Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > General Low-Carb
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Dec-28-17, 18:50
dcc0455 dcc0455 is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 128
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 224/155/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default stored energy vs consumed energy

I watched a lecture by Jason Fung where he talked about eating lots of small meals will keep insulin raised, which prevents the body from using stored fat as a fuel. I have read this before, including on this forum, and I don't doubt it, but it does seem that it is not that simple. For example, even if we agree it is not ideal, there are people who lose fat eating lots of small meals. How did they switch to fat burning in that case? Is it that enough of a caloric deficit will force the switch to fat burning, even with the raised insulin? I like Dr. Fung's message, but I am concerned that he leaves out this part of discussion.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Dec-28-17, 19:38
nawchem's Avatar
nawchem nawchem is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,192
 
Plan: 100 carb
Stats: 163.5/164.5/149.0 Female 62
BF:36/27.7/27.3
Progress: -7%
Default

I think its the calorie deficit makes you burn your own fat. My friend lost 80lbs on high carb/ 6-200 cal meals a day and worked out for hours most days. He maintained about 3 years and takes off the weekends and does his 1200 thing weekdays.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 04:26
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,061
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Ted Naiman has a great explanation of this. The key concept is in the first paragraph with the Yin/Yang, more detail with the balance scales.
Followed by daily charts of energy release with different eating patterns...there will still be the "overnight fast", aka sleep. And small breaks in between mini-meals if you didnít eat much insulin raising food.

http://burnfatnotsugar.com/intermittent-fasting.html

Last edited by JEY100 : Fri, Dec-29-17 at 04:33.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 09:02
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 12,307
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/157.2/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Ontario
Default

You can force a calorie deficit, and you will likely lose fat. The question is one of sustainably managing a calorie deficit. If somebody manages 200 calories per meal, 6 meals a day, and still manages to work out for hours a day, then that's something they can manage, it shows that they can do this, it doesn't show that I can do this. It might work. But one person might experience more hunger eating that way, where another person experiences less--there are anecdotes either way, I don't have any reason to believe one person and not believe another. Lots of thing are worth trying, but also worth moving on from if they're not working for you.

Atkins fat fast--for somebody at a 1200 calorie level, that might have looked much like Nawchem's friends meals, six 200 calorie meals.

There's an old study with sipping vs. gulping glucose, 50 grams. Sipped over three and a half hours, the insulin response and the switch from fat to carbohydrate for energy are greatly reduced in comparison to taking it all at once. The slower rate of glucose absorption allows for a greater amount to be disposed of through glycogen storage vs. oxidation.

There are studies showing six meals aren't better than three. But what are the conditions? If you took in 50 grams of carbohydrate a day, splitting that into six servings might give the situation where the rate of glycogen synthesis is sufficient to handle most of the glucose load. Suppose you're taking in 300 grams of carbohydrate a day--that makes for 50 grams per meal, meaning that much of the glucose will need to be oxidized/used to synthesize fat. Once the numbers are small enough, splitting things into smaller meals might start to act a bit differently.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 12:43
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is online now
Posts: 6,614
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/205/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 102%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

I would think that insulin resistance and genetics wound also be a factor in this. If one person has a higher insulin response to the same food than the average person it could very well be that their fat cells remain in 'storage mode' for a longer period of time. If you are insulin resistant, then you will have a higher insulin response than you did when you were not so insulin resistant.

When I was still significantly insulin resistant I found that I was quite reactive hypoglycemic. My blood sugar spiked, then crashed within 30 minutes of eating even just a few easily digestible carbs. When my blood sugar was crashing I was ravenous. When my blood sugar was below my norm I was feeling the pull of all those carbs in the pantry. I've often wondered what was my insulin level doing while all of this was going on? Did I have high insulin levels and low blood sugar at the same time? If that is the case, no wonder that I was constantly hungry. My glucose tank was running low and my body fat was locked down. Time to grab some chips and camp out in my recliner. I could never sustain a high carb, low fat, low calorie diet. The only way I've ever been able to lose any weight is via low carb.

