L-C

Fat and glucose vs. fructose

119 posts in this topic

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.

The first question did assume that which was never asserted, i.e. that carbohydrates cannot be eaten without ill consequences.

I encourage everyone to read Good Calories, Bad Calories if they want to discover what is behind mainstream ideas of nutrition. Prior to reading GCBC, I never thought any of Ray's ideas were mainstream. But whether or not an idea is mainstream is irrelevant to whether it is true, false, or arbitrary.

The only difference it makes, whether an idea is mainstream or not, is that when false or arbitrary ideas are widely accepted, they can cause immense harm. And that is the kind of widespread harm which Taubes' book can diminish -- if people read the book -- because he exposes some very prevalent, and important wrong ideas in the field of nutrition, by showing how they came to be accepted, despite the lack of evidence to support them.

Taubes will be publishing a second, shorter book in December, presumably designed for those who want a diet book. Among the complaints about GCBC, was that it was not a diet book, and many people didn't want to read through 500 pp. to understand the ideas. I guess they just wanted to try a diet, and see if it worked. Anyway, the title of the shorter book is: Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It. I am sure, however, that GCBC will always be the superior reference, for those who want the full case.

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.

Low carb is not necessarily high protein, though, if one does not fear healthy fats. I (probably) eat more protein than I used to, but not a lot more. The biggest differences are:

much less sugar

no refined carbs

and other things that are more Kurt Harris's ideas (links below) not ideas from Taubes, e.g.

no gluten grains or oils high in linoleic acid

[conjugated linoleic acid, however, (which has been through the digestive system of a ruminant) is not the same, and may be good]

more eggs

a lot more calories from fat

good fat sources:

fats from grass-fed ruminants, where possible - butter, ghee, and fat on meat

coconut oil

nuts low in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) - macadamias, hazelnuts, pistachios, almonds

I like the approach outlined here:

PaNu

So I'm offering the same link that I offered above, again.

And for those who like audio, here is an interview with the doctor who writes the blog.

Jimmy Moore interviews Kurt Harris (one hour)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for Ray, if he's still reading.

What type of food should one eat if one does not want to perform such intense exercise as you suggested in the thread?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] refined carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates, blood sugar levels, insulin levels, insulin cause of fat, [...]

Fructose has a glycemic index of 20, and glucose 100. The index is a measure of the amount of insulin produced by a nutrient in a ratio to that produced by glucose. Complex carbohydrates have low glycemic index levels.

http://video.about.com/lowcarbdiets/Grilled-Zucchini-and-Squash.htm

Nice recipe.

Inventor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested:

Eliminate Sugar and Refined Flour

SUNDAY, JUNE 28, 2009 AT 12:52AM

Not everyone reading this makes the nutrition blogosphere rounds for the latest biochemical tidbits. Quite a few people don't yet know what “macronutrient” means, and that's OK. They are busy living their lives. I like to think one advantage of the PaNu approach is that you can be healthy without a calculator or a scale, or any doctor-provided tests whatsoever, but you do need some basic knowledge to start making choices.

Macronutrients: Proteins, Fats and Carbohydrates

Proteins are chains of smaller molecules called amino acids. Proteins are what compose our muscles and give our bones tensile strength and they include enzymes that make all the chemical reactions in our bodies possible. Generally, the body is constantly turning over proteins and re-cycling the amino acids to make new proteins for both structural and enzymatic purposes. Some of the amino acids (aas) will get used up in this turnover process, so we must have a certain amount of our calories come from protein to replenish these aas or we will literally waste away and die. There are 20 aas used by the body to synthesize new proteins, and we must have 8 of them to avoid deficiency. These are the essential amino acids we need to eat. Animal sources of protein like eggs and meat are complete sources, that is, one portion of such a food contains all eight essential amino acids. The other 12 we can synthesize from the essential 8.

Humans are omnivores and not vegetarians. Animals that exclusively eat plants are able to synthesize amino acids from a smaller essential list eating monotonous plant sources. Humans who choose to artificially emulate true herbivores by eating only plant sources must consciously mix and match different plant sources, and unless they want to eat their own feces (I am not making that up -it would take about 30% by weight), must artificially supplement to get vitamin B12 that we can otherwise only get from the animal sources we evolved to eat. Animal sources of protein like eggs and meat are complete sources of amino acids – no mix and match required to get the essentials.

Fats and oils are described by class here, but generally are in the form of triacylglycerols or triglycerides (TAGs), three fatty acids chains on a glycerol backbone. Lipid is the technical term, but lets use fats for short. The fat composition of our diets affects cell wall and other vital functions, and the ratios of fats like Omega 6 and Omega 3 has important effects on immune function and inflammation.

As a fuel, fats are nonpariel. The FDA and the AHA and the ADA and all the lipophobes say to avoid fats because they are 9 kcal/ g (versus roughly 4kcal/g for proteins and carbs) and this caloric density will somehow by itself make you gain weight. I never saw a wild animal titrate their food by weight and humans don't either. We stop eating when we are no longer hungry and nothing turns off hunger like fats. The caloric density of fat is not an accident. Animals evolved to store energy efficiently as fat, and humans evolved to eat the the fat that prey animals we co-evolved with have stored “on our behalf”. We store the majority of the extra energy in our own bodies, whether derived from fats or sugars or proteins, as fat, especially saturated fat. To suspect that the saturated fat we store in our own bodies in such large amounts causes disease is wholly implausible, and I have yet to see any convincing scientific evidence that it does. Animal fats are quite simply the anchor food source of the PaNu approach.

Carbohydrates are simple sugars (glucose, fructose, etc..) or polymers (long chains) of simple sugars called starches. Glucose and Fructose are simple sugars. One glucose joined to one fructose is one sucrose disaccharide molecule. Sucrose and high fructose corn syrup or HFCS (manufactured from corn) are metabolically equivalent for all practical purposes. They are equally bad for you. Sugars can be burned as fuel or converted into storage fat in our bodies. They have other biological functions within the body, but importantly, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Any sugar or starch needed internally can be synthesized from scratch. Unlike the case with Proteins and Fats, starches and sugars are basically just fuel. PaNu theory (well, basic cell biology, actually) recognizes that sugars are the oldest cell fuel. Many bacteria and primitive organisms, and dedifferentiated cancer cells, can only use glucose (sugar) as fuel. During the long evolution of animals, the ability to store and use fatty acids evolved as well. This has had huge advantages in energy storage and efficiency for animals. It is my working hypothesis that during much of human evolution, fatty acids were a much more utilized fuel source within the human body, and even though it was adaptive during our evolution for humans to exploit carbohydrate rich food sources when in a food scarce environment, our current food abundant environment has us using glucose as an internal fuel far more than what we are biologically adapted to. This is the first central dogma, if you will, of PaNu theory. Lets state this central dogma for reinforcement:

I. The first core departure from the evolutionary metabolic milieu (EM2) is the degree to which we use glucose as an internal fuel relative to fatty acids.

In a food abundant environment, where there is no caloric deficit, carbohydrates as a large fraction of caloric intake create a situation where our metabolism is not spending enough time in or near the fat-burning state known as ketosis. The consequence of this is the metabolic syndrome, which is insulin resistance, diabetes, hypertension, obesity and a variety of other diseases that have highly suggestive lines of evidence connecting them to chronically increased levels of insulin and/or serum glucose – including coronary artery disease, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, atrial fibrillation, atherosclerosis, alzheimer dementia, degenerative diseases and even the most common cancers like breast, colon, lung and prostate.

Now, as a physician who sees a wide variety of ailments in the context of people who are ill enough to need MRIs, CT scans and Ultrasounds, I can tell you that this short list is about 60% or more of the serious diseases that I encounter routinely. Imagine if these diseases of civilization were not an inevitable consequence of aging, each with a different cause, but were all a consequence of living long enough despite eating the wrong diet – a diet that deviates from the EM2. That is what I believe to be the case.

My first central dogma is just a subtle extension of Gary Taubes' carbohydrate hypothesis. For the comprehensive tour-de-force argument for the carbohydrate hypothesis, read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

So what can we do to get closer to the fat-burning metabolism of the EM2?

Let's look at our current diet (not yours or mine, the average north american's) and see what it's macronutrient composition is. (These figures are approximate but pretty close)

Average daily calories 2300

Sugar and HFCS 100 lbs/yr 496 kcal/day per capita = 22% Source – HFCS web site

Flour 138 lbs/yr 685 kcal/day per capita = 30% Source - The Wheat Foods Council

The percentage figures as a fraction of daily calories are 22% Sugar and HFCS and 30% from wheat flour.

These figures may be high and count wastage and protein (gluten), so lets round the flour carbs down to 20%. Most figures for current total carb consumption are 55%. So, being generous, we can ballpark all other sources of carbs like vegetables and corn and rice and fruit, etc. at 15% of calories.

So we have, roughly, 22% sugar and HFCS, 20% flour carbs, 15% veggie carbs, 16% protein and 27% fat.

Note that all the vitamins, and all of the essential aas and fatty acids (if we are getting them) are coming from 58% of our diet.

To get closer to the fat burning metabolism of the EM2, what can we do with this as a starting point?

Insulin levels can be low despite a high carbohydrate fraction and we are in ketosis if we are in constant caloric deficit, but this has nasty side effects like lethargy, muscle wastage and well, eventual death if we keep it up. Being hungry all the time is no fun either.

How about eating 55% carbs and only eating every other day, a rigorous form of intermittent fasting? Well, there is some evidence that would work, but I would not prefer alternate day eating to once or twice a day, and try fasting 24 hours after big plates of pasta sometime. Good luck with that.

Perhaps we could agree that Sucrose, HFCS and white flour are providing absolutely nothing essential to our diets, and the sugars (they are all nothing but sugars with some gluten protein in the flour) are just stimulating insulin secretion (glucose) and if not stimulating insulin, they are being converted directly to fat, damaging our liver, and making us eat more by not shutting off our appetites (fructose). To make our cells more reliant on fatty acids and avoid the damage from too much sugar in the diet and the bloodstream, we will completely eliminate 42% of our diet. That is step 1 of PaNu.

Now we have a 42% hole in our diet. We can fill it with more macronutrients from the following:

a) 15% other carbs category choosing from starchy foods like corn, rice, potatoes or fructose laden fruit.

b ) 15% other carbs but choosing non-starchy vegetables like green salads, broccoli, asparagus etc.

c) Protein 16%

d) Fats 27% (This number has actually decreased at the same time obesity has increased over the past 20 years)

The a) choices just add back glucose and fructose we just removed even if we picked up a few vitamins from sugary fruit. The b ) choices might be OK, but if you avoid starch and add green vegetables till they are over 60% of calories you have added most of the carbs right back and you are now chewing for hours a day like a chimpanzee just to get nourishment. *

Now, people don't eat pure macronutrients once they've eliminated sugars and flour. They eat foods that are composed of macronutrients. We need lower the carbohydrate fraction by adding back foods that don't just raise it back again. Since Fats have zero insulin response, are a great fuel source, and give great satiety, why not do this:

Increase Fats to 65-70%, and cut out all residual grains, legumes, and starchy vegetables like potatoes, corn and rice so that only the green salads and non starchy veggies are left. This will get carbs down to 10% (roughly 50g per day) and absolutely minimize glucose, fructose and insulin effects. For the reasons elucidated here we will not allow mechanically extracted seed oils into the diet. This leaves animal sources like butter, cream and flesh of animals like beef, chicken, pork and fish. Now, when we seek out these natural unprocessed animal sources of fat, we will get a bit more animal protein and many more vitamins in the bargain.

Keep carbs around 10%, seek out animal fats, let protein come along for the ride and you will get close to these ratios, + or – 5% for each:

65-70% Fat, 20-25% Protein, and 10% carbohydrates.

This may well be more protein than you need.

No harm reducing it to 15% and adding more cream or butter

Try it. Record everything you eat for a few days while sticking to 1 through 4.

Use Fitday to calculate your ratios. It will be hard to radically deviate from the above ratios unless you purposefully try to subvert it.

Now is when you ( well not you, but those who buy the healthy grains propaganda) say:

Where are the healthy grains?

Answer in the next post.

*Greens are fibrous and not starchy or calorie dense, so if we add enough back to replace the lost calories, we are eating a huge amount of vegetables now. This is in fact advocated by authors like Colin Campbell and Joel Furhman - it can have some effect as the mechanical satiety and sheer work of eating may reduce your caloric intake. However, you will be having a minimal effect on insulin levels at the expense of eating fewer higher quality animal foods and absurd amounts of fiber - this approach only makes sense if you think animal products and fats per se are unhealthy - they are not. Also you just don't need that many vegetables in general and you don't need "fiber" at all.

Kurt G. Harris MD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question for Ray, if he's still reading.

What type of food should one eat if one does not want to perform such intense exercise as you suggested in the thread?

Thanks.

Paul,

Your question demonstrates part of the problem that seems to almost always be overlooked. As we age we lose lean-body tissue (1/2 a pound per year after maturation) which muscle is a large part of. So, one of the reasons people have such difficulties dealing with sugars and insulin is they have less non-fat places to store glucose/glycogen as the limited amount of muscle is already full. If one wants to gain back the "insulin sensitivity" or the ability to accept sugar into the muscle it has been demonstrated that high intensity exercise facilitates this happening as it causes the release of epinephrine. One molecule of epinephrine can cause the moving out of thousands of molecules of glucose which allows the muscle's insulin receptors to once again gain back their "insulin sensitvity" and store glucose as glycogen instead of being converted to fat. Intense exercise also stimulates the production of new muscle in which to store the glucose/glycogen, instead of in adipocytes (fat cells).

So, eating is not the only part of a healthy lifestyle, intense exercise done in the proper amount must also play a part as we age or no amount of dieting alone will help much. In other words there can be no dichotomy if we want to keep our health and function as long as possible. So, once again, a person should eat a rational amount of carbohydrates (50-60%), protien (15-20%, which is twice the amount needed for a person's body to function properly) and fat (20-30%) everday to stay healthy and lean. If you eat to many calories of any sort, they will be converted into fat and stored in adipocytes (fat cells). Also, low calorie diets alone, without exercise, have been shown to cause the catabolism of muscle, other lean-body tissue, along with the burning of fat. This creates the problem of having an even lower metabolic rate when the person ends the low calorie diet (of any sort of foods) as they will now burn less calories per day than they did before the low calorie diet and hence why over 90% gain the weight back and then more.

As I have mentioned before there is almost no research that shows that eating any form of carbohydrates in accordance to their "Glycemic Index" provides any beneficial response. In other words, whether a carbohydrate calorie comes in the form of a simple carbohydrate or a complex carbohydrate they both are processed in about the same amount of time, causing about the same amount of glucose and insulin release. A whole field of new panacea salesmen have come about because of the pushing of this idea that has almost nothing to do with weight loss. I could quote all sorts of studies that show my conclusion, but I will not waste my time, and instead I will give one done at the University of Minnesota not to long ago. Researchers from the University of Minnesota took 29 obese adults and put them on low calorie diets of which there were people eating according to a High Glycemic Index and a Low Glycemic Index. At the end of the study, which lasted 12 weeks, the high GI group had a weight loss of 20.5 pounds and the low GI group had a weight loss of 21.8 pounds. If (as so many people on this forum and else where seem to think) the Glycemic Index premise and manner of eating were sound then we should see a significant difference in the two groups. But, as should be noticed, no significant difference in total weight loss was provided through eating according to the Glycemic Index. The Glycemic Index is bunk, but if an individual enjoys eating that way, go ahead, just do not tell me that I am doing harm to myself and my clients.

One further bit of evidence against excessive amounts of protein intake. In general about 50-60% of one's protein intake is converted to glucose. In studies done on obese people that were put on high protein, limited fat and carbohydrate restricted diets reserachers found excessive amounts of glucose in the obese people's urine. Glucose in the urine is, unfortunately, an indicator that the kidneys are not performing properly and could be damaged or diseased. Of course, some of the damage done to kidneys and the liver is also caused by nitrogen which is toxic (remember my mention of ammonia and urea from an earlier post) to the body, but in limited amounts can be easily dealt with, no so with large amounts of protein intake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] As I have mentioned before there is almost no research that shows that eating any form of carbohydrates in accordance to their "Glycemic Index" provides any beneficial response. [...]

The work of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw contradicts what you say.

Inventor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] As I have mentioned before there is almost no research that shows that eating any form of carbohydrates in accordance to their "Glycemic Index" provides any beneficial response. [...]

The work of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw contradicts what you say.

If you have not noticed I do not care what others have to say, my allegiance is to existence and my multiple decades of research and practical application have demonstrated that they along with many others are wrong. As, I stated earlier, eat as you want, I do not care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested:

Carbohydrates: No dietary requirement but metabolically critical

FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009 AT 12:27PM

Reader Mallory has asked some questions, which I will use as a framework for talking about the metabolic need for carbohydrates.

In response to "what are the Triglyceride/fatty acid/Krebs cycle and the Randle cycle and can you comment on Taubes description of these in GCBC?"

For starters, the triglyceride/ fatty acid cycle (not really a metabolic cycle in the sense of metabolism of substrates, just a feedback mechanism really) as described by Taubes has nothing whatever to do with the Krebs cycle. That is just his term for the equilibrium between esterification and lipolysis and the transport of Triglycerides back to adipocytes from the liver.

The Kreb's cycle is totally different, occurring inside mitochondria and is the keystone of aerobic respiration. That is what you are using when you burn fat or glucose aerobically and amino acids and ketone bodies can feed into it as well. The Kreb's cycle is very efficient, and is employed as long as there are enough substrates and oxygen available in most circumstances. It is not determined by diet, really, it is like your furnace if you live in wisconsin in the winter. It is always on to some degree when it has substrates in a functioning cell with mitochondria.

The Randle cycle also is not really a cycle of metabolic substrates the way the TCA or Krebs cycle is. The Randle cycle is just mutual feedback between glucose and NEFA (non-esterified fatty acids) or ffa (free fatty acids, same thing) that determines which is the predominant energy substrate. When glucose in the blood is high, glucose is the preferred energy substrate and glycerol phosphate, a metabolite of glucose, rises in the cell. This is the backbone of triglyceride (fat) and fat storage is thereby stimulated and lipolysis inhibited. Glycolysis is stimulated so more glucose can be burned (Usually in the Kreb's cycle)

(Important: note that inhibited does not mean stopped! It means the balance is towards fat storage but there is always lioplysis and esterification happening at the same time! Think of patrons passing by a crowded bar. Some enter and some leave. The change over time in the number of patrons in the bar is determined by the net difference between those leaving and those entering over time. That's integral calculus, basically. The point is, you don't have to stop people from leaving to get a bigger crowd, just shift the balance so more come in than go. )

Conversely, when NEFAs are high, the balance between lipolysis and esterification is shifted so there is net release of NEFA for use a substrate (usually burned in the Kreb's cycle again) and glycolysis is inhibited (again, not stopped, but inhibited) Part of this mutual feedback is being mediated by insulin, which is responding to glucose levels, among other things.

So the Randle cycle is just the mechanism whereby your body "knows" how to shift fuel sources based on fuel availability. Makes sense, as multicellular life was founded first on metabolism of glucose. The ability to store and burn fat (much more efficient than glucose) evolved later. You need mitochondria to bun fat. Almost any living cell can burn glucose, with our without mitochondria. It makes perfect sense that we are evolved to be able to use either glucose or fat for fuel.

PaNu dogma is that we are healthier when spending more time in fat-burning mode. This dogma does not, however require us to fantasize that we are somehow unable to metabolize glucose or that glucose is useless as an internal fuel source. It is adaptative that humans can survive well for long periods, especially when calorie restricted, with carbohydrate as the predominant fuel source. It is entirely consistent that fatty acids are the best fuel when available for most processes, but that glucose remains a backup fuel both on a dietary and internal metabolic basis. How long would our ancestors have survived if they were unable to eat plants?

Let's stipulate that there is no absolute dietary need for carbohydrate. Is there a metabolic need?

Definitely.

As most of you know, fatty acids cannot cross the blood/brain barrier. Neurons can shift about half their metabolism to ketone bodies, but still require a gradient of glucose that can diffuse into the brain. If your blood glucose level drops too low, you are in a coma. Also, red blood cells require glucose.

Finally, apart from these special situations, there is another very significant situation in which it makes perfect sense that we have retained the ability to burn glucose generally.

That is called anaerobic glycolysis.

When you need to perform a lot of work very quickly, like running from a predator, or spending twenty minutes lifting weights, you are not burning fatty acids. Aerobic glycolysis and lipolysis are very efficient but too slow for very high intensity tasks.

Any time you need high intensity work done by muscles faster than can be accommodated by aerobic respiration, you are absolutely, positively, using glucose for anaerobic glycolysis.

I don't care if you have not eaten of the plant world in eons, that is what is happening.

The question was asked: "does low insulin keep muscles from burning glucose"

For as long as there is aerobic work, with low insulin levels, fatty acids will be preferred. However, the instant anaerobic work is done, you are absolutely using glucose to do it because you cannot burn NEFAs anaerobically. If I lift weights or sprint on a 15 hour fast, my insulin levels are very low, yet I can instantaneously burn glucose anaerobically.

How about: "When insulin is low the liver does not give up the glucose."

Generally False. It's just the opposite. When fasting or just between meals, you are constantly burning a small amount of glucose in your brain (hopefully) and you need to constantly maintain your serum BG level. If you did not replenish your serum BG from somewhere, it would drop to dangerous levels. In order to make up for the glucose consumed, and in response to falling glucose, hormones like glucagon and epinephrine are released, which promote gycolysis of liver glycogen, which is then released into the blood.

Good thing, too, or I would quickly be in a coma with my daily 15 hour fasts.

Finally, I need to make sure everyone understands what is happening with glycogen in the liver if you eat no carbohydrates (or less than replacement levels, like I often do on VLC) .

It is still there. Really. You have lots of glycogen stored in your liver as the glucose storage depot to keep your blood glucose stable. If you don't eat enough carbohydrate, this is where gluconeogenisis comes in. GNG is induced when your liver glycogen has been depleted to a certain critical level. As discussed in my previous post, amino acids will be used to make new glucose (hence, gluco- neo-genesis) and the glycogen will be restocked.

The big difference between VLC and high carb eaters is in the turnover of liver glycogen. Th high carb eater is using it as his main fuel, so his "gas tank" is being both filled and emptied simultaneously at a higher rate.

Everyone has glycogen in their liver, and everyone uses it.

The Final Question asked: "Is excess protein just peed out?"

No. Unless your kidneys are diseased, there are no protein or amino acids in your urine. Excess protein not used for new protein synthesis may be burned (efficiently or inefficiently) or stored as fat. If metabolised, urea shows up in the urine as a byproduct, but amino acids are not just spilling out like your body doesn't know what to do with them.

To repeat from my prior post, there is no particular fate for any macronutrient in your diet, and any excess substrate with caloric value can be stored as fat or burned. If you can eat excess protein or fat or for that matter carbohydrate and not gain weight, that is only proving that your diet has not deviated from favorable insulin levels, your caloric intake is low, or whatever. It is not because that macronutrient "can't be" turned into fat.

Kurt G. Harris MD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those interested:

How to Lose Weight

THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2009 AT 10:56AM

Let's see if I can write the world's shortest description of everything you can do to lose weight. OK, you'll have to read some of the rest of the site to make sense of it, I suppose. But it will still be pretty short.

PaNu is not a weight loss program. It is a healthy eating regime that also happens to be the most powerful and simplest (not easiest, necessarily) regime that I have encountered to achieve your genetically determined normal lean body weight. Being at a particular weight is simply evidence of a having a healthy metabolism, and should obviously not be a health goal in itself.

If you have trouble losing weight following the first 4 or 5 steps, you may have what I unscientifically call a "broken metabolism".

If you have a broken metabolism, with stubborn residual insulin resistance (liver, not adipocytes), or your leptin receptors are screwed up by WGA from wheat and your satiety switch is broken, or any of a number of theoretical metabolic derangements from years of eating the standard american diet, you may have trouble losing weight without going VLC (say 5-10% carbs) and you might indeed gain weight if you eat excess protein beyond your needs.

The extra insulin response to excess dietary protein may simply drive more fat storage. I would not expect this in most people, but it may happen in some. See this.

What to do?

If you can't lose weight and you need to, you must cut carbs until you have ketones in your urine. Ketones in your blood is ketosis. Ketones in your urine is ketonuria. Ketonuria is proof of ketosis. GNG (gluconeogenesis) and ketosis is the sure way to prove your insulin levels are low as you can get them.

Then, as dietary fat has the least effect on serum insulin, and dietary protein has a small but measurable effect, eat only the minimum necessary protein (.8 -1 g/Kg/d) and the rest as fat.

5% carbs should guarantee GNG and ketonuria. (This will mean almost no vegetables and no sugary salad dressings, etc. Your food must be naked except for healthy fats)

15 -10% protein (drop it as you adapt)

80-85% fat

This, by the way, is ridiculously easy to achieve if you use butter and cream, but a bit impractical otherwise. This is close to Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet. Read the book.

A few more things not mentioned by Kwasniewski but that I think are important:

It is helpful to absolutely eliminate fructose from your diet if you have any issues with weight. The SAD (standard american diet) has absurdly high amounts of fructose that destroy your liver's insulin sensitivity. Fructose may be the single biggest cause of broken metabolism.

The second biggest (or maybe first, who knows?) cause of broken metabolism may be gluten grains. Wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) binds leptin receptors and insulin receptors, in addition to nasty effects on the immune system and gut. So even if you have no immunologic issues like celiac disease, and you don't believe like I do that almost everyone has subclinical damage to the gut from gluten grains, wheat may be making it harder for you to lose weight by affecting your satiety switch and by directly causing fat storage.

Excess Omega 6 linoleic acid ("the third horseman") probably also has an effect on weight loss, as there is evidence that excess n-3 linoleic acid contributes to the inflammation in the liver that is part of metabolic syndrome. Just one more reason to keep industrial vegetable oils limited.

Stick to white rice and potatoes if you absolutely must eat starch. No wheat, barley or rye.

Try eating one big meal a day to satiety, then allow yourself nothing but decaf coffee with whole cream or fast the rest of the time. I eat like this about three days a week. It is really easy once you are keto-adapted*

It is, I believe, easier to go cold turkey from carbohydrates than taper off. Teasing yourself with cereals and bagels is more difficult than simply enduring a few days of nausea or hypoglycemia. Just carry a container of sliced oranges or apples and eat a slice if you are hypogycemic. (Yes, there is a bit of fructose there, you are just eating it while you adapt to ketosis) Totally avoid grains and starches. Use fruit for emergencies. It will pass.

*I define keto-adapted as being conditioned enough to ketosis that you can easily fast without getting light headed or hypoglycemic. I think VLC (50g) or ZC (5-10 g) folks are all ketoadapted. LC (100g/day carbs) not as much. Even if not in ketosis all the time, KA folks can slip in and out of it easily and their metabolism has all the machinery for ketosis and GNG constructed. Caution: metabolic speculation informed by experience.

Kurt G. Harris MD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a food abundant environment, where there is no caloric deficit, carbohydrates as a large fraction of caloric intake create a situation where our metabolism is not spending enough time in or near the fat-burning state known as ketosis.

I think he makes a rather deceptive statement here. The body is always in a fat-burning state, as well as a fat-storing state. There's a constant turnover of fat(recent research even suggests that this applies to fat cells as well, though that's beside the point). Same thing goes for other processes in the body, like protein synthesis and osteogenesis. So while in ketosis the body uses more fat as fuel, it will also store more fat. The question is whether you create a positive or negative balance, or if the body remains in homeostasis. That's controlled by caloric intake and expenditure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is whether you create a positive or negative balance, or if the body remains in homeostasis. That's controlled by caloric intake and expenditure.

That hormone Leptin, which I mentioned in my previous post plays a key role in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure, including appetite and metabolism.

So if something is making you resistant to its signal your body may not respond properly as it otherwise would given the same energy intake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fructose has a glycemic index of 20, and glucose 100.

As it was mentioned fructose, unlike glucose, is able to enter (fat cells) which are called adipocytes. Leptin happens to be one of the most important adipose derived hormones. So fructose can play a role in leptin resistance.

Leptin's role in modifying appetite, insulin resistance, and atherosclerosis is currently the subject of intense research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is whether you create a positive or negative balance, or if the body remains in homeostasis. That's controlled by caloric intake and expenditure.

That hormone Leptin, which I mentioned in my previous post plays a key role in regulating energy intake and energy expenditure, including appetite and metabolism.

So if something is making you resistant to its signal your body may not respond properly as it otherwise would given the same energy intake.

Yes, that is true.

However, regarding fructose i'd offer that it's not as simple as fructose = bad. It may be that fructose simply elevates the leptin levels, which in turn could lead to leptin resistance(I say "may" and "could" here because I don't know for a fact it's true, only that it seems plausible - my understanding here is that this subject is still being debated by people who know a lot more than me about it). Whether increased leptin levels are good or bad seems to be contextual(depending on leptin resistance).

Lyle McDonald has a series of articles regarding leptin that I find interesting:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/...tin-part-1.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fructose has a glycemic index of 20, and glucose 100.

As it was mentioned fructose, unlike glucose, is able to enter (fat cells) which are called adipocytes. Leptin happens to be one of the most important adipose derived hormones. So fructose can play a role in leptin resistance.

Leptin's role in modifying appetite, insulin resistance, and atherosclerosis is currently the subject of intense research.

This is not totally true. Fructose does not need insulin to enter into muscle nor adipocytes, but, for the most part, it will enter the muscle before it enters the adipocyte. Like anything eaten in abundance, it will get stored as fat which includes glucose, protein and fat. If one has to much glucose in their blood then insulin will be released and the muscle's will take the glucose and store it as glycogen. But, if the muscles are full (the average person can only hold about 200 grams of glycogen in the muscles, which is 800, calories per day) then the glucose will be converted to triacylglycerol and stored as fat the same thing happens to protein.

And when it comes to research and application of research I would like to know how many of you on this thread has patients or clients that you use your research on? How many of you have trained, taught and guided people through weight loss and strength increases for more than 20 years? How many of you has been in business where your ideas are tried and tested everyday and if they do not work would go out of business? I am willing to state that if I had a M.D. or Ph.D. behind my name I could create some dieting plan and sell the hell out of it and a lot of people would jump in to buy my products without another thought about what I state. Truely a sad state of affairs and lack of independent thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, this was a typical day's "diet" when I was in weight-loss mode. I ate a meal every 2-1/2 to 3 hours. I also completely refrained from adding salt to my food (if you suffer from low blood pressure, this is something you'll need to adjust). The weight simply poured off without any increase in or alteration of my daily physical activity (I'm fairly active to begin with).

Breakfast:

4 Egg Whites, scrambled (microwave, no fat) with fresh or dried herbs, etc.

230 g. (@1 cup) Mixed Fruit (cantaloupe, pineapple, strawberries, blueberries, etc.)

Mid-Morning Snack:

4 oz. Fresh Roasted Turkey Breast (NOT deli!)

115 g. (@1/2 cup) Mixed Fruit (see above)

Lunch:

4 oz. Baked Chicken Breast

1-2 cups Mixed Green Salad (or 170-340 g. Steamed Green Vegetables)

175 g. (@1 cup) Steamed Mixed Grains (typically brown, red and wild rices, barley)

Mid-Afternoon Snack:

4 oz. Seared Fresh Tuna

170 g. Steamed Vegetables (or 1 cup Mixed Green Salad)

Dinner:

4 oz. Lean Pork Loin

1 small to medium Baked Sweet Potato

340 g. (@2 cups) Steamed Mixed Vegetables

Late Snack:

1/2 Grapefruit or 115 g. (@1/2 cup) Mixed Fruit (see above)

*******************

You'll note that, apart from added Salt (many of the foods above already contain sufficient sodium I've found), what's missing from the above is Dairy and added Fat. Although I do enjoy a good cheese from time to time, I find that, in general, Dairy (like Salt) is just not something I miss. So . . . in order to maintain my weight, I found that all I needed to do was simply add some Fat back into the above course without altering the basics. For example, at breakfast I might use 2 Whole Eggs and 2 Egg Whites, or scramble the 4 Egg Whites in just a very small amount bit Butter or Duck Fat. In addition, during weight loss, I used a few drops of Balsamic Vinegar (the miracle condiment!!) on my greens and even on baked chicken (a great combination). During maintenance, I usually make a light vinaigrette by whisking some extra virgin olive oil and a handful of herbs and/or a small amount of mustard into the Balsamic. A light drizzle of this over greens and roasted meats in delightful. Finally, while maintaining, I leave on the skins of chicken and turkey breast and substitute some red meat from time to time.

And . . . I ALWAYS allow for a "crazy day" once a week. This is when I get to enjoy a good restaurant meal, perhaps a cocktail or three ;) , a slice of luscious chocolate cake, etc.! Whatever I do on my "crazy day", however, I make every effort to eat every 2-3 hours as per my usual plan and to get back into the swing of things the next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is worth, I usually start my day early (4:30am) with a bowl of cereal. Three hours later I follow that up with a snack of two Eggo waffles with small amounts of peanut-butter and jelly and sometimes a small amount of M&Ms. Three hours later I usually purchase an 8 inch sub from Port-of-Subs and get their cookie and a diet soda. I eat half of the 8 inch sub and half the cookie (so 4 inches while saving the rest for another time). Three hours later I might have a Three Musketeers Bar. Three hours later I might have two slices of Dominos Pizza and a beer. Three hours later (last snack of the day) I have another bowl of cereal. If I stay up later I do not hesitate to eat another meal. I will be 42 next month, my medical stats have been mentioned many times, but as of last month when I took my body-fat level it was 4%. Eat, drink and be merry within reason and enjoy your food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what it is worth, I usually start my day early (4:30am) with a bowl of cereal. Three hours later I follow that up with a snack of two Eggo waffles with small amounts of peanut-butter and jelly and sometimes a small amount of M&Ms. Three hours later I usually purchase an 8 inch sub from Port-of-Subs and get their cookie and a diet soda. I eat half of the 8 inch sub and half the cookie (so 4 inches while saving the rest for another time). Three hours later I might have a Three Musketeers Bar. Three hours later I might have two slices of Dominos Pizza and a beer. Three hours later (last snack of the day) I have another bowl of cereal. If I stay up later I do not hesitate to eat another meal. I will be 42 next month, my medical stats have been mentioned many times, but as of last month when I took my body-fat level it was 4%. Eat, drink and be merry within reason and enjoy your food.

Funny . . . with the exception of the beer, this reads very much like the way I ate as a kid (the "pizza and beer" meal coinciding with our family's "square meal" dinners which, as a treat on week-ends sometimes included the pizza). Of course, the results were quite different in my case: by the time I was a Freshman in high school (aged 13), at just under 5'10" I weighted in excess of 220 pounds and wore a size 42 men's slack. Clinical obesity aside, however, I suppose there was one good thing about it: this "diet" kept me in metabolic balance -- I maintained that same 220-pound weight and girth until my first semester in college. Then, three very basic squares a day (with more fresh veggies and fruit than I had ever eaten as a kid) in the school cafeteria and a chronic lack of additional funds for the other "stuff" helped me shed 60 pounds in 3 months without even trying to do so. Imagine my surprise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny . . . with the exception of the beer, this reads very much like the way I ate as a kid (the "pizza and beer" meal coinciding with our family's "square meal" dinners which, as a treat on week-ends sometimes included the pizza). Of course, the results were quite different in my case: by the time I was a Freshman in high school (aged 13), at just under 5'10" I weighted in excess of 220 pounds and wore a size 42 men's slack. Clinical obesity aside, however, I suppose there was one good thing about it: this "diet" kept me in metabolic balance -- I maintained that same 220-pound weight and girth until my first semester in college. Then, three very basic squares a day (with more fresh veggies and fruit than I had ever eaten as a kid) in the school cafeteria and a chronic lack of additional funds for the other "stuff" helped me shed 60 pounds in 3 months without even trying to do so. Imagine my surprise!

Well, I used to eat 6 meals a day which consisted of about 85% of my calories coming in the form of protein and almost all of the remaining 15% in fat with just traces of carbohydrates for close to 6 years. I trained 18 hours per week, 3 hours a day, 6 days a week for about 3 years straight, oh, and I did abs 7 days a week for at least 30 minutes. All the exercise and all the protein could not keep me from gaining a lot of fat, at 19 and just under 6 feet tall, I weighed 225 pounds with a pant size of 38 and still my college football coaches told me I was to small.

It took a kick from reality to wake me up, I came out of my dorm shower wearing a towel and noticed in my peripheral a fat person in the mirror with their waist hanging over his towel, it was shocking. Me, the person who weighed out every piece of food I put in my mouth. Me, the person who rinsed his food as to wash away any extra salt/sodium. Me, the person who had given up regular sodas because they had to many calories and sodium. Me, the person that did not drink beer nor any alcohol because they had to many calories. Me, the person that had read years worth of articles/studies in all sorts of magazines and journals. Me, the person that would spend the night in the gym (I knew the owner very well) on a mat so that I could get a workout in before going to work. Well, reality does not lie, something was wrong and although I did not know it at the time I promised myself that I would find out. So, began the quest for knowledge on the nature of man especially what it takes to generate lean-body tissue growth and how human metabolism functions.

Well, that was almost 23 years ago and I now weigh 160 pounds and carry a very low body-fat level. I workout once a week for less than 10 minutes and can leg-press more than 4 times my body weight and bench press about 2.5 times what I weigh. I eat according to the 3 principles that I have mentioned so many times I do not care to count while enjoying the food I eat. I do not fear going to any restaurant as I can pick food off of almost any menu and still eat according to my principles and maintain my weight. I apologize to those that have read this a million times already, but here are my medical markers again; I have a resting pulse rate of 48-50, my blood pressure is 100/60, my sugar level averages around 85, my total cholesterol averages around 150. My kidneys, liver and heart are tested at least once a year and are in amazing shape for a "person of 20 years of age" states my physician.

My clients are achieving similar results as myself. For example, I have a 56 year old gentleman that has been with me for 46 months and he has reduced his body weight from 241 to 190 pounds and lowered his body-fat to 8% by following the 3 principles on dieting and working out according to the principles I state for exercise. When this gentleman started working out with me he could only leg-press 200 pounds (I have a special machine that uses a variable resistance cam system which makes lifting more demanding), but now he leg-presses almost 600 pounds. His personal physician cannot believe the shape he has gotten into from once a week training for about 10 minutes. His results are normal as he is no super-human and that which he has obtained others can also.

At this time, I really do not know what more it would take to convince people that there is an alternative to all the irrational exercise and diet theories and probably will never figure it out. But for more than 20 years I have been training other people (sometimes as many as 126 people per week) and recording every workout along with their dieting habits as I am the one that prescribed them. I have clients that have been with me for almost as long as I have been in business because they recognize the positives/values they are gaining. Some times I wonder, how much more is needed before people recognize the facts? But, I am beginning to think no amount of what I state is going to change most; like philosophy, once someone holds a certain set of ideas they almost never change nor even rethink their premises. I could have evaded the facts in the mirror 23 years ago, but I chose not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And when it comes to research and application of research I would like to know how many of you on this thread has patients or clients that you use your research on? How many of you have trained, taught and guided people through weight loss and strength increases for more than 20 years? How many of you has been in business where your ideas are tried and tested everyday and if they do not work would go out of business?

But isn't this true of many other programs (Atkins, Crossfit, lemonade diet, Body for Life, etc, etc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that was almost 23 years ago and I now weigh 160 pounds and carry a very low body-fat level. I workout once a week for less than 10 minutes and can leg-press more than 4 times my body weight and bench press about 2.5 times what I weigh. I eat according to the 3 principles that I have mentioned so many times I do not care to count while enjoying the food I eat. I do not fear going to any restaurant as I can pick food off of almost any menu and still eat according to my principles and maintain my weight. I apologize to those that have read this a million times already, but here are my medical markers again; I have a resting pulse rate of 48-50, my blood pressure is 100/60, my sugar level averages around 85, my total cholesterol averages around 150. My kidneys, liver and heart are tested at least once a year and are in amazing shape for a "person of 20 years of age" states my physician.

My clients are achieving similar results as myself. For example, I have a 56 year old gentleman that has been with me for 46 months and he has reduced his body weight from 241 to 190 pounds and lowered his body-fat to 8% by following the 3 principles on dieting and working out according to the principles I state for exercise. When this gentleman started working out with me he could only leg-press 200 pounds (I have a special machine that uses a variable resistance cam system which makes lifting more demanding), but now he leg-presses almost 600 pounds. His personal physician cannot believe the shape he has gotten into from once a week training for about 10 minutes. His results are normal as he is no super-human and that which he has obtained others can also.

This is very impressive. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And when it comes to research and application of research I would like to know how many of you on this thread has patients or clients that you use your research on? How many of you have trained, taught and guided people through weight loss and strength increases for more than 20 years? How many of you has been in business where your ideas are tried and tested everyday and if they do not work would go out of business?

But isn't this true of many other programs (Atkins, Crossfit, lemonade diet, Body for Life, etc, etc)?

What is not true? If you eat to many calories from any sort of food source, such as I was doing with my 3,000 calorie a day protein diet from above, you are going to get fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that was almost 23 years ago and I now weigh 160 pounds and carry a very low body-fat level. I workout once a week for less than 10 minutes and can leg-press more than 4 times my body weight and bench press about 2.5 times what I weigh. I eat according to the 3 principles that I have mentioned so many times I do not care to count while enjoying the food I eat. I do not fear going to any restaurant as I can pick food off of almost any menu and still eat according to my principles and maintain my weight. I apologize to those that have read this a million times already, but here are my medical markers again; I have a resting pulse rate of 48-50, my blood pressure is 100/60, my sugar level averages around 85, my total cholesterol averages around 150. My kidneys, liver and heart are tested at least once a year and are in amazing shape for a "person of 20 years of age" states my physician.

My clients are achieving similar results as myself. For example, I have a 56 year old gentleman that has been with me for 46 months and he has reduced his body weight from 241 to 190 pounds and lowered his body-fat to 8% by following the 3 principles on dieting and working out according to the principles I state for exercise. When this gentleman started working out with me he could only leg-press 200 pounds (I have a special machine that uses a variable resistance cam system which makes lifting more demanding), but now he leg-presses almost 600 pounds. His personal physician cannot believe the shape he has gotten into from once a week training for about 10 minutes. His results are normal as he is no super-human and that which he has obtained others can also.

This is very impressive. ;)

I agree, and as I stated, he is no exception as I have hundreds of examples just like him. The range of clients is quite varied: older people, younger people, short people, fat people, thin people, average sized people, retired people, medical doctors, pharmacist, lawyers, accountants, engineers, janitors, teachers, junior-high (middle school) students, high-school students, college students, grad students, medical students, law students, businessmen, businesswomen, stay-at-home moms, professional moms, atheletes, mixed martial artist, professional dancers, Tour-de-France wannabees, police officers, firemen, SWAT team members, military members, religious people (that compartmentalize), and so many more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I like to talk results, i'd like to join in...

A little more than 5 years I was ~210lbs, on a thin 5'9" frame. My eating habits at the time were pretty darn awful, and having crohns with a long history of cortisone did certainly not help the situation.

10 months later I weighed in at 132lbs, a fair estimate of my bodyfat level is 12-14%(my own estimate, but i'm pretty good at making those). The way I got there is pretty close to what I see Ray recommending here - not identical, but pretty close.

In terms of diet I focused on the two most important factors; calories and adherence. Meaning, I tried to form new habits, that were easy to stick to, with foods that made it easy to maintain a calorie deficit. An example of a typical day for me could be(and still is):

Breakfast: 2-3 eggs and a sandwich

Snack: 250g cottage cheese

Lunch: 400-600 calorie meal (of pretty much any food that I like)

Dinner: Same as above

Snack: cottage cheese and bread

I don't think there's anything special about it. I could probably have managed on pizza and beer(though alcohol could interfere with fat loss), but I think it would have been a little harder in terms of keeping my appetite in check. Something I do believe in also, is that higher amounts of protein helps build and maintain muscle(I can try and dig up references if anyone is interested). My point however is that there's nothing fancy about it(though I have slightly complicated things with nutritional timing pre- and post-workout, but that's more a case of there being some potential benefit without costing much effort at all).

I don't avoid any types of food, except those I don't like. If something breaks my daily routine, like going out with friends, I make a quick assessment of how much I can "afford". If I pig-out one day I make sure to compensate for it.

As far as exercise goes i've experimented with pretty much everything under the HIT-umbrella. That is, brief, infrequent and intense exercise. What worked best for me was 2-3, 20-30 minute, sessions per week. Most of the gains i've made, I made doing that. Today though, I do things a bit differently after I stopped getting results(as much as I love HIT-type workouts, I love results even more).

Right now i'm nearing the end of my most recent diet. I eat pretty much the same way, though exercise is a little different. After the see-food diet(you see food, then eat it) i've gone from 198lbs to 185lbs, where i'm back down at a 12-14% bodyfat - which is very lean for me(having been overweight, and adding crohns to that, makes it more difficult to get real lean because there's more stubborn bodyfat to deal with). My current goal is to get below 10% BF without going below 176lbs(80Kg).

What I like to show with this is that with simple measures, and good habits, you can have amazing results. I'd like to add that i'm also very serious about exercise, it's my favorite hobby, and for most people - with different goals - it's even less complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the inspirations for my adoption of the Michael Thurmond plan (the outline above is my personal Plan -- while they share common features, Plans do differ from individual to individual depending on their condition and situation) was a fellow I worked with who had Type I Diabetes. This was a guy who looked fit as a fiddle -- he wasn't overweight in any sense. When I first met him, he was in the clock-work habit of coming in, setting up, and going to the men's room to do a blood smear and take his insulin shot. At some point, however, I began to notice that he wasn't taking his insulin shots, that that part of his daily routine wasn't there. When I asked him about it, he told me that his diabetologist had recommended that he contact a personal trainer named Michael Thurmond to discuss a potentially beneficial diet. Although he always carried his kit and continued to monitor his blood sugar levels, after several months on Thurmond's plan, he no longer needed his insulin on a regular basis. After a lifetime of having to deal with this, he was one happy customer. I subsequently discovered that many diebetologists had been recommending Thurmond to their patients with great results.

The thing I notice about the various eating plans that folks are mentioning is that they all reflect a kind of "grazing factor" -- the eating of frequent smaller meals five or six times a day. I absolutely agree with Ray and others that, when it comes to healthy eating habits, this is the most important element of all. I differ only in the consideration of what goes into those meals, the consideration of which must include an assessment of the individual's condition and general physical state.

Furthermore, as an extention of the above, if one overindulges at one meal -- and in my experience this becomes something of a habit for many who don't eat so frequently and are ravenous by the time they do sit down to a meal -- the worst thing one can do is to skip the next meal or go for even longer periods of time without eating at all in order to "make up" for the overindulgence. That is something I did on a regular basis as an overweight person and that I suspect many other overweight folks tend to do. I now think of my metabolism as a roaring blaze in the fireplace that needs to be kept going to heat the house. If the fire is waning, and one throws on a gigantic log, that log will just sit there and the fire will pretty much sputter out if it's left unattended. The only way to get it restarted and blazing again is to feed some kindling and other smaller pieces to it regularly. Once you've got a good blaze going steadily, you can throw a good-sized log on every once and a while without dampening it. The important thing is to keep it going at all times and the frequency and overall size of regular meals is one of the easiest and most effective ways of ensuring that that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites