"Eating fat makes you fat"

Status
Not open for further replies.
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,2:56)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,2:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
1. I think there is a big difference between someone who is obese/drastically overweight and someone who is on their way to being obese.  

2. Zero carbs as a static way of dieting makes NO PHYSIOLOGICAL SENSE. Period. Anyone that says otherwise, is lying and doesn´t understand human metabolism and energy production.

3. When I start bike training, my carb calories go from 20% to about 50-80% depending on training intensity and only directly before, during and shortly afterwards. Otherwise, it is 50% Fat, 30% P, 20% Carb. During this tiime, I lose muscle mass on my upper torse and my legs explode.</div>
1. Not really. One is a bit insulin resistant, the other is highly insulin resistant. The mechanism is the same. What differs is the amplitude.

2. It makes perfect sense once you understand how it all works. Read the papers, note how they call burning glucose &quot;to dispose of&quot; glucose. There's a reason for this. Glucose is toxic in any quantity greater than normal. This is just the beginning, there's a multitude of other toxic effect of glucose on our metabolism especially considering the insulin resistance that it causes over time.

3. If you ate no carbs, you'd lose no muscle mass anywhere. Further, you'd have much more total energy. You can only store so much glycogen and then when that's gone, you're down to using fat. It makes no sense to start with glucose when you end up with fat as the only fuel. It makes no sense to cycle glucose and fat on a weekly or even a daily basis when it take weeks to adapt fully to fat utilization. By the looks of it, you have never tried zero carb so you can't really know what it does. All you know is what you read. If that's the case, read more and you'll see that fat is much more effective especially for somebody who's always making an aerobic effort such as a cyclist.


If you think a carbohydrate metabolism is normal, how can you explain a fatty liver caused by eating HFCS? Is that normal? How about insulin resistance, is that normal? How about obesity, is that normal? How about diabetes, is that normal? Before you can make the point that a carbohydrate metabolism is normal, you'll have to show that these chronic diseases are normal.</div>
1. Insulin sensitivity IS the difference which leads to a whole slew of negative effects on the body.

2. I understand how it all works.

3. I have tried zero carbs.
 
Yes glucose at high level may be toxic. On the other hand, in cell culture no cells would grow without glucose or a carbohydrate source. Isolated mammalian cells, ex vivo-in vitro DO NOT GROW WITHOUT A CARBOHYDRATE SOURCE.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,2:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">it is rather funny, but if there were no bread, no pasta, no HFCS, no colas, etc... this conversation would not exist. nobody who eats fruits and vegetables as the sole source of carbs would ever get fat (unless they take in way more energy than they burn which would be hard to do in the absence of grain products)</div>
Either blame the carbs, or blame the overeating. There's no middle ground. The carbohydrates hypothesis does not allow overeating to be a cause. The PCB hypothesis does not allow one macro (carbs) to act differently from the other two. If we stick with the PCB hypothesis, we must show how the surplus calories get chosen to be stored. Then we must show how they are stored. Otherwise it remains a hypothesis. In other words, fiction.

Quad is still looking for the answer to that one. He tried the bucket analogy but that's not the facts. scientificmuscle tried the thermodynamics argument without showing a real link between the Law and the storage mechanism. Aaron tried ASP but did not show how ASP can act in such a way to lock fat in adipose tissue.

And then we have stevejones doing an experiment that puts everything about the PCB hypothesis on hold. At least for him, if not for the rest of us. As if the hypothesis was broken. It doesn't apply to him, apparently. He's supposed to lack energy. That's not what he reports. He's supposed to grow fat. That's not what he reports. He's supposed to maintain his weight. That's not what he reports. He's supposed to lose strength. That's not what he reported until this week for one lift. Granted, it's one man and we can't use his data to extrapolate to the rest of us but still.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,3:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes glucose at high level may be toxic. On the other hand, in cell culture no cells would grow without glucose or a carbohydrate source. Isolated mammalian cells, ex vivo-in vitro DO NOT GROW WITHOUT A CARBOHYDRATE SOURCE.</div>
Burning fat is an aerobic process. Burning glucose is an anaerobic process. In the absence of oxygen, cells switch to glucose. I think it would be difficult to provide oxygen to cells in vitro, don't you?
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,3:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,2:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">it is rather funny, but if there were no bread, no pasta, no HFCS, no colas, etc... this conversation would not exist. nobody who eats fruits and vegetables as the sole source of carbs would ever get fat (unless they take in way more energy than they burn which would be hard to do in the absence of grain products)</div>
Either blame the carbs, or blame the overeating. There's no middle ground. The carbohydrates hypothesis does not allow overeating to be a cause. The PCB hypothesis does not allow one macro (carbs) to act differently from the other two. If we stick with the PCB hypothesis, we must show how the surplus calories get chosen to be stored. Then we must show how they are stored. Otherwise it remains a hypothesis. In other words, fiction.

Quad is still looking for the answer to that one. He tried the bucket analogy but that's not the facts. scientificmuscle tried the thermodynamics argument without showing a real link between the Law and the storage mechanism. Aaron tried ASP but did not show how ASP can act in such a way to lock fat in adipose tissue.

And then we have stevejones doing an experiment that puts everything about the PCB hypothesis on hold. At least for him, if not for the rest of us. As if the hypothesis was broken. It doesn't apply to him, apparently. He's supposed to lack energy. That's not what he reports. He's supposed to grow fat. That's not what he reports. He's supposed to maintain his weight. That's not what he reports. He's supposed to lose strength. That's not what he reported until this week for one lift. Granted, it's one man and we can't use his data to extrapolate to the rest of us but still.</div>
There is a middle ground. It is people eating too much of the wrong carbs and doing too little of the appropriate activity to burn the extra energy they take in.

Zero carbs is absurd and difficult to achieve. Even if you only ate nuts, you would still take in 10-15% of the calories as carbs.

I hope we are not confusing zero carbs with low carbs. When I tell people I eat no grain products they automatically assume NO carbs. Then they ask where do you get your carbs:-( Too many people think carbs only come from bread and pasta.

The brain needs carbs, the heart needs carbs and almost every metabolically active organ needs carbs to varying degrees.

No Carbs as a way of life is absurd and as absurd as no Fat.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,9:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aaron tried ASP but did not show how ASP can act in such a way to lock fat in adipose tissue.</div>
and martin routinely shows his complete lack of knowledge in the area
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,3:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
There is a middle ground. It is people eating too much of the wrong carbs and doing too little of the appropriate activity to burn the extra energy they take in.

Zero carbs is absurd and difficult to achieve. Even if you only ate nuts, you would still take in 10-15% of the calories as carbs.

I hope we are not confusing zero carbs with low carbs. When I tell people I eat no grain products they automatically assume NO carbs. Then they ask where do you get your carbs:-( Too many people think carbs only come from bread and pasta.

The brain needs carbs, the heart needs carbs and almost every metabolically active organ needs carbs to varying degrees.

No Carbs as a way of life is absurd and as absurd as no Fat.</div>
There is no middle ground. The PCB hypothesis and the carbohydrates hypothesis are mutually exclusive. We can't take one aspect of one and combine it with an aspect of the other. None of the individual factors of each fit with the other's fundamental principles.

For instance, overeating. With the carb hypothesis, overeating is an effect. With the PCB hypothesis, overeating is a cause. Then there's sedentary behavior. For the carb hypothesis, it's an effect. For the PCB hypothesis, it's a cause.

We can't blame both carbs and sedentary behavior as causes of obesity because as causes, they belong to opposite hypotheses. If we blame carbs, we put sedentary behavior as an effect of carbs. If we blame sedentary behavior, we disregard any effect carbs can have by themselves.


Before we can show that the brain requires glucose, we must show that epilepsy is a normal phenomena that would otherwise not be improved or even cured by the prescription of a ketogenic diet especially to children.

Before we can show that the various organs require glucose, we must show that they don't suffer from an overdose of glucose. For instance, diabetics go blind because they continue to eat carbs and shoot insulin when their glucose dependent organs become insulin resistant to the point that they can't use the glucose anymore yet can't use the fat either so the cells die. There are many other examples of this. The lens of the eye requires glucose but we become myopic with age because the cells die and the lens can't contract anymore. We also develop cataracts for the same reason. Incidentally, cataracts, depending on the gravity, can be reversed just like epilepsy. The gonads require glucose so when they become insulin resistant, we become sterile.

Organs that require glucose are rare and use very little of it anyway. The brain is not one of them. The brain will use the major part of the glucose we eat because it's the most expensive organ we have and so will dispose of glucose the fastest. Not because it requires glucose. It can use ketones and does so with about 30% increased efficiency over glucose. In other words, when it uses ketones, it uses less energy than when it uses glucose. I think all organs that use ketones will do so with the same efficiency.

No carbs as a way of life is normal for the Inuit. It's no more absurd than being born naked. Or having to learn everything we do except sucking tit and grasping with the hands. My diet consists exclusively of animal flesh. If there's anything wrong with that, I don't feel any effect. Now you might think that there's nothing wrong with your diet consisting of a lot of carbs when you ride but time does take its toll and you will feel the effects. You might mistaken those effects as the inevitable price of aging but there's no reason to grow to a ripe old age and not be in full health without suffering from a single chronic disease once we know what causes those diseases in the first place.

I need carbs like I need a snake bite.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ May 20 2008,3:57)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,9:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Aaron tried ASP but did not show how ASP can act in such a way to lock fat in adipose tissue.</div>
and martin routinely shows his complete lack of knowledge in the area</div>
If only you could prove that.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,4:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,3:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
There is a middle ground. It is people eating too much of the wrong carbs and doing  too little of the appropriate activity to burn the extra energy they take in.

Zero carbs is absurd and difficult to achieve. Even if you only ate nuts, you would still take in 10-15% of the calories as carbs.

I hope we are not confusing zero carbs with low carbs. When I tell people I eat no grain products they automatically assume NO carbs. Then they ask where do you get your carbs:-( Too many people think carbs only come from bread and pasta.

The brain needs carbs, the heart needs carbs and almost every metabolically active organ needs carbs to varying degrees.

No Carbs as a way of life is absurd and as absurd as no Fat.</div>
There is no middle ground. The PCB hypothesis and the carbohydrates hypothesis are mutually exclusive. We can't take one aspect of one and combine it with an aspect of the other. None of the individual factors of each fit with the other's fundamental principles.

For instance, overeating. With the carb hypothesis, overeating is an effect. With the PCB hypothesis, overeating is a cause. Then there's sedentary behavior. For the carb hypothesis, it's an effect. For the PCB hypothesis, it's a cause.

We can't blame both carbs and sedentary behavior as causes of obesity because as causes, they belong to opposite hypotheses. If we blame carbs, we put sedentary behavior as an effect of carbs. If we blame sedentary behavior, we disregard any effect carbs can have by themselves.


Before we can show that the brain requires glucose, we must show that epilepsy is a normal phenomena that would otherwise not be improved or even cured by the prescription of a ketogenic diet especially to children.

Before we can show that the various organs require glucose, we must show that they don't suffer from an overdose of glucose. For instance, diabetics go blind because they continue to eat carbs and shoot insulin when their glucose dependent organs become insulin resistant to the point that they can't use the glucose anymore yet can't use the fat either so the cells die. There are many other examples of this. The lens of the eye requires glucose but we become myopic with age because the cells die and the lens can't contract anymore. We also develop cataracts for the same reason. Incidentally, cataracts, depending on the gravity, can be reversed just like epilepsy. The gonads require glucose so when they become insulin resistant, we become sterile.

Organs that require glucose are rare and use very little of it anyway. The brain is not one of them. The brain will use the major part of the glucose we eat because it's the most expensive organ we have and so will dispose of glucose the fastest. Not because it requires glucose. It can use ketones and does so with about 30% increased efficiency over glucose. In other words, when it uses ketones, it uses less energy than when it uses glucose. I think all organs that use ketones will do so with the same efficiency.

No carbs as a way of life is normal for the Inuit. It's no more absurd than being born naked. Or having to learn everything we do except sucking tit and grasping with the hands. My diet consists exclusively of animal flesh. If there's anything wrong with that, I don't feel any effect. Now you might think that there's nothing wrong with your diet consisting of a lot of carbs when you ride but time does take its toll and you will feel the effects. You might mistaken those effects as the inevitable price of aging but there's no reason to grow to a ripe old age and not be in full health without suffering from a single chronic disease once we know what causes those diseases in the first place.

I need carbs like I need a snake bite.</div>
Do you have a Ph.D.? An M.D.? You need to maybe start either and do some research and stop playing with hypothesis.

THis is not an hypothesis:

The vast majority of obese, overweight people are so because of taking in too much energy from the wrong sources and burning too little of the excess they consume.

Degeneration of the body is not purely a function of what one eats, but also how much.

Have you ever heard oxidation?

You also have a rather annoying tendency to mix disease-state physiology with non-disease-state physiology. You also cannot mix the workings of metabolism of the sedentary individual with that of the athlete or chronically active/exercising person. The hearts of the endurance athletes function are radically different then that of truck drivers or a weight lifters. Their physiology is different.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ May 20 2008,4:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Explain to us how ASP does not trap fat in the fat cell and insulin does.

Using mechanisms.</div>
You made the claim about ASP. The onus is on you to prove the claim. But I'll be nice and offer my help in that matter. In order for the lab observation (whichever paper we refer to) to be valid, it must reflect the facts outside the lab. We don't live in vitro. In other words, we must show how eating high fat/zero carbs makes us grow as fat as eating high carbs/low fat. Because that's what the ASP claim is. If we simply show a high fat/high carbs diet, we're missing the point. If we don't find facts that show ASP to lock fat in adipose tissue, the claim is refuted.
 
Would be fine, except you are the one making the claim about how ASP doesnt 'lock fat in adipose' which I never claimed it did, so there is no reason to support a claim i did not make.

You, however, did make a claim, something that requires some laboratory work, in vitro and invivo, but not particularly suited to free living subjects, at least during the trials.

But we can already match your free living examples, its called caloric balance. Something even Taubes believes in.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,4:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No carbs as a way of life is normal for the Inuit. It's no more absurd than being born naked. Or having to learn everything we do except sucking tit and grasping with the hands. My diet consists exclusively of animal flesh. If there's anything wrong with that, I don't feel any effect. Now you might think that there's nothing wrong with your diet consisting of a lot of carbs when you ride but time does take its toll and you will feel the effects. You might mistaken those effects as the inevitable price of aging but there's no reason to grow to a ripe old age and not be in full health without suffering from a single chronic disease once we know what causes those diseases in the first place.

I need carbs like I need a snake bite.</div>
My increased carb intake comes solely from Fruits and vegetables. During training I mix glucose and fructose into water and eat some bananas. The chronic diseases are coming from a lifelong consumption of grain-base foods.

Carbs are not the problem, the carb source is the problem. I assume you are a human and thus your derivation of energy and nutrients solely from animal flesh is suspect and contrary to all evidence based medicine.

YOu will also suffer in the long run from a nutritional protocol based solely on animal flesh. You might think otherwise, but unless you are a cat, you will suffer later in life.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,4:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No carbs as a way of life is normal for the Inuit.</div>
1. Inuit have a evolved on LOW carb. Europeans did not.

2. Inuit eat a very LOW carb, NOT NO carb.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,4:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
THis is not an hypothesis:

The vast majority of obese, overweight people are so because of taking in too much energy from the wrong sources and burning too little of the excess they consume.

Degeneration of the body is not purely a function of what one eats, but also how much.

Have you ever heard oxidation?

You also have a rather annoying tendency to mix disease-state physiology with non-disease-state physiology. You also cannot mix the workings of metabolism of the sedentary individual with that of the athlete or chronically active/exercising person. The hearts of the endurance athletes function are radically different then that of truck drivers or a weight lifters. Their physiology is different.</div>
That is precisely the hypothesis. It's called the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis and it hasn't been proven. On the contrary, there is growing evidence that this hypothesis is just fiction. We understand fuel partitioning which causes a portion of the food we eat to be stored in adipose tissue. The mechanism causes us to overeat. Would the entire caloric content of our diet be available to us, we wouldn't overeat to compensate. The same mechanism also causes us to be sedentary because of the lack of energy. Having more energy is the most common thing people say when they go low carb. It's the same mechanism but in reverse: Fat is released into the bloodstream thereby increasing total available fuel.


Degeneration of the body is purely a function of carbs. We're not all alike in our tolerance for carbs so a little for me can be a lot for you and vice versa. In that sense, we can't fix a safe quantity for the masses. As with any other toxic agent, when we can't fix a safe quantity, we fix an absolute quantity: None.

In what context do you speak of oxidation? Have you ever heard of oxidative stress? Or hba1c? Or anti-oxidants?


As far as I know, carbs induce a disease state. There is no normal range for a carbohydrate metabolism. It changes everything. This means what we consider a normal state is actually abnormal and thus any conclusion we draw from that is invariably incorrect.

I don't see why I shouldn't use all the data. What's so different about one who sits and one who runs? Two individuals will adapt to the same stress in the same manner. If they respond differently, the difference will be primarily in the amplitude of the response. The nature of the response will be the same. Eating carbs will cause the same fuel partitioning in both individuals. The same fat accumulation. The same chronic diseases. What will change is the amplitude these changes will manifest themselves. We would all develop cataracts to varying degree. But it's the same cataracts. I argue &quot;develop cataracts&quot; while you argue &quot;to varying degree&quot;. You do so claiming that the difference in amplitude is what matters most. It's not.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,4:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No carbs as a way of life is normal for the Inuit.</div>
1. Inuit have a evolved on LOW carb. Europeans did not.

2. Inuit eat a very LOW carb, NOT NO carb. All their carbs come from vegetable matter, not HFCS, Cola, Twinkies and pizza-
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,5:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Degeneration of the body is purely a function of carbs.</div>
I am going to go back to the deans offie and give back my Ph.D.

I know nothing.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,5:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Degeneration of the body is purely a function of carbs.</div>
I am going to go back to the deans office and give back my Ph.D.

I know nothing.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ May 20 2008,5:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ May 20 2008,4:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">No carbs as a way of life is normal for the Inuit.</div>
1. Inuit have a evolved on LOW carb. Europeans did not.

2. Inuit eat a very LOW carb, NOT NO carb.</div>
Inuit are descendants of Europeans. There isn't enough time between the Behring Strait crossing and today to have made a difference in physiological adaptation to such a high degree that a diet high in carbs demands. Anyway, we're getting into the realm of speculation here because we weren't there and all we have to go on is what we know of our current metabolism. But since our current view of a carbohydrate metabolism is flawed, any conclusion we draw from it is also flawed by extension. It would be especially flawed in a speculative context.

Inuit eat a zero carb diet. Their diet consists exclusive of animal flesh but mostly of the fat of the animals they hunt. I read they consider greens or even any form of carbs is &quot;not proper human food&quot;.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top