After learning that I was reactive hypoglycemic I read up on it. They did suggest eating fewer high GI carbs, but they also suggested eating many small meals a day to have a more stable blood glucose level. For me I think that was exactly the wrong thing to do. It may have been what was required to keep my BG up and to have more energy, however, eating that way would have kept me eternally weight stable or gaining fat. I'd have never lost any fat except for during sleep.

Today my IR is much improved. From the foods that I eat my BG tends to react in a normal way after a meal. In other words, less IR has made my less reactive hypoglycemic. I suspect, though, that I do still have a higher insulin response to carbohydrates than the average person does. Perhaps I always have.

Last edited by khrussva : Fri, Dec-29-17 at 13:23.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 17:11
dcc0455 dcc0455 is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 128
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 224/155/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Ted Naiman has a great explanation of this. The key concept is in the first paragraph with the Yin/Yang, more detail with the balance scales.
Followed by daily charts of energy release with different eating patterns...there will still be the "overnight fast", aka sleep. And small breaks in between mini-meals if you didnít eat much insulin raising food.

http://burnfatnotsugar.com/intermittent-fasting.html


Thanks for the link. Good read, but I'm still a little confused. It does say the body is in absorptive state 3-5 hours after eating, and post absorptive 8-12 hours typically until 12 hours after your last meal until a fully fasted state. It then says you can burn fat in the fasted state that is inaccessible during the fed state. Because we don't enter the fasted state until 12 hours after the last meal its rare that we are in this fat burning state.

It seems clear, but maybe I'm still missing something. While it does't flat out state that you have to be in the fully fasted state to burn fat, it does seem to imply that. I guess my confusion comes from my own experience. I had stalled after a year of slow and steady weight loss. I bought and followed the original Atkins book, and was eating 3 meals with snacks between. I was able to lose the last 15 lbs on this method. I doubt that I ever entered a fully fasted state, so there must be some fat burning going on during that 5 to 12 hour post-absorptive period.

Not that it really matters, I just want to understand.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 17:16
dcc0455 dcc0455 is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 128
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 224/155/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser

There are studies showing six meals aren't better than three. But what are the conditions? If you took in 50 grams of carbohydrate a day, splitting that into six servings might give the situation where the rate of glycogen synthesis is sufficient to handle most of the glucose load. Suppose you're taking in 300 grams of carbohydrate a day--that makes for 50 grams per meal, meaning that much of the glucose will need to be oxidized/used to synthesize fat. Once the numbers are small enough, splitting things into smaller meals might start to act a bit differently.


That may be the key. When I lost weight on three meals plus 3 snacks, I wasn't intentionally limiting calories to a specific level, but I was usually between 1300 and 1500 cal per day.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, Dec-29-17, 17:32
dcc0455 dcc0455 is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 128
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 224/155/155 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khrussva
After learning that I was reactive hypoglycemic I read up on it. They did suggest eating fewer high GI carbs, but they also suggested eating many small meals a day to have a more stable blood glucose level. For me I think that was exactly the wrong thing to do. It may have been what was required to keep my BG up and to have more energy, however, eating that way would have kept me eternally weight stable or gaining fat. I'd have never lost any fat except for during sleep.


Thats another aspect that confuses me. I was probably spiking a lot eating a standard diet, but the only info I have on that is my doctor telling me I was pre-diabetic.Since switching low carb, I have been checking and I see a lot of 5 90 to 95 readings first thing after waking. I currently waiting until noon to eat, and by then it has gone down to around 85. If I check it after eating, it has gone down even more, sometimes to the high 70's. That seems backward, but I have been assuming the meal (low carb, so little or no BG spike) causes an insulin release which lowers the BG.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sat, Dec-30-17, 04:37
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 10,061
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

I have a similar BG pattern and havenít decided what to do about it. The insulin release after eating is what brings down BG from the higher morning reading. Virta Health suggests (among other things) to eat shortly after getting up. http://blog.virtahealth.com/dawn-phenomenon/.
When I eat earlier, BG does drop lower for more of the day, but that IF window is not convenient for now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.