Low carb dieting (CKD) debate!

Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
I don't want to hijack a new member's intro thread ThatFitGuy, but if you want to copy and paste what was said earlier, and start a new thread, we can have a friendly debate about the topic.

It could be fun, people could learn some things.

But... If you're going to go with that only 10% of vegetarians aren't overweight because the other 90% lost their insulin sensitivity and are overweight as a result, good luck sir!
CJ275, here's the new thread. I agree, this will be fun and informational for lots of folks.

So no, I'm not saying that the other 90% lost their insulin sensitivity. I'm saying they never had it to any great degree to begin with, like the rest of the population and that continued eating like that will lead lots of people to type 2 diabetes. Frankly, I'd imagine that they were already on their way there. Anyone who was lean as an omnivore should also be relatively lean as a vegetarian/vegan. If they could process carbs well before, then they will probably process them well without meat in the diet, as well. They just look like death warmed over because of the lack of animal protein and fats in their diets. No muscle, because the body is scavenging every last bit of protein on them, bad teeth and hair, amenorrhea in women. All sorts of bad health effects from it.

But, how many of you know someone fat, who went vegetarian/vegan, then became really lean? I'm talking <10% for men, <15% for women? I sure don't know of any.

Hello and welcome.

So, I read your into. Have you ever considered eating low carbs? I think that might be the answer for you, as far as the excess fat on your body. You can either use it as a "diet" to get to your goal weight while you workout and get fit (you don't want to be leaner and look soft, do you?) or adopt it as a way of eating, as I have.

Not trying to get too much into the physiology, but from what I've learned over time, people get fat not necessarily because they eat too much, although many do. It's that too many of the calories that they eat turn to fat instead of being used as energy for the body. We have these insulin receptors on our muscles which allow glucose to enter the cell to be used as energy. Think of how bb's do a carb up before a show. The reason your muscles get bigger from a carb up is all the water AND GLUCOSE being shuttled into the muscle cell. This is one of the actions of insulin. Also, I've learned that for 90% (my guess) of the population, these receptors are resistant to this action of insulin, to one degree or another. Some more, some less. For you guys who use insulin for show prep, do you use metformin also to up regulate your receptors? I'm just guessing, but that's the mechanism that I'm talking about.

So, if you're insulin resistant and eating 40-50% of your diet as carbs, a good amount of the carb calories are getting stored as fat. That's all that your body can do with them. And, the longer this goes on, the more resistant these receptors get until they start shutting down...what doctors like to call pre-diabetes. Really, it's just mild diabetes, but they don't like to call it that because there's no "cure" for it. Because diabetes really isn't a disease, it's a natural state! We're just being told to eat the wrong form of energy for most people's bodies to process correctly, which gets more and more difficult the longer we do it. That's diabetes. Take out the carbs and start burning fat as energy instead of carbs (sugar) and all of that goes away. You're then using a second (I believe the primary) energy system in the body and taking insulin out of the equation almost completely. One thing to consider. There's one compound in the body that controls fat storage. That's insulin. Take it out of the equation and fat storage becomes very difficult.

After reading Dan Duchaine's book over 20 years ago and living it for most of that time, I can say that low carbs works for me. I've diet coached for periods of time and all of my former clients and lots of my current friends have had great success with low carb eating. I have a female friend in VT who's down over 100lbs since Jan '19 and still going. She wants to get back to the 135 lbs she was at before a severe back injury and time caused her to get up to 300lbs at 5'8"!! Do some research, but don't get confused by all the BS info out there!! If you decide to take the plunge, I'll help you get started. It's the easiest and fastest way that I know to lose fat naturally.

Regardless, welcome and I hope you reach your goals!!

So based upon this post, all vegans/vegetarians must be some fat fukks, since they get a huge percentage of their calories from carbohydrate.

Maybe there is something to that whole Cals in vs Cals out thing after all.

Hmmmmm....

I don't know how many calories most vegans/vegetarians eat, but the one's I know are still fat. I know you see these really skinny people on IG and stuff, but I think they're the exception. The 10% who have good insulin sensitivity. My younger brother is 53 and still has a body like Bruce Lee. He eats anything he wants to. But, they are not the norm in the population.

I guess based on your premise, the only way to get leaner is to have a calorie deficit based on calories taken in. I KNOW that's not the case, at least for me and people I've worked with. Calories in vs. calories out is too simplistic a view. Also, is "burning" them out the only way to get rid of calories? No, I don't think so. I would say "processing" them is more accurate. "Calories out" implies that all calories, regardless of type, are used the same way by the body, as some sort of energy. I don't believe that to be the case. Is a protein calorie used the same way as a carb calorie or a fat calorie? Not in my opinion. It's the same logic that says if you don't eat fat, you won't get fat. Creating a calorie deficit WILL allow a person to lose weight. But, how much? The body will step in at some point, slow down your metabolism and the weight loss stops. Also, is it all fat? We know that's not the case. Look at how much muscle a BB loses cutting for a show. The body will scavenge protein, as well as use fat, to make up the deficit. Also, it's not sustainable. Not eating is harder than almost anything else because it's a survival mechanism. I remember being on 1400 calories a day back in the mid '90's trying to cut and it sucked! I remember working out and not even being able to get a pump. And, once you up calories again, you'll eventually start putting on fat.

Body Opus was written for competitive bodybuilders. In the book, Dan Duchaine says that most elite competitive BB's have great genetics, including great insulin sensitivity. He wrote the book for everyone else who wants to get lean and get on stage. After reading his book and doing LOTS of research on human physiology, I'm pretty comfortable with my ideas on why most people are fat. Consider two points. We, as Americans, are eating less meat, less fat, more grains, more fruits and veggies, but we're fatter and sicker as a nation than in the 50's and 60's when we ate more meat, more fat and less carbs. Then, there's the French Paradox. Fatty dishes and sauces, but leaner and healthier. Point #2...there are essential fatty acids that if we don't get, we'll literally die. Same with essential amino acids. Have you ever heard of an essential carb, in any form? For you Evolutionists (not trying to insult you Creationists), think of a bear eating carbs all summer and getting fat (I'm not a vet, but my guess is that bears have insulin, too), then hibernating all winter and living off it's fat (essentially going into ketosis and burning fat as energy) and coming out skinny in the spring. It's essentially the same process, without the sleeping and starving.

Look, I'm not trying to convert anyone here. Everyone...you do you, I'll do me. But, for people who have been fat all their lives, I think I have some answers for you, if you're interested. I was never super fat, but 220, untrained at 5'10" sucked! Before I found low carbs, I was around 200 lbs at 15% fat. Not bad, but not what i wanted. I was almost 40 when I discovered low carbs. I'd been reading Dan Duchaine's column in Bill Phillip's mag, Muscle Media 2000, before he went mainstream. It was super hard core back then. Duchaine was THE guru to all the top guys in the sport. If you haven't read his book, I think anyone will learn a ton of new stuff about getting lean from it.

So, does anyone else here have long term experience eating low carbs? Please weigh in! Or if you don't and have questions...ask away!!
 
Last edited:

snake

Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
12,307
Reaction score
19,752
Points
383
Like anything else in life, it all comes down to sustainability. Low or high anything is difficult for 90% of us. Low fats is easy for me during a cut and if I had to do it for health reasons, I could. Even low protein would fall into the same effort but no/low carbs, that would be very hard for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CJ

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
38,446
Points
383
Ok, let's start out with a high and tight fastball...

Your quote... "I guess based on your premise, the only way to get leaner is to have a calorie deficit based on calories taken in. I KNOW that's not the case, at least for me and people I've worked with. Calories in vs. calories out is too simplistic a view."

Ok, so you're a low carb advocate, which is fine, i believe that's a perfectly acceptable way of dropping weight provided the calories you consume in less than the calories your body uses over time. You say that carbohydrate and the insulin release they cause are to blame for bodyfat storage.

Back to your quote... What would happen if one was to eat 10,000 calories of butter in a day? No carbs were eaten, so no insulin, so no fat gain? Do you think that would result in someone losing bodyfat?

Point #2.
Carbohydrate has to be converted to fat by the body before it can be stored as fat. But the dietary fat you eat IS ALREADY fat, no conversion necessary. Do you think the body would choose the harder of the two ways, that it'll burn dietary fat, but turn carbohydrate into fat to be stored as fat?
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
38,446
Points
383
And for the record, I'm neither high carb nor low carb, high fat nor low fat. I have no allegiances to any group.

My stance is to eat at a calorie level thst supports either weight gain, weight loss, or weight maintenance. Eat enough protein to supports body processes and lean tissue, enough carbs to support activity level, and enough fats to hit the minimum body needs. Fill in the remaining calories with whichever macro supports you lifestyle/goals. Most food should be whole foods, not processed junk, as close to as it can be found in nature as possible.

