Fat Burning Beast?
I gotta say, whenever I hear about these low carb athletes, blog posts and such flickering through the feed reader and such ... I tune out. Why? Because almost invariably when it comes to touting the superiority of the low carb diet, the tent gets very large indeed. Anyone eating fewer carbs than the mythical "average" American consuming 500g/day is a low carber. Which is ridiculous on its face, but makes for great hyperbole to blame the carbs for obesity and all manner of evil in the world. In any case, when one looks a little deeper into the diets of these low carb athletes, they aren't really low carb at all.
I'm quite tired of this double standard applied by purveyors of low carb wisdom and light. You see if a study shows even the slightest benefit to LC over the rival diet, it is touted as further evidence of LC greatness, even if after more careful consideration, it was hardly a low carb diet after all. Yet that same diet fails to elicit the famed LC magic, and all of a sudden low carbers notice and point out that it wasn't really a low carb diet after all. Sorry. Can't have it both ways.
The same goes with athletes. In comments on my nutty ketosis post, Tim Olson was brought up. Western States 100 – Low Carber Wins Ultramarathon – Steve Phinney and Jeff Volek Study. Impressive chap Tim Olson is. This ultramarathon is 100 miles, and Olson won the event this past summer beating the previous course record by 21 minutes and crossed the finish line 15 minutes before the next racer. I'm impressed, and there's no sarcasm there.
I'm having a hard time finding any info on Olson's actual habitual diet, but that's not why I'm writing this.
STEVE PHINNEY: All these runners eat and drink throughout the 100-mile race, because you can’t maintain your hydration unless you drink, and most runners find that if you can’t eat during the race, for instance, if you get a upset upset stomach, you drop out. That’s because if you can’t eat, you hit the wall or do what the other guys call bonking. Bonking is what happens to runners who are adapted to racing on sugars and carbs, and if they can’t eat enough carbohydrate, their blood sugar drops too low, because there isn’t enough glycogen . . . carbohydrate in their system to make a storage form of carbs called glycogen. So if these body stores of carbs burn out, blood sugar goes too low, and the brain suffers from inadequate fuel, and if you don’t stop running you’re going to pass out. With bonking, it feels horrible, and if you don’t stop, then you’re going to go into a coma.
That last statement is interesting given what Olson himself tells all to read, but I'll get there.Why didn’t he need much? And what DID he eat?STEVE PHINNEY: I wouldn’t tell you the details even if I knew because it’s confidential research information. And I don’t think he’d want any of the details of what he’s doing to be public, because, realize, all of a sudden this guy knows absolutely that he’s got a remarkable competitive edge.
But Olson did eat – so . . . was it glucose gels? Or did he go for butter?STEVE PHINNEY: Well typically he probably wouldn’t eat butter or fat anyway because this guy is a super slim, highly efficient, fat-burning athlete. He’s got very little body fat, but if let’s say he’s 7% by weight body fat that means he still has at least 30,000 calories of fat in his body when he starts the race.
STEVE PHINNEY: When the starting gun goes off, 30,000 calories of body fat. Now, if you run this race typically your body will burn 10,000 calories over the 100-mile course, so he’s got enough to run the race three times over before runs out of fat fuel. But that’s because he’s a fat-burner. For the carb loaded runners, who are less adapted to burning fat, at the same starting line, even if they’d done their carb loading to the maximum, the most carb calories they’d have in their bodies is 2,000. Now, if you’re running on a carb fuel strategy, and you’ll need 10,000 calories to complete the 100-mile race, that 2,000 calories of carb stored in your body at the start of the race is only 1/5 of the fuel that you need to complete the race.
OK, so Olson is "fat adapted" and burning fat for fuel during the race while the poor high carbers must eat more frequently or they will "bonk" from running out of carbohydrate fuel. The way Phinney describes it, however, shouldn't a fat adapted runner like Olson need to eat nothing at all? I mean really, he's got enough fat to fuel his journey, all of his mitochondria, and enzymes, and what not are running smoothly. At most he needs maybe 50g glucose to help run his brain, right?
Well, as it turns out, Tim Olson wrote a diary of sorts about the race: Timothy Olson’s 2012 Western States 100 Race Report
... I made a stupid mistake and ran through that aid station a little too quickly. I was feeling so good that I forgot to grab any gels. A half mile down the road I realized I only had one gel and was not going to see my crew for 10 miles, yikes; this made me a little nervous, but I was hoping I could make it.
... When I finally reached the aid station, I was so stoked to get a gel in me, but they did not have one gel without caffeine. I don’t use caffeine and after many bathroom stops at last year’s Western States, I had decided to not use caffeine for this race. I really needed some nourishment quick, so I decided to have a few quick drinks of Sierra Mist and two orange slices. Not exactly what I had in mind, but it had to do. I knew I would be to my crew in five or so miles and then I could restock my pockets with gels that work for me.
I was a little scared with where my nutrition was going; I was really relying on fat as my fuel with the help of Vespa* and was just hoping my body would ride the climb out. I had to battle many mind games before and during this year’s race. Circumstances don’t always go your way, but figuring them out on the fly is the only way to survive. The day before the race, I decided to be a part of the test studies. I did not eat breakfast Friday because they wanted us to give blood after a ten-hour fast. In the middle of giving blood I got incredibly dizzy, and the next thing I knew I was having crazy dreams and then woke up on the floor. I’ve never passed out before and it was not my ideal situation to experience it for the first time the day before the biggest race of my life. I felt pretty worn out and funky all day Friday, but regardless, I woke up Saturday ready for the journey that loomed ahead. Things don’t always go as planned, but accepting the situation and letting it not get to me helped me through other stages of the race. So I guess my body can take running a 100 miles in less than 15 hours, but giving blood is just too much for it; life is funny.
I entered Michigan Bluff (mile 56) after a big climb, in the lead and ready to get some calories down. I came in feeling okay, but was definitely a little frantic as I relayed information to my crew and restocked on gels and Vespa for the rest of the trip. ...
.... We buzzed through ALT (mile 85) and kept pushing. I had moments where I was fading, but would quickly snap out of that fear of slowing and see all the good in my life....
I tried to keep remembering to fuel, but gels were getting pretty tired. Sierra Mist was working, so I would down a few cups at each aid station and maybe a gel occasionally. ...
... I pulled into Highway 49 (mile 93.5) in quite a daze. I was just too focused on the next step ahead. Krista got me a filled water bottle; I had a few drinks of Sierra Mist and was on my way.
So, *Vespa is "a synergistic blend of naturally-occurring "wasp extract," honey, propolis and royal jelly which athletes of all ages and abilities rely upon fat for steady even energy levels to prevent bonking and intestinal issues, allow quick recovery with minimal muscle soreness and give them that competitive edge." So I ask ... Should a fat-adapted fat-burning beast need Vespa? Isn't that for all those carb-loading dolts?? What of these gels? Well here's an older entry on irunsofar, discussing them. Mostly they are 100 calorie glucose and/or fructose packs with some electrolytes and amino acids (and caffeine in many). So again I ask ... Should a fat-adapted fat-burning beast -- using Vespa to enhance their own superior fat burning abilities no less -- still need multiple "shots" of glucose? Why?
So Phinney and Volek recruited like 25 of the 350 some-odd racers to participate in their study. About half were "low carbers" -- whatever that means. And according to the interview, in addition to the winner, one or two more of the men and one of the women who finished in the top were "low carbers". Sounds like a study from which we will learn a lot. Sarcasm there. But really, what's with this tangent? How well someone utilizes fat for fuel during a 100 mile race, heck for most of us even in a 10 mile race, is totally irrelevant. You've got people having fat burning dreams playing leisurely games of frisbee golf for crying out loud, and a 100 pound rock climber thinking nutritional ketosis is an experiment worth trying.
Here I thought low carb advocates -- including the paleo variety -- sought mainstream acceptance of the diet, both for weight loss and ultimately as a lifestyle choice. Well, if this nutty ketosis stuff keeps going on, this sure isn't going to be helping. We note that Olson -- as Phinney states -- was not eating butter on the trail, he was sucking down carb gels and Sierra Mist. Mark Sisson gave this story some "link love" -- I wonder if we'll have an "Is it Primal" edition featuring Vespa and various gels.... I guess Sierra Mist is OK for races because if I'm not mistaken, it's sweetened with sugar, not HFCS. Look, if a person running their 50th, 75th, 99th mile isn't running entirely on fat stores ... do you think maybe their metabolisms are telling us something? Olson speaks of filling his pockets with gelS. If 30,000 calories of body fat isn't enough, what is all this high fat eating good for if not to facilitate more efficient use of dietary fat for fuel as well, right? Your triglyceride/fatty acid cycles are forever going, why not replenish those stores with a stick of butter??
The answer seems obvious to me: our cells NEED glucose. Even in fat burning mode. And even a LCHF ultramarathoner needed dietary glucose to win the race. Quite a bit of dietary glucose. Or am I missing something?
This seems as good a place as any to ponder Volek & Phinney. A long time ago I mentioned here that Volek had received funding from Atkins Nutritionals. This is no secret. I wondered out loud at the time if that might not just bias his work. At the very least, folks can be quite skeptical of research funded by Big Pharma or done by some "biased" research group such as a group including Taubes' arch-nemesis George Bray. Again, there's a double standard there. In any case, I was challenged a bit about that and looked further into Volek's background ... nothing worth mentioning at the time, but I think maybe it is worth mentioning now.
Jeff Volek is out of the Education School at UConn, he holds the following degrees: •Ph.D. Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, 1999 •M.S. Exercise Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 1995 •R.D. Penrose-St. Francis Health Services, 1992 •B.S. Dietetics, Michigan State University, 1991. Now, he does have a background in nutrition, but when one publishes in peer review journals, it is generally in the field in which they hold their highest degree. Kinesiology is subject area that is generally associated with sports training from the fitness perspective, not nutritional studies. Being out of the Neag School of Education, the program is essentially educating trainers. His current course offerings include: EKIN 248: Physiological Systems in Human Performance, EKIN 258: Mechanisms and Adaptations in Sport, EKIN 392: Muscle Physiology, EKIN 393: Physiology of Human Performance. So it makes one wonder, me anyway, how it is that his summary bio states:
My primary area of research is focused on physiological adaptations to low carbohydrate diets with emphasis on outcomes related to metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. I primarily use prospective diet and/or exercise interventions and use sophisticated cellular techniques to understand changes in adiposity, fatty acid and lipoprotein metabolism, inflammation, vascular function, and endocrine adaptations. Our recent studies have suggested a shift in our understanding of the role of dietary carbohydrate restriction. Long considered primarily a stratagem for weight loss, reduction in dietary carbohydrate is now understood to lead to improvements in metabolic syndrome and other cardiac risk factors, even in the absence of weight loss and frequently even in the presence of higher levels of saturated fat.
Huh? What does any of this have to do with what an expert in kinesiology normally studies and a full time faculty member on the basis of? Well, at least:
Another major area of research has been in the general area of sports nutrition including studies evaluating a wide range of dietary supplements on exercise performance and overall health.
Still, nutrition and supplements on performance is not really what he received his PhD in. So, you wonder how it is you get funding to do the nutritional studies he has done, and once funded and completed, how they get published. How does a Kinesiology PhD get published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition? Well, I don't suppose hooking up with his partner in crime, Dr. Stephen Phinney, has anything to do with that? Might just help that he "is on the editorial board of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition." Volek's other market for his publications is Nutrition & Metabolism, guess who's on the board there too (along with a few other interesting names and affiliations to the home base of one Dr. Richard Feinman).
Perhaps Volek missed his calling and really wanted to be a sports nutrition guy, but it is interesting how he was able to build his career going straight to that to where he's basically more of a diet guy than having anything to do with kinesiology. And his first mentioned focus is metabolic syndrome, diabetes and CVD??? I don't suppose being somewhat out of one's element, receiving funding from Atkins Nutritionals, and likely relying on connections with certain journals might just influence this man's objectivity? Just wondering ...
But perhaps he's trying to return to sports roots with this performance angle. This, too, I find interesting. UConn ... hmmm ... UConn ... whatever does one think of when they think sports and UConn? Basketball!! I realize these teams have their own trainers and staff and all that, but when you think about it, if there really was anything to what this esteemed researcher was coming up with, don't you think we might hear something of how his principles are being implemented? Imagine if all 5 starters could play the entire game if needed? Do the trainers not know about this performance edge? How about the cross country team? Not quite the prestige of the National Champ basketball programs, but more up the nutty ketosis alley anyway. I'm not seeing it.
No ... the focus these days seems to be how to improve the performance of the 0.0001% engaging in ultra endurance competitions. My, my we've come a long way from even The New Atkins (2010) let alone the "real" Atkins. We're at a point to where long term VLC diets bearing no resemblance to anything humans evolved to consume are being marketed as better, healthy, and even performance enhancing.
I say, channeling my best Rod Tidwell/Cuba Gooding Jr impression from Jerry Maguire: Show Me the Evidence. I think their last book, subtitled: "An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable" needs some scrutiny on that claim. I don't suppose these "experts" have any bias that might cloud their judgment? Nah.
And what of that study of ultramarathoners. They drew blood from 25 recruits, perhaps a handful of whom finished in the top tier, and surveyed them on their usual diets. OK, this should tell us all a lot!
Comments
How many butter-stuffed chicken wings does that amount to?
Lyle McDonald and Anthony Colpo have both take apart Phinney's older studies, showing that what the proponents' claims don't exactly comport to the actual results
I recall reading some Colpo about one study. Didn't pay much attention at the time ... too bad.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22301836
I cant recall his phd background, but he is married to the head of the Australian Institute of Sport nutrition program, Louise Burke.
A lot of kin phds go on to perform sports based nutrition work, but Volek went off on a whole new tangent.
- Jeez Evelyn, there are details in the Voleck papers relating to physiological changes seen in ketosis that you won't find anywhere else. There is actually stuff that is pure and useful science and not "my diet is better than yours". Don't let Colpo or anyone else digest it for you - it is interesting reading.
http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Dietary_carb_restriction_induces_a_unique_metabolic_state.pdf
I got a lot out of this one...
http://bobseebohar.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-results-are-in.html
I was dismayed when I heard that he had gone the LC route. Now I don't know what to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNr2JwJ6ARE
Your referencing UConn today makes me realize why the drink is called UCan. Also note that (low GI) waxy maize has been a trend in the workout and low BF% world.
I suppose it's well known that Volek's on the Atkins science board:
http://meuk.atkins.com/science/science-advisory-board/
(Most there seem to not have double chins, btw.)
What I don't know is if Volek makes disclosures or not.
The one and only Volek study I'd read (the abstract only is available to me), not long ago, was this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23021013
"Whole egg consumption improves lipoprotein profiles and insulin sensitivity to a greater extent than yolk-free egg substitute in individuals with metabolic syndrome." 2012
"CONCLUSIONS:
Incorporating daily whole egg intake into a moderately carbohydrate-restricted diet provides further improvements in the atherogenic lipoprotein profile and in insulin resistance in individuals with MetS"
Notice that the abstract doesn't mention that it is a calorie restricted trial - which in reality it is. To me, that'd be akin to describing the Twinkie Diet and not mentioning the critical factor of calorie restriction there.
I agree very much with Javeux. When dealing with LC advocates, it's always necessary to say, "what do you have in your other hand, the hand that's behind your back hiding something..."
So I dug deeper, read the study and a commentary, and quickly discovered that the cTnT elevation was found mainly in those who had trained the least - maybe <10 hrs per week. But the caveman's post had somehow failed to mention that.
As always, when dealing with advocates, it's always necessary to say, "what do you have in your other hand, the hand that's behind your back hiding something..."
P.S. the name "troponin" should sound familiar to anyone who is aware of the blood sample testing that is done for people suspected of having a heart attack (aka MI). Another enzyme tested for is CK, creatine kinase aka CPK creatine phosphokinase.
P.P.S. This mechanism might account for that original Greek runner dying after relaying the news of the Battle of M.
I personally reduced my carb intake because I was tired of being hungry all of the time. It helped a lot. Then I went a bit too far and nearly passed out during a crossfit workout. So I increased a little bit and got some of the best of both worlds. I think everyone out there, including the researchers, are probing in different directions to see what is working and what isn't. ALL of it is useful, even when some of it is wrong. You have to go too far sometimes to find out that it is too far.
You are NOT going to leave us hanging, right?
It suggests that someone eating high-carb can't burn body fat
Then how people lose weight on high-diets?
it suggests that someone eating low-carb will mostly burn body fat?
Then how people on low-carb gain weight?
It's not a matter of carbs vs fat but of calories
If we don't eat enough external calories we burn our body fat whether we're on a high or low carb diet.
The body of someone eating low-carb has no reason on earth to burn its own body fat if there's dietary fat to burn first. And the body of someone eating high-carb has no reason on earth to avoid burning its own body fat if there isn't enough dietary carbohydrates to burn first.
This idea that if you eat carbs and your body takes energy from glucose then your body won't burn body fat when needed is ridicolous, people couldn't lose weight if that were true. You can eat very high carb, fuel activity with glucose and still would easily and quicky burn body fat when needed.
Also it's not very scientific to claim that he has 30.000 calorie to burn.
That would imply that the body can burn all its fat if needed. But if you reach 5% body fat the body stops burning fat at the expense of muscles and organs. The body will never use all its fat stores.
There are a heap of full-text Volek, Phinney, Feinman et al. papers on this site http://www.nmsociety.org/low-carb-research.html
Why doesn't somebody read them some time so we can have a proper discussion?
However, I don't think they shine much light on the athletics disputes. They are mostly about REAL medicine.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/111/4/1201.full
A feature of the loss of MF seen in metabolic syndrome is "a shift towards glucose as a substrate". It doesn't seem to work the other way.
Maybe it is nonsense to talk of being fat adapted (maybe, maybe not)- but it is definitely not nonsense to talk of losing the ability to burn fat.
"And the body of someone eating high-carb has no reason on earth to avoid burning its own body fat if there isn't enough dietary carbohydrates to burn first."
Unless your blood sugar drops and you get weak, sick and hungry and eat more carbs. That's a good enough reason for lots of bodies.
See the difference? Here's one that goes farther back: "Effects of a low-energy diet associated with egg supplementation on plasma cholesterol and lipoprotein levels in normal subjects: results of a cross-over study." 1986 PMID: 3676232
If you want to be in the Taubes camp and say that calories aren't crucial, then c'est la vie.
Evelyn, I never delved much into waxy maize (but you apparently can just alternately take corn starch for a tiny fraction of the cost). It's IMO just another shiny something to come down the pike and garner dollars from the gullible for a while - another distinction without a difference. *If* it matters at all it does solely for those wishing to get from 7% BF to 6% BF.
They are now selling amino acid transdermal patches, for goodness sake - because the digestion "damages" the AAs. It's reminiscent of homeopathy.
People have been eating higher carb than LC diets for centuries without never losing the ability to lose weight on demand just by eating less and allowing the body to burn its fat instead. There are high-carb eating tribal populations who still rely on fattening during food abundance and then losing the excess weight during the cold climate months, eating less, switching easily from one fuel to another.
Feeding a high-carb diet in this context is tending to support that change, feeding a lower carb diet (or perhaps feeding as many carbs, but less often) ought to work against it.
More people lose weight with higher carb diets because more dieters are told that's the only way. Pretty much the same proportion of people will lose weight on any diet - not that many. But those who do lose weight on VLC will on average lose a little more than these others.
Metabolic syndrome isn't all about obesity. You can regain more metabolic flexibility without losing weight on a low-carb diet, by burning the fat you're eating. Improving the metabolic syndrome is probably a lot easier than losing lots of extra weight and maintaining the loss.
Adaptation to ketogenic dieting can be seen as the opposite extreme of metabolic inflexibility from metabolic syndrome.
This is why it's therapeutic, at least in the controlled way that Atkins used it.
... interestingly when I checked out the UCAN energy drink touted by Volek in that video, and went to the website, lo and behold whose name is there? Why that's him to the left of Volek. http://www.generationucan.com/experts.html
I'm not really into this particular area at the moment, but that's not why I wrote this. I know many are, but many of the folks jumping on this bandwagon seem to have even less of an interest in sports/performance and all of that than I do -- it is for weight loss.
Somehow avoiding puking after running 20 miles is not on the top of my list of reasons to eat a certain -- very unnatural to me -- way. :D
I then started more of a PH diet when Jaminet came on the scene, fasting to 1pm, adding safe starches, but continuing the butter, cheese, cream etc. I was never one of those people who needed to eat anyway, so fasting was fairly easy for me. I kept thinking of the guy on the PHD blog who lost a lot of weight eating just dinner with steak, potato loaded with butter and salad with blue cheese dressing. This is the way I love to eat, I thought. Well, the BS readings were getting higher and higher. Its because I don't exercise, I thought, but just couldn't bring myself to do it for lack of motivation. I also attributed the BS readings to an occasional treat such as ice cream (the recommended treat if you were going to have one).
Then, a strange thing happened... I stopped putting cream in my coffee, and I felt I no longer was craving fatty food and protein. I was craving oatmeal, fruit, and much lighter foods. So I ate oatmeal for breakfast one day with a tiny bit of brown sugar. I felt woozy and thought... now you've done it... the BS probably soared over 300. An hour later I got a BS reading of 95. For lunch I had a breaded chicken breast over a light salad with lemon juice, vinegar and olive oil. Two hours later, a BS reading of 85! Shocking!!!
I started to research how fat affected BS and found that when we eat fat, it causes triglycerides to rise in the blood. This causes the liver to become resistant to insulin and in turn churns out more and more glucose. The more fat you consume, the more insulin resistant the liver becomes, and the more glucose it produces. And guess what... saturated fat causes the most insulin resistance. And this scenario impairs energy expenditure, which of course would have some impact on the performance of a LC athlete.
Many of these LC gurus are young men or men without weight issues. I chuckle to think of those like Taubes who refer to overweight menopausal women as just being doomed and destined to be fat because the damage was already done. It is now hardwired in our being.
Forgive me if my post triggers a 'duh' response from many of you. I don't understand much of the very sophisticated science talked about here. I can only speak of my experience and struggle which seems similar to yours Evelyn. I think we are the same age as well.
I have decided to eat as I have in my past when I was at my healthiest. Its what I crave now anyway... lower fat and lighter foods. PS, after about a week of cutting out most saturated fat, eating carbs and sticking to much lighter fare, I have no cravings, have normal BS and lost 6 lbs already.
Thanks Evelyn for the incredible time you donate to cut through the BS and find the truth. I think you are amazing. I wish I found you years ago.
... and now I see on Seebohar's blog under "Stuff I Like":
"Generation UCAN
The future of sport nutrition that provides optimal blood sugar control."
"It doesn't matter the age, athlete, or sport. Using SuperStarch to stabilize blood sugar and teach your body to burn more fat is the real deal for any athletic and health-conscious individual."
~Bob Seebohar, MS, RD, CSSD, CSCS, 2008 U.S. Olympic Triathlon Team Dietitian
Their main on-mountain food - "tsampa" - basically a mix of wheat or barley flour and yak butter. They eat just twice a day.
Their main drink - yak butter tea, (Nepal's national drink) and lots of it.
Think he is taking in more fat calories than carbs?
He looks pretty good for 21 summits and 51 years - maybe the fat, cold and exercise have something to do with it?
'Exercise induces autophagy in peripheral tissues and in the brain'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22892563
Hmmm ... I've not been keen on cutting cream in my coffee, but perhaps it's time to reconsider that.
Maybe there is a Bad Ass factor that I'm failing to consider, normal people want to be fat adapted because it makes them more of a Bad Ass, like with bicep tattoos and Harley Davidsons.
Or maybe they are just trying to figure out a way to avoid MM.
click
or to ensure work safety copy and paste
http://www.mh.co.za/nutrition/healthy-eating-tips/the-tim-noakes-dietor
from the descriptions (so it all depends on the reporter's spin) it's another "this worked for me so everybody should do it"
click another
work safe:
http://www.health24.com/fitness/Diet_Supplements/16-481-512,73175.asp
and for Noakes it's all about teh 3vIl INSULINz:
from that last page: "But instead, in my case, under the action of insulin most of the carbohydrate that I ingest is directed into my fat cells where it contributes to progressive weight gain, continual hunger, lethargy and, in time, pancreatic"
Over a year ago, Noakes was in bad shape ... After a month, his sleep apnoea disappeared. The other afflictions followed. His headaches vanished ... meat and fish. “I think fish should be the primary drive. I’ll eat pilchards and tinned fish for lunch.” He eats eggs, nuts.
C'mon Tim, get with the program ... you'll overdose on Zn soon, and be Mg & Mn deficient
more hits:
https://www.google.ca/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=noakes+%22low+carbohydrate+diet%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&redir_esc=&ei=8cqnUKbvNMWqywHfgIHICg or click
Reads like Noakes is simply recommending what worked for him, not spinning any sciencey scientificating guess-ticulations about it.
hooray for breaking a lifetime of dietary habits
boo for falling for the simplistic non-explanation
wrong ... I typed that up before I read that insulin blurb above then forgot to delete it.
How did introducing skim milk go for you?
I was NOT lactose intolerant at age 30.
I have had next to no milk except the occasional ice cream for a long long time.
I recently tried some skim milk ... the experience was quite explosive.
is that the right age frame to develop lactose intolerance ... OK at 30, intolerant @ 45?
any of you find a trick to re-introducing milk (preferably skim) ... maybe going very slowly?
If I am now intolerant I don't want to fiddle with lactase pills the rest of my life, not having skim milk ever again is fine
And I'm with you on never having skim milk again. blech.
Remember when Kruse talked about eating very low carb and cold exposure, because animals are supposed to hybernate all winter? And I thought... right... and they get very fat so they don't have to eat for 6 months. And the other gurus talked about cavemen preferring the fat of an animal... probably because it metabolized differently and allowed them to go much longer without food. Maybe insulin resistance is by design to help humans hang on to their fat to survive famine. My body finally realizes there is no famine in my future and hopefully no hibernation either.
The amount of work that's gone into name recognition won't be allowed to go down the drain
Somebody will buy the trademark and the recipe.
Sounded more to me about private equity (Attia's buddies) trying to get rid of the unions than anything else. Just be sure the ones you buy next year don't contain any Chinese baby food.
My distaste for taking pills over-rides the taste and chewiness though ...
More like a lot. We convert 80% of our energy intake into heat. If you live in a very cold climate (without central heating) you use far more energy and have pretty much zero chance of obesity.
Very, very few mammals hibernate. The vast majority of mammals (including humans) live in tropical or subtropical climates.
Humans evolved in the tropics and have not evolved to hibernate.
That link you gave says this
'Specifically, natural saturated fats, omega-3 fatty acids, and medium chain triglycerides are extremely dense energy sources that produce very little damaging byproducts from their metabolic use for energy – compared to burning blood glucose for fuel, which can cause a significant amount of free radical damage...'
Is this crap or what? Please feel free to scientificate about it.
Not sure what you mean about Attia - you are not saying he was personally involved in this, or were you making a general comment about private equity and unions? I think both sides were at fault here. The issues are quite serious - 18 thou out of work. Not good. Their job prospects are bleak in "the new normal" economy.
As you say the results of drinking milk or eating ice cream are quite impressive.
I think I did get your point, If someone tried to take away the Indian sweets I grew up with, or baklava I would be pretty sad too.
>As an adult I avoided them out of snobbism.
wow ... we're total opposites. I often do stuff my social circle frowns upon to shock them and to prove I'm not a snob. Stupid reason to do stuff (especially stupid if it's risky), but there it is.
So that exercise is already a fat-burning process; and in its absence the body prefers glucose for more functions.
But why?
You will just have to come to canada for your Twinkie fix. The Canadian dairy company Saputo has the rights to Twinkies in Canada, and has no plans to stop making them!
Inuit who return to traditional fare (with central heating) lose weight and improve health.
As for those who don't live with central heat, well, that's a good question - but one I don't personally want to experience!
Here's the way I see this going down. Chronic energy surplus, cells and mitochondria eventually fill up with too many lipids so the cells refuse glucose delivery (because they can), but glucose is always high so oxidation of the fats is always depressed. Reverse the energy surplus and you're back in business.
I think the reason exercise is effective is that we likely burn local stores of fatty acids that are then replenished by adipose/dietary NEFA.
I think VLC diets are effective for the very overweight and/or sedentary because they mimic a healthy metabolism and spontaneously reverse the chronic surplus. Until they stop working ...
"BTW didn't mean to imply that cutting cream out caused me to not crave fats anymore. I think it was a coincidence that i had been craving lighter foods recently."
Thanks for the clarification. Hard to believe that there was enough fat in a few cups of coffee with cream to substantially alter your hunger (and blood sugar?) in the way you described.
That's to say, if they were made of almond flour, pastured eggs, and the lipid-replete mammary secretions of grazing coconuts, they would be not only benign--but positively fat-burning and life-giving beyond all description.
Did you mean "poor carb-loaders"? I am confused.
Keep up the good writing.
Here is my website easy diets that work
Look into my website; diets that work
women think. Also, many thanks for allowing me to comment!
my site ... top male enhancements
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..