Ketogenic Diets Suppress IGF-1

[Rocket3015]

I don't think we had one...but why do you ask? :twisted:

Just thought A. You would have been good on it and B. You would enjoy it.

 

[HIT4ME]

Shhhhhewwwww we fellas.....almost thought I was gonna be thrown in the category of "starved ethopian " ...
I have been in the "bikini chic" and "baby fetus" category before...
Man oh man you guys are talented....BOSSMAN is soaking it alllllllllllll in...

Lol...Kleen and I are going to write an encyclopedia.

Just thought A. You would have been good on it and B. You would enjoy it.

Lol...and what gave you those ideas? Haha.



So...the Kleen debates always cause me to pinder, question, learn, etc.

One thing that has been coming up is that refeeds elevate leptin...but as Kleen points out the increase in lipid storage from a refeed should be very minimal, so I started questioning my knowledge of this process.

Google is awesome. A quick search for gave two PDFs which I think point in a strong direction.

Invalid Link Removed




Invalid Link Removed

 

[MrKleen73]

Man, as much as I love Intermittent Fasting it has completely ruined the ability to search for things about starvation!!! Starvation and Fasting are not the same thing GOOGLE!!!!

I was looking for something "quick"... I found a few things that looked like they would lead somewhere but you had to purchase a membership or the entire study to see it.

I liked the 2 studies you posted up after though. I need to look further into the increasing Leptin once lowered situation. I bet the CBL book or the CNS book actually has some references to look at. I think it was my introduction to the topic. I will see if I can find something there as well.

I will comment on some of your other comments later. Lots of massive circles interlinked by many things and hard to put a response together because each thing written makes you think of another relation or possibility, and they are all really interlinked because the system is so complex...

 

[Chados]

Jump in my man!! I'm just making this sh1t up as I go along! Can't you tell?

It's like this. MrKleen73 is holding a beautiful rose. And this rose, he looks at, and he is just happy. It does everything a rose should do.

And then I come along and squeeze his hand as hard as I can ....jabbing the thorns into him. And I say, "See, it isn't perfect".

Now, most people would be like, "Hey, a sshole - stop being a jerk and squeezing my hand. It hurts!"

But MrKleen73, isn't most people ....he thinks, "Wow, this guy really is an a sshat - but you know, I never realized that thorn was there."

Haha i would but I don't really have anything to add, I think you guys are doing a pretty good job here with great information especially for newcomers but also for people like me.

 

[HIT4ME]

Man, as much as I love Intermittent Fasting it has completely ruined the ability to search for things about starvation!!! Starvation and Fasting are not the same thing GOOGLE!!!!

I was looking for something "quick"... I found a few things that looked like they would lead somewhere but you had to purchase a membership or the entire study to see it.

I liked the 2 studies you posted up after though. I need to look further into the increasing Leptin once lowered situation. I bet the CBL book or the CNS book actually has some references to look at. I think it was my introduction to the topic. I will see if I can find something there as well.

I will comment on some of your other comments later. Lots of massive circles interlinked by many things and hard to put a response together because each thing written makes you think of another relation or possibility, and they are all really interlinked because the system is so complex...

Yeah.. honestly, some of the debate I think is just us talking over the net. I think if we were hanging out talking about it, the debate would be very different and about fewer details. Like my mis-statement about leptin not replenishing in fat cells. That wasn't really what I meant.

Still..being able to discuss and be challenged is good for learning.

Also - if you have leads and post them, I can try to find the full studies. I would welcome finding some good studies on it and would help find them if I could.

 

[HIT4ME]

Haha i would but I don't really have anything to add, I think you guys are doing a pretty good job here with great information especially for newcomers but also for people like me.

I bet you have something. We will be waiting!

 

[HIT4ME]

This is interesting MrKleen73...

Invalid Link Removed


This one stuck out in your favor:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[MrKleen73]

First off, sorry just finished up responding to the other email. Man we are too much alike and too different all at the same time.

Now you have more stuff in here. LMAO!!!!! I am not sure I will have time to respond to the other stuff today. I barely managed to get time to respond to this. Starting and stopping to go answer problem tickets and kick of VC's I sure hope I managed to keep a lot of that straight.

I will post my response here, but who knows might be something in these studies that changes something for me.

Oh man we would have some fun BS'ing. Even when i am putting up like I am 100% sure of my stance i am always willing to be proved wrong if it means I know more in the end. Hell the couple times we got to chatting before it went long... imagine that. Hell I will probably have to give you a call for a chat over the Holiday.

 

[Wagz86]

Question. The context of this discussion seems to be more centered around strict keto and not CKD correct? Seems CKD would alleviate a lot of the long haul issues you guys are discussing.

 

[MrKleen73]

I will answer this one first because it seems more logical to me. To your first point, of course I debate you for the conversation. It's like the intellectual form of wrestling with your buddy. You are a worthy adversary!!! I swear you do the same

I enjoy our sparring, but I don’t typically play devils advocate, and just go off of my opinions, and or beliefs. Sometimes the feeling you are playing Devil’s advocate just to have fun. Which is okay too because we learn a lot. I often have to revisit things, or look into things I have not before in order to have a debate with you and that is awesome and also great exercise for the brain!!!!

To the second point - the two posts aren't really in conflict. I understand why you would think that if everything is changing, then metabolism would have to change on the surface. But metabolism is just the sum whole of all the energy expending activities the body undertakes. At the end of the day, the work has to get done and it has an energy cost associated with it. Whether you achieve this through one pathway or another does not really have all that much effect on the end work getting done nor the energy used for that work. There may be some inefficiencies seen in using backup pathways; or even some efficiencies - but ultimately energy is just a measure of the work being done.

But ultimately, metabolism is the sum total, and since we can agree that the body tries to maintain homeostasis, the view that an unchanging metabolism is the correct theory is supported. sses." i.e. - the tendency toward a relatively stable metabolism that is created by a number of pathways. Homeostasis is "the tendency toward a relatively stable equilibrium between interdependent elements, especially as maintained by physiological process

Survival Trumps Homeostasis my friend… In order of importance to homeostasis, remaining alive is the most important part of maintaining homeostasis. Death is the ultimate failure of maintaining homeostasis in the body. The body adjusts trying to maintain the homeostasis but when it comes down to survival the body does what it has to do to live longer…

Another way of looking at it is, the work my body has to do in order to survive is not really increased or decreased by changes in pathways. The multiple pathways are just different ways to achieve the same goal; redundancy. If I have to raise a 20 pound arm (how much does an arm weigh?) - whether I use ketones or carbs will ultimately involve the same work being accomplished with only pretty minor changes in efficiency.

Yes but the body slows things down during a steep extended deficit diet. There are lists after lists of the different functions that are affected. Whether they stop or not, the fact that they become hampered, IE not able to perform at the intended level demonstrates that less work is being done. Less work being done means less calories used, and if metabolism is "just the sum whole of energy expending activities the body undertakes." then it definitely lowers as the body is not capable, or selectively chooses not to perform functions as intended in a caloric balance.

On top of this as we have all experienced there is a tired feeling that comes along with a serious deficit, you feel tired, get worn out more easily, and in general move less because of this. So again doing less. The body has the ability to increase the metabolism during the first 36-48 hours of a fast. It does so with cortisol, and adrenaline production. So if the point of homeostasis that was trying to be kept was metabolism it could do the same thing and run through all of that energy at the same rate it does when fed appropriately but instead after about 36-48 hours of a fast it says OH SHlT!!!! We can’t seem to find any food this is getting serious now, maybe I should try to preserve some of this body mass. Stop the adrenaline, and lets take the foot off the gas a little since the tank is almost on E…

This is from a list that came from the study known as The Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

The set up was
3 months control, = normal eating
6 months semi-starvation = 50% of normal caloric intake
3 month recovery period where people were renourished.

During the starvation period men lost 25% of baseline body weight on average, and also had a dramatic effect on the physiological, psychological, cognitive and social functioning of the participants.

I don't have access to the entire study, but this is from an excerpt I found, but is in protected PDF so have to type them out here.

Physical Changes
Heart Muscle Mass decreased by 25%
Heart Rate, and blood pressure decreased
Basal Metabolic Rate Slowed down
Feeling cold all the time
Fluid retention
Dizziness and blackouts
Loss of strength
Decreased Hormone levels and libido.

Emotional Changes
Depression
Anxiety
Irritability
Loss of interest in life

Changes in thinking AKA Cognitive Function
Withdrawal and isolation
Impaired Comprehension
Increased Rigidity and obsessional thinking
Reduced Alertness

there are some other things listed about attitudes towards food, but this does not really have anything to do with what we are discussing.

Anyway that was found in a study, so I think we can safely say that in an effort to survive the body is robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep the most basic life supporting functions running while letting others be deficient.

AKA Less work being done, which by the definition you used is obviously lowering the metabolism in order to survive the famine...

Another one I ran across only mentioned one thing that was shut down in the beginning where you could see it, but that was that the digestive system is one of the systems to take a big hit when in an extended extreme deficit. I didn't think to copy it because when i couldn't get to the rest of the study I got annoyed and closed the window.

Even looking at the math on the physical part appears to show a slow down. If the body mass dropped by 25% and the hearts muscle mass dropped by 25%, by all intent and purposes the heart rate should have stayed the same not went down unless there were less demands on the heart than before. The loss of overall volume is equal here in both the pump and the system that the pump has to supply... So all things being considered, it should take the same amount heart beats to circulate. The fact that it does not implies that the body is doing less. Add that to the list of things above that it is doing less of and it becomes apparent there is a slow down of what gets done...

Yeah - when this started, I was just merely correcting the small detail that it isn't that leptin builds up in fat cells - it is about leptin being released from the fat cells. It was a fairly minor adjustment and I worded the original statement incorrectly/confusingly (see my previous post). Fat cells DO make leptin and it is replenished through this pathway. But the key is the release from the fat cells; it's not stored. It is actually a signalling hormone. It is created by the fat cell, and as it fills more is created. The more lipid we carry, the more leptin is created - except in cases of disease, where you have don't create enough leptin. So, if you have more fat, then you should have more leptin. I'm not saying this is hard and true that if you have X amount of fat you will have Y amount of leptin. What I am saying is that based on your genetics and whatever environmental factors - if you have 10 pounds of fat on your body, you will produce less leptin than if you have 20 pounds.

Even when dieting this is true - this is one of the reasons why someone who is more obese will see almost no benefit from a refeed. They have ample supplies of leptin, even after an extended diet, since they still have ample amounts of fat.

I also worded this wrongly, "But, again per your link, as fat cells deplete they STOP producing and releasing leptin, which (in theory) speeds up metabolism and induces hunger." - when you stop leptin production and levels fall - it SLOWS DOWN metabolism and induces hunger (in theory - if your metabolism adjusts very much is what I am questioning).

One other point, it's not so much dieting itself that causes the drop in leptin - it is the reduction of fat mass as a result of dieting. One thing that is noticed on PSMF diets is that really obese people are REALLY good at fasting. Lean people - not so much. This theory of leptin would explain that.

This is the part where things get interesting. I can't scream from the mountain tops about Leptin levels in fat here because I need to revisit Leptin replenishment. I have seen some studies referenced in books and have gone and looked at them to see them but it has been so long ago I need to really dive into the replenishing aspect. If indeed what I have read and already mentioned here is true which I believe to be the case then you can restore leptin levels without regaining much if any of the fat that has been lost.

If that is not the case then I stand corrected on that part of it. That won't change my stance on whether or not other things besides body mass effect how many calories we use. However it would change my thoughts on how to get the body to produce more leptin.

Well, the theory is that leptin speeds up metabolism. A lack of leptin slows down metabolism. And to your point above; there is likely an optimal level of leptin that you should have in your system. It's a signaling hormone that helps "regulate" but the hormone itself is theorized to increase metabolism.

And, to your point, leptin really doesn't speed up metabolism that much. It has a ceiling and this ceiling seems to be pretty low. This is essentially part of the contradiction we are both facing here. If we want to use leptin to explain that metabolism can be sped up - then how do we get fat in the first place? Because it has a ceiling, we become resistant, it can only work so much - and that effect will not keep us lean.

As for the "low levels of leptin with plenty of fat mass" - see above. This happens in diseased states where people do not produce enough leptin - but if you have plenty of fat and are not specifically diseased, then you will still be producing plenty of leptin. Again, this anecdotal evidence has been observed in the wild and by medical doctors treating patients - obese people have few issues with hunger/fasting. Lean people...it gets really hard.

But overall, the point is, if you TRULY believe that the metabolism is adjustable - leptin is probably one of the best candidates for this function and the more fat you have, the more leptin you create - so the "if/then string" is not flawed unless the underlying assumptions are wrong.

I will quote, from the link you posted, "Because leptin is produced by fat cells, the amount of leptin released is directly related to the amount of body fat; so the more fat an individual has, the more leptin they will have circulating in their blood. Leptin levels increase if an individual increases their fat mass over a period of time and, similarly, leptin levels decrease if an individual decreases their fat mass over a period of time."

So, if the theory of leptin is correct, then fat does impact the signaling to increase metabolism. More fat = higher metabolism. Of course, I can agree this effect is obviously very minor and has a very low ceiling; but that's kind of evidence that the metabolism overall is not all that adjustable I would think....

It suggest that the metabolism is not that adjustable going up, not down. Down, it goes all the way down to death... Some of your arguments above are basically circling right back to what I have already said. YOu are getting into semantics when you point out and try to stick to idea that leptin only increases metabolism, the action it takes is to increase the metabolism, but the purpose and design is for regulation the amount of leptin is adjusted in an effort to regulate. As we have both already said there is an upper end. Once you pass it the body has no ability to go higher, and then builds up a tolerance to the stimulation leptin supplies because they are always saturated.

Your IF String is flawed because of reality…. We both know that there is a certain point when some other feedback loop says, I don’t care how much leptin you throw at me this is the end of the line. From here on out if you keep eating like this we are going to get sick… AKA Obesity and possibly Leptin resistance. Now if you added, “up to a certain point, and then disordered things begin to happen as a result of the overfeeding.” then we would have a winner…

I just happen to see it like this. Most people are more than likely not in optimal levels, and already have room to improve, and that is where you see the improvements / anecdotal evidence coming in from. Since we already know that 30% of Americans are obese then we know that being diseased in this way is quite common. We also have to take into account the varying levels of disorder on the way to becoming obese, and that all of these things can skew what is supposed to happen with the metabolism.

But isn't that the point - possibly our best candidate for metabolic increse is leptin, which is directly related to fat mass. On one hand you will argue that metabolism can be adjusted and there is anecdotal evidence of people increasing their metabolism dramatically through reverse dieting (thus indicating dieting slowed metabolism by proxy) - yet you discount the fact that fat itself increases metabolism.

Getting into semantics again, and if doing that... Fat ITSELF does not increase the metabolism. Leptin is a protein, and is made in fat cells, Leptin increases the metabolism, leptin is not fat, and fat is not leptin, so fat mass can increase leptin, but not metabolism. The amount of it can influence Leptin levels and indirectly increase metabolism but leptin is doing the work. Fat itself is inactive, the proteins that make up the fat cell and take care of the processes with in it are not. Fat / Lipid is stored energy, and the fat cell is the warehouse it is stored in. The warehouse and the workers in it are proteins. So fat itself does not increase the metabolism, as already stated Leptin does. Again semantics, but when it benefits you to go that granular level to prove correctness, you do, so I will to.

I will actually concede that fat mass indirectly effects the metabolism. It would be silly of me to argue that it does not with the information learned regarding how Leptin is released. Similar to how it is silly that you used the word IF when saying if leptin increased metabolism when that is stated over and over not only in studies but your own words. There is the replenishing portion that I am really going to look into when i get the chance to see if what I read before was correct, or more to the point how correct it is. If there is a way to replenish the leptin without having to regain the fat which I read there is, then that is a big of a game changer. Is it 10%, I don't know, that would be a lot, but even 1-3% would be enough to make it worth while.

Reality is it is all related, regardless of the minutia. However none of that changes the point I was making in the first place which was that there was more to it than the statement that it was simply having less fat to carry meant less work for the body to do and that was the only reason for the metabolism lowering.

II did learn something else about leptin as a result which is super cool and has given me something else to look into.

As far as down-regulating the metabolism due to starvation - perhaps it can slightly. Maybe it slows production of reproductive hormones, maybe things tend to break - but on one hand these temporary reductions would be minimal. Things like body heat, brain activity, physical movement are huge energy consumers and these things don't appear to drop by even 2% in most cases (although I will give you that it is difficult to measure a degree of physical fatigue, mental fatigue, etc. - but we demonstrated that body temp barely moves due to diet).

So when I say that metabolism drops by 10% - for most people this is an order of 250 calories a day. So instead of 2500 you burn 2250. And when you go back to "non starvation mode" it should be back to 2500 - not 3,000 or 3,500. Unless something else has changed. Unless something else is happening.

Something else like that person at optimal levels should be a 3000-3500, and once corrected ended up there... That would fit into the something else happening idea.

And the idea that we would prepare for starvation by increasing fat storage AND increasing metabolic expenditure; only to drop metabolism when we are starving...well...that's just poor adaptation

I honestly have no idea what you are referring to here. �� I don't remember saying or discussing that at all. Not something i would have said unless i mistyped something. The only time I know of when the body speeds up metabolism like that in response to a deficit is in the first 36-48 hours of a fast where it increases the metabolism to supply energy for hunting and foraging.

Anecdotal evidence. Hundreds of millions of people who have increased caloric intake only to become obese.

Like I mentioned before, I believe it is a regulator, although it may regulate via stimulating the metabolism to varying degrees, it is there to regulate... You can go outside of regulation, however regulation is often there for safety sake to avoid a risk. In the same way that you can break the speed limit, the further you go above the speed limit the more risk you take and damage you do to your vehicle. If you choose to go beyond that point consistently with calories you become diseased in this case. IE... obesity, and or leptin resistance. We don’t even need anecdotal evidence because we have real evidence that those things exist.

Who knows how many Ethiopians who are starving and still have NO fat on their body.

Are you becoming delirious? LOL What does this have to do with anything... not being ugly just have no clue what lateral you were trying to draw here. Normally I can follow along. They are starving and seriously malnourished, of course they don’t have much fat on them.

Yes - too much isn't good. Too little isn't good. I do agree there. I can agree that, in a way, it is a regulator - but again, in reality, (if you believe it can do this) - it increases metabolism. Lack of it decreases metabolism. But this is semantics to some degree I would say....minor.

Well major semantics, but i feel you mean that you still believe that the difference is very minor.

Yes - I pretty much would agree with this. IF there is an adjustment, we can likely adjust it back to normal. Where I disagree is that this adjustment is all that impactful.

The IF here is kind of ridiculous… earlier you said the purpose of Leptin was to increase the metabolism, and that it being lowered slows the metabolism, you stated it as fact but for the sake of the argument you throw in an if? However you used it as your stickigg point for when I said it regulates moreso than simply increasing the metabolism. I love the planted words and phrases you keep using to instill doubt; IF this, or blind faith that... Why would we have leptin if it did not adjust the metabolism? Is it simply a mistake in the system that someone just decided to randomly say hey this must increase the metabolism lets tell everyone that. I mean you do see the irony, and silliness in that don’t you?

For now we will most likely have to agree to disagree. I don’t foresee a smoking gun popping up at us, although it would be welcome from either side as it is something we would both like to know for certain.

I can do WAY better than that. Let's assume you have a 3000 calorie BMR. Say you cut out 500 calories a day, and your metabolism adjusts 10%. Now your 3500 calorie deficit yielding 1 pound of fat loss a week just dropped to a 200 calorie deficit - or less than half a pound per week. That 10% reduction reduced the effectiveness of your diet by 60%!!! Still; it's just 300 calories a day. And you won't reverse diet to 3,300 calories being you BMR.

Of course...still no evidence 10% is even realistic.

No evidence that it is not either. Also remember you picked 10% not me.

Man I have no clue what kind of math you are doing. Not saying it is wrong just I can’t make sense of what you are actually trying to say.

