Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
It's All Sugar's Fault
Replies
-
PrimalForLife wrote: »(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Why not just cite them, so we can see if your interpretation is reasonable or if we find them credible. Seems more reasonable than letting us guess at the sources, as from what I've read (and I've read quite a lot about nutrition) you are making a number of claims that make no sense. But I'm not scared of lengthy papers; I read long and complicated (and often quite dry) stuff for my job all the time.7 -
PrimalForLife wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?
My bad, I should have seen this discussion was tagged with 'Debate'...
To keep things digestible (pun intended) for 'metabolism', the concepts are put in point form:
The mitochondria in your cells provide you energy for your life (this goes for everyone, biology 101)
The number of mitochondria in your cells/body determine your overall energy access of your system
Your Mitochondria burn fat more cleanly than they do sugar (glucose)
If your body needs glucose, it can make it from protein in the process called Gluconeogenesis
Burning fat requires oxygen, burning glucose doesn't, thus glucose burning leads to degeneration of mitochondria over time
Degeneration of the number of your mitochondria in your cells over time is bad for you
Exercising can build up mitochondria, but can't fully combat a high-carb load over time, especially as people age
Mitochondria can be recovered over time if they are allowed to return to burning their preferred/clean source of fuel
The more mitochondria you have, the more efficiently you process energy in your system
Burning your own body fat can only be achieved in a certain hormonal balance (insulin, leptin, etc.) in the body
Eating a high carbohydrate diet pushes your hormonal balance off so the body can't access it's preferred fuel (fat)
Becoming fat adapted/metabolically flexible is the process of establishing a balance so you can burn preferred fuel again (body fat) as well as eating other foods
Our bodies maintain and repair it's own cells when we allow ourselves to not be in a 'constantly fueled state'
Allowing our bodies to repair itself leads to reduced disease, efficiency of our energy system and overall wellness
Bonus topic - Ketones:
The benefits of becoming fat adapted also help the brain have access to Ketones, which are proving to be amazing 'brain food', and likely our 'native' source
The brain uses 20-25% of our daily energy requirements, feeding it properly has profound implications
In a Keto-adapted state, our brain can utilize 75-80% of it's energy from Ketones
(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Hopefully that clarifies the 'effects on metabolism' - please take the time to do a little research on the above.
Thanks -
Ketosis is the bodies "famine" metabolism. No it is not "native". The first human foods were fruit, honey, and tubers.
Your brain wants glucose and will literally break down your own organs and muscle tissue to make it. The longest living populations ALL have a higher percentage of their diets in carbs. When traditional cultures start adding fat to their diets, then they start to exhibit signs of diabetes and heart disease(Asians are a good test case:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917151935.htm
Inuits aren't even in ketosis, thousands of years of evolution on their "high fat" diet created a genetic mutation where they are never in ketosis(it would kill them).
10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PrimalForLife wrote: »(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Why not just cite them, so we can see if your interpretation is reasonable or if we find them credible. Seems more reasonable than letting us guess at the sources, as from what I've read (and I've read quite a lot about nutrition) you are making a number of claims that make no sense. But I'm not scared of lengthy papers; I read long and complicated (and often quite dry) stuff for my job all the time.
This^^. Sounds like a bunch of primal/ keto propaganda and not a single source cited. Nonsense.3 -
russelljam08 wrote: »PrimalForLife wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?
My bad, I should have seen this discussion was tagged with 'Debate'...
To keep things digestible (pun intended) for 'metabolism', the concepts are put in point form:
The mitochondria in your cells provide you energy for your life (this goes for everyone, biology 101)
The number of mitochondria in your cells/body determine your overall energy access of your system
Your Mitochondria burn fat more cleanly than they do sugar (glucose)
If your body needs glucose, it can make it from protein in the process called Gluconeogenesis
Burning fat requires oxygen, burning glucose doesn't, thus glucose burning leads to degeneration of mitochondria over time
Degeneration of the number of your mitochondria in your cells over time is bad for you
Exercising can build up mitochondria, but can't fully combat a high-carb load over time, especially as people age
Mitochondria can be recovered over time if they are allowed to return to burning their preferred/clean source of fuel
The more mitochondria you have, the more efficiently you process energy in your system
Burning your own body fat can only be achieved in a certain hormonal balance (insulin, leptin, etc.) in the body
Eating a high carbohydrate diet pushes your hormonal balance off so the body can't access it's preferred fuel (fat)
Becoming fat adapted/metabolically flexible is the process of establishing a balance so you can burn preferred fuel again (body fat) as well as eating other foods
Our bodies maintain and repair it's own cells when we allow ourselves to not be in a 'constantly fueled state'
Allowing our bodies to repair itself leads to reduced disease, efficiency of our energy system and overall wellness
Bonus topic - Ketones:
The benefits of becoming fat adapted also help the brain have access to Ketones, which are proving to be amazing 'brain food', and likely our 'native' source
The brain uses 20-25% of our daily energy requirements, feeding it properly has profound implications
In a Keto-adapted state, our brain can utilize 75-80% of it's energy from Ketones
(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Hopefully that clarifies the 'effects on metabolism' - please take the time to do a little research on the above.
Thanks -
Ketosis is the bodies "famine" metabolism. No it is not "native". The first human foods were fruit, honey, and tubers.
Your brain wants glucose and will literally break down your own organs and muscle tissue to make it. The longest living populations ALL have a higher percentage of their diets in carbs. When traditional cultures start adding fat to their diets, then they start to exhibit signs of diabetes and heart disease(Asians are a good test case:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917151935.htm
Inuits aren't even in ketosis, thousands of years of evolution on their "high fat" diet created a genetic mutation where they are never in ketosis(it would kill them).
OMG keto wont kill you(unless you have an underlying health issue that keto would interact with then maybe) if it did they would not recommend it for certain health issues, namely certain types of seizures in which it was first used for and to help treat. your body doesnt break down your organs/muscle unless you are literally starving yourself. with this logic then eating in a deficit would cause the same issue.2 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »PrimalForLife wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?
My bad, I should have seen this discussion was tagged with 'Debate'...
To keep things digestible (pun intended) for 'metabolism', the concepts are put in point form:
The mitochondria in your cells provide you energy for your life (this goes for everyone, biology 101)
The number of mitochondria in your cells/body determine your overall energy access of your system
Your Mitochondria burn fat more cleanly than they do sugar (glucose)
If your body needs glucose, it can make it from protein in the process called Gluconeogenesis
Burning fat requires oxygen, burning glucose doesn't, thus glucose burning leads to degeneration of mitochondria over time
Degeneration of the number of your mitochondria in your cells over time is bad for you
Exercising can build up mitochondria, but can't fully combat a high-carb load over time, especially as people age
Mitochondria can be recovered over time if they are allowed to return to burning their preferred/clean source of fuel
The more mitochondria you have, the more efficiently you process energy in your system
Burning your own body fat can only be achieved in a certain hormonal balance (insulin, leptin, etc.) in the body
Eating a high carbohydrate diet pushes your hormonal balance off so the body can't access it's preferred fuel (fat)
Becoming fat adapted/metabolically flexible is the process of establishing a balance so you can burn preferred fuel again (body fat) as well as eating other foods
Our bodies maintain and repair it's own cells when we allow ourselves to not be in a 'constantly fueled state'
Allowing our bodies to repair itself leads to reduced disease, efficiency of our energy system and overall wellness
Bonus topic - Ketones:
The benefits of becoming fat adapted also help the brain have access to Ketones, which are proving to be amazing 'brain food', and likely our 'native' source
The brain uses 20-25% of our daily energy requirements, feeding it properly has profound implications
In a Keto-adapted state, our brain can utilize 75-80% of it's energy from Ketones
(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Hopefully that clarifies the 'effects on metabolism' - please take the time to do a little research on the above.
Thanks -
Ketosis is the bodies "famine" metabolism. No it is not "native". The first human foods were fruit, honey, and tubers.
Your brain wants glucose and will literally break down your own organs and muscle tissue to make it. The longest living populations ALL have a higher percentage of their diets in carbs. When traditional cultures start adding fat to their diets, then they start to exhibit signs of diabetes and heart disease(Asians are a good test case:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917151935.htm
Inuits aren't even in ketosis, thousands of years of evolution on their "high fat" diet created a genetic mutation where they are never in ketosis(it would kill them).
OMG keto wont kill you(unless you have an underlying health issue that keto would interact with then maybe) if it did they would not recommend it for certain health issues, namely certain types of seizures in which it was first used for and to help treat. your body doesnt break down your organs/muscle unless you are literally starving yourself. with this logic then eating in a deficit would cause the same issue.
you said inuits have a genetic mutation that ketosis would kill them. saying they are never in ketosis and if they were it would kill them is basically saying ketosis can kill a person. well if they are inuit.I dont see where it says ketosis would kill them .all I see are articles stating that they have a gene that helps them process certain fatty acids and a gene that helps control blood glucose to help prevent hypoglycemia in certain periods of time and its not just inuits. but whatever2 -
russelljam08 wrote: »PrimalForLife wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?
My bad, I should have seen this discussion was tagged with 'Debate'...
To keep things digestible (pun intended) for 'metabolism', the concepts are put in point form:
The mitochondria in your cells provide you energy for your life (this goes for everyone, biology 101)
The number of mitochondria in your cells/body determine your overall energy access of your system
Your Mitochondria burn fat more cleanly than they do sugar (glucose)
If your body needs glucose, it can make it from protein in the process called Gluconeogenesis
Burning fat requires oxygen, burning glucose doesn't, thus glucose burning leads to degeneration of mitochondria over time
Degeneration of the number of your mitochondria in your cells over time is bad for you
Exercising can build up mitochondria, but can't fully combat a high-carb load over time, especially as people age
Mitochondria can be recovered over time if they are allowed to return to burning their preferred/clean source of fuel
The more mitochondria you have, the more efficiently you process energy in your system
Burning your own body fat can only be achieved in a certain hormonal balance (insulin, leptin, etc.) in the body
Eating a high carbohydrate diet pushes your hormonal balance off so the body can't access it's preferred fuel (fat)
Becoming fat adapted/metabolically flexible is the process of establishing a balance so you can burn preferred fuel again (body fat) as well as eating other foods
Our bodies maintain and repair it's own cells when we allow ourselves to not be in a 'constantly fueled state'
Allowing our bodies to repair itself leads to reduced disease, efficiency of our energy system and overall wellness
Bonus topic - Ketones:
The benefits of becoming fat adapted also help the brain have access to Ketones, which are proving to be amazing 'brain food', and likely our 'native' source
The brain uses 20-25% of our daily energy requirements, feeding it properly has profound implications
In a Keto-adapted state, our brain can utilize 75-80% of it's energy from Ketones
(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Hopefully that clarifies the 'effects on metabolism' - please take the time to do a little research on the above.
