to fat as the primary fuel, it's called hitting the wall, and there's a reason athletes try to avoid it.

Edited by rwac, 07 August 2012 - 04:58 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Glucose is only used to fuel short intense spurts of activity...after which you can sprint no longer and the body switches over to the aerobic energy system predominately fueled by fat. The longest race historically considered a sprint is the 400 meters...and few athletes can sprint an entire 400 meters before the muscles have had to switch to fat as the primary fuel. Any race or activity lasting more than a minute (or 2 in highly trained world class athletes) is fueled by the aerobic energy system and fueled by fat. If you are going to exercise...and I hope you are going to make it worth your while and exercise for more than a minute or 2....you tell me which is the body's preferred source of fuel?

And when you run out of carbs and switch to fat as the primary fuel, it's called hitting the wall, and there's a reason athletes try to avoid it.

The better you train your muscles to burn fat and not be dependant on glucose, the less of a problem that becomes. Frankly that article is misleading though because it's much more complicated than simple carb loading to complete a marathon or tour de france.

edit: And you aren't going to run a marathon on carbs alone no matter what...can't be done...the article neglects that you're burning a mixture of carbs and fatty acids...and mostly fatty acids at some point....hitting the wall is when the body hasn't been trained properly to utilize the fatty acids efficiently. And actually, hitting the wall is simply when you have reached the limit of your endurance...we all have a limit...or we all would be wearing gold.

Edited by Hebbeh, 07 August 2012 - 05:08 AM.

[rwac]

And when you run out of carbs and switch to fat as the primary fuel, it's called hitting the wall, and there's a reason athletes try to avoid it.

The better you train your muscles to burn fat and not be dependant on glucose, the less of a problem that becomes. Frankly that article is misleading though because it's much more complicated than simple carb loading to complete a marathon or tour de france.

You are right, it takes much more to finish a marathon. However, I believe it was durianrider who made the point that there are very few high level athletes who are on low carb diets.

[Hebbeh]

And when you run out of carbs and switch to fat as the primary fuel, it's called hitting the wall, and there's a reason athletes try to avoid it.

The better you train your muscles to burn fat and not be dependant on glucose, the less of a problem that becomes. Frankly that article is misleading though because it's much more complicated than simple carb loading to complete a marathon or tour de france.

You are right, it takes much more to finish a marathon. However, I believe it was durianrider who made the point that there are very few high level athletes who are on low carb diets.

Sure, unlike an elite bodybuilder getting in contest shape, a ketogenic diet isn't suitable for a marathoner (though it has been done). That is why there is a whole industry and career around sports nutrition...different sports have different needs. But still, the bottom line is hitting the wall has way more to do with exceeding your limits than simply running out of carbs.

Edited by Hebbeh, 07 August 2012 - 05:13 AM.

[Hebbeh]

And when you run out of carbs and switch to fat as the primary fuel, it's called hitting the wall, and there's a reason athletes try to avoid it.

The better you train your muscles to burn fat and not be dependant on glucose, the less of a problem that becomes. Frankly that article is misleading though because it's much more complicated than simple carb loading to complete a marathon or tour de france.

You are right, it takes much more to finish a marathon. However, I believe it was durianrider who made the point that there are very few high level athletes who are on low carb diets.

The main point though is very few of us here are elite athletes....so that doesn't apply. Regular joes that maybe half ass exercise for half hour or even an hour a day won't be burning carbs and energy like a marathoner. Few of us can exercise long enough to burn a plate of pasta....seriously do you have any idea how many hours of exercise it takes to burn 500 or 1000 calories of pasta?

[rwac]

You are right, it takes much more to finish a marathon. However, I believe it was durianrider who made the point that there are very few high level athletes who are on low carb diets.

The main point though is very few of us here are elite athletes....so that doesn't apply. Regular joes that maybe half ass exercise for half hour or even an hour a day won't be burning carbs and energy like a marathoner. Few of us can exercise long enough to burn a plate of pasta....seriously do you have any idea how many hours of exercise it takes to burn 500 or 1000 calories of pasta?

Sure, unlike an elite bodybuilder getting in contest shape, a ketogenic diet isn't suitable for a marathoner (though it has been done). That is why there is a whole industry and career around sports nutrition...different sports have different needs. But still, the bottom line is hitting the wall has way more to do with exceeding your limits than simply running out of carbs.

The point being that, elite athlete or not, marathoner or not, fat is inferior in some ways to carbs/glucose as a source of energy.

[Hebbeh]

You are right, it takes much more to finish a marathon. However, I believe it was durianrider who made the point that there are very few high level athletes who are on low carb diets.

The main point though is very few of us here are elite athletes....so that doesn't apply. Regular joes that maybe half ass exercise for half hour or even an hour a day won't be burning carbs and energy like a marathoner. Few of us can exercise long enough to burn a plate of pasta....seriously do you have any idea how many hours of exercise it takes to burn 500 or 1000 calories of pasta?

Sure, unlike an elite bodybuilder getting in contest shape, a ketogenic diet isn't suitable for a marathoner (though it has been done). That is why there is a whole industry and career around sports nutrition...different sports have different needs. But still, the bottom line is hitting the wall has way more to do with exceeding your limits than simply running out of carbs.

The point being that, elite athlete or not, marathoner or not, fat is inferior in some ways to carbs/glucose as a source of energy.

I pointed out in the very first post of this exchange that it requires carbs for any anaerobic activity ie sprinting, weightlifting, etc...I never claimed fat was end all be all energy source for everything...(unlike misterE claiming glucose was THE one and only)....but the body does have 2 energy systems for a reason....so I really don't understand your point or your argument??? What are you trying to argue and what does it have to do with hitting the wall??? Hitting the wall is simply exceeding the limits of either your training or physical abilities....after all, you can only load so much carb after which any additional will spill over into fat.

As I first pointed out....

Glucose is the "primary" fuel only for anaerobic activities which would be sprinting or weight lifting.

But the body will function just fine on a ketogenic diet...and the brain burns ketones just fine...it actually can be enjoyable when you get used to it...a sort of clear minded euphoria that many find enjoyable....but I never said I endorsed a ketogenic diet for anybody other than bodybuilders getting shredded...which is a popular contest diet for elite bodybuilders. I have stated earlier that I eat a moderate carb isocaloric diet....and don't endorse a high fat diet....but there have been and continue to be a number of misconceptions flying around in this thread.

To clarify....would you mind pointing out to what it is that I have stated that is incorrect or that you in particular disagree with? And no I didn't claim fat was the only or the best energy source in ALL situations.

Edit: And any activity beyond anaerobic (400 meters) will be burning a mix of glucose and fatty acids at best.....no matter how much carb loading you do, after the first mile of that marathon, you will be running on a mix of glucose and fatty acids and that mix will tilt to fatty acids with each passing mile...no matter how much carbs were loaded...that's just the way it works.

Edited by Hebbeh, 07 August 2012 - 06:35 AM.

[misterE]

Hebbeh-- Surely the body can survive on a high-fat diet, that’s without question, but the body can also survive on a western-diet… does that make it healthy? There are serious metabolic problems with consuming a high-fat diet, especially when it comes to longevity. From a "calorie-restriction" point of view, fat is over twice as concentrated in calories than carbohydrate. Calorie-restriction slows aging in animals (and extends health-span), so eating more fat would mean eating more calories (which could work to decrease longevity), plus fat provides nearly no satiety, thus you’re likely to stay in positive-calorie balance.

Fat coats the red blood-cells and causes them to stick together, thus the blood becomes sludge. High-fat diets cause insulin-resistance, increase cholesterol, increase triglycerides, decreases nitric-oxide, increases inflammation and increases estrogen levels. Plus 90% of our exposure to dioxins and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals comes from animal-fat. Not to mention most ancient cultures didn't live on a ketogenic-diet, but rather a starch-based diet... and certainly no athlete would be foolish enough to eat a ketogenic-diet, because they will be fatigued… unless you consider walking or sleeping a good form of exercise.

Dr. Robert Atkins is a perfect example of what a ketogenic-diet will do to you long-term. The man was overweight and didn't age gracefully (in my opinion). Not to mention he suffered a heart-attack and his medical reports (which were released after his death) showed that he had severe atherosclerosis.

Here is what I think it really boils down to: some people don't want to give up their rich fatty foods and would rather convince themselves they are doing good by stuffing themselves with meat, cheese and eggs. Show me the study or studies (published in a peer-reviewed journal) that a ketogenic-diet can reverse atherosclerosis, then I might consider. Until then, I'm going to follow the advice of Dr. Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn.

[misterE]

--buckwheats

The main problem with the paleo-diet is that nobody knows for sure what early humanoids ate way back then. Researchers like Dr. Loren Cordain hypothesize that it was mainly meat based, but many believe it was mostly plant based. Anthropologist Nathaniel Dominy even believes that hunting was an unreliable source of calories and that starchy foods like the potato, is what allowed humans to become so successful as a species, he believes that humans are indeed "starchavors". The main clue that tells us that humans are inherently starch-eaters is the digestive enzyme called amylase. Amylase is the most abundant digestive enzyme in the body. Its sole purpose is to digest starch.

Paleo-diet gurus can hypothesize all they want, but there aren't any studies showing paleo-diets can reverse atherosclerosis. Paleo-diets gurus say: "grains are bad"... well if that is true, why does metabolic-syndrome increase when cultures eat more meat and less grain? And let's face it... the paleo-diet is not sustainable for 7 billion people. The paleo-diet is for health-conscious people who would rather have bacon and eggs for breakfast instead of oatmeal.

Edited by misterE, 07 August 2012 - 07:58 AM.

[Hebbeh]

http://suppversity.blogspot.com/

To help your thought process along, I have compiled the data from a recently published meta-analysis (that's a study, the results of which are based on data from multiple previous trials, which was weighed and compiled to come up with "new" data with a larger empirical foundation and thus greater significance). And I am honestly curious whether or not the evidence Sievenpiper and his colleagues presented in favor of the existence of a"catalytic dose" of ≤36g/day of fructose that's been shown to improve, not compromise, blood glucose, insulin and HBA1C, when it is consumed instead of 36g of carbs from other sources (the studies in the review used either starches or simple sugars with almost identical beneficial results, by the way) will have catalytic effects on your opinion making process ;-)
Figure 2: Effect of isoenergetic exchange of "catalytic" fructose doses (≤36g/d) for other carbohydrates (starches or simple sugars) on glycaemic endpoints: HbA1c, fasting blood glucose and fasting blood insulin, data calculated based on analysis of the scarce literature that is currently available (adapted from Sievenpiper. 2012)
The improvements in HbA1C, which is still the gold standard for evaluating long-term blood sugar level, in fasting blood glucose and insulin levels were across the board statistically significant, regardless of whether or not you apply the quality criteria, Sievenpiper and his colleagues used to weigh the results of the individual studies (cf. figure 2). Accordingly, the authors are right, when they point out that

[...] this small meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials supports earlier13C NMR spectroscopy investigations and acute feeding studies showing that ‘catalytic’ doses (≤36g/d) of fructose may improve glycaemic control [and that this] benefit is seen without the adverse cardiometabolic effects reported when fructose is fed at high doses or as excess energy. (Sievenpiper. 2012)

[buckwheats]

The main clue that tells us that humans are inherently starch-eaters is the digestive enzyme called amylase.

it doesn't really tell us that. amylase gene copies only increased *after* the development of agriculture. so what it tells us is more like there was some selection for humans with more of that gene after we domesticated some vegetables to the point that they became very starchy. not if how agriculture influenced our diets and health was good, or if how we adapted to it (with more amalyase, etc.) left us better off than before agriculture.

yeah, more ancient hunters and gatherers may have eaten less meat than modern day ones (since perhaps hunting methods were less developed and such - and there is some indication that that is true), but there is no question that increased animal/fish consumption was the trend from like 2 million years ago up until agriculture. if you think what's more optimal is less animals and more plants, then by plants i would hope you mean the types of plants humans and our ancestors ate for millions of years, not the larger starch-dense ones that we only recently rapidly evolved.

Edited by buckwheats, 08 August 2012 - 03:54 AM.

[misterE]

if you think what's more optimal is less animals and more plants, then by plants i would hope you mean the types of plants humans and our ancestors ate for millions of years, not the larger starch-dense ones that we only recently rapidly evolved.

Vegetables like cabbage, broccoli, carrots, green beans, and lettuce, don't have many calories, therefore it is virtually impossible to eat an all-vegetable diet, because there is not enough calories to sustain yourself. This is where starch plays a pivotal role. If you don't get the majority of your calories from starch (glucose), you are fueling yourself with the wrong type of fuel (fatty-acids, amino-acids, fructose). Without the proper fuel, the body develops metabolic-syndrome.

Edited by misterE, 09 August 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[Hebbeh]

if you think what's more optimal is less animals and more plants, then by plants i would hope you mean the types of plants humans and our ancestors ate for millions of years, not the larger starch-dense ones that we only recently rapidly evolved.

Vegetables like cabbage, broccoli, carrots, green beans, and lettuce, don't have many calories, therefore it is virtually impossible to eat an all-vegetable diet, because there is not enough calories to sustain yourself. This is where starch plays a pivotal role. If you don't get the majority of your calories from starch (glucose), you are fueling yourself with the wrong type of fuel (fatty-acids, amino-acids, fructose). Without the proper fuel, the body develops metabolic-syndrome.

