Fat Adapted?

Nutrition
41

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
anonym, you’re a pretty switched on dude, am I right in thinking then that you think low-carb is overrated? Or unnecessary?

I’d love to hear your opinion on this, as I’m sure would many others[/quote]

I suppose that it depends on the individual and their goals.

In what context are you thinking? Some people here seem to want to talk about health, while others want to talk about getting swole (or losing fat).[/quote]

Swoleness/fatlossness.

The reason I ask is I’ve seen you defend the calories in - calories out model a few times in the past[/quote]
X2 - would be good to see your thoughts - or in the very least write out YOUR diet/recommendations for losing fat.

42

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

You said you’ve had success recomping with this method. Any pictures?[/quote]

Yes, very successful so far. I want to wait a bit until I can see abz before I post pics.

43

[quote]anonym wrote:
The body prefers stored fat to stored glucose because adipose tissue contains ~6 times more energy than glycogen on a “per gram” basis. It is simply a more efficient means of storing energy.

However, we can conclude that our bodies “prefer” carbohydrates as an energy source because they are "prefer"entially burned when mixed meals are consumed. We can experiment with this using the ketards on this forum as test subjects: simply have them start eating C+F meals while in ketosis and see how long that metabolic state lasts.

My guess?

Not very long.[/quote]

I don’t think this means carbohydrates are a preferred fuel source. Glucose is toxic in high doses so it has no choice but to use it immediately or store it in a less toxic form.

Lipids and amino acids, on the other hand, come with no such widow of availability.

44

[quote]anonym wrote:
In what context are you thinking? Some people here seem to want to talk about health, while others want to talk about getting swole (or losing fat).[/quote]

I want to talk about both…though my idea of being swole is only what is possible without gear.

45

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

You said you’ve had success recomping with this method. Any pictures?[/quote]

Yes, very successful so far. I want to wait a bit until I can see abz before I post pics.[/quote]

So you’ve recomped nicely, but haven’t gotten to ‘abs’ lean yet? This makes a bit more sense to me then. That means you’re at a higher BF% level likely, and obviously if your fat, carbs aren’t going to be your best friend. Not being insulting, but most agree the leaner you are, the better ‘reaction’ you have with carbs. Recomping at high BF% isn’t an indicator that high fat/low carb is superior.

46

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think this means carbohydrates are a preferred fuel source. Glucose is toxic in high doses so it has no choice but to use it immediately or store it in a less toxic form.

Lipids and amino acids, on the other hand, come with no such widow of availability.[/quote]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Human beings, having adapted to utilize every energy pathway possible just found a way to non-toxically store and use glucose.[/quote]

OK – before we continue, you need to get your story straight. Can our bodies only store glucose in a “less” toxic form, or have we managed to find a way to “non”-toxically store it?

Also, you are arguing for dietary carbs being a toxin (which is why we MUST burn/store them IMMEDIATELY!) while simultaneously asserting that it is the metabolism of glucose, itself, that leads to deleterious effects on the body (“negative consequences to the machinery” and what nto).

So, which is it? Are dietary carbs teh evil, or is it glucose, in general? If the former, you need to provide evidence showing some clinically-definable adverse health outcome of transient (acute) hyperglycemic spikes in otherwise healthy individuals. If the latter, you need to explain WHY our bodies insist on greedily hoarding this toxin when it becomes scarce, why we have developed mechanisms to produce it from non-carb sources, and why we REQUIRE it for life.

Oh, and are you suggesting that glucose is the sole energy substrate that is NOT allowed to traverse the bloodstream unregulated without fear of being immediately burned or stored? Or that other nutrients don’t have harmful effects when chronically elevated?

Your argument isn’t making much sense, man.

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I want to talk about both…though my idea of being swole is only what is possible without gear.[/quote]

Then I think you should ask our resident natty pro, Stu, what HIS thoughts are on carbohydrate intake for unassisted lifters looking to stretch their shirt sleeves or get diced for a competition.

My guess is he isn’t gonna splooge ketones as a response.

48

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t think this means carbohydrates are a preferred fuel source. Glucose is toxic in high doses so it has no choice but to use it immediately or store it in a less toxic form.

Lipids and amino acids, on the other hand, come with no such widow of availability.[/quote]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Human beings, having adapted to utilize every energy pathway possible just found a way to non-toxically store and use glucose.[/quote]

OK – before we continue, you need to get your story straight. Can our bodies only store glucose in a “less” toxic form, or have we managed to find a way to “non”-toxically store it?

Also, you are arguing for dietary carbs being a toxin (which is why we MUST burn/store them IMMEDIATELY!) while simultaneously asserting that it is the metabolism of glucose, itself, that leads to deleterious effects on the body (“negative consequences to the machinery” and what nto).

So, which is it? Are dietary carbs teh evil, or is it glucose, in general? If the former, you need to provide evidence showing some clinically-definable adverse health outcome of transient (acute) hyperglycemic spikes in otherwise healthy individuals. If the latter, you need to explain WHY our bodies insist on greedily hoarding this toxin when it becomes scarce, why we have developed mechanisms to produce it from non-carb sources, and why we REQUIRE it for life.

Oh, and are you suggesting that glucose is the sole energy substrate that is NOT allowed to traverse the bloodstream unregulated without fear of being immediately burned or stored? Or that other nutrients don’t have harmful effects when chronically elevated?

Your argument isn’t making much sense, man.[/quote]

You are looking for an argument that isn’t there.

I think I already stated that glucose in high levels is toxic. Eating 2 lbs of mashed potatoes is definitely going to be toxic.

I am essentially saying that being a strength athlete and wanting to put on muscle can be achieved on a low carbohydrate diet.

49

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
Not being insulting, but most agree the leaner you are, the better ‘reaction’ you have with carbs. [/quote]

You’re putting it nicely but I think this may run closer to ‘established fact’ than ‘consensus agreement’

50

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You are looking for an argument that isn’t there.[/quote]

No, I am simply asking you to clarify whether or not you think glycogen is non-toxic or less toxic.

There is a distinct difference between the two.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think I already stated that glucose in high levels is toxic. Eating 2 lbs of mashed potatoes is definitely going to be toxic.[/quote]

OK, so you’ve opted to go with “the former”. Your assertion is that a transient spike in blood sugar is going to result in toxic effects in an otherwise healthy individual. Show me some evidence of these toxic effects and, putting it “in the trenches” for those of us who care about what happens outside of a petri dish, some proven adverse health outcomes resulting from such a spike.

To expedite your research, consider the following information obtained from FitDay:

White Potato, mashed
Quantity: 2 lbs

975 kcal
34g fat
154g carbs
17g protein

Note that margarine and milk is included, hence the higher than expected fat value. Nevertheless, I didn’t choose the menu item; you did. So, please show me some medical literature discussing toxic effects of 154 grams of carbohydrate ingested in a single meal. You should “definitely” have no trouble coming up with that, because I am certain you didn’t pull that example out of thin air without carefully considering it… because that would just be lame.

FWIW, my afternoon snack had 164 grams of carbs (I doubled up on my meals)… how much longer do you think I’ve got?

51

The key points from the article:

  • Fat-adaptation is the normal, preferred metabolic state of the human body. Sugar-dependency is an abnormal metabolic state that inevitably leads to insulin resistance and chronic disease

  • Once you are fat-adapted, your body can effectively burn stored fat for energy throughout the day, and can effectively oxidize dietary fat for energy. Hence less fat will be stored in adipose tissue

  • Fat adapted people essentially reprogram their bodies, allowing genes associated with lipid metabolism to be upregulated

That means as Dr Mercola pointed out Even a 160 pound person who’s visibly lean at 12% body fat still has 19.2 pounds of animal fat on hand for oxidation. They don’t NEED to eat carbs to fuel they’re activities if they are providing they’re bodies with adequate protein and fats. They will use stored fat as an energy source if they are fat adapted!.

This is NOT a bodybuilding related article. But it can give insight for the purposes of reducing bodyfat effectively.