Thanks -
Ketosis is the bodies "famine" metabolism. No it is not "native". The first human foods were fruit, honey, and tubers.
Your brain wants glucose and will literally break down your own organs and muscle tissue to make it. The longest living populations ALL have a higher percentage of their diets in carbs. When traditional cultures start adding fat to their diets, then they start to exhibit signs of diabetes and heart disease(Asians are a good test case:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917151935.htm
Inuits aren't even in ketosis, thousands of years of evolution on their "high fat" diet created a genetic mutation where they are never in ketosis(it would kill them).
It would kill them??? Where did you get that from? ... Yeah, I read it that way too.
I think it is more likely that they are so fat adapted, good at using fat and ketones for their primary fuel, that they don't make excessive ketones that are measurable on a ketostix.
I've been in ketosis for most of the past 2-3 years and rarely ever test positive for ketones on ketostix, or if I do it is trace amounts. If I eat not a single vegetable in a day, the ketostix result doesn't change.
The Inuit used to eat almost exclusively meat, with only some of it cooked. That would provide some carbs but I would be shocked if glucose was found to be a primary fuel for energy. If ketones killed them, they would die in their sleep.
That study you linked shows a lot of things, but not exactly that fat is bad. More along the lines of replacing fibrous whole foods in a higher carb diet may be more healthful to asians than the standard american diet (where whole food carbs and their fibre is replaced by some sort of fat - what sort was unclear but since protein barely changed I am guessing it was from plant oils...not always great).
And glucose is provided to the brain and RBC's by gluconeogenesis in the liver. Those triglycerides can make the glucose you need. And then eventually the brain's glucose needs decreases by a fair bit as it comes to use ketones. It does not NEED dietary glucose/carbs.5 -
russelljam08 wrote: »PrimalForLife wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?
My bad, I should have seen this discussion was tagged with 'Debate'...
To keep things digestible (pun intended) for 'metabolism', the concepts are put in point form:
The mitochondria in your cells provide you energy for your life (this goes for everyone, biology 101)
The number of mitochondria in your cells/body determine your overall energy access of your system
Your Mitochondria burn fat more cleanly than they do sugar (glucose)
If your body needs glucose, it can make it from protein in the process called Gluconeogenesis
Burning fat requires oxygen, burning glucose doesn't, thus glucose burning leads to degeneration of mitochondria over time
Degeneration of the number of your mitochondria in your cells over time is bad for you
Exercising can build up mitochondria, but can't fully combat a high-carb load over time, especially as people age
Mitochondria can be recovered over time if they are allowed to return to burning their preferred/clean source of fuel
The more mitochondria you have, the more efficiently you process energy in your system
Burning your own body fat can only be achieved in a certain hormonal balance (insulin, leptin, etc.) in the body
Eating a high carbohydrate diet pushes your hormonal balance off so the body can't access it's preferred fuel (fat)
Becoming fat adapted/metabolically flexible is the process of establishing a balance so you can burn preferred fuel again (body fat) as well as eating other foods
Our bodies maintain and repair it's own cells when we allow ourselves to not be in a 'constantly fueled state'
Allowing our bodies to repair itself leads to reduced disease, efficiency of our energy system and overall wellness
Bonus topic - Ketones:
The benefits of becoming fat adapted also help the brain have access to Ketones, which are proving to be amazing 'brain food', and likely our 'native' source
The brain uses 20-25% of our daily energy requirements, feeding it properly has profound implications
In a Keto-adapted state, our brain can utilize 75-80% of it's energy from Ketones
(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Hopefully that clarifies the 'effects on metabolism' - please take the time to do a little research on the above.
Thanks -
Ketosis is the bodies "famine" metabolism. No it is not "native". The first human foods were fruit, honey, and tubers.
Your brain wants glucose and will literally break down your own organs and muscle tissue to make it. The longest living populations ALL have a higher percentage of their diets in carbs. When traditional cultures start adding fat to their diets, then they start to exhibit signs of diabetes and heart disease(Asians are a good test case:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917151935.htm
Inuits aren't even in ketosis, thousands of years of evolution on their "high fat" diet created a genetic mutation where they are never in ketosis(it would kill them).
It would kill them??? Where did you get that from? ... Yeah, I read it that way too.
I think it is more likely that they are so fat adapted, good at using fat and ketones for their primary fuel, that they don't make excessive ketones that are measurable on a ketostix.
I've been in ketosis for most of the past 2-3 years and rarely ever test positive for ketones on ketostix, or if I do it is trace amounts. If I eat not a single vegetable in a day, the ketostix result doesn't change.
The Inuit used to eat almost exclusively meat, with only some of it cooked. That would provide some carbs but I would be shocked if glucose was found to be a primary fuel for energy. If ketones killed them, they would die in their sleep.
That study you linked shows a lot of things, but not exactly that fat is bad. More along the lines of replacing fibrous whole foods in a higher carb diet may be more healthful to asians than the standard american diet (where whole food carbs and their fibre is replaced by some sort of fat - what sort was unclear but since protein barely changed I am guessing it was from plant oils...not always great).
And glucose is provided to the brain and RBC's by gluconeogenesis in the liver. Those triglycerides can make the glucose you need. And then eventually the brain's glucose needs decreases by a fair bit as it comes to use ketones. It does not NEED dietary glucose/carbs.
Glucose is what the body wants and NEEDS, forcing your starvation metabolism to break down fats to make glucose is a process necessary during times of starvation and is unnecessarily stressful to the body. The brains decreasing glucose needs are a means to SURVIVAL. Do you think it is a smart idea to force your body to have to fight for every drop of glucose and turn on physiological processes that only happen during times of starvation? The whole "nutritional" keto thing is an oxymoron, and is a made up concept by people peddling books and blogs. I know a glucose staved brain has trouble comprehending things, but You might do better to take some graduate level classes instead of getting your information from blogs.
9 -
Good analysis of various studies of the Inuit diet and the lack of ketosis in Inuits: https://freetheanimal.com/2014/10/damned-inuit-diet.html
Not sure what "ketostix" would have to do with it, as they are generally recognized as not particularly reliable, certainly not beyond early days, and would not be used by researchers.7 -
VintageFeline wrote: »No need for digestible round here, we're good at readin' and a learnin' here. Anyway, the PM you sent me was different:
"I decided to message you directly as your question was open and allowed for opinion sharing, unlike some of the other comments.
The point I was trying to make is that our 'wiring' (genetics and expression of those genetics) can be dramatically disrupted by hyper-palatable foods and the over-abundance of carbohydrates that typically exists in our diets. This is already known by the food industry, sports drink industry, etc. and is relied upon for those huge profits. You'll rarely see a giant promotion around 'lettuce' or 'apples', because there's no money in it. Ultimately, real food can do wonders. I don't consider 'whole grains' real food, as it has so many problems associated with it. (If you remember, whole grains was the solution promoted to solve the 'saturated fat' problem, which it turns out is not a problem at all - but just bad science.)
Ultimately the foundation of how our human biology has evolved in the 1.5M years of us getting here - the ~8,000 yrs or so (a drop in the bucket of the overall timeline) since we've introduced grains (which becomes refined carbohydrates, in addition to sugar, etc.) in our diet goes against the fundamentals of optimal energy maintenance in the body. That time equates to less than 1% of our time on Earth, so it's not surprising our body doesn't process this stuff very well, as it also disrupts important hormonal regulation of various aspect of our health.
The human body wants to be able to store AND burn body fat (think of the options available to our ancestors and how they would have survived) and our modern diet directly interferes with efficient use of our own metabolism (we become carb-dependent instead of being able to burn our body fat) and develop metabolic-related diseases (diabetes, cancer, heart-disease, etc.) as a result.
When the human body is rid of the nastiness of the modern 'SAD' diet, it can be brought back into a normal operating balance; which can also help reverse the course of the diseases mentioned above.
I people are slowly coming to grips with the abundance of evidence shown by Primal/Paleo/Keto in allowing the body to recover and normalize back to the way we are 'wired'. It's not a 'diet', it's how we are designed (evolved) to process energy and nutrition based on our relationship with the Earth and the things on it.
I hope that answers your question without sounding 'too preachy'."
The body does indeed want to store and use body fat for energy and that is indeed what it does. The body cycles through various energy sources all the time. The entire cheesecake I ate to myself last week doesn't change that. Nor does the mound of rice I had with my curry yesterday.
Grains and sugar aren't killing us, over-eating and various lifestyle factors are (pollution, stress, living longer, less active).
And by the way, we have an anthropologist round these parts, paging @Nony_Mouse, who can thoroughly debunk the whole paleo/primal is how our ancestors ate nonsense. Though she often gets pretty fed up of repeating herself.
Aw man, do I have to? You know these people don't listen to reason! Okay, just quickly:
1) 8000 years since we introduced grains into our diet? LOL, try over 100,000 - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217141312.htm. Not good enough? How about oldest evidence for flour manufacture (ermahgad, processed!!!) - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101018/full/news.2010.549.html. No? Here's earliest evidence of deliberate cultivation, as opposed to harvesting of wild grains: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150722144709.htm
2) our bodies don't process this stuff that we've been eating for millennia well? How, pray tell, were those of Northern European descent able to adapt to dairy consumption in a much shorter space of time?
3) the modern paleo/primal diet bears no resemblance whatsoever to the way that Palaeolithic people ate, which was basically anything that you could ingest that didn't kill you, whilst avoiding anything that might kill you if it got the chance. The Palaeolithic era covers a huge time span (~2.6 million years), and vastly different geographical zones, with lots and lots of different food choices. Luckily, we adapt to different/new to us foods really well, all part and parcel of being an omnivore. What we haven't adapted to is an over-abundance of hyper palatable foods. It's not the foods themselves that are the problem, it's our over-eating of those foods coupled with our no longer really required (in the Western world) ability to store fat for times of shortage and an in-built bodyweight regulation system that fights fat loss.
4) the human body's ability to switch to running on body fat was a damn handy adaptation when food shortage was a far more common thing for the entire population. Those people were also eating below their caloric needs at those times, obviously. You know what happens when you eat below your caloric needs, even for a few days? Leptin falls (really fast initially, actually), and then drags other hormones along for the joy ride, in order to preserve life for the longest time possible, cos who knows when enough food is going to be available again. When leptin etc fall, your metabolism slows down (adaptive thermogenesis). You know what brings leptin back up again once food is available? Carbohydrates. Not fats. Carbs. Why is that important? Because it corrects all those nasty hormonal responses to starvation.
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-1.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-2.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-3.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-4.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-6.html/
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-hormones-of-bodyweight-regulation-leptin-part-the-last.html/
24 -
Honestly, the idea that Palaeolithic people would just wander on by perfectly good food sources is just laughable.23
-
*Inserts Shia furiously and enthusiastically clapping GiF here*7
-
Just to add to the nasty hormonal responses to starvation bit - one of those is amenorrhea, y'know, when women lose their period. The species is kinda screwed without that.7
-
just goes to show that reducing carbs is not fixing the obesity issue either....
likely replacing the carbs with high protein fatty food instead... so there must be truth that fat does in fact make you fat, it most certainly increases the fat in your blood immediately after being consumed, which then blocks the receptors for insulin which then cant do its job properly..
Also, about the sugar issue of the original post, We do consume way too much refined sugar. It is literally killing us. Way too much oil, way too much protein, too much salt and way too much meat and dairy. All these food components can be obtained naturally through whole unprocessed foods.
reduction or removal of excess salt, sugar fat, meat and dairy and especially processed food IS shown to reduce and even reverse Type 2 Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease, Atherosclerosis, lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure and even delay or prevent the onset of dementia, Parkinsons disease, cancers etc. This must be undertaken in conjunction with exercise and strength/resistance exercises.10 -
I'm not gonna argue with anyone in this thread about whether sugar is good or bad for you.
But if you want to know the answer, look up the blood test results of people who have been on a ketogenic diet for more then a year. Compare those with someone who has lost weight on a conventional diet for a year. Still don't believe it? Check out this community.
You can lose weight on any diet, its possible even eating nothing but McDonalds (I wouldn't recommend this though as you will be missing a lot of nutrients). Its all a numbers game. Calories in calories out.14 -
kerynwolff wrote: »
just goes to show that reducing carbs is not fixing the obesity issue either....
likely replacing the carbs with high protein fatty food instead... so there must be truth that fat does in fact make you fat, it most certainly increases the fat in your blood immediately after being consumed, which then blocks the receptors for insulin which then cant do its job properly..
Also, about the sugar issue of the original post, We do consume way too much refined sugar. It is literally killing us. Way too much oil, way too much protein, too much salt and way too much meat and dairy. All these food components can be obtained naturally through whole unprocessed foods.
reduction or removal of excess salt, sugar fat, meat and dairy and especially processed food IS shown to reduce and even reverse Type 2 Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease, Atherosclerosis, lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure and even delay or prevent the onset of dementia, Parkinsons disease, cancers etc. This must be undertaken in conjunction with exercise and strength/resistance exercises.
excess calories makes you fat. I still, eat high carbs,meat,dairy,sugary/refined foods etc etc and my cholesterol is now in the normal ranges after 15 years. I have to eat low fat due to a genetic cholesterol issue. and I lost weight because I was in a deficit of calories. what made me fat was eating more than my body burned and moving less. fat doesnt make you fat anymore than protein or sugar unless it puts you in a surplus of calories2 -
I'm not gonna argue with anyone in this thread about whether sugar is good or bad for you.
But if you want to know the answer, look up the blood test results of people who have been on a ketogenic diet for more then a year. Compare those with someone who has lost weight on a conventional diet for a year.
You can lose weight on any diet, its possible even eating nothing but McDonalds (I wouldn't recommend this though as you will be missing a lot of nutrients). Its all a numbers game. Calories in calories out.
How about you look them up and post them from a reputable source since it is your assertion keto is superior.13 -
I'm not gonna argue with anyone in this thread about whether sugar is good or bad for you.
But if you want to know the answer, look up the blood test results of people who have been on a ketogenic diet for more then a year. Compare those with someone who has lost weight on a conventional diet for a year. Still don't believe it? Check out this community.
You can lose weight on any diet, its possible even eating nothing but McDonalds (I wouldn't recommend this though as you will be missing a lot of nutrients). Its all a numbers game. Calories in calories out.
There are plenty of regulars here who improved their blood test numbers to the normal range by simply eating less of the same foods they were already eating to lose weight. Including diabetics who got off insulin that way, low carb or keto not required.
Against my better judgement I clicked through your link, and it's a forum just like this one. Not sure what it proves, other than that some people can successfully lose weight with keto, thereby improving their health. Just like any other WOE.6 -
Lots of people on high carb vegan diets improve blood test numbers a lot too.9
-
russelljam08 wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »PrimalForLife wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?
My bad, I should have seen this discussion was tagged with 'Debate'...
To keep things digestible (pun intended) for 'metabolism', the concepts are put in point form:
The mitochondria in your cells provide you energy for your life (this goes for everyone, biology 101)
The number of mitochondria in your cells/body determine your overall energy access of your system
Your Mitochondria burn fat more cleanly than they do sugar (glucose)
If your body needs glucose, it can make it from protein in the process called Gluconeogenesis
Burning fat requires oxygen, burning glucose doesn't, thus glucose burning leads to degeneration of mitochondria over time
Degeneration of the number of your mitochondria in your cells over time is bad for you
Exercising can build up mitochondria, but can't fully combat a high-carb load over time, especially as people age
Mitochondria can be recovered over time if they are allowed to return to burning their preferred/clean source of fuel
The more mitochondria you have, the more efficiently you process energy in your system
Burning your own body fat can only be achieved in a certain hormonal balance (insulin, leptin, etc.) in the body
Eating a high carbohydrate diet pushes your hormonal balance off so the body can't access it's preferred fuel (fat)
Becoming fat adapted/metabolically flexible is the process of establishing a balance so you can burn preferred fuel again (body fat) as well as eating other foods
Our bodies maintain and repair it's own cells when we allow ourselves to not be in a 'constantly fueled state'
Allowing our bodies to repair itself leads to reduced disease, efficiency of our energy system and overall wellness
Bonus topic - Ketones:
The benefits of becoming fat adapted also help the brain have access to Ketones, which are proving to be amazing 'brain food', and likely our 'native' source
The brain uses 20-25% of our daily energy requirements, feeding it properly has profound implications
In a Keto-adapted state, our brain can utilize 75-80% of it's energy from Ketones
(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Hopefully that clarifies the 'effects on metabolism' - please take the time to do a little research on the above.
Thanks -
Ketosis is the bodies "famine" metabolism. No it is not "native". The first human foods were fruit, honey, and tubers.
Your brain wants glucose and will literally break down your own organs and muscle tissue to make it. The longest living populations ALL have a higher percentage of their diets in carbs. When traditional cultures start adding fat to their diets, then they start to exhibit signs of diabetes and heart disease(Asians are a good test case:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917151935.htm
Inuits aren't even in ketosis, thousands of years of evolution on their "high fat" diet created a genetic mutation where they are never in ketosis(it would kill them).
It would kill them??? Where did you get that from? ... Yeah, I read it that way too.
I think it is more likely that they are so fat adapted, good at using fat and ketones for their primary fuel, that they don't make excessive ketones that are measurable on a ketostix.
I've been in ketosis for most of the past 2-3 years and rarely ever test positive for ketones on ketostix, or if I do it is trace amounts. If I eat not a single vegetable in a day, the ketostix result doesn't change.
The Inuit used to eat almost exclusively meat, with only some of it cooked. That would provide some carbs but I would be shocked if glucose was found to be a primary fuel for energy. If ketones killed them, they would die in their sleep.
That study you linked shows a lot of things, but not exactly that fat is bad. More along the lines of replacing fibrous whole foods in a higher carb diet may be more healthful to asians than the standard american diet (where whole food carbs and their fibre is replaced by some sort of fat - what sort was unclear but since protein barely changed I am guessing it was from plant oils...not always great).
And glucose is provided to the brain and RBC's by gluconeogenesis in the liver. Those triglycerides can make the glucose you need. And then eventually the brain's glucose needs decreases by a fair bit as it comes to use ketones. It does not NEED dietary glucose/carbs.
Glucose is what the body wants and NEEDS, forcing your starvation metabolism to break down fats to make glucose is a process necessary during times of starvation and is unnecessarily stressful to the body. The brains decreasing glucose needs are a means to SURVIVAL. Do you think it is a smart idea to force your body to have to fight for every drop of glucose and turn on physiological processes that only happen during times of starvation? The whole "nutritional" keto thing is an oxymoron, and is a made up concept by people peddling books and blogs. I know a glucose staved brain has trouble comprehending things, but You might do better to take some graduate level classes instead of getting your information from blogs.
jcs.biologists.org/content/124/4/495
@russelljam08 the above is some graduate level research to help the readers understand your medical misleading remarks about Nutritional Ketosis that may be harmful to them. Do you understand the mitochondria role in helping prevent medical events that may lead one to a premature death needlessly?13 -
russelljam08 wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »PrimalForLife wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I found out what the metabolic effects of sugar are. Well, sort of. If bad science affects your metabolism. Hyper-palatable food and grains are evil and caused the increase in obesity. Apparently. Why do people so confident in their beliefs, thinking they have science to back up those beliefs, suddenly come over all shy when challenged and insist on sending PMs explaining things? I don't want a PM, I want you to be prepared to lay your cards out and either be debunked or acknowledged. Why bother even commenting on a thread if you won't defend your position?
My bad, I should have seen this discussion was tagged with 'Debate'...
To keep things digestible (pun intended) for 'metabolism', the concepts are put in point form:
The mitochondria in your cells provide you energy for your life (this goes for everyone, biology 101)
The number of mitochondria in your cells/body determine your overall energy access of your system
Your Mitochondria burn fat more cleanly than they do sugar (glucose)
If your body needs glucose, it can make it from protein in the process called Gluconeogenesis
Burning fat requires oxygen, burning glucose doesn't, thus glucose burning leads to degeneration of mitochondria over time
Degeneration of the number of your mitochondria in your cells over time is bad for you
Exercising can build up mitochondria, but can't fully combat a high-carb load over time, especially as people age
Mitochondria can be recovered over time if they are allowed to return to burning their preferred/clean source of fuel
The more mitochondria you have, the more efficiently you process energy in your system
Burning your own body fat can only be achieved in a certain hormonal balance (insulin, leptin, etc.) in the body
Eating a high carbohydrate diet pushes your hormonal balance off so the body can't access it's preferred fuel (fat)
Becoming fat adapted/metabolically flexible is the process of establishing a balance so you can burn preferred fuel again (body fat) as well as eating other foods
Our bodies maintain and repair it's own cells when we allow ourselves to not be in a 'constantly fueled state'
Allowing our bodies to repair itself leads to reduced disease, efficiency of our energy system and overall wellness
Bonus topic - Ketones:
The benefits of becoming fat adapted also help the brain have access to Ketones, which are proving to be amazing 'brain food', and likely our 'native' source
The brain uses 20-25% of our daily energy requirements, feeding it properly has profound implications
In a Keto-adapted state, our brain can utilize 75-80% of it's energy from Ketones
(Don't take it from me, any of those points can searched online and you can read the pertinent scientific papers - be warned, they are lengthy...)
Hopefully that clarifies the 'effects on metabolism' - please take the time to do a little research on the above.
Thanks -
Ketosis is the bodies "famine" metabolism. No it is not "native". The first human foods were fruit, honey, and tubers.
Your brain wants glucose and will literally break down your own organs and muscle tissue to make it. The longest living populations ALL have a higher percentage of their diets in carbs. When traditional cultures start adding fat to their diets, then they start to exhibit signs of diabetes and heart disease(Asians are a good test case:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140917151935.htm
Inuits aren't even in ketosis, thousands of years of evolution on their "high fat" diet created a genetic mutation where they are never in ketosis(it would kill them).
It would kill them??? Where did you get that from? ... Yeah, I read it that way too.
I think it is more likely that they are so fat adapted, good at using fat and ketones for their primary fuel, that they don't make excessive ketones that are measurable on a ketostix.
I've been in ketosis for most of the past 2-3 years and rarely ever test positive for ketones on ketostix, or if I do it is trace amounts. If I eat not a single vegetable in a day, the ketostix result doesn't change.
The Inuit used to eat almost exclusively meat, with only some of it cooked. That would provide some carbs but I would be shocked if glucose was found to be a primary fuel for energy. If ketones killed them, they would die in their sleep.
That study you linked shows a lot of things, but not exactly that fat is bad. More along the lines of replacing fibrous whole foods in a higher carb diet may be more healthful to asians than the standard american diet (where whole food carbs and their fibre is replaced by some sort of fat - what sort was unclear but since protein barely changed I am guessing it was from plant oils...not always great).
And glucose is provided to the brain and RBC's by gluconeogenesis in the liver. Those triglycerides can make the glucose you need. And then eventually the brain's glucose needs decreases by a fair bit as it comes to use ketones. It does not NEED dietary glucose/carbs.
Glucose is what the body wants and NEEDS, forcing your starvation metabolism to break down fats to make glucose is a process necessary during times of starvation and is unnecessarily stressful to the body. The brains decreasing glucose needs are a means to SURVIVAL. Do you think it is a smart idea to force your body to have to fight for every drop of glucose and turn on physiological processes that only happen during times of starvation? The whole "nutritional" keto thing is an oxymoron, and is a made up concept by people peddling books and blogs. I know a glucose staved brain has trouble comprehending things, but You might do better to take some graduate level classes instead of getting your information from blogs.
You are wrong, Maybe confused? And a little rude too. LOL
Sooo, what if I ate 3000kcal in burgers and steaks, minus the buns.... I'm in ketosis because I am starving or because my body is using some metabolic fuel flexibility?
And I stay mostly keto because of the cognitive improvements that I experienced shortly after starting the diet. My brain like ketones fine.3 -
I'm not gonna argue with anyone in this thread about whether sugar is good or bad for you.
But if you want to know the answer, look up the blood test results of people who have been on a ketogenic diet for more then a year. Compare those with someone who has lost weight on a conventional diet for a year. Still don't believe it? Check out this community.
You can lose weight on any diet, its possible even eating nothing but McDonalds (I wouldn't recommend this though as you will be missing a lot of nutrients). Its all a numbers game. Calories in calories out.
You can find the same exact community aspect of bragging about blood tests in the high carb low fat group. My personal n=1 of normal no frills eating, no labels, no macro touting, brought me down from being pre-diabetic to ideal normal (not even high normal) and a decrease of nearly 400 in triglycerides. I couldn't care less what other people's blood is doing on whatever diet they chose for themselves since my own blood tests is all that matters to me, and I'm doing great in that regard. I'm not this fictional strawman who eats McDonald's all the time, but I do eat McDonald's from time to time (in fact, I did and had a huge burger two days ago).
Some people do well on keto, good for them. It was bad for me in more than one way.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Good analysis of various studies of the Inuit diet and the lack of ketosis in Inuits: https://freetheanimal.com/2014/10/damned-inuit-diet.html
Not sure what "ketostix" would have to do with it, as they are generally recognized as not particularly reliable, certainly not beyond early days, and would not be used by researchers.
Interesting blog but TL;DR. Just glanced at it
I do have a hard time believing the inuit ate super high protein. Arctic animals are pretty fatty. When I have eaten all animal, my protein rarely goes above 30%.
I mentioned ketostix because that is a common way to test ketones, Probably because it is the cheapest. How did they test the Inuit for ketones?7 -
I'm not gonna argue with anyone in this thread about whether sugar is good or bad for you.
But if you want to know the answer, look up the blood test results of people who have been on a ketogenic diet for more then a year. Compare those with someone who has lost weight on a conventional diet for a year. Still don't believe it? Check out this community.
You can lose weight on any diet, its possible even eating nothing but McDonalds (I wouldn't recommend this though as you will be missing a lot of nutrients). Its all a numbers game. Calories in calories out.
You really should research the blue zones and then try to compare if there is a Ketogenic equivalent.
Weight loss and exercise are the largest drivers for improved metabolic heath. Keto is just one of many ways to improve your health.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »People are eating more processed, boxed, packaged foods, not to mention eating out more than ever. Yes, sugar and grains are super calorie dense in comparison to the nutrition they provide. Cut out sugar and grains and I wonder how hard it would be to stick to staying under your deficit (or maintenance if you are at that stage)....I know I have a really hard time eating even 1300 calories a day since I stopped eating sugar and grains.
I do not think most anyone can gain weight if one truly cuts out sugar and grains. With them I was able to be obese because of the carb cravings that I had. Now without sugar or any form of any grain I eat until I am stuffed and after three years still am losing about 1/2 pound per month on average with out counting anything calorie wise. Just last night I ate at McDonald's and for the heck of it counted up the calories in my double hamburger, salad and coffee and it came to 435 calories so I had another cup of coffee to bump the meal up to 535 calories since it was free.
