# Low carb dieting (CKD) debate!



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 15, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> I don't want to hijack a new member's intro thread ThatFitGuy, but if you want to copy and paste what was said earlier, and start a new thread, we can have a friendly debate about the topic.
> 
> It could be fun, people could learn some things.
> 
> But... If you're going to go with that only 10% of vegetarians aren't overweight because the other 90% lost their insulin sensitivity and are overweight as a result, good luck sir!


CJ275, here's the new thread. I agree, this will be fun and informational for lots of folks.

So no, I'm not saying that the other 90% lost their insulin sensitivity. I'm saying they never had it to any great degree to begin with, like the rest of the population and that continued eating like that will lead lots of people to type 2 diabetes. Frankly, I'd imagine that they were already on their way there. Anyone who was lean as an omnivore should also be relatively lean as a vegetarian/vegan. If they could process carbs well before, then they will probably process them well without meat in the diet, as well. They just look like death warmed over because of the lack of animal protein and fats in their diets. No muscle, because the body is scavenging every last bit of protein on them, bad teeth and hair, amenorrhea in women. All sorts of bad health effects from it.

But, how many of you know someone fat, who went vegetarian/vegan, then became really lean? I'm talking <10% for men, <15% for women? I sure don't know of any.



I'mThatFitGuy said:


> Hello and welcome.
> 
> So, I read your into. Have you ever considered eating low carbs? I think that might be the answer for you, as far as the excess fat on your body. You can either use it as a "diet" to get to your goal weight while you workout and get fit (you don't want to be leaner and look soft, do you?) or adopt it as a way of eating, as I have.
> 
> ...





CJ275 said:


> So based upon this post, all vegans/vegetarians must be some fat fukks, since they get a huge percentage of their calories from carbohydrate.
> 
> Maybe there is something to that whole Cals in vs Cals out thing after all.
> 
> Hmmmmm....





I'mThatFitGuy said:


> I don't know how many calories most vegans/vegetarians eat, but the one's I know are still fat. I know you see these really skinny people on IG and stuff, but I think they're the exception. The 10% who have good insulin sensitivity. My younger brother is 53 and still has a body like Bruce Lee. He eats anything he wants to. But, they are not the norm in the population.
> 
> I guess based on your premise, the only way to get leaner is to have a calorie deficit based on calories taken in. I KNOW that's not the case, at least for me and people I've worked with. Calories in vs. calories out is too simplistic a view. Also, is "burning" them out the only way to get rid of calories? No, I don't think so. I would say "processing" them is more accurate. "Calories out" implies that all calories, regardless of type, are used the same way by the body, as some sort of energy. I don't believe that to be the case. Is a protein calorie used the same way as a carb calorie or a fat calorie? Not in my opinion. It's the same logic that says if you don't eat fat, you won't get fat. Creating a calorie deficit WILL allow a person to lose weight. But, how much? The body will step in at some point, slow down your metabolism and the weight loss stops. Also, is it all fat? We know that's not the case. Look at how much muscle a BB loses cutting for a show. The body will scavenge protein, as well as use fat, to make up the deficit. Also, it's not sustainable. Not eating is harder than almost anything else because it's a survival mechanism. I remember being on 1400 calories a day back in the mid '90's trying to cut and it sucked! I remember working out and not even being able to get a pump. And, once you up calories again, you'll eventually start putting on fat.
> 
> ...



So, does anyone else here have long term experience eating low carbs? Please weigh in! Or if you don't and have questions...ask away!!


----------



## snake (Jan 15, 2020)

Like anything else in life, it all comes down to sustainability. Low or high anything is difficult for 90% of us. Low fats is easy for me during a cut and if I had to do it for health reasons, I could. Even low protein would fall into the same effort but no/low carbs, that would be very hard for me.


----------



## CJ (Jan 15, 2020)

Ok, let's start out with a high and tight fastball...

Your quote... "I guess based on your premise, the only way to get leaner is to have a calorie deficit based on calories taken in. I KNOW that's not the case, at least for me and people I've worked with. Calories in vs. calories out is too simplistic a view."

Ok, so you're a low carb advocate, which is fine, i believe that's a perfectly acceptable way of dropping weight provided the calories you consume in less than the calories your body uses over time. You say that carbohydrate and the insulin release they cause are to blame for bodyfat storage.

Back to your quote... What would happen if one was to eat 10,000 calories of butter in a day? No carbs were eaten, so no insulin, so no fat gain? Do you think that would result in someone losing bodyfat? 

Point #2. 
Carbohydrate has to be converted to fat by the body before it can be stored as fat. But the dietary fat you eat IS ALREADY fat, no conversion necessary. Do you think the body would choose the harder of the two ways, that it'll burn dietary fat, but turn carbohydrate into fat to be stored as fat?


----------



## CJ (Jan 15, 2020)

And for the record, I'm neither high carb nor low carb, high fat nor low fat. I have no allegiances to any group.

My stance is to eat at a calorie level thst supports either weight gain, weight loss, or weight maintenance. Eat enough protein to supports body processes and lean tissue, enough carbs to support activity level, and enough fats to hit the minimum body needs. Fill in the remaining calories with whichever macro supports you lifestyle/goals. Most food should be whole foods, not processed junk, as close to as it can be found in nature as possible.

This pertains to the general population, not specific groups on the fringes.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 15, 2020)

snake said:


> Like anything else in life, it all comes down to sustainability. Low or high anything is difficult for 90% of us. Low fats is easy for me during a cut and if I had to do it for health reasons, I could. Even low protein would fall into the same effort but no/low carbs, that would be very hard for me.


That's the first thing all my clients used to say, "It's gonna be sooo hard to give up ______"! Yes, if you're on carbs, your body will continue to crave them. Stay off a week where it's no longer physiological. Your body stops craving the carbs because it's being fed so well by fat. Then, it becomes purely psychological, but for you disciplined guys, it's a breeze. And, you look forward to the carb up days. In the beginning, it's like the goal. Be good all week so I can carb up. But, after a while, it becomes a deterrent to carbing up because the carbs make you feel so bad. Once you're off them for a while, you can really feel what they do to you. My clients would want to stop carbing up after a few weeks, but it's essential for tricking the body and not slowing the fat loss.


----------



## CJ (Jan 15, 2020)

If carbohydrate/glucose is so bad for you, why does the body create it when necessary via gluconeogenesis? Your brain LOVES glucose, and yes the body will create ketones if there's a lack of food available, but isn't that more of a survival mechanism so our species would survive many years ago, when famine/starvation was a real possibility? 

Surviving is different from thriving.


----------



## Beserker (Jan 15, 2020)

For my body type, I do best eating like a carnivore.  6 days less than 50g/day post workout, then 2-300gs on 7th.  Everyone is going to vary though.


----------



## Straight30weight (Jan 15, 2020)

Ran ckd in the past. Did I lose fat? Yup. Was I strong? Nope. Not even a little bit. Energy levels were eh, fatigued very easily. 

Nowadays I can’t go without carbs anyway. My sugar drops and I get very dizzy and nauseous. Headaches. No thanks.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 15, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> If carbohydrate/glucose is so bad for you, why does the body create it when necessary via gluconeogenesis? Your brain LOVES glucose.


OMG! I just lost an hour plus of answering your first questions. Is it me or does the site jump to different pages when just typing? I'll have to recompose those answers for you.

To answer the gluconeogenesis question. Yes, the body will convert protein to energy, if necessary. But, that doesn't mean it's a preferred energy system for the body. The body is so smart and complex. We have systems in place to help us survive. So, it'll TRY to convert anything we eat to energy. Part of why BB's lose so much muscle when eating a calorie deficit, no matter how much protein you eat. And, I've read that the brain loves ketones and myself and anyone that I've helped with dieting say they feel like a fog has lifted once they are in ketosis.

 Here's the opposite of your 10,000 calories of butter question. If I'm very insulin insensitive, what would happen if I ate just 2000 calories of carbs a day for a few months. I say you'd eventually starve to death if you're so insensitive that you can't convert half of those calories into energy. And, I don't think you'd die lean, either.



CJ275 said:


> and yes the body will create ketones if there's a lack of food available, but isn't that more of a survival mechanism so our species would survive many years ago, when famine/starvation was a real possibility?
> 
> Surviving is different from thriving.


So, this is the main reason that I think that high fat, high protein, low carbs is how we should be eating. I actually think that the carb pathway for energy is the secondary system. Here's why.

Think of early man. Living in a cold climate. Maybe like Eskimos. They weren't eating carbs. They, like carnivorous animals, ate other animals. Pretty hard to grow crops in a climate like that. But, they don't eat their meat like us. We eat the lean muscle. What do animals eat of their prey? The organs, typically. Higher fat content, more stored energy. Important, because food is scarce for them. Same with humans in cold climates. They eat meat and they eat and use ALL the fat from these animals. And, they do more than survive. The Eskimos chew something called Muktuk. It's whale blubber. That's how much fat is a part of their diet. Even in temperate climates, the growing season might be only a few months long. It's freezing here in the DC area right now. Pretty tough to grow crops. With no refrigeration, what did early man eat in the fall and winter? You guessed it. Protein and fat. There's no wheat or corn. Those are domesticated grains. I don't even think corn is for human consumption! That's why it's gotta be treated with lye to unlock the nutrients for us! Root veggies aren't like ours now. Much smaller and less sugar content. There just weren't the amount of carbs available for consumption the way there are now. 

So, let me pose the question to you. Would it make sense for a primary energy system based on consuming carbs to develop in early humans that would only serve a small portion of the population (that lived where fruits and veggies could be grown or gathered year round) vs. an energy system that served a greater number of early humans for the majority of the year (temperate climates) or for their entire lives (cold climates)?


----------



## CJ (Jan 15, 2020)

Quote by you.... "Here's the opposite of your 10,000 calories of butter question. If I'm very insulin insensitive, what would happen if I ate just 2000 calories of carbs a day for a few months. I say you'd eventually starve to death if you're so insensitive that you can't convert half of those calories into energy. And, I don't think you'd die lean, either."

Response: But you said earlier that carb consumption and the subsequent insulin response is what makes people fat. Now you're saying that they'll starve to death. Which is it? 

But to directly answer your question, they would lose body weight in their calorie consumption was less than expenditure, gain weight if it were less, and maintain if it were equal. One of the laws of Thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just turned from one forn to another. 



QUOTE by you..."Think of early man. Living in a cold climate. Maybe like Eskimos. They weren't eating carbs. They, like carnivorous animals, ate other animals. Pretty hard to grow crops in a climate like that. But, they don't eat their meat like us. We eat the lean muscle. What do animals eat of their prey? The organs, typically. Higher fat content, more stored energy. Important, because food is scarce for them. Same with humans in cold climates. They eat meat and they eat and use ALL the fat from these animals. And, they do more than survive. The Eskimos chew something called Muktuk. It's whale blubber. That's how much fat is a part of their diet. Even in temperate climates, the growing season might be only a few months long. It's freezing here in the DC area right now. Pretty tough to grow crops. With no refrigeration, what did early man eat in the fall and winter? You guessed it. Protein and fat"

Response: What about early ancestors who DIDN'T live in cold climates, that lived more toward the equator with plentiful vegetation for food year round. Where they fat? I don't think so. You're leaving out a giant portion of the world's population to fit your narrative. 

We can survive on any type of diet, our species is resilient. But for you to say that carbohydrate and insulin is to blame for obesity is just false. 

And I highly disagree with you that fat OR carbohydrate is the "primary" energy system. Ideally the body will move between the two on a spectrum, depending upon what activity is happening. That's called metabolic flexibility. If I'm running ftom a tiger who's about to maul me, you damn well better hope your body has the flexibility to burn some glycogen for fast fuel or else you're dead. Conversely, if you're out walking all day, you want the nice slower burning fat as the primary fuel source. You don't want to be glycogen dependant there either. 

A question for you, since protein also causes a subsequent insulin release, then why do you not restrict those as you do carbohydrate?

And I'm still curious as to what you believe will happen if one were to continually overeat fats, like in my 10,000 Cals of butter question, if you can't store bodyfat in the absence of insulin? Eagerly awaiting the response to this.


----------



## metsfan4life (Jan 15, 2020)

ok I have a question i saw from the beginning - you said diabetes is not a disease and is solely just a natural state? Coming from a type 1 diabetic, you're telling me that my body is just in a natural state and has nothing to do with the fact that it cant create its own insulin?  I personally run a lower carb intake for different reasons, however I can tell you right now that not each body is going to react in the same method that you have described. The carb intake to make the body feel full before a show, muscle size, etc.... I can tell you that I have always (even before T1D) felt no difference regardless if I am eating minimal carbs, 50 carbs, 200 carbs or 400 carbs.. energy is 100% the same, I do not feel that sense of glycogen replenishment, etc. 

Probably off topic in a way but the fact that I read that diabetes is just a natural state, i have to say is incorrect.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 15, 2020)

metsfan4life said:


> you said diabetes is not a disease and is solely just a natural state? Coming from a type 1 diabetic, you're telling me that my body is just in a natural state and has nothing to do with the fact that it cant create its own insulin?



Ok, let me rephrase/elaborate. Type 2 diabetes is the result of a person's natural state of being insulin insensitive, which is then aggravated by eating carbohydrates for long periods of time, to the point that we call it diabetes. It's not like a predisposition. I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Then, as it gets worse, medicine has determined an arbitrary threshold for doctors to call it "pre-diabeties", which, for the vast majority, eventually turns into full blown diabetes. The condition doesn't develop from nothing, like say cancer. It's more like you're born with it and it just progresses based on diet.

Insulin insensitivity is a natural state. As I said before, in people...some more, some less. Type 2 diabetes is the result of bombarding these resistant receptors for years to the point where the receptors shut down. Then, people are given drugs to up regulate receptors (metformin) and are put on a low fat diet. But, they don't get better. They get progressively worse and eventually insulin production shuts down for lots of them. I think that's what the A1C levels are about for type 2 diabetics. Type 1 is a different condition, in that respect. But, the end result is essentially the same...the inability to deal with carbs in the diet without medication. If you know the story of the Atkin's diet, Dr. Atkins treated diabetics. He created the diet so he could take his patients OFF of insulin completely. The fat loss was a byproduct.


----------



## CJ (Jan 15, 2020)

These are some bold statements by you, do you have anything to back up these claims?..... "I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Insulin insensitivity is a natural state."

Also would still like to know what you think happens if one were to grossly overconsume dietary fats.


----------



## metsfan4life (Jan 16, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> Ok, let me rephrase/elaborate. Type 2 diabetes is the result of a person's natural state of being insulin insensitive, which is then aggravated by eating carbohydrates for long periods of time, to the point that we call it diabetes. It's not like a predisposition. I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Then, as it gets worse, medicine has determined an arbitrary threshold for doctors to call it "pre-diabeties", which, for the vast majority, eventually turns into full blown diabetes. The condition doesn't develop from nothing, like say cancer. It's more like you're born with it and it just progresses based on diet.
> 
> Insulin insensitivity is a natural state. As I said before, in people...some more, some less. Type 2 diabetes is the result of bombarding these resistant receptors for years to the point where the receptors shut down. Then, people are given drugs to up regulate receptors (metformin) and are put on a low fat diet. But, they don't get better. They get progressively worse and eventually insulin production shuts down for lots of them. I think that's what the A1C levels are about for type 2 diabetics. Type 1 is a different condition, in that respect. But, the end result is essentially the same...the inability to deal with carbs in the diet without medication. If you know the story of the Atkin's diet, Dr. Atkins treated diabetics. He created the diet so he could take his patients OFF of insulin completely. The fat loss was a byproduct.



ok, thanks for clarifying b/c i saw that and had to comment. I can tell you that my type 1 has nothing to do with my diet or family nature, not a single person other than me on any side has any diabetes. 

As for people that are Type 2 and being put on Metformin...pretty much as you put it is the reason for it. However, I know several of people that started Met and a few months down the road, off all concerns. Many reasons for T2D but generally speaking, yes diet is a big concern for obvious reasons. I think you have some points in line with diabetes but I cant agree with all of these. I dont think everyone is born pre-diabetic b/y saying everyone is insulin resistant to a certain point...that argument could be said with just about anything out there as everyone is going to be, to some degree, resistant to a lot of different scenarios medically.


----------



## metsfan4life (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> These are some bold statements by you, do you have anything to back up these claims?..... "I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Insulin insensitivity is a natural state."
> 
> Also would still like to know what you think happens if one were to grossly overconsume dietary fats.



agree 100%.


----------



## transcend2007 (Jan 16, 2020)

This reminds me of the vegetarian converts .. my new way is the best way .. which there is now science to back up vegan lifestyle is no healthier ... same with low carb ... intermittent fasting .. basically you are are selling something ...

You look at Pro bodybuilders or Pro athletes at any very high level and the great majority are eating a health - well balanced diet low in sugar but not low carbs overall ...

Again if it works for you and allows you a successful business .. great .. but overall as snake said sustainability trumps everything ... doing something for a year or 5 years is great ... what about doing it for 80 years which is what a healthy lifestyle in all about .... I don't need the latest fad ... I'll take a sensible higher protein diet similar to the Zone for life.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Also curious as to your thoughts on active people, who need large amounts of carbohydrate to support highly glycolytic exercise. Are they insulin resistant too and on their way to obesity and/or type 2 diabetes, or is their insulin sensitivity actually high because their body is using the carbohydrate efficiently for fuel?


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Quick article outlining a meta analysis of calorie and protein equated, high carb low fat vs low carb high fat diets... 

https://www.stephanguyenet.com/meta...ories-on-energy-expenditure-and-body-fatness/

And a link to the actual study for a deeper dive... 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/

Quote from the study.. "These results are in the opposite direction to the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model, but the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless. In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

Ok, tried to get everything in one shot to keep things going.



CJ275 said:


> Ok, let's start out with a high and tight fastball...


Ok!! Love this quote.



CJ275 said:


> What would happen if one was to eat 10,000 calories of butter in a day? No carbs were eaten, so no insulin, so no fat gain? Do you think that would result in someone losing bodyfat?


So, I’m going to answer this in a roundabout way, but work with me. And, I’m going to say that this person is eating this 10,000 of butter while in ketosis. I don’t know all the specifics of the physiology, but I know that the body handles those fat calories differently if you’re burning primarily sugar instead of fat.

So, over time, I’ve concluded that body fat loss, while in ketosis, happens primarily/only when the body needs fuel and there are no ingested fats available to satisfy this need. (I’m hesitant to say only because I don’t care to know the minute details of all the physiology. There may be other circumstances where the body is burning body fat) The body then appropriates body fat and provides for the body’s energy needs at that moment. So, on 10,000 calories of butter (fat) per day, can you get into that state where there aren’t any ingested fats available? IDK. How fast can a body digest that much butter eaten in one meal, in the morning, process it into ketones bodies, use what’s needed in that time period, excrete some of those calories (we haven’t gotten to this part yet. It’ll make more sense with more explanation, but you excrete unused ketone bodies. Basically piss out fat) and have energy needs that the butter can’t provide for? Theoretically, I think maybe there could be fat loss, but I don’t know in practice. And if so, it would be very slow. But, at lower calorie levels, maybe 3000 to 5000 calories per day, yeah there could/would be some fat loss. Now, we’re talking about one day, so tough to measure. Take out the fact that no protein would be really bad, if you did say 4000 calories of fat per day for a month, there would be fat loss. As I said before, without insulin in the mix, it’s really hard to gain body fat and I'm confident that body fat would have to be appropriated at certain times.



CJ275 said:


> Point #2.
> Carbohydrate has to be converted to fat by the body before it can be stored as fat. But the dietary fat you eat IS ALREADY fat, no conversion necessary. Do you think the body would choose the harder of the two ways, that it'll burn dietary fat, but turn carbohydrate into fat to be stored as fat?


So, its not a matter of taking the harder path to store the carbs as fat. It’s based on a limitation of the body's ability to utilize the carbs as energy based on insulin’s limited action on the receptors due to their insensitivity. Assuming you’re not in ketosis before eating a meal, here’s what I believe takes place.

You eat a meal of carbs and fat, say a half dozen donuts (I know ALL of you have done this!! LMAO) I’m joking. It could be any carb and any fat. Carbs come out of the stomach first and spike your glucose. Body releases insulin to clear glucose from the blood. Insulin sweeps water and glucose (I read 3/1 in someone’s post) into ALL your muscle cells (think organs, too, like your heart) to the extent that your sensitivity allows insulin to act. There, it eventually gets converted into ATP to provide the cell energy. Very simplified, but I believe accurate. Then, some gets stored in the liver. The rest of the glucose, if any, will be converted to fat.

Fat comes out slower and will eventually be broken down into fatty acids. Essential fatty acids are used for all sorts of things in the body, so some will be allocated for those processes. The rest will be stored as fat.

Then, with your glucose levels low again after it’s all been swept out, you get sleepy, then hungry again. So, we eat another meal. The lower your insulin sensitivity, the more of the carbs you store as fat and the sooner you’re hungry again. Most people have no self control and eat LOTS of carbs. Do this for 30 years and then the receptors start to give up, for a pretty big portion of the population. I think I read there are 30+ million diagnosed diabetics. IDK the percentage of type 1’s, but I bet type 2’s dwarf them. In my opinion, there are reasons that sugar and flour are some of the cheapest things in the grocery store. And none of them are good!



CJ275 said:


> Your quote..."Here's the opposite of your 10,000 calories of butter question. If I'm very insulin insensitive, what would happen if I ate just 2000 calories of carbs a day for a few months. I say you'd eventually starve to death if you're so insensitive that you can't convert half of those calories into energy. And, I don't think you'd die lean, either."
> 
> Response: But you said earlier that carb consumption and the subsequent insulin response is what makes people fat. Now you're saying that they'll starve to death. Which is it?


So, you may be able to figure out my answer from what I’ve previously written. Keep in mind, I’m saying an insulin insensitive person. Also, I said die of starvation, not hunger. You can eat and still “starve” over time if you don’t have certain nutrients in the diet. Think essential aminos. Let’s take out the body’s protein requirement over the time period to simplify the example. Here’s what I think would happen.

Carbs come out of the stomach and spike glucose. Body releases insulin to clear glucose from the blood. Let’s say that I’m so insensitive that I can only utilize 500 of those calories for energy. Some to the liver, the rest gets stored as fat. I mean, that’s basically what we’re talking about with insulin sensitivity, how well does your body utilize glucose for energy vs. storing it as fat. So, on 2000 calories of carbs per day, not taking protein scavenging into account, I’m sure there would be some fat utilized for energy in certain circumstances, but the trend would be towards fat accumulation. At least until the stress of the starvation on the body starts to require more calories to deal with it. Then, I think maybe more fat would be utilized to make up for the deficit, changing the trend. And your metabolism would slow to conserve energy and your body would go into emergency survival mode due to the energy deficit you're experiencing. But, eventually you’d die. And I’d think you’d die before all the fat would be utilized if you're still being force fed the 2000 calories as you near your end, but I couldn’t say that with absolute certainty. Like I think you said in an earlier post, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. But, you also say that fat storage is based ONLY on calories consumed vs. calories utilized. So, if my body is physiologically limited in its ability to use carbs for energy, and all I eat is carbs, what do you think will happen with any carbs that I can't utilize for energy? Maybe converted to a different form of energy...like fat?



CJ275 said:


> QUOTE by you..."Think of early man. Living in a cold climate. Maybe like Eskimos. They weren't eating carbs. They, like carnivorous animals, ate other animals. Pretty hard to grow crops in a climate like that. But, they don't eat their meat like us. We eat the lean muscle. What do animals eat of their prey? The organs, typically. Higher fat content, more stored energy. Important, because food is scarce for them. Same with humans in cold climates. They eat meat and they eat and use ALL the fat from these animals. And, they do more than survive. The Eskimos chew something called Muktuk. It's whale blubber. That's how much fat is a part of their diet. Even in temperate climates, the growing season might be only a few months long. It's freezing here in the DC area right now. Pretty tough to grow crops. With no refrigeration, what did early man eat in the fall and winter? You guessed it. Protein and fat"
> 
> Response: What about early ancestors who DIDN'T live in cold climates, that lived more toward the equator with plentiful vegetation for food year round. Where they fat? I don't think so. You're leaving out a giant portion of the world's population to fit your narrative.


So, first…while there were early humans in tropical or other climates where vegetation was available year 'roud, would you say that it was more than ALL other early humans living in temperate or colder climates. Maybe very early man, but homo sapiens left Africa 90,000 years ago. Eventually they were everywhere. And although there have been examples of differences in evolution due to regional pressures (think how some cultures aren’t lactose intolerant), I doubt highly that homo sapiens that left Africa were physiologically different from homo sapiens who eventually ended up in Alaska, or even us now. Both energy systems were there from the beginning. Perhaps, very early man was very insulin sensitive, which was lost as populations left those areas and faced harsher climates. Think about this…if food and shelter are limited, the LAST thing you want is to be very insulin sensitive and not be able to store fat. You’d be more likely to die off. Perhaps, this was part of the mechanism that lowered insulin sensitivity in the population, over time. But, these days, it’s by far the norm. Just look how prevalent Type 2 is. And, I think the number is way low because the bar for a diagnosis is so high. It's already 10+% of the population. And the latest commercials that I'm hearing are saying 1 in 3 people are "pre-diabetic". Nothing pre about it. I say 90+% eventually become full blown.

So, first…while there were early humans in tropical or other climates where vegetation was available year round, would you say that there were more there than ALL other early humans living in temperate or colder climates. Maybe very early man, but homo sapiens left Africa 90,000 years ago. Eventually they were everywhere. And although there have been examples of differences in evolution due to regional pressures (think how some cultures aren’t lactose intolerant), I doubt highly that homo sapiens that left Africa were physiologically different from homo sapiens who ended up in Alaska. Both energy systems were there from the beginning. Perhaps, very early man was very insulin sensitive, but this was lost as populations left those areas and faced harsher climates. Think about this…if food and shelter are limited, the LAST thing you want is to be very insulin sensitive and not be able to store fat. You’d be more likely to die off. Perhaps, this was part of the mechanism that lower insulin sensitivity in the population, over time. More of them die that the insulin resistant ones, so they don't reproduce, those traits aren't passed on. But, these days, being insulin resistant is by far the norm. Look how many people are fat! 



CJ275 said:


> We can survive on any type of diet, our species is resilient. But for you to say that carbohydrate and insulin is to blame for obesity is just false.


Yes, we can SURVIVE, for a time, on any diet. How long is determined by how well an individual can deal with the particular diet. Given a certain diet, some will do better than others. But, as you said earlier, I don't want to survive, I want to thrive. I believe a large part of our population is merely surviving on the diet we're told to eat, which is primarily grain based. Lots of flour, lots of HFCS. But, I completely disagree with your second statement. We just have different ideas about what's happening in the body.



CJ275 said:


> And I highly disagree with you that fat OR carbohydrate is the "primary" energy system. Ideally the body will move between the two on a spectrum, depending upon what activity is happening. That's called metabolic flexibility. If I'm running ftom a tiger who's about to maul me, you damn well better hope your body has the flexibility to burn some glycogen for fast fuel or else you're dead. Conversely, if you're out walking all day, you want the nice slower burning fat as the primary fuel source. You don't want to be glycogen dependant there either.


While I do agree that some fat can be utilized for energy while not in ketosis, I don’t believe our bodies are like a hybrid car that can switch completely from gas to electric at a moments notice. I believe you’re either burning primarily sugar or fat. Have you ever "bonked"? No, not that kind of bonking. If you're not familiar with the term, it's when you run out of glucose in the middle of a long distance event or workout of some sort, running, biking. I did short course triathlons in the mid '80's. Bonked a few times in training. No fun at all. Once, I could barely ride my bike back to the car to scrounge up enough change from the floor to buy a candy bar at the store where I'd parked! If we could switch back and forth as you seem to imply, bonking would never happen. Everyone's got some body fat.

Some glucose is also utilized when in ketosis, but that’s not what the body is looking for first for energy. It’s looking for fat to burn first. And when on carbs, fat isn’t the first choice. If you have carbs available, your body’s burning primarily sugar, even on that long walk. I've read numerous times that the idea that there's a fat burning zone for your heart rate and it's 60-70% of your "max heart rate" (more BS!!) is a bunch of crap. I used to work in gyms in the mid '90's part-time, so I used to believe all this shit, too. It's simpler than that. The harder you work, the more calories you burn. But, if you're on carbs, you're burning primarily sugar and if you're in ketosis, you're burning primarily fat. The body has to be pressed into burning fat when burning sugar. In ketosis, you’re burning fat 24/7.



CJ275 said:


> A question for you, since protein also causes a subsequent insulin release, then why do you not restrict those as you do carbohydrate?


Actually, because of gluconeogenesis, protein can be an issue, but I’ve rarely experience it. Eat too much and you get kicked out of ketosis. So, low carb diet is somewhat of a misnomer. It’s really a high fat, high protein, low carb diet. So, if you eat enough protein without enough fat, you can get kicked out for a few hours. But, it’s really hard to do it.

So, I’ve done pre and post-meal blood tests. My normal glucose level is like 80-90 whatever units Lol But, if I eat even a very keto, high fat meal, I’ll get a spike to 100-110. Blood ketones levels thru the roof. I found the rise in glucose very interesting. One of my former clients runs diabetic clinics for one of the hospital chains in Baltimore. She experienced the same thing.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

transcend2007 said:


> This reminds me of the vegetarian converts .. my new way is the best way .. which there is now science to back up vegan lifestyle is no healthier ... same with low carb ... intermittent fasting .. basically you are are selling something ...
> 
> You look at Pro bodybuilders or Pro athletes at any very high level and the great majority are eating a health - well balanced diet low in sugar but not low carbs overall ...
> 
> Again if it works for you and allows you a successful business .. great .. but overall as snake said sustainability trumps everything ... doing something for a year or 5 years is great ... what about doing it for 80 years which is what a healthy lifestyle in all about .... I don't need the latest fad ... I'll take a sensible higher protein diet similar to the Zone for life.


Hardly the case. And I've been doing low carbs for almost 20 years. You didn't read my posts. Read ALL of my posts, in all the sections, then comment. Hard to make intelligent comments if you come into the conversation at the end. Actually, CJ275 invited me to debate him on the topic. I USED to diet coach. I still help friends who ask me to guide them. I offer help to people who've been fat all their lives and have no idea what to do because they've tried what their trainers told them to do AND NOTHING HAPPENED. So, they blame themselves, not the trainer and the info they got. I could give a shit about what you all do as far as diet. I just like helping fat people lose weight cuz it's not always their fault. They've just been lied to about how to eat.

And you mention elite athletes. I know for a fact that Ben Rothlesburger went keto. That's how he dropped so much weight. As with elite BB's, the vast majority of elite athletes also have elite genetics, including insulin sensitivity. However, this showed up first in a Google search of "keto atheletes".

*LeBron James* lost weight on the *keto diet*.
The *keto*-style *diet* helped the NBA superstar lose a " ton of weight" in 2014. The *keto diet* can be a great way to get in shape, but should always be done under the supervision of a medical professional.Jul 16, 2018


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Also curious as to your thoughts on active people, who need large amounts of carbohydrate to support highly glycolytic exercise. Are they insulin resistant too and on their way to obesity and/or type 2 diabetes, or is their insulin sensitivity actually high because their body is using the carbohydrate efficiently for fuel?


Yes, while very active people can delay the onset of type 2 due to their high levels of activity, it doesn't seem to prevent anything. Read about Dr. Timothy Nokes and his and his dad's history with type 2. Nokes is an ultramarathoner, but still developed type 2, then went keto because he read an article by peers that he highly respected. A quote from one of his articles that I read once, "I learned more about human physiology in my first year of being keto than in 40 years of being an MD."


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Quick article outlining a meta analysis of calorie and protein equated, high carb low fat vs low carb high fat diets...
> 
> https://www.stephanguyenet.com/meta...ories-on-energy-expenditure-and-body-fatness/
> 
> ...


So, I read thru the article and part of the abstract. Nowhere did I see any macro breakdown. What I talk about is low carbs where the body reaches a state of ketosis. Otherwise, subbing fat for carbs is almost meaningless. Then, a calorie basically is a calorie.

I also read this in the abstract.

Obesity is often described as a disorder of energy balance arising from consuming calories in excess to the energy expended to maintain life and perform physical work. While this energy balance concept is a useful framework for investigating obesity, it does not provide a causal explanation for why some people have obesity or what to do about it.

In particular, obesity prevention is often erroneously portrayed as a simple matter of bookkeeping whereby calorie intake must be balanced by calorie expenditure.[SUP]1[/SUP] Under this “calories in, calories out” model, treating obesity amounts to advising people to simply eat less and move more, thereby tipping the scales of calorie balance and resulting in steady weight loss that accumulates according to the widely known, but erroneous, 3500 kcal per pound rule.[SUP]2,3[/SUP] Therefore, failure to experience substantial weight loss implies that an individual lacks the willpower to adhere to a modest lifestyle intervention over a sufficient period of time.

However, this naïve view is incorrect because it considers energy intake and expenditure to be independent parameters that can be adjusted at will and thereafter remain static without being influenced by homeostatic signals related to weight loss.[SUP]3[/SUP] We now understand that energy intake and expenditure are interdependent variables that are dynamically influenced by each other and body weight.[SUP]4[/SUP] Attempts to alter energy balance through diet or exercise are countered by physiological adaptations that resist weight loss.[SUP]5[/SUP]


----------



## Jin (Jan 16, 2020)

I have a reminder set for this weekend and 2 hours set aside. Once I actually read this thread maybe I can contribute something.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

transcend2007 said:


> This reminds me of the vegetarian converts .. my new way is the best way .. which there is now science to back up vegan lifestyle is no healthier ... same with low carb ... intermittent fasting .. basically you are are selling something ...
> 
> You look at Pro bodybuilders or Pro athletes at any very high level and the great majority are eating a health - well balanced diet low in sugar but not low carbs overall ...
> 
> Again if it works for you and allows you a successful business .. great .. but overall as snake said sustainability trumps everything ... doing something for a year or 5 years is great ... what about doing it for 80 years which is what a healthy lifestyle in all about .... I don't need the latest fad ... I'll take a sensible higher protein diet similar to the Zone for life.


In fact, if people are just going to be assholes because of the thread because it threatens their belief system and they can't be that open minded about anything that does, just delete it and I'll end the discussion now. I'm doing this to spread, what I believe to be, very good information. If you're not interested, but still wanna feed me shit about it, then You're the one with the issue. And, I don't need your shit.



transcend2007 said:


> You look at Pro bodybuilders or Pro athletes at any very high level and the great majority are eating a health - well balanced diet low in sugar but not low carbs overall ...
> 
> Again if it works for you and allows you a successful business .. great .. but overall as snake said sustainability trumps everything ... doing something for a year or 5 years is great ... what about doing it for 80 years which is what a healthy lifestyle in all about .... I don't need the latest fad ... I'll take a sensible higher protein diet similar to the Zone for life.


IDK, but from where I'm sitting, it's you who thinks you know the best way. As I said in a post you obviously didn't read, "Look, I'm not trying to convert anyone. You do you, I'll do me." You can do whatever you want to.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

metsfan4life said:


> I dont think everyone is born pre-diabetic b/y saying everyone is insulin resistant to a certain point...that argument could be said with just about anything out there as everyone is going to be, to some degree, resistant to a lot of different scenarios medically.


I say that because I think everyone sits at some level of insulin sensitivity, high, low, in between. I shouldn't have said EVERYONE is pre-daibetic, because there are some very insulin sensitive people. My brother is one of them. Body like Bruce Lee, 54 in Feb. But, for 90% of the population, there's some level of insensitivity. Enough where with the wrong diet, for a long enough period of time, receptors will start to shut down.

So, IDK if you've heard these pre-diabeties ads on the radio. I hear them on the local sports talk station. 1 in 3 Americans has what has been termed "pre-diabetes". And that's just based on the current "definition" of pre-diabeties, which is an arbitrary line that was decided by some people with maybe not your best interests in mind. We have what, 250-300 million people? That's 80-100 MILLION people! That's scary. And as you said, it's pretty much diet related.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> These are some bold statements by you, do you have anything to back up these claims?..... "I think that most of us are born "pre-diabetic" because most of us are insulin resistant to a certain point. Insulin insensitivity is a natural state."


Just my opinion, based on mine and my clients' and friends' experiences with switching to low carbs, seeing the lack of results that the vast majority of people got in gyms over the years, even if they worked really hard and ate "right", observing the public and how fat EVERYONE seems to be these days...eating less meat and fat and eating more grains, fruits and veggies. I'm an INTJ, so I naturally want to find answers to my questions and I'm constantly analyzing and putting together big pictures so that I understand the way things work and how they're inter-related. I do it all the time, not realizing that I'm even doing it. I've thought long and hard about my opinions. Show me something really convincing, and if I believe it to be factually correct, I'll change my mind. But, since reading Body Opus in like '99, nothing has done that yet. In fact, as time has gone by, everything I read and observe just reinforces my beliefs.

I read that a large group of Dr's in Canada want their Ministry of Health to basically turn the the food pyramid upside down to reflect what the latest studies are saying. That high fat, low carb is just healthier for you than what the current pyramid reflects.

For all of you with open, curious minds...read the book. It contains 3 diets. Just read about CKD's and the physiology behind it. Or the Anabolic Diet by DiPasquale is the cheater's version Lol Much easier than Duchaine's, but still very effective. Then, let's talk about it.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> I mean, that’s basically what we’re talking about with insulin sensitivity, how well does your body utilize glucose for energy vs. storing it as fat.


I should have said "carbs" here, not "glucose".


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

It's early morning and I'm getting read for work, so I can't address all your points right now. But I'll hit a few really quickly... 

Your quote... "So, if my body is physiologically limited in its ability to use carbs for energy, and all I eat is carbs, what do you think will happen with any carbs that I can't utilize for energy? Maybe converted to a different form of energy...like fat?"

Respose: yes, unused blood glucose will eventually be turned to fat if not used, nobody is saying otherwise. But what happens a dew hours after the meal, when blood sugar and insulin is back to normal, and the body needs energy? You got it, it'll use bodyfat for fuel to make up the energy required. It's human physiology.

Think of it as a revolving door in an office building, the people are fat in this example. If you have more people going into the building over time than you do leaving, you'll gain bodyfat over time. If more are leaving than are entering, you'll lose bodyfat. There's always fat moving in and out of adipose tissue throughout the day, 

Which rings me to your claim that if one were to eat only 2000 calories of carbs per day, (other nutrient requirements aside), that they'd die of starvation. Where do those calories go though? Oh yes, you stated that since they're insulin resistant, they'll all turn to fat. Ok, say you're right. Why won't the body then use that fat as fuel? Are you now claiming that they can't usd carbs OR fat as fuel? Because you also claimed that one would lose bodyfat if they ate 5000 Cals of fat per day. 

If that were really how our bodies systems work, our species surely would've died off long ago.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Also had to comment on this:

Your quite:  "Think about this…if food and shelter are limited, the LAST thing you want is to be very insulin sensitive and not be able to store fat. You’d be more likely to die off."

That is ABSOLUTE WRONG!!! You'd 100% want to be insulin sensitive, so your body could efficiently use every bit of food that it came across, both carb and fat, so it could survive. Do you really think that if one were to come across only apples in your scenario, they'd be shit out of luck because they only found carbs and not fats? That's absurd!!!


----------



## Trump (Jan 16, 2020)

What CJ said


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Some things about the study I linked:

This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases.

Not funded by "Big Sugar" or any other lobby group. 

Also, about one of the study authors:

K.D.H. has received funding from the Nutrition Science Initiative to investigate the effects of ketogenic diets on human energy expenditure. K.D.H. also has a patent pending on a method of personalized dynamic feedback control of body weight (US Patent Application No. 13/754,058; assigned to the National Institutes of Health). J.G. has no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The National Science Initiative was created by Gary Taubes, who like you believes in the insulin hypothesis and not calories in vs calories out. His foundation was responsible for funding this study, which came to a conclusion IN OPPOSITION to Taubes beliefs, so we can assume that there's  probably no funny business going on with this Mera analysis. 



Now if you want to dismiss this peer reviewed and  published study of peer reviewed and published studies, then surely your claims of 'it worked for my clients' has to be dismissed too.

Again, I'm not saying that ketogenic diets don't work, I'm only saying that the reason why you think they do is wrong. It's Cals in vs Cals out, and that's why MANY diet interventions work. It's not the insulin.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Your quote.... "I believe you’re either burning primarily sugar or fat. Have you ever "bonked"? No, not that kind of bonking. If you're not familiar with the term, it's when you run out of glucose in the middle of a long distance event or workout of some sort, running, biking. I did short course triathlons in the mid '80's. Bonked a few times in training. No fun at all. Once, I could barely ride my bike back to the car to scrounge up enough change from the floor to buy a candy bar at the store where I'd parked! If we could switch back and forth as you seem to imply, bonking would never happen."

Response: It's not an either or, it's a spectrum. One can easily walk a marathon, because it's primarily fat being burned at that pace. As one speeds up, the percentage of glucose/fat being burned slides over to the glucose side. When one is all out sprinting, it's almost all glucose as a fuel. 

If I recall correctly, the body can absorb 1 gram of glucosee per minute, and 0.8 grams of fructose per minute. That's why elite marathon runners use glucose gels and tabs and NOT shots of olive oil or tabs of butter. Glucose us the preferred energy source at their fast pace. That's why one can walk basically for forever, have a sustainable jogging pace, but can only sprint short distances.

When one BONKS, it's because their glucose needs are outpacing their ability to digest and utilize any they're taking in, and their stores are getting depleted. But they're still able to walk at this point, correct? Or in your case barely ride your bike back to your car. Did you or they shrivel up and die? Absolutely not, because your body is still able to use fats at that point to sustain a lower level of activity. So YES, it can switch back and forth which fuel source is primarily used.


----------



## Straight30weight (Jan 16, 2020)

Trump said:


> What CJ said


You always have all the answers


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Your quote.... "So, over time, I’ve concluded that body fat loss, while in ketosis, happens primarily/only when the body needs fuel and there are no ingested fats available to satisfy this need. (I’m hesitant to say only because I don’t care to know the minute details of all the physiology."

Response: The" minute details" of human physiology that you don't care to know is that the body will store excess calories from both carbs AND FAT as stored bodyfat, and NOT "Basically piss out fat" as you state. That's another bold claim that I'm sure people would love to see proof of.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

You bring up Ben Roethlisberger as evidence of the ketogenic diet being superior? He's a fat slob. 

How about Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochtes diets then? Not keto, in fact they eat high carbohydrate. Both have a MUCH better body than Big Ben. 

https://qz.com/753956/how-olympic-swimmers-can-keep-eating-such-insane-quantities-of-food/

I freely admit that both our examples are ridiculous, n=1 doesn't make the rules. Just wanted to point out the flaw in your insulin hypothesis argument.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Your quote:
You eat a meal of carbs and fat, say a half dozen donuts (I know ALL of you have done this!! LMAO) I’m joking. It could be any carb and any fat. Carbs come out of the stomach first and spike your glucose. Body releases insulin to clear glucose from the blood. Insulin sweeps water and glucose (I read 3/1 in someone’s post) into ALL your muscle cells (think organs, too, like your heart) to the extent that your sensitivity allows insulin to act. There, it eventually gets converted into ATP to provide the cell energy. Very simplified, but I believe accurate. Then, some gets stored in the liver. The rest of the glucose, if any, will be converted to fat.

Response: not much wrong here, except you skipped an important detail. The body doesn't IMMEDIATELY turn any glucose not needed by the muscles or liver to fat. It will store it in all sorts of places first, because it doesn't WANT to store the glucose as fat, but it will if it HAS TO. That's what happens when people overeat carbs, the bloat. That's the body shuttling the glucose around, attached to water, to hopefully be used. What usually happens is the body will try to use this fuel source first, to clear it, and store any dietary fats ingested as bodyfat, since it's already in a fatty acid form, no conversion necessary to become bodyfat. 

If the need to use this fuel(excess glucose) arises, it's right there, easily shuttled back into the blood. If it's NOT needed, due to CHRONIC over eating, then the body will convert the excess to fatty acids to be used or stored in adipose tissue.

Calories ingested vs calories utilized.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Your quote:
"So, first…while there were early humans in tropical or other climates where vegetation was available year 'roud, would you say that it was more than ALL other early humans living in temperate or colder climates. Maybe very early man, but homo sapiens left Africa 90,000 years ago. Eventually they were everywhere. And although there have been examples of differences in evolution due to regional pressures (think how some cultures aren’t lactose intolerant), I doubt highly that homo sapiens that left Africa were physiologically different from homo sapiens who eventually ended up in Alaska, or even us now."

Response:
I agree that over time, due to where our particular ancestors lived, some will do better with a higher fat diet, like the inuits for example. The same can also be said for those whose ancestors evolved eating more carbohydrate from vegetation, plants, roots, etc. 

A perfect example of how the ketogenic diet, OR ANY DIET, might not be the best for someone.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Your quote:
,I’ve done pre and post-meal blood tests. My normal glucose level is like 80-90 whatever units Lol But, if I eat even a very keto, high fat meal, I’ll get a spike to 100-110. Blood ketones levels thru the roof. I found the rise in glucose very interesting. One of my former clients runs diabetic clinics for one of the hospital chains in Baltimore. She experienced the same thing.

Mine is very similar with a mixed meal, plenty of carbohydrate. Minus the ketones, obviously. I've spent soooo much money on test strips! :32 (18):

Not sure what your point is here.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Something you quoted:
"The keto diet can be a great way to get in shape, but should always be done under the supervision of a medical professional."

Really sounds like a reasonable, sustainable approach to nutrition. Please note my sarcasm


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Did I miss anything? I don't want you to think that I'm dodging any of your points, but it's entirely possible that I missed something due to the length of our texts, and the fact that I'm at work right now. :32 (18):


----------



## Jin (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ wasn’t even this excited when he hit 200lbs.....


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

I want to get back to your point on bonking during athletic events. Long one, so bear with me. I get into a little bit of basic physiology before I get to the point. 

How the body breaks down glucose, simplified: C6H12O6(molecule of glucose)+6O2(breathe in) = 6H20(water)+6CO2(breathed out). Not much oxygen is required for this process, that's why it's called anaerobic. Fast energy. 

*****EDIT: above paragraph is inaccurate, that's how PLANTS break down sugars. I fukked up, it's been awhile since I studied this. People break down glucose into pyruvate, and some ATP is released in that process. The pyruvate can be used be mitochondria to produce more ATP if there's oxygen available, if not, it gets converted to lactate. If you continue to create lactate, you'll get to a point called the lactate threshold, where you're forced to slow down due to lack of oxygen to keep up with pyruvate/energy demands. You're moving at an unsustainable pace. ******

Typical fatty acid: C54H108O6(quick Google search, I didn't remember this formula off the top of my head). The rate limiting factor is oxygen. That's why it's called Aerobic. Much more energy is released via this process, but it's slower. 

When the chemical bonds are broken, is when energy is released, the whole acetyl CoA/ATP to ADP to ATP/Krebs Cycle process. Byproducts are water, carbon dioxide(expelled during breathing), and heat(we're warm blooded) It's more involved than this, but it's honestly been awhile since I studied this, so I'd need to dig back into my physiology textbooks to give a 100% accurate description of the process.

You can walk all day, because the energy requirement is low, and is easily covered by the slower burning fatty acids. You start jogging, and as you go faster, you start breathing more because more oxygen is required for the processes described above. Eventually you're going so fast that you past the threshold and you will have to slow down because the oxygen you're taking in isn't enough to keep up with energy demands. Your fuel utilization has slid so far to the glucose side of the spectrum that the body can't keep up. That's why you neither sprint nor walk a marathon, you want the ideal blend of fat and glucose utilization for peak performance. It's a spectrum, NOT an either/or.

The bonk is when glycogen stores get so low, the body can't utilize that energy system to it's needs. That's why athletes often carb up prior to top off their stores, and take supplements like glucose gels and drinks during events. 


******Edit: I fukked up this post, badly. (see above edit). I didn't want to delete it and cover up my mistake, but rather leave it, and acknowledge it. I did amend the last paragraph though. ******


----------



## Trump (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ why are you delivering bacon for a living, you should work for NASA or something


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Trump said:


> CJ why are you delivering bacon for a living, you should work for NASA or something



While at university, I was working part time. I was offered the job full time, it's relatively high paying with great benefits and an unbelievable pension. 

I made the wrong choice, didn't take the long view. Still regret it.


----------



## snake (Jan 16, 2020)

Some good reads on both sides but my understand goes along with CJ's. There are several things that CJ has said that I know to be factual and not a quantum leap from ones observation to a so called fact. The more dots you have to connect, the less factual something becomes.

CJ, You went into detail about how the body works in an aerobic state. It kills me when people who want to lose weight and some that have already met their goal have no basic understand of the process; I'm referring to the burning of calories. I try to explain it this way; your body is the can that hold the fuel, your calories are the lighter fluid, once ignited you need to add oxygen or the burning stops. That oxygen is your breath, it's why you breath faster when you work out. 

The general public doesn't even know what a calorie is. Ask and you get the same answer, "It's what's in food." Having no idea it's a measurement of energy.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Exactly Snake. You want to burn fat, get your breathing up. Burn more energy than you consume. Pretty simple.


----------



## Trump (Jan 16, 2020)

I thought a calorie was some American unit of weight


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

You've also brought up several times how there are "essential" amino acids and fatty acids, but no essential carbohydrates as an argument to support your beliefs.

True, there are essential Aminos and fats, but I believe you're misunderstanding the term "essential". 

Essential means that the body can't produce any at all, or enough, to support body needs, and must be ingested. Let's take the amino acid example. I believe there are something like 20 or so amino acids, of which I believe 9 or 10 are essential. 

Let's be clear, ALL the aminos are REQUIRED by the body, but the non essential ones can be synthesized within the body via other aminos. The same with the essential fatty acids. 

There are no "essential" carbohydrates because the body can and does synthesize them, via the previously discussed gluconeogenesis. What happens if your blood sugar gets too low/drops to zero? You drop into a coma and die. Ask your friend who works in the diabetic clinic, they'll confirm this. Seems pretty important to me. 

Just another point that popped into my head.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Trump said:


> I thought a calorie was some American unit of weight



Viva la kilojule!!!


----------



## notsoswoleCPA (Jan 16, 2020)

The only thing I have to add is that I went on a low carb diet under the direction of a physician.  After 90 days, he took me off that diet and apologized for even suggesting it in the first place.  I had headaches all the time, I was grouchy as fawk (I'm talking yelled at my boss for pissing me off grouchy which is something I can usually always control), and my hypoglycemia returned.  Keep in mind, I haven't had hypoglycemia since I was a pre-teen, yet it returned on a low carb diet.  I may have also destroyed a laptop, ipad, and iphone during some of my grouchy episodes, but I will neither confirm nor deny getting pi$$ed off and spiking them into the floor...  

Oh, I wish I could find my lab work after those 90 days were up, but let's just say it was BAD.  Lipid profile jacked to smithereens, kidney function looked like total crap, thyroid jacked beyond belief, dangerously low glucose, and a few other things that went horribly wrong with my body.  In fact, last idiot who suggested that I try a low carb diet was met with my response of "F*ck you, I do what I want!"

EDIT:  I also wanted to point out that I did this diet BEFORE going on TRT and it being over ten years since my last cycle of anything.  In other words, I just wanted to point out that I had no external compounds to cause the lipid or kidney function problems.


----------



## metsfan4life (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> You've also brought up several times how there are "essential" amino acids and fatty acids, but no essential carbohydrates as an argument to support your beliefs.
> 
> True, there are essential Aminos and fats, but I believe you're misunderstanding the term "essential".
> 
> ...




This! Gluconeogenesis is a bitch! bitch and a half. freaking pisses me off.
You're probably talking to someone that has lows on the regular *unless im on GH*. Single digits has been seen, physically with my own eyes on myself. I can sometimes function in the teens, but sometimes im like gooftroop at 70s. Probably the past 4 endocrine visits I get a call from them asking if Ive been home to eat... sugar was in the 40-60s. Ive only once went into a coma for low sugar, dont remember it but I semi remember from the video.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Your quote... "So, if my body is physiologically limited in its ability to use carbs for energy, and all I eat is carbs, what do you think will happen with any carbs that I can't utilize for energy? Maybe converted to a different form of energy...like fat?"
> 
> Respose: yes, unused blood glucose will eventually be turned to fat if not used, nobody is saying otherwise. But what happens a dew hours after the meal, when blood sugar and insulin is back to normal, and the body needs energy?* You got it, it'll use bodyfat for fuel to make up the energy required. It's human physiology.*


That last statement is 90% factually incorrect. A progressing series of actions would take place, but burning only body fat for fuel would come at the end. That's when the body, after enough time (24-72 hrs), would get into ketosis. This is my bonking example. If what you say were true, bonking would not be an issue for long distance athletes, even without taking in additional carbs during the actual exertion. As long as you have even a small percentage of body fat, you would never bonk, based on your assertion. But, we know it happens, so that to me implies that the body CANNOT switch from one to the other that quickly. Like the hybrid car, that I use in that example.

The Reader's Digest version of what happens over, let's say 72 hrs hours after a meal, blood sugar has been cleared, the body has energy needs AND no additional food is eaten. The order isn't exact or necessary complete, but damn close. For my purposes, all I want is to get from 1 to 6 as fast as possible.

1. Body uses all glucose stored in muscle cells
2. Body uses all glucose stored in the liver
3. Body looks for and uses available protein stores for fuel, which eventually means skeletal muscle. This is why you lose muscle so easily while cutting.
4. Body starts to shed excess intracellular water. You start peeing like crazy after about 8-10 hrs
5. Body starts producing ketone bodies from blood triglycerides, then/or body fat, but it's still burning protein primarily
6. Body falls into a ketgenic state. Ketone bodies (fat) used as primary energy source, protein only scavenged for uses other than energy. This why the CKD is said to be  muscle sparing.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> That last statement is 90% factually incorrect. A progressing series of actions would take place, but burning only body fat for fuel would come at the end. That's when the body, after enough time (24-72 hrs), would get into ketosis. This is my bonking example. If what you say were true, bonking would not be an issue for long distance athletes, even without taking in additional carbs during the actual exertion. As long as you have even a small percentage of body fat, you would never bonk, based on your assertion. But, we know it happens, so that to me implies that the body CANNOT switch from one to the other that quickly. Like the hybrid car, that I use in that example.



No, you bonk because the carbohydrate you're taking in, if any, can't keep up with the body's glycogen demand, and is forced to slow down its exertion to a slower pace that fat metabolism can keep up with(aerobic energy system).


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> The Reader's Digest version of what happens over, let's say 72 hrs hours after a meal, blood sugar has been cleared, the body has energy needs AND no additional food is eaten. The order isn't exact or necessary complete, but damn close. For my purposes, all I want is to get from 1 to 6 as fast as possible.
> 
> 1. Body uses all glucose stored in muscle cells
> 2. Body uses all glucose stored in the liver
> ...



Why are you bringing up what would happen after a 3 day fast? 99.999% of the population would never do that, so it's not even pertinent to our debate. Never mind that you got some steps wrong in your example anyway.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Also had to comment on this:
> 
> Your quite:  "Think about this…if food and shelter are limited, the LAST thing you want is to be very insulin sensitive and not be able to store fat. You’d be more likely to die off."
> 
> That is ABSOLUTE WRONG!!! You'd 100% want to be insulin sensitive, so your body could efficiently use every bit of food that it came across, both carb and fat, so it could survive. Do you really think that if one were to come across only apples in your scenario, they'd be shit out of luck because they only found carbs and not fats? That's absurd!!!


You need to read what I wrote again. You misunderstood parts of it or are mixing up two different points. Please re-read it.

To help clarify...

I said that perhaps very early homo sapiens may have been very insulin sensitive, evolving in Africa, a tropical climate. Food is plentiful year round, including lots of carbs. Life is good and you can get away with high insulin sensitivity and no fat storage. I'll accept that. Then, 90,000 years ago, these homo sapiens hit the road.

Then I said that by 20,000 years ago this, for all intents and purposes, physiologically identical modern human was living almost everywhere, in every climate. Including some where life was tougher. Food is more scarce, especially if there are harsh winters, and there are longer periods of time where some of these humans don't have much food. I don't care what they were eating. If two of these humans were eating the same amount, and one could store more fat than the other, that one with more fat would have a better chance to survive the stress of no food better. You said yourself that fat storage and using the ketogenic pathway for energy was originally for extreme survival in times of no food. You make my point for me. So, lets say these two guys eat carbs all summer and both get fat, but one gets to 15% body fat and the other gets to 25% because he's more insulin resistant. All other things being equal, who has better survival chances thru a really harsh winter with very little food? Mr 25%, the insulin resistant one. That's why I said that perhaps originally homo sapiens had high insulin sensitivity, but lost it over time because we chose to move to harsher climates where it wasn't a beneficial trait and it was bred out due to those evolutionary pressures.


----------



## snake (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> No, you bonk because the carbohydrate you're taking in, if any, can't keep up with the body's glycogen demand, and is forced to slow down its exertion to a slower pace that fat metabolism can keep up with.



Isn't there some neurological issues that happen when someone hits the wall? An old friend of mine does marathons and ultras and he said most experience something at about 22-23 miles. Could the lack of carbs be causing the bodies electrical system to be throwing a breaker? 

For the record, I don't even like riding in a car for 26.2 miles.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Your quote... "That's why I said that perhaps originally homo sapiens had high insulin sensitivity, but lost it over time because we chose to move to harsher climates where it wasn't a beneficial trait and it was bred out due to those evolutionary pressures."

I'm pretty darn sure that most human biologists would absolutely say that being insulin sensitive was VERY important to our species survival, so we could use any food source that we came across. We didn't have supermarkets back then, they ate whatever they could, or died.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Response: The" minute details" of human physiology that you don't care to know is that the body will store excess calories from both carbs AND FAT as stored bodyfat, and NOT "Basically piss out fat" as you state. That's another bold claim that I'm sure people would love to see proof of.


You can find the entire article here, but read ANY article about ketogenic diets. Not my option or claim... human physiological fact.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-signs-and-symptoms-of-ketosis#section1
*4. Increased Ketones in the Breath or Urine
*

*Another way to measure blood ketone levels is a breath analyzer.
It monitors acetone, one of the three main ketones present in your blood during ketosis (4Trusted Source, 10Trusted Source).
This gives you an idea of your body's ketone levels since more acetone leaves the body when you are in nutritional ketosis (11Trusted Source).
The use of acetone breath analyzers has been shown to be fairly accurate, though less accurate than the blood monitor method.
Another good technique is to measure the presence of ketones in your urine on a daily basis with special indicator strips.
These also measure ketone excretion through the urine and can be a quick and cheap method to assess your ketone levels each day. However, they’re not considered very reliable.*


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

snake said:


> Isn't there some neurological issues that happen when someone hits the wall? An old friend of mine does marathons and ultras and he said most experience something at about 22-23 miles. Could the lack of carbs be causing the bodies electrical system to be throwing a breaker?
> 
> For the record, I don't even like riding in a car for 26.2 miles.



Yes, there is that too. Sometimes people collapse and physically cannot move anymore, some even have died. Another reason why running is stupid! :32 (18):


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

I can't see most of your text FitGuy, so I can't see the link to any article you're referring to. But I'm sure that I can point you to a number of human physiology textbooks that could enlighten you.

Here's an Amazon link to the one I have at home. I'm a nerd. :32 (18):
Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1305627857/ref=cm_sw_r_fm_apa_i_zLkiEbQ0Z9P68


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> I want to get back to your point on bonking during athletic events. Long one, so bear with me. I get into a little bit of basic physiology before I get to the point.
> 
> How the body breaks down glucose, simplified: C6H12O6(molecule of glucose)+6O2(breathe in) = 6H20(water)+6CO2(breathed out). Not much oxygen is required for this process, that's why it's called anaerobic. Fast energy.
> 
> ...


I don't believe your thoughts on what causes you to bonk are completely accurate. This is my view of what happens, from an article on line. From you posts I've read, it seems that you disagree with this explanation.

Bonking

What is bonking and why does it happen?

Bonking, also known as hitting the wall, is a term used to describe what happens when your body runs low on glycogen to burn as a fuel source. While your body can burn fat directly for energy, it tends to prefer glycogen, as it is easier to burn and more efficient. Thus, when running at marathon pace, some portion of your energy output is going to come from burning glycogen – there’s no way around this. As your glycogen stores begin to run low, your body recognizes the potential danger and slows the body down gradually to conserve energy.

At this point, you can still run, but your pace will begin to slow unless you increase your effort. However, if you continue, your glycogen stores will get so low that your body will basically shut down and even jogging will be almost impossible.This is what’s called bonking. Bonking is not feeling tired; bonking is not an inability to move your legs faster. Bonking is when your glycogen stores get low enough that your brain shuts down your body.

What does it feel like to bonk?

A “true” bonk will almost always result in you not being able to physical run any longer. You may be able to shuffle and probably walk, but anything that resembles running is likely out the window. More than likely you’ll feel dizzy or light-headed (a result of your brain not getting the glycogen it needs) and some runners feel nauseous. As you can see, this feeling is a bit different than fading or getting fatigued during the latter miles.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> I don't believe your thoughts on what causes you to bonk are completely accurate. This is my view of what happens, from an article on line. From you posts I've read, it seems that you disagree with this explanation.
> 
> Bonking
> 
> ...




Isn't this exactly what I said??? 


And how about this quote by you.... "While your body can burn fat directly for energy, it tends to prefer glycogen, as it is easier to burn and more efficient. Thus, when running at marathon pace, some portion of your energy output is going to come from burning glycogen – there’s no way around this. As your glycogen stores begin to run low, your body recognizes the potential danger and slows the body down gradually to conserve energy."

Aren't you agreeing with me here that the body INDEED CAN AND DOES use both fat and glycogen for fuel simultaneously along a spectrum? Seems pretty clear to me that you just agreed with me, and again contradicted yourself.

Edit: I didn't place the highlights within this post, they were a carry over from copying your post.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

The TRUE reason that ketogenic diets can help in losing weight is the same reason that all diets work. Calorie restriction via excluding certain foods.

On keto, it's really fukkin hard to overeat because fats are very filling, and they don't trigger the same reward pathways in the brain as something like a highly processed chemically engineered junk food does. There's no magic involved. 

The exact same thing is the goal of ANY diet. Same thing would happen in the carnivore diet. Same thing in a plant based whole foods diet. How many apples could someone eat before they got palate fatigue? A lot less calories than if thry were eating Apple Jacks cereal! 

People should use a diet that fits their lifestyle and is sustainable. I wouldn't steer anyone to keto or carnivore or any fad diet, but if it works for them, fine. You even stated in an earlier post that people on a keto diet should be closely monitored by a dr. Not my definition of sustainable, but to each their own.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

And getting back to how you don't believe weight loss/gain is due to Cals in/out... You stated in an earlier post that you believe that as long as you're in a ketogenic state, your body will "piss out" excess fats you eat and not store them as bodyfat. ("Basically piss out fat" -Post #19 in thread) 

Can you provide done data/research on this claim? I'm having a very hard time getting past this claim you made.


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 16, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Something you quoted:
> "The keto diet can be a great way to get in shape, but should always be done under the supervision of a medical professional."
> 
> Really sounds like a reasonable, sustainable approach to nutrition. Please note my sarcasm


So, almost every mainstream media outlet always seems to want put in some sort of "negative, qualifying statement" into their article, even if the article is in support of ketogenic diets. Almost like a CYA move. I, and many people who've been low carb a really long time, are proof of it's sustainability. But, because you and I seem to disagree on what is actually happening in the body, it's tough to reconcile our views.

I was thinking last night, find me a guinea pig, errr...upstanding board member who I can help get really lean. Let's see what happens. It can be you or anyone else. I'll just ask for a few things.

1. Gotta be someone that I don't have to worry about them being disciplined. Hits the gym consistently, has good diet discipline where I don't have to worry about them cheating.  I don't want to have to babysit them. More like point them in the right directions and off they go. Carnivores will LOVE this way of eating. And, I don't really put a ceiling on calorie intake in the beginning.

2. This person will keep a journal on the board, post at least twice a week, and give honest feedback and not play to the board because of peer pressure or sabotage it.

3. I'd prefer someone who's never been able to get really lean before, even though they've been eating "right" for a long time. If you've been sub 10% fat before (sub 15% for a woman), you don't need me.

4. Because there will be a LOT of info in the beginning, I'd probably want to be able to talk on the phone with them. It will also be easier to work through any hurdles we might run into. But, after I get them going, it'll mostly be communication by text or maybe even better, through the journal. But, it'll be waaaay to much work to do it all with typed messages.

Other than that, I'll take anyone. Male/female, 15% fat, 20%, 30%...doesn't matter. But, someone who REALLY wants it. One of my problems with diet coaching is that my clients would become easily satisfied and mentally quit on me before we'd reach goal. Once i wanted it for them more than they did, I was done. Had one client, AA woman, 5'3", 225lbs. Couldn't even put fat calipers on her. Goal was 135lbs. Started late Oct, was down 50 by mid Jan. She goes on a 10 day vacation to India and when she came back, you could tell she'd checked out. It was too easy for her and she got satisfied. I got another 10 off of her over the next two months, but then I gave up and told her she needed to find another trainer. I couldn't deal anymore. 30lbs from goal weight. Way too much babysitting.

Offer's on the table....

I'm done til tomorrow. Who's game?


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> So, almost every mainstream media outlet always seems to want put in some sort of "negative, qualifying statement" into their article, even if the article is in support of ketogenic diets. Almost like a CYA move. I, and many people who've been low carb a really long time, are proof of it's sustainability. But, because you and I seem to disagree on what is actually happening in the body, it's tough to reconcile our views.
> 
> I was thinking last night, find me a guinea pig, errr...upstanding board member who I can help get really lean. Let's see what happens. It can be you or anyone else. I'll just ask for a few things.
> 
> ...



Nobody is arguing that they would get lean on a keto/low carb diet, of course they can if the Cals in is less than the Cals out. Same thing would happen on a mixed macro diet, as proven in the meta analysis I linked previously. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/
Experiment has been done many times before, I'm not arguing against you on that. 

I do encourage anyone who wanted to try keto to take you up on your offer though. It's a great opportunity. 

How about an alternate experiment. You go keto, eat 10,000 + Cals daily of WHATEVER fat dominant foods you prefer, only for a month so it's not too unreasonable, and lets see what happens. I doubt you'll "piss out" that fat out and get lean, as you claimed earlier.

No "diet" is best for everyone. I tried very low carb once, for a couple of months back when I was doing competitive crossfit (shut it!!!). I bonked almost DAILY!!  I was missing the top gear. I would fade like a solar powered calculator in the shade, it was that quick. It was absolutely terrible for me at the time. Lost water weight and muscle glycogen stores, AND PERFORMANCE. 

Blanket statements are usually a poor choice.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

WHOA!!!!!! 

QUOTE by you... "And, I don't really put a ceiling on calorie intake in the beginning." 

 If calories in/out don't matter, why would you EVER put a restriction on calories? THIS WHOLE DEBATE WAS ABOUT CALS IN/OUT VS INSULIN BEING THE CAUSE OF ONE BEING OVERFAT!!! 

Are you contradicting yourself again? I'll need some clarification on this.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Also in regards to your low cal/keto offer...

What if one say, had an Italian wife, who loved to cook and made all delicious foods including pastas and sauces? Are they doomed to be fat forever unless they strain their marriage so they can go keto/low carb? 

Or maybe would it be prudent to try a different dieting strategy? 

That's why a diet has to fit one's lifestyle and be sustainable. Luckiky there's many choices besides keto.


----------



## CJ (Jan 16, 2020)

Looking back at last summer, from mid May to Early to August, I decided to lean out.

I use regularly eating 350-400g daily of carbohydrate daily, which was about 45% of my total calories. Consuming over 3000 Cals daily. I leaned out pretty nicely.

By your beliefs, I should've become fat because I was eating such a large amount and percentage of carbohydrate.

How do you explain this? 

I'll link the pic in the log on this site in a minute.

Can't figure out how to link it, but it's Post 46 in the "I Want To Be A Real Boy" log in the Member's Online Journal forum.

P.S.  Most people in my family are fat, and they're are diabetics, both Tyoe 1 and 2. Can't say I have genetics to be lean and burn carbs effectively.


----------



## transcend2007 (Jan 17, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> Hardly the case. And I've been doing low carbs for almost 20 years. You didn't read my posts. Read ALL of my posts, in all the sections, then comment. Hard to make intelligent comments if you come into the conversation at the end. Actually, CJ275 invited me to debate him on the topic. I USED to diet coach. I still help friends who ask me to guide them. I offer help to people who've been fat all their lives and have no idea what to do because they've tried what their trainers told them to do AND NOTHING HAPPENED. So, they blame themselves, not the trainer and the info they got. I could give a shit about what you all do as far as diet. I just like helping fat people lose weight cuz it's not always their fault. They've just been lied to about how to eat.
> 
> And you mention elite athletes. I know for a fact that Ben Rothlesburger went keto. That's how he dropped so much weight. As with elite BB's, the vast majority of elite athletes also have elite genetics, including insulin sensitivity. However, this showed up first in a Google search of "keto atheletes".
> 
> ...



By citing specific athletes you make my point .. they are the rare exceptions (if you read my very short post .. I had no interest in reading all of posts as they are extremely thin on content pretty long on biased explanation) and if you actually read this full thread you might have actual learned something as you have been clearly schooled.

Also if the pic in your avi is you .. it would be considered very average when compared to others on this board .. perhaps far below standard ... have you seen Snake .. Brick .. Trump .. Jin ... and dozens of others ... they are as far ahead of you in physique as a human being is above the 1 celled amoeba ... and they do not get all preachy either .. they share knowledge in a way the rest us can understand and admire and even try to emulate ... perhaps consider that before responding (like a winy little bltch) ....


----------



## BRICKS (Jan 17, 2020)

Less theorization and mental masturbation, more lifting heavy shit and eating.  But what would I know, we (Mrs.BRICKS and myself) must have been doing it wrong all these years.


----------



## j2048b (Jan 17, 2020)

My wifes best friend who has always been big, has lost over 50 lbs doing low carb, keto along w fasting (all this weight lost after years of trying AND GASTRIC BYPASS  over 10 yrs ago) could not loose any more weight until she did low carb keto and added in fasting...


----------



## CJ (Jan 17, 2020)

Could finally see, and read, the link you posted (Post #58 of this thread) https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-signs-and-symptoms-of-ketosis#section1 

Here is an interesting quote from it, which supports my calories in vs out argument... 

"After the initial rapid drop in water weight, you should continue to lose body fat consistently as long as you stick to the diet and remain in a calorie deficit."

AS LONG AS YOU REMAIN IN A CALORIE DEFICIT.


And that article links to this article, titled Seven Graphs That Prove Calories Count... https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-graphs-prove-calories-count

I read the article, and I have no problems with it. It's good stuff. But it seems like you have horse blinders on, and only see what you want to see. Please keep an open mind, especially when articles you cite as support directly refute what you're saying.


----------



## CJ (Jan 17, 2020)

j2048b said:


> My wifes best friend who has always been big, has lost over 50 lbs doing low carb, keto along w fasting (all this weight lost after years of trying AND GASTRIC BYPASS  over 10 yrs ago) could not loose any more weight until she did low carb keto and added in fasting...



That's awesome! I'm glad she found what works for her, always happy when I hear that. Keto will work, fasting will work, as long as calorie balance is in check.


----------



## DF (Jan 17, 2020)

The one thing that grabbed me in this thread was CJ DELIVERS BACON! 
SONOFABITCH! where do I sign up for that job?


----------



## Rhino99 (Jan 17, 2020)

What have I learned from this thread...

CJ is smarter than me.

The OP is really hulksmash.

If I breathe quickly while eating pizza it will instantly burn off.


----------



## Bro Bundy (Jan 18, 2020)

All that  low carb , Keto bs is for fat people or very low level “ athletes”.. For me low carb never worked well unless I was a fat out of shape mess . Once your in shape and training at a certain level u need carbs just the right kind of carbs .


----------



## Rhino99 (Jan 18, 2020)

BB
what carbs do u eat and how many grams daily, what is your body weight?


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 18, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Could finally see, and read, the link you posted (Post #58 of this thread) https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-signs-and-symptoms-of-ketosis#section1 AS LONG AS YOU REMAIN IN A CALORIE DEFICIT.
> 
> 
> And that article links to this article, titled Seven Graphs That Prove Calories Count... https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-graphs-prove-calories-count/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 18, 2020)

I tried the link, but it didn't work because it's a pdf. Search this header.

A review of low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets - ‎Westman - Cited by 163


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 18, 2020)

Beserker said:


> For my body type, I do best eating like a carnivore.  6 days less than 50g/day post workout, then 2-300gs on 7th.  Everyone is going to vary though.



You eat how I eat. I don't keep it that regimented though, unless I'm trying to really lean out, like for summer. I just decide every so often that I wanna eat a pizza after a workout. That becomes a carb up day Lol


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 18, 2020)

Bro Bundy said:


> All that  low carb , Keto bs is for fat people or very low level “ athletes”.. For me low carb never worked well unless I was a fat out of shape mess . Once your in shape and training at a certain level u need carbs just the right kind of carbs .



Yeah, you look really lean. If you do well with carbs, then your insulin sensitivity is really good. But, for every guy on the board like you, there are 10 or 20 guys like me, who can't get that lean on carbs. You say lesser athletes. I'd say more insulin resistant athletes. Joe Thomas, ex Cleveland Brown tackle was quite an athlete. Look at him now. Got there on low carbs.

When you were using low carbs and weren't fat, you say that they "didn't work" for you. Why were you low carb if you were in shape? Just curious.

In the context that I'm taking about low carbs on this board, I'm saying that's exactly what it's for, getting lean (<10% fat), when you just can't seem to while still eating carbs, without losing a ton of muscle, and making it easy to stay that way once you're there. I'd say that's lots of guys on this board. If I'm wrong, then I'd be surprised


----------



## I'mThatFitGuy (Jan 18, 2020)

transcend2007 said:


> Also if the pic in your avi is you .. it would be considered very average when compared to others on this board .. perhaps far below standard ... have you seen Snake .. Brick .. Trump .. Jin ... and dozens of others ... they are as far ahead of you in physique as a human being is above the 1 celled amoeba ..



Man, why do you come off the way you do? SMH

I'm just some 56 year old dude on low dose TRT. (Yes, that is a recent pic. I have more if you want proof) Any other impression you have of me is just you projecting. I'm sure there lots of pros on this board, just like any other board I've been on over the last 20-25 years.

And the only thing that I'm preaching is that there are a LOT more guys who CAN'T get lean on carbs than can. If you can, that's great. If you can't, and your making real effort,  it's not your fault, there's another way. Everyone here is here because they wanna look as great as they can. I'm just trying to add something to the board and help some dudes do that. My reason for getting into the debate with CJ275 was so I could explain the physiology behind why it works


----------



## CJ (Jan 18, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> So, yes, I agree that to lose fat, there has to be a calorie deficit.



Awesome, I'm glad we agree on that, because that was a major sticking point. Remember when you claimed that someone would lose bodyfat and "piss out fat" if they ate 10,000 Cals of butter, but would get fat and die if they were to eat 2,000 calories of carbohydrate. (see Post 19 of this thread for complete context). Still not sure how that works, would love an explanation. 

Ok, so we're at your claim now that 90% of us are insulin resistant(born that way I believe you said, would love to see proof of this) and can't handle carbohydrates. You even went so far as to say that only 10% of vegetarians aren't overweight, that those were the ones on Instagram, and they were the exception and not the rule. This is why you said low carb or keto is the way to go. 

So back to the meta analysis I referenced earlier https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568065/

and a study within a link YOU referenced https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357. 

The meta analysis was of 32 different studies, and showed that in a calorie and protein equated diet, fat to carb ratio did not matter for weight loss. 

And your study showed that "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize."

Now if 90% of us don't do well with carbohydrate, how do explain the results of these studies? I highly doubt that it was just shit luck that all 33 studies ended up with participants that were within that 10% of the population that you claim can handle carbohydrate. That's almost statistically impossible to have happened. 


And a reminder, the meta analysis was funded by National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland, not exactly pro-carb people, and one of the authors received funding from the Nutritional Science Initiative, Gary Taubes non-profit orginizati, and he's VERY anti sugar. 

And  we can assume that you have no problem with the study within a link YOU posted as valid evidence. It was published in the NE Journal of Medicine, a highly regarded journal.


----------



## CJ (Jan 18, 2020)

Now your claim of a calorie isn't a calorie.

That's absolutely FALSE. As stated correctly earlier by Snake, a calorie isn't a "thing", it's merely a unit of measure of potential energy within a food, as measured by a bomb calorimeter. Much like a "degree" of temperature isn't a thing, just a unit of measurement.

I'm sure what you mean is that the body merabilizes carbohydrates and fats differently within the body. Absolutely! They're two different things, no argument from me. I even laid out the chemical formulas as to how they're broken down for energy in an earlier post, albeit a simplified version. 

Your big thing is insulin, and how it's used to store fat. Yes, excess blood glucose, after the liver and muscles are full and blood sugar levels are stable, will be shuttled off to adipose tissue to be stored as fat. 

But what happens AFTER that, when your meal is digested and insulin and blood sugar are back to stable. Well you're still alive, correct? You're still doing things/processes that require energy, correct? As long as you're breathing, you're using energy. Remember that the CO2 we breathe out is a byproduct of metabolizing carbs and fats. So where does this energy come from? Glucose and fatty acids within the cells needing energy. And as it's being used, those cells are pulling in fatty acids and glucose from the blood supply. 

As the fatty acids and glucose are being taken from the blood, it triggers a hormone called glucagon to be released. Think of it as sort of the opposite of insulin. Glucagon stimulates the release of glycogen from the liver into the blood, and also adipose tissue to release fats. These fats are broken down into individual fatty acids and a glycerin backbone. The fatty acids are available in the blood for cells to pick up, or to the liver to synthesize ketones, yes, if glucose is low) while the glycerin goes to the liver to be converted to glucose, via gluconeogenesis. Glucagon is the reason we don't need to be in a constantly fed state, why we can go for long periods of time without food. Fatty acids and glucose within the blood don't just magically get there.


----------



## CJ (Jan 18, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> Calorie deficits can be measured over all sorts of time periods. Do I assume when you speak of them, you mean measured on a daily basis? When I speak of then, I mean daily, hourly, momentary. I mean, in the body, that's really how processes operate, in the moment. Any other time period of measure is really just an arbitrary time frame we impose. So, what if by being in a ketogenic state, I can create LOTS of moments of calorie deficit, consistantly/constantly over a prolonged time period, without gaining fat in the interim moments? Think about it....



Yes, throughout the day you're both burning and storing fat in small amounts. It's the long term balance of this that adds up to meaningful fat gain or loss. I addressed this in an earlier post, I believe I used an analogy of people enrering/exiting an office building.

You don't HAVE TO be in a ketogenic state for this to occur, that's just 1 of many possible "diets" that do this. Again, please look at the studies linked earlier.


----------



## CJ (Jan 18, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> I tried the link, but it didn't work because it's a pdf. Search this header.
> 
> A review of low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets - ‎Westman - Cited by 163



I tried to find this, but couldn't. Maybe it's being a pay wall???

Either way, I have a decent understanding of how ketosis works. As I've stated many times in this thread already, it's an absolutely effective way to lose weight. Or to gain weight if one were to overconsume foods on it, although admittedly that's hard because fats are very satiating. Law of thermodynamics still applies though.


Edit:
Finally got to it, gave it a quick read. Yes, I'm familiar with the physiology laid out in the article. No issues with it at all. And of all the diets studies shown, every type of dietshowed weight loss, not just the keto groups, although the keto groups groups lost a little more(at least some is water weight, obviously, due to glycogen depletion). And none were calorie equated. No argument from me about the keto diet being effective. 

Look again at the calorie equated studies I linked earlier. When Cals are equated, carbs vs fats don't matter. One should use a diet that fits their lifestyle/goals. Keto or otherwise.


----------



## transcend2007 (Jan 18, 2020)

Thank CJ ... for all the great info in this thread ... you stated the logic and science behind what most of olders guys feel or have stated more anecdotally ... through a life time of experiences while seeing fads (including low carb) come and go ... there is a reason why statements like eat less and exercise more stand the test of time ... there is "no magic" to the process ... there only the facts that remain ... nearly everyone not selling something know carbs have a place in a healthy diet and lifestyle ... this thread has confirmed that fact more than any other I've ever seen ...


----------



## transcend2007 (Jan 18, 2020)

Thank you ImThatFitGuy ... for responding credibly and presenting your info ... many guys get butt hurt at the first sign of being in the crosshairs of the less-popular side of a discussion ... I do not agree with your points but I do respect you and contribution to the conversation and the board ...


----------



## CJ (Jan 18, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> I said as far as fat loss is concerned, a calorie is NOT a calorie. You've extrapolated that to imply that I don't feel there's a need to have a calorie deficit because you believe that in order to achieve one, you MUST eat less calories than you burn...because you believe a calorie is a calorie. I do not. The study you posted, and that I quoted, said that very thing. That all sorts of hormonal changes that occur during fat loss make it NOT a simple math equation.




Actually, here's exactly what the study said... 

"We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects on daily energy expenditure and body fat of isocaloric diets differing in their fraction of carbohydrate to fat but with equal protein. To minimize confounding by dietary nonadherence, we included only controlled feeding studies where all food was provided to the subjects. We found 32 studies representing 563 subjects matching our inclusion criteria with dietary carbohydrate ranging from 1%–83% and dietary fat ranging from 4%–84% of total calories (see Supplementary Materials).

Figure 2A shows the daily energy expenditure differences between isocaloric diets with equal protein but differing in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat. The pooled weighted mean difference in energy expenditure was 26 kcal/d (P <.0001) greater with lower fat diets. Figure 2B shows differences in the rate of body fat change between diets with the pooled weighted mean difference of 16 g/d (P <.0001) greater body fat loss in favor of the lower fat diets. These results are in the opposite direction to the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model, but the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless. In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."



You can say a calorie is not a calorie, but to say that the study also said that is FALSE. 

Here's the specific statement from the study again, to be clear......In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat."



Carbohydrates are not the problem, overeating is. Consuming more calories than one utilizes results in bodyfat accumulation.


----------



## CJ (Jan 18, 2020)

transcend2007 said:


> Thank you ImThatFitGuy ... for responding credibly and presenting your info ... many guys get butt hurt at the first sign of being in the crosshairs of the less-popular side of a discussion ... I do not agree with your points but I do respect you and contribution to the conversation and the board ...



I couldn't agree more. 

I love this, mental exercise/stimulation. I don't get much of it in my life, I feel like I need it. I try to debate my wife sometimes, but she wants none of it! Sometimes ill argue a point with her that I don't even believe, just to get the mental stimulation. I need to stop that, for my own safety. :32 (18):


----------



## CJ (Jan 18, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> [ That all sorts of hormonal changes that occur during fat loss make it NOT a simple math equation.
> 
> .



Yes, many things affect the Calories Out side of the equation. Neither side of the Cals in vs Cals out equation is static, they're both fluid numbers.  And many things affect whether it's lean tissue or fat gained/lost, specifically protein intake and proper training. Never said otherwise.


----------



## Bro Bundy (Jan 18, 2020)

I’m also one who says not all calls are equal. No pop tarts here . At my prime I’m 215 6 7 % . Trust me I can be260 fat if I wanted . I never did


----------



## Joliver (Jan 21, 2020)

Who won the fight?


----------



## Redemption79 (Jan 22, 2020)

https://www.themanual.com/outdoors/ultra-runner-zack-bitter-100-mile-low-carb/
Dude ran 100 miles at a 6:48/mile pace.  I don't think he was 100% keto when he did it, but being fat-adapted does seem to have a positive effect for long-distance guys that run far too long to depend on glucose.

I can't argue with a whole lot of what you say CJ275, as I fundamentally agree with most of it.  I do think there is a significant difference in ketogenic capability between someone who has eaten a keto diet for long period and someone who is just trying it out though.  I also think results are specific to individuals to a degree as well.

I'm going to share a few things here without really participating in the debate.  Take it or leave it, it's just my experience.

I went on a ketogenic diet after a physically destructive experience with a nasty antibiotic.  I was weak, nearly unable to walk, and had mental struggles I'd never experienced (like constantly not being able to recall names, what I was talking about 10 seconds ago, or even simple spellings).  I had severe and constant muscle cramps from head to toe (some parts worse than others), and pain that often kept me from sleeping at night.  I spent every spare moment I had researching anything I thought could help (there are many people affected indefinitely by these drugs and no real known cures).  I focused a lot on mitochondrial biogenesis, energy production, cellular function, etc.  In combination with a number of supplements, I started a ketogenic diet, and over the last few years, I've recovered to the point that I'm now doing more physical activity and I'm stronger/more fit than 95% of the population.  I'm not saying keto is a magical cure and definitely not soley responsible for my recovery, but I can verify that it made a difference.  For a long time, every time I left the keto diet for a more normal diet, I had an increase in inflammation.

I'm not eating keto now.  I went to a lower-fat diet in an effort to lower cholesterol and better fuel my workouts.  If nothing else, I can definitely say my muscles are more full with carbs than without.  However, I still feel like my brain runs better on ketones, and I get fewer cramps and flare-ups eating low-carb.  Also, in terms of cardio, my heart rate is higher at the same work output on keto than with carbs, but the perceived effort is, if anything, lower (I'm not labeling this a benefit or a hindrance, just interesting information).

I realize this loosely relates to the discussion here, and my reaction/situation isn't average.  I'm only sharing this because at one time, I would have thought keto to be a BS fad diet and not really considered possible benefits.  There are a number of systems in the body that can't function well in a constant energy surplus.  For some of these, I think a lack of glucose may be as sufficient or at least somewhat comparable to an actual fast, resulting in some benefits we otherwise may not consider. (Side note: there are some other therapeutic uses for the keto diet; such as alternative treatment for epilepsy, certain cancers, prevention of seizures in divers who wear rebreathers, and recovery from lyme disease and the treatment of such.)

I've never done a cyclical keto diet (I stayed in ketosis for over a year with just a few short exceptions) and would be interested in what the OP recommends to his clients.  I'm certainly toward the endo end of the spectrum and struggle getting beyond "decently lean".  If he really could make getting under 10% easier without a significant negative impact, I'd be interested in logging it...possibly.


----------



## Bro Bundy (Jan 22, 2020)

I'mThatFitGuy said:


> Yeah, you look really lean. If you do well with carbs, then your insulin sensitivity is really good. But, for every guy on the board like you, there are 10 or 20 guys like me, who can't get that lean on carbs. You say lesser athletes. I'd say more insulin resistant athletes. Joe Thomas, ex Cleveland Brown tackle was quite an athlete. Look at him now. Got there on low carbs.
> 
> When you were using low carbs and weren't fat, you say that they "didn't work" for you. Why were you low carb if you were in shape? Just curious.
> 
> In the context that I'm taking about low carbs on this board, I'm saying that's exactly what it's for, getting lean (<10% fat), when you just can't seem to while still eating carbs, without losing a ton of muscle, and making it easy to stay that way once you're there. I'd say that's lots of guys on this board. If I'm wrong, then I'd be surprised


I tried every kind of diet until i found what works well for me..I lose to much muscle on low carb and not enough energy to fuel the kinda workouts i enjoy..I eat alot of oats and sweet potato


----------



## DF (Jan 22, 2020)

Sonofabitch! I'm going to be forced to go back & read this.... :32 (9):


----------



## Lifthvyw8s (Mar 18, 2020)

Redemption79 said:


> I do think there is a significant difference in ketogenic capability between someone who has eaten a keto diet for long period and someone who is just trying it out though. [FONT=&quot]I also think results are specific to individuals to a degree as well.[/FONT]



I agree with this statement!!!




Bro Bundy said:


> I tried every kind of diet until i found what works well for me..I lose to much muscle on low carb and not enough energy to fuel the kinda workouts i enjoy..I eat alot of oats and sweet potato



I know this is an older thread but I have to say I found it very interesting. 

I think a big part that is missed when two people are working so hard to make their point in this debate is It all depends on what works for you!

For example I quoted Bro Bundy because I too have tried every kind of diet until I found what worked for me. Unlike Bro however I found for me it was the no carb diet that worked best. I found it for the same reason Bro found it didn't work for him. I just lost to much hard gained muscle on anything but a no carb diet. 

Let me first say I have a very efficient body for storing energy. Meaning I can gain weight (muscle & fat) very easy.  I'm one of those people if you use one of those calculators that tells you your maintenance calorie based on body weight, age and activity level, if I take in that amount of (clean) calories a day I would gain at least 2 lbs a week.

Back in the 90's most BB were using high (clean) carbs, moderate protein and low fat so this was the first pre-contest diet I used. I got lean, but not lean enough and by the end of the diet I had lost almost as much muscle as fat. I started out around 250 in January and competed in May at 212 probably still about 8% BF. For the next few years I used many different types of diets and the funny thing is they all worked, just not good enough. Some effected my mood more than others, some effected energy levels more than others. I always felt good on diets that were split an even 1/3 ratio. I think the worst was the high protein, low carb, low fat. 

Then in the late 90's Dan Duchaine wrote a book call Underground Body Opus: Militant Weight Loss & Recomposition. Being that I had already read anything Dan had written I picked up the book and after reading it, twice, I decided to use it for my next pre-contest diet. I'm not going to go into the diet or program in detail but it is basically a cycle diet of no carbs Mon - Friday, then carb up Sat & Sun. I'm way over simplifying it, as it has many small things that make it work. 

The first time I used Bodyopus I only lost around 1% of muscle and more than 12% fat and it was the first time I was on stage over 220 at 223 at around 5%. The next year I used it and hit 225 at around 5%. The next year I hit the stage at my best ever 228 at around 3%. I mixed in just a bit of DNP at the end of this diet, talk about feeling like shit, DNP made me feel worse than any diet I had ever used. I got nationally qualified at that show, however, I never did compete at nationals.

2 years later I got into Strongman and didn't worry about body weight until I wanted to dip into the 232 class. So I used Bodyopus again and noticed that my strength didn't suffer as much as I thought it would. One year I let my weight get up to far (265) and started dieting to late for a contest so I had to loose 33 lbs in about 5 weeks. I new I couldn't do this using Bodyopus because by carbing up on the weekends you take your body out of fat burning and into recovery. I would need all the next 35 days if I wanted to make weight. This is when I found out if I stayed in keto long enough my body adjusts and my energy stamina come back.

Basically what I found out was when I cycled Mon-Fri no carbs and Sat-Sun carb load I would feel great starting Sunday til about Wednesday morning with Thursday & Friday being tired. Then what I found when I went on 5 weeks without carbs is at about day 3 I started feeling sluggish but sometime the next week, maybe day 8, I came out of it and felt good, even doing tire flips for 100 feet or 60 minute cardio sessions.

Again all this is based on my own experiences but the point I wanted to make is don't write off any diet based on someone research paper. Find what works for you to reach your goals at the time.

Lifthvyw8s


----------



## A1c (Apr 18, 2020)

researchgate.net/profile/Jacob_Wilson2

I used to post on the forum back in the late 90’s. At least I think it was this form. I know it was called undergroundbodybuilding.com. Anyway, that was when I was in medical school. It’s been along time since those days. I will say that I am a low carb advocate. A lot of the supposed negative points of low carb that people believe are not actually true. If you follow the link you will find many studies that debunk some of this so-called bro science. Also, there is a website called low-carb down under which has a lot of videos on it that debunk some significant miss about low carb dieting. These are from very reputable physicians who I really enjoyed listening to. If all of you were to actually take the time and research the specific questions that you have, I think you would find the answers quite shocking. Anyway, I’m not here to argue or debate just to share a little bit of knowledge. I feel like I have to try to convince patients all day long to follow my advice. I don’t want to come home and do it on some form at night time. LOL. Good luck!


----------



## andy (Apr 18, 2020)

sorry , can't be bothered to read all that.. so I'll just hang around


----------



## hulksmash (Oct 3, 2020)

Rhino99 said:


> What have I learned from this thread...
> 
> CJ is smarter than me.
> 
> ...



No. The OP can't even use or read studies correctly, nor share studies with contradictory results. He falls short in his provisions of science.


----------



## dreamscraper (Oct 4, 2020)

John Ioannidis at Stanford has found only about 3% meta-analysis are both correct and useful. That is an update to his research from last decade showing the majority of published research is false. 

You have all the general problems from the hard sciences in spades for nutrition research :
The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.
The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.

I don't know why we really need studies for nutrition anyway. We understand the mechanisms of nutrition. The body is not a black box that we need large samples from in order to infer how things work. We know how things work. To me it is like debating how the Internal combustion engine works. What is there to debate? 

All diets are basically quasi-religious rituals that have value because of belief in the ritual. Most debates in this area I think are more along the lines of rationalizing the ritual of the diet by cherry picking scientific evidence that fits the ritual and ignoring evidence that does not.


----------