I must be an anomaly then...as I assure you I don't have metabolic syndrome or any of the disease states you keep saying we have to have if our diets include foods with fatty acids. And what makes you put all fatty acids and all foods containing any amount of fatty acids in one single category? And just like a high fat diet may be extreme, a starchatarian diet of exclusively wheat, potatoes, and rice is just as if not more extreme. I can assure you that both your protein consumption and amino acid balance (quality of protein) is certainly suboptimal.

Also, if humans are not intended to consume any fatty acids, why is the heart's preferred source of fuel fatty acids?

http://en.wikipedia..../Cardiac_muscle

Cardiac muscle is adapted to be highly resistant to fatigue: it has a large number of mitochondria, enabling continuous aerobic respiration via oxidative phosphorylation, numerous myoglobins (oxygen-storing pigment) and a good blood supply, which provides nutrients and oxygen. The heart is so tuned to aerobic metabolism that it is unable to pump sufficiently in ischaemic conditions. At basal metabolic rates, about 1% of energy is derived from anaerobic metabolism. This can increase to 10% under moderately hypoxic conditions, but, under more severe hypoxic conditions, not enough energy can be liberated by lactate production to sustain ventricular contractions.^[3]
Under basal aerobic conditions, 60% of energy comes from fat (free fatty acids and triglycerides), 35% from carbohydrates (primarily as glucose), and 5% from amino acids and ketone bodies.

Also, I don't know if you are following the C60 forum, but if fatty acids are so bad for health and cause disease, why did Baati's rat experiment show, I believe, something on the order of 90% life extension just by supplementing the rats diet with olive oil (over controls of standard rat chow which I believe is mostly carbs)?

Edited by Hebbeh, 09 August 2012 - 01:05 AM.

[niner]

Vegetables like cabbage, broccoli, carrots, green beans, and lettuce, don't have many calories, therefore it is virtually impossible to eat an all-vegetable diet, because there is not enough calories to sustain yourself. This is where starch plays a pivotal role. If you don't get the majority of your calories from starch (glucose), you are fueling yourself with the wrong type of fuel (fatty-acids, amino-acids, fructose). Without the proper fuel, the body develops metabolic-syndrome.

Are you seriously proposing that we don't need 15-25% protein (as energy %)? Or that we should have a zero fat diet? Where would the fat soluble vitamins come from?

You know what I think is going on here? Your diet was so bad in your youth that you developed metabolic syndrome in High School. You were heading for an early grave, but to your credit you reversed course. You found a diet that was healthier than your old junk food diet. So far, so good. You could have adopted a paleo diet, or a Mediterranean diet, an ovo-lacto veg diet or various other reasonable choices, and any one of them would have turned your metabolism around. However it was at this point that you took a wrong turn. You attributed magical lifesaving properties to Veganism alone, and set about to "prove" to anyone who would listen that it was the "One True Way" of diets.

Essentially, you became a Vegan ideologue. You are now viewing the scientific literature through Vegan-colored glasses, picking and choosing bits of it that you think make your point. All your posts here are attempts to promote Veganism; you have become a Vegan troll. If you wanted to make an argument for Veganism on moral or humane grounds, I think most of us would respect that. However, unless you want to learn a lot more about biochemistry and nutrition, I think you are wasting your time here. You aren't going to change any minds among this crowd. We will continue to gorge on veal and freshly-clubbed baby Harp Seals.

[Hebbeh]

Also been pondering why some fatty acids are considered "essential" (essential for "healthy" life but not produced endogenously) and as such, must be obtained from diet to maintain optimal health? While other fatty acids, also required for a healthy metabolism, are produced endogenously (if we don't require them) if given the proper dietary substrates but known that often are not produced in optimal amounts and additional benefit can be obtained through additional dietary supplementation. A variety of fatty acids are required to produce a variety of substances in the body required for a healthy body, mind, and soul....and would require a text book to cover all the topics. So knowing that the body requires certain fatty acids to maintain health, why would a fat free diet be healthier?

[misterE]

Also, if humans are not intended to consume any fatty acids, why is the heart's preferred source of fuel fatty acids?

Because the heart beats slowly. Fat is used for slow reactions like walking, breathing, typical movements. Glycogen is used for fast reactions, running, weight-lifting, thinking, sex, swimming etc.

