contstipated..
- Thread starter phatkid77
- Start date
hardasnails1973
Registered User
High fat diet cause inuslin resistance and fatty liver !! BEEN THERE DID THAT DONE THAT. REduces t4 to t3 conversion over time and causes mineral deficeincy Fats binds with calcium and magneisum, zinc, copper, ect..
Scottyo
Well-known member
ever thought you might have a gluten insensitivity...and thus the keto or no carbs is just feeling better because you are getting rid of a trigger.
a lot of people with hormonal issues, or immune problems as well as constipation/diarhea do better without gluten, even if your not full blown celiac disease.
a lot of people with hormonal issues, or immune problems as well as constipation/diarhea do better without gluten, even if your not full blown celiac disease.
EIC
Member
I'm not sure about this. Do you have some supporting authority for this conclusion? My understanding is that carbohydrate, not fat, consumption leads to insulin resistance and fatty liver. The problem is surely triglycerides, but problems with triglycerides stem from carbohydrates, not fat consumption alone. If anything, a high fat diet would increase insulin sensitivity since the body, now tuned to run primarily on lipids, would preferentially store carbohydrate as glycogen and would need less insulin to do it due to the body's "thirst" for it.
I'm also not sure about fat binding with minerals. I've only ever heard of phytic acid (again in carbohydrate-laden grains) binding with minerals like magnesium and zinc. Support?
hardasnails1973
Registered User
EIC
Member
First of all, let me say that using rats is somewhat questionable as it is not clear that rat diets are similar to human diets. This is key because if rats are not intended to live off of protein and fat, as I believe humans are, then it wouldn't be surprising to see that such things muck up their systems. It is as questionable as testing the lipid hypothesis of cardiovascular disease on rabbits (which it was).
That being said, I read that study as supporting exactly what I'm saying.
"Therefore, in skeletal muscle of rats, 1) feeding a diet high in fat induces a reduction in insulin-stimulated glucose uptake but 2) provides an increase in basal glucose uptake."
So glucose uptake into skeletal muscle increased, but insulin-dependent glucose uptake decreased in the high-fat diet. This means that more glucose found its way into the muscles but that less insulin was needed to get it there. In other words, insulin sensitivity increased. We'd expect the exact opposite if the high-fat diet increased insulin resistance (i.e., less glucose in muscle and more insulin needed to get in there).
Other pertinent statements:
"2-deoxyglucose uptake in HF-mixed-fed rats did not differ from that in HCHO-fed rats (P > 0.05)."
"Glucose tolerance was significantly reduced in HF-saff-fed rats but was unaffected by the HF-mixed diet."
"Insulin-stimulated 3-O-methylglucose uptake into perfused hindlimb muscles was reduced in rats fed HF-saff and HF-mixed diets compared with those fed HCHO diet (P < 0.02)."
Again, it looks like the same amount of glucose found its way into muscles in the mixed high-fat diet, but that less insulin was needed to get it there. This does not, in my mind, spell "insuling resistance." This strikes me as the ideal situation: Plenty of glucose in the muscles, but little insulin output. Sign me up!
Mr. V
New member
Gonna have to disagree with this as it makes no sense. Fat build up as well as arterial plaque are formed in the presence of to much insulin as a result of elevated Blood Sugar, not in the absence of it.
Cellular resistance is caused by too much of something that results in dulling the receptors over time.
