Skim Milk

[SwoleT]

Will drinking 3 servings of skim milk really help you loose weight. I'm cutting right now. But i freaking love milk. But its got 13 carbs per serving. What do I do?

 

[T-Bone]

Will drinking 3 servings of skim milk really help you loose weight. I'm cutting right now. But i freaking love milk. But its got 13 carbs per serving. What do I do?

Try the Hood Carb Countdown. I don't trust the "low-carb" **** anymore after reading bobos post with the article about those products. The Hood Carb Countdown counts the sugars though and doesn't have the sugar alcohols. Its the only "low-carb" product I will ever use!.

 

[Brodus]

I drink a shitload of skim milk and have had no problem when cutting or bulking. I guess it all depends on how low you're trying to go. I'm comfortable at 8-10%. If you're competing, you're going to go lower. If you're not using diuretics or DHT-precursors, and you're a top competitor, then you'll need to worry about the carbs. Otherwise, I can't think of a better fat-free, drinkable, and CHEAP protein source.

 

[SwoleT]

well id like to see abs without flexing... Should I just eliminate it all together, or limit myself to a cup a day. So does anyone know if that whole thing about drinking skim milk will cause u to loose weight. i remember seeing comercials about it a few months ago...

 

[Brodus]

My personal view contrasts with a lot of the carb-craziness, and not only do I believe it's possible to "see abs" while drinking all the skim milk you want, I've done it on whole milk. If you incorporate HIIT, i.e. sprints, into your cardio, you will rip up quickly. Fact is, in order to do much cardio, you need a LOT of complex carbs. How many sprinters have you known in your life? They all have "abs," and generally eat whatever they feel like. I think the only times to be an ultra carb nazi are either if you're trying to go sub-7% without drugs or if you're quite obese (over 25% bf) and you need to drop weight quickly for health reasons. Otherwise, virutally every true athlete relies on LOTS of complex carb sources to a large degree.

And at the end of the day, it's a high FAT diet the makes you FAT--gram for gram FAT is over twice as calorie dense, and is not easily turned into energy unless you're in a state of ketosis. Plus, the satiety index for a lot of carb foods is very high, meaning you feel full on less food. All of the fancy calculations don't really mean ****, b/c at the end of the day you're a contained biological system, and if you take in less calories than your basal metabolic rate, you lose weight...take in more, you gain weight.

More focus should be on training thses days-->I mean, how many construction workers do you know who are ripped and strong as hell and don't follow any sort of structured diet...same goes for farmers. I think proper training and proper rest are much more important than skim milk vs. extremely overpriced "low-carb" milk debates.

BTW, to anyone who wants to throw so-called "pro diets" in my face, these only work when you're on pro drugs.

 

[T-Bone]

Sledges new product will help.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

My personal view contrasts with a lot of the carb-craziness, and not only do I believe it's possible to "see abs" while drinking all the skim milk you want, I've done it on whole milk. If you incorporate HIIT, i.e. sprints, into your cardio, you will rip up quickly. Fact is, in order to do much cardio, you need a LOT of complex carbs. How many sprinters have you known in your life? They all have "abs," and generally eat whatever they feel like. I think the only times to be an ultra carb nazi are either if you're trying to go sub-7% without drugs or if you're quite obese (over 25% bf) and you need to drop weight quickly for health reasons. Otherwise, virutally every true athlete relies on LOTS of complex carb sources to a large degree.

And at the end of the day, it's a high FAT diet the makes you FAT--gram for gram FAT is over twice as calorie dense, and is not easily turned into energy unless you're in a state of ketosis. Plus, the satiety index for a lot of carb foods is very high, meaning you feel full on less food. All of the fancy calculations don't really mean ****, b/c at the end of the day you're a contained biological system, and if you take in less calories than your basal metabolic rate, you lose weight...take in more, you gain weight.

More focus should be on training thses days-->I mean, how many construction workers do you know who are ripped and strong as hell and don't follow any sort of structured diet...same goes for farmers. I think proper training and proper rest are much more important than skim milk vs. extremely overpriced "low-carb" milk debates.

BTW, to anyone who wants to throw so-called "pro diets" in my face, these only work when you're on pro drugs.

The drugs don't work withouth the diet in place and their diets are more carb based than people think. They only cut carbs extremely low a week to 2 weeks pre contest. They bascially taper everything down gradually fomr the point they start to the point they end.

I use PLENTY of skim milk when cutting.

 

[NPursuit]

I always cut dairy out of my cutting diets in the past When Bobo put me back on skim milk I still lost more fat and got leaner than I ever have been, so I say if you like skim milk, go for it.

 

[Greenguy]

I use the !% milk. it has what I think is a reasonable mix of carbs, protein and fat.

 

[Brodus]

Agreed with all of the last posts. Ever since skim milk has been a staple of my diet, good things have happened.

 

[Chunky]

Brodus,

I dont think high fat diet is making you fat. Carbs only functions in the body is to resplenish glycogen store, and when these are full, they are store (fat). However, fat have other functions in the body, so they dont turn as fat as easily as carbs, or do they ?

Also, testoterone is a fat soluble hormone, so why eating more carbs than fat ? I change my diet at about 30% fat and I think it is doing a good job.

What do you think?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Brodus,

I dont think high fat diet is making you fat. Carbs only functions in the body is to resplenish glycogen store, and when these are full, they are store (fat). However, fat have other functions in the body, so they dont turn as fat as easily as carbs, or do they ?

Also, testoterone is a fat soluble hormone, so why eating more carbs than fat ? I change my diet at about 30% fat and I think it is doing a good job.

What do you think?

Fats will get stored easier as body fat than any other nutrient because the stpes required to do so is less than any other nutrient.

Testosterone is derived from cholesterol which has nothing to do with cholesterol in food or dietary fat.

 

[Brodus]

Thank you, Bobo.

Fat did not make me fat, Chunky, b/c I'm not fat and I never have been. I'm at my highest BF ever, and that's 14%. I've been as low as 5% naturally (although I was a track runner then, and had big wheels, but not much up top).

You need to go re-read your human physiology, and then your biochem. Not only does dietary fat become fat easier, but it is over twice as calorie dense.

You also should read some longitudinal studies of the American diet and the fat epidemic; all things equal, the biggest predictor of long-term "fatness" is not who eats the most potatoes, but who eats the most butter, etc.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Actually its both at the glycemic load is increased drastically when high GI carbs and high fat intake is combined (ie, pizza, french fries). Fat intake has been relatively the same, but the amount of saturated fats w/ processed carbs has increased drastically. The results is that the excess fats most likley get stored to where before blood glucose levles are more controlled, fats were much healthy and easier to use for energy, and you have a less change of fat storage. There are many factors but its most likley due to the overconsumption of both in the wrong forms and wrong amounts w/ an increase in a sendentary lifestyle (everyone works at a computer deks these days)

 

[IHateGymMorons]

Fat is the preffered fuel source for the body about 90% of your day. The preferred source of fuel for your heart is saturated fat! More Americans get fat because the high quanitity and low quality of carbs they are eating. I just read a study (forget where) that pointed out how Americans are consuming less fat than they did 50 years ago, but we're still getting fatter. Fats are only stored "easily" in the presence of high GI carbs or too many carbs. When on Food Pyramid type diets and your glycogen levels are already maxed out, sugary high GI foods will get stored easier than fat, because they've got no use when your sitting down at your desk or in front of the TV. It doesn't take long at all for extra carbs/glucose to quit floating around in convert to fat. All this could happen at a caloric level thats equal to your maintenance. This is precisely why people lose more fat on lower carb/higher fat diets of the same caloric level.
Brodus - sound like your a believer in the old myth of all calories= all calories, or a calorie is a calorie. Thats a terribly oversimplified view. Also, there's nothing in skim milk that's especially good at promoting satiety, so that argument is no good when it comes to skim milk. Also HIGH fat diets don't make you fat, I'm not an Atkins follower, but if anything he proved that high fat diets are not the cause of obesity. Again, way oversimplified view.
BTW, the calcium in milk/dairy is what promotes fat loss. Without the intake of dairy, it's VERY hard to get optimal levels of calcium. You can do it, but I don't know anyone who eats that many vegetables. I will say, that I believe the RDA overestimates that amount of calcium needed in their attempt to promote dairy products - the milk industry is very happy about that I'm sure.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Fat is not the preferred fuel soruce of the body 90% of the day. I don't know where you got that from. At most its 60% during time of rest. Glucose and glycogen provide the rest of the energy needed for muscles and other tissues.

Show me the study because I have about 10 that state otherwise. Fats are stored easily because of their checmical strucuture and the amount of energry it takes to store them. OTOH carbs and protein need to broken down in to multiple components (mono, di and polysaccharides) and (tri, dipeptides, etc..) before they are stored. Both have to broken down the rearrnaged to form triglycerides. Fats do not. Both of them have a higher thermic value than fat and fat has least satiety properties of all of them. Whatever the case may be, when you are above maintenance fats are sotred MUCH more rapidly than carbs. Carbs oxidize at almost a rate of 5x than of fats.

People lose more fat intially on those diets but quickly stall out once a normal bf% is achieved. The lack of carbs in times of low bf% decreases leptin, decreases cAMP and overall thyroid output over time.

Atkins said the problem with high fat diets are the inclusion of carbs WITH high fat. This is because the physiological effect of decreased cAMP and increases in LPL due to insulin load. Guess what gets converted then when you have both present? Dietary fat.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

It doesn't take long at all for extra carbs/glucose to quit floating around in convert to fat.

Actually it does take a good amount of time compared to lipids.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

"Fat is not the preferred fuel soruce of the body 90% of the day. I don't know where you got that from. At most its 60% during time of rest. Glucose and glycogen provide the rest of the energy needed for muscles and other tissues."
I actually did overestimate this. I'm especially talking about your average person, not the kind of guys that might be reading this. Most activites throughout a given day don't require glycogen.

"Show me the study because I have about 10 that state otherwise."
Study about what, not sure what this refers to.

"Fats are stored easily because of their checmical strucuture and the amount of energry it takes to store them. OTOH carbs and protein need to broken down in to multiple components (mono, di and polysaccharides) and (tri, dipeptides, etc..) before they are stored. Both have to broken down the rearrnaged to form triglycerides."
No argument here. That's right on.

"Both of them have a higher thermic value than fat"
True, although some carbs don't have much thermic value compared to others. These are the one's commonly eaten by your average person.

"fat has least satiety properties of all of them"
I would have to disagree here. Low fat/ high carb diets fail in the satiety dept. because they lack fat. Fat slows absorption of nutrients and can make one feel full longer. Not that I'm interested in that, I like to eat 2-3hrs.

"when you are above maintenance fats are sotred MUCH more rapidly than carbs."
True, but my point was that high fat diets don't make you fat. Fats are easily stored in the presence of carbs. This is why P+C and P+F meals are a good strategy sometimes. Any diet above maintenance causes fat accumlation to a degree.

"Atkins said the problem with high fat diets are the inclusion of carbs WITH high fat. This is because the physiological effect of decreased cAMP and increases in LPL due to insulin load. Guess what gets converted then when you have both present? Dietary fat."
True, can't argue here, dietary fat is the FIRST to be converted. Not the only, but the first. Fats present in a high carb can even accentuate the insulin release. Another problem with foods like pizza and fries. This is the case where the facts go against Barry Sears and the Zone, because he said fat would stabilize insulin. It does but not in every case. I know I have some studies somewhere around here to back that up. I have to go get a haircut right now.
I really love discussing this stuff. It helps me study for school (Exercise Physiology) and keeps me on my toes and learning always. I admire your knowledge BOBO.

 

[MaDmaN]

After reading this stuff,I feel i just took a stupid pill...but it is great reading. Its so cool to have difference of opinion and still be respectful at the same time...continue

 

[Dwight Schrute]

"Fat is not the preferred fuel soruce of the body 90% of the day. I don't know where you got that from. At most its 60% during time of rest. Glucose and glycogen provide the rest of the energy needed for muscles and other tissues."
I actually did overestimate this. I'm especially talking about your average person, not the kind of guys that might be reading this. Most activites throughout a given day don't require glycogen.

"Show me the study because I have about 10 that state otherwise."
Study about what, not sure what this refers to.

"Fats are stored easily because of their checmical strucuture and the amount of energry it takes to store them. OTOH carbs and protein need to broken down in to multiple components (mono, di and polysaccharides) and (tri, dipeptides, etc..) before they are stored. Both have to broken down the rearrnaged to form triglycerides."
No argument here. That's right on.

"Both of them have a higher thermic value than fat"
True, although some carbs don't have much thermic value compared to others. These are the one's commonly eaten by your average person.

"fat has least satiety properties of all of them"
I would have to disagree here. Low fat/ high carb diets fail in the satiety dept. because they lack fat. Fat slows absorption of nutrients and can make one feel full longer. Not that I'm interested in that, I like to eat 2-3hrs.

"when you are above maintenance fats are sotred MUCH more rapidly than carbs."
True, but my point was that high fat diets don't make you fat. Fats are easily stored in the presence of carbs. This is why P+C and P+F meals are a good strategy sometimes. Any diet above maintenance causes fat accumlation to a degree.

"Atkins said the problem with high fat diets are the inclusion of carbs WITH high fat. This is because the physiological effect of decreased cAMP and increases in LPL due to insulin load. Guess what gets converted then when you have both present? Dietary fat."
True, can't argue here, dietary fat is the FIRST to be converted. Not the only, but the first. Fats present in a high carb can even accentuate the insulin release. Another problem with foods like pizza and fries. This is the case where the facts go against Barry Sears and the Zone, because he said fat would stabilize insulin. It does but not in every case. I know I have some studies somewhere around here to back that up. I have to go get a haircut right now.
I really love discussing this stuff. It helps me study for school (Exercise Physiology) and keeps me on my toes and learning always. I admire your knowledge BOBO.

1. Glyocgen and glucose play major parts in brain and general organ metabolism. Even during ketosis ketones are broken down into acetyl COA and eventually into ATP (same way carbs do but different pathways)

2. Studies showing the dietary changes in to past 100 years. Fats generally reamined about the same but sugar consumption rose drastically. So in essence the addition of carbs faciliate the conversion of dietary fat into stored tryglyercides. Lower the fats and this won't be much of a problem especially since they are twice as dense as carbs and carbs have a better chance of being oxidized anyway.

3. Fats in a physical sense (ie fats on steak, red meat) slow digestion but EFA taken in oil form do not slow absortion of nutrients at all. Lipids generally seperate in chyme and float to the top while the majority of other nutrients are absorbed (think oil in water). Eating carbohydrates that are rich in grains provide much more satiety than fats do, especially those rich in fiber.

4. Fats don't really accentuate insulin release moreso than the total AMOUNT of insulin. Even foods that are high in fat and low in carbs cause the body to secrete a decent amont of insulin.

5. Fat will stabikize insulin as far as the release (lowers the GI) but it will increase the total amount released over time. The Insulin Index is a perfect example of this.



"There are some instances, however, where a food has a low glycemic value but a high insulin index value. This applies to dairy foods and to some highly palatable energy-dense "indulgence foods." Some foods (such as meat, fish, and eggs) that contain no carbohydrate, just protein and fat (and essentially have a GI value of zero), still stimulate significant rises in blood insulin."

The New Glucose Revolution (New York: Marlowe and Company, 2003, pages 57-58

 

[IHateGymMorons]

"1. Glyocgen and glucose play major parts in brain and general organ metabolism. Even during ketosis ketones are broken down into acetyl COA and eventually into ATP (same way carbs do but different pathways)"

[/B]agreed, I would also like to point out that though I said the heart uses saturated fatty acids, it also likes to use glucose. Also, dietary carbs are not the only way the body can get glucose directly. There are many indirect paths that the body can obtain glucose; for instance, lactic acid, stored glycogen from liver and muscle cells, triglycerides (glycerol and reverse gylcolysis), and gluconeogenesis.


"#2. Studies showing the dietary changes in to past 100 years. Fats generally reamined about the same but sugar consumption rose drastically. So in essence the addition of carbs faciliate the conversion of dietary fat into stored tryglyercides. Lower the fats and this won't be much of a problem especially since they are twice as dense as carbs and carbs have a better chance of being oxidized anyway."

Lower the fat and it will be less of a problem, primarily because total energy intake goes down. However, this in no way should supports a "low fat diet", rather this supports the idea to lower your calories if you're overeating. Regarding the 100 year trend, , many of the same studies I read also found that the types of fats we eat have become drastically worse. The introduction of trans fats, unbalanced n3:n6 profile greatly contribute to the overall fat problem even though total intake has been about the same overall.