This pertains to the general population, not specific groups on the fringes.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Like anything else in life, it all comes down to sustainability. Low or high anything is difficult for 90% of us. Low fats is easy for me during a cut and if I had to do it for health reasons, I could. Even low protein would fall into the same effort but no/low carbs, that would be very hard for me.
That's the first thing all my clients used to say, "It's gonna be sooo hard to give up ______"! Yes, if you're on carbs, your body will continue to crave them. Stay off a week where it's no longer physiological. Your body stops craving the carbs because it's being fed so well by fat. Then, it becomes purely psychological, but for you disciplined guys, it's a breeze. And, you look forward to the carb up days. In the beginning, it's like the goal. Be good all week so I can carb up. But, after a while, it becomes a deterrent to carbing up because the carbs make you feel so bad. Once you're off them for a while, you can really feel what they do to you. My clients would want to stop carbing up after a few weeks, but it's essential for tricking the body and not slowing the fat loss.
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
38,446
Points
383
If carbohydrate/glucose is so bad for you, why does the body create it when necessary via gluconeogenesis? Your brain LOVES glucose, and yes the body will create ketones if there's a lack of food available, but isn't that more of a survival mechanism so our species would survive many years ago, when famine/starvation was a real possibility?

Surviving is different from thriving.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
4,172
Reaction score
4,306
Points
193
Ran ckd in the past. Did I lose fat? Yup. Was I strong? Nope. Not even a little bit. Energy levels were eh, fatigued very easily.

Nowadays I can’t go without carbs anyway. My sugar drops and I get very dizzy and nauseous. Headaches. No thanks.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
If carbohydrate/glucose is so bad for you, why does the body create it when necessary via gluconeogenesis? Your brain LOVES glucose.
OMG! I just lost an hour plus of answering your first questions. Is it me or does the site jump to different pages when just typing? I'll have to recompose those answers for you.

To answer the gluconeogenesis question. Yes, the body will convert protein to energy, if necessary. But, that doesn't mean it's a preferred energy system for the body. The body is so smart and complex. We have systems in place to help us survive. So, it'll TRY to convert anything we eat to energy. Part of why BB's lose so much muscle when eating a calorie deficit, no matter how much protein you eat. And, I've read that the brain loves ketones and myself and anyone that I've helped with dieting say they feel like a fog has lifted once they are in ketosis.

Here's the opposite of your 10,000 calories of butter question. If I'm very insulin insensitive, what would happen if I ate just 2000 calories of carbs a day for a few months. I say you'd eventually starve to death if you're so insensitive that you can't convert half of those calories into energy. And, I don't think you'd die lean, either.

and yes the body will create ketones if there's a lack of food available, but isn't that more of a survival mechanism so our species would survive many years ago, when famine/starvation was a real possibility?

Surviving is different from thriving.
So, this is the main reason that I think that high fat, high protein, low carbs is how we should be eating. I actually think that the carb pathway for energy is the secondary system. Here's why.

Think of early man. Living in a cold climate. Maybe like Eskimos. They weren't eating carbs. They, like carnivorous animals, ate other animals. Pretty hard to grow crops in a climate like that. But, they don't eat their meat like us. We eat the lean muscle. What do animals eat of their prey? The organs, typically. Higher fat content, more stored energy. Important, because food is scarce for them. Same with humans in cold climates. They eat meat and they eat and use ALL the fat from these animals. And, they do more than survive. The Eskimos chew something called Muktuk. It's whale blubber. That's how much fat is a part of their diet. Even in temperate climates, the growing season might be only a few months long. It's freezing here in the DC area right now. Pretty tough to grow crops. With no refrigeration, what did early man eat in the fall and winter? You guessed it. Protein and fat. There's no wheat or corn. Those are domesticated grains. I don't even think corn is for human consumption! That's why it's gotta be treated with lye to unlock the nutrients for us! Root veggies aren't like ours now. Much smaller and less sugar content. There just weren't the amount of carbs available for consumption the way there are now.

So, let me pose the question to you. Would it make sense for a primary energy system based on consuming carbs to develop in early humans that would only serve a small portion of the population (that lived where fruits and veggies could be grown or gathered year round) vs. an energy system that served a greater number of early humans for the majority of the year (temperate climates) or for their entire lives (cold climates)?
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
38,446
Points
383
Quote by you.... "Here's the opposite of your 10,000 calories of butter question. If I'm very insulin insensitive, what would happen if I ate just 2000 calories of carbs a day for a few months. I say you'd eventually starve to death if you're so insensitive that you can't convert half of those calories into energy. And, I don't think you'd die lean, either."

Response: But you said earlier that carb consumption and the subsequent insulin response is what makes people fat. Now you're saying that they'll starve to death. Which is it?

But to directly answer your question, they would lose body weight in their calorie consumption was less than expenditure, gain weight if it were less, and maintain if it were equal. One of the laws of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just turned from one forn to another.



QUOTE by you..."Think of early man. Living in a cold climate. Maybe like Eskimos. They weren't eating carbs. They, like carnivorous animals, ate other animals. Pretty hard to grow crops in a climate like that. But, they don't eat their meat like us. We eat the lean muscle. What do animals eat of their prey? The organs, typically. Higher fat content, more stored energy. Important, because food is scarce for them. Same with humans in cold climates. They eat meat and they eat and use ALL the fat from these animals. And, they do more than survive. The Eskimos chew something called Muktuk. It's whale blubber. That's how much fat is a part of their diet. Even in temperate climates, the growing season might be only a few months long. It's freezing here in the DC area right now. Pretty tough to grow crops. With no refrigeration, what did early man eat in the fall and winter? You guessed it. Protein and fat"

Response: What about early ancestors who DIDN'T live in cold climates, that lived more toward the equator with plentiful vegetation for food year round. Where they fat? I don't think so. You're leaving out a giant portion of the world's population to fit your narrative.

We can survive on any type of diet, our species is resilient. But for you to say that carbohydrate and insulin is to blame for obesity is just false.

And I highly disagree with you that fat OR carbohydrate is the "primary" energy system. Ideally the body will move between the two on a spectrum, depending upon what activity is happening. That's called metabolic flexibility. If I'm running ftom a tiger who's about to maul me, you damn well better hope your body has the flexibility to burn some glycogen for fast fuel or else you're dead. Conversely, if you're out walking all day, you want the nice slower burning fat as the primary fuel source. You don't want to be glycogen dependant there either.

A question for you, since protein also causes a subsequent insulin release, then why do you not restrict those as you do carbohydrate?

And I'm still curious as to what you believe will happen if one were to continually overeat fats, like in my 10,000 Cals of butter question, if you can't store bodyfat in the absence of insulin? Eagerly awaiting the response to this.
 
Last edited:

metsfan4life

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
1,304
Points
113
ok I have a question i saw from the beginning - you said diabetes is not a disease and is solely just a natural state? Coming from a type 1 diabetic, you're telling me that my body is just in a natural state and has nothing to do with the fact that it cant create its own insulin? I personally run a lower carb intake for different reasons, however I can tell you right now that not each body is going to react in the same method that you have described. The carb intake to make the body feel full before a show, muscle size, etc.... I can tell you that I have always (even before T1D) felt no difference regardless if I am eating minimal carbs, 50 carbs, 200 carbs or 400 carbs.. energy is 100% the same, I do not feel that sense of glycogen replenishment, etc.

Probably off topic in a way but the fact that I read that diabetes is just a natural state, i have to say is incorrect.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
you said diabetes is not a disease and is solely just a natural state? Coming from a type 1 diabetic, you're telling me that my body is just in a natural state and has nothing to do with the fact that it cant create its own insulin?

Ok, let me rephrase/elaborate. Type 2 diabetes is the result of a person's natural state of being insulin insensitive, which is then aggravated by eating carbohydrates for long periods of time, to the point that we call it diabetes. It's not like a predisposition. I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Then, as it gets worse, medicine has determined an arbitrary threshold for doctors to call it "pre-diabeties", which, for the vast majority, eventually turns into full blown diabetes. The condition doesn't develop from nothing, like say cancer. It's more like you're born with it and it just progresses based on diet.

Insulin insensitivity is a natural state. As I said before, in people...some more, some less. Type 2 diabetes is the result of bombarding these resistant receptors for years to the point where the receptors shut down. Then, people are given drugs to up regulate receptors (metformin) and are put on a low fat diet. But, they don't get better. They get progressively worse and eventually insulin production shuts down for lots of them. I think that's what the A1C levels are about for type 2 diabetics. Type 1 is a different condition, in that respect. But, the end result is essentially the same...the inability to deal with carbs in the diet without medication. If you know the story of the Atkin's diet, Dr. Atkins treated diabetics. He created the diet so he could take his patients OFF of insulin completely. The fat loss was a byproduct.
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
38,446
Points
383
These are some bold statements by you, do you have anything to back up these claims?..... "I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Insulin insensitivity is a natural state."

Also would still like to know what you think happens if one were to grossly overconsume dietary fats.
 

metsfan4life

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
1,304
Points
113
Ok, let me rephrase/elaborate. Type 2 diabetes is the result of a person's natural state of being insulin insensitive, which is then aggravated by eating carbohydrates for long periods of time, to the point that we call it diabetes. It's not like a predisposition. I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Then, as it gets worse, medicine has determined an arbitrary threshold for doctors to call it "pre-diabeties", which, for the vast majority, eventually turns into full blown diabetes. The condition doesn't develop from nothing, like say cancer. It's more like you're born with it and it just progresses based on diet.

Insulin insensitivity is a natural state. As I said before, in people...some more, some less. Type 2 diabetes is the result of bombarding these resistant receptors for years to the point where the receptors shut down. Then, people are given drugs to up regulate receptors (metformin) and are put on a low fat diet. But, they don't get better. They get progressively worse and eventually insulin production shuts down for lots of them. I think that's what the A1C levels are about for type 2 diabetics. Type 1 is a different condition, in that respect. But, the end result is essentially the same...the inability to deal with carbs in the diet without medication. If you know the story of the Atkin's diet, Dr. Atkins treated diabetics. He created the diet so he could take his patients OFF of insulin completely. The fat loss was a byproduct.

ok, thanks for clarifying b/c i saw that and had to comment. I can tell you that my type 1 has nothing to do with my diet or family nature, not a single person other than me on any side has any diabetes.

As for people that are Type 2 and being put on Metformin...pretty much as you put it is the reason for it. However, I know several of people that started Met and a few months down the road, off all concerns. Many reasons for T2D but generally speaking, yes diet is a big concern for obvious reasons. I think you have some points in line with diabetes but I cant agree with all of these. I dont think everyone is born pre-diabetic b/y saying everyone is insulin resistant to a certain point...that argument could be said with just about anything out there as everyone is going to be, to some degree, resistant to a lot of different scenarios medically.
 

metsfan4life

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
1,304
Points
113
These are some bold statements by you, do you have anything to back up these claims?..... "I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Insulin insensitivity is a natural state."

Also would still like to know what you think happens if one were to grossly overconsume dietary fats.

agree 100%.
 

transcend2007

Elite
SI Founding Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
4,190
Reaction score
3,396
Points
193
This reminds me of the vegetarian converts .. my new way is the best way .. which there is now science to back up vegan lifestyle is no healthier ... same with low carb ... intermittent fasting .. basically you are are selling something ...

You look at Pro bodybuilders or Pro athletes at any very high level and the great majority are eating a health - well balanced diet low in sugar but not low carbs overall ...

Again if it works for you and allows you a successful business .. great .. but overall as snake said sustainability trumps everything ... doing something for a year or 5 years is great ... what about doing it for 80 years which is what a healthy lifestyle in all about .... I don't need the latest fad ... I'll take a sensible higher protein diet similar to the Zone for life.
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
38,446
Points
383
Also curious as to your thoughts on active people, who need large amounts of carbohydrate to support highly glycolytic exercise. Are they insulin resistant too and on their way to obesity and/or type 2 diabetes, or is their insulin sensitivity actually high because their body is using the carbohydrate efficiently for fuel?
 

CJ

Mod Squad
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
20,728
Reaction score
38,446
Points
383
Quick article outlining a meta analysis of calorie and protein equated, high carb low fat vs low carb high fat diets...

https://www.stephanguyenet.com/meta...ories-on-energy-expenditure-and-body-fatness/

And a link to the actual study for a deeper dive...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/

Quote from the study.. "These results are in the opposite direction to the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model, but the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless. In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Ok, tried to get everything in one shot to keep things going.

Ok, let's start out with a high and tight fastball...
Ok!! Love this quote.

What would happen if one was to eat 10,000 calories of butter in a day? No carbs were eaten, so no insulin, so no fat gain? Do you think that would result in someone losing bodyfat?
So, I’m going to answer this in a roundabout way, but work with me. And, I’m going to say that this person is eating this 10,000 of butter while in ketosis. I don’t know all the specifics of the physiology, but I know that the body handles those fat calories differently if you’re burning primarily sugar instead of fat.

So, over time, I’ve concluded that body fat loss, while in ketosis, happens primarily/only when the body needs fuel and there are no ingested fats available to satisfy this need. (I’m hesitant to say only because I don’t care to know the minute details of all the physiology. There may be other circumstances where the body is burning body fat) The body then appropriates body fat and provides for the body’s energy needs at that moment. So, on 10,000 calories of butter (fat) per day, can you get into that state where there aren’t any ingested fats available? IDK. How fast can a body digest that much butter eaten in one meal, in the morning, process it into ketones bodies, use what’s needed in that time period, excrete some of those calories (we haven’t gotten to this part yet. It’ll make more sense with more explanation, but you excrete unused ketone bodies. Basically piss out fat) and have energy needs that the butter can’t provide for? Theoretically, I think maybe there could be fat loss, but I don’t know in practice. And if so, it would be very slow. But, at lower calorie levels, maybe 3000 to 5000 calories per day, yeah there could/would be some fat loss. Now, we’re talking about one day, so tough to measure. Take out the fact that no protein would be really bad, if you did say 4000 calories of fat per day for a month, there would be fat loss. As I said before, without insulin in the mix, it’s really hard to gain body fat and I'm confident that body fat would have to be appropriated at certain times.

Point #2.
Carbohydrate has to be converted to fat by the body before it can be stored as fat. But the dietary fat you eat IS ALREADY fat, no conversion necessary. Do you think the body would choose the harder of the two ways, that it'll burn dietary fat, but turn carbohydrate into fat to be stored as fat?
So, its not a matter of taking the harder path to store the carbs as fat. It’s based on a limitation of the body's ability to utilize the carbs as energy based on insulin’s limited action on the receptors due to their insensitivity. Assuming you’re not in ketosis before eating a meal, here’s what I believe takes place.

You eat a meal of carbs and fat, say a half dozen donuts (I know ALL of you have done this!! LMAO) I’m joking. It could be any carb and any fat. Carbs come out of the stomach first and spike your glucose. Body releases insulin to clear glucose from the blood. Insulin sweeps water and glucose (I read 3/1 in someone’s post) into ALL your muscle cells (think organs, too, like your heart) to the extent that your sensitivity allows insulin to act. There, it eventually gets converted into ATP to provide the cell energy. Very simplified, but I believe accurate. Then, some gets stored in the liver. The rest of the glucose, if any, will be converted to fat.

Fat comes out slower and will eventually be broken down into fatty acids. Essential fatty acids are used for all sorts of things in the body, so some will be allocated for those processes. The rest will be stored as fat.

Then, with your glucose levels low again after it’s all been swept out, you get sleepy, then hungry again. So, we eat another meal. The lower your insulin sensitivity, the more of the carbs you store as fat and the sooner you’re hungry again. Most people have no self control and eat LOTS of carbs. Do this for 30 years and then the receptors start to give up, for a pretty big portion of the population. I think I read there are 30+ million diagnosed diabetics. IDK the percentage of type 1’s, but I bet type 2’s dwarf them. In my opinion, there are reasons that sugar and flour are some of the cheapest things in the grocery store. And none of them are good!

Your quote..."Here's the opposite of your 10,000 calories of butter question. If I'm very insulin insensitive, what would happen if I ate just 2000 calories of carbs a day for a few months. I say you'd eventually starve to death if you're so insensitive that you can't convert half of those calories into energy. And, I don't think you'd die lean, either."

Response: But you said earlier that carb consumption and the subsequent insulin response is what makes people fat. Now you're saying that they'll starve to death. Which is it?
So, you may be able to figure out my answer from what I’ve previously written. Keep in mind, I’m saying an insulin insensitive person. Also, I said die of starvation, not hunger. You can eat and still “starve” over time if you don’t have certain nutrients in the diet. Think essential aminos. Let’s take out the body’s protein requirement over the time period to simplify the example. Here’s what I think would happen.

Carbs come out of the stomach and spike glucose. Body releases insulin to clear glucose from the blood. Let’s say that I’m so insensitive that I can only utilize 500 of those calories for energy. Some to the liver, the rest gets stored as fat. I mean, that’s basically what we’re talking about with insulin sensitivity, how well does your body utilize glucose for energy vs. storing it as fat. So, on 2000 calories of carbs per day, not taking protein scavenging into account, I’m sure there would be some fat utilized for energy in certain circumstances, but the trend would be towards fat accumulation. At least until the stress of the starvation on the body starts to require more calories to deal with it. Then, I think maybe more fat would be utilized to make up for the deficit, changing the trend. And your metabolism would slow to conserve energy and your body would go into emergency survival mode due to the energy deficit you're experiencing. But, eventually you’d die. And I’d think you’d die before all the fat would be utilized if you're still being force fed the 2000 calories as you near your end, but I couldn’t say that with absolute certainty. Like I think you said in an earlier post, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. But, you also say that fat storage is based ONLY on calories consumed vs. calories utilized. So, if my body is physiologically limited in its ability to use carbs for energy, and all I eat is carbs, what do you think will happen with any carbs that I can't utilize for energy? Maybe converted to a different form of energy...like fat?

QUOTE by you..."Think of early man. Living in a cold climate. Maybe like Eskimos. They weren't eating carbs. They, like carnivorous animals, ate other animals. Pretty hard to grow crops in a climate like that. But, they don't eat their meat like us. We eat the lean muscle. What do animals eat of their prey? The organs, typically. Higher fat content, more stored energy. Important, because food is scarce for them. Same with humans in cold climates. They eat meat and they eat and use ALL the fat from these animals. And, they do more than survive. The Eskimos chew something called Muktuk. It's whale blubber. That's how much fat is a part of their diet. Even in temperate climates, the growing season might be only a few months long. It's freezing here in the DC area right now. Pretty tough to grow crops. With no refrigeration, what did early man eat in the fall and winter? You guessed it. Protein and fat"

Response: What about early ancestors who DIDN'T live in cold climates, that lived more toward the equator with plentiful vegetation for food year round. Where they fat? I don't think so. You're leaving out a giant portion of the world's population to fit your narrative.
So, first…while there were early humans in tropical or other climates where vegetation was available year 'roud, would you say that it was more than ALL other early humans living in temperate or colder climates. Maybe very early man, but homo sapiens left Africa 90,000 years ago. Eventually they were everywhere. And although there have been examples of differences in evolution due to regional pressures (think how some cultures aren’t lactose intolerant), I doubt highly that homo sapiens that left Africa were physiologically different from homo sapiens who eventually ended up in Alaska, or even us now. Both energy systems were there from the beginning. Perhaps, very early man was very insulin sensitive, which was lost as populations left those areas and faced harsher climates. Think about this…if food and shelter are limited, the LAST thing you want is to be very insulin sensitive and not be able to store fat. You’d be more likely to die off. Perhaps, this was part of the mechanism that lowered insulin sensitivity in the population, over time. But, these days, it’s by far the norm. Just look how prevalent Type 2 is. And, I think the number is way low because the bar for a diagnosis is so high. It's already 10+% of the population. And the latest commercials that I'm hearing are saying 1 in 3 people are "pre-diabetic". Nothing pre about it. I say 90+% eventually become full blown.

So, first…while there were early humans in tropical or other climates where vegetation was available year round, would you say that there were more there than ALL other early humans living in temperate or colder climates. Maybe very early man, but homo sapiens left Africa 90,000 years ago. Eventually they were everywhere. And although there have been examples of differences in evolution due to regional pressures (think how some cultures aren’t lactose intolerant), I doubt highly that homo sapiens that left Africa were physiologically different from homo sapiens who ended up in Alaska. Both energy systems were there from the beginning. Perhaps, very early man was very insulin sensitive, but this was lost as populations left those areas and faced harsher climates. Think about this…if food and shelter are limited, the LAST thing you want is to be very insulin sensitive and not be able to store fat. You’d be more likely to die off. Perhaps, this was part of the mechanism that lower insulin sensitivity in the population, over time. More of them die that the insulin resistant ones, so they don't reproduce, those traits aren't passed on. But, these days, being insulin resistant is by far the norm. Look how many people are fat!

We can survive on any type of diet, our species is resilient. But for you to say that carbohydrate and insulin is to blame for obesity is just false.
Yes, we can SURVIVE, for a time, on any diet. How long is determined by how well an individual can deal with the particular diet. Given a certain diet, some will do better than others. But, as you said earlier, I don't want to survive, I want to thrive. I believe a large part of our population is merely surviving on the diet we're told to eat, which is primarily grain based. Lots of flour, lots of HFCS. But, I completely disagree with your second statement. We just have different ideas about what's happening in the body.

And I highly disagree with you that fat OR carbohydrate is the "primary" energy system. Ideally the body will move between the two on a spectrum, depending upon what activity is happening. That's called metabolic flexibility. If I'm running ftom a tiger who's about to maul me, you damn well better hope your body has the flexibility to burn some glycogen for fast fuel or else you're dead. Conversely, if you're out walking all day, you want the nice slower burning fat as the primary fuel source. You don't want to be glycogen dependant there either.
While I do agree that some fat can be utilized for energy while not in ketosis, I don’t believe our bodies are like a hybrid car that can switch completely from gas to electric at a moments notice. I believe you’re either burning primarily sugar or fat. Have you ever "bonked"? No, not that kind of bonking. If you're not familiar with the term, it's when you run out of glucose in the middle of a long distance event or workout of some sort, running, biking. I did short course triathlons in the mid '80's. Bonked a few times in training. No fun at all. Once, I could barely ride my bike back to the car to scrounge up enough change from the floor to buy a candy bar at the store where I'd parked! If we could switch back and forth as you seem to imply, bonking would never happen. Everyone's got some body fat.

Some glucose is also utilized when in ketosis, but that’s not what the body is looking for first for energy. It’s looking for fat to burn first. And when on carbs, fat isn’t the first choice. If you have carbs available, your body’s burning primarily sugar, even on that long walk. I've read numerous times that the idea that there's a fat burning zone for your heart rate and it's 60-70% of your "max heart rate" (more BS!!) is a bunch of crap. I used to work in gyms in the mid '90's part-time, so I used to believe all this shit, too. It's simpler than that. The harder you work, the more calories you burn. But, if you're on carbs, you're burning primarily sugar and if you're in ketosis, you're burning primarily fat. The body has to be pressed into burning fat when burning sugar. In ketosis, you’re burning fat 24/7.

A question for you, since protein also causes a subsequent insulin release, then why do you not restrict those as you do carbohydrate?
Actually, because of gluconeogenesis, protein can be an issue, but I’ve rarely experience it. Eat too much and you get kicked out of ketosis. So, low carb diet is somewhat of a misnomer. It’s really a high fat, high protein, low carb diet. So, if you eat enough protein without enough fat, you can get kicked out for a few hours. But, it’s really hard to do it.

So, I’ve done pre and post-meal blood tests. My normal glucose level is like 80-90 whatever units Lol But, if I eat even a very keto, high fat meal, I’ll get a spike to 100-110. Blood ketones levels thru the roof. I found the rise in glucose very interesting. One of my former clients runs diabetic clinics for one of the hospital chains in Baltimore. She experienced the same thing.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Points
0
This reminds me of the vegetarian converts .. my new way is the best way .. which there is now science to back up vegan lifestyle is no healthier ... same with low carb ... intermittent fasting .. basically you are are selling something ...

You look at Pro bodybuilders or Pro athletes at any very high level and the great majority are eating a health - well balanced diet low in sugar but not low carbs overall ...

Again if it works for you and allows you a successful business .. great .. but overall as snake said sustainability trumps everything ... doing something for a year or 5 years is great ... what about doing it for 80 years which is what a healthy lifestyle in all about .... I don't need the latest fad ... I'll take a sensible higher protein diet similar to the Zone for life.
Hardly the case. And I've been doing low carbs for almost 20 years. You didn't read my posts. Read ALL of my posts, in all the sections, then comment. Hard to make intelligent comments if you come into the conversation at the end. Actually, CJ275 invited me to debate him on the topic. I USED to diet coach. I still help friends who ask me to guide them. I offer help to people who've been fat all their lives and have no idea what to do because they've tried what their trainers told them to do AND NOTHING HAPPENED. So, they blame themselves, not the trainer and the info they got. I could give a shit about what you all do as far as diet. I just like helping fat people lose weight cuz it's not always their fault. They've just been lied to about how to eat.

And you mention elite athletes. I know for a fact that Ben Rothlesburger went keto. That's how he dropped so much weight. As with elite BB's, the vast majority of elite athletes also have elite genetics, including insulin sensitivity. However, this showed up first in a Google search of "keto atheletes".

LeBron James lost weight on the keto diet.
The keto-style diet helped the NBA superstar lose a " ton of weight" in 2014. The keto diet can be a great way to get in shape, but should always be done under the supervision of a medical professional.
Jul 16, 2018
 

New Threads

Top