The only way I can make sense of this is that you have to be assuming that all of that happened in 1 week for that to illustrate your point. We both know that isn’t correct, it takes more time than that. If you are not assuming the 10% drop in one week then we would also need to know how much overall body mass was lost, how much was muscle or fat, and over what period of time. Just a lot involved and you are trying to oversimplify. However even at that, you are really actually illustrating my point that a 10% increase or decrease would be pretty substantial over time.

Although...this is where my carb/fat theory comes in. Ironically, carbs tend to have just under 60% fewer calories/gram than fat. hmmmmm....

Elaborate a little, we go through too many topics and discussions to pinpoint what you are referring to.

I hope you do to. I may have to look specifically for starvation - that's a good search idea. I've looked though and I found it very interesting to see how TONS of studies referred to a slowing of metabolism, but no one ever seemed to have actually studied it and shown it actually happens. I've seen this in a few situations actually in science. I guess scientists aren't immune to dogma either.

Maybe, although I feel someone better equipped for the searches, and also who has memberships to these places could probably have better luck than us trying to find it.

As mentioned yesterday I did not do too well on the searches. The popularity of IF and the fact that apparently people see it similar to starvation almost everything that came up was pages of fasting stuff. I did have a little luck but it required buying something and as fun as this is to discuss it is still majoring in the minors so I don’t want to pay for something when whatever drives the anecdotal evidence also anecdotally works for me.

Also, admittedly If this is via placebo then I don’t want fug that up!

There is an entire book on the subject starvation and if you would like to read it and then tell me all about it, it is called “The biology of Human Starvation Volume by Ancel Keys, it is apparently all the details from the The Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Which seems to be the end all be all of starvation experiments from what I found, and should have all the details of what is listed above from the except I typed from the study. If you really want to look into this then buy it and tell me what it says… Maybe there are actually some numbers involved.

Yeah - the way I've dieted in the past is fair to question. One thing I would say is that during my log of my PSMF - after about 3-4 months I got a fitbit. And I used that fitbit, which had no idea of how I was eating, to estimate my metabolic rate each day. Granted, fit bits are supposed to OVER estimate caloric expenditure supposedly. Well, even with that over estimate and given the pretty strict and easily tracked diet I was on - the calories in/out yielded the amount of weight loss that should have been expected if my metabolism was in line with the fitbit. This suggests that my metabolism had not slowed very much - since it was still keeping pace with standardized guides for metabolic rate.

I agree that the the fitbit appears to be useful in the way that those impedance body fat machines are. Even though you may not have an idea of what your actual level is you can see the changes from the norm. So you should have been able to see if there was a change. Totally following you there. However you said you got this during your PSMF, so you did not have a baseline RMR from before, and are making the assumption that nothing had taken place prior to you getting the fitbit? If no baseline from before, then it does not point to anything because there is no control group with which to compare.

Also because you knew your current RMR at the time doesn’t mean that it was not already hampered a bit by any number of things already. All the fitbit proved is that according to your current metabolism you are losing weight at the expected rate. What it does not address in any way is what your metabolism would be if optimized. You could have been running optimally and you could be running at 80% for all any of us know.

Still - you are pointing out something key - we have a lot of other factors/diseases/etc. that impact this stuff and create false positives. The assumption and blind faith that we can reverse diet to correct this stuff is probably not great - it should be questioned. And deep down you know it is flawed because you aren't saying, "Your body temp is a result of your metabolism. It is low because it is slow. It is slow because you don't eat enough". As a matter of fact - you gave a bunch of other reasons beyond caloric intake.


This is fun....now I gotta get to work...

YOu also have to add false negatives, don’t only play to the side you want to win here. The variables are plenty in both directions, and they are also interrelated.

There may be an assumption being made here but it is far from being blind faith. Lets not use deceptive language to discredit ideas, there is just as much pointing to this being the case as there is to it not being the case. Tons of anecdotal evidence supporting my side as well. Tons of scientists speaking on the subject, so blind faith is a pretty big stretch. Both arguments have so many valid points that it takes a discussion this long to even get close to coming to an agreement on the subject. However from what I can tell the agreement will end up being that we still don’t know for sure.

I do find it funny you are telling me deep down I know it is flawed because I know that there are also other extenuating circumstances other than just leptin levels that also effect the situation. That is silly, we are not talking about something in a petrie dish, we are talking about the human body and all of its wonder. You have to take into account all of the adaptations and as already mentioned possible disorders that could be in effect.

 

[MrKleen73]

Question. The context of this discussion seems to be more centered around strict keto and not CKD correct? Seems CKD would alleviate a lot of the long haul issues you guys are discussing.

Correct and agreed. The rest about metabolism is just where the conversation veered off too.

 

[HIT4ME]

I enjoy our sparring, but I don’t typically play devils advocate, and just go off of my opinions, and or beliefs. Sometimes the feeling you are playing Devil’s advocate just to have fun. Which is okay too because we learn a lot. I often have to revisit things, or look into things I have not before in order to have a debate with you and that is awesome and also great exercise for the brain!!!!



Survival Trumps Homeostasis my friend… In order of importance to homeostasis, remaining alive is the most important part of maintaining homeostasis. Death is the ultimate failure of maintaining homeostasis in the body. The body adjusts trying to maintain the homeostasis but when it comes down to survival the body does what it has to do to live longer…



Yes but the body slows things down during a steep extended deficit diet. There are lists after lists of the different functions that are affected. Whether they stop or not, the fact that they become hampered, IE not able to perform at the intended level demonstrates that less work is being done. Less work being done means less calories used, and if metabolism is "just the sum whole of energy expending activities the body undertakes." then it definitely lowers as the body is not capable, or selectively chooses not to perform functions as intended in a caloric balance.

On top of this as we have all experienced there is a tired feeling that comes along with a serious deficit, you feel tired, get worn out more easily, and in general move less because of this. So again doing less. The body has the ability to increase the metabolism during the first 36-48 hours of a fast. It does so with cortisol, and adrenaline production. So if the point of homeostasis that was trying to be kept was metabolism it could do the same thing and run through all of that energy at the same rate it does when fed appropriately but instead after about 36-48 hours of a fast it says OH SHlT!!!! We can’t seem to find any food this is getting serious now, maybe I should try to preserve some of this body mass. Stop the adrenaline, and lets take the foot off the gas a little since the tank is almost on E…

This is from a list that came from the study known as The Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

The set up was
3 months control, = normal eating
6 months semi-starvation = 50% of normal caloric intake
3 month recovery period where people were renourished.

During the starvation period men lost 25% of baseline body weight on average, and also had a dramatic effect on the physiological, psychological, cognitive and social functioning of the participants.

I don't have access to the entire study, but this is from an excerpt I found, but is in protected PDF so have to type them out here.

Physical Changes
Heart Muscle Mass decreased by 25%
Heart Rate, and blood pressure decreased
Basal Metabolic Rate Slowed down
Feeling cold all the time
Fluid retention
Dizziness and blackouts
Loss of strength
Decreased Hormone levels and libido.

Emotional Changes
Depression
Anxiety
Irritability
Loss of interest in life

Changes in thinking AKA Cognitive Function
Withdrawal and isolation
Impaired Comprehension
Increased Rigidity and obsessional thinking
Reduced Alertness

there are some other things listed about attitudes towards food, but this does not really have anything to do with what we are discussing.

Anyway that was found in a study, so I think we can safely say that in an effort to survive the body is robbing Peter to pay Paul to keep the most basic life supporting functions running while letting others be deficient.

AKA Less work being done, which by the definition you used is obviously lowering the metabolism in order to survive the famine...

Another one I ran across only mentioned one thing that was shut down in the beginning where you could see it, but that was that the digestive system is one of the systems to take a big hit when in an extended extreme deficit. I didn't think to copy it because when i couldn't get to the rest of the study I got annoyed and closed the window.

Even looking at the math on the physical part appears to show a slow down. If the body mass dropped by 25% and the hearts muscle mass dropped by 25%, by all intent and purposes the heart rate should have stayed the same not went down unless there were less demands on the heart than before. The loss of overall volume is equal here in both the pump and the system that the pump has to supply... So all things being considered, it should take the same amount heart beats to circulate. The fact that it does not implies that the body is doing less. Add that to the list of things above that it is doing less of and it becomes apparent there is a slow down of what gets done...




This is the part where things get interesting. I can't scream from the mountain tops about Leptin levels in fat here because I need to revisit Leptin replenishment. I have seen some studies referenced in books and have gone and looked at them to see them but it has been so long ago I need to really dive into the replenishing aspect. If indeed what I have read and already mentioned here is true which I believe to be the case then you can restore leptin levels without regaining much if any of the fat that has been lost.

If that is not the case then I stand corrected on that part of it. That won't change my stance on whether or not other things besides body mass effect how many calories we use. However it would change my thoughts on how to get the body to produce more leptin.




It suggest that the metabolism is not that adjustable going up, not down. Down, it goes all the way down to death... Some of your arguments above are basically circling right back to what I have already said. YOu are getting into semantics when you point out and try to stick to idea that leptin only increases metabolism, the action it takes is to increase the metabolism, but the purpose and design is for regulation the amount of leptin is adjusted in an effort to regulate. As we have both already said there is an upper end. Once you pass it the body has no ability to go higher, and then builds up a tolerance to the stimulation leptin supplies because they are always saturated.

Your IF String is flawed because of reality…. We both know that there is a certain point when some other feedback loop says, I don’t care how much leptin you throw at me this is the end of the line. From here on out if you keep eating like this we are going to get sick… AKA Obesity and possibly Leptin resistance. Now if you added, “up to a certain point, and then disordered things begin to happen as a result of the overfeeding.” then we would have a winner…

I just happen to see it like this. Most people are more than likely not in optimal levels, and already have room to improve, and that is where you see the improvements / anecdotal evidence coming in from. Since we already know that 30% of Americans are obese then we know that being diseased in this way is quite common. We also have to take into account the varying levels of disorder on the way to becoming obese, and that all of these things can skew what is supposed to happen with the metabolism.


Getting into semantics again, and if doing that... Fat ITSELF does not increase the metabolism. Leptin is a protein, and is made in fat cells, Leptin increases the metabolism, leptin is not fat, and fat is not leptin, so fat mass can increase leptin, but not metabolism. The amount of it can influence Leptin levels and indirectly increase metabolism but leptin is doing the work. Fat itself is inactive, the proteins that make up the fat cell and take care of the processes with in it are not. Fat / Lipid is stored energy, and the fat cell is the warehouse it is stored in. The warehouse and the workers in it are proteins. So fat itself does not increase the metabolism, as already stated Leptin does. Again semantics, but when it benefits you to go that granular level to prove correctness, you do, so I will to.

I will actually concede that fat mass indirectly effects the metabolism. It would be silly of me to argue that it does not with the information learned regarding how Leptin is released. Similar to how it is silly that you used the word IF when saying if leptin increased metabolism when that is stated over and over not only in studies but your own words. There is the replenishing portion that I am really going to look into when i get the chance to see if what I read before was correct, or more to the point how correct it is. If there is a way to replenish the leptin without having to regain the fat which I read there is, then that is a big of a game changer. Is it 10%, I don't know, that would be a lot, but even 1-3% would be enough to make it worth while.

Reality is it is all related, regardless of the minutia. However none of that changes the point I was making in the first place which was that there was more to it than the statement that it was simply having less fat to carry meant less work for the body to do and that was the only reason for the metabolism lowering.

II did learn something else about leptin as a result which is super cool and has given me something else to look into.




Something else like that person at optimal levels should be a 3000-3500, and once corrected ended up there... That would fit into the something else happening idea.



I honestly have no idea what you are referring to here. �� I don't remember saying or discussing that at all. Not something i would have said unless i mistyped something. The only time I know of when the body speeds up metabolism like that in response to a deficit is in the first 36-48 hours of a fast where it increases the metabolism to supply energy for hunting and foraging.

Like I mentioned before, I believe it is a regulator, although it may regulate via stimulating the metabolism to varying degrees, it is there to regulate... You can go outside of regulation, however regulation is often there for safety sake to avoid a risk. In the same way that you can break the speed limit, the further you go above the speed limit the more risk you take and damage you do to your vehicle. If you choose to go beyond that point consistently with calories you become diseased in this case. IE... obesity, and or leptin resistance. We don’t even need anecdotal evidence because we have real evidence that those things exist.


Are you becoming delirious? LOL What does this have to do with anything... not being ugly just have no clue what lateral you were trying to draw here. Normally I can follow along. They are starving and seriously malnourished, of course they don’t have much fat on them.

Well major semantics, but i feel you mean that you still believe that the difference is very minor.



The IF here is kind of ridiculous… earlier you said the purpose of Leptin was to increase the metabolism, and that it being lowered slows the metabolism, you stated it as fact but for the sake of the argument you throw in an if? However you used it as your stickigg point for when I said it regulates moreso than simply increasing the metabolism. I love the planted words and phrases you keep using to instill doubt; IF this, or blind faith that... Why would we have leptin if it did not adjust the metabolism? Is it simply a mistake in the system that someone just decided to randomly say hey this must increase the metabolism lets tell everyone that. I mean you do see the irony, and silliness in that don’t you?

For now we will most likely have to agree to disagree. I don’t foresee a smoking gun popping up at us, although it would be welcome from either side as it is something we would both like to know for certain.


No evidence that it is not either. Also remember you picked 10% not me.

Man I have no clue what kind of math you are doing. Not saying it is wrong just I can’t make sense of what you are actually trying to say.

The only way I can make sense of this is that you have to be assuming that all of that happened in 1 week for that to illustrate your point. We both know that isn’t correct, it takes more time than that. If you are not assuming the 10% drop in one week then we would also need to know how much overall body mass was lost, how much was muscle or fat, and over what period of time. Just a lot involved and you are trying to oversimplify. However even at that, you are really actually illustrating my point that a 10% increase or decrease would be pretty substantial over time.



Elaborate a little, we go through too many topics and discussions to pinpoint what you are referring to.


Maybe, although I feel someone better equipped for the searches, and also who has memberships to these places could probably have better luck than us trying to find it.

As mentioned yesterday I did not do too well on the searches. The popularity of IF and the fact that apparently people see it similar to starvation almost everything that came up was pages of fasting stuff. I did have a little luck but it required buying something and as fun as this is to discuss it is still majoring in the minors so I don’t want to pay for something when whatever drives the anecdotal evidence also anecdotally works for me.

Also, admittedly If this is via placebo then I don’t want fug that up!

There is an entire book on the subject starvation and if you would like to read it and then tell me all about it, it is called “The biology of Human Starvation Volume by Ancel Keys, it is apparently all the details from the The Minnesota Starvation Experiment. Which seems to be the end all be all of starvation experiments from what I found, and should have all the details of what is listed above from the except I typed from the study. If you really want to look into this then buy it and tell me what it says… Maybe there are actually some numbers involved.


I agree that the the fitbit appears to be useful in the way that those impedance body fat machines are. Even though you may not have an idea of what your actual level is you can see the changes from the norm. So you should have been able to see if there was a change. Totally following you there. However you said you got this during your PSMF, so you did not have a baseline RMR from before, and are making the assumption that nothing had taken place prior to you getting the fitbit? If no baseline from before, then it does not point to anything because there is no control group with which to compare.

Also because you knew your current RMR at the time doesn’t mean that it was not already hampered a bit by any number of things already. All the fitbit proved is that according to your current metabolism you are losing weight at the expected rate. What it does not address in any way is what your metabolism would be if optimized. You could have been running optimally and you could be running at 80% for all any of us know.



YOu also have to add false negatives, don’t only play to the side you want to win here. The variables are plenty in both directions, and they are also interrelated.

There may be an assumption being made here but it is far from being blind faith. Lets not use deceptive language to discredit ideas, there is just as much pointing to this being the case as there is to it not being the case. Tons of anecdotal evidence supporting my side as well. Tons of scientists speaking on the subject, so blind faith is a pretty big stretch. Both arguments have so many valid points that it takes a discussion this long to even get close to coming to an agreement on the subject. However from what I can tell the agreement will end up being that we still don’t know for sure.

I do find it funny you are telling me deep down I know it is flawed because I know that there are also other extenuating circumstances other than just leptin levels that also effect the situation. That is silly, we are not talking about something in a petrie dish, we are talking about the human body and all of its wonder. You have to take into account all of the adaptations and as already mentioned possible disorders that could be in effect.

This one post is longer than a lot of threads on this site....I still have to catch up on Bossman's log and I've been telling The Solution I would get through his log for a week now...

In the words of Arnold....I'll be back.

 

[Chados]

I bet you have something. We will be waiting!

Haha.. You guys are awesome. I'm a bit lost where you guys are at in the discussion.. You mind filling me in?

Outside the main discussion I noticed you guys were talking about starvation which for you and me would equal fatloss but the thing is that our bodies during starvation starts eating fat and muscle tissue and with time when the fat is gone completely starts focusing on lean tissue.. This is interesting for us people working out because it supports the fact that we don't lose muscle very fast even if we don't work out for a while.

Don't quote me here but I think if we go for a ketonic diet (not starvation) the brain which normally would take an higher amount of carbs during a carb diet now decreases it to more than half of the glucose needed from a carb diet. The body will create it itself via the liver and the rest needed which is like 5-10 gr will be taken from protein (muscles). This would mean that fasting and the body would still be able to prevent muscle loss pretty effectively if the body gets 30gr of carbs from any source or is able to produce itself

 

[HIT4ME]

I know I have to respond to some things...but here is an angle:

Invalid Link Removed

During coma, induced by drugs, metabolism had about 5% fluctuation. Not the entire story of course...but a pretty extreme metabolic situation.

 

[HIT4ME]

Here is another one - the starvation study from MrKleen73 is interesting and I have to look into it more....but here is an updated small study.

I still wouldn't call it definitive, but 5% pops up again:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[HIT4ME]

Haha.. You guys are awesome. I'm a bit lost where you guys are at in the discussion.. You mind filling me in?

Outside the main discussion I noticed you guys were talking about starvation which for you and me would equal fatloss but the thing is that our bodies during starvation starts eating fat and muscle tissue and with time when the fat is gone completely starts focusing on lean tissue.. This is interesting for us people working out because it supports the fact that we don't lose muscle very fast even if we don't work out for a while.

Don't quote me here but I think if we go for a ketonic diet (not starvation) the brain which normally would take an higher amount of carbs during a carb diet now decreases it to more than half of the glucose needed from a carb diet. The body will create it itself via the liver and the rest needed which is like 5-10 gr will be taken from protein (muscles). This would mean that fasting and the body would still be able to prevent muscle loss pretty effectively if the body gets 30gr of carbs from any source or is able to produce itself

So, part if the effectiveness of the ketogenic diet is that it mimics starvation without actual starvation. Starvation and ketosis are very similar, which even on the surface makes sense.

If you are starving, you will eat fat - your own body fat. You will have adjustments in energy production to allow for this. If you have an exogenous source of fat, nothing really changes...the same adjustments are required.

 

[Chados]

So, part if the effectiveness of the ketogenic diet is that it mimics starvation without actual starvation. Starvation and ketosis are very similar, which even on the surface makes sense.

If you are starving, you will eat fat - your own body fat. You will have adjustments in energy production to allow for this. If you have an exogenous source of fat, nothing really changes...the same adjustments are required.

But the part that it mimics is only that the brain will focus on less carbs right? That and that your metabolism will be focused on different sources of energy.

In terms of fatloss the starvation attacks bodyfat while ketogenic diets just uses fat from food as energy.

 

[MrKleen73]

But the part that it mimics is only that the brain will focus on less carbs right? That and that your metabolism will be focused on different sources of energy.

In terms of fatloss the starvation attacks bodyfat while ketogenic diets just uses fat from food as energy.

In terms of fat loss they are pretty much the same other than the level of deficit. Fat is burned preferentially while a hormonal cascade takes place to preserve muscle tissue. Now semi-starvation is a different thing, and you can be in a massive deficit to the point body processes slow and or stop, but still be taking in enough carbohydrate to feed the brain. I think you tend to see a lot more muscle loss with that situation as the switches needed to preserve the muscle are not getting activated in the same manner as with fasting or a ketosis diet. Obviously it goes without saying that starvation should never be the goal.

However ketosis is the self preservation model for the body when it simply does not get enough carbohydrate to support the brain function without the use of ketones. So ketosis can be achieved through macro manipulation, or starvation, but it is still ketosis if that makes sense.

 

[Chados]

In terms of fat loss they are pretty much the same other than the level of deficit. Fat is burned preferentially while a hormonal cascade takes place to preserve muscle tissue. Now semi-starvation is a different thing, and you can be in a massive deficit to the point body processes slow and or stop, but still be taking in enough carbohydrate to feed the brain. I think you tend to see a lot more muscle loss with that situation as the switches needed to preserve the muscle are not getting activated in the same manner as with fasting or a ketosis diet. Obviously it goes without saying that starvation should never be the goal.

However ketosis is the self preservation model for the body when it simply does not get enough carbohydrate to support the brain function without the use of ketones. So ketosis can be achieved through macro manipulation, or starvation, but it is still ketosis if that makes sense.

Basically what you mean is that ketosis is the body's way of surviving but it doesn't directly burn bodyfat? Meaning it adapts to survive without carbs. Humans mainly survived on fat before. The problem with comparing these two is that starvation means very little to no calories while keto diets just makes the brain use fat as fuel. Correct me if I misunderstood or if I'm wrong in any way

 

[MrKleen73]

Basically what you mean is that ketosis is the body's way of surviving but it doesn't directly burn bodyfat? Meaning it adapts to survive without carbs. Humans mainly survived on fat before. The problem with comparing these two is that starvation means very little to no calories while keto diets just makes the brain use fat as fuel. Correct me if I misunderstood or if I'm wrong in any way

No, it burns body fat in the exact same manner in both situations. Ketosis is ketosis no matter if starvation causes it or just not eating carbs it is exactly the same thing in both scenarios, just different environments.

With starvation the environment is that there is no intake of other sources of nutrients, or an abysmal amount of them. So the body must feed on itself to supply the energy needed to continue life.

With a basic Keto diet other nutrients are eaten and available, dietary fat can also be used for energy, as to where none is available during starvation so again body mass must be used to create the energy. So it is the same process just different environments.

Ketosis is what is engaged to both supply the brain with ketones and for the body to run off of fats preferentially and not burn up muscle. Both things are done to preserve life. Available carbohydrate would be the link here, starving is very low carb, or any other nutrient for that matter, but the key is not enough glucose for the brain to be running on during starvation. Ketosis itself does not require a caloric deficit, just that there is not enough glucose for the brain to run on.

Starvation is not the goal in any of these scenarios, as it is very unhealthy. However the topic got off onto talking about metabolic slowdown and the best place to find info on that is a starvation study.

We aren't actually comparing starvation and ketosis, they are 2 totally different things as you mentioned. However Ketosis ALSO happens during starvation as well as when not taking in carbs.


I know clear as mud right.

Starvation = very low if any proteins and fats and the very low if any carbs which causes ketosis
Ketosis = very low carbs causing ketosis, but fats and proteins can be at normal or even high levels. Not protein so much because it is easy to break down and convert glutamine into glucose.

 

[Chados]

. Ketosis itself does not require a caloric deficit, just that there is not enough glucose for the brain to run on.

Starvation is not the goal in any of these scenarios, as it is very unhealthy. However the topic got off onto talking about metabolic slowdown and the best place to find info on that is a starvation study.

We aren't actually comparing starvation and ketosis, they are 2 totally different things as you mentioned. However Ketosis ALSO happens during starvation as well as when not taking in carbs.

Wait wait..i get this part but what I mean is that a ketodiet considering you eat exactly as much calories as with a high carb low fat diet doesn't directly burn bodyfat but the fat coming from your diet instead of carbs during a carb diet. It will however make it harder to add water which by itself can make you lose weight and sometimes look better depending on your body and goals.

The body needs 30gr and the body can create 20gr itself and the other 10 has to come from something else. I'd assume that if you skip carbs completely, keto diets could directly burn fat just like during starvation but if you go for keto while having 30gr of carbs your body will not target your bodyfat anymore than high carb low fat.

Basically what I'm saying is that the comparison with starvation starts at under 30 to no carbs at all. I could be wrong here though. I think that's kinda what you're saying when you said

[With a basic Keto diet other nutrients are eaten and available, dietary fat can also be used for energy, as to where none is available during starvation so again body mass must be used to create the energy. So it is the same process just different environments]

 

[MrKleen73]

Wait wait..i get this part but what I mean is that a ketodiet considering you eat exactly as much calories as with a high carb low fat diet doesn't directly burn bodyfat but the fat coming from your diet instead of carbs during a carb diet. It will however make it harder to add water which by itself can make you lose weight and sometimes look better depending on your body and goals.

The body needs 30gr and the body can create 20gr itself and the other 10 has to come from something else. I'd assume that if you skip carbs completely, keto diets could directly burn fat just like during starvation but if you go for keto while having 30gr of carbs your body will not target your bodyfat anymore than high carb low fat.

Basically what I'm saying is that the comparison with starvation starts at under 30 to no carbs at all. I could be wrong here though. I think that's kinda what you're saying when you said

[With a basic Keto diet other nutrients are eaten and available, dietary fat can also be used for energy, as to where none is available during starvation so again body mass must be used to create the energy. So it is the same process just different environments]

I see what you are saying. If in ketosis but taking in fat the body will also use the dietary fat in combination with the stored bodyfat. However it is a transient thing, some lipids will be from stored and some from dietary. Depends on the fat types eaten, and availability of useable lipid in the blood. If there is a caloric deficit then more stored is used to fill in the gaps of the deficit.

However it is not that cut and dry regarding the 30g, and definitely not a specific number. Think of almost every bodily process as being on a sliding scale. So someone who is eating 100g of carbs a day is still going to preferentially burn fat over carb during low intensity activity or at rest. basically the body is going to gear itself to be more efficient with what ever energy source is more available. The best situation is to be metabolically flexible which really just means efficient at switching between energy substrates.

Also the 30g is kind of old school now, a person can easily be in ketosis even above 150g of carbs a day depending on muscle mass and activity. Some people on CBL wake up in ketosis having taken in a large amount of carbs the night before. If glucose is stored in the muscle it is there until the muscle burns it off. The glycogen can not be converted back into glucose and released into the blood stream. So once that happens if blood sugar drops again which it tends to do in the middle of the night with CBL then there are no more carbs available for the brain to use and whala... ketosis... I don't measure ketones, they are far from necessary to prove the higher efficiency of fat loss with lower carb plans. However I know for a fact I have gone hypo several times in my sleep, woke up dizzy, tired, and covered in sweat while on CBL, and that I was burning a lot of fat while doing it.

There is no comparison between the two. They are not similar.

Starvation is a situation that you are in, AKA an environment.

Ketosis is a process, that exists within an environment that does not provide enough carbohydrate to the brain so ketones must be produced as an alternate fuel source. That environment can be a caloric surplus, a caloric balance, a caloric deficit, or even starvation. Ketosis being a process, can exist in all of these environments as long as there is not enough glucose to supply the brain without using ketones as an alternate fuel source.

 

[Chados]

I'm not really suggesting ketosis has to be 30gr but that the brain needs 30gr. Ketosis is probably possible as you said depending on size and I can totally relate to what you said about waking up shaking. So in terms of comparing how the body reacts during starvation one would have to starve with the carbs or making it impossible for the body to get these 30gr from anywhere? .. I agree they're not the same but Im just asking wether the body in any way starts burning its own fat if the brain gets just the exact right amount of carbs which seems to be 30gr before it starts to actually starve.. Not sure I'm complicating things, I'm trying to make it as easy as possible. Regardless you're a beautiful man for teaching me more about this haha.

 

[Old Witch]

I see what you are saying. If in ketosis but taking in fat the body will also use the dietary fat in combination with the stored bodyfat. However it is a transient thing, some lipids will be from stored and some from dietary. Depends on the fat types eaten, and availability of useable lipid in the blood. If there is a caloric deficit then more stored is used to fill in the gaps of the deficit.

However it is not that cut and dry regarding the 30g, and definitely not a specific number. Think of almost every bodily process as being on a sliding scale. So someone who is eating 100g of carbs a day is still going to preferentially burn fat over carb during low intensity activity or at rest. basically the body is going to gear itself to be more efficient with what ever energy source is more available. The best situation is to be metabolically flexible which really just means efficient at switching between energy substrates.

Also the 30g is kind of old school now, a person can easily be in ketosis even above 150g of carbs a day depending on muscle mass and activity. Some people on CBL wake up in ketosis having taken in a large amount of carbs the night before. If glucose is stored in the muscle it is there until the muscle burns it off. The glycogen can not be converted back into glucose and released into the blood stream. So once that happens if blood sugar drops again which it tends to do in the middle of the night with CBL then there are no more carbs available for the brain to use and whala... ketosis... I don't measure ketones, they are far from necessary to prove the higher efficiency of fat loss with lower carb plans. However I know for a fact I have gone hypo several times in my sleep, woke up dizzy, tired, and covered in sweat while on CBL, and that I was burning a lot of fat while doing it.

There is no comparison between the two. They are not similar.

Starvation is a situation that you are in, AKA an environment.

Ketosis is a process, that exists within an environment that does not provide enough carbohydrate to the brain so ketones must be produced as an alternate fuel source. That environment can be a caloric surplus, a caloric balance, a caloric deficit, or even starvation. Ketosis being a process, can exist in all of these environments as long as there is not enough glucose to supply the brain without using ketones as an alternate fuel source.

Actually glucagon from the pancreas converts glycogen back into glucose and releases it into the blood stream, generally anytime the body reaches its starvation point. Basically glucagon is the exact opposite hormone to insulin.

 

[HIT4ME]

Chados - nothing to add?? Pffft. Sand bagger.

Now I have nothing to add...you guys got it covered.

 

[Chados]

Chados - nothing to add?? Pffft. Sand bagger.

Now I have nothing to add...you guys got it covered.

Haha..im more speculating, it's kinda fun when you know something but haven't thought it trough and while exchanging words you notice you have more to say than you think. You guys make me think around the box a little and I appreciate that

 

[Rocket3015]

This thread has some great information, I don't know how many times I have read something on this board and had to rethink my options. This is a great source of information with some pretty smart cookies!

Did someone say cookies..................Christmas cookie YUM !!

 

[HIT4ME]

Haha..im more speculating, it's kinda fun when you know something but haven't thought it trough and while exchanging words you notice you have more to say than you think. You guys make me think around the box a little and I appreciate that

That's the point ...right, wrong - it doesn't really matter. Even someone who is "wrong" can have a view that makes the person with knowledge who is "right" think of a new and better angle.

I have learned more in this one thread than you can believe. MrKleen73 will still tell me I am wrong. But that doesn't matter...he is wrong about everything anyway.

 

[HIT4ME]

This thread has some great information, I don't know how many times I have read something on this board and had to rethink my options. This is a great source of information with some pretty smart cookies!

Did someone say cookies..................Christmas cookie YUM !!

Mmmm, coookies!

 

[DemntedCowboy]

Glad I started this thread. It started off slow but, there is so much good discussion and info to be learned in here now

 

[Chados]

That's the point ...right, wrong - it doesn't really matter. Even someone who is "wrong" can have a view that makes the person with knowledge who is "right" think of a new and better angle.

I have learned more in this one thread than you can believe. MrKleen73 will still tell me I am wrong. But that doesn't matter...he is wrong about everything anyway.

Haha i agree. Well if one of you is wrong that means we have a 50% success in this thread, let's make it 100.

 

[MrKleen73]

I'm not really suggesting ketosis has to be 30gr but that the brain needs 30gr. Ketosis is probably possible as you said depending on size and I can totally relate to what you said about waking up shaking. So in terms of comparing how the body reacts during starvation one would have to starve with the carbs or making it impossible for the body to get these 30gr from anywhere? .. I agree they're not the same but Im just asking wether the body in any way starts burning its own fat if the brain gets just the exact right amount of carbs which seems to be 30gr before it starts to actually starve.. Not sure I'm complicating things, I'm trying to make it as easy as possible. Regardless you're a beautiful man for teaching me more about this haha.

Yes, the body is burning it's own fat most of the time to some degree or another. Short of times where you are in a heavily anabolic situation. IE a high insulin scenario. As mentioned below there is another hormone involved called glucagon and it is insulins antagonist. It is the catabolic / starvation hormone, and they work in a sliding balance at all times. The higher the insulin levels the less glucagon, and the less fat is being burned at that moment. The higher the glucagon and lower the insulin is will promote more fat use.

Now as for fats, only fats that have been converted to a specific type of lipid can be used immediately for energy. I think it might be a medium chain triglyceride, but I don't want to get too specific as I may not have that correct. Anyway if your dietary fats do not have enough of that type available then there is a conversion process and body fat is used to backfill that as well even when in a caloric balance. So the body is almost always burning some of it's fat stores. However high glucagon, and low insulin levels is the signalling environment that tells the body stop trying to run off carbs, we need to focus on the fat for now.

Intermittent Fasting takes advantages of the bodies ability to be metabolically flexible as well. Which I think is why a lot of people tend to do well on it. It plays into our natural pathways. The body is supposed to be able to do both things efficiently, IF is a great way to get those systems to step up and adapt quickly. Plus playing into natural circadian rhythms makes it easier for a lot of people to follow.

Actually glucagon from the pancreas converts glycogen back into glucose and releases it into the blood stream, generally anytime the body reaches its starvation point. Basically glucagon is the exact opposite hormone to insulin.

Interesting... I was going to mention glucagon but didn't want to muddy the waters too much more. I find the insulin / glucagon relationship fascinating. However I thought it caused that reaction in the liver, and not from muscle stores. Everything I read in my nutrition certification stated it can not be put back in. I might have to revisit this. Could be just mixing up two processes. I will have to go look up the particulars on that. However I know there is something about the glutamine skeletal structure being reused to create glycogen. The glu prefix being the tie in between the glucose and glutamine, there is some similar structure. Not saying we are discussing the same process either. Just mentioning this is one pathway that glycogen could be made from muscle but not actually released by it.

So I had to know if I was wrong and this is what I found with a quick search which leads me to believe I am correct in my memory.

Invalid Link Removed

Section 21.3Epinephrine and Glucagon Signal the Need for Glycogen Breakdown

Protein kinase A activates phosphorylase kinase, which in turn activates glycogen phosphorylase. What activates protein kinase A? What is the signal that ultimately triggers an increase in glycogen breakdown?

21.0.1. An Overview of Glycogen Metabolism:
Glycogen degradation and synthesis are relatively simple biochemical processes. Glycogen degradation consists of three steps: (1) the release of glucose 1-phosphate from glycogen, (2) the remodeling of the glycogen substrate to permit further degradation, and (3) the conversion of glucose 1-phosphate into glucose 6-phosphate for further metabolism. The glucose 6-phosphate derived from the breakdown of glycogen has three fates (Figure 21.3): (1) It is the initial substrate for glycolysis, (2) it can be processed by the pentose phosphate pathway to yield NADPH and ribose derivatives; and (3) it can be converted into free glucose for release into the bloodstream. This conversion takes place mainly in the liver and to a lesser extent in the intestines and kidneys.

from Invalid Link Removed

"21.3.1. G Proteins Transmit the Signal for the Initiation of Glycogen Breakdown

Several hormones greatly affect glycogen metabolism. Glucagon and epinephrine trigger the breakdown of glycogen. Muscular activity or its anticipation leads to the release of epinephrine (adrenaline), a catecholamine derived from tyrosine, from the adrenal medulla. Epinephrine markedly stimulates glycogen breakdown in muscle and, to a lesser extent, in the liver. The liver is more responsive to glucagon, a polypeptide hormone that is secreted by the α cells of the pancreas when the blood-sugar level is low. Physiologically, glucagon signifies the starved state."

Epinephrine is more involved with the breakdown process for muscle in action, and glucagon is responsible for trying to maintain blood sugar levels. We know a person can go hypo while having plenty of glycogen stored in their muscle. Body builders die from this while bulking on insulin, it isn't anything new. This is just anecdotal evidence but pretty obvious and clear that if the muscle could release glycogen it would in that situation. This scenrio is the same with something like a CBL diet. Lets say you workout and create a super insulin sensitive environment and eat a high amount of easily digested carbohydrate. You soak up all the blood glucose due to the resulting insulin spike. Now you are an hour into sleeping and are hypoglycemic so your liver dumps a good bit of your liver glycogen stores. This results in another insulin spike, which results in more glucose being released from the liver, since not eating this can happen more than once during the overnight fast. Next time glucagon signals no, more liver glycogen... time for cortisol and the switch to fat baby.

 

[Old Witch]

Interesting... I was going to mention glucagon but didn't want to muddy the waters too much more. I find the insulin / glucagon relationship fascinating. However I thought it caused that reaction in the liver, and not from muscle stores. Everything I read in my nutrition certification stated it can not be put back in. I might have to revisit this. Could be just mixing up two processes. I will have to go look up the particulars on that. However I know there is something about the glutamine skeletal structure being reused to create glycogen. The glu prefix being the tie in between the glucose and glutamine, there is some similar structure. Not saying we are discussing the same process either. Just mentioning this is one pathway that glycogen could be made from muscle but not actually released by it.

So I had to know if I was wrong and this is what I found with a quick search which leads me to believe I am correct in my memory.

Invalid Link Removed

Section 21.3Epinephrine and Glucagon Signal the Need for Glycogen Breakdown

Protein kinase A activates phosphorylase kinase, which in turn activates glycogen phosphorylase. What activates protein kinase A? What is the signal that ultimately triggers an increase in glycogen breakdown?

21.0.1. An Overview of Glycogen Metabolism:
Glycogen degradation and synthesis are relatively simple biochemical processes. Glycogen degradation consists of three steps: (1) the release of glucose 1-phosphate from glycogen, (2) the remodeling of the glycogen substrate to permit further degradation, and (3) the conversion of glucose 1-phosphate into glucose 6-phosphate for further metabolism. The glucose 6-phosphate derived from the breakdown of glycogen has three fates (Figure 21.3): (1) It is the initial substrate for glycolysis, (2) it can be processed by the pentose phosphate pathway to yield NADPH and ribose derivatives; and (3) it can be converted into free glucose for release into the bloodstream. This conversion takes place mainly in the liver and to a lesser extent in the intestines and kidneys.

from Invalid Link Removed

"21.3.1. G Proteins Transmit the Signal for the Initiation of Glycogen Breakdown

Several hormones greatly affect glycogen metabolism. Glucagon and epinephrine trigger the breakdown of glycogen. Muscular activity or its anticipation leads to the release of epinephrine (adrenaline), a catecholamine derived from tyrosine, from the adrenal medulla. Epinephrine markedly stimulates glycogen breakdown in muscle and, to a lesser extent, in the liver. The liver is more responsive to glucagon, a polypeptide hormone that is secreted by the α cells of the pancreas when the blood-sugar level is low. Physiologically, glucagon signifies the starved state."

Epinephrine is more involved with the breakdown process for muscle in action, and glucagon is responsible for trying to maintain blood sugar levels. We know a person can go hypo while having plenty of glycogen stored in their muscle. Body builders die from this while bulking on insulin, it isn't anything new. This is just anecdotal evidence but pretty obvious and clear that if the muscle could release glycogen it would in that situation. This scenrio is the same with something like a CBL diet. Lets say you workout and create a super insulin sensitive environment and eat a high amount of easily digested carbohydrate. You soak up all the blood glucose due to the resulting insulin spike. Now you are an hour into sleeping and are hypoglycemic so your liver dumps a good bit of your liver glycogen stores. This results in another insulin spike, which results in more glucose being released from the liver, since not eating this can happen more than once during the overnight fast. Next time glucagon signals no, more liver glycogen... time for cortisol and the switch to fat baby.

The body would release glucagon of a slight overdose if there were not a radically high amount of insulin to block it. That’s why you can end up taking a tiny tiny bit too much and feel extra ****ty but not dead, eventually glucagon is released. By tiny tiny bit I mean under half a unit for sure. Or maybe your carbs were taken in at the wrong time and et cetera.

(Disclaimer: don’t ever take too much insulin)

 

[Wagz86]

Somewhat off topic but has anyone ever noticed that their sleep cycles get affected when on keto?

 

[MrKleen73]

That's the point ...right, wrong - it doesn't really matter. Even someone who is "wrong" can have a view that makes the person with knowledge who is "right" think of a new and better angle.

I have learned more in this one thread than you can believe. MrKleen73 will still tell me I am wrong. But that doesn't matter...he is wrong about everything anyway.

Oh no, I am sure you have learned a ton in this thread. After all, it has been quite a schooling for you!!!!

:head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head:

I kid, I kid, I learn a lot in our convos and love being challenged. I even like it when I am proved wrong, or at least have to modify my thinking based on new information.

I have to go out to look up anything you say to make sure I am not mistaken or not remembering correctly.. I also honestly try to incorporate everything you mention into what I already know about the big picture, or my limited view of it to see if it fits in. Nothing but love and mutual respect for you brother!!!

Glad I started this thread. It started off slow but, there is so much good discussion and info to be learned in here now

Right, it was a great conversation starter and topic!

Haha i agree. Well if one of you is wrong that means we have a 50% success in this thread, let's make it 100.

Considering we agree on almost everything else but the extent of the slowdown we are probably at about a 95% in here now.

 

[Chados]

Mrkleen so you're saying that a fat based diet without carbs burns more fat than a carb based diet without fats, or a low carb diet vs a low fat diet? Obviously the body can burn regardless of macros but keto itself shouldn't target fat cells by itself right? If that's the case it completely goes against everything ive read.

95% agreeing hmm, rich Piana would probably have given us the last 5 then lol

 

[jrock645]

Somewhat off topic but has anyone ever noticed that their sleep cycles get affected when on keto?

My sleep and wake cycle regulates mich better when on keto. I sleep better, im more alert right out of bed, my energy pattern is more stable and im usually much more likely to feel sleepy and ready for bed when its that time of the night.

 

[HIT4ME]

Oh no, I am sure you have learned a ton in this thread. After all, it has been quite a schooling for you!!!!

:head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head::head:

I kid, I kid, I learn a lot in our convos and love being challenged. I even like it when I am proved wrong, or at least have to modify my thinking based on new information.

I have to go out to look up anything you say to make sure I am not mistaken or not remembering correctly.. I also honestly try to incorporate everything you mention into what I already know about the big picture, or my limited view of it to see if it fits in. Nothing but love and mutual respect for you brother!!!


Right, it was a great conversation starter and topic!


Considering we agree on almost everything else but the extent of the slowdown we are probably at about a 95% in here now.

Yesun. I done learned a lot! You really edumacated me!

I did learn, per the studies posted above, that it is unlikely that metabolism ever adjusts more than 5%...I may have been too lenient on the 10%.

I feel the same way- I have to really pay attention to what I say. I know if I am off even a little you will capitalize! Not only to I have to research what you say, or check up on my own thoughts - but I often find myself going down paths I hadn't thought of.

As far as mutual respect....I think we have to debate what "mutual" means

Just kidding if course!

 

[HIT4ME]

Yes, the body is burning it's own fat most of the time to some degree or another. Short of times where you are in a heavily anabolic situation. IE a high insulin scenario. As mentioned below there is another hormone involved called glucagon and it is insulins antagonist. It is the catabolic / starvation hormone, and they work in a sliding balance at all times. The higher the insulin levels the less glucagon, and the less fat is being burned at that moment. The higher the glucagon and lower the insulin is will promote more fat use.

Now as for fats, only fats that have been converted to a specific type of lipid can be used immediately for energy. I think it might be a medium chain triglyceride, but I don't want to get too specific as I may not have that correct. Anyway if your dietary fats do not have enough of that type available then there is a conversion process and body fat is used to backfill that as well even when in a caloric balance. So the body is almost always burning some of it's fat stores. However high glucagon, and low insulin levels is the signalling environment that tells the body stop trying to run off carbs, we need to focus on the fat for now.

Intermittent Fasting takes advantages of the bodies ability to be metabolically flexible as well. Which I think is why a lot of people tend to do well on it. It plays into our natural pathways. The body is supposed to be able to do both things efficiently, IF is a great way to get those systems to step up and adapt quickly. Plus playing into natural circadian rhythms makes it easier for a lot of people to follow.



Interesting... I was going to mention glucagon but didn't want to muddy the waters too much more. I find the insulin / glucagon relationship fascinating. However I thought it caused that reaction in the liver, and not from muscle stores. Everything I read in my nutrition certification stated it can not be put back in. I might have to revisit this. Could be just mixing up two processes. I will have to go look up the particulars on that. However I know there is something about the glutamine skeletal structure being reused to create glycogen. The glu prefix being the tie in between the glucose and glutamine, there is some similar structure. Not saying we are discussing the same process either. Just mentioning this is one pathway that glycogen could be made from muscle but not actually released by it.

So I had to know if I was wrong and this is what I found with a quick search which leads me to believe I am correct in my memory.

Invalid Link Removed

Section 21.3Epinephrine and Glucagon Signal the Need for Glycogen Breakdown

Protein kinase A activates phosphorylase kinase, which in turn activates glycogen phosphorylase. What activates protein kinase A? What is the signal that ultimately triggers an increase in glycogen breakdown?

21.0.1. An Overview of Glycogen Metabolism:
Glycogen degradation and synthesis are relatively simple biochemical processes. Glycogen degradation consists of three steps: (1) the release of glucose 1-phosphate from glycogen, (2) the remodeling of the glycogen substrate to permit further degradation, and (3) the conversion of glucose 1-phosphate into glucose 6-phosphate for further metabolism. The glucose 6-phosphate derived from the breakdown of glycogen has three fates (Figure 21.3): (1) It is the initial substrate for glycolysis, (2) it can be processed by the pentose phosphate pathway to yield NADPH and ribose derivatives; and (3) it can be converted into free glucose for release into the bloodstream. This conversion takes place mainly in the liver and to a lesser extent in the intestines and kidneys.

from Invalid Link Removed

"21.3.1. G Proteins Transmit the Signal for the Initiation of Glycogen Breakdown

Several hormones greatly affect glycogen metabolism. Glucagon and epinephrine trigger the breakdown of glycogen. Muscular activity or its anticipation leads to the release of epinephrine (adrenaline), a catecholamine derived from tyrosine, from the adrenal medulla. Epinephrine markedly stimulates glycogen breakdown in muscle and, to a lesser extent, in the liver. The liver is more responsive to glucagon, a polypeptide hormone that is secreted by the α cells of the pancreas when the blood-sugar level is low. Physiologically, glucagon signifies the starved state."

Epinephrine is more involved with the breakdown process for muscle in action, and glucagon is responsible for trying to maintain blood sugar levels. We know a person can go hypo while having plenty of glycogen stored in their muscle. Body builders die from this while bulking on insulin, it isn't anything new. This is just anecdotal evidence but pretty obvious and clear that if the muscle could release glycogen it would in that situation. This scenrio is the same with something like a CBL diet. Lets say you workout and create a super insulin sensitive environment and eat a high amount of easily digested carbohydrate. You soak up all the blood glucose due to the resulting insulin spike. Now you are an hour into sleeping and are hypoglycemic so your liver dumps a good bit of your liver glycogen stores. This results in another insulin spike, which results in more glucose being released from the liver, since not eating this can happen more than once during the overnight fast. Next time glucagon signals no, more liver glycogen... time for cortisol and the switch to fat baby.

I actually think the "switch to fat" here is a big part of the PDK discussion we have had. Gluconeogenesis converting fat to carbs is like turning rocket fuel to gasoline.

Not to get you going...but taking 1 gram if 9 calorie fat and turning it to 1 gram of glucose will yield 1 gram of fat loss and only supply 4 calories.

The trick is to keep your metabolic flexibility up and not eliminating the demand for carbs (with PDK elevation reducing this demand - brought on by obesity, or a reduction in calories and/or carbs).

This is what gets my interest about CBL so much.

 

[Wagz86]

My sleep and wake cycle regulates mich better when on keto. I sleep better, im more alert right out of bed, my energy pattern is more stable and im usually much more likely to feel sleepy and ready for bed when its that time of the night.

What I mean to say is. Toward the end of the week before a carb load when you are really depleted I find I have very restless sleep

 

[Chados]

What I mean to say is. Toward the end of the week before a carb load when you are really depleted I find I have very restless sleep

Yup that's very likely to happen.

 

[Chados]

Not to get you going...but taking 1 gram if 9 calorie fat and turning it to 1 gram of glucose will yield 1 gram of fat loss and only supply 4 calories.

Hey you said you're done here! This is interesting though indeed

 

[HIT4ME]

Hey you said you're done here! This is interesting though indeed

Lol, I said you guys had it covered...I had nothing to add. Not that I was done, haha.

I find it very interesting and kleen and I have debated it at length...it implies that using fat for energy through ketosis will actually give the appearance of a slowing metabolism without reducing thermal expenditure.

I.e. - if in ketosis and burning fat directly you are getting 9 calories for every gram of mass lost. But going into ketosis elevates an enzyme called pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK) which is a "switch" in the Krebs cycle which turns on fat burning for energy.

One thing to keep in mind, as Kleen said above, it isn't just on or off. It's a mix...but during obesity, ketosis, starvation - pdk elevates and you burn fat directly and this means you cannot burn carbs as efficiently.

The issue is that if you need to burn fat, PDK elevates and thus the demand for carbs to fuel the Krebs cycle drops. In obesity, the abundance of lipids elevates pdk in an attempt to burn off the potentially toxic levels of fat available. And then you go on a keto diet and this could get worse because you have an abundance of lipid - but now no carbs at all, so you reduce the need for the machinery to burn carbs even more. This works fine - because it avoids the issue that obesity created a situation where you cannot effectively burn carbs and just uses the fat burning machinery that is in place. But it also makes the underlying issue - that you have reduced carb burning machinery - worse, potentially.

That's great, who cares, you lose weight and love keto. But then you are off the diet and carbs just make you gain like a mofo, because you cannot burn them effectively- and since you cannot burn them in the cell you have to take your 4 calorie gram of carb and store it as a 9 calorie gram of fat. (Kleen will get me here - it isn't that direct).

So, now you only burn fat and (just for illistration) you get 900 calories out of every 100 grams of bodyweight, instead of 400 calories if it was burned as carbs.

This explains why, when you diet, you sit down and do the math and figure you will lose 2 pounds a week if you eat a certain amount but then after a short while you are only losing 1 pound. It is often said you will lose half as fast as the math makes you think.

It also explains why we think we go into "starvation mode" without creating the need for some magical mechanism that allows us to do equal work with less energy ...which brings us full circle and should fire up the Mrkleen73/hit4me battle all over again.

It also explains some of the observations from people who love keto diets. They go through the diet, lose weight, come off and carbs blow them up - which they take as evidence that carbs are bad and what makes us fat....and makes them zealots.

I think Kleen probably thinks I am a little too far gone and schizophrenic with this theory. He may be right.

 

[Chados]

Lol, I said you guys had it covered...I had nothing to add. Not that I was done, haha.

I find it very interesting and Chris and I have debated it at length...it implies that using fat for energy through ketosis will actually give the appearance of a slowing metabolism without reducing thermal expenditure.

I.e. - if in ketosis and burning fat directly you are getting 9 calories for every gram of mass lost. But going into ketosis elevates an enzyme called pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase (PDK) which is a "switch" in the Krebs cycle which turns on fat burning for energy.

One thing to keep in mind, as Chris said above, it isn't just on or off. It's a mix...but during obesity, ketosis, starvation - pdk elevates and you burn fat directly and this means you cannot burn carbs as efficiently.

The issue is that if you need to burn fat, PDK elevates and thus the demand for carbs to fuel the Krebs cycle drops. In obesity, the abundance of lipids elevates pdk in an attempt to burn off the potentially toxic levels of fat available. And then you go on a keto diet and this could get worse because you have an abundance of lipid - but now no carbs at all, so you reduce the need for the machinery to burn carbs even more. This works fine - because it avoids the issue that obesity created a situation where you cannot effectively burn carbs and just uses the fat burning machinery that is in place. But it also makes the underlying issue - that you have reduced carb burning machinery - worse, potentially.

That's great, who cares, you lose weight and love keto. But then you are off the diet and carbs just make you gain like a mofo, because you cannot burn them effectively- and since you cannot burn them in the cell you have to take your 4 calorie gram of carb and store it as a 9 calorie gram of fat. (Kleen will get me here - it isn't that direct).

So, now you only burn fat and (just for illistration) you get 900 calories out of every 100 grams of bodyweight, instead of 400 calories if it was burned as carbs.

This explains why, when you diet, you sit down and do the math and figure you will lose 2 pounds a week if you eat a certain amount but then after a short while you are only losing 1 pound. It is often said you will lose half as fast as the math makes you think.

It also explains why we think we go into "starvation mode" without creating the need for some magical mechanism that allows us to do equal work with less energy ...which brings us full circle and should fire up the Mrkleen73/hit4me battle all over again.

It also explains some of the observations from people who love keto diets. They go through the diet, lose weight, come off and carbs blow them up - which they take as evidence that carbs are bad and what makes us fat....and makes them zealots.

I think Kleen probably thinks I am a little too far gone and schizophrenic with this theory. He may be right.

I'm not gonna say I take any side here but I do think your theory is very interesting. I'm not taking sides cause I don't know the answer.

switching diets is something that should be done gradually. You have to adapt the body to the changed diet and one can't expect drastic results within a week and thats what makes people lose faith in it.

Switching to keto can be problematic for your energy if you don't go slow while jumping on a high carb diet absolutely will bloat you. My theory is that this affects a steroid cycle and some people get extremely bloated rather than shredded cause this seems to happen even with clean diets.

 

[HIT4ME]

I'm not gonna say I take any side here but I do think your theory is very interesting. I'm not taking sides cause I don't know the answer.

switching diets is something that should be done gradually. You have to adapt the body to the changed diet and one can't expect drastic results within a week and thats what makes people lose faith in it.

Switching to keto can be problematic for your energy if you don't go slow while jumping on a high carb diet absolutely will bloat you. My theory is that this affects a steroid cycle and some people get extremely bloated rather than shredded cause this seems to happen even with clean diets.

Yeah...I am not sure how it all plays out either. But I think it is exciting to think about the puzzle and the options the ideas above may open up.

For one, it may give us a better insight and yield better prescriptions for the numerous threads on here from people saying, "I have been dieting and had great results at first. I am doing everything right, but I have been stalled for 3 weeks!"

The knee jerk reaction to these people is, "starvation mode" and they prescribe, "eat more food".

And this may work sometimes- because by increasing food, they increase carbs or whatever. But it isn't for the reason they think - it is because they had become so efficient at utilizing energy and eating more carbs required less efficiency.

And of course - this also supports the idea of a high carb refeed on a regular basis, as well as why it is more important when someone is leaner (which is convenient because the leptin theories above also support why refeeds are absolutely necessary as you become leaner).

And I think this is where Kleen and I differ a bit. He has strategies that are very effective...look at him. He has helped a bunch of people on here. If you want results today, he has your answers. He gets it done in the real world.

A lot of my thoughts are focused on theory and some of that may never be useful.

In other words, if you walk into a dark room and cannot find your way, and need help - kleen is really good at getting that light switch flipped on for you.

I am just gonna sit there and theorize about how we use romex wiring for electrons to flow, when we could just be inducing a magnetic field...and you will be frustrated because you just want some light.

 

[jrock645]

What I mean to say is. Toward the end of the week before a carb load when you are really depleted I find I have very restless sleep

That sounds like a mental thing to me. I’m 7 weeks in and haven’t had any scheduled carb loads. I had some pie at thanksgiving because that only comes once a year, and 10 days later ate a piece of bread and some potato when I took my fiancée out for her bday dinner, but no other carb ups or cheating. Sounds to me personally like an instance of being exciting or anticipation affecting your sleep. Could be wrong, but that’s my take.

 

[jrock645]

Yeah...I am not sure how it all plays out either. But I think it is exciting to think about the puzzle and the options the ideas above may open up.

For one, it may give us a better insight and yield better prescriptions for the numerous threads on here from people saying, "I have been dieting and had great results at first. I am doing everything right, but I have been stalled for 3 weeks!"

The knee jerk reaction to these people is, "starvation mode" and they prescribe, "eat more food".

And this may work sometimes- because by increasing food, they increase carbs or whatever. But it isn't for the reason they think - it is because they had become so efficient at utilizing energy and eating more carbs required less efficiency.

And of course - this also supports the idea of a high carb refeed on a regular basis, as well as why it is more important when someone is leaner (which is convenient because the leptin theories above also support why refeeds are absolutely necessary as you become leaner).

And I think this is where Kleen and I differ a bit. He has strategies that are very effective...look at him. He has helped a bunch of people on here. If you want results today, he has your answers. He gets it done in the real world.

A lot of my thoughts are focused on theory and some of that may never be useful.

In other words, if you walk into a dark room and cannot find your way, and need help - kleen is really good at getting that light switch flipped on for you.

I am just gonna sit there and theorize about how we use romex wiring for electrons to flow, when we could just be inducing a magnetic field...and you will be frustrated because you just want some light.

Very mike Mentzerish of you...

 

[HIT4ME]

Very mike Mentzerish of you...

Lol, thanks. I was drawn to him when I would read his articles because his approach was so different. Maybe because he seemed argumentative. Lol.

 

[jrock645]

Lol, thanks. I was drawn to him when I would read his articles because his approach was so different. Maybe because he seemed argumentative. Lol.

He was definitely a free thinker. Really had a way of stopping to ask “why?” Which I think is a good thing.

 

[Chados]

Yeah...I am not sure how it all plays out either. But I think it is exciting to think about the puzzle and the options the ideas above may open up.

For one, it may give us a better insight and yield better prescriptions for the numerous threads on here from people saying, "I have been dieting and had great results at first. I am doing everything right, but I have been stalled for 3 weeks!"

The knee jerk reaction to these people is, "starvation mode" and they prescribe, "eat more food".

And this may work sometimes- because by increasing food, they increase carbs or whatever. But it isn't for the reason they think - it is because they had become so efficient at utilizing energy and eating more carbs required less efficiency.

And of course - this also supports the idea of a high carb refeed on a regular basis, as well as why it is more important when someone is leaner (which is convenient because the leptin theories above also support why refeeds are absolutely necessary as you become leaner).

And I think this is where Kleen and I differ a bit. He has strategies that are very effective...look at him. He has helped a bunch of people on here. If you want results today, he has your answers. He gets it done in the real world.

A lot of my thoughts are focused on theory and some of that may never be useful.

In other words, if you walk into a dark room and cannot find your way, and need help - kleen is really good at getting that light switch flipped on for you.

I am just gonna sit there and theorize about how we use romex wiring for electrons to flow, when we could just be inducing a magnetic field...and you will be frustrated because you just want some light.

Sometimes theres two sides of the coin even if one side is more correct than the other. I tend to go by experience a lot and even if I don't know why it works I just know it works for me. I think many people come here and say, I don't gain weight anymore so they add another meal of a classic chicken and rice with two chicken breasts and 100gr of rice. Yes you will gain weight and yes you will add muscle but you will slowly add water and fat to to the body.


A major key to my own progress is to eat when I'm hungry, simple as that. I don't eat just because the clock says 3. The other key is to eat little many times during the day to control bloodsugar and to not get hungry all the time so I devour the first thing I see in the kitchen. A high fat low carb diet can be hard to deal with if you don't manage bloodsugar. I think this is where people fall flat with keto and with a high carb diet the problem often is too much pure sugar rather than slow carbohydrates or (you have to eat to grow) so let's eat 5 meals of rice when you only need 2.