I
imported_drpierredebs
Guest
<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 "to dispose of" 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.
(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 "to dispose of" 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.