IR/Diabetes, ketosis, protein, and GNG topics - Low carb podcast
Options
anubis609
Posts: 3,966 Member
I just wanted to share this podcast that was released yesterday among the low carb/keto facebook community. Guests Marty Kendall and Mike Julian, admins of the Optimising Nutrition fb group, and Alex Leaf, researcher at Examine.com. Three knowledgeable individuals and online friends that I enjoy interacting with when I have the chance.
http://www.lowcarbconversations.com/?p=4154
http://www.lowcarbconversations.com/?p=4154
5
Replies
-
This is a great one!
I haven’t actually finished it yet but I’m a big fan of all these guys.3 -
bookmarking this so I can listen/read transcripts later. Thx3
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »This is a great one!
I haven’t actually finished it yet but I’m a big fan of all these guys.
Yup, they're really good guys who see nutrition and biochemistry as a spectrum based on personal health, goals, preference, activity, etc., and while low carb might be the slant, it's not invasive as an absolute dietary lifestyle.1 -
Dammit, don't see any transcripts.... I need to read stuff to digest it better. Podcasts are fun to listen to but very forgettable.2
-
I think they might be trying to work on transcripts but it’s digestible as a listen. I think they do a very good job in dispensing info relatively simply.1
-
Thanks for sharing.1
-
Finally got to listen.
Diabetic discussion is super interesting.
Even more interesting, protein talk starts about 40:39. Marty starts reading the article. 44:50ish begins the response.
My TLDL (Too Long, Didn't Listen) for the protein convo: Which I admit is still pretty dang long but you know me.
Gluconeogenesis and ketosis are designed to occur simultaneously. Because the body does require some glucose. So in its absence, the body is looking for something to breakdown to supply that. Better to get enough than too little so that dietary protein is used instead of catabolizing muscle. But in the event protein is broken down, the glucose result is negligible according to the researcher. In studies, 60g of protein only outputs 2g of glucose. 60g of protein would be like almost 7oz of chicken breast. 2g of glucose.
According to these guys, the literature bears out that a completely sedentary person, in order to avoid muscle loss, needs 1.2g of protein per kg of bodyweight. An active person requires a range from 1.4-2.2g per kg of bodyweight, depending upon activity level and personal variation.
So we can look at this with mine. I'm currently about 74kg. With the sedentary multiplier would be 88g of protein to preserve muscle. I'm active though, so we can pretend I'm only a little active. So that would be 104g ish. (According to studies, I'm not eating enough protein regularly.
YIKES!) Anyway, let's pretend I broke all that protein down via gluconeogensis. Assuming what this researcher says is true: How much glucose would my ENTIRE day produce... 3.34g of glucose. That's not enough to kick anybody out of anything.
Let's pretend it is enough though. What does that mean? First ask, why are you doing keto? If it's for any other reason than to treat a neurological disorder, then IT DOESN'T MATTER. You burn your glucose; your body needs more; you go back into ketosis. You intake too much energy, and you can't burn more, you aren't going to lose weight anyway. More ketones are more ketones; less are less. Enough is enough. No trophy for higher ketone levels here.
Also, exogenous ketones are basically useless unless you are an ultramarathoner or have epilepsy, and so are nothing but an agent to fleece you of your money and give you expensive pee. Too many ketones will inhibit lipolysis (fat burning) as ketones are bumped to the top of the queue above both fat and glucose in burning order. Which is why it's not really the best thing for a ketoer pursuing weight loss to chase higher ketones. Energy has to be burned or stored. Extra ketones are going to interfere with burning body fat.
My quick jot in summary of the protein discussion. Lots more neat science in there.
You should probably listen.
It's not saying ketosis is worthless. It's not saying that it isn't a useful tool. They are just measuring up "keto rhetoric" against biochemistry. And that it's better to eat more protein, than too little. And to stop worrying about the G-word unless it's medically necessary for you to do so.
Thoughts?
What did I skip?
8 -
baconslave wrote: »Finally got to listen.
Diabetic discussion is super interesting.
Even more interesting, protein talk starts about 40:39. Marty starts reading the article. 44:50ish begins the response.
My TLDL (Too Long, Didn't Listen) for the protein convo: Which I admit is still pretty dang long but you know me.
Gluconeogenesis and ketosis are designed to occur simultaneously. Because the body does require some glucose. So in its absence, the body is looking for something to breakdown to supply that. Better to get enough than too little so that dietary protein is used instead of catabolizing muscle. But in the event protein is broken down, the glucose result is negligible according to the researcher. In studies, 60g of protein only outputs 2g of glucose. 60g of protein would be like almost 7oz of chicken breast. 2g of glucose.
According to these guys, the literature bears out that a completely sedentary person, in order to avoid muscle loss, needs 1.2g of protein per kg of bodyweight. An active person requires a range from 1.4-2.2g per kg of bodyweight, depending upon activity level and personal variation.
So we can look at this with mine. I'm currently about 74kg. With the sedentary multiplier would be 88g of protein to preserve muscle. I'm active though, so we can pretend I'm only a little active. So that would be 104g ish. (According to studies, I'm not eating enough protein regularly. YIKES!) Anyway, let's pretend I broke all that protein down via gluconeogensis. Assuming what this researcher says is true: How much glucose would my ENTIRE day produce... 3.34g of glucose. That's not enough to kick anybody out of anything.
Let's pretend it is enough though. What does that mean? First ask, why are you doing keto? If it's for any other reason than to treat a neurological disorder, then IT DOESN'T MATTER. You burn your glucose; your body needs more; you go back into ketosis. You intake too much energy, and you can't burn more, you aren't going to lose weight anyway. More ketones are more ketones; less are less. Enough is enough. No trophy for higher ketone levels here.
Also, exogenous ketones are basically useless unless you are an ultramarathoner or have epilepsy, and so are nothing but an agent to fleece you of your money and give you expensive pee. Too many ketones will inhibit lipolysis (fat burning) as ketones are bumped to the top of the queue above both fat and glucose in burning order. Which is why it's not really the best thing for a ketoer pursuing weight loss to chase higher ketones. Energy has to be burned or stored. Extra ketones are going to interfere with burning body fat.
My quick jot in summary of the protein discussion. Lots more neat science in there.
You should probably listen.
It's not saying ketosis is worthless. It's not saying that it isn't a useful tool. They are just measuring up "keto rhetoric" against biochemistry. And that it's better to eat more protein, than too little. And to stop worrying about the G-word unless it's medically necessary for you to do so.
Thoughts?
What did I skip?
You got it pretty much the way it was intended to be received.
For the majority of dieters looking to lose body fat in the goal of body recomposition, ketosis and gluconeogenesis are negligible. GNG not only breaks down protein, but also fatty acid substrates for creating glucose. You would rather it came from diet than your own body, in terms of protein.
Which would mean if you wanted to limit organ protein breakdown, but maximize body fat breakdown, from the diet, you'd have to limit the amount of dietary fat, and maximize dietary protein.
Biochemistry [and all of science, by extension] doesn't care about beliefs or feelings, it's going to happen the way it should whether people like it or not.
Humans can float in and out of ketosis as a survival mechanism, which is why we can survive periods of famine and starvation, in some cases, extreme dieting. We were designed to be metabolically flexible. If we didn't we'd die.2 -
1
-
Well said @baconslave! People worry about too much protein and GNG- but you would have to consume a very large amount of protein for it to be a problem. (Unless you have kidney issues). I've been trying to bump my protein up beyond the 1.2 and decrease my fat consumption (versus increasing fat via fat bombs and bullet proof anything), to see if it helps with fat loss.1
-
ChoiceNotChance wrote: »Well said @baconslave! People worry about too much protein and GNG- but you would have to consume a very large amount of protein for it to be a problem. (Unless you have kidney issues). I've been trying to bump my protein up beyond the 1.2 and decrease my fat consumption (versus increasing fat via fat bombs and bullet proof anything), to see if it helps with fat loss.
The bolded area is pretty much the premise of body fat loss. In a caloric deficit [regardless of the diet], your body is forced to burn stored energy AKA body fat. On keto, where many so called "gurus" will tout that "calories don't matter" is a false narrative to push fat bombs and processed products or ketone supplements. Simply, the more you force your body to use stored energy, the more body fat loss you will see.
From Marty's own site, which some here might recognize the ketogains protocol of limiting dietary fat to burn more body fat: https://optimisingnutrition.com/tag/psmf/
Barring pre-existing medical conditions, there is no upper limit to protein consumption or having any negative effects, though there is a point of diminishing returns where so much more doesn't do any better, but it's safer to have more than too little. Just to add to @baconslave's summary, the reason why Mike Julian and Alex Leaf look at diabetic metabolism is because GNG is ramped up in diabetes, in an attempt to stabilize glucose levels in the face of insulin resistance. T2D affected people (without kidney disease) would need to increase their protein consumption to mitigate the effect of GNG to spare muscle and organ protein from being picked apart.3 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »
It's good to know my Technical Writing/Professional Writing emphasis on my worthless degree is finally useful.
"Mama don't let yer babies grow up to be English Majors."
3