Don't be so naive. I know people who are Ketogenic who have gotten fat.
I expect those people were pulling your leg. I tried really hard but had to force myself to over eat to break out to the upside. While eating less than 50 grams of carbs fixed my eating disorder I give you the possibility that it might not fix everyone. No one I expect can eat enough to become obese without some kind of health issue and or they set obesity as their health goal for some sport, etc.
Lol....Wut? People are sedentary as hell...it's super easy to overeat without some healthy issue.
You consistently make these claims that everyone must have some kind of underlying issue or eating disorder which led them to be obese...I'd say those people are actually in the minority and that most people are just eating normally and aren't even giving a second thought to their food. Portions are large and it's pretty stinkin' easy to eat a lot of calories without even trying.
I was lean my entire life and a competitive athlete from 2nd grade all the way through high school...then the military and then college where I didn't own a car and biked and walked everywhere and worked in retail and landscape construction. I gained my weight to the point of just being obese when I took a desk job working 12 hour days and 6-8 hour days on Saturdays and traveling for work 25 weeks out of the year. I went from being a very active person to sitting at a desk all day...I had no disorder or health issue or any other kind of underlying thing that led to me getting fat. I got fat because I stopped moving...it took about 10 years.
People do not get fat because they stop moving as I see it but because for some reason our fuel gauge breaks and we over eat our requirements. My binge carb eating disorder was resolved within the matter of a few weeks so I automatically started recovering health wise and no meds, doctors, etc were required as well as no counting and measuring.
Healthy animals eating the right macro do not typically become obese in nature. There is no medical evidence that I have seen where healthy people become unhealthy without there being some underlying cause. It may be due to the way we think, eat and or move but there is always a cause to becoming obese. Finding and understanding the cause is the $64K question however.
Really? Give it a rest...
If I move less...and in my case, substantially less than before and continue to eat what is and has been totally normal for me for most of my life, I'm going to gain weight.
There are a lot of high calorie food goods that don't result in someone being "full"...so it's not about some fuel gauge being broken. In my case it was becoming way more sedentary and eating the same way I had eaten for 30 years and I was very lean for all of those 30 years.
Animals in nature don't have an endless supply of food available to them whenever they please either...
An animals that are given and endless supply of food usually do become overweight. Animals including people don't become overweight because their "fuel gauge breaks". They do it because eating is pleasurable. People who are obese did not become obese by eating only when hungry and stopping when sated. They overeat for pleasure, comfort, taste and other reasons beyond hunger.10 -
At the end of the day, the biggest factor is movement.
Today, at 42 and 240 lbs , I eat roughly half(2800-3100 calories daily) what I did at 18. At 18, I generally got between 5000-7000 daily calories. I weighed 140-155 lbs. My height was and is 70-72 inches. I also walked 5-8 miles a day as transportation. Some days I walked considerably further.
Today, I may walk 3-5 miles as deliberate exercise 2-4 days a week, I may run some or all of that distance depending on my particular goals.1 -
"Sugar" is simplistic perhaps, but take a look at how many of our packaged and processed foods (even the savory, non-sweet ones) have a ton of added sugar and simple carbs. This isn't the same food our forefathers ate (you have to go back further than the 50s when convenience food started to take hold.)
The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.22 -
"Sugar" is simplistic perhaps, but take a look at how many of our packaged and processed foods (even the savory, non-sweet ones) have a ton of added sugar and simple carbs. This isn't the same food our forefathers ate (you have to go back further than the 50s when convenience food started to take hold.)
The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.
I have, and it has zero effect on my weight loss or gain provided the calories are the same. Sugar and carbs are not what made me fat. Too many calories are what made me fat. People are always looking for something to blame their obesity on to give themselves an "out" (carbs, sugar, processed food, etc.)
The reality is people get fat from good old fashioned gluttony. That is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to admit because doing so forces them to take responsibility for their actions which lead to their predicament. It's always easier to place the blame on anybody or anything but yourself, which is where the blame rightly belongs.8 -
"Sugar" is simplistic perhaps, but take a look at how many of our packaged and processed foods (even the savory, non-sweet ones) have a ton of added sugar and simple carbs. This isn't the same food our forefathers ate (you have to go back further than the 50s when convenience food started to take hold.)
The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.
A better test is to live like they did before the 50s. Walk to work, walk home, walk to the grocery a few times a week because you have no refrigeration.8 -
"Sugar" is simplistic perhaps, but take a look at how many of our packaged and processed foods (even the savory, non-sweet ones) have a ton of added sugar and simple carbs. This isn't the same food our forefathers ate (you have to go back further than the 50s when convenience food started to take hold.)
The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.
I upped my carb intake for weight loss by going high fiber.6 -
"Sugar" is simplistic perhaps, but take a look at how many of our packaged and processed foods (even the savory, non-sweet ones) have a ton of added sugar and simple carbs. This isn't the same food our forefathers ate (you have to go back further than the 50s when convenience food started to take hold.)
The test for this is easy. Try cutting your carb and sugar intake and see what happens. I know what it's done for me.
Maybe sugar is a trigger food for you that causes you to be unable to control calories? Or maybe you are Insulin Resistant from eating too much in the past? Other than rare exceptions (for insulin resistance), eating sugar a calorie deficit would be no different than eating anything else. Google "the Twinkie Diet". The guy ate twinkies, sugary cereals, 1 can of veggies and 1 protein shake per day. Reduced his body fat substantially and improved all his blood markers. It's not sugar. It's too much food!4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions