Is Poliquin Insane?

Nutrition
81

[quote]TopSirloin wrote:
Max Thunder wrote:
I can’t believe how many people eat a low-carb diet and complain that they feel foggy and all that, when in fact they’re eating a not-so-low carb diet.

The less carbs you consume, the faster you’ll reach keto-adaptation. Then, you’ll enjoy great mental sharpness, total appetite control, no loss of endurance in the gym, etc.

My school grades even went up.

Another benefits of going very low carb (5g and under) is that you stop craving carbs… I used to follow a normal low-carb diet, along the lines of ~30-50g of carbs, and once in a while I would get these huge cravings to eat as much carbs as I can and ended up eating a pound or two of dates or figs… No more of this since going for a close to no-carb diet, high fat and “adequate” protein (20-30% of the cals ideally).

This is all personnal evidence, but I can say that I know other no-carbers who also got many benefits going no-carbs (<5).

I remember a few years ago, I would eat a diet high in grains and fruits as the authorities recommend, and my digestion was very bad. Almost all my youth, I can say that I felt the brain fog from eating carbs.

Another benefits is that I can often eat only 1 meal a day, and I get no loss of muscle mass at all, maintaining my weight. I have no problem working out on an empty stomach either. And I don’t get these huge amounts of lactic acid that keep you from doing more on higher reps sets. Insulin might be anabolic, but it shuts down other anabolic hormones like HGH so there’s no point really, and post-workout glucose have been shown to diminish genes expression, in other words, it diminishes protein synthesis.

Wow Max,

You are making some bold statements here… but, I think it’s great food for thought. I have to comment though, eating 5 grams of TOTAL carbs per day is next to impossible without eating next to ZERO vegetables. Even a half cup of broccoli has 3 grams - you’re telling me you think it’s healthy to merely eat the equivalent of a 3/4 cup of broccoli per day as your sole vegetable? I suppose this might be considered healthy if you ate a large variety of animal products, including large amounts of grass-fed beef for the remainder of your essential nutrients.

I find this unbelievable… but interestring none the less.

TopSirloin[/quote]

Here’s some more food for thought, Top Sirloin:
If you’re talking about fiber I submit this… how much fiber does one actually need when one’s diet is mostly fat and protein (excluding shakes)? A theory goes that fiber is needed to push out all the food that does not belong there in the first place - wheat, rice and such. Think how easily a pork loin slides down your throat while a dry pasta will choke the shit out of you. It’s physics, man - same lining different opening.

If you’re talking nutrition, look at the similarities between the nutrients contained in greens and those of beef or pork (full fat of course). Then consider the effect of actually digesting most of your consumables when eating high fat/protein as compared to the gas and tank-blowing secretions indicative of carb meals.

My point is, in no debate with you, how much green do we need? Can’t we survive healthily on meat and fat? Isn’t this how carnivores eat? Even omnivores eat mostly meat and organs, depending upon the season. Where did I hear that our ancestry (European/northern) survived for thousands of years on no more than the bone marrow of leftover carcasses? Bone marrow is little more than pure animal fat - which may explain why so many of us feel so much better on high fat diets.

Of course now performance and work additional capacity has got nutrition on it’s head, but it should differ only be degree not by kind, yes?

just my two cents…

SK

82

[quote]sifuinkorea wrote:
Here’s some more food for thought, Top Sirloin:
If you’re talking about fiber I submit this… how much fiber does one actually need when one’s diet is mostly fat and protein (excluding shakes)? A theory goes that fiber is needed to push out all the food that does not belong there in the first place - wheat, rice and such. Think how easily a pork loin slides down your throat while a dry pasta will choke the shit out of you. It’s physics, man - same lining different opening.

If you’re talking nutrition, look at the similarities between the nutrients contained in greens and those of beef or pork (full fat of course). Then consider the effect of actually digesting most of your consumables when eating high fat/protein as compared to the gas and tank-blowing secretions indicative of carb meals.

My point is, in no debate with you, how much green do we need? Can’t we survive healthily on meat and fat? Isn’t this how carnivores eat? Even omnivores eat mostly meat and organs, depending upon the season. Where did I hear that our ancestry (European/northern) survived for thousands of years on no more than the bone marrow of leftover carcasses? Bone marrow is little more than pure animal fat - which may explain why so many of us feel so much better on high fat diets.

Of course now performance and work additional capacity has got nutrition on it’s head, but it should differ only be degree not by kind, yes?

just my two cents…

SK

[/quote]

Actually, I quite agree with you… to a point. I whole-heartedly agree that we could live well on mostly animal products. There are many tribal peoples doing this heathily all across the globe - the Eskemos (generally) eat almost no veggies and have no epidemic degenerative disease to speak of.

Still, you have to be sure you eat a VERY high quality source of meat; grain-fed beef, cages fowl, and Franken-meats don’t cut it by a long shot. But, grass-fed beef and free-range eggs are the tastiest multi-vitamins you can eat!

However, there are still micronutrients (to exhaustive for this discussion) that animal proteins/products do not contain. Plus, be careful with linking fiber needs to how a food “slides down your throat.” A juicy cut of meat vs. a dry bowl of oats will win every time, but without fiber, your bowels have a difficult time getting wastes excreted (yes, even an all meat diet produces wastes). A high protein, low fiber diet can quickly lead to constipation and chronic constipation can predispose you to colon cancer, leaky-gut syndrome, and diverticulitis.

Bottom line, if you want to thrive (not just survive) you need to eat at least some fruits and veggies that contain fiber, along with your 76 ounces of grass-fed Angus per day!! :wink:

TopSirloin

83

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
In one article, Charles Poliquin wrote:

“People are kidding themselves about how many carbs they need. There’s a difference between a mouth and a vacuum. Forty to fifty grams per day of good carbs is plenty for most of the population. That’s why there are so many fat dieticians and personal trainers. Nutrient timing makes a difference, too. A lean 200-pound man can keep his leanness eating 250 grams of carbs a day, if 200 of them are taken post-workout and the other 50 grams spread throughout the day in low glycemic carbs. Remember, I said “stay lean,” not get lean. Get lean first if you want to eat carbs. The leaner you are, the more carbs you can eat.”

50 grams of carbs? 200 total calories from carbs? Even at a 2000 calorie diet (most on here probably need far more than that a day), thats 10% carbs. Does that sound ridiculously low to anyone else?

Am I missing something here? Is this only for people who don’t work out? [/quote]

That is just bunk.

Bottom line is that consuming excess energy is what leads to fat gain. The entire diet needs to be taken into context.

Macronutrient combos can, however, effect the amount because of different efficiencies. About one-quarter to one-third of protein calories are lost in the conversion process to glucose whereas carb and fat calorie efficiencies are much closer to 100%. Failure to account for this on a high protein diet can lead to overestimating the actual energy available to your body.

Carbs frequently get a bad rap because of the high insulin response required to metabolize them. Insulin response alone is not a good indicator of how ‘fattening’ a food will be. Total calories also have to be considered.

Comments made about the brain being able to survive without available glucose are false. If you do not eat carbs, your body will resort to converting dietary protein, glycerol, or lean body mass into glucose for basic metabolic function.

Lastly, just to clarify, all carbs are not created equal. Whole food carbs (ie fruits and whole grains) should not be lumped together with processed junk carbs (ie corn syrup, dextrose, and maltodextrin). I would expect that someone who cut out carbs in the form of soda, candy bars, and gummi bears would lose fat and feel better.

84

[quote]lovernotafightr wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brendan Ryan wrote:
Can you elaborate?

I thought insulin was “the most anabolic hormone in the body”…Have we been misinformed?

(this is not an attack - I sincerely want to learn)

Check your PMs.
[/quote]
please pm me with the same info

85

[quote]Comments made about the brain being able to survive without available glucose are false. If you do not eat carbs, your body will resort to converting dietary protein, glycerol, or lean body mass into glucose for basic metabolic function.

[/quote]

your brain can function using ketones cant it? and u make ketones when u break down fatty acids right. so wouldnt a high fat diet supply your brain with enough ketones to function?

86

[quote]lovernotafightr wrote:
Comments made about the brain being able to survive without available glucose are false. If you do not eat carbs, your body will resort to converting dietary protein, glycerol, or lean body mass into glucose for basic metabolic function.

your brain can function using ketones cant it? and u make ketones when u break down fatty acids right. so wouldnt a high fat diet supply your brain with enough ketones to function?[/quote]

Yes, it can function w/o glucose. If you only ate protein however (or mostly) then your liver would convert it to glucose for brain-fuel (gluconeogenesis). Any carbs or fats you eat are called “protein-sparing” because your body prefers to breakdown macros in the most efficient order - carbs, fats, then proteins (high energy cost to metabolize).

TopSirloin

87

[quote]TopSirloin wrote:

Yes, it can function w/o glucose. If you only ate protein however (or mostly) then your liver would convert it to glucose for brain-fuel (gluconeogenesis). Any carbs or fats you eat are called “protein-sparing” because your body prefers to breakdown macros in the most efficient order - carbs, fats, then proteins (high energy cost to metabolize).

TopSirloin[/quote]

It cannot function w/o available glucose. As you and I mentioned the body can obtain glucose from dietary sources other than carbs.

Fats are a poor source of glucose. That is why some people feel really sluggish on a low carb/high fat diet. The body does not have an adequate source of glucose.

88

the whole very low carb thing is right against Berardi’s work

how do you guys reconcile that, he even seems to have Dave Tate on a low fat diet…

89

[quote]legend wrote:
the whole very low carb thing is right against Berardi’s work

how do you guys reconcile that, he even seems to have Dave Tate on a low fat diet…

[/quote]

not really, Berardi does suggests higher carbs when mass, but when cutting like any other nutrition coach he recommends cutting carbs. This is the appraoch he used with Tate, and then when he got moderately lean he put him on a diet, strikingly similiar to the AD to get shredded where he ate a lot of fat.

90

[quote]legend wrote:
the whole very low carb thing is right against Berardi’s work

how do you guys reconcile that, he even seems to have Dave Tate on a low fat diet…

[/quote]

What?! Berardi is the only one that we can listen to?

91

[quote]YoungGunner wrote:
legend wrote:
the whole very low carb thing is right against Berardi’s work

how do you guys reconcile that, he even seems to have Dave Tate on a low fat diet…

not really, Berardi does suggests higher carbs when mass, but when cutting like any other nutrition coach he recommends cutting carbs. This is the appraoch he used with Tate, and then when he got moderately lean he put him on a diet, strikingly similiar to the AD to get shredded where he ate a lot of fat.[/quote]

I recently read on Dave Tate’s site that he is eating a higher carb diet because he wants to use carbs for fuel, not protein. He did not mention anything like the AD in what I read.

92

[quote]Nitrox wrote:
TopSirloin wrote:

Yes, it can function w/o glucose. If you only ate protein however (or mostly) then your liver would convert it to glucose for brain-fuel (gluconeogenesis). Any carbs or fats you eat are called “protein-sparing” because your body prefers to breakdown macros in the most efficient order - carbs, fats, then proteins (high energy cost to metabolize).

TopSirloin

It cannot function w/o available glucose. As you and I mentioned the body can obtain glucose from dietary sources other than carbs.

Fats are a poor source of glucose. That is why some people feel really sluggish on a low carb/high fat diet. The body does not have an adequate source of glucose.

[/quote]

We are both right/wrong - the brain can mostly function on ketones, but not entirely. It will have to turn to gluconeogenesis (protein converted to glucose by the liver) or for 30% of it’s energy needs after 40 days of carbohydrate restriction.

From wikipedia
Ketone bodies can also be used for energy. Ketone bodies are transported from the liver to other tissues, where acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate can be reconverted to acetyl-CoA to produce energy… The brain gets its energy from ketone bodies when insufficient glucose is available (e.g. when fasting). In the event of low blood glucose, most other tissues have additional energy sources besides ketone bodies (such as fatty acids) but the brain does not. After the diet has been changed to lower blood glucose for 3 days, the brain gets 30% of its energy from ketone bodies. After 40 days, this goes up to 70% (during the initial stages the brain does not burn ketones, since they are an important substrate for lipid synthesis in the brain). The brain retains some need for glucose, because ketone bodies can be broken down for energy only in the mitochondria, and brain cells’ long thin axons are too far from mitochondria.

Either way, still, there is absolutely ZERO dietary NEED for carbs in most people. As long as a sufficient number of enzymes can be produced, the body can live completely from dietary fat and protein. Not everyone will function optimally on a VLCD - some are “carb types” and their biochem is suited for carbohydrate metabolism for optimal health. That said, most people won’t know if they are a “carb type” or not until several weeks/months of low carb-type eating because it takes time for the body to adapt.

I’m a protein type and feel great when 90% of my carbs are veggies, but I only found this out through experimentation.

TopSirloin

93

Also this is quite interesting about ketones/ketosis:

From wikipedia
Generally, ketosis is well-regulated by the milieu of hormones governing the fasting and fed states, predominantly glucagon and insulin, and dieting (in an otherwise healthy person) is too mild to lead to acidosis. Before the recent abundant and sedentary lifestyles, it was probably normal for most humans to spend some of each year in ketosis, due to seasonal or temporary carbohydrate and/or calorie shortages. Unlike ketoacidosis, for most of human history, ketosis has been a normal condition and an essential capability.

TS

94

[quote]Nitrox wrote:
Carbs frequently get a bad rap because of the high insulin response required to metabolize them. Insulin response alone is not a good indicator of how ‘fattening’ a food will be. Total calories also have to be considered.
[/quote]

As to carbs getting a bad rap, you are correct, but rightly so. Generally, unless a person is extremely active, carbohydrates are generally over-consumed. Just like you said not all carbs are created equal, neither are calories. Meaning, I can take a client that was eating their maintenance level of cals, say 2000, yet they were steadily getting fat over time (albeit, slowly), and switch their macros (still 2000 cals) and have them start to lean out. (Yes, they increased their activity but they also increased calories due to PWO shakes.)

Why?

Because even though they were eating the proper cals for their body weight, they were brain-washed by the high-carb, low-fat BS that partially contributed to a Western disease epidemic (exactly what the pharm industry was going for, BTW). The client was eating just too many carbs, regardless of source or time of feeding. ALL excess carbs, even the 100% whole, sprouted, flourless, lower-GI carbs cause an excretion of insulin. Without constant physical activity (several hours per DAY, like an elite athlete) the glucose is ushered too quickly by insulin and therefore ends up as body fat. On average, the body can only use about a teaspoon of glucose at any given time, without resorting to glucose storage.

On the contrary, super-low GI P+F dominant meals cause very small amounts of insulin to secrete, due to low-carbs and super slow gastric emptying, which in turn means as energy is presented, energy is burned. There are exceptions to this rule (of course), plus there are many other factors involved here.

Bottom line is that most of us looking to be in top health and fitness (and certainly nearly all westerners) need to substantially reduce their TOTAL carbohydrate intake.

TopSirlon

95

You guys have to realize the direction Poliquin is taking when he comes up with his theories and rationale. He is an anthropologist, so he takes a deep look at why certain things are and figures it out from there. The beginning of this thread talked about carbs, and that you shouldnt be over 50 grams. I think Charles was thinking of the fat dieticians he was talking about when he said this.

Imagine this. You have a monkey in the jungle. This monkey’s day consists of waking up, walking 10 feet down the branch he slept on, eating two bananas, climbing up 20 feet, then walking 15 feet out that branch, sitting there for 5 hours, only getting up every hour to walk 5 feet. Then at the end of the 5 hours eating 4 more bananas. After he eats these bananas he walks 5 feet and doesnt move again for another 5 hours. It is now 5’oclock. The monkey climbs back down the 20 feet, walks 10 feet back down his branch, sits there for 1 hour, then eats 8 more bananas, 5 apples, 35 grapes, and 7 oranges and goes back to sleep.

This is the life of the people Charles is talking about. That wouldnt be a very healthy animal. Because carbs are for work.

96

Not dissing the AD (which I’m currently following), but new research is showing that some people respond better to higher carb/lower fat eating, while others do better on lower carb/higher fat. Lyle McDonald just wrote a pretty interesting article on this topic, which is going to be published in January - anyone can feel free to PM me for details.

97

[quote]Nitrox wrote:
<<<I would expect that someone who cut out carbs in the form of soda, candy bars, and gummi bears would lose fat and feel better.>>>
[/quote]

I cut out carbs in the form of potatoes, sweet potatoes, fruit and beans. I was already fairly lean, but haven’t gotten appreciably fatter and definitely feel much better. After full adaptation that is.

98

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
Not dissing the AD (which I’m currently following), but new research is showing that some people respond better to higher carb/lower fat eating, while others do better on lower carb/higher fat. Lyle McDonald just wrote a pretty interesting article on this topic, which is going to be published in January - anyone can feel free to PM me for details.[/quote]

DiPasquale in the AD book says that about 20%, I believe, of the training population doesn’t respond well.

99

Like others have alluded to, some people just suck at carbs.

Others, like myself, tolerate them pretty well and couldn’t get much done without them.

Take my roommate from Kenya for example. He was brought over here on a full scholarship to run. His diet consists of about 400-500 grams of carbs per day and about 50-75 grams of protein per day. He eats very little fat. Most of the carbs are grains, or corn. When training, he runs about 2 hard hours per day, sleeps about 5 hours per night, and literally studies the entire rest of the time.

Put someone like that on the Anabolic Diet and he’d probably die.

I realize that this probably isn’t the best example considering most people aren’t Kenyan runners and have no where near the energy demands, but hopefully it shows that we can’t make blanket statements about nutrition that would fit every single person.

John Berardi talks a lot about testing things, finding out what went wrong and what worked, and then coming up with a new plan. That’s probably the best bet with carbs too.

100

[quote]Jinx Me wrote:
Not dissing the AD (which I’m currently following), but new research is showing that some people respond better to higher carb/lower fat eating, while others do better on lower carb/higher fat. Lyle McDonald just wrote a pretty interesting article on this topic, which is going to be published in January - anyone can feel free to PM me for details.[/quote]

Yes, I can see this being the case, but only for 20-30% of the population. Dr. Mercola has re-popularized the Metabolic Typing Diet, in which you take a questionaire to find out (or educatedly guess) what “type” you are: protein type, carb type, or mix type. I think that is one of the best ways, rather than just assuming one way or the other the commencing random trial and error.

TS