Does the Leangains Fasting Method Work

Nutrition
121

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]toocul4u wrote:
humans are not bomb calorimeters. humans have enzymes and hormones. that said, both quality and quantity of calorie matters. but calories in DO NOT EXACTLY = calories out in humans.[/quote]

So where do those extra calories go? Do “enzymes and hormones” cause that matter and the energy contained within to simply evaporate?[/quote]

stored or used. storage and use is affected by enzymes and hormones, which are affected by not just quantity, but quality of calorie. capiche?
[/quote]

So storage and use don’t qualify as “out”?[/quote]

How would storage qualify as “out”?[/quote]

Would you qualify fuel in the gas tank as being in the engine?

Anyone trying to argue that macronutrient composition is irrelevant (mostly wrt protein vs. carbs/fat and starch/fiber vs. sugar) is dumb. Anyone trying to construe the argument against low carb/paleo magic into that is knocking down strawmen.[/quote]

Hm. I thought you were one of the hard core “Only total calories matter” and “A carb is a carb” guys. Guess I misunderstood some of your former posts. Sorry about that.[/quote]

I think he’s so confused that he confuses himself, ha. he must be one of those strawcharlatanmans
[/quote]

No, I’m perfectly aware of what I’m talking about. You’re the one who believes that matter and energy magically disappear. You still haven’t explained how “enzymes and hormones” somehow alter the fundamental calories in = calories burned + calories stored equation.[/quote]

Holy fuck you oversimplify the human body, the body can basically waste calories at " nothing " like it can produce adrenalin that only makes heat. There are multiple ways the body can rid itself of calories, how else do you think ectomorphs or whatever its called can eat like a hod and still not gain weigth?[/quote]

LOL.

So the human body is able to ignore basic laws of thermodynamics?

You’re an expert right? You read one fad diet book and you know everything about physiology, but you still can’t wrap your head around the fact that leptin doesn’t increase metabolic rate much beyond normal.

I could simplify this less, but you would only be more confused.[/quote]

Why, cause you read one study denying so without mentioning anything about leptin resistance? i am guessing you haven’t heard about the other 16 000 studies on leptin?

lol physiology? you mean biology?

alrigth dickweed, what makes the leptin diet a fad diet book??

The hypothalamus gland of the brain takes input from leptin and then sets the energy spending policy for long-range plans. Leptin level determine if enough food is present for a permisive energy plan, if so, thyroid hormone implements instructions for a higher level idling speed.

This is set at a weekly basis, since thyroid hormones last 6.5 days. [/quote]

Calm down, skippy. Forgive me if I don’t put much stock in your knowledge of the human body, since you needed to go read a book to learn how to eat 3 meals a day.

Did you miss the part earlier in the thread where it was stated that none of those studies you referenced support the claim you’re making that leptin has any effect on metabolism beyond keeping it relatively normalized?

As a matter of fact, you’re so full of strawmen arguments that I’m going to continue this discussion. Come back to me when you figure out exactly what it is you think and we’ll talk.

122

[quote]futurepharm wrote:

That study doesn’t prove your point at all. The authors state in the discussion that:

“Carbohydrate oxidation increased greatly in response to carbohydrate overfeeding (from 15.61 to 21.94, 21.64, and 21.97 MJ for fructose, glucose, and sucrose, respectively; Table 4). Fat oxidation was suppressed (from 13.72 to 9.51, 9.46, and 8.72 MJ, respectively; Table 5) even though total EI was in excess. This is a clear illustration of the now universal finding that carbohydrate always takes precedence over fat in modulating fuel selection.”

Now, I don’t know how you’d go about determining what macronutrient your body sees as “caloric excess” but it’s pretty clear that not limiting carbs makes it easier to store fat, especially if you don’t do anything to deplete glycogen.

[/quote]

i think you are missing the big picture…it is about total fat storage in regards to overfeeding with fat versus carbs…not the hiearchy of oxidation rates…

carbs have preferential oxidation over fat…the body prefers to burn carbs first as there is a limited storage site for them…

if you don’t eat carbs…will you burn fat faster? yes!.. but, you are also eating more fat by default, so you have much more fat to burn…

Now does this general concept apply to everyone? I don’t know…maybe there is something in someone’s individual genetics that makes it impossible for them to lose fat while eating carbs…There are a lot of things that science does not know yet…

123

[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
D Pub: I like your statements but im confused by your last one.

"carbs = bad Insulin = bad…NOT true(???)

I just systemactially cut out carbs…that is how almost every pro bodybuilder does it…whether they carb cycle or not."

Why are you cutting carbs if its a bad things and the insulin response is a bad thing.
To note as well there have been more recent articles from authors on this site specifically talking about insulin management.

Also to ultra: you started this :slight_smile: and youre trying to make yourself heard and have trying to make some good points but the name calling isnt helping anyone or making you look good. Lets keep it civil and slightly romantic. [/quote]

Carbs and insulin are not inherently bad…they have beneficial uses in the body…it might be easier for humans to mentally frame things in their minds as carbs=bad or estrogen=bad, but things are not that simple…

as far as your second question…

I cut carbs because I can’t cut protein or fat…

I need to keep protein intake high as it builds muscle and prevents catabolism…

I can’t cut fat because a certain level of fat is needed for hormone synthesis and celluar needs…

So, i systematically lower carbs…if i’m losing at an acceptable rate, I keep them the same…If my weight has stalled too long, i will lower them…

The way I feel is I rather keep carbs as high as I can as long as I’m losing fat an acceptable rate…I don’t understand why someone would drop all the carbs out from the beginning if they don’t need to…It doesn’t make sense to me…

124

Word. BTW carbs are broken down and stored in four major parts of the body. which makes :“carbs have preferential oxidation over fat…the body prefers to burn carbs first as there is a limited storage site for them…” Not true.

Stronghold: not to argue for the other team but Martin B posted this on his site :" Metabolic rate is mainly controlled by leptin, which has downstream effects on thyroid output. However, there seems to be a secondary control mechanism in place, and this one is mainly controlled by feedback mechanisms mediated by liver glycogen content (and liver glycogen is closely correlated with leptin in the short term).

It’s also very likely that muscle glycogen and blood ketones play a role.

That being said, it’s hard to isolate one independent variable other than leptin. High leptin usually means high glycogen and low levels of blood ketones.

Theoretical example where this would come into effect:

Overweight on long term low carb or ketogenic diet

= gradual depletion of glycogen

= leptin still high, but not leptin resistant

= downregulation of metabolic rate occurs, but is now mediated by glycogen and/or blood ketones (the former assumes low glycogen so it’s whatever), and not leptin.

125

Might as well kick the hornets nest.

As per a lecture I watched concerning this very subject:

  • 2 populations of obese people. Obesity is very specifically a disorder of fat balance. You have essentially an expansion of the fat storage component with a mitigation and attenuation of the fat oxidation component. So most people who are obese metabolically have become fat trappers. They have enhanced storage capability and diminished oxidative capabilities.

  • Insulin is the orchestra leader in an incredible nuanced ensemble of metabolic loops that basically do one thing; control glucose. (So do fatty acids but not as big as insulin.)

  • Insulinâ??s has a paramount position and effect on glucose occupies in the entire energy homeostasis cascade.

  • What is meant by energy homeostasis? Most people think of it in terms of (A) How much fat am I caring - so basically they have been institutionalized to think that change body weight is represented by the simple arithmetic equation Body LB = Cal in â?? Cal out. This is energy balance to 99.9% of people including very erudite clinicians and some scientists in the bio chemical path who basically have bought into this hook line and sinker because thatâ??s all that has ever been said with a loud megaphone and it creates a lot of cognitive dissonance if they say well here is a set of observations that donâ??t make any sense with respect to this (Cal in-cal out).

  • When I look at this from just the stand point of a physicist; I would say that this is nonsense. On its face its nonsense. Why? Whatâ??s body lbs measured in? Pounds, kilograms etc. So? Itâ??s what? Mass. Whatâ??s Cal measured in? Calories, kilocalories, kilojoules: so energy. You want to tell me that it makes any sense to try and relate units of mass to units of energy in a simple arithmetic way?

  • In addition it assumes that these dependent variables. What does that mean? It means you canâ??t have a change in this (being body lbs) without something changing on this side (being cals in cals out). And is that true? No.

  • Let me give you some examples:

  1. Shows pictures of Jerry Lee Lewis before and after taking prednisone and states obviously Jerry didnâ??t brain storm the idea of eating a shit ton of cals just because he is on the medication it clearly altered something else in him (Jerry gained

  2. Rocky - a north American ground squirrel â?? photos are of rocky pre and post hibernation (super lean vs super chubby (but still cute).

  3. Pic of a women (Taubes also used a similar pic in Good Cal Bad Cal) who is obese below the waste but emaciated above the navel (Taubes explained with the regular 1st law of thermo theory this would mean that her lower body is consuming all of the cals and starving her upper body. Obviously not, it clearly shows the body has mechanisms in charge of fat deposition.)

  4. Pic of 2 mice that are litter mates â?? opened up to show fat depot on inside of their body (they dead).

  5. Pic f different 2 mine who are also litter mates, who were pair fed (same amount of cals- one mouse is HYYOOOGE (fat) other regular size).

  • What do all of these pics represent? They represent instances where body FAT â?? NOT body WEIGHT â?? but body FAT has changed dramatically with absolutely no change in these (cal in vs cal out) variables.

  • Whatâ??s the common denominator of all of those examples: insulin. Specifically what about insulin allows this kind of incredible â?? over the top â?? holy shit difference? Exactly how sensitive or resistant you are or your metabolism is to the effects of insulin â?? which are to do what? Drive this (glucose) in to either oxidative path ways or storage path ways.

  • Question is asked: Doc could we see the difference in a bomb-calorimeter if we could put them in it?

  • Good point: what is a bomb-calorimeter from the stand point of thermodynamics? Well is BC is system that is completely Closed. So here we have out Atwater BC â?? this is where Atwater got that carbs = 4 pro = 4 fat = 9. So those are the values that everyone is walking around talking about and they are meaningless. Meaningless why? Because BC = closed system, always reaches equilibrium. Every time you fire this puppy up nothing gets out and it always reaches equilibrium. So of course if I put in there and completely combust it and recover all the heat I would say â??OH! Its 3,500 cals!! So, if I have my strategy right, 7 days in a week â?? I shave 500 cal off my daily intake â?? 500 x 7= 3,500 = 1 lb of fat loss a week!!..Nope.

  • Never has been demonstrated. Never in the history in science has that basic concept ever been produced in a human trial. Not once. In fact, if you look at the sum total of all the trials that have been published to, and last time I looked it was up until 2007, so all the trials up to 2007 that had enough date in there for me to ascertain the actual mathematics of the cal deficit over time â?? do you know how many clients out of all the studies and there are dozens of them, do you know how many subjects achieved Predicted weight loss? None.

  • What was the mean weight loss as compared to predicted? Less than half. Oops. Whatâ??s the answer that the â??ivory towersâ?? push back at you? Simple: â??they didnâ??t follow the protocol.â?? Ok, well how realistic is that? That every single one of these studies managed to find subjects who were absolutely determined not to comply?

  • Ok so, moving on (back to BC and cals) here is what we have in the body: system that is totally open and never reached equilibrium. So what is the problem with this compared to Atwater? In Atwaterâ??s case the thermodynamic concept and the kinetic concept are in sync. In non-equilibrium system that is open, the kinetics and the thermodynamics are totally different.

  • So in an enzyme system where the rate of reactants and products that can go both ways can vary as a function of what? Things like: Insulin, is constantly changing. And constantly changing implies what? = Efficiency.

  • So if I were to take a gallon of gasoline and put it in Atwaterâ??s BC, and ignite it, again I would get a constant amount of â??heat energyâ?? in the BC system. Now if I fly airplanes and I took the gallon of gasoline and put it in my P- Baron and fired it up and ran it all day and did my calculations â?? how much of that energy do you think I would recover in the actual thrust of my engine/ On a good day 30-35%. On a hot crappy day at high altitudes way less than that. Why? Because engines are not perfect.

They have frictional losses and all kinds of degradation of the recovery of the energy. And the same thing applies to a living system. All of the energy is not recovered as a unitary item. Some makes ATP, other goes here and there etc and a certain amount is dissipated in an inefficient way which is now the basis for what we now know as the â??uncoupling phenomenonâ?? â?? or reaction oxygen species.

  • So this (not Atwater and the BC) from the stand point of getting a grip on what the reality of the situation is explains all of these instances, why? Because in every single instance there was an insinuation of an efficiency of fat storage put into the picture. In the case (circus fat women lower body â?? starved upper body) itâ??s genetic. In this case (pair feed mice) all that was done to these animals was they changed the ratio of N6 to N3 fatty acids in their diet. Jerry, the only difference was he was put on the drug prednisone- in one year jerry put on 96lbs of fat. Whatâ??s it due to? Itâ??s due to the fact that prednisone by virtue of a very specific facilitation of an enzyme in adipose tissue increases the efficiency of fat storage â?? totally independent of calorie intake. Cals have Nothing to do with it. So if we drill back to the original equation (1st law) where body weight has to be due to this â?? obviously not.

