Training in keto, fighting on carbs?

[Grooboggle]

More and more I think diets are like religions for a lot of folks. There isn't one best diet for everyone, personal circumstances and activities, and genetics are too varied.

Though everyone could try a simple experiment like this taken from tnation:


I propose a simple one-month experiment: Flip-flop the protein and carbohydrate numbers. Instead of eating 50g of protein and 300g of carbs

 

[Ironpants]

I am with miaou on this, curious about your sources for this statement. In past conversations I recall you basing your sentiments off personal experience, but the diet you listed where you where consuming carbs had a fat intake that was 10% of total calories.

You can't make a determination that carbs hindered your weight loss since you were only eating 30g of fat per day which is the appropriate amount for someone who weighs less than 60-75lbs. Such a low fat intake would screw up your hormones. A fat intake of less than 20% of total calories has been linked to lower testosterone levels.

To both of these : Fat intake was only 10% and that could of been a problem but not the main issue. Generally your not supposed to go much beyond 20% fat on a carb based diet, so I realy doubt an extra 10% would of done that much but who knows maybe I 'll back to a carb based diet some day from a different approach. Yeah I know that low test levels from inadqued fat intake simply will screw over and muscle mass gains, but the crux of my arugment was in terms of fat loss mainly. I wasn't gainning lean mass (too low on fats) and I wasn't losing body fat (too high on carbs) on this eating plan.

Regarding the first point, can you provide an example or two of a "longer sport activity" where "fats are better" just so I understand what you're talking about here? Because I can't think of a single one (unless you are talking about activities which have nothing to do with competitive sports, like taking a relaxed walk or something).

Dietary Fat Loading for Destroying Body Fat, Part 1

A high protein, low carb intake will produce enzymes to help you burn protein as fuel. After all, the body is a smart machine and will adapt to circumstances. But for reasons mentioned above, we want the body to produce new enzymes that will assist the body to use more stored fat as fuel.

One of the best ways to accomplish this is “fat loading.” A large influx of dietary fat over a 12–24 hour period causes a metabolic shift. The abundance of dietary fat available forces the body to find a way to use it as fuel quickly, especially when protein and carbohydrate intake are reduced during this fat loading period. The body will continue to use fat as fuel for several days following the fat loading because the fat burning enzymes will still be in large supply. However, the body will not differentiate between fat intake through food consumption or stored fat sitting on your hips. Luckily for you, these conditions can produce some fantastic fat loss progress in short periods of time.

Fat loading spares protein, which can be used to form new muscle, and also stored carbohydrates, also known as glycogen, which can sit within the muscles providing a fuel reserve for training and larger muscle bellies.

Seems to say right here that the body can effectivly use fat as a fule if it makes up he bulk of your diet, sparing amino acids and glyocgen stores for later use.

The Sport Factory Fat Loading: Does it Work?

Jansson and Kaijser experimented with high fat diets and found them to be adaptive, meaning, a high fat diet, low carb diet (defined as greater than 60% intake from fat and less than 20% intake from carbs) for as little as three days could increase fat oxidation during moderate intense exercise (2). Unfortunately, diminished capacity of glycogen was also a result. Phinney (1983) took this further to examine the effect on longer term high fat diets on glycogen capacity (3). Close to a month of a high fat intake (> 85% of daily calories from fat) versus the typical balanced diet for most athletes (60% carbs, 20% protein, ~20% fat) showed that glycogen capacity was more stable. Phinney thus concluded at that time, that a long term high fat diet has potential in increased performance and endurance.

Regarding the second statement, I don't want you to get technical, I want you to provide some kind of objective proof (as in results from relevant studies). All the theories in the world are worth jack shit if you don't have empirical evidence to substantiate them.

As for this one it's pretty basic stuff and has been discussed before ad infinitum. We all know the effect of elevated insulin levels in the body caused by chronic consumption of sugars and carbs; insulin shuttles freefatty acids into fat stores, shuts down lipoysis, stunts a number of fat burning hormones, causes insulin resistance and eventually diabetes ect This stuff is indisputable I don't see why I need evidence for something that has been established as facts.


Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects


[

I]What is the purpose of insulin?

As I mentioned earlier, in some organisms it is to control their lifespan. What is the purpose of insulin in humans? Your doctor will say that it‘s to lower blood sugar, but I will tell you right now that that is a trivial side effect. Insulin‘s evolutionary purpose as is known right now, we are looking at other possibilities, is to store excess nutrients.

We come from a time of feast and famine when if we couldn‘t store the excess energy during times of feasting, we would not be here because all of our ancestors encountered famine. We are only here because our ancestors were able to store nutrients, which they were able to do because they were able to elevate their insulin in response to any elevation in energy that the organism encountered.

When your body notices that sugar is elevated, it is a sign that you‘ve got more than you need; you’re not burning it so it is accumulating in your blood. So insulin will be released to take that sugar and store it. How does it store it? Glycogen?

Your body stores very little glycogen at any one time. All the glycogen stored in your liver and muscle wouldn’t last you through one active day. Once you fill up your glycogen stores that sugar is stored as saturated fat, 98 percent of which is palmitic acid.

So the idea of the medical profession recommending a high complex-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat diet is an absolute oxymoron. A high-complex-carbohydrate diet is nothing but a high-glucose diet, or a high-sugar diet. Your body is just going to store it as saturated fat, and the body makes it into saturated fat quite readily. [/I]

Basically a high starchy carb diet, no matter where the carbs come from is tantamount to a high sugar diet. And I know that you wouldn't recomend a diet to someone high in sugars.

High Insulin Levels Stop Fat Loss and Cause Weight Gain | Fitness Black Book

High Insulin Levels Stop Fat Loss and Cause Weight Gain
It is impossible to have high levels of insulin in your system while burning fat at the same time. Think about that. If you eat a meal that has too high of a Glycemic Index, your blood sugar will spike, causing a large release in insulin. During this period of time your body cannot use fat for fuel (even if you are operating under a calorie deficit and even if you workout like crazy). You can get everything else right and not make good progress if you allow your insulin levels to get out of whack.

Pretty plain and simple. You won't be burning fat for fule on a high arb diet.

I Used to Think a Calorie Deficit Was Enough


A while back I used to think that as long as you burned more calories than what you ingested, you would lose weight. This is true to a point…you should lose weight under a calorie deficit. The problem lies in the fact that if you eat a high G.I. carb, you may shut down the body's ability to burn fat for several hours. Even if you do wind up losing weight, you aren't following the quickest route to your goal.

Shiiiit, I thought a calorie was a calorie was a calorie was a calorie was a calorie?

Large Spikes in Insulin Can Cause Muscle Loss!

So insulin turns OFF the fat burning switch and turns ON the fat storage switch. This is bad enough, but it can also cause you to lose lean muscle. Here is how…when insulin brings down the blood sugar levels often times it "over-corrects" by causing low blood sugar. The body normally combats low blood sugar by releasing energy from stored fat, but the high level of insulin will not allow this to happen. The only source of energy in this circumstance is protein. Your body will break down muscle protein when faced with this dilemma. It is a bad situation…gaining fat while at the same time losing lean muscle. Not a good deal at all!

Wow I didn't even know this one, turns out a high carb diet actually can be catabolic towards lean mass. Shit I learn something new everyday.

 

[miaou]

I had my brother try this experiment a few years back and he was able to get off blood pressure and cholesterol medications that were causing unwanted side effects. Furthermore, he's been able to stay off them to this day with a modified approach.

Actually, I had my second cousin's brother-in-law's best friend's distant uncle try this experiment a few years back and he was able to cure both his prostate cancer, his male pattern baldness AND his congenital blindness.

 

[Bekim]

Actually, I had my second cousin's brother-in-law's best friend's distant uncle try this experiment a few years back and he was able to cure both his prostate cancer, his male pattern baldness AND his congenital blindness.

But did it cure the HIV!!!

 

[Eric Brown]

As for the second statement there is a whole slew of techical reasons why it's not necessrilly caloric intake that detemines weight gain. All three macros get procesed differently and used by the body for different functions, they certainly do not all equal end an end sum number. It's got more to do with hormonal responces and bio-chemical reactions in the body rather then a magic number. If you really want me to get technical about it I will but for now I'll leave it at that.

Are you actually saying hormonal response to feeding has a greater effect on weight gain than caloric intake? If so, I would like to see some actual research. Not an article, not something unsupported, but peer-reviewed research.

I absolutely do not mind you getting technical at all.

I have no problem agreeing that it is not simply a matter of kcal in vs kcal out, however, to state that there is a greater cause of weight gain, in particular fat gain, well, I would really like to see something solid on this.

 

[Eric Brown]

To both of these : Fat intake was only 10% and that could of been a problem but not the main issue. Generally your not supposed to go much beyond 20% fat on a carb based diet, so I realy doubt an extra 10% would of done that much but who knows maybe I 'll back to a carb based diet some day from a different approach. Yeah I know that low test levels from inadqued fat intake simply will screw over and muscle mass gains, but the crux of my arugment was in terms of fat loss mainly. I wasn't gainning lean mass (too low on fats) and I wasn't losing body fat (too high on carbs) on this eating plan.

n = 1

Pointless. What works for me may not work for someone else, so I do not use it as an established fact of biochemistry.

Dietary Fat Loading for Destroying Body Fat, Part 1



Seems to say right here that the body can effectivly use fat as a fule if it makes up he bulk of your diet, sparing amino acids and glyocgen stores for later use.

The Sport Factory Fat Loading: Does it Work?

Neither provide any actually evidence support your statement that fat is better for sports performance. The only study actually cited involving sports performance (yes, I reviewed them)
The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis wi... [Metabolism. 1983] - PubMed result
Says:
"These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis."

It does not say better.

As for this one it's pretty basic stuff and has been discussed before ad infinitum. We all know the effect of elevated insulin levels in the body caused by chronic consumption of sugars and carbs; insulin shuttles freefatty acids into fat stores, shuts down lipoysis, stunts a number of fat burning hormones, causes insulin resistance and eventually diabetes ect This stuff is indisputable I don't see why I need evidence for something that has been established as facts.

You stated that hormonal response was more indicative of fat storage than caloric intake. I really want to see who has established this as a fact. Real research, not articles. Particularly not articles which fail to properly cite/review research.

Pretty plain and simple. You won't be burning fat for fule on a high arb diet.

You won't? Your body loses this ability? And please differentiate between burning fat for fuel when dieting for optimal performance vs dieting for fat loss.

Shiiiit, I thought a calorie was a calorie was a calorie was a calorie was a calorie?

It is. The amount of energy required to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius is pretty constant.


Wow I didn't even know this one, turns out a high carb diet actually can be catabolic towards lean mass. Shit I learn something new everyday.[/QUOTE]



From one of your articles:

"In summary, even though muscles are able to adapt to burning more fat as a fuel, impaired muscle glycogen capacity occurs, thus limiting the potential of either increasing performance or endurance. ...

Bottom line: for events less than or equal to three hours, carbo-loading is best, minus the depletion phase. For longer efforts, 10 days of fat plus three days of carbs might give you more endurance. But be aware of the consequences, performance may suffer and such fat loading is likely to impair any weight management goals. "

From a study cited by one of your articles:
Interaction of training and diet on metabolism and... [J Physiol. 1996] - PubMed result

"It is concluded that ingesting a fat-rich diet during an endurance training programme is detrimental to improvement in endurance. This is not due to a simple lack of carbohydrate fuel, but rather to suboptimal adaptations that are not remedied by short-term increased carbohydrate availability. Furthermore, the study suggests that the decrease in RER usually seen after training when exercising at the same absolute intensity as before training can be prevented by a carbohydrate-rich diet"


"High Insulin Levels Stop Fat Loss and Cause Weight Gain | Fitness Black Book"

Hmm, went to review the research here, I am pretty quick at it what with me doing that for a living, and I could not seem to find any. A great many assertions, with no supporting data.

Not a credible source.

I still await, and quite eagerly at that, for you to support your position on the following statements:

1. That a high fat diet is better for sports performance than a high-carbohydrate diet.
2. That hormonal response is a greater indicator or determinant of body weight gain, specifically excess adipose tissue, than caloric status.

Real research this time please. I can write whatever I want, slap my credentials up on it, and viola!!! I have a cite supporting my position. That still does not make it correct.

 

[Ironpants]

Are you actually saying hormonal response to feeding has a greater effect on weight gain than caloric intake? If so, I would like to see some actual research. Not an article, not something unsupported, but peer-reviewed research.

I absolutely do not mind you getting technical at all.

I have no problem agreeing that it is not simply a matter of kcal in vs kcal out, however, to state that there is a greater cause of weight gain, in particular fat gain, well, I would really like to see something solid on this.

This right here. No one suggested that you can eat unlimited calories. No one is saying you can't gain weight by eating more calories then required, but there is a whole lot more to it then that. When we talk anout "weight gain" are we refrering to lean mass, fat mass or some combo of both? Your more likey to gain fat mass over or even moderatly over consuming carbs and your more likey to gain lean mass overconsuming protien and fats. Why?

You simply have a harder or even impossible time storing fat mass with low insulin levels. If there is no or very little storage hormone (i.e insulin) to shuttle freefatty acids into storage it won't end up as adipose, it either gets utized metabolically as energy or gets excreted.

Therfore no insulin responce, no fat storage.

All you have to do is look at type 1 diabetics who can pound down food but not gain any weight because they lack any form of insulin responce of nutrient shutling system. They just end up pissing out their body mass and nutrients instead of storing it because of this.

Since most peole arn't type 1 diabetics they will have a functioning pancrease that puts out insulin when sugar hits their bloodstream. Eat a shit ton of carbs everyday and insulin is gonning to shuttle it into storage, eat reduced cards and insulin levels will be lower therefore avoiding any excess fat gain. Therefore carb control is logically going to make more sense then calorie reduction


Myths behind Obesity - Go Lower

Myth 6: Eating too much makes you fat – wrong! The reason many of us get fat is because we produce too much insulin. Foods that stimulate insulin are starch and sugar and if you eat a lot of starch and sugar, the body can begin to over produce insulin. The over production of insulin causes the body to gain fat, even when we are not over eating. Peer reviewed, controlled, scientific studies show, consistently, that diets which are low in starch and sugar and high in protein, are not only the best for losing weight fast, but have the best long term out comes.

This seems to suggest that there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, not to mention masive amounts of literature and medical studies on the effects of elevated insulin levels on weight gain.

 

[Eric Brown]

More and more I think diets are like religions for a lot of folks. There isn't one best diet for everyone, personal circumstances and activities, and genetics are too varied.

Agreed, far too many variables. And they even change for the individual over time. What worked for me when I first had to make weight just over 30 years ago (dammit) is not what I do now. I have gotten results using a variety of methods, but by and large they all pretty much come down to self-discipline.

As things stand now, I get better results with a modified ketogenic diet, but that is because I am pretty much inert except when training, as I spend all day at my computer/research station. When I am more active, I not only increase my caloric intake, but change my macronutrient ratio.

For most people that have enjoyed (relatively speaking) dietary success long-term, the keys seem to involve being open-minded, and willing to tinker, for lack of a better term, with what you are doing. The minute you think you know The One True Way to Diet you have quit learning.

 

[Eric Brown]

This right here. No one suggested that you can eat unlimited calories. No one is saying you can't gain weight by eating more calories then required, but there is a whole lot more to it then that.

Please do not make straw man arguments out of my statements. I write pretty clearly, and I never said this.

When we talk anout "weight gain" are we refrering to lean mass, fat mass or some combo of both? Your more likey to gain fat mass over or even moderatly over consuming carbs and your more likey to gain lean mass overconsuming protien and fats. Why?

Gee, possibly because amino acids are responsible for lean muscle tissue remodelling?

You simply have a harder or even impossible time storing fat mass with low insulin levels. If there is no or very little storage hormone (i.e insulin) to shuttle freefatty acids into storage it won't end up as adipose, it either gets utized metabolically as energy or gets excreted.

Insulin is not required to store fat. If you say it is, I would like you to support this. And there is more to insulin levels than simple dietary intake of carbohydrate. Even the effective GI of food can be altered by combining a simple sugar with a slowly digesting macronutrient, altering the insulin response. (Devlin's Biochemistry, Thomas M. Devlin, 2010)

Therfore no insulin responce, no fat storage.

Support this.

All you have to do is look at type 1 diabetics who can pound down food but not gain any weight because they lack any form of insulin responce of nutrient shutling system. They just end up pissing out their body mass and nutrients instead of stoing it because of this.

Support this.

Since most peole arn't type 1 diabetics they will have a functioning pancrease that puts out insulin when sugar hits their bloodstream. Eat a shit ton of carbs everyday and insulin is gonning to shuttle it into storage, eat reduced cards and insulin levels will be lower therefore avoiding any excess fat gain. Therefore carb control is logically going to make more sense then calorie reduction

So do not eat a shit ton of carbs. Or at least do not eat more than you are going to use. How hard was that? Eat the fuel that you need and that you are going to burn. And if you are seeking optimal performance, you need to maintain the FOG and SOG, particularly endurance training.

Myths behind Obesity - Go Lower



This seems to suggest that there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, not to mention masive amounts of literature and medical studies on the effects of elevated insulin levels on weight gain.

I am tired of reading unsupported articles. Instead of simply looking for something that supports your erroneous statements, look for actual research.

I am still waiting for you to support the two points I raised.

Idiotic websites do not suffice. Actual research will.

Here, let me help:

PubMed home

Start there.

 

[Eric Brown]

This seems to suggest that there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, not to mention masive amounts of literature and medical studies on the effects of elevated insulin levels on weight gain.

Quoting this specifically, because you have now raised a third point that you must support:

That the studies quoted show, specifically, that the lower-carbohydrate diets were more successful because of insulin response. They must not show that it was because of decreased kcal, like, say, the oft-quoted one that appears in JAMA in 2007. Or that it is because of the effect of proteins, specifically nueropeptide YY and its affect on the hypocampus which promotes a feeling of satiety.

Try supporting the points you have established. Otherwise, well, stop trying to state that things are facts, when the are not.

 

[Ironpants]

n = 1

Pointless. What works for me may not work for someone else, so I do not use it as an established fact of biochemistry.

Never the less that doesn't magically change the laws of biology. I've yet to meet someone who is an active athelete or in decent shape who lives of high sugar junk foods because "their body is different"



Neither provide any actually evidence support your statement that fat is better for sports performance. The only study actually cited involving sports performance (yes, I reviewed them)
The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis wi... [Metabolism. 1983] - PubMed result
Says:
"These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis."

It does not say better.

Never said better, but possible. Body preferes carbs and sugars, it's simpley a more imediate and higher energy source, but the body can adapt to run off less effecient fats if it comes down to it.



You stated that hormonal response was more indicative of fat storage than caloric intake. I really want to see who has established this as a fact. Real research, not articles. Particularly not articles which fail to properly cite/review research.


The countless amounts of research in the medical and nutrition feild all say this, easy enough to do your own homework. I've provided countless examples but If you don't belive then all you have to do is go find the info on your own.


You won't? Your body loses this ability? And please differentiate between burning fat for fuel when dieting for optimal performance vs dieting for fat loss.

No because you'll be running off the glucose in your bloodstream and not fat stores. Glucose is the prefered fule source so thats what gets used untill it gets used up


It's the same thing. Your running off of freefatty acids derived from triglyceride breakdown.



It is. The amount of energy required to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius is pretty constant.


Wow I didn't even know this one, turns out a high carb diet actually can be catabolic towards lean mass. Shit I learn something new everyday.

From one of your articles:

"In summary, even though muscles are able to adapt to burning more fat as a fuel, impaired muscle glycogen capacity occurs, thus limiting the potential of either increasing performance or endurance. ...

Bottom line: for events less than or equal to three hours, carbo-loading is best, minus the depletion phase. For longer efforts, 10 days of fat plus three days of carbs might give you more endurance. But be aware of the consequences, performance may suffer and such fat loading is likely to impair any weight management goals. "

From a study cited by one of your articles:
Interaction of training and diet on metabolism and... [J Physiol. 1996] - PubMed result

"It is concluded that ingesting a fat-rich diet during an endurance training programme is detrimental to improvement in endurance. This is not due to a simple lack of carbohydrate fuel, but rather to suboptimal adaptations that are not remedied by short-term increased carbohydrate availability. Furthermore, the study suggests that the decrease in RER usually seen after training when exercising at the same absolute intensity as before training can be prevented by a carbohydrate-rich diet"


"High Insulin Levels Stop Fat Loss and Cause Weight Gain | Fitness Black Book"

Hmm, went to review the research here, I am pretty quick at it what with me doing that for a living, and I could not seem to find any. A great many assertions, with no supporting data.

Not a credible source.


I still await, and quite eagerly at that, for you to support your position on the following statements:

1. That a high fat diet is better for sports performance than a high-carbohydrate diet.

Stop twisting words to your favor. I never said it was a "better" energy source. But it does work

2. That hormonal response is a greater indicator or determinant of body weight gain, specifically excess adipose tissue, than caloric status.

It is in terms of adiposity. How many times do I have to repeat the ACTUAL PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE IN THE HUMAN BODY DURING ELEVATED INSULIN SURGES? Go read some medical or nutrition text books and read up on the role and fuction of insulin.

So anytime you get shown evidence that goes against your way of thinking it's not "real evidence".

Real research this time please. I can write whatever I want, slap my credentials up on it, and viola!!! I have a cite supporting my position. That still does not make it correct.

Weather or not someone can post x research by y site or source doesn't mean it magically doesn't exist. If I can't find research that the earth revolves around the sun or plants get energy from photosysthesis, does that mean these phenomena don't exist?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ironpants]

n = 1

pointless. What works for me may not work for someone else, so i do not use it as an established fact of biochemistry.

never the less that doesn't magically change the laws of biology. I've yet to meet someone who is an active athelete or in decent shape who lives of high sugar junk foods because "their body is different"



neither provide any actually evidence support your statement that fat is better for sports performance. The only study actually cited involving sports performance (yes, i reviewed them)
the human metabolic response to chronic ketosis wi... [metabolism. 1983] - pubmed result
says:
"these results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis."

it does not say better.

Never said better, but possible. Body preferes carbs and sugars, it's simpley a more imediate and higher energy source, but the body can adapt to run off less effecient fats if it comes down to it.



You stated that hormonal response was more indicative of fat storage than caloric intake. I really want to see who has established this as a fact. Real research, not articles. Particularly not articles which fail to properly cite/review research.


the countless amounts of research in the medical and nutrition feild all say this, easy enough to do your own homework. I've provided countless examples but if you don't belive then all you have to do is go find the info on your own.

you won't? Your body loses this ability? And please differentiate between burning fat for fuel when dieting for optimal performance vs dieting for fat loss.

no because you'll be running off the glucose in your bloodstream and not fat stores. Glucose is the prefered fule source so thats what gets used untill it gets used up


it's the same thing. Your running off of freefatty acids derived from triglyceride breakdown.

it is. The amount of energy required to raise one gram of water one degree celsius is pretty constant.


.

from one of your articles:

"in summary, even though muscles are able to adapt to burning more fat as a fuel, impaired muscle glycogen capacity occurs, thus limiting the potential of either increasing performance or endurance. ...

Bottom line: For events less than or equal to three hours, carbo-loading is best, minus the depletion phase. For longer efforts, 10 days of fat plus three days of carbs might give you more endurance. But be aware of the consequences, performance may suffer and such fat loading is likely to impair any weight management goals. "

Which has been proven wrong, fat by itself doesn't make you "fat"

from a study cited by one of your articles:
interaction of training and diet on metabolism and... [j physiol. 1996] - pubmed result

"it is concluded that ingesting a fat-rich diet during an endurance training programme is detrimental to improvement in endurance. This is not due to a simple lack of carbohydrate fuel, but rather to suboptimal adaptations that are not remedied by short-term increased carbohydrate availability. Furthermore, the study suggests that the decrease in rer usually seen after training when exercising at the same absolute intensity as before training can be prevented by a carbohydrate-rich diet"

Never said it was a better fule, nor did I make any refrence towards improvment of it. All I said was that it was a possible energy source.


"high insulin levels stop fat loss and cause weight gain | fitness black book"

hmm, went to review the research here, i am pretty quick at it what with me doing that for a living, and i could not seem to find any. A great many assertions, with no supporting data.

Not a credible source.


I still await, and quite eagerly at that, for you to support your position on the following statements:

1. That a high fat diet is better for sports performance than a high-carbohydrate diet.

[
Stop twisting words to your favor. I never said it was a "better" energy source. But it does work

2. That hormonal response is a greater indicator or determinant of body weight gain, specifically excess adipose tissue, than caloric status.

it is in terms of adiposity. How many times do i have to repeat the actual process that takes place in the human body during elevated insulin surges? Go read some medical or nutrition text books and read up on the role and fuction of insulin.


so anytime you get shown evidence that goes against your way of thinking it's not "real evidence".

real research this time please. I can write whatever i want, slap my credentials up on it, and viola!!! I have a cite supporting my position. That still does not make it correct.

weather or not someone can post x research by y site or source doesn't mean it magically doesn't exist. If i can't find research that the earth revolves around the sun or plants get energy from photosysthesis, does that mean these phenomena don't exist?

[/quote]

 

[Ironpants]

Insulin Control for Weight Loss and Life Extension - Vitamin Research Products

How Insulin Causes Obesity

Despite the national obsession with weight control, we are fatter today than ever. In fact, more than a third of American adults are obese; yet obesity

 

[Ironpants]

What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? - NYTimes.com

This one is in the D&S stickies.

The primary role of insulin is to regulate blood-sugar levels. After you eat carbohydrates, they will be broken down into their component sugar molecules and transported into the bloodstream. Your pancreas then secretes insulin, which shunts the blood sugar into muscles and the liver as fuel for the next few hours. This is why carbohydrates have a significant impact on insulin and fat does not. And because juvenile diabetes is caused by a lack of insulin, physicians believed since the 20's that the only evil with insulin is not having enough.

U]But insulin also regulates fat metabolism. We cannot store body fat without it. Think of insulin as a switch. When it's on, in the few hours after eating, you burn carbohydrates for energy and store excess calories as fat. When it's off, after the insulin has been depleted, you burn fat as fuel. So when insulin levels are low, you will burn your own fat, but not when they're high.[/U]

This is where it gets unavoidably complicated. The fatter you are, the more insulin your pancreas will pump out per meal, and the more likely you'll develop what's called ''insulin resistance,'' which is the underlying cause of Syndrome X. In effect, your cells become insensitive to the action of insulin, and so you need ever greater amounts to keep your blood sugar in check. So as you gain weight, insulin makes it easier to store fat and harder to lose it. But the insulin resistance in turn may make it harder to store fat -- your weight is being kept in check, as it should be. But now the insulin resistance might prompt your pancreas to produce even more insulin, potentially starting a vicious cycle. Which comes first -- the obesity, the elevated insulin, known as hyperinsulinemia, or the insulin resistance -- is a chicken-and-egg problem that hasn't been resolved. One endocrinologist described this to me as ''the Nobel-prize winning question.''

David Ludwig, the Harvard endocrinologist, says that it's the direct effect of insulin on blood sugar that does the trick. He notes that when diabetics get too much insulin, their blood sugar drops and they get ravenously hungry. They gain weight because they eat more, and the insulin promotes fat deposition. The same happens with lab animals. This, he says, is effectively what happens when we eat carbohydrates -- in particular sugar and starches like potatoes and rice, or anything made from flour, like a slice of white bread. These are known in the jargon as high-glycemic-index carbohydrates, which means they are absorbed quickly into the blood. As a result, they cause a spike of blood sugar and a surge of insulin within minutes. The resulting rush of insulin stores the blood sugar away and a few hours later, your blood sugar is lower than it was before you ate. As Ludwig explains, your body effectively thinks it has run out of fuel, but the insulin is still high enough to prevent you from burning your own fat. The result is hunger and a craving for more carbohydrates. It's another vicious circle, and another situation ripe for obesity.

 

[Ironpants]

Weight of the Evidence: Insulin: Fat Storage - Fat Use for Energy

Are these researchers wrong?

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine have reported in RxPG News that chronically high levels of insulin, as is found in many people with obesity and Type II diabetes, may block specific hormones that trigger energy release into the body. In other words, high insulin levels inhibit the use of body fat for energy in the body.The researchers found in their studies that high levels of insulin can block stress hormones known as catecholamines, which normally cause the release of cellular energy. Adrenaline is the best known example of a catecholamine. For normal metabolism to occur, the body needs a balanced input of insulin and catecholamines. One of the actions of insulin --, the main energy storage hormone, is to block activation of the protein kinase A (PKA) enzyme. After a meal, insulin levels go up, and the body stores energy primarily as triglycerides, or fat, in adipose tissue to be used later. When energy is needed, catecholamine triggers activation of PKA, and energy is released. But in people with Type II diabetes, the hormonal balance has been thrown off, because the body continues to produce and store more triglyceride instead of breaking down the fat as released energy.

We know from dozens of research studies that reducing carbohydrate, especially refined carbohydrates and sugars, stabilizes insulin levels and reduces the effects of insulin resistence. This is due, in part, to the lower levels of insulin required with less carbohydrate being metabolized to glucose, which in turn stimulates insulin, which in turn (especially when insulin resistence is present) leads to energy storage as fat. So, reducing carbohydrate intake is one effective dietary approach that can improve insulin sensitivity.

 

[Ironpants]

Here is a vidoe CLEARLY explaining the FACTS what insulin does, how it works and how it relates to fat storage.

YouTube - ‪Understanding Insulin & Fat Storage‬‏

Around 1:30 Listen to what he says. Then tell me it doesn't lead to fat storage.

4:15 he says unutilized glucose goes to fat storage.

 

[Eric Brown]

You still have not posted a single actual study that supports the three points I have called you on. I asked for the following to be supported:

1. That hormonal response has a greater effect on weight gain as opposed to caloric balance.
2. That you cannot store fat without insulin.
3. That fats are better for performance; You state here:
"whearas fats are better for longer, low to moderate activites."

I am not twisting anything. Support it.

Now, I am not going to read a newspaper article, already told you research. Not op-ed pieces. I cannot be bothered to look for the studies that are referred to in eleven pages of crap.

Now, to address your further not addressing the issue:

"never the less that doesn't magically change the laws of biology. I've yet to meet someone who is an active athelete or in decent shape who lives of high sugar junk foods because "their body is different""

You need to get out more. Because you have not met someone does not mean it does not happen. Hell, I went to college on a hockey scholarship. My diet was shit. Half my carbs were alcohol. Yet somehow I was in great shape. Of course, it may have had something to do with the five hours of training plus lifting I was doing five days a week not counting game days. Of course, this is just me. Again, n = 1 means nothing. Even if I am the one.

"the countless amounts of research in the medical and nutrition feild all say this, easy enough to do your own homework. I've provided countless examples but if you don't belive then all you have to do is go find the info on your own."

No, you have provided countless opinions and assertions. I work in the field. I am familiar with the research. It is why you see me cite actual research or definitive works, such as Devlin's. You have not yet provided real research. The couple of articles you linked to were not research. Apparently you do not understand the difference.

"no because you'll be running off the glucose in your bloodstream and not fat stores. Glucose is the prefered fule source so thats what gets used untill it gets used up"

Nope. You always burn fat and glycogen. Only difference is the percentage. Even when deep in dietary ketosis, small amounts of glycogen are always burned. It is not one or the other. ("Physiology of Sport and Exercise, Fourth Edition"; Dr. Jack H. Wilmore, et al.; 2007) (note, this is an actual reference)

"Which has been proven wrong, fat by itself doesn't make you "fat""

I never said this. Straw man again

"Never said it was a better fule, nor did I make any refrence towards improvment of it. All I said was that it was a possible energy source."

You did, see above. Better for low to moderate intensity. Do I need to link you to your own post?

"it is in terms of adiposity. How many times do i have to repeat the actual process that takes place in the human body during elevated insulin surges? Go read some medical or nutrition text books and read up on the role and fuction of insulin."

I am aware of it. You still have not supported your point that you state insulin or some other hormonal process has a greater effect on bodyweight gain than caloric status. I have never disputed the role that insulin plays in fat storage, nor its effect in the presence of other hormones, notably glucagon. However, just because insulin can help you store fat does not mean that your insulin response is more responsible for fat storage or weight gain that total caloric status. I am tired of repeating this. My neighbors dog knows that insulin can promote fat gain. That is not in dispute. Your statement is.

"so anytime you get shown evidence that goes against your way of thinking it's not "real evidence"."

You have shown me opinions. The one piece that you had that had actual references of it own disputed your position. I looked at all of them. I posted one. It was actual research. It supported none of the three points that you made that I am disputing.

"weather or not someone can post x research by y site or source doesn't mean it magically doesn't exist. If i can't find research that the earth revolves around the sun or plants get energy from photosysthesis, does that mean these phenomena don't exist?"

If there is so much available, it should not be hard.

Will reply to the next evasion in another post.

 

[Eric Brown]

Here is a vidoe CLEARLY explaining the FACTS what insulin does, how it works and how it relates to fat storage.

YouTube - ‪Understanding Insulin & Fat Storage‬‏

Around 1:30 Listen to what he says. Then tell me it doesn't lead to fat storage.

4:15 he says unutilized glucose goes to fat storage.

Never said it did not.

Quit with the straw man arguments.

I have stated that it is possible to store fat without insulin. Would you like me to support this? It will give you an opportunity to see what real research looks like.

 

[Ironpants]

YouTube - ‪Insulin: The Fat Storing Hormone‬‏

Again, indisputable facts of what insulin does and how it stores fat.

HIGH INSULIN LEVELS CAUSES WEIGHT GAIN.

 

[Ironpants]

Never said it did not.

Quit with the straw man arguments.

I have stated that it is possible to store fat without insulin. Would you like me to support this? It will give you an opportunity to see what real research looks like.

No it's not. ASP as discussed before is only temporary storage. ASP does not fuction as a storage mechanism the way insulin does. Freefatty acids simply starts getting oxidized as soon has it goes into the fat cell it's called futile cycling. ASP means nothing by itself it actualy needs insulin to in order to work. Freefatty acids cant be bound as triglycerids (i.e fat tissue) without the alpha glycerol phosphate which only happen with the oxidation of glucose, so if no insulin is present ASP can't cause the FFA to be bound as fat storage in the cell, it simply passes through and get metabolized for energy .

We all know about this already.

Quit with the straw man argumets.