#3. Fats in a physical sense (ie fats on steak, red meat) slow digestion but EFA taken in oil form do not slow absortion of nutrients at all. Lipids generally seperate in chyme and float to the top while the majority of other nutrients are absorbed (think oil in water). Eating carbohydrates that are rich in grains provide much more satiety than fats do, especially those rich in fiber."

Agreed. it's very important to have fiber to promote satiety. Carbs are also satisfying for neurological reasons. The carbs that promote hunger swings and lack satiety are the one's that cause an insulin roller coaster.

"4. Fats don't really accentuate insulin release moreso than the total AMOUNT of insulin. Even foods that are high in fat and low in carbs cause the body to secrete a decent amont of insulin."

I sware I've read a couple studies showing that when certain fats were added to a carb meal, they will illicit a larger insulin response.

"5. Fat will stabikize insulin as far as the release (lowers the GI) but it will increase the total amount released over time. The Insulin Index is a perfect example of this.



"There are some instances, however, where a food has a low glycemic value but a high insulin index value. This applies to dairy foods and to some highly palatable energy-dense "indulgence foods." Some foods (such as meat, fish, and eggs) that contain no carbohydrate, just protein and fat (and essentially have a GI value of zero), still stimulate significant rises in blood insulin."

The New Glucose Revolution (New York: Marlowe and Company, 2003, pages 57-58

True, I firmly believe that the II is more important than the GI. The GI is really not that useful.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

"1. Glyocgen and glucose play major parts in brain and general organ metabolism. Even during ketosis ketones are broken down into acetyl COA and eventually into ATP (same way carbs do but different pathways)"

[/B]agreed, I would also like to point out that though I said the heart uses saturated fatty acids, it also likes to use glucose. Also, dietary carbs are not the only way the body can get glucose directly. There are many indirect paths that the body can obtain glucose; for instance, lactic acid, stored glycogen from liver and muscle cells, triglycerides (glycerol and reverse gylcolysis), and gluconeogenesis.


"#2. Studies showing the dietary changes in to past 100 years. Fats generally reamined about the same but sugar consumption rose drastically. So in essence the addition of carbs faciliate the conversion of dietary fat into stored tryglyercides. Lower the fats and this won't be much of a problem especially since they are twice as dense as carbs and carbs have a better chance of being oxidized anyway."

Lower the fat and it will be less of a problem, primarily because total energy intake goes down. However, this in no way should supports a "low fat diet", rather this supports the idea to lower your calories if you're overeating. Regarding the 100 year trend, , many of the same studies I read also found that the types of fats we eat have become drastically worse. The introduction of trans fats, unbalanced n3:n6 profile greatly contribute to the overall fat problem even though total intake has been about the same overall.

#3. Fats in a physical sense (ie fats on steak, red meat) slow digestion but EFA taken in oil form do not slow absortion of nutrients at all. Lipids generally seperate in chyme and float to the top while the majority of other nutrients are absorbed (think oil in water). Eating carbohydrates that are rich in grains provide much more satiety than fats do, especially those rich in fiber."

Agreed. it's very important to have fiber to promote satiety. Carbs are also satisfying for neurological reasons. The carbs that promote hunger swings and lack satiety are the one's that cause an insulin roller coaster.

"4. Fats don't really accentuate insulin release moreso than the total AMOUNT of insulin. Even foods that are high in fat and low in carbs cause the body to secrete a decent amont of insulin."

I sware I've read a couple studies showing that when certain fats were added to a carb meal, they will illicit a larger insulin response.

"5. Fat will stabikize insulin as far as the release (lowers the GI) but it will increase the total amount released over time. The Insulin Index is a perfect example of this.



"There are some instances, however, where a food has a low glycemic value but a high insulin index value. This applies to dairy foods and to some highly palatable energy-dense "indulgence foods." Some foods (such as meat, fish, and eggs) that contain no carbohydrate, just protein and fat (and essentially have a GI value of zero), still stimulate significant rises in blood insulin."

The New Glucose Revolution (New York: Marlowe and Company, 2003, pages 57-58

True, I firmly believe that the II is more important than the GI. The GI is really not that useful.

1. There are many ways to get glucose but the most effecient and most beneficial is through carboydrate intake. Stored glycogen in muscles and the liver (primary energy source) comes from carbohydrate intake. Only when they are fairly depleted does the rest come into play. Gluconeogenesis increases when total calories intake is lowered and the last thing you want is to deaminate circulting amino acids. How do you avoid that? Increase carb intake (ie protein-sparing action). Fats will also cause this but then it will also increase circulating FFA's which in turn will slow down the release of stored triglycerides. SO the the smartes and best choice is carbohydrates.

2. Total energy intake is reduced when you drop carb intake as well. When you compare the difference on energy metabolism and the oxidation of FFA's, decreasing fat intake has a MUCH better effect overall than decreasing carb intake. Decrease carb intake and increase fat intake and you decrease HSL, cAMP and thyroid output.

3. No, it does not illicit a larger insulin response. Check the GI, that measure the response. The more fat, the lower the GI. OTOH when you measure glycaemic load, the more fat, the higher the II score. You are confusing the two.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

#1 By no means am I encourging that one gets their glucose soley from gluconeogenesis, it's innefficient and carbs do a better job of providing this like you said. However when dieting, sometimes you can't avoid it totally. Also the process of gluconeogenesis is energy costly, which is a good thing if you're dieting for fat loss. It's important to supply enough fats in this case so you don't starve yourself or compromise hormone levels. This is merely a strategy that can be used to prevent muscle breakdown, this is not something everyone should do or worry about. In fact you don't have to worry about it if you're bulking or even maintaining.
Everyone will have to face gluconeogenesis when dieting because it's very hard to diet while having maxed out glycogen stores. Therefore you need to make sure that the adequate amounts (and right kinds) of fats are there to spare protein as much as possible. The body burns fat more efficiently when glycogen stores are lower, it must do so as an act of survival.
Remember, I'm talking about dieting situations only here, but gluconeogenesis can happen without calorie deficit just the same (maybe not as much). Just eating protein alone is enough to spur gluconeogenesis in the following few hours, this is partially the role of glucagon. Gluconeogenesis CAN happen during a carb deficit as well as a calorie deficit. This is exactly why I agree with you about using carbs and/or fats to prevent protein breakdown.

#2 Agreed, you don't have to drop that much fat to get the same calorie drop. However, you can only drop fat so much before you run into other problems that I'm sure you're aware of. This is why dieting is so tricky.

#3 I think you contradicted yourself...I know what you mean and that's also what I meant, but what you wrote doesn't make sense to me yet. You say it doesn't spike insulin any more, but then you say it promotes a higher II score??? Now I really am confused :think: , j/k I know what you're saying.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

#1 By no means am I encourging that one gets their glucose soley from gluconeogenesis, it's innefficient and carbs do a better job of providing this like you said. However when dieting, sometimes you can't avoid it totally. Also the process of gluconeogenesis is energy costly, which is a good thing if you're dieting for fat loss. It's important to supply enough fats in this case so you don't starve yourself or compromise hormone levels. This is merely a strategy that can be used to prevent muscle breakdown, this is not something everyone should do or worry about. In fact you don't have to worry about it if you're bulking or even maintaining.
Everyone will have to face gluconeogenesis when dieting because it's very hard to diet while having maxed out glycogen stores. Therefore you need to make sure that the adequate amounts (and right kinds) of fats are there to spare protein as much as possible. The body burns fat more efficiently when glycogen stores are lower, it must do so as an act of survival.
Remember, I'm talking about dieting situations only here, but gluconeogenesis can happen without calorie deficit just the same (maybe not as much). Just eating protein alone is enough to spur gluconeogenesis in the following few hours, this is partially the role of glucagon. Gluconeogenesis CAN happen during a carb deficit as well as a calorie deficit. This is exactly why I agree with you about using carbs and/or fats to prevent protein breakdown.

#2 Agreed, you don't have to drop that much fat to get the same calorie drop. However, you can only drop fat so much before you run into other problems that I'm sure you're aware of. This is why dieting is so tricky.

#3 I think you contradicted yourself...I know what you mean and that's also what I meant, but what you wrote doesn't make sense to me yet. You say it doesn't spike insulin any more, but then you say it promotes a higher II score??? Now I really am confused :think: , j/k I know what you're saying.

1. Yes it is more energy costly and waht do you think if will use for energy? More amino's. Fat does not breakdown fast enough because of its chemical bonds and the time it takes. The body will deaminate aminos before it ever burns dietary fat. Fat is the LAST resort. Its the first to store and last to burn. If you do increase your fat intake to promote muscle sparing you are inherently slowing fat oxidation to a crawl, ESPECIALLY at low bf%. If you increase your fat intake while in a carb depleted state and are dieting you are increasing the amount of circulating FFA's in your bloodstream. The body will NOT release more until those are removed which takes MUCH longer than oxidizing carbs (up to 9-12 hours for some fats). This is WHY most people stall out on low carb dietes and it is the reason why 90% of clients are with me. Once I fix that problem, they break plateaus. This is simple physiology. THe body wants to maintain energy homeostasis and when you increase the amount of lipids circualting and will compensate by holding on to more triglycerides. It will slow the whole fat burning process down until cAMP is severaly reduced, HSL bottoms out, the conversion of t4 to t3 is highly reduced and fat burning slows to a crawl.

2. Glucagon is insulin's counterpart. Have a slow and steady insulin response (control insulin through smart carbs), you reduce glucagon and reduce muscle wasting (ie, cortisol). Lower carb intake for prolonged peroids of time and you increase glucagon and increase muscle wasting. The list of benefits of keeping carboydrate intake adequate far outweigh increasing fat intake and lowering carb levels.


3. I didn't contradict myself. The GI measure the response (how fast it responds)and fat lowers how fast the response is. The II measure the total amount released (not how fast its released) in which fat increases.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

#1 I know, the very nature of gluconeogenesis is to break down aminos, by deaminiting them. Fat is not apart of this. That's why when dieting you have to keep your protein high.
Regarding the fats, they are in a constant state of breaking down, there are fats right now in your body that are in some stage of breaking down, it's not like they all do it at the same time or running on an on/off switch.
The body can use MCT's if provided to provide energy VERY quickly, quicker than many carbs.
The body will also hold on to dietary fats aggressively they are insufficiently provided through diet. I'm not advocating high fat diets, just what I know from experience, which is very low fat diets don't work and you can only decrease them to a certain degree.

#2 Glucagon is also good at increassing FFA availability, but yes it is a catabolic hormone. The whole insulin/glucagon thing must be delicately balanced and manipulated carefully.
There are many benefits of keeping a certain carbohyrate intake, but you have to be aware of your glucose economy and just accept the fact that maximum glycogen storage will likely be compromised during some stages of dieting.

#3 I see what you mean, I just never said anything about the "speed" of insulin release. I commented on total insulin being higher. So your reply to that confused me because it referred to something I didn't comment on. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

I also agree that low carb diets stall just as quick, or even faster than low fat diets. They aren't optimal for bodybuilders. They will tamper with your insulin response after long term and will also slow your thyroid output. Not good. They are used as a tool, not a lifestyle.

BOBO, what's HSL?

 

[Chunky]

I didnt understand all of this, but since fat are easier to store as fat than other nutrients, why we often hear or read that eating fat and protein at night is a good idea for bodybuilders ? Is that another bodybuilding myth ? Fat slow down digestion of protein so you should eat some protein and good fats before bed, how many I've heard that...

From one side there is people that claims that your body doesnt need energy (carbs) late in the evening and during night, and the last thing you want is released insulin.

But insulin index is a new concept for me, and that bring the other philosophy about eating carbs at night. Since eating fat release more insulin in the long run, and since fat are easier to store, we shouldnt eat fat (btw,Im not saying that we should cut down all fat, I just want to understand a bit more so I can adjust my diet)

 

[Dwight Schrute]

#1 I know, the very nature of gluconeogenesis is to break down aminos, by deaminiting them. Fat is not apart of this. That's why when dieting you have to keep your protein high.
Regarding the fats, they are in a constant state of breaking down, there are fats right now in your body that are in some stage of breaking down, it's not like they all do it at the same time or running on an on/off switch.
The body can use MCT's if provided to provide energy VERY quickly, quicker than many carbs.
The body will also hold on to dietary fats aggressively they are insufficiently provided through diet. I'm not advocating high fat diets, just what I know from experience, which is very low fat diets don't work and you can only decrease them to a certain degree.

#2 Glucagon is also good at increassing FFA availability, but yes it is a catabolic hormone. The whole insulin/glucagon thing must be delicately balanced and manipulated carefully.
There are many benefits of keeping a certain carbohyrate intake, but you have to be aware of your glucose economy and just accept the fact that maximum glycogen storage will likely be compromised during some stages of dieting.

#3 I see what you mean, I just never said anything about the "speed" of insulin release. I commented on total insulin being higher. So your reply to that confused me because it referred to something I didn't comment on. Sorry for the confusion.

1. Of course fat are always being broken down but there is a certain amount within the bloodstream that triggers the body not release stores triglycerides and the more you increase dietary fat, the more you go over this threshhold and the less tryglycerides will be be released.

2. It doesn't have to be balanced. Insulin suppresses glucagon peroid. I don't know what kind of balance you are referring too. Nobody ever said maximum glycgoen is possible...Who said that? The glucose economy? Oh know, its Rob Thoburn again.

3. You said the insulin response is larger. The response is based on the GI, not II.

4. Low fat diets don't work? Are you kidding me? Every competitive BB'er eliminates fat to a point pre contest. I have had my best results on low fat diets (you can see my pic) and I used to preach low carb diets left and right. They work to a point and are not healthy for long term. I have clients right now that have done every CKD and low carb diet in existence and the story is the SAME. They stall. At your age I could eat taco bell and lose weight but when you start hitting the age where you NEED to worry about certain things, a low fat diet will give you much better results in getting to low bf%. You can ask any client of mine that, even the competitors I train. They most certainly work and they work very well.

5. The body will hold on to stored fats (not dietary. that doesn't make sense) in any fasting state whether its from dietary fat or lack of carbs. THe key to this is provide enough nutrients to where you are not in a fasting state. There is a reason pre contest diets that I design taper everything in very small increments.

6. MCT's are broken down faster but it still doesn't eliminate the the increase in circulating FFA's and the metabolic effects the occur after. The body react to an increase in FFA's by decreasing HSL. THis is NOT what you want when dieting. They will have the least amount of effect compared to other fats but you generally want to avoid this as much as possible.

7. Glucagon works by increasing HSL (hormone sensitive lipase) which are enzymes that breakdown stored tryglycerides. Decrease carbs an increase fat intake and HSL will drop. Inother words the glucagon won't help in releasing stored fat.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I also agree that low carb diets stall just as quick, or even faster than low fat diets. They aren't optimal for bodybuilders. They will tamper with your insulin response after long term and will also slow your thyroid output. Not good. They are used as a tool, not a lifestyle.

BOBO, what's HSL?

Thats what I said in the last 5 posts.


Hormone Sensitive Lipase

Its the enzyme within adipose cells that break triglycerides into fatty acids and its glycerol component. Increase fat intake, HSL reduces and LPL (lipoprotein Lipase) increases. This is the enzyme that converts FFA's into sotred triglycerides. Increase insulin along with that and you have serisou storage of fat. Have a steady stable stream with an environment of low FFA's in the blood and you have a good amount of HSL breaking down triglycerides to be released into the bloodstream to be oxidized.

If people don't understand these concepts, they will not know WHY low carb, mod-high fat diets will stall out and become very counterproductive.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I didnt understand all of this, but since fat are easier to store as fat than other nutrients, why we often hear or read that eating fat and protein at night is a good idea for bodybuilders ? Is that another bodybuilding myth ? Fat slow down digestion of protein so you should eat some protein and good fats before bed, how many I've heard that...

From one side there is people that claims that your body doesnt need energy (carbs) late in the evening and during night, and the last thing you want is released insulin.

But insulin index is a new concept for me, and that bring the other philosophy about eating carbs at night. Since eating fat release more insulin in the long run, and since fat are easier to store, we shouldnt eat fat (btw,Im not saying that we should cut down all fat, I just want to understand a bit more so I can adjust my diet)

Fats slow digestion only if attached to a food and its actually a fat (not oil). Oils that are added do NOT slow digestion.

The benefit of seperating fats from carbs is to limit the storage of fats (rise in insulin corresponds to a rise in LPL). When both are present, carbs will most likekly get utilized as fuel while fats are stored.

You should never eliminate any maconutrient but the amount of dietary fat needed is not large at all.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I hope I don't sound grumpy, but I am. These damn hurricanes are driving me nuts.

 

[LakeMountD]

holy hell i am never going three days without looking at a thread ever again! a lot of info to read..


I have a question though. I am confused, too, in a sense the same way Chunky is confused. I have always thought lower carbs at night whether they are low on the II scale or not are not good to eat at night and that fats at night are a better way to go along with some proteins. Is this a bad way to go?

Also, what about things like eggs. I have always used the entire egg to help add calories (when bulking) and to get some added protein during breakfast etc and i would try not to eat too many carbs with them. Should I eliminate using the entire egg and increase egg whites then add in oatmeal instead? This thread has seriously kicked my butt because I was fairly lean and bulking good but I definitely couldn't get to the really low b/f percentages and I eat fairly low carbs, mostly just milk carbs, oatmeal, and multi grain bread, but not high amounts..

 

[IHateGymMorons]

1. Of course fat are always being broken down but there is a certain amount within the bloodstream that triggers the body not release stores triglycerides and the more you increase dietary fat, the more you go over this threshhold and the less tryglycerides will be be released.

2. It doesn't have to be balanced. Insulin suppresses glucagon peroid. I don't know what kind of balance you are referring too. Nobody ever said maximum glycgoen is possible...Who said that? The glucose economy? Oh know, its Rob Thoburn again.

3. You said the insulin response is larger. The response is based on the GI, not II.

4. Low fat diets don't work? Are you kidding me? Every competitive BB'er eliminates fat to a point pre contest. I have had my best results on low fat diets (you can see my pic) and I used to preach low carb diets left and right. They work to a point and are not healthy for long term. I have clients right now that have done every CKD and low carb diet in existence and the story is the SAME. They stall. At your age I could eat taco bell and lose weight but when you start hitting the age where you NEED to worry about certain things, a low fat diet will give you much better results in getting to low bf%. You can ask any client of mine that, even the competitors I train. They most certainly work and they work very well.

5. The body will hold on to stored fats (not dietary. that doesn't make sense) in any fasting state whether its from dietary fat or lack of carbs. THe key to this is provide enough nutrients to where you are not in a fasting state. There is a reason pre contest diets that I design taper everything in very small increments.

6. MCT's are broken down faster but it still doesn't eliminate the the increase in circulating FFA's and the metabolic effects the occur after. The body react to an increase in FFA's by decreasing HSL. THis is NOT what you want when dieting. They will have the least amount of effect compared to other fats but you generally want to avoid this as much as possible.

7. Glucagon works by increasing HSL (hormone sensitive lipase) which are enzymes that breakdown stored tryglycerides. Decrease carbs an increase fat intake and HSL will drop. Inother words the glucagon won't help in releasing stored fat.

#2 By "balance" I don't mean that the two are secreted at equal levels constantly, I mean that sometimes you need insulin and sometimes you rely on glucagon to do it's job. One shouldn't dominate the other all the time. You can't have high insulin all the time. The body doesn't like to burn FFA in the presence of insulin- especially high levels.

Glucose economy, yeah I guess I must've first heard that term from him. Anyways, what it means is that the body's capacity to store glycogen is limited, if you go over, then fat accumulation isn't far behind. I only pointed it out because we're talking about dieting, and if there even is such a thing as "maximum glycogen" levels than you're not going to have them when you diet.

#3 GI is used to predict how fast glucose enters the bloodstream which predicts how fast and how much insulin will rise at a given time...am I wrong? II is based on how much total insulin is released. I'm pretty sure you can agree with this.

#4 Low fat diets compromise optimum hormone levels. They work for a while because of the accompanying calorie drop. Define low for me, I've "heard" of BBer's droping fat to like 20-30g. This is freaking ridiculous. If you can get away with this than you are definitely on some juice. I'm mostly speaking for the guys that go natural.
Define "low fat". Are you talking 60-70g or like 20-30? Maybe your definition of low isn't as low as I might think?...
I'm glad you got ripped on it, though. Lots of people can get ripped on many different diets if you're training is excellent. My theory on diets is that the best one will allow you to train twith the most intensity possible while dropping fat. This is not a low calorie/low fat, CKD or Atkins, I assure you. When your training suffers, so will your body. Find what works for you.

#5 Did I say dietary? If so I meant bodyfat.

#6 True, but I was just making a point in reference to you saying that fat is too slow. It's not evidence to drop out carbs or anything like that.

#7 You're right here, very interesting that the body knows to do this. I love this subject. I'm not arguing that one needs to flood there body with fat, just that you need to give it sufficient amounts, whatever that me be for you. If you're eating so much fat that you hinder HSL and triglycerides are never burned, than you're absolutely right, why have glucagon then?

 

[IHateGymMorons]

holy hell i am never going three days without looking at a thread ever again! a lot of info to read..


I have a question though. I am confused, too, in a sense the same way Chunky is confused. I have always thought lower carbs at night whether they are low on the II scale or not are not good to eat at night and that fats at night are a better way to go along with some proteins. Is this a bad way to go?

Also, what about things like eggs. I have always used the entire egg to help add calories (when bulking) and to get some added protein during breakfast etc and i would try not to eat too many carbs with them. Should I eliminate using the entire egg and increase egg whites then add in oatmeal instead? This thread has seriously kicked my butt because I was fairly lean and bulking good but I definitely couldn't get to the really low b/f percentages and I eat fairly low carbs, mostly just milk carbs, oatmeal, and multi grain bread, but not high amounts..

None of this has been evidence supporting the intake of carbs for sleep. Stick with some protein and fat. The fat may not blunt the small amount of insulin that's released from your Cottage Cheese or what have you, but it will provide a fuel and help spared the protein. You will not burn carbs during sleep.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

Thats what I said in the last 5 posts.


Hormone Sensitive Lipase

Its the enzyme within adipose cells that break triglycerides into fatty acids and its glycerol component. Increase fat intake, HSL reduces and LPL (lipoprotein Lipase) increases. This is the enzyme that converts FFA's into sotred triglycerides. Increase insulin along with that and you have serisou storage of fat. Have a steady stable stream with an environment of low FFA's in the blood and you have a good amount of HSL breaking down triglycerides to be released into the bloodstream to be oxidized.

If people don't understand these concepts, they will not know WHY low carb, mod-high fat diets will stall out and become very counterproductive.

I'm not sure the above is evidence why low carb diets fail, but nevertheless you're right. During low carb, it's a fact that more fat is burned. The body adapts to low carb diets (to a degree) and will burn more fat than it would in the presence of significant carb intake. The HSL argument mostly applies to when you are eating carbs. Low carb diets fail for other reasons than blunted HSL.

You can try and reduce HSL all day long, but if you're in a caloric deficit, you'll still lose fat. Once again just in case anyone thinks I'm some Atkins freak and I'm promoting no carb diets, I'm not. I assure you. This has been a great thread. Skim milk, was it? Ha ha.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

#2 By "balance" I don't mean that the two are secreted at equal levels constantly, I mean that sometimes you need insulin and sometimes you rely on glucagon to do it's job. One shouldn't dominate the other all the time. You can't have high insulin all the time. The body doesn't like to burn FFA in the presence of insulin- especially high levels.

Glucose economy, yeah I guess I must've first heard that term from him. Anyways, what it means is that the body's capacity to store glycogen is limited, if you go over, then fat accumulation isn't far behind. I only pointed it out because we're talking about dieting, and if there even is such a thing as "maximum glycogen" levels than you're not going to have them when you diet.

#3 GI is used to predict how fast glucose enters the bloodstream which predicts how fast and how much insulin will rise at a given time...am I wrong? II is based on how much total insulin is released. I'm pretty sure you can agree with this.

#4 Low fat diets compromise optimum hormone levels. They work for a while because of the accompanying calorie drop. Define low for me, I've "heard" of BBer's droping fat to like 20-30g. This is freaking ridiculous. If you can get away with this than you are definitely on some juice. I'm mostly speaking for the guys that go natural.
Define "low fat". Are you talking 60-70g or like 20-30? Maybe your definition of low isn't as low as I might think?...
I'm glad you got ripped on it, though. Lots of people can get ripped on many different diets if you're training is excellent. My theory on diets is that the best one will allow you to train twith the most intensity possible while dropping fat. This is not a low calorie/low fat, CKD or Atkins, I assure you. When your training suffers, so will your body. Find what works for you.

#5 Did I say dietary? If so I meant bodyfat.

#6 True, but I was just making a point in reference to you saying that fat is too slow. It's not evidence to drop out carbs or anything like that.

#7 You're right here, very interesting that the body knows to do this. I love this subject. I'm not arguing that one needs to flood there body with fat, just that you need to give it sufficient amounts, whatever that me be for you. If you're eating so much fat that you hinder HSL and triglycerides are never burned, than you're absolutely right, why have glucagon then?

1. I don't think you understand these concpets. You are not making sense with your statements on glucagon and/or insulin. One almost always dominates over the other. They both are secreted by the pancreas and both are never present in large amounts together. They do 2 completely different things and they are at the oppsite end of the spectrum. This is basic.

2. The glucose economy supports carbohydrate usage, not fat. Read the New Glucose Revolution.

3. GI value tells you only how fast a carbohydrate converts into glucose. The faster this happens, the faster the insulin response.

4. Low fat diets do NOT compromise hormone levels, low carb diets do. This is a PROVEN FACT. Check any study on leptin, HSL, cAMP, LPL, T4, T3 and thyroid output. ALL support a low fat higher carb diet because they keep glycogen stores fuller and in turn help signal the fed state which produced favorable hormone levels for all of the above. Low carb diet compromises all of those MUCH faster. I don't know where you are getting your facts from but they are wrong. I'm glad I got ripped on it too and I'm glad the competitors I traing do to. Ask any competitor and he will tell you the same. Ask any pro and he will tell you the same. I already have an work with competitors already and also coverse with some pro's that train in my local gym. These are tried and true concepts and if I told them to drop carbs for a prolonged peroid of time they would laugh.

5. Your theory on diet is highly flawed with innacurate statements. They simply are not true and any Advanced Nutrition class on the college or graduate level, especially those that cover energy metabolism, will show you this.

6. Yes you said dietary.

7. It is evidence, you just don't seem to want to except the reason why even they are backed by science. You are completely ignoring the basic concepts of energy metabolism.

8. THe problem is the sufficient amounts are very small. All you have to do is search on the amount of 3,6,9's you need and you will realize it is VERY small compared to what is recommended on these boards. 1 Tablspoon of Flax has more than enough EPA and DHA than most people will ever needn in one day.

9. ANY dietary fat hinders HSL AND cAMP. These are basci physiological facts that are in your text.

10. Why have glucagon? You dont want to! Glucagon's main role is faciliate the breakdown of glyocgen into glucose. What happens when glycogen storage is already low? Muscle wasting. Come on man, this is basic stuff.


I enjoy these converstations too but you really need to check what you're typing here. You are going against basic physiological facts which do not change for anyone. If you don't understand these concepts then you will not understand WHY you are wrong on several things. I am not ripping on you or anything but I am encouraging you to look this stuff up. If you want some suggestions for texts I would more than happy give you some as I have several here that are GREAT reads. They cover this (which is really basic) and go into much more detail to the point that I have trouble understanding what they are saying.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I'm not sure the above is evidence why low carb diets fail, but nevertheless you're right. During low carb, it's a fact that more fat is burned. The body adapts to low carb diets (to a degree) and will burn more fat than it would in the presence of significant carb intake. The HSL argument mostly applies to when you are eating carbs. Low carb diets fail for other reasons than blunted HSL.

You can try and reduce HSL all day long, but if you're in a caloric deficit, you'll still lose fat. Once again just in case anyone thinks I'm some Atkins freak and I'm promoting no carb diets, I'm not. I assure you. This has been a great thread. Skim milk, was it? Ha ha.

See this is what I'm talking about. You are not even comprehending what is being said. This is the main reason WHY they fail because leptin drops, cAMP drops and HSL is therefore decreased drastically. You will NOT release fat withouth adequate enzymes to faciliate their breakdown. This is caused be prolonged glyocogen depletion. What happens after that? The fed state slowly turns into the starved state and fat loss will stop no matter how many calories you drop. Please refer to leptin as to the reason why.

It is NOT a fact that during a low car diet more fat is burned. I don't know where you are getting these so called "facts" from but they are completely wrong. Even the Duke study that backed this point was shown to be highly innacurate. It was showed that the release of fat greater but the oxidation rate was not. So guess what happens when they are not oxidized? They are converted right back into triglycerides.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

None of this has been evidence supporting the intake of carbs for sleep. Stick with some protein and fat. The fat may not blunt the small amount of insulin that's released from your Cottage Cheese or what have you, but it will provide a fuel and help spared the protein. You will not burn carbs during sleep.

So you won't burn carbs during sleep yet you will burn dietary fat? Carbs oxidize at a rate 5x that of fats. Please check the thermic values. Fat is the lowest, protein is the highest. IOW, there is no carb fairy.

Bro, this is BASIC nutrition.

Please pick this book up if you really want to know. I don't know if you glycogen depleted right now but your are getting basic nutritional concepts wrong. I'm telling you if you read this book, you will tahnk me a million times over. Its a GREAT read.

Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism
by James L. Groff

 

[Dwight Schrute]

GODAMN HURRICANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:frustrate :frustrate :frustrate :frustrate


:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

:rasp: :rasp: :rasp:

 

[5111]

Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism
by James L. Groff

Can you believe that I was actually dumb enough to look up this book for reading? It cost $140!!!

I guess I will just keep reading the board

 

[NPursuit]

Can you believe that I was actually dumb enough to look up this book for reading? It cost $140!!!

I guess I will just keep reading the board

$65 on Amazon.

 

[cr4ytonic]

Fats slow digestion only if attached to a food and its actually a fat (not oil). Oils that are added do NOT slow digestion.

So flax seed oil does not slow digestion if you put it in a shake? Sucks.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

1. I don't think you understand these concpets. You are not making sense with your statements on glucagon and/or insulin. One almost always dominates over the other. They both are secreted by the pancreas and both are never present in large amounts together. They do 2 completely different things and they are at the oppsite end of the spectrum. This is basic.

2. The glucose economy supports carbohydrate usage, not fat. Read the New Glucose Revolution.

3. GI value tells you only how fast a carbohydrate converts into glucose. The faster this happens, the faster the insulin response.

4. Low fat diets do NOT compromise hormone levels, low carb diets do. This is a PROVEN FACT. Check any study on leptin, HSL, cAMP, LPL, T4, T3 and thyroid output. ALL support a low fat higher carb diet because they keep glycogen stores fuller and in turn help signal the fed state which produced favorable hormone levels for all of the above. Low carb diet compromises all of those MUCH faster. I don't know where you are getting your facts from but they are wrong. I'm glad I got ripped on it too and I'm glad the competitors I traing do to. Ask any competitor and he will tell you the same. Ask any pro and he will tell you the same. I already have an work with competitors already and also coverse with some pro's that train in my local gym. These are tried and true concepts and if I told them to drop carbs for a prolonged peroid of time they would laugh.

5. Your theory on diet is highly flawed with innacurate statements. They simply are not true and any Advanced Nutrition class on the college or graduate level, especially those that cover energy metabolism, will show you this.

6. Yes you said dietary.

7. It is evidence, you just don't seem to want to except the reason why even they are backed by science. You are completely ignoring the basic concepts of energy metabolism.

8. THe problem is the sufficient amounts are very small. All you have to do is search on the amount of 3,6,9's you need and you will realize it is VERY small compared to what is recommended on these boards. 1 Tablspoon of Flax has more than enough EPA and DHA than most people will ever needn in one day.

9. ANY dietary fat hinders HSL AND cAMP. These are basci physiological facts that are in your text.

10. Why have glucagon? You dont want to! Glucagon's main role is faciliate the breakdown of glyocgen into glucose. What happens when glycogen storage is already low? Muscle wasting. Come on man, this is basic stuff.


I enjoy these converstations too but you really need to check what you're typing here. You are going against basic physiological facts which do not change for anyone. If you don't understand these concepts then you will not understand WHY you are wrong on several things. I am not ripping on you or anything but I am encouraging you to look this stuff up. If you want some suggestions for texts I would more than happy give you some as I have several here that are GREAT reads. They cover this (which is really basic) and go into much more detail to the point that I have trouble understanding what they are saying.

#1 Nothing I said in the last post stated that glucagon and insulin are the same. In fact I stated how they are different and you need both at different times. I say different because you're right, they both can't be present in high levels at the same time. This is basic. I haven't argued this.

#2 I know. I wasn't using the book to promote an Atkins diet. I was just using the term "glucose economy" as I believe it's defined.

#3 It seems like we keep echoing each other with this, just repeating the same thing. What you said here doesn't in anyway contradict what I last posted.

#4 Low fat diets have been proven to affect Testosterone levels. Low fat diets can also promote high insulin swings if you're not careful. I agree with you about low carb diet's effects. Also at no time have I stated one needs to drop carbs or follow a prolonged low carb diet. I would never tell any pro at your gym to do that. We should just talk about things I've actually said. Don't get me wrong, there are some people out there, usually non-athelets, that could stand to drop a few carb grams.

#5 My "theory" is based on my own personal philosophy. When I'm dieting for fat loss, I want to find the best diet - the one that will allow the least drop of intensity in training. You won't read this in any textbook. This is not even a "theory" about a specific diet, so I don't know how you can say its wrong when it doesn't even talk about a particular diet.

#6 Oh, my mistake.

#7 What is "they"? I'm not igonoring energy metabolism, I'm wholeheartedly agreeing with 99% of what you say.

#8 The conversion of EPA and DHA is VERY small in flax seed oil, possibly only 10%. It becomes less as you age as you lose the enzyme responsible for conversion. My flax oil bottle (Barlean's brand) says it has 11g fat per 1Tbsp. So you're saying that 1.1g is enough? Is this optimal? It may be enough, but I really think there are tons of benefits if you increase it. BTW, in case someone is wondering, fish oil doesn't have to go through these conversions and is a better source of EPA/DHA.
Many things recommended on these boards are higher than the RDA, and for good reason too. Increasing n-3 suppresses cytokine which can decrease the production of cortisol glucocorticoids therefore suppressing cortisol. This is GOOD. Furthermore one needs to increase n-3 just to help balance out the 6:3 ratio. An imbalanced ratio is not optimal and there are many health risk associated with this. Basically increasing n-3 can promote anabolism! There are also a host of anti-inflammatory actions associated with increasing this intake and/or decreasing n-6.

#9 True, but if you're on a hypo caloric diet it won't matter. You're still going to lose fat. That's basic energy metabolism. It's not necessarily the BEST way, but you'll lose fat on any hypocaloric diet.

10# Dude, I want glucagon. "Why have glucagon" was just a sarcastic/rhetorical question. You've got to read it in context with everything else I said. I was saying that if you're on a diet high in carbs and insulin is constantly being secreted because you eat 6-7 times per day, than glucagon will not have much of a role, and you won't be taking advantage if it's benefits. I'll say it once again so nobody misreads me:
YOU NEED INSULIN, YOU NEED GLUCAGON, THE DO COMPLETEY DIFFERENT THINGS, AT DIFFERENT TIMES, THEY BOTH HAVE GOOD AND BAD EFFECTS, LEARN TO MANIPULATE THEM!

That's a really great book I've heard. I don't own any textbooks of that nature right now, but I'll have to get a hold of one just for reference.

Also if I say anything that sound like I'm promoting low car diets, I'm not. I'm playing Devil's advocate a little, and merely point out other possibilities and considerations. I still want to know what you define "low fat" to be. To me, you start getting into the low fat category when you hit around 50-60g for a 80-90kg man.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

See this is what I'm talking about. You are not even comprehending what is being said. This is the main reason WHY they fail because leptin drops, cAMP drops and HSL is therefore decreased drastically. You will NOT release fat withouth adequate enzymes to faciliate their breakdown. This is caused be prolonged glyocogen depletion. What happens after that? The fed state slowly turns into the starved state and fat loss will stop no matter how many calories you drop. Please refer to leptin as to the reason why.

It is NOT a fact that during a low car diet more fat is burned. I don't know where you are getting these so called "facts" from but they are completely wrong. Even the Duke study that backed this point was shown to be highly innacurate. It was showed that the release of fat greater but the oxidation rate was not. So guess what happens when they are not oxidized? They are converted right back into triglycerides.

I've read on numerous studies, that low carb diets of the same caloric value as a low fat diet, result in more weight loss. They both lose fat weight, but the low carb tends to beat it by a significant margin - at least until you stall out.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

So you won't burn carbs during sleep yet you will burn dietary fat? Carbs oxidize at a rate 5x that of fats. Please check the thermic values. Fat is the lowest, protein is the highest. IOW, there is no carb fairy.

Bro, this is BASIC nutrition.

Please pick this book up if you really want to know. I don't know if you glycogen depleted right now but your are getting basic nutritional concepts wrong. I'm telling you if you read this book, you will tahnk me a million times over. Its a GREAT read.

Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism
by James L. Groff

Why wouldn't you burn dietary fat during 8-9 hours of sleep?

Your body proportionately metabolizes more fat at rest. This is fact. It doesn't matter that carbs burn 5x faster. Just the same, aerobic exercise proportionately burns more fat than high intensity activities. In fact up to 60% of calories burned during a typical weight training session are fat calories! This is because you spend lots of time resting between sets. If there's any time of day where one can guarantee a high % of fat usage, it's during sleep. Eating carbs for a pre-bed meal will have no physiological benefit - unless you happened to train like right before bedtime. If the body never found a time where it preferred fat fuel, than you would never be able to store glycogen and you'd be constantly depleting no matter what.
Thermic values have nothing to do with what your body chooses to oxidize. This is unrelated. Thermic values are a good thing, carbs have higher values than fat for sure, but it's useless in determing when to eat what as far as macronutrient choice goes.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

#1 Nothing I said in the last post stated that glucagon and insulin are the same. In fact I stated how they are different and you need both at different times. I say different because you're right, they both can't be present in high levels at the same time. This is basic. I haven't argued this.

#2 I know. I wasn't using the book to promote an Atkins diet. I was just using the term "glucose economy" as I believe it's defined.

#3 It seems like we keep echoing each other with this, just repeating the same thing. What you said here doesn't in anyway contradict what I last posted.

#4 Low fat diets have been proven to affect Testosterone levels. Low fat diets can also promote high insulin swings if you're not careful. I agree with you about low carb diet's effects. Also at no time have I stated one needs to drop carbs or follow a prolonged low carb diet. I would never tell any pro at your gym to do that. We should just talk about things I've actually said. Don't get me wrong, there are some people out there, usually non-athelets, that could stand to drop a few carb grams.

#5 My "theory" is based on my own personal philosophy. When I'm dieting for fat loss, I want to find the best diet - the one that will allow the least drop of intensity in training. You won't read this in any textbook. This is not even a "theory" about a specific diet, so I don't know how you can say its wrong when it doesn't even talk about a particular diet.

#6 Oh, my mistake.

#7 What is "they"? I'm not igonoring energy metabolism, I'm wholeheartedly agreeing with 99% of what you say.

#8 The conversion of EPA and DHA is VERY small in flax seed oil, possibly only 10%. It becomes less as you age as you lose the enzyme responsible for conversion. My flax oil bottle (Barlean's brand) says it has 11g fat per 1Tbsp. So you're saying that 1.1g is enough? Is this optimal? It may be enough, but I really think there are tons of benefits if you increase it. BTW, in case someone is wondering, fish oil doesn't have to go through these conversions and is a better source of EPA/DHA.
Many things recommended on these boards are higher than the RDA, and for good reason too. Increasing n-3 suppresses cytokine which can decrease the production of cortisol glucocorticoids therefore suppressing cortisol. This is GOOD. Furthermore one needs to increase n-3 just to help balance out the 6:3 ratio. An imbalanced ratio is not optimal and there are many health risk associated with this. Basically increasing n-3 can promote anabolism! There are also a host of anti-inflammatory actions associated with increasing this intake and/or decreasing n-6.

#9 True, but if you're on a hypo caloric diet it won't matter. You're still going to lose fat. That's basic energy metabolism. It's not necessarily the BEST way, but you'll lose fat on any hypocaloric diet.

10# Dude, I want glucagon. "Why have glucagon" was just a sarcastic/rhetorical question. You've got to read it in context with everything else I said. I was saying that if you're on a diet high in carbs and insulin is constantly being secreted because you eat 6-7 times per day, than glucagon will not have much of a role, and you won't be taking advantage if it's benefits. I'll say it once again so nobody misreads me:
YOU NEED INSULIN, YOU NEED GLUCAGON, THE DO COMPLETEY DIFFERENT THINGS, AT DIFFERENT TIMES, THEY BOTH HAVE GOOD AND BAD EFFECTS, LEARN TO MANIPULATE THEM!

That's a really great book I've heard. I don't own any textbooks of that nature right now, but I'll have to get a hold of one just for reference.

Also if I say anything that sound like I'm promoting low car diets, I'm not. I'm playing Devil's advocate a little, and merely point out other possibilities and considerations. I still want to know what you define "low fat" to be. To me, you start getting into the low fat category when you hit around 50-60g for a 80-90kg man.

You are stating things trhat just don't make sense and are completely false. I have already pointed them out to you but for some you are not getting them. If you do not have the texts, I suggest you get them because you are butchering basci nutritional facts.

You recommendations for the use omega's is right on, now go find how much you need to get those benefits. Its EXTREMELY small. Nobody is saying to to eliminate them but 1 tablspoon of Flax will do the job. Its in the literature backed by studies. Look it up and see how much linolenic acid you need to get the the amounts of EPA and DHA. And no this is NOT the RDA. You do know the body doesn't use excess DHA and EPA right? I hope we don't have to go into lipid metabolism.

THe way you word things shows you don't have grasp on some of these concepts. Stating that you don't want to have either insulin and glucagon dominant shows your lack of understanding. One always dominates the other. This is BASIC yet you state things in the fahsion which clearly shows you did not understand this during th time your wrote it. Stating "we dont one dominate the other" makes no sense. If you understood this then you would realize that one ALWAYS dominates the other. Thats how they function. When insulin is high, glucagon is low and vice versa.

Leanr to manipulate them? This in itself show a complete misunderstanding in their modes of action. You don't manipluate glucagon. You don't want it around peroid unless you want glycgoen to be broken down for fuel (in other words creating a catabolic environment).

If you don't own any of the texts, please get something and read. You are not making sense with half the things you type.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I've read on numerous studies, that low carb diets of the same caloric value as a low fat diet, result in more weight loss. They both lose fat weight, but the low carb tends to beat it by a significant margin - at least until you stall out.

No, your wrong again. The low carb diet lost more "weight" but when fat oxidation was looked at they both were the same in SENDETARY people. Now put thise people on an exercise program and glucose becomes MUCH more dependent. All you have to do is look the studies up. It was conducted by Duke. If you want to argue thses points you need to understand them first. Releasing triglycerides means nothing unless you oxidize them. With an abundant amount of FFA's brought on by these types of diets you will NOT oxidize them quick enough. It sounds like you are getting your information from every low carb site out there withouth understanding what you are typing.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Why wouldn't you burn dietary fat during 8-9 hours of sleep?

Your body proportionately metabolizes more fat at rest. This is fact. It doesn't matter that carbs burn 5x faster. Just the same, aerobic exercise proportionately burns more fat than high intensity activities. In fact up to 60% of calories burned during a typical weight training session are fat calories! This is because you spend lots of time resting between sets. If there's any time of day where one can guarantee a high % of fat usage, it's during sleep. Eating carbs for a pre-bed meal will have no physiological benefit - unless you happened to train like right before bedtime. If the body never found a time where it preferred fat fuel, than you would never be able to store glycogen and you'd be constantly depleting no matter what.
Thermic values have nothing to do with what your body chooses to oxidize. This is unrelated. Thermic values are a good thing, carbs have higher values than fat for sure, but it's useless in determing when to eat what as far as macronutrient choice goes.

Please, you don't even know what you are talking about here. Have no physiological effect? Are you crazy? Please go look up when optinal protein synthesis and hormone levels are released (BESIDES post workout) Carbs faciliate these hormone releases and aid in protein synthesis by keeping glycogen stores full and in the FED state. Fats DO NOT! You are so insulin scared its ridiculous. You are preaching what most low carb dieters preach who don't have a clue how the body works.

Thermic values have nothing to do with what your chooses to oxidize?!!?!?!?!?!! OMG..... Thermic values are directly proportional to food energy intake and reflect the bodies absortion and digestion activities and is HIGHLY influenced by composition. In other words it digests and absords those foods that are higher FIRST, and fat LAST. You are completely ignoring the basics of energy metabolism AGAIN.

You are BUTCHERING basic facts here.

Serisouly what sort of classes have you taken?

I'm done with this until you understand some basci facts. There is no point in continuing until you have read something. I don't know where you are getting your information from but you are highly mistaken.


I suggest you talk to your professor because glyocgen is the main source of energy during exercise, especially resistance training and high intensity cardio. Fat is burned yes but glycogen is the main fuel source.

DO you even know what the TCA cycle is?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Why wouldn't you burn dietary fat during 8-9 hours of sleep?

Your body proportionately metabolizes more fat at rest. This is fact. It doesn't matter that carbs burn 5x faster. Just the same, aerobic exercise proportionately burns more fat than high intensity activities.

You would at a much slower rate which is more condusive to fat storage because its extremely energy dense and will get stored easier (since your metabolism slows a great bit during REM sleep). In other words, they will burn both so your recommendatrion for not using carbs is ridiculous. Fats get stored faster than carbs do into adipose cells so what you are saying in that carbs aren;t utlized is COMPLETELY false.

In fact they will get oxidized quicker and removed quicker than fats so your are REALLY wrong on this one.

You can do either of them in the right amounts but saying carbs do not get utilized is just pure fiction.

 

[IHateGymMorons]

You are stating things trhat just don't make sense and are completely false. I have already pointed them out to you but for some you are not getting them. If you do not have the texts, I suggest you get them because you are butchering basci nutritional facts.

You recommendations for the use omega's is right on, now go find how much you need to get those benefits. Its EXTREMELY small. Nobody is saying to to eliminate them but 1 tablspoon of Flax will do the job. Its in the literature backed by studies. Look it up and see how much linolenic acid you need to get the the amounts of EPA and DHA. And no this is NOT the RDA. You do know the body doesn't use excess DHA and EPA right? I hope we don't have to go into lipid metabolism.

THe way you word things shows you don't have grasp on some of these concepts. Stating that you don't want to have either insulin and glucagon dominant shows your lack of understanding. One always dominates the other. This is BASIC yet you state things in the fahsion which clearly shows you did not understand this during th time your wrote it. Stating "we dont one dominate the other" makes no sense. If you understood this then you would realize that one ALWAYS dominates the other. Thats how they function. When insulin is high, glucagon is low and vice versa.

Leanr to manipulate them? This in itself show a complete misunderstanding in their modes of action. You don't manipluate glucagon. You don't want it around peroid unless you want glycgoen to be broken down for fuel (in other words creating a catabolic environment).

If you don't own any of the texts, please get something and read. You are not making sense with half the things you type.

"THe way you word things shows you don't have grasp on some of these concepts. Stating that you don't want to have either insulin and glucagon dominant shows your lack of understanding. One always dominates the other. This is BASIC yet you state things in the fahsion which clearly shows you did not understand this during th time your wrote it. Stating "we dont one dominate the other" makes no sense. If you understood this then you would realize that one ALWAYS dominates the other. Thats how they function. When insulin is high, glucagon is low and vice versa."

What I mean is that one doesn't dominate the other in a 24hour period. They need to take turns like a see-saw. Of course one will dominate the other at times, for example - spiking insulin after a workout. You just misread what I meant by dominate and must've skipped over the part I wrote in ALL CAPS. I must say again, though, that it's very hard to burn fat when insulin levels are significantly high, this is where and why properly timed P+F meals and choosing the right carbs come in handy.

"You do know the body doesn't use excess DHA and EPA right?"

The body doesn't use all the protein we eat for synthesis of new tissue either. Omega 3 consumption should not be limited by how much EPA/DHA the body uses. Omega 3 consumption has more benefits than just it's EPA/DHA. If everything can be accomplished by such small amounts of EPA/DHA then why don't we all just take 2 fish oil capsules and retire the rest of Omega 3's for the day. Then all the other polys can come from n-6 and we can distort our ratio like all the other Americans getting fat.

"Leanr to manipulate them? This in itself show a complete misunderstanding in their modes of action. You don't manipluate glucagon."

Wha about the word "manipulate" makes you think that I want glucagon to be high. You manipulate/regulate/control/ your diet to get the best effects out of both hormones. You want to use your diet to prevent glucagon getting out of hand. This is what I mean by "manipulate". It's not even an argument that diet greatly affects these hormones. Basic stuff.