  • Rocky by example is a hibernator which gets me back to my original point here: what is energy homeostasis? At a very basic level for the cell â?? there is basically one dimension â?? if you wana look at how a cell retains its viability it has to have a certain amount of quote electrons generated in a tunnel in a compartment of the mitochondria that combines with inorganic phosphate to create ATP. There is a critical limit there where if you donâ??t get just enough the cell is kaput. In an organismal level kind of the same thing: A) to stay alive. But on an evolutionary level â?? itâ??s not enough â??you have to stay alive and functional enough to do what? Copy yourself (reproduction). (Then doc goes into a serious break down of cells, compartments, energy generation, glycolysis and glycolytic flux, anaerobic, hydrolysis of ADP ï?  ATP so we donâ??t die)

  • Then goes on to explain that Rocky only makes it through hibernation because of ability to turn all vitals down to an extremely low level and reversal of insulin resistance - and rocky knows that months in advance winter is coming so in basically mid-summer (late July early august) Rockyâ??s food intake and body weight change. In spring Rockyâ??s BW stays consistent then late summer her gets fatter a lot fatter and through hibernation it starts to drop and comes back to baseline.

Rocky in the wild his food intake peaks in the end of summer and then dramatically cuts off end of Aug- Sept. Whatâ??s the matter with this? At the time of maximal weight gain his food is declining â?? not a little bit a lot and further qualification- if you capture rocky and put him in a cage he still senses winter is coming and if you restrict the amount of food intake to a non-flux level his fat levels would still increase (even though he eats less) to a lesser extent then in the wild. He still can survive. Why? What drives his loss and gains? Insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance.

  • In the previous diagram â?? the big cheese of energy production is mitochondria and fatty acids â?? glucose and amino acids can play here â?? but here is the qualifier â?? the big dog is glucose. Why? Well, there is an efficiency issue â?? itâ??s about 20 fold more potent at producing ATP than the other guys. In addition there is a qualification that is paramount and is the reason that insulin is all powerful, especially compared to the other hormones, and is because there is not only an absolute requirement but there is an allocation issue and what is that?

It is that this thing called you CNS uses glucose almost exclusively and even though your brain is a small percentage of total body weight it gets 50% of glucose availability all the time. Demonstrates glucose maximums and minimums levels and why you would need to stay within glucose range and that we are an organism that has to keep that level balanced even though we are not 100% of when we could intake food and that without ingesting glucose (during starvation/fasting/non eating time) our system has created a way to make glucose by manufacturing it through amino acids.

  • Energy homeostasis has nothing to do with calories it means I have 3 Marco nutrients â?? amino acids â?? glucose and fatty acids and because of the 1st law they can do one of 2 things â?? they can get oxidized or stored - so thatâ??s your portioning continuum. In this particular case the portioning continuum is appended to a fuel selector switch and the fuel selector switch has two settings: fat & glucose. So whatâ??s going to determine the position of the fuel selector switch and whatâ??s going to determine the efficiency in which that is entrained? Insulin. And whatâ??s the parameter that makes the difference? How responsive the tissue is to the hormones molecular actions. If you are insulin resistant by definition is takes more insulin to do X with it than someone who is not resistant.

  • This ties in with diabetes, obesity, cardio vascular disease etc. etc. if you examined humans and you said â??we are going to take 100 people at random and we are going to measure provocatively their insulin sensitivity vs resistanceâ?? what you will find is that there is a 6 fold variation in insulin sensitivity in modern humans. Thatâ??s a big number so whatâ??s going on? Some people are IR and some are IS. (Insulin resistant/ insulin sensitive).

This was only from the first 30 mins. Now Please understand I am not stating this under the heading of absolute truth â?? not open to interpretation â?? dogma â?? end all be all. Iâ??m more stating this to see what the response is from some of you because of experience/knowledge/schooling/practice etc. I do not abide by all of the above statements but I will say that most make a great deal of sense to me.

So itâ??s not worth it for you to jump my shit and kick and scream and yell. I have not said a negative thing to anyone here I am only having a discussion. If you can intelligently respond than please do. Iâ??m in the process of learning not claiming I know everything. Thanks.

126

When martin talks about leptin, he is referring to raising it during a prolonged deficit…

that is the whole point of doing refeeds during a diet…people are trying to get their metabolic rate to go back up as it is depressed from dieting…so, they will carefully plan days of higher than normal calorie levels in an effort to increase metabolic rate…

However, I haven’t found a study showing that elevating leptin in a caloric SURPLUS will significantly increase your metabolic rate beyond your normal baseline rate…I assume there is some kind of regulatory mechanism which exists in the body to stop leptin from icnreasing metabolic rate beyond a certain point…

Maybe that might not occur in people who are naturally very lean…as something has to be increasing theri metabolism…i’m not certain…

127

You can’t compare hibernating animals to humans…

You can’t compare people with metabolic disorders(type 1 diabetes, lipodystrophy, glycogen storage diseases, etc) to people with functioning metabolic systems…

That is Taubes’s whole thing…he will cherry pick studies done over 50 yrs ago and use weird examples like squirrels to prove a point…

What i don’t understand is why you would take nutrition advice from taubes?

I get my fat loss advice from guys like layne norton, george farrah, chris aceto, etc…people who actually do get amazing results with their clients…Guess what? all of those guys track cals and macros…

128

[quote]D Public wrote:
When martin talks about leptin, he is referring to raising it during a prolonged deficit…

that is the whole point of doing refeeds during a diet…people are trying to get their metabolic rate to go back up as it is depressed from dieting…so, they will carefully plan days of higher than normal calorie levels in an effort to increase metabolic rate…

However, I haven’t found a study showing that elevating leptin in a caloric SURPLUS will significantly increase your metabolic rate beyond your normal baseline rate…I assume there is some kind of regulatory mechanism which exists in the body to stop leptin from icnreasing metabolic rate beyond a certain point…

Maybe that might not occur in people who are naturally very lean…as something has to be increasing theri metabolism…i’m not certain…

[/quote]

basal metabolic rate doesn’t really change before it has gone 6.5 days, because thyroid hormones( which is what controls it) last that long before it " dies " and have to be replaced.

leptin basically orchestrate thyroid hormones.

129

the way i understood it was that leptin regulated the rate a which fat was released and the hunger hormone ghrelin and by itself had no effect on metabolisam . but from prolonged periods of being in a caloriic defecit leptin drops ,grelin increases and at the same time thyroxin drops which causes a slowing of metabolsam .

130

[quote]ultralars wrote:

basal metabolic rate doesn’t really change before it has gone 6.5 days, because thyroid hormones( which is what controls it) last that long before it " dies " and have to be replaced.

leptin basically orchestrate thyroid hormones. [/quote]

then why do people increase their metabolic rate levels back to normal levels when they refeed with carbs?

It would also be completley disadvantageous for our suvrvival if we could only regulate metabolic rate every 6.5 days…

possibly there exists mechanisms to regulate metabolic rate in the short term…I would think that is the case…

here are some studies regarding overfeeding and carbs affect on leptin…

Leptin levels returned back to baseline after 12 hrs overfeeding after fasting…

study on how carbs affect leptin…

“In summary, the rapid decrease in serum leptin levels during fasting indicated that leptin release was regulated by factors other than changes in body fat mass. The lack of leptin changes during fasting, when basal insulin and glucose levels were maintained at basal levels, suggested that insulin and/or glucose may play a role in the regulation of leptin release.”

131

Leptin levels returned back to baseline after 12 hrs overfeeding after fasting…

study on how carbs affect leptin…

“In summary, the rapid decrease in serum leptin levels during fasting indicated that leptin release was regulated by factors other than changes in body fat mass. The lack of leptin changes during fasting, when basal insulin and glucose levels were maintained at basal levels, suggested that insulin and/or glucose may play a role in the regulation of leptin release.”

If you consider these two studies, then you’ll see why the Leangains system seems to work so well. By implementing periods of overfeeding (especially with glucose rich carbs in the post-workout period), it seems like the Leangains protocol gets the best of all worlds. There’s caloric restriction, there’s overfeeding in the other 8 hours of the day, 10g BCAA are taken pre-workout to take advantage of the benefits of circulating aminos peri/post workout and it allows for bigger meals for those who prefer them.

For all intents and purposes, it seems to tick all the boxes.

132

I agree completely. leangains for dieting seeems to be very solid.

my only critique of leangains is for bulking…as the amount of protein servings you can achieve on such an approach is limited…Muscle protein synthesis seems to occur in pulsations…If you only eat 3 times a day, you are only getting 3 periods of muscle protein synthesis…and there appears to be a limit to how much protein can be synthesized during each feeding…

pulsing protein or bcaa during the fasting period would correct that problem…but, i don’t know how that affects the fast and its effect on the body…

133

The body prefers to burn carbs first because it’s the path of least resistance. Sugars are much more easily oxidized than fats or proteins.

134

[quote]D Public wrote:
I agree completely. leangains for dieting seeems to be very solid.

my only critique of leangains is for bulking…as the amount of protein servings you can achieve on such an approach is limited…Muscle protein synthesis seems to occur in pulsations…If you only eat 3 times a day, you are only getting 3 periods of muscle protein synthesis…and there appears to be a limit to how much protein can be synthesized during each feeding…

pulsing protein or bcaa during the fasting period would correct that problem…but, i don’t know how that affects the fast and its effect on the body…

[/quote]
when i tried bulkin while IF’ing 16/8 i found it really hard gettin 4000 cals in 8 hours so i altered it to 12/12 with some protien only during the 12 hour fastin period .

135

[quote]futurepharm wrote:

The body prefers to burn carbs first because it’s the path of least resistance. Sugars are much more easily oxidized than fats or proteins. [/quote]

agreed

however, i tend to view things from an evolutionary perspective…i try to understand why certain structures are in place and why the body works in the manner it does…

136

DPUb: Thanks for clearing that up on the leptin - good info

I dont think it was a straight comparison of hibernating animals to humans (and I understand you didnt watch the lecture - I only wrote the first 1/2 of it out for you guys) but I think its a demonstration in how powerful the insulin resistance/sensitivity (switch) can be in mammals. He did go on to say (I have not looked into this) That there is evidence that in paleo/pre paleo times humans may have hibernated in some fashion and that there is a monkey or ape in (i believe south america - dont quote me) that hibernates.

I think you can even if they just range from slighty different systems to vastly different systems. Not all of the body types are the same (a point he makes in the lecture) but if we are all striving for fat loss and the most leanness possible in either populations of metabolically deranged and not the same mechanisms still are there just their functioning may be completely different.

Taubes, and I dont think Im the only one, made a lot of sense and I think anyone who would write a book that large and in depth would have to “cherry pick” studies. We will see what cherry picking Martin does if he ever writes his book :wink: All I see him do is quote pubmed studies. Taubes shined light on faults in nutrition from an academic stand point and governmental stand point.

His info does make sense, its not calories that make you fat its carbs and sugar not a completely untrue statement. In fact if you look at the pharma industry ( i was thinking about this today) most products have herbs-chemicals- to blunt fat storage and promote oxidation via changing IS or IR not really how to consume less cal (unless you think lap band works). So at some stand point “science” is hunting from a similar theory as Taubes states.

I wouldnt say taubes is a picture of unhealthy (im defending him now and will stop) and the people that I too take nutrition advice from have a list of clientele and wonder stories that are very large and amazing. we have a shared one - martin. But what I see most in people as far as body comp change is a change made in quality not quantity. Even if you read Starnes and Hyghts articles of recent all they discuss is changes in hormones and insulin management.

But I do agree with “different strokes for different folks” in that insulin management works best for me and my clients etc where as cal restriction at a certain level could work for others.

137

Well I disagree that insulin is the sole culprit…that is all…

To assume insulin is the primary reason why people get fat, makes a million new assumptions on how our world operates…

138

oh for sure. Im a sorry if I mislead you in my posts that I am claiming that insulin is the sole leader of degradation of sexiness I think its one of the masters but all other hormones: test, estro, cortisol including sleep, shit exercise, thyroid etc etc are all factors. The main thing that got this party started was cal in vs cal out. I think all of the above needs to be placed under the microscope as well.

IYO and this is just a general question because I have never had to do research so indepth as the people I follow - is quoting only pubmed studies a bad thing? I just havent seen much branching out and in this thread in particular I have mainly/only seen those links. Thanks

139

[quote]D Public wrote:

[quote]futurepharm wrote:

The body prefers to burn carbs first because it’s the path of least resistance. Sugars are much more easily oxidized than fats or proteins. [/quote]

agreed

however, i tend to view things from an evolutionary perspective…i try to understand why certain structures are in place and why the body works in the manner it does…[/quote]

just think dude, your genes has no fucking conscious mind, which means they cannot think like we do. which means that evolution will not necessarily go forward, it can go anywhere because it is COMPLETLY RANDOM( within sense of course). say if the terrain a human tribe lives in fits people with long legs best, then that doesn’t mean that the genes will understand this and grow longer legs. what happends is that once somone gets born with longer legs they are going to have a greater chance of survival, and more luck with the ladies because of that. which means more offspring than his short legged brother.

get it? evolution does not " make sense ", it is random, and what happends cannot really be given a reason.

140

lars, i’m not going to argue about that in this thread. it is too indepth.