KLEEN - STRONG BODY STRONG MIND!

[Rocket3015]

Thanks!!! That was actually a 3 set total PR. Up until now my highest rep total in 3 sets was 37!

New Goal Next Back Day !!

 

[MrKleen73]

Man cardio whooped me yesterday. Could have been that I was doing it out in the sun, could have been the EvoMuse CardioTryx I used before the session making me burn more energy but man I was whooped when I got home. I ate a 9oz 93/7 turkey patty with 2 slices of real cheese and some mustard and then went to bed.

I don't have any plans to do cardio today but will be hitting up a lift tonight and will get in some more carbs then.

 

[BigRed1974]

Fuel those gains with some good carbs!

 

[MrKleen73]

Fuel those gains with some good carbs!

Damn straight! Nice to see you in here big guy!!!

 

[BigRed1974]

Damn straight! Nice to see you in here big guy!!!

Trying to get back on here more often. Great people and information

 

[HIT4ME]

Geez, I thought I was in this already but I haven't gotten any updates...I guess it's good to be in before page 100 and more than 18 months late. I have arrived!

Now...what can I debate with you?

 

[MrKleen73]

Geez, I thought I was in this already but I haven't gotten any updates...I guess it's good to be in before page 100 and more than 18 months late. I have arrived!

Now...what can I debate with you?

We can continue the discussion from HGP's log over here. I will multiquote it into here then we can stop hogging his log. LOL

 

[MrKleen73]

Agreed - definitely no smoking gun here - just points for thought. Calories in vs. calories out is certainly the controlling factor here. The only thing I'm saying beyond that is, fat is a much more efficient source of calories than carbs - thus better for surviving on low calorie diets. It's actually fairly obvious but I think completely ignored in a lot of the dogma that is out there.

And yes - people adapt. Actually - did find another study on PDK that shows that, I believe it was mice and not people, fed a low carb diet for 7 days experienced a large increase in PDK, but this was rapidly reversed in 1-2 days on carbs. It shows how adaptive we are.

I guess the start of my "quest" here is this - the vast majority of dieters regain weight after they lose it. Many dieters regain MORE weight then they lost. This is true of any diet, in any situation. There is a lot of dogma out there about, "starvation mode" or whatever bro-science explanation you can think of as to why people regain this weight.

What this really shows is that there is actually a pretty simple and straight forward mechanism that breaks in obesity, which is actually made WORSE from dieting. This explanation also gives some theory to the anecdotal experiences of many dieters who rebound, especially low carbers who claim carbs make them explode.

Now, of course this is dealing with a certain situation. I'm talking about people who have become obese, often dramatically obese, and made serious and and at least somewhat successful attempts at losing weight. I'm not sure what the chicken and the egg is here. Did they originally become obese because they have genetic PDK issues? Or did they become obese because of habitual overeating and this broke their PDK? Or some of both? Or maybe even a step further - maybe their PDK issue was a product of their environment in the womb or something (some interesting evidence coming out about this)?

Either way, the theory is actually relatively simple and still works. Impaired carb tolerance increases a preference for fat-for-fuel, further impairs carb tolerance, increases need for dieting, and dieting further impairs carb tolerance. In a normal, non-obese or maybe even mildly obese individual - this is probably a different situation (but it does point to the importance of refeeds as you get leaner).

Also, this theory would suggest that you don't need to avoid carbs to get your insulin sensitivity back under control - you just need to fix the PDK issue - and there are numerous studies showing this is in fact the case as inhibiting PDK dramatically improves glucose tolerance.

There is also a study out there showing that Omega-3 fats DO NOT increase PDK activity like other fats. I found that interesting.

I am not a "low-fat" guy either.

If I had to describe how we work, I do think you'd be pretty much on board with a lot of my thinking - metabolic flexibility is key. We are machines that were designed to survive in a CHANGING environment. We weren't designed to run on carbs only, or fats only. Ups and downs are very important. We just happen to live in a time when we can create such a steady stream of the same stuff over and over again that we don't necessarily need to ever have those ups and downs. I believe this is why IF is often so beneficial for a lot of people. It isn't so much that the setup is so "right" - but it creates a changing environment and that is important.

It's just some ideas to throw out there, for discussion. Not sure it is right...

Reading up some on PDK now. Here is something to ponder though...

In general carnivores, and omnivores did not have a lot of need for insulin sensitivity. Sure the ones that were lucky enough to live near fruits and what not had regular exposure to carbs, but in general when grazing they were grazing on greens... similar to what you see your dog do when they are outside.

Who is to say that having a higher carb intake, and insulin sensitivity is not the secondary / back up energy plan. It would make a whole lot more sense biologically, especially with what we know about food availability in the paleo era. Only those in warmer almost tropical climates had access to fruit year round, otherwise the vegetation was grass and other greens. Tubers were only available in limited areas as well. In those times without fruits available they would need to have excessively high PDK and not really have much on the insulin sensitivity side of things.

Keep in mind this carb centric way of life has only been a major factor since man started doing irrigated farming, and or since they learned how to make grains edible via cooking. I don't know that going back to that is actually a break in the system so much as the need for insulin sensitivity has increased due to the dietary changes brought on by that.

Again just something to think about, but it does make sense that huge groups of people who come from places that may not have had consistent access to carbohydrate my biologically be better wired for mostly protein and fat consumption.

Yes! Now we are cooking with some gas here.

I THINK, but am not sure, that the answer gets back to the idea of metabolic flexibility to be honest. The idea is that we have a bunch of systems that all inter relate and we need to be able to switch back and forth quickly.

I think ultimately, our society has become carb-centric as you point out. To make this even more specific, we have become sugar and corn based. These substances are great for really scarce feedings, but we have the. All the time and in almost everything now.

On the other hand, if you are trying to get lean, fat is still your most efficient energy source...and being super efficient is not going to help you burn energy.

I also think the answer has to do with metabolic flux (not sure this is a real term) - but we are designed to store and turn over and burn. If glucose is always high because we can't burn carbs, we are constantly creating more fat to store from that glucose, and never taking things out of storage. We become good at putting things away but never unpacking them. PDK may be an initiator of this, but it isn't the entire process and I haven't figured that out yet.

Good questions...not sure these are "answers" but...

The bolded is the only statement we simply can not come to any form of agreement on.

The issue there is that we are addressing different types of efficiency...

Fat Being the most efficient source of fuel - means that it takes longer to burn, and provides far more ATP than glycogen on a gram to gram basis. However on the same note fat is not the most efficient source of ATP for anaerobic training. It takes longer to convert and produce the ATP and often can not keep up with the high demands put on the muscle causing momentary muscle failure prematurely.

On the same note becoming more efficient at burning fat will definitely increase the amount of fat burned for energy. Not as a metabolic reaction, but just from getting better at the process. Hormonal changes, upregulating enzymes, and lipolosys are all ways you can become more efficient at burning fat.. This process happens relatively quickly, and the improvement isn't continuous, or at least not in any sort of linear fashion. So that improvement is kind of limited to becoming "fat adjusted" Once fat adjusted there probably isn't much of a biological benefit to remaining in keto long term. Remember the ONLY WAY TO LOSE FAT IS TO BURN FAT, so being more efficient at burning fat will definitely increase how much fat you can burn.

I am not saying burning fat more efficiently, as in getting more out of burning less. I am saying when you become more efficient burning fat as in it is easier to burn and get the energy out of the fat cell and into the mitochondria. So if you can break down fat faster that is also being more efficient, just in a different area or way than using it efficiently.

As an example a person showing in ketosis is burning fat easily, but not efficiently as there would not be any ketones being excreted if it were being USED efficiently as there would be no left over waste product. However being so efficient at lipolosys that the fat is being broken down in larger amounts than it can be used so some is getting excreted too showing ketones is the efficiency of the catabolic process of breaking down fat. We don't want to use fat efficiently, we want to catabolize it as efficiently as possible and hopefully even excrete some ketones so they can't be used for energy later and are wasted energy.

That is the only way I can understand what you mean by saying becoming more efficient at burning fat does not make you efficient at burning fat. See the difference in our referral of efficiency...

I totally get the angle of efficiency from which you are both approaching this - it’s been an interesting read and helping my knowledge base.

That said I do feel clen is the easiest answer right now lol

Yeah...I get the leap. It is actually a bit of a conceptual leap so I get that. One thing to keep in mind is that burning fat is not the only way to lose fat. You can suck it out. You can induce apoptosis and excrete it. It you can break it down and convert it back into carbohydrate - which happens to be very inefficient.

I believe, I may be wrong, that fat burning does create more ATP, but carbs are obviously a faster fuel source for anaerobic respiration. This may be a piece of evidence that points toward humans actually preferring carbs for functions - when it is around, it can burn fast.

On the other hand, burning fat for energy has a mass efficiency - you will consume much less tissue during starvation by burning fat than by burning carbs.

So, the efficiency does have different applications...carbs are more "efficient" for fast burning, but fat is more efficient for mass preservation.

This is actually one of the supposed ideas behind low carb proponents saying carbs store fat. They say that carbs get converted to fat in an almost preferential manner. I agree with this with the PDK theory, except it isn't preferential. It is because carbs are overloaded...either by simply eating too many carbs or by not being able to burn them because PDK is elevated - thus causing a backup of carbs. But as you point out, they would be burned preferentially under activity.

Now, what if we could work this backwards - upregulate gluconeogenesis from fat break down. Every gram of fat you convert to a gram of carb loses 5 calories or more. But, gluconeogenesis is often seen as bad too.

This would be very inefficient and waste a ton of calories.

And of course, simple evolution would make sense with this - if you are starving, what would evolution reward? The organism that burns the least efficient fuel? Or the organism that burns the most efficient source? And, wouldn't you want to store the most efficient source for periods of starvation? The idea IS to save energy during those times.

Well yes you are correct those other things will get rid of fat, but they do not burn it. I was very specific to repeat burn fat so that it would take those other things out of consideration. Things like inducing apoptosis via extreme cold, liposuction, and don't really have a place in this discussion. We are discussing metabolic and hormonal reactions to diet. Now starvation can cause apoptosis, which would require all of the fat in the cell to be burned through and then cell death comes to the empty and starved cell. So that one does require burning.

If there were any chance of starvation for anyone but the homeless in most of today's developed societies then that last part would make sense. However other than those with anorexia nervosa there is simply not many people who ever starve in current society, and more specifically America.

The gluconeogenisis you are referring to does not happen with fat easily at all, and is far from the preferential situation. Also it requires you to be in ketosis to get any actual benefit out of it, the liver makes the ketones one of which is acetone that donates the carbons needed for the creation of glucose from fats. However this does not in anyway mean that you know longer have to burn 9 calories to rid yourself of the fat. Most of those ketones will be burned off as well so the same amount of energy exchange exists, only a very small amount of it ends up as glucose. However the preferential form of gluconeogenisis is via protein and amino acid breakdown. To be more specific L-Glutamine is the main source used for this. During fasting you will see "more" gluconeogenisis from fats, but once you have fed, if there are no carbs the body will turn to the proteins if it wants to create glucose.

You are mostly right here - except you would still lose energy in the fat to ketone/carb conversion. You are right, that would be less than 5 calories in the mix - since ketones have 9 cals/gram, but I was being illustrative - you could only get 1 gram of anything from 1 gram of anything else - so a gram of fat at most could yield 1 gram of carb with total conversion - thus a 5 calorie drop. A mix of ketones and carbs in the conversion makes it complex, but any carbohydrate formation will burn more calories than it yields, which is WHY this is so rare in nature. It's NOT efficient for saving calories and rarely makes sense if you have other systems.

Also, there isn't much metabolic difference between a keto diet and starvation - keto was actually designed originally to mimic starvation without starvation, correct? Or is there another story? But yes, actual starvation is hard to come by and only illustrative.

One observation I have made is that I have a REALLY hard time getting into ketosis. Even doing a PSMF I only get into trace levels of ketosis. I just find it very difficult, not that I've ever really buckled down and tried specifically to get into it, but you would think long term PSMF would get me close enough that I could tip the scales, but even then it wasn't easy. Maybe my assumption is wrong on how easy it should be though. But having a high level of PDK and high level of fat stores could explain this partially.

But all in all you bring up good points that I have not pondered fully, but have thought through some of them partially. The gluconeogenesis thing I do have to dig into more. My thinking there is that if you inhibit PDK too much, and upregulate gluconeogenesis too much, you may induce ketoacidosis from the combination.

And yes - glucose from amino acids would be a much easier conversion than fats to glucose.

Keep in mind though, converting carbs to fats isn't exactly preferred either. Saying you need to burn fat to lose fat isn't much different than saying eating fat will make you gain fat. Storing a substrate that is already converted to the storage form is much easier than converting it from something else.

Again and you will probably come across this when looking more into gluconeogenisis but it requires donor ketones during the krebs cycle that are not available without ketosis. So that one gram of fat is burnt off as ketones and some is actually converted to glucose. Still all 9 calories of energy will be used for energy, or excreted as waste product IE ketones in the urine.

Not being able to measure ketones in your urine does not mean you have not reached ketosis, it just means that you are not wasting any of the ketones. Your production and use of them are equally efficient or inefficient whatever the case may be so you are not excreting ketones in your urine.



Converting carbs to fat doesn't happen as easily or often as people would have you believe. Your muscles have to basically send feedback saying HEY Glycogen stores are full, do something else with this crap... Then the body begins to start converting carbs to fat for storage.

Look Fat and carbs and everything else are separate substrates. You can only get rid of fat naturally by catabolizing fat and then using it for energy or excreting it as waste. You can't burn carbs to burn fat, you can't burn protein to burn fat. You can only burn fat to burn fat. It is NOTHING like saying eating fat will make you fat. That isn't even a good analogy this time around.

If I put 1lb of fat, and 1lb of carbs in a bucket, and then tell you to remove the carbs you may have 1lb less mass in the bucket but you still have 1lb of fat... It is just that simple. I am not really sure how to make that any more clear. This isn't a relative statement, it is definitive. If you have fat to lose you must catabolize it, and then burn through the lipids in the blood, or excrete them. Otherwise they simply get reabsorbed into the fat cells.

You can use or remove any macro you want to create the deficit required to burn that fat, but you still have to create a deficit and induce lipolosys to rid yourself of the stored fat...

Yes it is easier to store saturated fats when there is insulin in the system. However insulin is never high during keto so that kind of removes that from the equation. All other forms of fat must also go through a conversion process to be stored. So the only fat that can be stored without conversion is saturated fat, and again you would need to be in a surplus, and have insulin to drive that storage.

Oh yeah and I am pretty sure there is a decent metabolic effect from ketosis over starvation. Quite simply the TEF from the food eaten causes an increase in metabolism. Also protein causes insulin spikes too which you would not see during starvation. There are a lot of things that happen during starvation that do not happen on keto.

Starting with the gluconeogenesis - I do understand that the ketones are necessary for the carbon donations in this process. BUT - unless ketones have more than 9 calories per gram, then there is no way the process does NOT yield something less than 9 calories. It would defy the laws of physics and basic thermodynamics.

If I have a gram of fat, and convert it to ketones and carbs, and given that carbs have 4 calories and ketones have 9 calories, by definition I will end up with 1 gram of material with less than 9 calories. Why? Because if I end up with 4/5 of a gram of ketones and 1/5 of a gram of carbohydrate from the process - I still have my gram, and I have 0.8 calories of carbs and 7.2 calories of ketones = 8 calories. There is NO ration which will yield some carbs and a full 9 calories per gram. Maybe you get closer to 9 calories because the ketones are equal to more than 80% of the conversion, maybe you get closer to 4 calories because carbs are the majority of the conversion. There may also be some amount of material that is just excreted as waste because it becomes unusable in the process. Again, this isn't necessarily a "natural" state, because your body is designed to conserve and this would be incredibly wasteful - but it does happen as one would expect that someone in ketosis still does have SOME glycogen stores in their muscles through gluconeogenesis.

And what I am saying is that neither analogy holds true - eating fat doesn't necessarily make you fat, and you don't necessarily need to burn fat (directly) to lose fat. You can break it into ketones and carbs, You can probably dispose of it in other ways too through apoptosis, but I don't have enough knowledge yet. If you're saying you have to break it down, then we're more in agreement. But the idea behind ketosis is equally as troubled as the idea of converting fat to carbs - as you said (and we agree on) - it's kind of metabolic alchemy. But proponents of low carb lean on this alchemy for fat storage, so it's not all that unheard of to lean on it the other way either. And the other way would be so much LESS efficient, which is why we don't see it much in nature.

But my analogy - people say that eating carbs makes you fat - and they usually use the insulin theory, but the science shows that doesn't really hold up. Insulin levels, when tested in labs over weeks, don't vary enough to explain much difference between someone eating a high fat diet or high carb diet. Maybe this actually has to do with us adjusting quickly and high fat making us insulin resistant? I don't know. It supports your theory (which I agree with) that we adjust rapidly. Or they think carbs lead to fat gain through conversion, which the PDK theories suggest a pathway for, as you suggest, for carbs to backup and start knocking on the doors of fat cells - and this theory could still hold true during caloric restrictions where you eat carbs - PDK inhibits the burning of carbs, backing them up, making it impossible to burn carbs fast enough so carbs MUST be converted to fat to be stored or utilized efficiently, and thus carbs = fat gain. But the problem isn't the carbs themselves in this theory, it's actually the PDK, which is elevated because of fat, not carbs. So, in other words, fat makes carbs make you fat. And so does dieting.

Again - I'm not saying ketosis doesn't work either, or that it doesn't have some theory behind it, just that there may be a better way and it may be ignoring the ACTUAL problem - which is back to metabolic flexibility. I'm also not saying low fat/no fat/high carbs necessarily are the best way to go. I just don't know.

Also, I'm dealing in some theory here and as I've said - nature and evolution has made the human body look for ways to be efficient with energy for survival; fat loss is a bad thing in nature. Ketosis kind of leans on a natural situation (hunger/starvation) and plays that path out. I'm just saying that, by design, that path is INeffecient for FAT LOSS because because it looks to be efficient for survival/energy production.



Yeah, any digestion will take energy, so you will burn more calories if you are eating than not eating. Maybe I should have said it "simulates starvation" like this article:

Invalid Link Removed



This is not a flame of you - but I personally don't seen how ketosis would help cancer. If anything, it should make it worse. I know there are some studies that show cancerous tumors shrink on keto diets, but there is a TON of science looking at the effect of PDK in cancer. Elevated PDK (which ketosis would make worse), seems to a good way to grow a tumor. But this gets back to the fact that there is so much that isn't known I guess.....forget how little I personally know.



Haven't had a chance to watch the video - too busy typing out all of this. Calories are king. Protein is queen. Carbs and fats are whatever comes next?




I agree with this 100% - and I would also throw in that steroids may increase, in a round-about way, your protein requirements. You will conserve protein, but you will also be building faster so you will see more growth by "over-doing" protein more than someone who is natural and just takes more protein in.

Also, you are probably right - as we get older we may need more protein. There is some research out there for "metabolic resistance" in the elderly, which indicates they don't respond to proteins with the same MPS as younger counter parts, especially if they combine those proteins with carbs and fats.

You are missing my point and thinking of things in a vacuum or at best compartmentalized into your points of focus. Ketones come from broken down fat... 1 gram of fat broken down into ketones or whatever form of lipids = 9 calories broken down... those lipids are then either burned for ATP or donated to the gluconeogenisis process. Regardless of how many calories worth of glucose you end up producing from the process the rest of the fat is still burned off as energy, excreted, or if not in a deficit redeposited as fat. Since we are discussing weight loss the deficit is assumed so it is highy likely that all 9 calories worth of fat was used for one process or the other.


Again, that math is only absolute if you completely segregate the systems which you can not. Lipolyzed fat goes into way too many processes for you to assume that the lipids won't get burned, excreted or redeposited. Assuming that all of the calories worth of energy in 1 gram of fat would only be dedicated to gluconeogenisis is not reasonable. Acetone only accounts for about 50-55% of the ketones produced so those other ketones will be used elsewhere for other process especially when in a deficit.


Haha to be fair they are professionals which to be one you have to have the best of the best genetics. Those people can eat almost anything and be perfect... However the reality is that all you need is discipline and to pay attention. Most of us aren't wired that way. I don't have extreme discipline. I can muster it for periods but then I relax and gain weight. I find it fascinating and enjoy learning about it. I think the people that will look the best will have great genetics and high levels of discipline, knowledge is not required if they can follow directions or a plan.


That or end up in a corner talking among ourselves...

Okay your turn HIT4ME...

 

[HIT4ME]

Forget about how our body processes it for a moment. Think about it purely from the laws of thermodynamics.

Matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed.

This means 1 gram of material can only ever be converted to 1 gram of any other substance or group of substances.

In this case, fat can be broken down into carbs, ketones and maybe some inert substances.

Those substances must then be converted to energy. A calorie is just a measure of the energy produced from metabolizing the substance.

So if you take fat and convert it to ANY combination of ketones and carbohydrate and any other substances produced as by products you LOSE energy.

Carbs only produce 4 calories. Fats and ketones produce 9. Any ratio of carbs and ketones will have less than 9 calories per gram.

So, if you break down 1 gram of fat, you can have 1 gram of ketones...which will still be equal to 9 calories, which still means you are conserving calories and mass very efficiently.

But as soon as you make ANY carbohydrate from that fat, you lose energy from the system - you end up with by products that have energy we cannot use.

You can't break a gram of fat down into (a gram of ketones) and (any amount of carbohydrate). You can break it down (maybe) into 1 gram of ketones and no carbs. Or you can break it down into x grams of ketones and 1 - x grams of carbohydrate.

It doesn't matter what your body wants to do with it or how many processes are involved, this will always be true.

And as soon as you create any amount of carbs, you lose the availability of some energy and that will be excreted as waste

 

[MrKleen73]

Forget about how our body processes it for a moment. Think about it purely from the laws of thermodynamics.

Matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed.

This means 1 gram of material can only ever be converted to 1 gram of any other substance or group of substances.

In this case, fat can be broken down into carbs, ketones and maybe some inert substances.

Those substances must then be converted to energy. A calorie is just a measure of the energy produced from metabolizing the substance.

So if you take fat and convert it to ANY combination of ketones and carbohydrate and any other substances produced as by products you LOSE energy.

Carbs only produce 4 calories. Fats and ketones produce 9. Any ratio of carbs and ketones will have less than 9 calories per gram.

So, if you break down 1 gram of fat, you can have 1 gram of ketones...which will still be equal to 9 calories, which still means you are conserving calories and mass very efficiently.

But as soon as you make ANY carbohydrate from that fat, you lose energy from the system - you end up with by products that have energy we cannot use.

You can't break a gram of fat down into (a gram of ketones) and (any amount of carbohydrate). You can break it down (maybe) into 1 gram of ketones and no carbs. Or you can break it down into x grams of ketones and 1 - x grams of carbohydrate.

It doesn't matter what your body wants to do with it or how many processes are involved, this will always be true.

And as soon as you create any amount of carbs, you lose the availability of some energy and that will be excreted as waste.

Okay your are being too microscopic and not understanding that there are a a lot of processes that will use that gram of fat or whatever part of that gram of fat that was broken down.

You seem to be focusing on how many calories worth of glucose is made from the conversion. First you have to understand that fats are not simply broken down to carbs which you know already. It is a 3 step conversion which requires donor ketones to make far less glucose than a gram from a gram of fat... As you mentioned earlier, it is a horribly inefficient process. The initial carbons from the fat are burned during the first part of the process, and then 2 more carbons must be donated. We are on the same page here so far right? We both know the process so lets not get hung up on it any further.

However your assumption that other processes in the body are not also using those broken down lipids for energy via straight ATP conversion is simply incorrect. Whatever parts of the fat not used for the gluconeogenisis will be used elsewhere... or excreted. So regardless the 9 calories from the gram of fat gets used in one way or another or redeposited regardless of if only 2 calories worth of glucose was made from it. So the laws of thermo dynamics are still intact here. You just need to broaden your scope of focus to include the rest of the systems at work instead of only focusing on the portion of the broken down lipids used for gluconeogenisis. We are organisms with multiple systems and they all interact with one another. So if you want to know specifically how gluconeogenisis works you have to laser in on that specifically like you have, but if you want to know how it works within the system and how other process are at work simultaneously then you will realize you are focusing to intensely on the minutia in this specific case.

Also keep in mind we are talking about targeting fat loss. If indeed we lose or waste some of the 9 calories which I have mentioned they can be excreted many times that is the same as burning them if the goal is to get rid of excess stored fat... As long as it isn't redeposited it is progress toward the goal. I am really not seeing the negative here. If 9 calories worth of fat aka 1 gram was broken down and then some of it was burned for energy or excreted then that is still less fat you have to burn off/break down later. It does not change the fact that a gram of fat was broken down and it's energy used partially for the conversion process and the rest either burned as energy or excreted, it still no longer in storage aka bodyfat which is progress.

It would actually be a positive in that aspect, correct? I feel like sometimes you get wrapped up in the point you are making that you don't remember the goal is to expend energy and that hopefully previously stored fat is a good part of it. That anything that helps you in that process is a good thing.

 

[HIT4ME]

Okay your are being too microscopic and not understanding that there are a a lot of processes that will use that gram of fat or whatever part of that gram of fat that was broken down.

You seem to be focusing on how many calories worth of glucose is made from the conversion. First you have to understand that fats are not simply broken down to carbs which you know already. It is a 3 step conversion which requires donor ketones to make far less glucose than a gram from a gram of fat... As you mentioned earlier, it is a horribly inefficient process. The initial carbons from the fat are burned during the first part of the process, and then 2 more carbons must be donated. We are on the same page here so far right? We both know the process so lets not get hung up on it any further.

However your assumption that other processes in the body are not also using those broken down lipids for energy via straight ATP conversion is simply incorrect. Whatever parts of the fat not used for the gluconeogenisis will be used elsewhere... or excreted. So regardless the 9 calories from the gram of fat gets used in one way or another or redeposited regardless of if only 2 calories worth of glucose was made from it. So the laws of thermo dynamics are still intact here. You just need to broaden your scope of focus to include the rest of the systems at work instead of only focusing on the portion of the broken down lipids used for gluconeogenisis. We are organisms with multiple systems and they all interact with one another. So if you want to know specifically how gluconeogenisis works you have to laser in on that specifically like you have, but if you want to know how it works within the system and how other process are at work simultaneously then you will realize you are focusing to intensely on the minutia in this specific case.

Also keep in mind we are talking about targeting fat loss. If indeed we lose or waste some of the 9 calories which I have mentioned they can be excreted many times that is the same as burning them if the goal is to get rid of excess stored fat... As long as it isn't redeposited it is progress toward the goal. I am really not seeing the negative here. If 9 calories worth of fat aka 1 gram was broken down and then some of it was burned for energy or excreted then that is still less fat you have to burn off/break down later. It does not change the fact that a gram of fat was broken down and it's energy used partially for the conversion process and the rest either burned as energy or excreted, it still no longer in storage aka bodyfat which is progress.

It would actually be a positive in that aspect, correct? I feel like sometimes you get wrapped up in the point you are making that you don't remember the goal is to expend energy and that hopefully previously stored fat is a good part of it. That anything that helps you in that process is a good thing.

Oh man...its early and I have to get to work and have 5 hours of driving to do today...but I just can't resist this stuff.

I am actually not being microscopic at all. If anything I am generalizing - but the theory I am using here is so well accepted that if the details did NOT play out as I am describing, scientists should question the reactions involved. It would be a mathematical red flag.

Basically, I don't have the details to list out the exact chemicals kicked out during gluconeogenesis from carbs - but my understanding is that it will be ketones, carbs and some other group of chemicals...Some stuff that can be re-use and some stuff that will be excreted as waste products like CO2.

The issue is - UNLESS one of those constituents has MORE than 9 calories, you cannot create ANY mix that includes carbohydrate and does NOT have less than 9 calories. Yes, the energy will still be there, but we will excrete it as waste. I am not saying it will all be pure waste, yes, some substances will be recycled likely because we are efficient machines, but since we are running that cycle for a reason and in a deficit on this situation - there won't be anything new to combine that waste with anyway and it won't be useable.

Also, you are kind of starting to come around to my original premise, which is that burning fat is highly efficient and not the best way to lose fat.

I think the disconnect may be that I am saying there is a difference in how the fat is burned:

Fat + Pdk = TCA cycle directly. This is very efficient and conserves the most energy from fat because it kind of bypasses everything and inputs fat directly into the fire.

Fat without PDK means you cannot insert the fat into the fire - you need to put it through gluconeogenesis first and convert it to ketones and carbs, which is still efficient in that our body probably tries to recycle materials but way more wasteful than direct fat burning...which is why we don't do it all that often. It is so inefficient actually that we can't do it in some regard - we need ketones to be created to pull it off.

And so directly burning fat is different than burning carbs as the main fuel source.

And this mathematical difference actually explains a large component of the thermic effects of ketosis, as well as the perceived metabolic slow down we see from dieting.

It isn't that we actually burn fewer calories, our thermal demands remain the same - but we become more efficient at conserving MASS by utilizing fats directly instead of carbs.

This effect would explain metabolic slowdown without requiring any magic in our body wantonly wasting calories or conserving calories...which would never make sense.

And understanding this, yes, is positive and helps to understand some of the benefits of ketosis better - but also reveals some pit falls and ultimately suggests there MAY be a BETTER way to burn fat faster...by playing off the inefficiency if the conversion.

 

[MrKleen73]

Oh man...its early and I have to get to work and have 5 hours of driving to do today...but I just can't resist this stuff.

I am actually not being microscopic at all. If anything I am generalizing - but the theory I am using here is so well accepted that if the details did NOT play out as I am describing, scientists should question the reactions involved. It would be a mathematical red flag.

Basically, I don't have the details to list out the exact chemicals kicked out during gluconeogenesis from carbs - but my understanding is that it will be ketones, carbs and some other group of chemicals...Some stuff that can be re-use and some stuff that will be excreted as waste products like CO2.

The issue is - UNLESS one of those constituents has MORE than 9 calories, you cannot create ANY mix that includes carbohydrate and does NOT have less than 9 calories. Yes, the energy will still be there, but we will excrete it as waste. I am not saying it will all be pure waste, yes, some substances will be recycled likely because we are efficient machines, but since we are running that cycle for a reason and in a deficit on this situation - there won't be anything new to combine that waste with anyway and it won't be useable.

Also, you are kind of starting to come around to my original premise, which is that burning fat is highly efficient and not the best way to lose fat.

I think the disconnect may be that I am saying there is a difference in how the fat is burned:

Fat + Pdk = TCA cycle directly. This is very efficient and conserves the most energy from fat because it kind of bypasses everything and inputs fat directly into the fire.

Fat without PDK means you cannot insert the fat into the fire - you need to put it through gluconeogenesis first and convert it to ketones and carbs, which is still efficient in that our body probably tries to recycle materials but way more wasteful than direct fat burning...which is why we don't do it all that often. It is so inefficient actually that we can't do it in some regard - we need ketones to be created to pull it off.

And so directly burning fat is different than burning carbs as the main fuel source.

And this mathematical difference actually explains a large component of the thermic effects of ketosis, as well as the perceived metabolic slow down we see from dieting.

It isn't that we actually burn fewer calories, our thermal demands remain the same - but we become more efficient at conserving MASS by utilizing fats directly instead of carbs.

This effect would explain metabolic slowdown without requiring any magic in our body wantonly wasting calories or conserving calories...which would never make sense.

And understanding this, yes, is positive and helps to understand some of the benefits of ketosis better - but also reveals some pit falls and ultimately suggests there MAY be a BETTER way to burn fat faster...by playing off the inefficiency if the conversion.

Okay you keep saying fats can be broken down to carbs. The do not break down into carbs. The substrates that they are broken down into can go through a conversion process where other carbons are added to it and then converted to become glucose. That is not the same thing as being broken down into carbohydrate. Also again if we are talking about someone in a deficit the fats will be burned or excreted, regardless 1 gram of fat is no longer attached to your body.... that is FATLOSS and at 1 gram that is 9 calories worth of fat loss whether it was burned or excreted it no longer exists on the body. That lends itself to the goal of fat loss.

Unless someone is on an extremely low fat diet, with plenty of carbs, and not in a deficit then Fat + PDK is ALWAYS the case just to varying degrees. So yes the ketones produced during the lipolosys that were not used as part of the gluconeogenisis will be burned to make ATP if in a deficit. If not, it will be reabsorbed elsewhere, or excreted. For our goals we want it burned or excreted so the calories are lost which is the goal. I think you are forgetting this stuff works on a sliding scale and both processes can be active at once to some degree, but the balance tips one way or another depending on the main substrates used for energy. Again you can not look at this in a vacuum the entire system works in conjunction. Unless there is something broken with the system this is the expectation.

Now admittedly I may not understand the exacts of the physics or thermodynamics of some of it due to my limited education but I have a pretty good grasp of this concept and how this works and interacts with other systems. So when it comes down to it, the main point I am making is that it does not matter how many calories worth of energy is created from the gluconeogenisis, some is expended during that process and other ketones / lipid materials will be burned elsewhere, excreted or redeposited.

Here a few points to try organize my thoughts for some of these things you are suggesting.

1. Any time you are in a deficit regardless of the type of food you are eating PDK will be present. It has to be because the body has to burn fat to make up for the deficit. Does not matter if you ate only carbs this would still be the case because the body has to catabolize the fat to release the stored energy. So PDK will be present at any time that there is a caloric deficit in play. How much depends on the deficit and the substrates eaten. So there will not be a time that fat can not be used as energy, just times when it is easier for the body to do so due to elevated PDK.

2. Lipid catabolism and some ketosis must already be taking place for gluconeogenisis from lipids to take place, and only needed for intense activity, and a very little bit for specific brain functions. Otherwise without those scenarios the lipids are broken down into ATP and used, excreted or stored. So you have to basically have to be in a pretty specific situation for this to occur. It is not the requirement for carbs that starts the fats being broken down for energy, it is the deficit that does this. Gluconeogenisis from lipids is just a part of this overall and a very small part at that. Again if protein or aminos are available the body will opt to create glucose from them as it is a much easier process than making glucose from lipids. This can be scene in any person who is very malnourished and goes through muscle wasting while the body tries to hold on to the last few lbs of fat to keep them alive.

3. I am referring to healthy individuals, who are trying to lose fat, not people with some metabolic disorder. Everything you mention that happens during prolonged ketosis is correct regarding lowering insulin sensitivity and the like. Taking it to extremes will create a serious imbalance in the different systems... Especially over the long haul, but this is just the body adapting exactly as it is expected too to an unbalanced environment. When you reintroduce the balance the body will readjust again, and often with better insulin sensitivity once readjusted. Certainly one could experience issues if they jump right back into a higher carb diet after a long time on keto, but if they "reverse diet" out of it allowing their body to redevelop the efficiency with carbohydrate management they often end up with better insulin sensitivity in the muscle tissue. Unfortunately if I am thinking right, insulin sensitivity in fat tissue stays pretty consistent, and once a fat cell has been enlarged it is much easier to store fat in from then on. I tried to look this up real quick, but found 12 other studies it made me want to read... LOL So not sure on the insulin sensitivity of fat tissue itself other than I know that in normal eating insulin sensitivity in the muscle gets worse throughout the day but fat storage is more likely in the evening. I do know that overall insulin sensitivity increases when fat is lost, and that a previously enlarged fat cell will be apt to refill itself to its prior size.

4. As far as metabolic differences, the reason that the metabolism slows during ketosis is that leptin is a driver for the metabolic rate. Leptin levels are reduced as fat is lost and the way to increase them again is via carbohydrate consumption and storage. So there is definitely a slowing down of the metabolism due to this if maintaining keto. However that is also the case via a balanced diet as well, if you burn a lot of fat you have less leptin which prompts a slowdown in the metabolism. Plus most of the carbs get burned as well due to a deficit so less leptin available still causes that metabolic slowdown.


Holy crap man, it has been one crazy day. I didn't even get to take a lunch, this goofy post was done in 24 sittings and it is the end of the day and I am hoping some of it makes sense. Oh well I typed it up and don't want to lose it now because it is time to go home... Hopefully it reads okay... LOL

 

[HIT4ME]

Just...whoa. I hope I can keep this straight. Haha

Okay you keep saying fats can be broken down to carbs. The do not break down into carbs. The substrates that they are broken down into can go through a conversion process where other carbons are added to it and then converted to become glucose. That is not the same thing as being broken down into carbohydrate. Also again if we are talking about someone in a deficit the fats will be burned or excreted, regardless 1 gram of fat is no longer attached to your body.... that is FATLOSS and at 1 gram that is 9 calories worth of fat loss whether it was burned or excreted it no longer exists on the body. That lends itself to the goal of fat loss.

If I am saying broken down, it is just because the fat cell has to be broken down and then converted...fats can't be directly converted to glycogen. And yes some of the fat itself has to be "broken down" or converted (just using interchangeably) into ketones just to make the conversion of fat to glucose possible. This is extremely inefficient, as I think you know.

Which is my point. If you have to convert fat into glucose you will waste a ton of energy. The energy may be excreted or just wasted as heat. I don't know, but I know it will be wasted.

So what I am saying is, if you pull a gram of fat out of storage and plug it into the TCA cycle, you will get 9 calories worth of energy.

BUT, if you can't plug it into TCA, and have to convert it to carbohydrate in order to burn it, you will "lose" energy that you did not use for any metabolic process

This means you pull the 9 cals of fat out, convert it to, say hypothetically, 2 calories of carbs (1/2 gram) which are used and 4.5 calories of fat and/or ketones (1/2 gram) remain. This yields 1 gram of substrate that you can now only use for 6.5 calories worth of energy. The remaining 2.5 grams would be completely wasted.

And in this way, converting fats to carbs "wastes" energy, and thus will burn more mass at any metabolic output than if you could just plug it into the TCA cycle.

There is mathematically no way to create a 4 calorie carb from a 9 calorie fat without seeing this waste. It isn't a vacuum. It is just math.

I know this isn't possible but let's pretend for illustration that you have 1 gram of fat for 9 calories, and just forget the process and reality and say we convert it magically to 1 gram of carb. All of the mass is accounted for in this transaction 1 gram of fat is now 1 gram of carb. You have lost 5 calories in this transaction - not really because it is wasted, but because your ability to access it has been altered. I don't know if that's a different way to look at it ...because it is magical it has so many flaws beyond the illustration of the point

But given this inefficiency, that means if you need to burn 1800 calories you can do so on 200 grams of fat. But if you convert just 1/10th if that to carbohydrates you now need 45 grams of carbohydrate (180 calories) and 180 grams of fat - for a total of 225 grams, or 10% more mass.

And if you have to get that 10% of carbs from fat because you are not eating carbs - you have to convert at least 45 grams of fat to 45 grams of carbs.

This is a 12% increase in weight loss with no change in metabolism.

Unless someone is on an extremely low fat diet, with plenty of carbs, and not in a deficit then Fat + PDK is ALWAYS the case just to varying degrees. So yes the ketones produced during the lipolosys that were not used as part of the gluconeogenisis will be burned to make ATP if in a deficit. If not, it will be reabsorbed elsewhere, or excreted. For our goals we want it burned or excreted so the calories are lost which is the goal. I think you are forgetting this stuff works on a sliding scale and both processes can be active at once to some degree, but the balance tips one way or another depending on the main substrates used for energy. Again you can not look at this in a vacuum the entire system works in conjunction. Unless there is something broken with the system this is the expectation.

I agree with this. But I am discussing individuals that may have issues with metabolic flexibility to a large degree - this may be what made them fat to begin with or maybe it is an outcome of obesity, there is evidence of both and I am not sure.

But the take away is, if you have an issue with metabolic flexibility, increasing fat use as substrate directly into the TCA, may make that flexibility issue much worse and .at contribute to weight gain.

In other words, fat people may be fat because they are great at burning fat, but lousy at burning carbs...which creates the opposite situation. Carbs build up in cells, backup into the blood stream and must be converted to fat for storage and .more efficient burning.

Which of course in a strange twist means ketosis may work - because it avoids the broken carb system, but as soon as they go of the diet, they have made their inflexibility worse and thus the carbs store as fat for burning, and weight comes back fast.

Now admittedly I may not understand the exacts of the physics or thermodynamics of some of it due to my limited education but I have a pretty good grasp of this concept and how this works and interacts with other systems. So when it comes down to it, the main point I am making is that it does not matter how many calories worth of energy is created from the gluconeogenisis, some is expended during that process and other ketones / lipid materials will be burned elsewhere, excreted or redeposited.

I think you have it pretty good brother. I think I kind of get where you are missing and it is just a minor twist that I maybe am not explaining very well....

Here a few points to try organize my thoughts for some of these things you are suggesting.

1. Any time you are in a deficit regardless of the type of food you are eating PDK will be present. It has to be because the body has to burn fat to make up for the deficit. Does not matter if you ate only carbs this would still be the case because the body has to catabolize the fat to release the stored energy. So PDK will be present at any time that there is a caloric deficit in play. How much depends on the deficit and the substrates eaten. So there will not be a time that fat can not be used as energy, just times when it is easier for the body to do so due to elevated PDK.

2. Lipid catabolism and some ketosis must already be taking place for gluconeogenisis from lipids to take place, and only needed for intense activity, and a very little bit for specific brain functions. Otherwise without those scenarios the lipids are broken down into ATP and used, excreted or stored. So you have to basically have to be in a pretty specific situation for this to occur. It is not the requirement for carbs that starts the fats being broken down for energy, it is the deficit that does this. Gluconeogenisis from lipids is just a part of this overall and a very small part at that. Again if protein or aminos are available the body will opt to create glucose from them as it is a much easier process than making glucose from lipids. This can be scene in any person who is very malnourished and goes through muscle wasting while the body tries to hold on to the last few lbs of fat to keep them alive.

3. I am referring to healthy individuals, who are trying to lose fat, not people with some metabolic disorder. Everything you mention that happens during prolonged ketosis is correct regarding lowering insulin sensitivity and the like. Taking it to extremes will create a serious imbalance in the different systems... Especially over the long haul, but this is just the body adapting exactly as it is expected too to an unbalanced environment. When you reintroduce the balance the body will readjust again, and often with better insulin sensitivity once readjusted. Certainly one could experience issues if they jump right back into a higher carb diet after a long time on keto, but if they "reverse diet" out of it allowing their body to redevelop the efficiency with carbohydrate management they often end up with better insulin sensitivity in the muscle tissue. Unfortunately if I am thinking right, insulin sensitivity in fat tissue stays pretty consistent, and once a fat cell has been enlarged it is much easier to store fat in from then on. I tried to look this up real quick, but found 12 other studies it made me want to read... LOL So not sure on the insulin sensitivity of fat tissue itself other than I know that in normal eating insulin sensitivity in the muscle gets worse throughout the day but fat storage is more likely in the evening. I do know that overall insulin sensitivity increases when fat is lost, and that a previously enlarged fat cell will be apt to refill itself to its prior size.

4. As far as metabolic differences, the reason that the metabolism slows during ketosis is that leptin is a driver for the metabolic rate. Leptin levels are reduced as fat is lost and the way to increase them again is via carbohydrate consumption and storage. So there is definitely a slowing down of the metabolism due to this if maintaining keto. However that is also the case via a balanced diet as well, if you burn a lot of fat you have less leptin which prompts a slowdown in the metabolism. Plus most of the carbs get burned as well due to a deficit so less leptin available still causes that metabolic slowdown.


Holy crap man, it has been one crazy day. I didn't even get to take a lunch, this goofy post was done in 24 sittings and it is the end of the day and I am hoping some of it makes sense. Oh well I typed it up and don't want to lose it now because it is time to go home... Hopefully it reads okay... LOL

I pretty much agree with the notes for the most part. Some stuff you mentioned I just don't know.

I would point out that the idea of an adjustable metabolism - that you suddenly have a reduced thermal requirement because you are dieting, never really made sense. Leptin certainly plays a role - but as you can see above, the thermal load does not have to change at all and a .minor shift in carb/fat use for energy can have a dramatic impact on weight loss even with the same metabolism.

I don't think I am explaining something well and the thought actually hit me like a ton of bricks one day while running on the treadmill. And once I saw it I wondered how it could be that I've never read it anywhere before...it seems so obvious to me. But I obviously can't explain it very well or maybe I am wrong still...but this is helping me get better at explaining I hope.

I feel like you are actually moving closer to what I have been saying..we agree on a lot here.

 

[HIT4ME]

I wonder if anyone is even going to bother reading out mile long posts....or if anyone else even cares or has a thought. Haha

 

[DemntedCowboy]

I wonder if anyone is even going to bother reading out mile long posts....or if anyone else even cares or has a thought. Haha

I like it. Lol

 

[HIT4ME]

I like it. Lol

Queue music...

Everything I do, I do it for you!

 

[booneman77]

I wonder if anyone is even going to bother reading out mile long posts....or if anyone else even cares or has a thought. Haha

I live in hotels... this is my evening reading haha

Or cardio reading if stuck inside

 

[BigRed1974]

Enjoy the back and forth and making me think on some of these things

 

[Rocket3015]

I'm to lazy to read that much, I am waiting on the Reader's Digest Condensed Version. (You might have to be old to remember these)

 

[MrKleen73]

First let me say this... I had a response typed out that I had worded in a way that seemed to truly illustrate some things regarding this and I got a PM notification and when I canceled it the thing went to my inbox and lost everything I had written. I sure hope I can word it as well again. Frustrating to lose some good writing!!! I am writing this in a gmail as a draft so I don't lose it. LOL

Just...whoa. I hope I can keep this straight. Haha



If I am saying broken down, it is just because the fat cell has to be broken down and then converted...fats can't be directly converted to glycogen. And yes some of the fat itself has to be "broken down" or converted (just using interchangeably) into ketones just to make the conversion of fat to glucose possible. This is extremely inefficient, as I think you know.

Which is my point. If you have to convert fat into glucose you will waste a ton of energy. The energy may be excreted or just wasted as heat. I don't know, but I know it will be wasted.

So what I am saying is, if you pull a gram of fat out of storage and plug it into the TCA cycle, you will get 9 calories worth of energy.

BUT, if you can't plug it into TCA, and have to convert it to carbohydrate in order to burn it, you will "lose" energy that you did not use for any metabolic process.

" Which is my point. If you have to convert fat into glucose you will waste a ton of energy. The energy may be excreted or just wasted as heat. I don't know, but I know it will be wasted."
Negative, it can not be "wasted" as heat. The heat can not be generated without burning the calories. So that is metabolic use not waste...

You have already agreed with my notes from the last post which is good. They provide the answer, the answer is that there is no way that you won't be able to plug into the TCA because PDK will be elevated during a keto diet or any time you are in a deficit regardless of macros eaten. This is because the body fat will need to be burned to make up the deficit. So for that reason PDK will always be present, and even glucagon will be higher while on keto which increases lipolosys and fat burning too. Fat burning will be the primary energy source for anyone on keto, so accessing the TCA system will be the norm, not something they can not do. Remember your argument before was that keto makes people become too efficient at burning fat due to high PDK. So they would obviously be able to access the TCA cycle at any time that carbohydrate and protein was so low that they needed to resort gluconeogenisis from fats to make glucose. The body will always use the easiest source of energy that is appropriate for the activity. That means to get much gluconeogenisis from lipids to occur you would need to be depleted and not have carbs or much aminos in your system and then do intense anaerobic activity for an extended period of time. Moderate work will just resort to making ATP from ketones.

So what you are describing is purely hypothetical or the result of a sudden onset metabolic disease that completely broke the TCA cycle. Again unlikely and would make it not relevant to our discussion.

This means you pull the 9 cals of fat out, convert it to, say hypothetically, 2 calories of carbs (1/2 gram) which are used and 4.5 calories of fat and/or ketones (1/2 gram) remain. This yields 1 gram of substrate that you can now only use for 6.5 calories worth of energy. The remaining 2.5 grams would be completely wasted.

And in this way, converting fats to carbs "wastes" energy, and thus will burn more mass at any metabolic output than if you could just plug it into the TCA cycle.

There is mathematically no way to create a 4 calorie carb from a 9 calorie fat without seeing this waste. It isn't a vacuum. It is just math.

The reason I keep saying your math is flawed is because their are too many unknown variables. This is not a mathematical equation that you can solve with simple math. It is an ever changing random use of the lipids. You are trying to isolate the process and that is impossible it is part of the ever changing organism. When lipids are released into the blood stream they become available to any cell in the body that can use them. Their 37 trillion cells in the average human body so you can not know what processes are using them at any given point or how much each cell or process is using, but we do know if you are in a deficit that they will very likely be used. This is how the body works.

You trying to use simple math to illustrate the waste is high with this is pretty much impossible. Think about it like this because the variables are just as vast. Let's say you live in a city of a million people with a water reservoir in the middle of town that everyone uses, but nobody monitors their use, and every month it is filled with 100 million gallons of water. Now let's say you decide you are going to keep track of how many gallons you use over the course of the month, and think that with that limited information you could figure out how much water is left in the reservoir. You can't, you don't know who else used water or how much each of them used, but it would be illogical to assume that all or most of the water you were unable to account for was spilled.

In this situation you are assuming the things you don't know if or how they are being used are being wasted... and making up extremely unlikely hypothetical situations to try to justify the thought process to yourself.

Now on the " There is mathematically no way to create a 4 calorie carb from a 9 calorie fat without seeing this waste. It isn't a vacuum. It is just math" part.

Actually if what you said about MASS=Energy is a thermodynamic law then the reality is that 1 gram of fat could never make 1 gram of of Carbohydrate. To use your words, "It's just simple math..." Remember 2 carbons are burned from the initial phase of conversion and 2 more have to be donated. So it requires more than 1 gram of fat to make one gram of carbohydrate as at least 2 carbons are burned in the process. Again you might try to point out that the inefficiency is exactly why you are proposing this. However the likelihood of creating the scenario required to make that process occur as a metabolic switch to being used preferentially is basically nil. Well unless they come up with some drug to make it happen.

I know this isn't possible but let's pretend for illustration that you have 1 gram of fat for 9 calories, and just forget the process and reality and say we convert it magically to 1 gram of carb. All of the mass is accounted for in this transaction 1 gram of fat is now 1 gram of carb. You have lost 5 calories in this transaction - not really because it is wasted, but because your ability to access it has been altered. I don't know if that's a different way to look at it ...because it is magical it has so many flaws beyond the illustration of the point

But given this inefficiency, that means if you need to burn 1800 calories you can do so on 200 grams of fat. But if you convert just 1/10th if that to carbohydrates you now need 45 grams of carbohydrate (180 calories) and 180 grams of fat - for a total of 225 grams, or 10% more mass.

And if you have to get that 10% of carbs from fat because you are not eating carbs - you have to convert at least 45 grams of fat to 45 grams of carbs.

This is a 12% increase in weight loss with no change in metabolism.

Look at the bolded, I didn't even have to say it, you did on your own. The reason you have to make up this pretend scenario is that you can not think of a legitimate way to illustrate the validity of your position. You are basically asking me to forget what we know about how the body works. It is a dynamic living organism and its systems work in conjunction of one another and all systems that can use the lipid substrates in the blood have access to it once it has broken down and entered the bloodstream. Not just gluconeogenis.

You are also asking me to view gluconeogenisis from lipids as an isolated process to make it fit into your massive waste scenario and ignore everything else I know about the human metabolism that would be required for lipid gluconeogenis to occur often enough and long enough to make it a preferential or even often used energy source. I imagine you are not the first person to have the idea to exploit the inefficiency of this energy channel. If it were naturally plausible to do this I bet you would have read it somewhere already.

As far as the math listed here, no need to address it in detail because as you said the entire thing is impossible, and even if it was you are still not accounting for what portions of that 1 gram of fat were used elsewhere in the body... Only 50-55% of the ketones produced from a gram of fat are acetone the other 45-50%s can not be used for that process. Assuming that all or even much of that 40-50% is wasted, especially in a deficit is not logical with everything that is known about the metabolism...

Thus far for this to even appear valid has required you to make up a few hypothetical situations that range from extremely unlikely to "requiring magic".

Your knowledge of the process is not being challenged here, your math and assumption that lipids will not likely be used elsewhere while someone is in a deficit is.

The other thing I am challenging is the idea that there is a natural way for you to cause lipid gluconeogenisis while at the same time at you are basically saying that you need to not be able to burn fat for the bulk of the left over lipid substrates to be wasted in stead of used. The situation required to kick up gluconeogenisis amply enough to truly make a big dent also requires glycogen depletion, ketosis and intense anaerobic activity.

I agree with this. But I am discussing individuals that may have issues with metabolic flexibility to a large degree - this may be what made them fat to begin with or maybe it is an outcome of obesity, there is evidence of both and I am not sure.

But the take away is, if you have an issue with metabolic flexibility, increasing fat use as substrate directly into the TCA, may make that flexibility issue much worse and .at contribute to weight gain.

In other words, fat people may be fat because they are great at burning fat, but lousy at burning carbs...which creates the opposite situation. Carbs build up in cells, backup into the blood stream and must be converted to fat for storage and .more efficient burning.

Which of course in a strange twist means ketosis may work - because it avoids the broken carb system, but as soon as they go of the diet, they have made their inflexibility worse and thus the carbs store as fat for burning, and weight comes back fast.

Only eating in a caloric surplus can make someone fat. End of story. Does not matter if they are metabolically inflexible or not. They can not get fat without being in a surplus regardless of the energy sources eaten. Plenty of other issues being metabolically inflexible can cause, but metabolic inflexibility just means you are not good at switching between energy sources. It doesn't mean your metabolism is messed up. Most metabolic inflexibility is brought on by diet, and is also corrected by diet or diet and exercise.

Slowly reintroducing carbs back into the diet after ketosis often ends up improving insulin sensitivity above what it was before the keto diet. As long as fats are lowered to make room for the carbs and you are maintenance then PDK levels will beging to drop and the metabolic inflexibility will improve. Only if the system is actually broken will it not. Again making that scenario moot here. We are not discussing metabolic diseases just extremely imbalanced diets causing the body to adjust extremely.

I think you have it pretty good brother. I think I kind of get where you are missing and it is just a minor twist that I maybe am not explaining very well....

I pretty much agree with the notes for the most part. Some stuff you mentioned I just don't know.

I would point out that the idea of an adjustable metabolism - that you suddenly have a reduced thermal requirement because you are dieting, never really made sense. Leptin certainly plays a role - but as you can see above, the thermal load does not have to change at all and a .minor shift in carb/fat use for energy can have a dramatic impact on weight loss even with the same metabolism.

I don't think I am explaining something well and the thought actually hit me like a ton of bricks one day while running on the treadmill. And once I saw it I wondered how it could be that I've never read it anywhere before...it seems so obvious to me. But I obviously can't explain it very well or maybe I am wrong still... but this is helping me get better at explaining I hope.

I feel like you are actually moving closer to what I have been saying..we agree on a lot here.

I would be curious on the parts of the notes you don't know about. Or was it the adjustable metabolism?

You mean didn't make sense to you right? It makes sense to all the scientist that have documented it over and over again. Here are a couple reasons.
Leptin - you know how it works, it regulates the metabolism. It is a survival trait that is there to protect us from starvation. As body fat is lost so is leptin, as leptin levels lowers the metabolism slows down because it recognizes it has been in a long deficit. It thinks it is in a famine and that it needs to slow down the metabolic rate to preserve mass in an attempt to survive.

Also by the time you have been in a deficit long enough for leptin to slow the metabolism you have also lost body mass and less mass requires less energy to maintain or move. So the metabolism "slows" due to lower demand as well.

" I feel like you are actually moving closer to what I have been saying..we agree on a lot here."
I haven't changed my stance at all. I have been saying the same thing in many different ways and going further and further into detail with each post trying to derail what I think are some illogical stances that even you can not defend with out creating unlikely hypothetical situations.

We agree on everything about the known functions / processes. The breakdown is you getting stuck on the specific processes you are focusing on and not what is happening in the rest of the organism/body. Especially where some of the processes we have discussed and you have agreed with how they work contradict the hypothetical situations you presented. IE suddenly not being able access the TCA cycle to use fat for energy at a time when the TCA cycle is the main energy cycle being used due to type of diet that would be required to stimulate the need for regular lipid gluconeogenisis. There has to be at least mild ketosis, muscles need to be depleted of glycogen as well as not having a high amount of aminos in the amino acid pool. That is the perfect scenario for using fat for energy.

On the bolded, I honestly think this is correct. Your refusal to consider the interaction and natural behavior of the rest of the body has not allowed you to see that the waste you are mentioning is not likely very high but instead more likely the fats will be used elsewhere in the body all if trying to lose fat since you will be in an energy deficit, and if not trying to lose fat then all of this is moot as the discussion is about how to lose fat.

I also don't see any natural way to make gluconeogenisis from lipids to be one of the main energy cycles, or even stimulate this often and for long enough truly make large deficit. Show me how this can be done and maybe we can agree that this premise has validity. However, lets not go hypothetical, show me it is possible via some measurable studies to even increase that cycle to even 30% of the energy used and I will be astounded!!!!

I like it. Lol

WooHoo!

Queue music...

Everything I do, I do it for you!

​BUT... I thought you love me!​ Screw you Robinhood!!!!

I live in hotels... this is my evening reading haha

Or cardio reading if stuck inside

There you go!!!

Enjoy the back and forth and making me think on some of these things

Good deal that's why I take the time to talk about this stuff on here.

I'm to lazy to read that much, I am waiting on the Reader's Digest Condensed Version. (You might have to be old to remember these)

I remember but heck some might consider me old too!

Ugh!!! Trying to recreate the great post didn't work but this will have to do.

 

[MrKleen73]

HOLY CRAP!!!! IT'S A WORKOUT AND PROGRESS POST!!!

Did a quick body weight circuit style workout yesterday. I didn't count reps, I just ran through this complex 5 times and called it a day.

5 rounds - All upper body sets taken about 2 reps shy of failure, squats and walking lunges x 25 per side. Rest was 30-60 seconds.

Pull Ups, Push Ups, Air Squat x25, Recline Ring Rows, Dips, Walking Lunges x 25 steps per side.

Post Workout took a full dose of Blue Sugar- 2 plates of protein heavy 93/7 ground turkey, rice, corn and brown gravy casserole, and had 2 plates of it. If I were to guess it was probably about 10oz turkey, 2 cups rice, 1/4 cup corn and I have no clue on the fat free brown gravy...

I woke up looking leaner, getting into that area where little things are noticed every couple days. Thus far reintroducing carbs every other day has not slowed progress as all. If anything I seemed to make some sudden progress.

 

[HIT4ME]

First let me say this... I had a response typed out that I had worded in a way that seemed to truly illustrate some things regarding this and I got a PM notification and when I canceled it the thing went to my inbox and lost everything I had written. I sure hope I can word it as well again. Frustrating to lose some good writing!!! I am writing this in a gmail as a draft so I don't lose it. LOL

LMAO – that sucks big time. I put your response into a word document to respond, based on what you just said, and it was over 2.5 pages of text at 10 point font. Ouch.

" Which is my point. If you have to convert fat into glucose you will waste a ton of energy. The energy may be excreted or just wasted as heat. I don't know, but I know it will be wasted."

Negative, it can not be "wasted" as heat. The heat can not be generated without burning the calories. So that is metabolic use not waste...

Ok, maybe the correct wording I should have used is, “useful metabolic process”. What I mean to say here is that the energy lost is not usable for some kind of metabolicly functional outcome – like exercise. Yes, it “burns calories” if it is lost as heat – but that is actually “waste”. Are you going to tell me that DNP or any form of thermogenesis speeds up your metabolism by increasing the energy your body uses for a functional outcome? No, it decreases the efficiency with which your body can use energy and increases waste – and a lot of that waste is still “energy” it’s just lost to heat.

In the same manner – CO2 is a waste of energy from the perspective of metabolism. From a chemistry perspective, no energy has been lost at all...because energy is never lost. Humans just aren’t very good at burning CO2 for energy – so we’ve evolved to excrete it as lost energy, or waste. The energy is still “there” but we can’t access it.

You have already agreed with my notes from the last post which is good. They provide the answer, the answer is that there is no way that you won't be able to plug into the TCA because PDK will be elevated during a keto diet or any time you are in a deficit regardless of macros eaten. This is because the body fat will need to be burned to make up the deficit. So for that reason PDK will always be present, and even glucagon will be higher while on keto which increases lipolosys and fat burning too. Fat burning will be the primary energy source for anyone on keto, so accessing the TCA system will be the norm, not something they can not do. Remember your argument before was that keto makes people become too efficient at burning fat due to high PDK. So they would obviously be able to access the TCA cycle at any time that carbohydrate and protein was so low that they needed to resort gluconeogenisis from fats to make glucose. The body will always use the easiest source of energy that is appropriate for the activity. That means to get much gluconeogenisis from lipids to occur you would need to be depleted and not have carbs or much aminos in your system and then do intense anaerobic activity for an extended period of time. Moderate work will just resort to making ATP from ketones.

So what you are describing is purely hypothetical or the result of a sudden onset metabolic disease that completely broke the TCA cycle. Again unlikely and would make it not relevant to our discussion.

There are large portions of this that are incorrect. We agree – PDK will be elevated in a high fat diet. That’s kind of my point, it down regulates the PDC and increases the efficiency of energy production from a unit of mass.

Let’s get back to the original premise though for a second – PDK is one concept, but it’s more of a mechanism behind the bigger concept so it isn’t technically important – Fat is a more efficient source of energy than carbs. That’s it. If you eat ¼ pound of fat, you get about 1,008 calories about. If you eat ¼ pound of carbs, you get about 450 calories.

Both are made up of the same basic chemicals – although in different amounts and in different formations. Carbon, Oxygen and Hydrogen are the basic molecules in both, however. So they’re somewhat convertible.

First – whether or not you have SOME access to the TCA cycle isn’t the question, it’s how the fats get utilized within the cycle that determines how much is used for glucose production vs. direct ATP production. Ultimately, what happens is the fats become Acetyl-CoA, which then go through the cycle, and get converted to glucose from there. But if they actually make the full turn, they will just kick off ATP. A single molecule of fat, however, cannot power gluconeogenesis from this cycle because carbon molecules are lost (as waste) and there are no carbons for the creation of the glucose. But ketones and a molecule of fat can do this, and this DOES happen in nature. As a matter of fact, the biology books often said it wasn’t possible, but observations back to the late 70’s or early 80’s I believe did show that it is, in fact, something that happens when you break down fat.

And, as per your paragraph above, that is the point, right? You are downregulating the PDC by utilizing fat, which means that pyruvate is not utilized efficiently (not saying this needs or is an all-or-nothing situation).

Also, the point is you don’t NEED much gluconeogenesis to occur for this to have a dramatic impact on weight loss. In my previous example I showed how you lost 12% more mass from just a 10% increase in carbohydrate usage through gluconeogenesis. It doesn’t need to be all or nothing, and would probably kill you if it was.

This goes back to your original statement way back when though – who cares, it’s carbs...so you lose water weight but you’re not burning fat. Well, you have lost considerably MORE fat if you create a situation where you need to burn carbs (using your example – high intensity exercise) and you have to break down fat to get those carbs. The inefficiency of all this improves fat loss.

The reason I keep saying your math is flawed is because their are too many unknown variables. This is not a mathematical equation that you can solve with simple math. It is an ever changing random use of the lipids. You are trying to isolate the process and that is impossible it is part of the ever changing organism. When lipids are released into the blood stream they become available to any cell in the body that can use them. Their 37 trillion cells in the average human body so you can not know what processes are using them at any given point or how much each cell or process is using, but we do know if you are in a deficit that they will very likely be used. This is how the body works.

You trying to use simple math to illustrate the waste is high with this is pretty much impossible. Think about it like this because the variables are just as vast. Let's say you live in a city of a million people with a water reservoir in the middle of town that everyone uses, but nobody monitors their use, and every month it is filled with 100 million gallons of water. Now let's say you decide you are going to keep track of how many gallons you use over the course of the month, and think that with that limited information you could figure out how much water is left in the reservoir. You can't, you don't know who else used water or how much each of them used, but it would be illogical to assume that all or most of the water you were unable to account for was spilled.

In this situation you are assuming the things you don't know if or how they are being used are being wasted... and making up extremely unlikely hypothetical situations to try to justify the thought process to yourself.

Math is math is math. It has been used on NUMEROUS occasions to spot flaws in things with which we lack knowledge. It allows us to make predictions because we know that if the math must work, and it doesn’t, then there is something we don’t see.

Your analogy is flawed to the extreme to be honest. Something as simple as, “nobody monitors their use” is just completely false. In the body, what we are discussing is VERY tightly regulated. Just because we don’t understand what our body is doing, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a working system. As a matter of fact, you allude to the fact that it is tightly regulated – the process is extremely dynamic and “ever changing”. But it is NOT random in the least.

Again, I’m not really making assumptions – I’m just not breaking down the actual chemistry because, well, it would take a looong time for me to figure out. But maybe I will have to spend a week figuring it all out to lay it out. Regardless, I know enough about the logic involved to say, yes, it HAS to work out this way. It is unpossible for it to work out any other way.

And the process is not extremely unlikely or hypothetical, it has been observed in animals and in humans. Fat can be converted to glucose. It happens on a regular basis.

Also, you should re-read your entire premise. On one hand, I am “trying to isolate a process” and on the other I am making assumptions about waste. I’m either too detailed or not detailed enough my man – I think, for you, I’m not detailed enough. I think I’m going to have to lay out the chemistry….

Now on the " There is mathematically no way to create a 4 calorie carb from a 9 calorie fat without seeing this waste. It isn't a vacuum. It is just math" part.

Actually if what you said about MASS=Energy is a thermodynamic law then the reality is that 1 gram of fat could never make 1 gram of of Carbohydrate. To use your words, "It's just simple math..." Remember 2 carbons are burned from the initial phase of conversion and 2 more have to be donated. So it requires more than 1 gram of fat to make one gram of carbohydrate as at least 2 carbons are burned in the process. Again you might try to point out that the inefficiency is exactly why you are proposing this. However the likelihood of creating the scenario required to make that process occur as a metabolic switch to being used preferentially is basically nil. Well unless they come up with some drug to make it happen.

Actually – first – keep in mind I’m trying to explain logic using an analogy. Similar to asking someone, “If I’m in a truck in outer space traveling at the speed of light, and I turn on the headlights, what happens?” (answer – nothing special other than you’ve been going at the speed of light in the dark prior to that).

The analogy has a number of flaws. I mean, how does one acquire a truck that can travel through space? How do you accelerate a truck to the speed of light? And on and on – it’s a thought experiment. It serves a use even though it is flawed. Not all thought experiments (especially mine) are winners.

Now, I’m using the thought experiment of just simplifying it to – IF YOU COULD convert 1 gram of fat to 1 gram of carbs, you can see there is an energy loss. Now, maybe you have a couple carbon molecules left over or you come up a couple short and you don’t get a full gram of carbs out of it. That’s the next step.

In reality, you are correct – we can’t just directly convert the fat to the carbs. 1 molecule of fat will never convert to any amount of carbs. We know that – you need at least 2 molecules of fat to make any carbs. And this conversion will not be 100%. From a gram of fat you will likely wind up with some small amount of carbohydrate, some amount of ketones, some remaining fat, some carbon, some hydrogen, some oxygen that forms a number of other substances – some of which can be used and some of which will be excreted as waste.

The problem is, you are starting with a substance that has 9 calories/gram. NO OTHER substance that will be created from the breakdown and conversion of the original substance will have more than 9 calories. There will, however, be a substance that has 4 calories. And some substance that is completely unusable for energy (say, water and CO2).

So let’s create mental “buckets”. We have fat = 9 calories in the first bucket. Ketones = 9 calories in the second bucket. Carbs = 4 calories in the 3rd bucket. Reusable substrate left over, and let’s even say this has 9 calories per gram. And of course we have unusable “waste” left over in the final bucket = 0 calories per gram.

Now, one concept here – just because we are saying something has 0 calories per gram does not mean it doesn’t have any energy! It just means we cannot access it. It has 0 calories for the purposes of our metabolism. Wood has a lot of calories too – but you can eat it all you want and you will never burn it unless you set yourself on fire. So if you bought some freshly packaged wood from your local grocer, the nutrition label would read, “Calories – 0”.

The final bucket is the same way – it’s a bunch of stuff that still has energy, but we cannot access it. The energy isn’t lost to the universe – it is lost to us.

Now, we have a combination of 5 buckets. The original substance used to fill these buckets had 9 calories per gram. 3 of the buckets created still have 9 calories per gram. 1 bucket has 4 calories per gram. The final bucket has 0 calories per gram.

Can you tell me how I could POSSIBLY get 9 calories per gram from the 5 new buckets? It’s impossible. You have taken a portion of the original substance and made it less than half as energy dense, and taken another portion and made it useless for energy.

This doesn’t even have to be all or nothing. If you just had the first 3 buckets and a bucket where 10% of the material was converted to carbs, you’ve wasted 12% of the energy involved. Throw in a bucket full of useless material and that only goes up – meaning the amount of energy available has now been reduced even more.

Look at the bolded, I didn't even have to say it, you did on your own. The reason you have to make up this pretend scenario is that you can not think of a legitimate way to illustrate the validity of your position. You are basically asking me to forget what we know about how the body works. It is a dynamic living organism and its systems work in conjunction of one another and all systems that can use the lipid substrates in the blood have access to it once it has broken down and entered the bloodstream. Not just gluconeogenis.

The reason I have to make up a pretend scenario is because I’m trying to get the concept across without getting stuck in the weeds. I have numerous ways to illustrate my position – but I would have to sit down and figure out each cycle and add up the molecules and show you the specific math, which I maybe should take the time to do – but I personally don’t need to do it because I have the concept in my grasp.

And there are also numerous observations in the research literature that support my theory – including having mice that were genetically engineered without the gene for PDK creation, that didn’t gain weight on a high fat diet that made their counterparts morbidly obese.

Or studies that have shown in the human population that the people who tend to seem naturally lean also tend to eat more carbohydrates than average. (correlation – maybe they can get away with it because they are naturally lean, so they do it? But on the other hand, obese people get away with it too...they just get fat).

And the entire premise of this debate is that breaking down fat isn’t JUST for gluconeogenesis. I mean -if it were JUST for gluconeogenesis, then why would we even be discussing using it in the TCA cycle direction?

You are also asking me to view gluconeogenisis from lipids as an isolated process to make it fit into your massive waste scenario and ignore everything else I know about the human metabolism that would be required for lipid gluconeogenis to occur often enough and long enough to make it a preferential or even often used energy source. I imagine you are not the first person to have the idea to exploit the inefficiency of this energy channel. If it were naturally plausible to do this I bet you would have read it somewhere already.

I have seen discussions of this going back to 1978 in some shape or form, but nothing ever really putting it together in terms of E=MC2. It is also a MAJOR source of research for numerous diseases, including diabetes and obesity – but mostly cancer because elevated PDK is a big factor in how most tumor cells prefer to metabolize material.

The irony in this is it is my “massive waste scenario” and “ignores everything else you know about human metabolism” but people eat up the dogma of, “starvation mode” or “adjustable metabolisms” - like your body will ever try to be less efficient than it could be without reason (i.e. - wasting a bunch of energy because you happen to have extra at the moment when you could just store it).

This waste scenario gives a mechanism for which mass is conserved, which will give the impression of a “slowed” metabolism, AND an underlying function behind that conservation (PDK) that is well studies and pretty basic.

As far as the math listed here, no need to address it in detail because as you said the entire thing is impossible, and even if it was you are still not accounting for what portions of that 1 gram of fat were used elsewhere in the body... Only 50-55% of the ketones produced from a gram of fat are acetone the other 45-50%s can not be used for that process. Assuming that all or even much of that 40-50% is wasted, especially in a deficit is not logical with everything that is known about the metabolism...

Thus far for this to even appear valid has required you to make up a few hypothetical situations that range from extremely unlikely to "requiring magic".

See above. I don’t require the magic. I don’t require a truck flying at the speed of light either. I get it. I’m trying to convey.

Also, I AM accounting for the portions of the 1 gram that are not used. I’m accounting for everything, just not on a molecular detail level because it would require a lot of time and yes, further learning. If you have the knowledge to lay out the metabolic processes involved, I encourage you to jump in there – and show me that fat converts to carbs at a 100% efficient rate with no energy loss.

As I type that, I realize how preposterous that sounds...of course there is energy lost.

Your knowledge of the process is not being challenged here, your math and assumption that lipids will not likely be used elsewhere while someone is in a deficit is.

The other thing I am challenging is the idea that there is a natural way for you to cause lipid gluconeogenisis while at the same time at you are basically saying that you need to not be able to burn fat for the bulk of the left over lipid substrates to be wasted in stead of used. The situation required to kick up gluconeogenisis amply enough to truly make a big dent also requires glycogen depletion, ketosis and intense anaerobic activity.

See, you say stuff like this and it’s like you are SOOOOOO close. THIS IS part of the theory here – you get fat, PDK elevates, you stop burning carbs efficiently. As my math in previous posts shows, a 10% of fat to carb conversion yields a dramatic reduction in mass at the same caloric intake – well, being fat and elevating PDK will do the opposite – it will conserve mass at any energy expenditure; thus giving the “impression” of metabolic slowdown, even though your energy requirements have remained the same (no magical thermostat here where we suddenly just don’t burn as many calories as we did when were were fed.....since we don’t like magic).

And of course – the solution to obesity is, restrict calories – get in a state that depletes glycogen, maybe use ketosis, maybe increase exercise – which makes us even better at burning fat and thus conserving mass. IF we can reverse that, and improve glucose utilization even in an environment where we lack glucose – i.e. our body says, “Shoot, intense exercise happens every day and I have no glycogen...hate to do this, but gotta get ready”...then we can improve fat loss.

Many of the advice given to people already goes in this direction without knowing why – including carb refeeds...this theory provides the underlying mechanism for why this appears to work in most people – and also things like why refeeds don’t make much difference in really obese individuals, etc.

Only eating in a caloric surplus can make someone fat. End of story. Does not matter if they are metabolically inflexible or not. They can not get fat without being in a surplus regardless of the energy sources eaten. Plenty of other issues being metabolically inflexible can cause, but metabolic inflexibility just means you are not good at switching between energy sources. It doesn't mean your metabolism is messed up. Most metabolic inflexibility is brought on by diet, and is also corrected by diet or diet and exercise.

Slowly reintroducing carbs back into the diet after ketosis often ends up improving insulin sensitivity above what it was before the keto diet. As long as fats are lowered to make room for the carbs and you are maintenance then PDK levels will beging to drop and the metabolic inflexibility will improve. Only if the system is actually broken will it not. Again making that scenario moot here. We are not discussing metabolic diseases just extremely imbalanced diets causing the body to adjust extremely.

I agree with this – energy requirements are the key. BUT – what I’m also saying is that it is half the equation. If you have high levels of PDK – you are efficient at burning fat – which means you can get a lot of energy out of very little mass. It also means you are inefficient at burning carbs, which means they back up, and get stored as fat. It also, after long periods of obesity, may mean your carb burning is so impaired that some of the carbs you eat MUST be converted to fat in order to burn them.

What does this mean? That means that ¼ pound of food you ate now gets converted to fat and actually acts as if it has more calories per gram because the energy is more accessible. Not saying it’s a 100% thing. But even if you take 200 grams of carbs and convert that to say, 30 grams of fat, 20 grams of unusable substrate and 150 grams of carbs – you now have 880 calories available instead of 800. I mean, it’s hypothetical math but you can plug in almost any number where you get more usable fat than unusable substrate and you will see an increase in energy availability. Say 10 grams of fat and 10 grams of unusable substrate – 180 grams of carbs left over = 720 + 90 calories of fat = 810 calories instead of just 800. And that’s with only a 50% successful conversion.

I would be curious on the parts of the notes you don't know about. Or was it the adjustable metabolism?

Gonna have to get back on this...running out of time. I think, for the most part, what you said is pretty accurate – just that as you research this stuff, it’s kind of always changing and you start to realize how we are just scratching the tip of the iceberg.

You mean didn't make sense to you right? It makes sense to all the scientist that have documented it over and over again. Here are a couple reasons.
Leptin - you know how it works, it regulates the metabolism. It is a survival trait that is there to protect us from starvation. As body fat is lost so is leptin, as leptin levels lowers the metabolism slows down because it recognizes it has been in a long deficit. It thinks it is in a famine and that it needs to slow down the metabolic rate to preserve mass in an attempt to survive.

Also by the time you have been in a deficit long enough for leptin to slow the metabolism you have also lost body mass and less mass requires less energy to maintain or move. So the metabolism "slows" due to lower demand as well.

Yes, I get how leptin works or at least how it is theorized to work. I agree with this assessment from the theory of it all.

" I feel like you are actually moving closer to what I have been saying..we agree on a lot here."
I haven't changed my stance at all. I have been saying the same thing in many different ways and going further and further into detail with each post trying to derail what I think are some illogical stances that even you can not defend with out creating unlikely hypothetical situations.

I am going to multi-quote out of order because I wonder if you realize the irony in the above statement with the following when they are put next to each other:

On the bolded, I honestly think this is correct. Your refusal to consider the interaction and natural behavior of the rest of the body has not allowed you to see that the waste you are mentioning is not likely very high but instead more likely the fats will be used elsewhere in the body all if trying to lose fat since you will be in an energy deficit, and if not trying to lose fat then all of this is moot as the discussion is about how to lose fat.

You admit in the first statement that you haven’t changed your stance at all and then tell me I’m being inflexible. I like that. Very cute.

I am doing the same – saying what I am saying in multiple ways to try to help get over the hurdle. I mean, come on, I’ve even invoked magic to try to help – this is perfectly acceptable when we talk about how your body magically adapts its caloric usage, and you have even doubled down on the magic on your side, by implying that “there is no way of regulating this random process” with your water department theory – and I’m giving a chemical, underlying function of energy production that is well studied and accepted as being a simple answer to all of the problems and you want to invoke recently discovered hormones which we know little about?

I will gladly stop using my magic analogies ...I was only trying to help

And I’ve provided a mathematical approach even – without claiming this effect needs to be large at all, actually underscoring how SMALL this effect needs to be to explain a number of the observations that are out there and have had magical explanations (like starvation mode) for decades.

To be clear here too – I know you well enough to know you take the “starvation mode” thing with a grain of salt, not saying this is exactly your stance. I’m just saying my theory is far more logical and detailed than the “magical thermostat” theory that most people use to explain these observations when dieting.

We agree on everything about the known functions / processes. The breakdown is you getting stuck on the specific processes you are focusing on and not what is happening in the rest of the organism/body. Especially where some of the processes we have discussed and you have agreed with how they work contradict the hypothetical situations you presented. IE suddenly not being able access the TCA cycle to use fat for energy at a time when the TCA cycle is the main energy cycle being used due to type of diet that would be required to stimulate the need for regular lipid gluconeogenisis. There has to be at least mild ketosis, muscles need to be depleted of glycogen as well as not having a high amount of aminos in the amino acid pool. That is the perfect scenario for using fat for energy.

I also don't see any natural way to make gluconeogenisis from lipids to be one of the main energy cycles, or even stimulate this often and for long enough truly make large deficit. Show me how this can be done and maybe we can agree that this premise has validity. However, lets not go hypothetical, show me it is possible via some measurable studies to even increase that cycle to even 30% of the energy used and I will be astounded!!!!

We don’t necessarily agree on all of the known functions and processes. For instance- gluconeogenesis from lipids DOES occur in caloric deficits. Low carbs or not. It’s not efficient, and for a long time was thought to not even be possible. And yes, it does require ketones. But it does happen. It isn’t hypothetical or far fetched.

And I’m not “focused” on one function beyond it’s role in the over-arching concept. I’m aware there are dozens of functions at play here, some of which I know little about, some of which I’ve learned a little about, etc. - but I’ve introduced just 1 concept (fat burning has a more efficient energy/mass ratio than carbs), and 1 underlying mechanism for how that works, which is a major player it seems. I’ve had some other stuff come through here that I’ve even typed out and deleted because...well….how confused do we want to get? My word document here with your quotes is almost 6 pages long.

One of the big things here is, I have never made any all-or-nothing claims here. I’m showing you, with simple math, that a SMALL shift in carbohydrate metabolism has a large impact on perceived metabolism from a tissue/mass perspective. I mean, they may be small – above a 10% shift with a 50% conversion rate (which means 50% of the material becomes worthless, which probably is NOT the case and would increase calories more if the math played out) – yields a 5% increase in fat usage and a 1% increase in energy expenditure. That’s with 50% waste!

The fact that the system is complex and we can’t get our minds around it, doesn’t change the fact that the rules of the universe still apply.

 

[HIT4ME]

HOLY CRAP!!!! IT'S A WORKOUT AND PROGRESS POST!!!

Did a quick body weight circuit style workout yesterday. I didn't count reps, I just ran through this complex 5 times and called it a day.

5 rounds - All upper body sets taken about 2 reps shy of failure, squats and walking lunges x 25 per side. Rest was 30-60 seconds.

Pull Ups, Push Ups, Air Squat x25, Recline Ring Rows, Dips, Walking Lunges x 25 steps per side.

Post Workout took a full dose of Blue Sugar- 2 plates of protein heavy 93/7 ground turkey, rice, corn and brown gravy casserole, and had 2 plates of it. If I were to guess it was probably about 10oz turkey, 2 cups rice, 1/4 cup corn and I have no clue on the fat free brown gravy...

I woke up looking leaner, getting into that area where little things are noticed every couple days. Thus far reintroducing carbs every other day has not slowed progress as all. If anything I seemed to make some sudden progress.

Yeah, this is getting a bit ridiculous, even for me...haha. We need a radio show or something. We could yell at each other and people would love it!!

It's PDK! No it's LEPTIN! No, it's Adropin!

 

[MrKleen73]

I forgot to mention, I decided Friday when I ran out of Var not to add in the the DMZ and Epistane I had planned too. Instead I might decide to run a higher dosed blast of them the last 2 weeks of the challenge if things have calmed down enough for me to lazer back in on my weight training. Either way, I figure a couple weeks off is not a bad thing at all and if things are optimal for me to run the blast at that time I will. If not I will just use it later in the year.

 

[MrKleen73]

I forgot to mention, I decided Friday when I ran out of Var not to add in the the DMZ and Epistane I had planned too. Instead I might decide to run a higher dosed blast of them the last 2 weeks of the challenge if things have calmed down enough for me to lazer back in on my weight training. Either way, I figure a couple weeks off is not a bad thing at all and if things are optimal for me to run the blast at that time I will. If not I will just use it later in the year.

Well to be fair, I am logging my workouts and some other stuff in my Blue Sugar log. Invalid Link Removed So that is why I am not sweating it too much, now if this convo was in that log it would be a distraction.

 

[HIT4ME]

Well to be fair, I am logging my workouts and some other stuff in my Blue Sugar log. Invalid Link Removed So that is why I am not sweating it too much, now if this convo was in that log it would be a distraction.

Distraction? I am exhausted. For real...I want to take a nap.

 

[HIT4ME]

I think I need one of those "magical cookies" now....speaking of magic.

 

[MrKleen73]

Distraction? I am exhausted. For real...I want to take a nap.

Yeah, I did a quick workout last night so that I could respond because I was so annoyed that my original post got lost. It became a thing that had t be corrected for me to even move on... Then of course it ended up longer and less reader friendly when I tried to recreate it.

I think I need one of those "magical cookies" now....speaking of magic.

Oh Man!!!! I wish that was an option around here... 10-20mg of awesomeness would be great. Might not be what you meant but thats okay too. LOL

 

[HIT4ME]

Yeah, I did a quick workout last night so that I could respond because I was so annoyed that my original post got lost. It became a thing that had t be corrected for me to even move on... Then of course it ended up longer and less reader friendly when I tried to recreate it.

Oh Man!!!! I wish that was an option around here... 10-20mg of awesomeness would be great. Might not be what you meant but thats okay too. LOL

I would have given up if I lost all that. I can't begin to say how bad that stinks. Probably the moment I lost it I would have moved on haha.


And wait, so NOW you are saying that you like magic? :dunno:

 

[Hyde]

I didn’t read any of the topical posts so sorry if this was covered, but HIT4ME - you mentioned in HGP’s thread people gave you crap for using a PSMF approach, despite it working for you.

Why don’t you give it a go again if it works for you? I don’t see anything wrong with it, or any approach if it’s working for someone. And honestly, my and their opinion isn’t as important as your happiness.

Just a question I had that was bothering me I meant to ask.

 

[HIT4ME]

I didn’t read any of the topical posts so sorry if this was covered, but HIT4ME - you mentioned in HGP’s thread people gave you crap for using a PSMF approach, despite it working for you.

Why don’t you give it a go again if it works for you? I don’t see anything wrong with it, or any approach if it’s working for someone. And honestly, my and their opinion isn’t as important as your happiness.

Just a question I had that was bothering me I meant to ask.

haha - yeah, I would. It takes a lot of dedication to be honest, and desire. I'm just not at that point right now. I have way too many stresses and things going on that I'm just trying to make small gains for the moment. It definitely works. I don't really care if people give me crap, I'm gonna do my own thing - I was just pointing out the irony of how you can't win No matter what you're doing, people will use an argument against you, and if you try something new, they will reverse the argument to use it against you.

In other words - with Hairygrandpa I was worrying too much about details and should just hit things with a sledge hammer. But when I broke out the sledge hammer and used a PSMF - everyone was all up in arms that I was going to have metabolic shutdown and wasn't paying attention to the details and I was being stupid. Common thread?? Hit4me = being stupid. And proud of it. I've done some dumb things on here. And the party hasn't even started yet. I"m sure over the next few years - it's gonna get REALLY stupid.

In other words, people complain no matter what.

In this thread, MrKleen73 tells me that I'm focused too much on details and not paying attention to the big picture, because the big picture includes a lot of complicated details and I'm just using magic to explain it. And then it turns out, he loves magic and thinks it's awesome.

And I'm pretty happy where I am at right now...I'm a bit chubby, but I'm not trying so hard and I'm slowly nudging downward and still enjoying life. And it's giving me a good place to do some experimenting on some ideas and see if it works - without getting so far away from where I should be that I get in trouble. I can still see the shore from here.

 

[HIT4ME]

I didn’t read any of the topical posts so sorry if this was covered, but HIT4ME - you mentioned in HGP’s thread people gave you crap for using a PSMF approach, despite it working for you.

Why don’t you give it a go again if it works for you? I don’t see anything wrong with it, or any approach if it’s working for someone. And honestly, my and their opinion isn’t as important as your happiness.

Just a question I had that was bothering me I meant to ask.

Also, to this point, I think there's kind of an intellectual draw for me. In this case, I was a super-obese kid. I lost it around 7th grade, got in shape, maintained until college, gained and lost in college, stabilized around 180 through college, got into the real world and started working and over more than a decade probably got over 300 pounds at 5'8''. Then I lost some (down to 250#), maintained that, then got serious and got down to 178, then back up to 215/220 and then got serious again (logged on here) and got down to 165# and then went back to 190 pretty quick and over a year and a half have come back up to about 210. I'm sitting at about 201 right now.

The fact is, most people who lose weight, especially if they've spent a lot of their life being extremely obese, gain it back. It's more often the case than not. And a lot has to do with habits, and I've obviously proven that you can overcome anything with sheer force by doing the PSMF, but I guess the idea that weight gain is inevitable after the weight loss - as is the case for 3/4 of people or more - is intriguing to me. What is it that makes someone who is obese gain it back?

Is it habits? Probably. Does body make up have something to do with it? Probably. Is it socio-economic status? Probably. Is it marketing influence? highly likely in many ways. But everyone focuses on will power, which just isn't a complete explanation.

On the other hand, if I told you that you have trouble maintaining weight because of society and/or marketing you would tell me I was a conspiracy theorist - yet if I asked how many people on this board brush their teeth every day I'd get looked at sideways as if everyone does that merely because it's "healthy" (when there is less evidence it has any health benefit than most people would believe).

But more importantly, why are some people just naturally lean and some people seem to be hopelessly fat?

 

[MrKleen73]

I would have given up if I lost all that. I can't begin to say how bad that stinks. Probably the moment I lost it I would have moved on haha.


And wait, so NOW you are saying that you like magic? :dunno:

LMAO, only when it's edible...

 

[Hyde]

Well, the big picture is just to eat less than you need to lose or more to gain. That’s 95% of the potential and we know it, and 100% necessary for results.

F*ck what people think. I don’t care if some bro on his first andro cycle thinks my diet is wrong. Or a seasoned pro. My gf’s training coach tried to tell her she can’t have a slice of fake cheese on her turkey burger because it’s empty... I told her f*ck that, this diet rips her to shreds every single time and the cheese keeps her compliant.

I’ve seen her abs 3 times now from it; I think the cheese is clearly acceptable in the big picture.

 

[HIT4ME]

LMAO, only when it's edible...

Yes, edible magic is pretty sweet. Although ...I never got into that kind of magic. That stuff just never interested me. I don't know why.

Well, the big picture is just to eat less than you need to lose or more to gain. That’s 95% of the potential and we know it, and 100% necessary for results.

F*ck what people think. I don’t care if some bro on his first andro cycle thinks my diet is wrong. Or a seasoned pro. My gf’s training coach tried to tell her she can’t have a slice of fake cheese on her turkey burger because it’s empty... I told her f*ck that, this diet rips her to shreds every single time and the cheese keeps her compliant.

I’ve seen her abs 3 times now from it; I think the cheese is clearly acceptable in the big picture.

Well, yes, that is the sledge hammer and you are 100% right. I always say that motivation is the key. I have seen people who knew NOTHING about nutrition go on diets and have tremendous success, because they just willed it.

But losing weight and staying lean are two different battles too.

I mean, you could eat Twinkies and lose weight if you abide by a color deficit. On some level, beyond that is over thinking.

But what would I be if I didn't like to do stupid experiments?

 

[MrKleen73]

I didn’t read any of the topical posts so sorry if this was covered, but HIT4ME - you mentioned in HGP’s thread people gave you crap for using a PSMF approach, despite it working for you.

Why don’t you give it a go again if it works for you? I don’t see anything wrong with it, or any approach if it’s working for someone. And honestly, my and their opinion isn’t as important as your happiness.

Just a question I had that was bothering me I meant to ask.

No doubt!

haha - yeah, I would. It takes a lot of dedication to be honest, and desire. I'm just not at that point right now. I have way too many stresses and things going on that I'm just trying to make small gains for the moment. It definitely works. I don't really care if people give me crap, I'm gonna do my own thing - I was just pointing out the irony of how you can't win No matter what you're doing, people will use an argument against you, and if you try something new, they will reverse the argument to use it against you.

In other words - with Hairygrandpa I was worrying too much about details and should just hit things with a sledge hammer. But when I broke out the sledge hammer and used a PSMF - everyone was all up in arms that I was going to have metabolic shutdown and wasn't paying attention to the details and I was being stupid. Common thread?? Hit4me = being stupid. And proud of it. I've done some dumb things on here. And the party hasn't even started yet. I"m sure over the next few years - it's gonna get REALLY stupid.

In other words, people complain no matter what.

In this thread, MrKleen73 tells me that I'm focused too much on details and not paying attention to the big picture, because the big picture includes a lot of complicated details and I'm just using magic to explain it. And then it turns out, he loves magic and thinks it's awesome.

And I'm pretty happy where I am at right now...I'm a bit chubby, but I'm not trying so hard and I'm slowly nudging downward and still enjoying life. And it's giving me a good place to do some experimenting on some ideas and see if it works - without getting so far away from where I should be that I get in trouble. I can still see the shore from here.

Haha! Love it!

That is a good place to be as long as you aren't beating yourself up over anything.

Also, to this point, I think there's kind of an intellectual draw for me. In this case, I was a super-obese kid. I lost it around 7th grade, got in shape, maintained until college, gained and lost in college, stabilized around 180 through college, got into the real world and started working and over more than a decade probably got over 300 pounds at 5'8''. Then I lost some (down to 250#), maintained that, then got serious and got down to 178, then back up to 215/220 and then got serious again (logged on here) and got down to 165# and then went back to 190 pretty quick and over a year and a half have come back up to about 210. I'm sitting at about 201 right now.

The fact is, most people who lose weight, especially if they've spent a lot of their life being extremely obese, gain it back. It's more often the case than not. And a lot has to do with habits, and I've obviously proven that you can overcome anything with sheer force by doing the PSMF, but I guess the idea that weight gain is inevitable after the weight loss - as is the case for 3/4 of people or more - is intriguing to me. What is it that makes someone who is obese gain it back?

Is it habits? Probably. Does body make up have something to do with it? Probably. Is it socio-economic status? Probably. Is it marketing influence? highly likely in many ways. But everyone focuses on will power, which just isn't a complete explanation.

On the other hand, if I told you that you have trouble maintaining weight because of society and/or marketing you would tell me I was a conspiracy theorist - yet if I asked how many people on this board brush their teeth every day I'd get looked at sideways as if everyone does that merely because it's "healthy" (when there is less evidence it has any health benefit than most people would believe).

But more importantly, why are some people just naturally lean and some people seem to be hopelessly fat?

There you go trying to use a piece of the puzzle and wondering why you can't figure out what the picture is again! I kid I kid! Kind of. I think everything you just mentioned is a piece of that puzzle my friend. In the end people who get fat easily often don't do it by eating a ton of food. They are quite often not eating large quantities, but due to their make up and metabolism it requires a low caloric level for them to be in a deficit.

I myself can sustain and even gain mass at least 1000 calories lower than most can. That also means I have to eat a a lot less less calories than the average person at my body weight to lose weight and that is what becomes very hard to maintain over the long haul. That and food just tastes so good!!!!

 

[HIT4ME]

No doubt!



Haha! Love it!

That is a good place to be as long as you aren't beating yourself up over anything.



There you go trying to use a piece of the puzzle and wondering why you can't figure out what the picture is again! I kid I kid! Kind of. I think everything you just mentioned is a piece of that puzzle my friend. In the end people who get fat easily often don't do it by eating a ton of food. They are quite often not eating large quantities, but due to their make up and metabolism it requires a low caloric level for them to be in a deficit.

I myself can sustain and even gain mass at least 1000 calories lower than most can. That also means I have to eat a a lot less less calories than the average person at my body weight to lose weight and that is what becomes very hard to maintain over the long haul. That and food just tastes so good!!!!

Yeah, see, I think a lot of times it is hard to admit some of that. That some people just can't tolerate much food. And I think guys like you and me tend and the majority of people with any success in this realm gave a kind of "nose to the grindstone" mentality where we talk tough and push forward. At least I know I do.

But as I've aged I've started to realize - there are so many factors and some stuff isn't 100% in your control - or at least it isn't something that most people recognize enough to control it.

And I was talking with a researcher doing work on appetite suppression who is finding some interesting things- one of which was that the hypothalamus actually has TRPV1 receptors. His research showed that body heat actually activated these receptors and thus upregulate POMC, which shut off metabolism. He did this research because he realized that he often had no appetite after working out.

But this stood out to me because a lot of obese people, like me, have below average body temps. I mean, I am typically as low as 96.6 and even on T3 at large doses I often don't hit 98 degrees.

And I also never seem to be "full".

And of course, having a lower body temp plays a role in having a lower metabolic output.

 

[MrKleen73]

Yeah, see, I think a lot of times it is hard to admit some of that. That some people just can't tolerate much food. And I think guys like you and me tend and the majority of people with any success in this realm gave a kind of "nose to the grindstone" mentality where we talk tough and push forward. At least I know I do.

But as I've aged I've started to realize - there are so many factors and some stuff isn't 100% in your control - or at least it isn't something that most people recognize enough to control it.

And I was talking with a researcher doing work on appetite suppression who is finding some interesting things- one of which was that the hypothalamus actually has TRPV1 receptors. His research showed that body heat actually activated these receptors and thus upregulate POMC, which shut off metabolism. He did this research because he realized that he often had no appetite after working out.

But this stood out to me because a lot of obese people, like me, have below average body temps. I mean, I am typically as low as 96.6 and even on T3 at large doses I often don't hit 98 degrees.

And I also never seem to be "full".

And of course, having a lower body temp plays a role in having a lower metabolic output.

Interesting, on the body temps... I am the same as far as my body temp being lower than average, but anyone who sits near me or touches me will tell me I run hot. I think in some way I am very efficient in releasing my body heat as well but I have no clue why that is. Do people ever mention this to you? My wife says I am like a radiator and she just feels the heat coming off of me.

Isn't it awesome though how many negative feedback loops the body has to regulate itself?

I think it is moreso that a slower metabolism will produce less heat, rather than being a part of the cause. However chicken or egg situation here and is possible that both could be correct in this case.

 

[HIT4ME]

Interesting, on the body temps... I am the same as far as my body temp being lower than average, but anyone who sits near me or touches me will tell me I run hot. I think in some way I am very efficient in releasing my body heat as well but I have no clue why that is. Do people ever mention this to you? My wife says I am like a radiator and she just feels the heat coming off of me.

Isn't it awesome though how many negative feedback loops the body has to regulate itself?

I think it is moreso that a slower metabolism will produce less heat, rather than being a part of the cause.

Yes - I am saying, if you have a slow metabolism you could have a low body temp and that research above indicates that having a low body temp may make you more prone to over eating.

My gf is always complaining that my hands and feet are ice cold but if we are in bed close to each other she always says she can feel the heat radiating off my body.

My grandmother and mom also have ice cold hands. It isn't reynauds but probably almost bad enough haha.

And yes, the feedback and redundancy is amazing. I think that's is part of the problem with people trying to solve problems, they don't realize that when you turn down one path way, another turns up to compensate, and the downstream consequences can be daunting. What seems like a small change turns into a big deal.

This is why I say I don't know to some things that seem pretty straight forward or are generally accepted.

 

[BigRed1974]

Same here with being hot but having the cold hands and feet at times. Also I maintain my size on little calories compared to my size but like Kleen said makes it tougher when trying to lose body fat.

 

[BennyMagoo79]

Edit:
Deleted the log entry I made in MrKleen's log.
I was lost, disoriented by the in depth debate regarding fat burning physiology.

 

[Hyde]

Tues 12th June bench triples w2m2

Wasn't going to bench today after r shoulder ache all weekend, but warmed up this morning and no sign of it. Hit:
120kg 2x3, 122.5kg 2x3, 120kgx3. Last set was not pretty, and shoulder is aching again now, all the way down to my hand.
BW pullups 5x6
Tri cable rope pushdown dropsets x3
7.5kg DB side delt raise 3x10
Goblet squats with 10kg plate held in front 3x10

I friggin’ love when people accidentally post updates in the wrong thread! Like finding an Easter egg

 

[Rocket3015]

I friggin’ love when people accidentally post updates in the wrong thread! Like finding an Easter egg

So for you, It's a hobby ??

 

[christ83189]

I friggin’ love when people accidentally post updates in the wrong thread! Like finding an Easter egg

Lol

 

[tyga tyga]

I friggin’ love when people accidentally post updates in the wrong thread! Like finding an Easter egg

Same.

I like when they don’t even edit the post, they just own it and leave it lolololol

 

[booneman77]

Same.

I like when they don’t even edit the post, they just own it and leave it lolololol

I like it even better when its ridiculously personal or awkwardly placed... such as with pics/etc in a food porn thread haha

 

[Hyde]

So for you, It's a hobby ??

More like an event...like seeing a shooting star

 

[MrKleen73]

Okay guys, I am back and back in business! I took the entire weekend off other than walking miles and miles each day. Today will be my first day back in the gym and on my diet.

I really have to give a shout out to the Blue Sugar, I really put it to the test as far as my diet went. I would probably be shooting low if I said I only had 2000 grams of Carbs between Friday and last night. I did not weigh myself but when looking in the mirror I am looking very full, and stomach is relatively flat. My abs are still intact but maybe a tiny bit less defined. I think once the excess fluid comes off over the next few days that I should be looking pretty good and will likely still show improvement this weekend in my progress pics.

 

[HIT4ME]

Okay guys, I am back and back in business! I took the entire weekend off other than walking miles and miles each day. Today will be my first day back in the gym and on my diet.

I really have to give a shout out to the Blue Sugar, I really put it to the test as far as my diet went. I would probably be shooting low if I said I only had 2000 grams of Carbs between Friday and last night. I did not weigh myself but when looking in the mirror I am looking very full, and stomach is relatively flat. My abs are still intact but maybe a tiny bit less defined. I think once the excess fluid comes off over the next few days that I should be looking pretty good and will likely still show improvement this weekend in my progress pics.

I thought you were spending the weekend writing up a response. Haha

 

[MrKleen73]

I thought you were spending the weekend writing up a response. Haha

NICE ONE!