Certain fats (ployunsaturated-fat) are essential, but this doesn't mean they are our preferred fuel source. Saturated-fat and monounstaurated-fat are unessential, therefore we have no need to consume them. The human body is designed to burn carbohydrate (glucose) and store fat.

Edited by misterE, 09 August 2012 - 02:48 AM.

[misterE]

Are you seriously proposing that we don't need 15-25% protein (as energy %)? Or that we should have a zero fat diet? Where would the fat soluble vitamins come from?

I would say the optimal macro nutrient ratio would be 5% fat, 85% starch, 10% protein. Fat-soluble vitamins are soaked up in body-fat. Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to put butter on your carrots to absorb the beta-carotene. Or drink olive oil when you sunbathe.

Edited by misterE, 09 August 2012 - 03:17 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Because the heart beats slowly. Fat is used for slow reactions like walking, breathing, typical movements. Glycogen is used for fast reactions, running, weight-lifting, thinking, sex, swimming etc.

Not true. The heart only beats slowly when resting. The heart muscle is put under great stress (greater stress than leg muscles while sprinting even) when pushed to the limit in any intense or vigorous activity which can range from hard physical work (lumber jack or ditch digger), to riding the tour de france, to passionate sex with the love of your life...and everything in between. The heart will prefer free fatty acids for fuel right up to the limit which will be your maximum heart rate (the equivalent of your leg muscles sprinting like Usain Bolt). In fact, under severe hypoxic conditions (when oxygen levels are unable to keep up with demand due to extreme stresses induced on the body anytime you push yourself to your limits...ie hitting the wall), anaerobic metabolism (glucose) is unable to sustain ventricular contractions. In other words...without free fatty acids to keep the heart beating...you die. Perhaps you missed this key point which I will repost:

The heart is so tuned to aerobic metabolism that it is unable to pump sufficiently in ischaemic conditions. At basal metabolic rates, about 1% of energy is derived from anaerobic metabolism. This can increase to 10% under moderately hypoxic conditions, but, under more severe hypoxic conditions, not enough energy can be liberated by lactate production to sustain ventricular contractions.^[3]
Under basal aerobic conditions, 60% of energy comes from fat (free fatty acids and triglycerides), 35% from carbohydrates (primarily as glucose), and 5% from amino acids and ketone bodies.

[Hebbeh]

I would say the optimal macro nutrient ratio would be 5% fat, 85% starch, 10% protein. Fat-soluble vitamins are soaked up in body-fat. Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to put butter on your carrots to absorb the beta-carotene. Or drink olive oil when you sunbathe.

Simply not true. Many many studies have shown that fat soluble nutrient absorption is vastly increased many fold in the presence of dietary fat. This is the reason for olive oil based salad dressings...and studies have proven this time and again. These studies are easy to find...which proves you only cherry pick what serves your false beliefs. And there are studies directly refuting your carrot example.

And if your ideal of health is your concentration camp starvation avatar (which ironically is appropriate), then 10% protein might be sufficient. I seriously doubt your dietary ideas will contribute to either quality of life or quantity of life.

Edited by Hebbeh, 09 August 2012 - 03:53 AM.

[TheFountain]

Glucose is only used to fuel short intense spurts of activity...after which you can sprint no longer and the body switches over to the aerobic energy system predominately fueled by fat. The longest race historically considered a sprint is the 400 meters...and few athletes can sprint an entire 400 meters before the muscles have had to switch to fat as the primary fuel. Any race or activity lasting more than a minute (or 2 in highly trained world class athletes) is fueled by the aerobic energy system and fueled by fat. If you are going to exercise...and I hope you are going to make it worth your while and exercise for more than a minute or 2....you tell me which is the body's preferred source of fuel?

And when you run out of carbs and switch to fat as the primary fuel, it's called hitting the wall, and there's a reason athletes try to avoid it.

The better you train your muscles to burn fat and not be dependant on glucose, the less of a problem that becomes. Frankly that article is misleading though because it's much more complicated than simple carb loading to complete a marathon or tour de france.

edit: And you aren't going to run a marathon on carbs alone no matter what...can't be done...the article neglects that you're burning a mixture of carbs and fatty acids...and mostly fatty acids at some point....hitting the wall is when the body hasn't been trained properly to utilize the fatty acids efficiently. And actually, hitting the wall is simply when you have reached the limit of your endurance...we all have a limit...or we all would be wearing gold.

With all due respect Hebbeh, I think approaching this discussion from the stringent needs of elite athletes is a bad way to state this argument. Let's talk about average people who want to drop body fat and increase muscle. Most of us do not have to enter ketosis to do this. Nor do most of us require single digit body fat levels to maintain optimal health. If you look at most guys who simply want to add some muscle and are successful doing so, you see a pattern where carbs are NOT avoided like the plague. These people also eat plenty of fat and protein though. But this stringent macronutrient rationing you keep pointing out is not the average example. It is the elite example. And it is usually arrived at AFTER these atheletes have built the bulk of their muscle through fairly equal consumption of carbs, fats and proteins and are ALREADY at about 9 or 10% body fat. They then give themselves a further metabolic boost by entering ketosis for COMPETITION level single digit BF levels.

Edit: I see your later comments admitted some of this. But I am still not sure what point you were making with the initial comment.

Edited by TheFountain, 09 August 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[TheFountain]

Because the heart beats slowly. Fat is used for slow reactions like walking, breathing, typical movements. Glycogen is used for fast reactions, running, weight-lifting, thinking, sex, swimming etc.

Not true. The heart only beats slowly when resting. The heart muscle is put under great stress (greater stress than leg muscles while sprinting even) when pushed to the limit in any intense or vigorous activity which can range from hard physical work (lumber jack or ditch digger), to riding the tour de france, to passionate sex with the love of your life...and everything in between. The heart will prefer free fatty acids for fuel right up to the limit which will be your maximum heart rate (the equivalent of your leg muscles sprinting like Usain Bolt). In fact, under severe hypoxic conditions (when oxygen levels are unable to keep up with demand due to extreme stresses induced on the body anytime you push yourself to your limits...ie hitting the wall), anaerobic metabolism (glucose) is unable to sustain ventricular contractions. In other words...without free fatty acids to keep the heart beating...you die. Perhaps you missed this key point which I will repost:

The heart is so tuned to aerobic metabolism that it is unable to pump sufficiently in ischaemic conditions. At basal metabolic rates, about 1% of energy is derived from anaerobic metabolism. This can increase to 10% under moderately hypoxic conditions, but, under more severe hypoxic conditions, not enough energy can be liberated by lactate production to sustain ventricular contractions.^[3]
Under basal aerobic conditions, 60% of energy comes from fat (free fatty acids and triglycerides), 35% from carbohydrates (primarily as glucose), and 5% from amino acids and ketone bodies.

How many average people suffer from pathological Hypoxia? Are we all full time mountain climbers?

Edited by TheFountain, 09 August 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Glucose is only used to fuel short intense spurts of activity...after which you can sprint no longer and the body switches over to the aerobic energy system predominately fueled by fat. The longest race historically considered a sprint is the 400 meters...and few athletes can sprint an entire 400 meters before the muscles have had to switch to fat as the primary fuel. Any race or activity lasting more than a minute (or 2 in highly trained world class athletes) is fueled by the aerobic energy system and fueled by fat. If you are going to exercise...and I hope you are going to make it worth your while and exercise for more than a minute or 2....you tell me which is the body's preferred source of fuel?

And when you run out of carbs and switch to fat as the primary fuel, it's called hitting the wall, and there's a reason athletes try to avoid it.

The better you train your muscles to burn fat and not be dependant on glucose, the less of a problem that becomes. Frankly that article is misleading though because it's much more complicated than simple carb loading to complete a marathon or tour de france.

edit: And you aren't going to run a marathon on carbs alone no matter what...can't be done...the article neglects that you're burning a mixture of carbs and fatty acids...and mostly fatty acids at some point....hitting the wall is when the body hasn't been trained properly to utilize the fatty acids efficiently. And actually, hitting the wall is simply when you have reached the limit of your endurance...we all have a limit...or we all would be wearing gold.

With all due respect Hebbeh, I think approaching this discussion from the stringent needs of elite athletes is a bad way to state this argument. Let's talk about average people who want to drop body fat and increase muscle. Most of us do not have to enter ketosis to do this. Nor do most of us require single digit body fat levels to maintain optimal health. If you look at most guys who simply want to add some muscle and are successful doing so, you see a pattern where carbs are NOT avoided like the plague. These people also eat plenty of fat and protein though. But this stringent macronutrient rationing you keep pointing out is not the average example. It is the elite example. And it is usually arrived at AFTER these atheletes have built the bulk of their muscle through fairly equal consumption of carbs, fats and proteins and are ALREADY at about 9 or 10% body fat. They then give themselves a further metabolic boost by entering ketosis for COMPETITION level single digit BF levels.

Edit: I see your later comments admitted some of this. But I am still not sure what point you were making with the initial comment.

I was simply trying to point out that a ketogenic diet isn't as unhealthy as misterE is claiming and was using examples that I am familiar with and have experience with. And as you noticed, the bulk of my thoughts are in regard to the average Joe.

Because the heart beats slowly. Fat is used for slow reactions like walking, breathing, typical movements. Glycogen is used for fast reactions, running, weight-lifting, thinking, sex, swimming etc.

Not true. The heart only beats slowly when resting. The heart muscle is put under great stress (greater stress than leg muscles while sprinting even) when pushed to the limit in any intense or vigorous activity which can range from hard physical work (lumber jack or ditch digger), to riding the tour de france, to passionate sex with the love of your life...and everything in between. The heart will prefer free fatty acids for fuel right up to the limit which will be your maximum heart rate (the equivalent of your leg muscles sprinting like Usain Bolt). In fact, under severe hypoxic conditions (when oxygen levels are unable to keep up with demand due to extreme stresses induced on the body anytime you push yourself to your limits...ie hitting the wall), anaerobic metabolism (glucose) is unable to sustain ventricular contractions. In other words...without free fatty acids to keep the heart beating...you die. Perhaps you missed this key point which I will repost:

The heart is so tuned to aerobic metabolism that it is unable to pump sufficiently in ischaemic conditions. At basal metabolic rates, about 1% of energy is derived from anaerobic metabolism. This can increase to 10% under moderately hypoxic conditions, but, under more severe hypoxic conditions, not enough energy can be liberated by lactate production to sustain ventricular contractions.^[3]
Under basal aerobic conditions, 60% of energy comes from fat (free fatty acids and triglycerides), 35% from carbohydrates (primarily as glucose), and 5% from amino acids and ketone bodies.

How many average people suffer from pathological Hypoxia? Are we all full time mountain climbers?

Actually I live and Colorado and do climb. I will be running a 5K at over 8000 ft saturday and I assure you I will feel hypoxia.

[Chupo]

Someone had better warn all those calorie restrictors about the dangers of fat since they're actually converting glucose into fat before they burn it. Fat burning may even be responsible for some of the effects of calorie restriction.

The mechanisms through which a low insulin drive with enhanced FoxO activation may contribute to longevity include a metabolic shift from glucose to lipid oxidation, with concomitant enhancement of cellular stress resistance and protection, suppression of inflammation and enhanced mitochondrial biogenesis

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3295030/


When you're burning fat, you increase, uncoupling proteins, increase mitochondrial glutathione levels, and inhibit ROS, which are all a result of fat burning. All of this happens in calorie restriction as well as methionine restriction. That’s because calorie restriction leads to fat burning. Methionine restriction also leads to fat burning.

[misterE]

Simply not true. Many many studies have shown that fat soluble nutrient absorption is vastly increased many fold in the presence of dietary fat. This is the reason for olive oil based salad dressings...and studies have proven this time and again. These studies are easy to find...which proves you only cherry pick what serves your false beliefs. And there are studies directly refuting your carrot example.

The oil helps absorption, because the oil soaks up the fat-soluble vitamins and then gets stored in adipose-tissue. But it is not necessary. Are you suggesting you cannot absorb the beta-carotene (vitamin-a) from carrots unless you eat fat with it?

In terms of eating a high-fat diet, aren't you concerned that high-fat diets promote excess estrogen? What is your view on high-fat diets and estrogen (because studies clearly show that high-fat diets increase estradiol and estrone)?

[misterE]

Chupoman—Without insulin-secretion, the body undergoes lipolysis. Lipolysis is when the adipose-tissue releases its stored triglycerdies as free-fatty-acids (FFA). Lipolysis is mainly inhibited by insulin. So when insulin becomes low (or if the body stops responding to insulin, like in the case of insulin-resistance), the adipose-tissue releases FFA’s into circulation and they travel to organs (muscles, liver, heart, pancreas) to provide energy. In folks with diabetes, their insulin no longer works, so insulin loses its ability to inhibit lipolysis. Since insulin can no longer inhibit lipolysis, diabetics often have chronically elevated FFA’s. These FFA’s accumulate in the muscles and cause muscle-insulin-resistance, they accumulate in the liver and cause NAFLD, they can also accumulate in the pancreas and actually damage the beta-cells. Viscreal-fat is nothing more than a bunch of FFA’s that have accumulated around vital organs.

Many people put the blame on insulin, but insulin actually redistributes fat away from the belly and tends to store it subcutaneously. Insulin-resistance means insulin can no longer bind to its receptor. It is the lack of insulin signaling that causes visceral-fat, considering insulin suppresses FFA’s and cortisol, which is a hormone believed to promote visceral-fat.

[Hebbeh]

Simply not true. Many many studies have shown that fat soluble nutrient absorption is vastly increased many fold in the presence of dietary fat. This is the reason for olive oil based salad dressings...and studies have proven this time and again. These studies are easy to find...which proves you only cherry pick what serves your false beliefs. And there are studies directly refuting your carrot example.

The oil helps absorption, because the oil soaks up the fat-soluble vitamins and then gets stored in adipose-tissue. But it is not necessary. Are you suggesting you cannot absorb the beta-carotene (vitamin-a) from carrots unless you eat fat with it?

In terms of eating a high-fat diet, aren't you concerned that high-fat diets promote excess estrogen? What is your view on high-fat diets and estrogen (because studies clearly show that high-fat diets increase estradiol and estrone)?

I never said fat soluble nutrients will have no absorption in the absence of dietary fat...but if you review the numerous studies, you will find that dietary fat vastly improves absorption.

And if eating at maintenance or below (as we all should) dietary fat will not be stored and as such, will not promote excess estrogen. Estrogen is related to adipose tissue and eating excess calories is what promotes fat stores. When eating at maintenance or below, dietary fat, like other nutrients, is used to sustain life...not automatically stored. What don't you understand about this concept?

And just because a diet is not fat free does not mean it is a high fat diet. It isn't one extreme or the other. What don't you understand about this concept?

Very first study (of many all showing same result...no cherry picking here) that came up....many many more exist.

http://www.ajcn.org/.../2/396.abstract

Conclusions: High-sensitivity HPLC with coulometric array detection enabled us to quantify the intestinal absorption of carotenoids ingested from a single vegetable salad. Essentially no absorption of carotenoids was observed when salads with fat-free salad dressing were consumed. A substantially greater absorption of carotenoids was observed when salads were consumed with full-fat than with reduced-fat salad dressing.

[Chupo]

misterE, You're assuming that everyone on a low carb diet is diabetic. Diabetes causes lipotoxicity as well as glucotoxicity. Low carb diets cure both diabetes and NAFLD.

As for estrogen, it's bodyfat that converts testosterone to estrogen, not dietary fat.

Edited by Chupoman, 12 August 2012 - 12:42 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Simply not true. Many many studies have shown that fat soluble nutrient absorption is vastly increased many fold in the presence of dietary fat. This is the reason for olive oil based salad dressings...and studies have proven this time and again. These studies are easy to find...which proves you only cherry pick what serves your false beliefs. And there are studies directly refuting your carrot example.

The oil helps absorption, because the oil soaks up the fat-soluble vitamins and then gets stored in adipose-tissue. But it is not necessary. Are you suggesting you cannot absorb the beta-carotene (vitamin-a) from carrots unless you eat fat with it?

In terms of eating a high-fat diet, aren't you concerned that high-fat diets promote excess estrogen? What is your view on high-fat diets and estrogen (because studies clearly show that high-fat diets increase estradiol and estrone)?

See this recent post by James Cain in relation to improvement in numbers on a 30-40% fat diet...and being ApoE-4 to boot makes it especially eye opening. His real world results refute your baseless claims.

http://www.longecity...mr-lipoprofile/

And my own real world results are contrary to your claims also. At 55, I have none of the diseases you claim, have excellent labs, and maintain body fat in the 8% range while carrying a decent amount of muscle. I have no problem reeling off 20 chin ups and ran a 5K at 8500 feet elevation today while finishing in the top 25% and ahead of numerous runners half my age...and to be honest, distance running was never my forte. I think I will continue to do for the next 55 years what has worked for me the last 55.

[Chupo]

Many people put the blame on insulin, but insulin actually redistributes fat away from the belly and tends to store it subcutaneously. Insulin-resistance means insulin can no longer bind to its receptor. It is the lack of insulin signaling that causes visceral-fat, considering insulin suppresses FFA’s and cortisol, which is a hormone believed to promote visceral-fat.

Both' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15533250']Both between and within group comparisons revealed a distinct advantage of a VLCK over a LF diet for weight loss, total fat loss, and trunk fat loss for men (despite significantly greater energy intake). The majority of women also responded more favorably to the VLCK diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss.

→ source (external link)

So explain to me again how low insulin causes the accumulation of visceral fat.