L-C

Fat and glucose vs. fructose

119 posts in this topic

Ray, have you ever heard of Covert Bailey? Back around 1990 he was giving nutritional lectures to packed ( shown on TV) audiences in a very amusing manner. I thought he made a lot of sense, and wonder what you thought of him.

Arnold, I know of Covert Bailey, author of Fit or Fat. Covert Bailey was an advocate of what he called "gentle aerobic exericse," but later changed his mind and started to recommend sprints/sprinting instead. Covert Bailey was also an advocate of what he called a "target diet" where he states we should "aim for the center" which had four main rules (not principles):

1. Eat a balanced diet

2. Choose foods that are low in fat

3. Choose foods that are low in sugar

4. Choose foods that are high in fiber

In general (from what I remember reading) he states that we humans should eat lots of fruits and vegetables, tuna (water packed of course), skim milk, and whole grains; and minimal amouts of foods high in fats and sugars. The truth is that anytime we take in calories above what we require those calories will be converted into fat no matter if they are from carbs/sugars, proteins or fats. Yes, we should vary our intake of macro-nutrients so that we can gain the micro-nutrients needed to function properly. But, that does not mean that we need to discard foods that we enjoy, although we can not take in an unlimited supply of any source of energy.

And, I offer a little more advice about excessive intake of fruit and vegetables such as what most vegetarians do. Fructose and glucose form sucrose which is found in such energy sources as honey, tree fruits, berries, melons and some vegetables. When fruits (such as apples, apricots, bananas, grapes, peachs, pineapples, pears and other fruits of this sort) and vegetables (such as beets, carrots, corn, peppers, onions, sweet potatoes, yams and others of this sort) are ingested in large amounts such as vegetarians do, and excess of sugar must be dealt with by the liver. The liver removes the phosphates from adenosine triphosphate (ATP) which converts to adenosine monophosphate (AMP) which is converted to inisotol monophosphate (IMP) and then uric acid which as I explained earlier can cause gout/joint pain and inflammation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fructose, unlike glucose, is able to enter muscle cells and when to many calories are taken in at one time fructose can also enter adipocytes (fat cells).

There are some suggestions made that the difference between glucose and fructose is not so insignificant (and even the fact mentioned above may be of some importance).

It has to do with the hormone Leptin (more specifically condition called Leptin resistance):

Fructose and Leptin

It also has to do with the metabolic status of the individual at the time, which seems to get discarded in discussions and research of this sort.

Eat as you please, I obviously have not convinced you nor others, even though myself and my clients are walking talking, living examples of a rational diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray, have you ever heard of Covert Bailey? Back around 1990 he was giving nutritional lectures to packed ( shown on TV) audiences in a very amusing manner. I thought he made a lot of sense, and wonder what you thought of him.

Arnold, I know of Covert Bailey, author of Fit or Fat. Covert Bailey was an advocate of what he called "gentle aerobic exericse," but later changed his mind and started to recommend sprints/sprinting instead. Covert Bailey was also an advocate of what he called a "target diet" where he states we should "aim for the center" which had four main rules (not principles):

1. Eat a balanced diet

2. Choose foods that are low in fat

3. Choose foods that are low in sugar

4. Choose foods that are high in fiber

In general (from what I remember reading) he states that we humans should eat lots of fruits and vegetables, tuna (water packed of course), skim milk, and whole grains; and minimal amouts of foods high in fats and sugars. The truth is that anytime we take in calories above what we require those calories will be converted into fat no matter if they are from carbs/sugars, proteins or fats. Yes, we should vary our intake of macro-nutrients so that we can gain the micro-nutrients needed to function properly. But, that does not mean that we need to discard foods that we enjoy, although we can not take in an unlimited supply of any source of energy.

And, I offer a little more advice about excessive intake of fruit and vegetables such as what most vegetarians do. Fructose and glucose form sucrose which is found in such energy sources as honey, tree fruits, berries, melons and some vegetables. When fruits (such as apples, apricots, bananas, grapes, peachs, pineapples, pears and other fruits of this sort) and vegetables (such as beets, carrots, corn, peppers, onions, sweet potatoes, yams and others of this sort) are ingested in large amounts such as vegetarians do, and excess of sugar must be dealt with by the liver. The liver removes the phosphates from adenosine triphosphate (ATP) which converts to adenosine monophosphate (AMP) which is converted to inisotol monophosphate (IMP) and then uric acid which as I explained earlier can cause gout/joint pain and inflammation.

Thanks Ray. I am surprised that Covert Bailey changed his mind about 'slow exercise', because he made clear that fat was not burned in sprints. Your points about the way the body is able to convert a great variety of foods to suit it's needs, makes sense to me by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only ever restricted calories once, last year, making no distinction between calories from fat, protein, and carbs. I started at about 130, and my goal was 125 (I am a little over 5' 6"). I thought it would be healthy. I ate about 1200 calories per day in four small meals for ~ three months and achieved 125. But I was hungry all the time, and thought about food all the time, which had never happened to me before. (I had never counted and strictly/severely restricted calories before).

After the losing weight part, my sustaining calories were supposed to be either 1500 - or maybe 1800. Can't remember. Whichever it was, I was still hungry all the time on that number of calories too. So I gave up counting after about a month, and gained ten pounds over the next ~ four months, which put me at 135 -- not horrible, but more than I'd ever been.

Then, in early 2010, I (fortunately for me) read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories [GCBC] (~ 500 pp. not including notes) and found it VERY illuminating. He is very careful, and I like his ideas about what constitutes good science. He is a science journalist, and did not start out with any particular agenda or hypothesis, but went where the information took him. He researched the book for seven years. And when I read the chapter on hunger, I recognized what he described (though I would not have if I had never been on a restricted-calorie diet).

While reading GCBC, I started to act on what is implied in the book. A few months later I was (and am still) at ~ 120 (varies between 118 - 122) -- without trying to lose weight, without calorie counting, and most importantly to me, never the kind of hunger that had me thinking about food all the time (what a bore).

I am eating primarily for health - not weight loss per se. Still, I haven't been in this range for more than 20 years. Interesting. My fat/protein/carb ratios are roughly what is recommended on this blog, created by a doctor who read Taubes' book and started the blog as a result of reading GCBC, combined with his own interests, and a desire to help people with their health:

PaNu

GCBC is not (particularly) a diet book. It is also a long read, and contains very little (almost no) direct advice. It just presents a lot of information about the science (or, mostly the lack of science) behind many nutrition studies. If you read it, you can decide for yourself whether you think he is saying something important, and whether you want to eat differently based on the facts he presents. My opinion was (obviously): yes.

And I have not been sorry at all. I was, OTOH, sorry when I tried a restricted calorie-diet with small meals four times per day. But fortunately, I did that only once before GCBC offered an explanation for why that felt bad, and was not a reasonable, sustainable diet, for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnold, you are welcome and I am glad that you find the information useful. The last bit of information you state about Covert Bailey demonstrates his (along with many other people's) misunderstanding about human metabolism and exercise. It is actually sprints that burn more fat as it is the more intense activity. Steady state activity such as "slow exercise" or "gentle aerobic exercise" does NOT primarily burn fat, it burns glucose, then uses glycogen, then causes the catabolism of muscle of which amino acids are converted to glucose to keep fueling the steady state activity. It is not until around the 3 hour mark that the body releases hormone sensitive lipase which finally goes to the fat cell and pulls out triacylglyceral, sends it to the liver where it is converted into two forms of energy, ketone bodies and ATP with a by-product of glycerol. The glycerol can then be converted by the liver through a process called gluconeogenesis into glucose. Steady state activity also causes the release of ghrelin which causes one's metabolism to slow down and increases one's hunger urge.

High intensity exercise, such as intense weight-lifting or sprinting, automatically causes the release of hormone sensitive lipase which has been shown to go on for up to 16 hours after an intense workout or until one goes to sleep. The negative of doing sprints is that to gain lean-body tissue demands that the intensity keep increasing of which there are limits. Another negative of using sprints as exercise is that it increases the amount of force on the body which increases the chances of injury. The goal of exercise is to enhance the body not to annihilate it. Intense exercise, in the form of weight training, which by it's very nature must be short in duration and infrequent to allow time for the growth/progress to happen will do more to enhance one's body, including one's metabolism, than any amount of steady state activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rose Lake, congratulations on your weight-loss.

I have read Gary Taubes years ago when he wrote his original article "What if it's all a big fat lie?" and found him to be as foolish as Atkins. And when I did further research I found that a lot of the researchers that Taubes quotes consider his statements in that article to be a total misunderstanding of what was actually stated or written.

Also, there are many reasons why it is difficult to lose weight even when people eat properly, such as stress causes the release of ghrelin which can cause hunger urges and weight gain. In other words, it is not just food that can cause weight gain. A study done on accountants during tax season found increases in cholesterol levels, blood pressure and body fat. The amazing thing about all those increases is that the accountants did not change their diets, but their stress went up and their total sleep per day was shortened. When the tax season ended, all previous increases went back to their previous levels.

Finally, if all the discussions and blame game were true, why in the hell am I and my clients not fat pigs as we eat, drink and be merry with our food intake? And I have been doing so for close to 20 years and have maintained a body fat level between 4-7 percent for over 10 years. No need to answer the question as I am sure I have not convinced you, even with all the evidence and examples of how the human body metabolizes energy of all sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then, in early 2010, I (fortunately for me) read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories [GCBC] (~ 500 pp. not including notes) and found it VERY illuminating. He is very careful, and I like his ideas about what constitutes good science. He is a science journalist, and did not start out with any particular agenda or hypothesis, but went where the information took him. He researched the book for seven years. And when I read the chapter on hunger, I recognized what he described (though I would not have if I had never been on a restricted-calorie diet).

While reading GCBC, I started to act on what is implied in the book. A few months later I was (and am still) at ~ 120 (varies between 118 - 122) -- without trying to lose weight, without calorie counting, and most importantly to me, never the kind of hunger that had me thinking about food all the time (what a bore).

I second your praise for Mr. Taubes' book. I am one of those who had substantive weight and corollary issues throughout my life and, in an effort to combat them, experienced directly many of the bogus claims of supposed experts. Like you, I recognized so many of the phenomena Mr. Taubes (actually practicing physicians in the field and specialists in various areas) documents. Overall, it is both an eye-opening read and, ultimately, an indictment of the diet/nutrition racket that has developed over the last 30-40 years, particularly its until recent preeminent "low fat - low protein - high carb" wing (a death sentence for many).

By way of a side note and disclaimer: I am an alumnus of Michael Thurmond and can testify as to the tremendous efficacy of his approach which, although it predates Mr. Taubes' work by many years, bears out many of Mr. Taubes' observations and conclusions. This was one additional point of recognition for me as I read the book. Although he doesn't refer to them as such, Thurmond's eating plans -- with their focus on the frequent consumption (5-6 meals a day) of WHOLE foods (proteins, low-glycemic fruits, vegetables and whole grains) and the elimination of added fats, salts (in my case, at least) and all processed foodstuffs -- seem to corollate with the paleo-diets many people are discussing these days. Whatever the case, its positively shocking the physical response to Thurmond's approach (in my case, 75 pound weight loss in 4 months, overall combined cholesteraol reduction from 265-70 to 154 in 2 months (without drugs), reduction in blood sugar levels from 99 to 84 in two months, increased energy and mental alertness, etc.), and all of it without any hunger (quite the opposite, in fact!!) or sense of deprivation. I can say, without equivocation, that the problem foods for me and the ones which cause the most profound negative physical reactions are the sugars, the processed grains and dairy.

I'll also freely admit that I'm one of those people who occasionally goes off sensible eating for periods of time, particularly when traveling. No matter how miserable I feel after these hiatuses, in every case, after a day or two on my old Thurmond plan, I'm physically aware of an almost complete reversal of the effects and am always happily surprised by it (although I shouldn't be at this point).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally, if all the discussions and blame game were true, why in the hell am I and my clients not fat pigs as we eat, drink and be merry with our food intake? And I have been doing so for close to 20 years and have maintained a body fat level between 4-7 percent for over 10 years. No need to answer the question as I am sure I have not convinced you, even with all the evidence and examples of how the human body metabolizes energy of all sorts.

I have an idea about that, which is: If one can do something through sheer will, I know of no one who would do it without batting an eyelash better than yourself, and convince your clients to do it too. I have read you saying that you get hungry, but still stick to your calorie limitation, which doesn't surprise me in the least. Also, I may say, that the metabolic syndrome type of problems take twenty years or more of too-high sugar / refined carbs consumption to manifest, which you will probably never have, as I expect that you don't enough of anything to eat too much sugar / refined carbs. Fortunately for me, pretty much by accident, I didn't start eating too much sugar and refined carbs until my mid twenties.

With regard to Taubes. He answers those people specifically in his book, and gives all documentation of the context in which he obtained their comments. He is an honest, meticulous journalist. He is not even claiming to be right (as he thinks more studies need to be done). He is mostly showing what has been VERY wrong in the nutrition advice that most of us got for our entire lives, and shows the reader why. And has good ideas about promising topics for study in nutrition. I don't know what you mean by "foolish."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you mean by "foolish."

I mean that his claims are absurd as are Atkins and any other person that claims similar things. Similar things such as eat fat and protein until your hearts content and never have to worry about gaining fat, increased cholesterol or any other negative that comes from eating carbohydrates. Even though most fat people that have been studied eat almost no carbs and instead eat large amounts of protein and fat as I mentioned in another post.

Here are a few questions for you to ask youself (along with all the others out there that agree with the above mentioned diet). If man cannot eat sugars/carbohydrates without ill consequences how in the hell did we evolve to the point where our metabolisms convert energy forms to glucose and not protein or fat? In other words, how come the primary source of energy in the body is glucose, even when we take in protein and fat? How come the muscles use glucose as their primary energy source? Did man slip through natural selection and adapt in ways that are harmful to himself but not be wiped out of exitence as other animals? And, how come your brain, along with every other human brain, gets 99.9 percent of it's energy from glucose/sugar if it is so harmful to us humans?

I offer physical descriptions of how human metabolism works on multiple different types of energy sources and I get anecdotes in return. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you mean by "foolish."

I mean that his claims are absurd as are Atkins and any other person that claims similar things. Similar things such as eat fat and protein until your hearts content and never have to worry about gaining fat, increased cholesterol or any other negative that comes from eating carbohydrates. Even though most fat people that have been studied eat almost no carbs and instead eat large amounts of protein and fat as I mentioned in another post.

Here are a few questions for you to ask youself (along with all the others out there that agree with the above mentioned diet). If man cannot eat sugars/carbohydrates without ill consequences how in the hell did we evolve to the point where our metabolisms convert energy forms to glucose and not protein or fat? In other words, how come the primary source of energy in the body is glucose, even when we take in protein and fat? How come the muscles use glucose as their primary energy source? Did man slip through natural selection and adapt in ways that are harmful to himself but not be wiped out of exitence as other animals? And, how come your brain, along with every other human brain, gets 99.9 percent of it's energy from glucose/sugar if it is so harmful to us humans?

I offer physical descriptions of how human metabolism works on multiple different types of energy sources and I get anecdotes in return. ;)

You are quite wrong about Taubes' claims. I encourage people to read the book, before deciding what his claims are.

For interest:

Insulin is a doorman at the fat cell nightclub, not a lock on the door

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray,

I understand how some ingested proteins are converted eventually in sugar, which then comes into the bloodstream. Where I am not understanding you is when you say (if I understood correctly) that when one eats a large amount of calories, the insulin spike will be the same, regardless of the type of food (all other things being equal). Here is why I'm struggling with this:

- Some non-sugar calories are converted to sugar, but not all.

- The conversion of say proteins into sugar takes time, so sugar converted from a single large protein intake will hit the bloodstream more gradually than sugar coming straight from a large sugar intake.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,

JD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am surprised that Covert Bailey changed his mind about 'slow exercise', because he made clear that fat was not burned in sprints.

This could be true and yet not relevant. We burn more calories from muscles, so maybe he decided that it was more important to build muscle mass - which you can do with sprints better than slow exercises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you mean by "foolish."

I mean that his claims are absurd as are Atkins and any other person that claims similar things. Similar things such as eat fat and protein until your hearts content and never have to worry about gaining fat, increased cholesterol or any other negative that comes from eating carbohydrates. Even though most fat people that have been studied eat almost no carbs and instead eat large amounts of protein and fat as I mentioned in another post.

Here are a few questions for you to ask youself (along with all the others out there that agree with the above mentioned diet). If man cannot eat sugars/carbohydrates without ill consequences how in the hell did we evolve to the point where our metabolisms convert energy forms to glucose and not protein or fat? In other words, how come the primary source of energy in the body is glucose, even when we take in protein and fat? How come the muscles use glucose as their primary energy source? Did man slip through natural selection and adapt in ways that are harmful to himself but not be wiped out of exitence as other animals? And, how come your brain, along with every other human brain, gets 99.9 percent of it's energy from glucose/sugar if it is so harmful to us humans?

I offer physical descriptions of how human metabolism works on multiple different types of energy sources and I get anecdotes in return. ;)

You are quite wrong about Taubes' claims. I encourage people to read the book, before deciding what his claims are.

For interest:

Insulin is a doorman at the fat cell nightclub, not a lock on the door

No, I am not. And you do not answer my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray,

I understand how some ingested proteins are converted eventually in sugar, which then comes into the bloodstream. Where I am not understanding you is when you say (if I understood correctly) that when one eats a large amount of calories, the insulin spike will be the same, regardless of the type of food (all other things being equal). Here is why I'm struggling with this:

- Some non-sugar calories are converted to sugar, but not all.

- The conversion of say proteins into sugar takes time, so sugar converted from a single large protein intake will hit the bloodstream more gradually than sugar coming straight from a large sugar intake.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,

JD

First off, this is not the question you originally asked; and what you mention in your struggle to understand is what happens in eating a diet of varied energy sources such as carbs, proteins and fats. Your original question dealt with insulin increases and "crashing" after eating a large amount of calories with minimal amounts of sugar intake such as the turkey dinner I mentioned.

All food begins to be digested within the mouth and usually last no longer than 1 minute as it moves from the mouth to the pharynx and into the esophagus. To go from the esophagus (no breakdown happens in the esophagus) to the stomach takes less than 3 minutes. For the most part the stomach provides the mechanical breakdown of food and very little in the way of chemicals are drawn off, this process takes 40 minutes to a few hours. From the stomach the semifluid known as chyme moves into the small intestine where most of the resources begin to be drawn away and used for specific bodily functions or stored. The larger the size of the meal the longer it takes for this whole process to happen.

So, to answer your question, sugar breaks down a little faster than protein or fat, so what, to many calories taken in will still have to be stored somewhere. And once the muscles are full of glycogen the only other place for the original excess protein to be stored is in the fat cell. Of course along the way, the protein is converted into glucose to fuel the body and then if to much is converted it is returned to the liver for conversion into triacylglycerol and stored as fat. Insulin opens the door for glucose to be stored in the muscle and also helps remove excess glucose from the blood-stream no matter what form the original calories came into the body as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray, I'm sorry - I'm reading your response, but I am not finding an answer to my question, so I'm going to assume that I have not been clear and will try to clarify my question. Here it is:

During a single meal of say 1,000 calories (a large meal). If the meal is largely composed of sugars (cakes and sweets), will there not be materially more sugar, coming into the blood stream materially faster, and therefore triggering with much greater likelihood an insulin spike, than if the meal is composed of mostly proteins and fats (say, a 1Lb porterhouse steak)? The Thanksgiving dinner is too much of an outlier, and there's so much sweet in it that I don't know what to think of its composition.

It seems to me that the answer should be either:

1) In both cases, there will eventually be a sharp enough increase in blood sugar to produce an insulin spike, maybe delayed in one case but otherwise not materially different; or

2) In the case of fats & proteins, there will be so much less sugar, coming into the blood stream so much slower that the concentration will be much less likely to trigger an insulin spike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean that his claims are absurd as are Atkins and any other person that claims similar things. Similar things such as eat fat and protein until your hearts content and never have to worry about gaining fat, increased cholesterol or any other negative that comes from eating carbohydrates. Even though most fat people that have been studied eat almost no carbs and instead eat large amounts of protein and fat as I mentioned in another post.

While I do not subscribe to Dr. Atkins' diet recommendations (I don't believe one ought to deprive oneself of an entire class of macronutrients), the fact remains that Dr. Atkins, who suffered from congential cardiomyopathy, should have been dead at 40 as were most of the males in his family. He wasn't. He lived for several decades beyond that point, and he did so by following the very diet he recommended. Furthermore, the heart failure that contributed to his death in 2003 was triggered by a massive brain hemorrhage due to a fall that left him in a comatose state. It was not the primary cause of death, and his doctors were emphatic in their statements relative to the general health and vigor of his cardiovascular system prior to the accident.

Nonetheless, Dr. Atkins' diet recommendations were nothing new! Quite the contrary. For the most part, those recommendations (with the exception of their free inclusion of fat) were similar to diets devised at least as far back as the mid-19th Century. This is something Mr. Taubes explores in his book.

Which brings me to the next point. I'm sorry to say that your suggestion that "most fat people that have been studied eat almost no carbs and instead eat large amounts of protein and fat" is, at best, utterly misleading. I cannot begin to guess what "fat people" were observed in those "studies", but if my own experience as a former fat person carries any evidential weight, while it may be true that most fat people do not consume to any great degree carbohydrates in the form of fruits and vegetables, they most certainly do consume large quantities of carbohydrates in the forms of processed grains and sugars. It is also true that fat often figures prominently in their diets, but this is most often in combination with the farinaceous and sugary foods. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that for many of us, these are/were the foods of choice! Leaving my personal experiences aside, however, for nearly 200 years practicing physicians have been documenting this trend among their patients and, despite a lack of hard scientific knowledge for many of those years, recommending substantive reduction in the consumption of processed grains and sugars to great success. That many clinical researchers might have disregarded this experiential information does not change the facts. The disconnect between practicing physicians and clinical scientists is one of the central areas Mr. Taubes explores in his book.

As to cholesterol, it is my understanding that the most recent research has, once again, come up short in establishing a causal connection between dietary cholesterol and the body's manufacturing of cholesterol, the latter of which is the issue of most serious concern. Conversely, evidence abounds that hyperinsulinism (Insulin again!), as opposed to dietary cholesterol per se, is the central trigger for the body's production of cholesterol. Again, on that subject my own experience is perhaps illustrative: the first time my doctors noted abnormally elevated cholesterol levels was following a period during which I had been consuming a diet consisting almost entirely of brown rice, beans, vegetables, etc. . . . with virtually no animal proteins or fat. There were other complications, including blood sugar and insulin levels that put me on the verge of adult-onset diabetes. What was disturbing to us was that previously, even though overweight, I did not present with any of these problems.

Which brings to a final point for your consideration. You wrote:

Here are a few questions for you to ask youself (along with all the others out there that agree with the above mentioned diet). If man cannot eat sugars/carbohydrates without ill consequences how in the hell did we evolve to the point where our metabolisms convert energy forms to glucose and not protein or fat? In other words, how come the primary source of energy in the body is glucose, even when we take in protein and fat? How come the muscles use glucose as their primary energy source? Did man slip through natural selection and adapt in ways that are harmful to himself but not be wiped out of exitence as other animals? And, how come your brain, along with every other human brain, gets 99.9 percent of it's energy from glucose/sugar if it is so harmful to us humans?

These are all wonderful questions for evolutionary scientists, and I do not pretend to have the knowledge to answer them at that level. However, there are some things of a historical/anthropological nature that touch upon the subject and with which I am quite familiar. To whit: modern homo sapiens has been on this planet for a little over 200,000 years. It has been in only the last 8,000 to 10,000 of those years, however, that carbohydrates -- in particular those of the grain variety -- have been a substantive feature of the human diet. Needless to say, refined sugars represent an even more recent dietary addition. What this means is that for over 190,000 years, through ice ages and whatnot, modern man subsisted primarily on animal proteins and fat -- in the forms of fish, shellfish, aquatic mammals, birds, game animals both large and small, blood, and, on occasion, even each other -- with the occasional handful of berries, melons, leaves, and nuts, etc., picked in passing from nearby trees, bushes or patches when they presented themselves. And, I submit, this is not conjecture or speculation. For the last several hundred years, modern Western scientists, historians, anthropoligists, missionaries, physicians, etc., have actually come into contact with people living in remote, paleolithic, pre-agricultural environments. Many of those modern Westerners observed and documented the dietary practices of the people they encountered. They documented, with no small amount of incredulity, the fact that for most of these "ancient" people, in addition to being physical fit, strong and vital, they by and large exhibited none of the so-called "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, obesity, etc., etc., etc.) with which Western man in particular had become so well acquainted. They also observed and documented the effects (mostly negative) of the introduction of, among other things, modern foodstuffs -- particularly grain products and sugars -- into the diets of these "ancient" people.

For me, the most intriguing aspect of Mr. Taubes' book is his detailing of the manner in which, particularly from the 1940s onward, so much of this observed dietary behavior was discounted and ignored by clinical scientists in the fields of diet and nutrition. I am willing to admit that Mr. Taubes may have gotten some things wrong in the telling; however, the interdisciplinary failure of integration among these various fields is nothing short of scandalous. For his portrait of this state of affairs, if for nothing else, Mr. Taubes' book is an invaluable and eye-opening resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you mean by "foolish."

I mean that his claims are absurd as are Atkins and any other person that claims similar things. Similar things such as eat fat and protein until your hearts content and never have to worry about gaining fat, increased cholesterol or any other negative that comes from eating carbohydrates. Even though most fat people that have been studied eat almost no carbs and instead eat large amounts of protein and fat as I mentioned in another post.

Here are a few questions for you to ask youself (along with all the others out there that agree with the above mentioned diet). If man cannot eat sugars/carbohydrates without ill consequences how in the hell did we evolve to the point where our metabolisms convert energy forms to glucose and not protein or fat? In other words, how come the primary source of energy in the body is glucose, even when we take in protein and fat? How come the muscles use glucose as their primary energy source? Did man slip through natural selection and adapt in ways that are harmful to himself but not be wiped out of exitence as other animals? And, how come your brain, along with every other human brain, gets 99.9 percent of it's energy from glucose/sugar if it is so harmful to us humans?

I offer physical descriptions of how human metabolism works on multiple different types of energy sources and I get anecdotes in return. ;)

You are quite wrong about Taubes' claims. I encourage people to read the book, before deciding what his claims are.

For interest:

Insulin is a doorman at the fat cell nightclub, not a lock on the door

No, I am not. And you do not answer my questions.

For the benefit of those interested in the issue of sugar, my answer to "No, I am not" [wrong about what Taubes says in GCBC] is: Read the book, and see for yourself. Taubes makes a very good case for anything he claims. And his claims are not many. Much of the book is concerned with demonstrating the unscientific bases for much of the nutrition advice that has become mainstream, showing the causes for the acceptance of common recommendations with regard to nutrition, in spite of a lack of scientific evidence. These reasons are specific and complex, but, not surprisingly (to me) result, in part, from the disastrous marriage between government and "science."

As for the questions. They were presented as questions that I should ask myself. And since no one has claimed that people cannot eat carbohydrates without ill consequences, the very first question contains a straw man. But, presuming for the moment that your facts are correct in the next three questions, and which ask why the body uses glucose as the primary source of energy, the answer would be: the law of identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Finally, if all the discussions and blame game were true, why in the hell am I and my clients not fat pigs as we eat, drink and be merry with our food intake? And I have been doing so for close to 20 years and have maintained a body fat level between 4-7 percent for over 10 years. No need to answer the question as I am sure I have not convinced you, even with all the evidence and examples of how the human body metabolizes energy of all sorts.

I have an idea about that, which is: If one can do something through sheer will, I know of no one who would do it without batting an eyelash better than yourself, and convince your clients to do it too. I have read you saying that you get hungry, but still stick to your calorie limitation, which doesn't surprise me in the least. Also, I may say, that the metabolic syndrome type of problems take twenty years or more of too-high sugar / refined carbs consumption to manifest, which you will probably never have, as I expect that you don't enough of anything to eat too much sugar / refined carbs. Fortunately for me, pretty much by accident, I didn't start eating too much sugar and refined carbs until my mid twenties.

In response to hunger urges; there is no way to stop them unless you shut down your nervous system. Which is what I was explaining and what I think the context of my statements about hunger urges were about that you used in your example. I usually eat every 3 hours while I am awake and if I happen to go beyond 3 hours I attempt to make certain that I do not go beyond 5 hours without eating. Because of the nature of the human body, it does not wait until on the verge of starvation to release hormones that make us "feel" hungry and also slow our metabolism, it does so within 5 hours of not eating. Except while one is sleeping/fasting at night in which the body draws off of glycogen stored in the liver thorughout the previous day.

Part of the digestive process begins before we, as humans, put food into our mouths and it is called the cephalic phase. The cephalic phase is caused by the sight, smell and thought of food, which also carries on during the taste of food. The sensations and thoughts mentioned cause stimulation of the cerebral cortex, the hypothalamus and the medulla oblongota which are then routed thorugh the vagus nerve which is tied into the central nervous system. During the cephalic phase hunger urges are felt and or intensify and secretions begin within the digestive system, to include the mouth, to prepare for feeding. You cannot stop this reaction and it's effect unless you can stop your body from receiving sensations from existence which would obvisously lead to death, such as the example used by Objectivist about the boy that could not feel heat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray, I'm sorry - I'm reading your response, but I am not finding an answer to my question, so I'm going to assume that I have not been clear and will try to clarify my question. Here it is:

During a single meal of say 1,000 calories (a large meal). If the meal is largely composed of sugars (cakes and sweets), will there not be materially more sugar, coming into the blood stream materially faster, and therefore triggering with much greater likelihood an insulin spike, than if the meal is composed of mostly proteins and fats (say, a 1Lb porterhouse steak)? The Thanksgiving dinner is too much of an outlier, and there's so much sweet in it that I don't know what to think of its composition.

It seems to me that the answer should be either:

1) In both cases, there will eventually be a sharp enough increase in blood sugar to produce an insulin spike, maybe delayed in one case but otherwise not materially different; or

2) In the case of fats & proteins, there will be so much less sugar, coming into the blood stream so much slower that the concentration will be much less likely to trigger an insulin spike.

Protein and fats cannot directly be used as energy sources and even complex carbs and sugars combinations such as sucrose must be broken down into useable energy sources. Taking in an immnese amount of calories of any sort will slow down the digestion of every form of food/energy. And although sugars are the easiest to break down the others do not take much longer to be broken down and either used or stored. In the simplest of terms, eat to much of anything and it will turn to fat. When protein or fat are converted to glucose they require insulin to enter into the muscle and if those muscles are alreay full from previous glucose flowing through your system, they will be converted to fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you mean by "foolish."

I mean that his claims are absurd as are Atkins and any other person that claims similar things. Similar things such as eat fat and protein until your hearts content and never have to worry about gaining fat, increased cholesterol or any other negative that comes from eating carbohydrates. Even though most fat people that have been studied eat almost no carbs and instead eat large amounts of protein and fat as I mentioned in another post.

Here are a few questions for you to ask youself (along with all the others out there that agree with the above mentioned diet). If man cannot eat sugars/carbohydrates without ill consequences how in the hell did we evolve to the point where our metabolisms convert energy forms to glucose and not protein or fat? In other words, how come the primary source of energy in the body is glucose, even when we take in protein and fat? How come the muscles use glucose as their primary energy source? Did man slip through natural selection and adapt in ways that are harmful to himself but not be wiped out of exitence as other animals? And, how come your brain, along with every other human brain, gets 99.9 percent of it's energy from glucose/sugar if it is so harmful to us humans?

I offer physical descriptions of how human metabolism works on multiple different types of energy sources and I get anecdotes in return. ;)

You are quite wrong about Taubes' claims. I encourage people to read the book, before deciding what his claims are.

For interest:

Insulin is a doorman at the fat cell nightclub, not a lock on the door

No, I am not. And you do not answer my questions.

For the benefit of those interested in the issue of sugar, my answer to "No, I am not" [wrong about what Taubes says in GCBC] is: Read the book, and see for yourself. Taubes makes a very good case for anything he claims. And his claims are not many. Much of the book is concerned with demonstrating the unscientific bases for much of the nutrition advice that has become mainstream, showing the causes for the acceptance of common recommendations with regard to nutrition, in spite of a lack of scientific evidence. These reasons are specific and complex, but, not surprisingly (to me) result, in part, from the disastrous marriage between government and "science."

As for the questions. They were presented as questions that I should ask myself. And since no one has claimed that people cannot eat carbohydrates without ill consequences, the very first question contains a straw man. But, presuming for the moment that your facts are correct in the next three questions, and which ask why the body uses glucose as the primary source of energy, the answer would be: the law of identity.

There is no straw man as the questions are obstacles that have to be overcome/answered if one is going to attempt to claim that sugar is evil which is what most (although indirectly) do when they state we, as humans should not be eating certain foods/energy sources.

Further, my principles/recommendations are not mainstream neither is my exercise program.

Finally, I understand the law of indentity and hence how I have come to my conclusions. I also understand the nature of man and hence why I offer that you learn it before you attempt to tell other people about an idea that you cannot explain the biological functions of.

I am done with this thread, but if anyone wants to discuss a rational diet and exercvise program, please call or write me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there may be some confusion in people's minds between hunger as a psychological concept versus hunger as a physiological concept. Both involve an urge to eat, but the former is a mental evaluation of the desirability of food (which may be right or wrong) while the latter is a release of hormones in response to an actual need for food by the body, which is never "wrong."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further, my principles/recommendations are not mainstream neither is my exercise program.

Finally, I understand the law of indentity and hence how I have come to my conclusions. I also understand the nature of man and hence why I offer that you learn it before you attempt to tell other people about an idea that you cannot explain the biological functions of.

I am done with this thread, but if anyone wants to discuss a rational diet and exercvise program, please call or write me.

I apologize for returning to this thread after I stated the above, but I have a few more items to mention about so called "mainstream" ideas. High protein diets can be traced back to ancient medical texts dated 1550 B.C. when the Greeks came up with the term proteios which translates to "of the first rank." From that time period until the early 20th century (1921) man did not have the technological tools needed to understand how our bodies/metabolisms react to all foods and hence carbohydrate/sugar consumption was frowned upon. It was not until the discovery of insulin (1921) that man finally began to rethink almost 2,500 years of incorrect thoughts. So, the idea of eating high protein (which by the way did not work then either) has been the "mainstream," but hopefully will finally be discarded as it is built on a faulty premise.

Now, I am done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...It was not until the discovery of insulin (1921) that man finally began to rethink almost 2,500 years of incorrect thoughts.

I apologize once again, the high-lighted number above should read 3,500 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites