Low carb diets?

Insulin is NOT responsible for fat storage. ... Fat can travel and store itself in fat tissue all by itself, no insulin required.

Insulin is NOT responsible for fat storage. It is responsible for the activity of lipoprotein lipases which break fats down to fatty acids.

---

Fat Storage

...fat in the body is broken down and rebuilt into chylomicrons, which enter the bloodstream by way of the lymphatic system.

Insulin

When you eat a candy bar or a meal... Insulin tells the cells to do the following:

-Absorb glucose, fatty acids and amino acids

-Start building glycogen from glucose; fats (triglycerides) from glycerol and fatty acids; and proteins from amino acids

The activity of lipoprotein lipases depends upon the levels of insulin in the body. If insulin is high, then the lipases are highly active; if insulin is low, the lipases are inactive.

The fatty acids are then absorbed from the blood into fat cells, muscle cells and liver cells. In these cells, under stimulation by insulin, fatty acids are made into fat molecules and stored as fat droplets.

Insulin is NOT responsible for fat storage

Insulin is NOT responsible for fat storage. Insulin downregulates fat burning, as you've just eaten, and your body is switching to the food you've eaten as your main energy source. Insulin's main anabolic responsibility is to transport glucose into muscle tissue and vital organs, and regulate growth hormone and IGF-1. Fat can travel and store itself in fat tissue all by itself, no insulin required.

Also, the average person carries roughly 12 pounds of glycogen/water. That is a significant amount of weight lost. A low carb diet depletes glycogen stores, as you use more glycogen than your body can replenish (the body converts protein to glucose through gluconeogenesis, but gluconeogenesis doesn't replenish glycogen supplies, as the body only converts as much as is minimally necessary to function.) This is why most people on low carb for extended periods of time have diminished athletic performance, a lack of stored glycogen. It's also why short term low carb diets tend to show a higher total weight loss than a more balanced diet, it's a front loading of water weight as the glycogen is depleted (which takes roughly 24 hours or so.)

Insulin downregulates fat burning

Insulin's main anabolic responsibility is to transport glucose into muscle tissue

Insulin tells the cells to do the following: ... -Absorb glucose, fatty acids and amino acids

the average person carries roughly 12 pounds of glycogen/water

A low carb diet depletes glycogen stores

This is why most people on low carb for extended periods of time have diminished athletic performance

"The name of the site is MyFITNESSpal not MyObesityPal or MyWeightLossPal." Yes, it's called a euphemism.

It's not a euphemism. There are just as many people on here working on bodybuilding as well people trying to gain weight as there are people trying to lose weight.

To belabor the obvious, I'm one of those people, and to the extent that it's important at all, we're a significant minority, at best.

Diets are doomed to failure, developing an eating pattern that is easy to stick to for the rest of your life is the only way to go.

Well, yeah, that way you would. But how many of us are actually going to burn 2300 calories in a day?

What I'm saying is that when you exercise, the majority of what you are burning is carbs. It takes 30 minutes or more usually before you even begin burning fat deposit. So, if you don't have any carbs to burn, you'll just burn fat instead. That is essentially what ketosis is

Diets are doomed to failure, developing an eating pattern that is easy to stick to for the rest of your life is the only way to go.

:huh: How is an eating pattern, whether short term or long term, not a diet??

They offer nothing, I did it for 2 weeks. Nothing really changed in weight loss department I use to get tired easily my mood would be all over the place and I just ate heaps of carbs later on down the track. In the 2012 Olympics a trainer said to his swimmer he couldn't eat any carbs for a year leading up to the Olympics he came 6th. Just goes to show its pointless but hey everyone is different

I'm actually on Dukan. Its low carb. Which fits my blood type (0 = meat eater/hunter gathers, by Dr. Peter D'Adamo standards), and I have allergies to most grains anyway. Plus I lose more when restricting them. So though some might wish to fight it... it seems to work out just fine for others. I still eat carbs in vegs, fruits and the grains I can handle. Just not an abundance.

Another good option is slow carb.

*facepalm*

"Ok, but what about the dietary fat you eat in place of the carbs that your body burns instead of the stored fat? Or the protein that you eat that gets converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis to make up for the lack of carbs? You're seriously over simplifying the way the body utilizes energy. And of course, that also completely ignores the hormonal effects of cutting carbs, like the reduction in growth hormone, loss of lean tissue, and possible psychological effects as well.

Also, what do you mean by "how many of us are going to burn 2300 calories?" 2000 calories is what the average person burns in a day, I'm usually around 3000-3500 per day. You do burn calories even when you aren't exercising, after all... What science are you actually studying? "


I'm not really sure how to reply specifically to your quote, but you I don't really eat foods high in fat no matter what. And yeah, it will inevitably get converted to glucose... you need glucose to stay alive. But that conversion requires energy. There have been studies done showing that it does on rats and they lose more weight. I can try to find the specific studies if you'd like. And I don't believe cutting out carbs has "psychological effects". People don't need pasta and bread and processed food to function. I eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, which provides some carbs, but not as many as a full plate of pasta. And yes, I know you burn calories not doing anything. I think the last time I calculated the amount I burn not doing anything, it was about 1200. That means I'd have to burn an additional 1100 to be at the number the other guy was mentioning. And I'm studying biology for my undergrad... what are youuuu actually studying?