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 > Paleolithic & Neanderthin
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91   ^
Old Sat, Jan-05-08, 13:25
SandyDown's Avatar
SandyDown SandyDown is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,644
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 154/155/140 Female 5'5
BF:
Progress: -7%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JL53563
I think it's worth noting that there were no changes in my bowel movements. No diarrhea. I did not go any more often, nor was the overall quantity increased.

It's generally understood that some increased level of insulin is necessary for excess calories to be stored as fat. But, I also learned something about fat storage from reading Good Calories, Bad Calories.

Body fat is stored in the form of triglycerides. A triglyceride is 3 fatty acid molecules bound together by a glycerol molecule. Here's the interesting part....... Where does the glycerol come from? Well, it turns out that it comes from a molecule known as glycerol phoshpate, which it turns out is a product of glucose metabolism. So it seems to me that for any significant amount of fat to be stored, carbs in the diet would have to be a must.


hmm not sure if this what you said about glycerol correct...

Quote:
Lipase and other digestive juices break down the fat molecules into fatty acids and types of glycerol.


Quote:
The glycerol part (after breaking the fat into fatty acids and glycerol) is absorbed by the liver and is either converted into glucose (gluconeogenesis), and/or used to help breakdown glucose into energy (glycolysis).


however, you have a point, it may be the non absorption of glycerol is the key to fat storage- not the non absorption of fatty acids... will research it a bit more adn get back to you
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #92   ^
Old Sun, Jan-06-08, 09:59
JL53563's Avatar
JL53563 JL53563 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,209
 
Plan: The Real Human Diet
Stats: 225/165/180 Male 5'8"
BF:?/?/8.6%
Progress: 133%
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandyDown
hmm not sure if this what you said about glycerol correct...





however, you have a point, it may be the non absorption of glycerol is the key to fat storage- not the non absorption of fatty acids... will research it a bit more adn get back to you

I don't pretend to completely understand all of this. I believe it's well accepted that fat is stored in the form of triglycerides. Correct? It also seems well documented that people eating VLC, high fat diets are notorious for having very low triglyceride levels. My last bloodwork showed a triglyceride level of 37, which is off the charts on the low end. With very low triglycerides and low insulin levels, it is going to be dang difficult for the body to store fat.

I'm looking forward to seeing what other research you can uncover.
Reply With Quote
  #93   ^
Old Sun, Jan-06-08, 13:46
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

So sugar is basically "fat glue". Without the glue, the fat doesn't stick around?
Reply With Quote
  #94   ^
Old Sun, Jan-06-08, 15:37
SandyDown's Avatar
SandyDown SandyDown is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,644
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 154/155/140 Female 5'5
BF:
Progress: -7%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wifezilla
So sugar is basically "fat glue". Without the glue, the fat doesn't stick around?


No that is not correct... fat storage is governed by insulin level in the blood

Quote:
Insulin tells the cells to do the following:

Absorb glucose, fatty acids and amino acids
- Stop breaking down:
glucose, fatty acids and amino acids
glycogen into glucose
fats into fatty acids and glycerol
proteins into amino acids

- Start building:
glycogen from glucose
fats (triglycerides) from glycerol and fatty acids
proteins from amino acids


When you are not eating or eat little carb - i.e. low insulin levels:

1.The first line of defence in maintaining energy is to break down any carbohydrates, or glycogen, into simple glucose molecules -- this process is called glycogenolysis.

2.Next, your body breaks down fats into glycerol and fatty acids in the process of lipolysis.

3.The fatty acids can then be broken down directly to get energy, or can be used to make glucose through a multi-step process called gluconeogenesis. In gluconeogenesis, amino acids can also be used to make glucose.

In the fat cell (fat that is already stored in the cells):
1.lipases work to break down fats into fatty acids and glycerol
2.The resulting glycerol and fatty acids are released into the blood, and travel to the liver through the bloodstream.
3.Once in the liver, the glycerol and fatty acids can be either further broken down or used to make glucose.





OK point 3 above says that glycerol and fatty acids can be either further broken down or used to make glucose. I guess a very small amount gets converted to glucose, else we’d notice a rise in blood sugar and insulin level.. which in turn would trigger the fat storage… but this doesn’t happen, the body somehow does not convert too much of the stored or eaten fats into glucose to raise the insulin level, it only generates enough glucose enough to maintain the insulin level.


i.e. the body doesn’t say wooooow, my insulin level is sooooo low, I better convert all this fat into sugar so that I’d raise the insulin level (and thank God it doesn’t do that) it only convert a small amount into glucose.



So presumably all the extra fat eaten is turned into energy… which means the body just keeps generating energy and does not stop till insulin level is raised.

JL53563 experiment entailed intake of very high fats (up to 4000 calories) and therefore the body just kept converting the fat into energy… am just wondering what was all this energy used for – I’ve always assumed that energy is produced for:
1.Maintaining life (around 1500-2000 calories)
2. On-demand i.e. when you exercise or if its cold then the body produces the extra energy required,
However, in this case it seems the energy production was produced with no demand (or perhaps the demand was the lack of insulin?)

The theory is that this energy was used up in futile cycling (which is plausible theory) but I was trying to get to a more scientific reasoning, but I guess if Taubes himself thought the only explanation is the futile cycling, I doubt an ignoramus like me would find the answer however am glad I looked up the whole process, I sort of understand the physiology party of it a lot better now.


P.S: apologies for the waffling, I know you guys probably have been through this discussion many times before
Reply With Quote
  #95   ^
Old Sun, Jan-06-08, 16:37
JL53563's Avatar
JL53563 JL53563 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,209
 
Plan: The Real Human Diet
Stats: 225/165/180 Male 5'8"
BF:?/?/8.6%
Progress: 133%
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Default

Quote:
i.e. the body doesn’t say wooooow, my insulin level is sooooo low, I better convert all this fat into sugar so that I’d raise the insulin level (and thank God it doesn’t do that) it only convert a small amount into glucose.

Correct. According to Eades the body only converts to glucose as much as is necessary.

Quote:
So presumably all the extra fat eaten is turned into energy… which means the body just keeps generating energy and does not stop till insulin level is raised.


Basically, it just uses itself up being shuffled around, since it can't be stored.

And the amazing thing to me is, that the vast, vast, vast majority of doctors, dieticians, and nutritionists have absolutely no idea any of this even exists.
Reply With Quote
  #96   ^
Old Mon, Jan-07-08, 03:18
SandyDown's Avatar
SandyDown SandyDown is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,644
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 154/155/140 Female 5'5
BF:
Progress: -7%
Default

JL53563 - I must admit I’ve trying this high fatting very low carbing for the last week – this is day 7, I have kept carb level around 5 (mainly from cheese and cream) however one day it was up to 10 because I used parsley and onions in the meat loaf I did. My calories were anything between 1400 and 1600, I have lost 2 lbs but this morning I put on 1lb, so am very disappointed. Protein intake around 100 grams , according to my calculation I should eat at least 90 grams of proteins to prevent muscle catabolism, and Fat percentage is between 65% to 70%.

In the past I also tried this high fatting with higher calories (1800) which is a lot of food for me, all I did is manage to maintain, however I didn’t actually lose weight. The only way I can lose weight is if I restrict my calories to 1200. In the past I always gave up the high fatting after 7-10 days because it didn’t show any losing results, just maintenance… but this time I will try to prolong the time period, perhaps my body needs longer to switch to the high fatting mode? Don’t know how long I should give it to work, any suggestions? However there was a Fatkins thread previously, and a lot of the participants also found that the high fatting only resulted in maintenance ( yes felt good, healthier etc, but still maintained ) however I think they didn’t have their carb level so low.

Any advise would be welcomed to be honest am a bit fed up of dieting, I want to reach my goal weight and then do this high fatting low carbing maintenance.
Reply With Quote
  #97   ^
Old Mon, Jan-07-08, 10:00
JL53563's Avatar
JL53563 JL53563 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,209
 
Plan: The Real Human Diet
Stats: 225/165/180 Male 5'8"
BF:?/?/8.6%
Progress: 133%
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Default

Sandy, if your stats are correct and you weigh 130, that would put your BMI at 21.6, which puts you right in the middle of the normal range. If you want to get your weight even lower, then yes, you will have to significantly restrict your calories.
Reply With Quote
  #98   ^
Old Mon, Jan-07-08, 10:47
SandyDown's Avatar
SandyDown SandyDown is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,644
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 154/155/140 Female 5'5
BF:
Progress: -7%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JL53563
Sandy, if your stats are correct and you weigh 130, that would put your BMI at 21.6, which puts you right in the middle of the normal range. If you want to get your weight even lower, then yes, you will have to significantly restrict your calories.



Thanks, I put on a few pounds over the Xmas/NY period, but I know I'd lose that OK and get stuck on 130...

btw: Having to restrict my calories is not the answer I really wanted to hear .......
Reply With Quote
  #99   ^
Old Mon, Jan-07-08, 11:49
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,866
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Sandy perhaps your body is saying, "I'm happy right here. Leave me alone!" If in order to lose those 5 pound you have to restrict calories... you can't keep it up forever. When the calories go back up the weight will most likely just come back.

What do you think? Will 5 pounds make all that much difference to how you feel about yourself?
Reply With Quote
  #100   ^
Old Mon, Jan-07-08, 13:03
SandyDown's Avatar
SandyDown SandyDown is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,644
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 154/155/140 Female 5'5
BF:
Progress: -7%
Default

Nancy, may be you are right, will think about it, I may declare myself on maintenance soon
Reply With Quote
  #101   ^
Old Tue, Jan-08-08, 00:01
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandyDown
Nancy, may be you are right, will think about it, I may declare myself on maintenance soon


Sandy, do you do any resistance exercise, particularly HIIT. The ongoing calorie burning potential (for many hours after the actual exercise has ceased) is well recognized and understood. It's an approach to exercise that pretty well guarantees that workouts are very short, because if they are done at the right intensity, you physically won't be able to go for longer than 5 minutes.

You mentioned that you lose at 1200 (low carb?) calories. So if you stuck with this calorie intake would you lose the further 5lbs you want to? If added some HIIT (the only form of exercise that burns other calories than the during the exercise) you would probably be able to consume more fat and still lose.

Also bear in mind that JL's over(fat)eating experiment only works for not storing fat at very low carb levels. Just how low that carb level needs to be will vary between individuals. You don't wan't to spend the rest of your life eating punitive carb levels just so you can eat a lot more fat (and still maintain) do you?

Don't forget either that although futile cycling seems to be why overeating fat doesn't result in bodyfat gain, and not gaining bodyfat is healthier than gaining to be sure, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be far healthier not to overeat the fat in the first place ?

It might be more fun of course

Stuart
Reply With Quote
  #102   ^
Old Tue, Jan-08-08, 06:47
ProteusOne's Avatar
ProteusOne ProteusOne is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,320
 
Plan: Paleo/Low Cal
Stats: 000/000/200 Male 5 ft 10 in
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: NC, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kneebrace
...that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be far healthier not to overeat the fat in the first place ?


So, it would be healthier to not overeat fat. (Sorry, the old man and the sea came out there.)
Reply With Quote
  #103   ^
Old Tue, Jan-08-08, 07:10
SandyDown's Avatar
SandyDown SandyDown is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,644
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 154/155/140 Female 5'5
BF:
Progress: -7%
Default

Kneebrace, thanks, agreed if I do exercise am sure I’d lose the 5lbs and still have 1500 low carb calories a day, I can most likely lose very slowly with no exercise if I stuck to 1200 calories a day which is low enough for me, my most comfortable calorie intake is somewhere between 1500 and 2000. I am not doing any exercise at the moment, I get up at 6 am and rush to do some work, then commute to my real job, finish again 6 pm commute home cook dinner for the family, then eat, by which time its 8 to 8:30 pm, and I just have one or one and a half hour to rest before going to bed and doing the whole lot again – on the site am working at the moment unfortunately there is no gym else I could do something over lunch, but perhaps am going to move site within a month where I can get access to a gym..

I don’t intend to overeat or keep zero level carbs, I just wanted to lose the final 5lbs before Xmas I was on pre-maintenance, but had some treats over the holidays and I decided to do induction but with very low carb levels as JL did. I am also trying to do IF (fasting from sunrise to sunset) at the weekends so am hoping this will help.

Thanks very much for the help and for taking the time to answer my questions.
Reply With Quote
  #104   ^
Old Tue, Jan-08-08, 23:42
SandyDown's Avatar
SandyDown SandyDown is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,644
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 154/155/140 Female 5'5
BF:
Progress: -7%
Default

Hey just got an idea, you know how we were saying that when you do LC and after the initial induction tiredness we get a surge of energy, and we can do with less sleep and do more physical stuff that we ever been able to? May be that’s the effect of all that futile energy cycling theory
Reply With Quote
  #105   ^
Old Wed, Jan-09-08, 06:45
kneebrace kneebrace is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,429
 
Plan: atkins/ IF
Stats: 162/128/130 Male 175
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Default

Very interesting, Sandy. 'Natural' speed. Sounds even less healthy when you think about it like that. Nothing wrong with the stable energy levels from being well rested and having even blood sugar, but I've always wondered about the advisability of being able to go with less sleep.

Stuart
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 03:47.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.