52

I think it’s pretty true that carbs aren’t really needed for ‘health’. As for body composition, I thought it was pretty obvious… if you are fat, stop eating whole-food carbs but keep the peri-workout carbs. If you are lean, you can ramp up carbs gradually and find ‘dat sweet spot’.

53

If fat’s weren’t so calorically dense it’d be easier to eat them in the context of a cutting diet but since they are not you can get a lot less calories and more volume from a food such as cooked oatmeal then from a handful of nuts.

So what is someone on a cutting diet a lot better off choosing?

54

A lot of vegetables? Low carb content to begin with and quite filling. Then eat protein and fats as required.

55

[quote]238 wrote:
A lot of vegetables? Low carb content to begin with and quite filling. Then eat protein and fats as required.[/quote]

they’re filling because they are water and fiber. If I wanted to eat 500 calories of spinach, I’d have to finish 4.5lbs worth.

Or I could just eat 6 ozs of cheese.

56

[quote]MetalMX wrote:
If fat’s weren’t so calorically dense it’d be easier to eat them in the context of a cutting diet but since they are not you can get a lot less calories and more volume from a food such as cooked oatmeal then from a handful of nuts.

So what is someone on a cutting diet a lot better off choosing?

[/quote]

The hunger mechanism is so much more complex than you stomach being full. There are many things that drive appetite, like glucose insulin fluctuation.

They’ve done experiments with rats where they dilute the caloric density of their food. If you cut calories in half, they eat twice as much. If you cut it to 25%, they eat 4 times as much.

Eating more volume to stop hunger would be like filling your lungs with nitrogen to catch your breath.

Your body has very exacting systems to regulate these activities. You cannot trick your body’s regulation of caloric intake by filling your stomach with cardboard. At best youâ??ll be hungry as soon as your body can make more room in your stomach.

57

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You are looking for an argument that isn’t there.[/quote]

No, I am simply asking you to clarify whether or not you think glycogen is non-toxic or less toxic.

There is a distinct difference between the two.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I think I already stated that glucose in high levels is toxic. Eating 2 lbs of mashed potatoes is definitely going to be toxic.[/quote]

OK, so you’ve opted to go with “the former”. Your assertion is that a transient spike in blood sugar is going to result in toxic effects in an otherwise healthy individual. Show me some evidence of these toxic effects and, putting it “in the trenches” for those of us who care about what happens outside of a petri dish, some proven adverse health outcomes resulting from such a spike.

To expedite your research, consider the following information obtained from FitDay:

White Potato, mashed
Quantity: 2 lbs

975 kcal
34g fat
154g carbs
17g protein

Note that margarine and milk is included, hence the higher than expected fat value. Nevertheless, I didn’t choose the menu item; you did. So, please show me some medical literature discussing toxic effects of 154 grams of carbohydrate ingested in a single meal. You should “definitely” have no trouble coming up with that, because I am certain you didn’t pull that example out of thin air without carefully considering it… because that would just be lame.

FWIW, my afternoon snack had 164 grams of carbs (I doubled up on my meals)… how much longer do you think I’ve got?[/quote]

Glycogen is nontoxic but it is very limited to how much can be stored in muscle and liver tissue. A person eating 160g carbohydrate in one sitting is not going to store it all as glycogen because most likely he is already mostly full - even if he just got done lifting weights. Hardly any is used with the small amount of actual anaerobic work being done in the gym, under the bar. I can prove this with math if you like.

Consider also the liver can only convert about 5g glucose/hour into lipids. Once the body assimilates what it can into glycogen the rest has to be processed. This means one will have elevated insulin and glucose in the bloodstream. This is a double-whammy that over time will catch up to anyone. Not to mention, relying on carbohydrate as fuel makes a person metabolically inefficient at burning it’s preferred fuel source, fat, which leads to more artificially perceived hunger and mental irritation when blood-sugar finally drops.

I actually don’t think most people who eat carbohydrate as a staple in their diet will have much quality in their lives while they are alive - especially if they live past 60.

Have fun in the meantime while you can still enjoy mobility, digestion, and all those other wonderful things that come with youthful hubris.

I still eat carbohydrate. I don’t want to give the idea that I don’t. The difference is for me it is about enjoyment and not for reliance on energy. I indulge occasionally (once every couple of weeks or so).

58

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MetalMX wrote:
If fat’s weren’t so calorically dense it’d be easier to eat them in the context of a cutting diet but since they are not you can get a lot less calories and more volume from a food such as cooked oatmeal then from a handful of nuts.

So what is someone on a cutting diet a lot better off choosing?

[/quote]

The hunger mechanism is so much more complex than you stomach being full. There are many things that drive appetite, like glucose insulin fluctuation.

They’ve done experiments with rats where they dilute the caloric density of their food. If you cut calories in half, they eat twice as much. If you cut it to 25%, they eat 4 times as much.

Eating more volume to stop hunger would be like filling your lungs with nitrogen to catch your breath.

Your body has very exacting systems to regulate these activities. You cannot trick your body’s regulation of caloric intake by filling your stomach with cardboard. At best youâ??ll be hungry as soon as your body can make more room in your stomach.
[/quote]

Consider also appetite and hunger are completely different.

Appetite is a culturally learned phenomenon that can lead to overeating. An appetite is learned by eating nutritionally poor foods over a lifetime. One should never let their appetite dictate diet but rather hunger. Animals in the wild, eating their natural diet have no appetite.

Hunger, on the other hand, is a signal that the body is lacking nutriment.

Most people living in the industrial world do not know what hunger is though they are severely starving their body of nutrition by biasing their diet toward certain food chemicals over others.

59

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MetalMX wrote:
If fat’s weren’t so calorically dense it’d be easier to eat them in the context of a cutting diet but since they are not you can get a lot less calories and more volume from a food such as cooked oatmeal then from a handful of nuts.

So what is someone on a cutting diet a lot better off choosing?

[/quote]

The hunger mechanism is so much more complex than you stomach being full. There are many things that drive appetite, like glucose insulin fluctuation.

They’ve done experiments with rats where they dilute the caloric density of their food. If you cut calories in half, they eat twice as much. If you cut it to 25%, they eat 4 times as much.

Eating more volume to stop hunger would be like filling your lungs with nitrogen to catch your breath.

Your body has very exacting systems to regulate these activities. You cannot trick your body’s regulation of caloric intake by filling your stomach with cardboard. At best youÃ?¢??ll be hungry as soon as your body can make more room in your stomach.
[/quote]

I don’t know about that. If i eat foods with more volume and water i get full pretty quickly such as vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, carrots), Oatmeal and am full for hours.

60

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]MetalMX wrote:
If fat’s weren’t so calorically dense it’d be easier to eat them in the context of a cutting diet but since they are not you can get a lot less calories and more volume from a food such as cooked oatmeal then from a handful of nuts.

So what is someone on a cutting diet a lot better off choosing?

[/quote]

The hunger mechanism is so much more complex than you stomach being full. There are many things that drive appetite, like glucose insulin fluctuation.

They’ve done experiments with rats where they dilute the caloric density of their food. If you cut calories in half, they eat twice as much. If you cut it to 25%, they eat 4 times as much.

Eating more volume to stop hunger would be like filling your lungs with nitrogen to catch your breath.

Your body has very exacting systems to regulate these activities. You cannot trick your body’s regulation of caloric intake by filling your stomach with cardboard. At best youÃ?¢??ll be hungry as soon as your body can make more room in your stomach.
[/quote]

Consider also appetite and hunger are completely different.

Appetite is a culturally learned phenomenon that can lead to overeating. An appetite is learned by eating nutritionally poor foods over a lifetime. One should never let their appetite dictate diet but rather hunger. Animals in the wild, eating their natural diet have no appetite.

Hunger, on the other hand, is a signal that the body is lacking nutriment.

Most people living in the industrial world do not know what hunger is though they are severely starving their body of nutrition by biasing their diet toward certain food chemicals over others.[/quote]

This is very true. I only experience true hunger when i do so i eat. But that is because i have had a good diet in place for the last 8 years when i started eating healthy whole foods and that’s when i was 15 i am now 23.

I don’t have an “appetite” for processed junk foods.