Muscle Glycogen and Growth

<div>
(scientific muscle @ Mar. 20 2008,03:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 20 2008,03:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(scientific muscle @ Mar. 20 2008,03:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fat loss stalls or stops only if we eat carbs.</div>

This statement is ludicrous.

Please provide some evidence to support this.</div>
I will do so when you make a counter claim.</div>
Fat loss can happen while eating carbs.
Fat gain can happen without eating carbs.

That was easy.
biggrin.gif
</div>
Wasn't it? You'd think that Aaron would find it easy too.

Look for the work of Gerald Reaven on insulin in the mid 70s. Reaven is just one of many who produced research on insulin and carbohydrates. There is a tremendous amount of research on insulin. The role of insulin was worked out before that when we discovered that diabetics type 1 grew a fine layer of fat following an injection and grew fatter faster when they ate a carbohydrate rich meal.

The conclusions were that without carbs, and by extension without insulin, it was impossible to accumulate fat. These conclusion are just as valid today. Before the discovery of insulin in the 20s, diabetics type 1 would die emaciated without insulin.


The role of insulin on fat storage makes your second statement incorrect. I won't ask you to provide proof of it since you won't find any. Your first statement is a different story. It's true but not always. It depends on the metabolic state of the person eating the carbs. It depends especially on the level of insulin resistance of lean tissue in particular.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Look for the work of Gerald Reaven on insulin in the mid 70s. Reaven is just one of many who produced research on insulin and carbohydrates. There is a tremendous amount of research on insulin. The role of insulin was worked out before that when we discovered that diabetics type 1 grew a fine layer of fat following an injection and grew fatter faster when they ate a carbohydrate rich meal.</div>

Wow, thanks for that, i had never known that research in the area stopped in the 70s as we knew everything there was ever to know on the subject. Thanks.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The conclusions were that without carbs, and by extension without insulin, it was impossible to accumulate fat. These conclusion are just as valid today. Before the discovery of insulin in the 20s, diabetics type 1 would die emaciated without insulin.</div>

Because looking at those who are deficient in the hormone are always suitable for normal physiological levels of the hormone.

Score.
 
Pardone me for jumping into the discussion. I'm pretty much a low carb person since I've found that it is benefical for keeping the fat down, and I seem to put on weight in the presence of carbs. What I have read to get IGF-I up and rolling there is a need for some insulin. As protein produces a rise in insulin this could be a trigger. Carbs give a higher insulin surge, but that's not always preferrable. What I would wery much like to know, as you, Martin, mentioned in an early post, is how proteins have a better amino acid storing capacity rather than fat storing capacity (could it be the lesser insulin secretion?). I'm seriously interested in the source of this information.

Aaron, do you have any source of information on this?

Please keep this discussion civil, as we all might loose out if the knowledge gets buried. Who knows, we might all learn something relevant that changes our view of things if the facts are on the table. And I know there is so much out there (scientific findings and such) we have not yet had a chance to gain insight into.  
wink.gif


A comment on the time scale of high-carb consumption:
For the last couple of centuries there have been a slow surge in the use of starch-rich foods, which have peaked during the latter part of the 20th century. The modern processing methods have increased the availability of low-nutrient high-carb products (the nutrients, such as vitamins have been added). The more resistant species of grain have thrived (and what makes them resistant to germs and sickness are among them the protein lectin, nature's own pesticide, which hurt us too when we digest them). The real surge of obesity in modern society is a combination of both high-carb eating and a high fat intake (pizzas, pommes frites, pies, cookies, potatoe chips, and such, washed down with sugar rich or sweetened sodas of wich both trigger an insulin rise).

Earlier in the human history the sources of food have been more nutrient rich and less starch-rich, using more nuts, berries, fruits and tubers (of course depending on season variation). The meat and products from our animal sources were of better quality, because they fed naturally, not only fed high-starch grains. Chickens could eat whatever they wanted and so could pigs (they are not vegetarians) so the eggs and meat was not as high in omega-6 compared to omega-3. The whole situation with the food industry have taken a turn for the worse (mass production economics, use of chemicals and other unnatural stuff like steroids to increase quantity of production) the latter part of the 20th century.
 
If we take the rather simplistic view of an adipocyte as a fat bag.

THere is a constant turnover of triglycerides in the cell.

If we look inside the fat bag, there is a major lipase, known as Hormone Sensitive Lipase (ignoring the others at the moment). Its job is to break down stored Triacylglycerdides, TAGs, into individual fatty acids and glycerol.

If we look outside of the fat bag, there is the main lipoprotein of the endothelium called Lipoprotein Lipase (LPL). its job is to attach to various lipoproteins, like incoming chylomicrons from food, and break apart the TAGs into the free fatty acids and glycerol.

The concentration difference of free fatty acids (FFA) in the fluid around the fat bag, and the concentration of free fatty acids in the fat bag creates the concentration gradient to allow the fatty acids to travel in, or out of, the fat cells.

Insulin can reduce the activity of HSL, which lowers FFA in the fat bag, and at the same time raises LPL activity, raising the FFA level outside of the fat bag. This creates a flux into the fat cell.

Which is a magical important thing, and utterly supports the fantastic ideas of low carbohydrates and low insulin levels aiding in the reduction of fat storage.

Unfortunately, fasting levels of insulin (aka generally as low, or lower than low carb diets) influence these enzymes activity, by around 50% if memory serves me right. This is why Type 1 diabetics are not a great model of normal function, becuase even with insulin, they are not operating under the normal physiological flux of insulin. Type 2 diabetics are worse, but thats a different story.

Now comes the more modern stuff. Even back in the 80's researchers noted that insulin was not explaining everything, and adipose tissue itself had a role to play.

Within the 90's peoples idea of fat cells began to change, especially with the fantastic amount of work on leptin. The view that adipose was just a big bag o nothing changed into being a fully functional autocrine/endocrine tissue, producing a wide range of hormones and cytokines of many types, including angiotensin, adiponectin, leptin, resistin etc.

Back in the late 80s and early 90s researchers noted a member of the complement family being expressed by adipocytes. Produced through part of the alternate complement pathway is C3adesArg, which became known as Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP).

This fun little protein is expressed from fat cells under two situations. one is insulin, the other, much more major pathways is chylomicrons.

When chylomicrons appear into circulation, the fat cells release ASP. ASP does similar things to insulin, decreases HSL activity, and increases LPL activity, allowing the chylomicrons to be milked of all their fatty acid goodness, and the fat cell to pick up all of the widdle fatty acids.

Insulin and ASP work together, but unlike a deficiency of insulin, a defieicny of ASP, does not cause death. However, a deficiency of ASP in the adipocyte makes the animals resistant to obesity, inspite of having fully functional insulin receptors. They do however have much fattier livers and muscle, as something has to happen to the dietary fat that comes in (they also burn a bit more off).

So lets take it down to the basics in the human

1) insulin is always present and there aint a lot you can do about it.
2) ASP is present and there aint a lot you can do about it (unless they get their ASP blockers working)
3) ASP and Insulin work in cahoots with each other (insulin stimulates ASP, ASP stimulates insulin...)
4) High carbohydrates raise insulin, blocks HSL and icnreases LPL causing a net positive lipid balance into the fat cell (major assumptions)
5) High fat raise ASP, blocks HSL, stimulates LPL and causes a net positive lipid balance into the fat cell (major assumptions)
6) the major goal is fat balance.

Both options can produce a positive fat balance. Both options can produce a negative fat balance.
The way they achieve it is different. To achieve a net daily negative fat balance still requires less nutrients going than going out.

The winner on the day is protein. Which is great.


<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Critical review of acylation-stimulating protein physiology in humans and rodents.
Cianflone K, Xia Z, Chen LY.

McGill University, Cardiology, H7.30, Royal Victoria Hospital, 687 Pine Ave West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1A1. [email protected]

In the last few years, there has been increasing interest in the physiological role of acylation-stimulating protein (ASP). Recent studies in rats and mice, in particular in C3 (-/-) mice that are ASP deficient, have advanced our understanding of the role of ASP. Of note, the background strain of the mice influences the phenotype of delayed postprandial triglyceride clearance in ASP-deficient mice. Administration of ASP in all types of lean and obese mice studied to date, however, enhances postprandial triglyceride clearance. On the other hand, regardless of the background strain, ASP-deficient mice demonstrate reduced body weight, reduced leptin and reduced adipose tissue mass, suggesting that ASP deficiency results in protection against development of obesity.In humans, a number of studies have examined the relationship between ASP, obesity, diabetes and dyslipidemia as well as the influence of diet, exercise and pharmacological therapy. While many of these studies have small subject numbers, interesting observations may help us to better understand the parameters that may influence ASP production and ASP action.The aim of the present review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the recent literature on ASP, with particular emphasis on those studies carried out in rodents and humans.</div>
 
<div>
(nkl @ Mar. 20 2008,23:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What I would wery much like to know, as you, Martin, mentioned in an early post, is how proteins have a better amino acid storing capacity rather than fat storing capacity (could it be the lesser insulin secretion?). I'm seriously interested in the source of this information.</div>
More that the body has differnet uses for amino acids than it does for fat/carbohydrate, and a far different limit on storage capacity.

The insulin secretion from some proteins can be as high as similar levels of glucose, so its not so much lesser, just differnt result.

If we look at some of the research, exercise can increase fat oxidation. Taking a protein supplement after the exercise can reduce the fat oxidation, with a matching increase in protein oxidation.

Effect of protein ingestion on energy expenditure and substrate utilization after exercise in middle-aged women.

Benton MJ, Swan PD.

College of Nursing, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698, USA.

Research suggests that ingesting protein after resistance exercise (RE) increases muscle protein synthesis and results in greater muscle gains. The effect on energy expenditure and substrate utilization, however, is unclear. This study evaluated the effect of RE and postexercise protein on recovery energy expenditure and substrate utilization in 17 women (age 46.5 +/- 1.2 y). A whey-protein supplement (120 kcal, 30 g protein) was ingested immediately after 1 bout of RE (PRO) and a noncaloric placebo after another (PLA).VO2 and respiratory-exchange ratio (RER) were measured before and for 120 min after each exercise session. RE resulted in a significant increase in VO2 that persisted through 90 min of recovery (P &lt; 0.01) and was not affected by protein supplementation. RE significantly lowered RER, resulting in an increase in fat oxidation for both PLA and PRO (P &lt; 0.01). For PRO, however, RER returned to baseline values earlier than for PLA, resulting in a reduced fat-oxidation response (P = 0.02) and earlier return to preexercise baseline values than for PLA. Substrate utilization was significantly different between conditions (P = 0.02), with fat contributing 77.76% +/- 2.19% for PLA and 72.12% +/- 2.17% for PRO, while protein oxidation increased from 17.18% +/- 1.33% for PLA to 20.82% +/- 1.47% for PRO. Postexercise protein did not affect energy expenditure, but when protein was available as an alternate fuel fat oxidation was diminished. Based on these findings it might be beneficial for middle-aged women to delay protein intake after RE to maximize fat utilization.


old women and all, but researchers have relatively avoided this research for a long time, so its a matter of taking what we can get.
 
oh and if anyone wants to use the leap of faith that I hate low carb

A high protein, low carbohydrate (and by definition higher fat) diet, is a friggen great way to achieve fat loss and can taste pretty good. Most of my days are low carb, but not all.

So is a high protein, moderate carbohydrate, more moderate fat diet and can taste pretty good

A high protein, high carbohydrate diet works as well, but generally tastes like friggen sawdust.

Which is the important thing.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The conclusions were that without carbs, and by extension without insulin, it was impossible to accumulate fat.</div>
So you are saying if I don't eat carbs, but I eat a crap-load of protein and fat, that I won't gain any fat because I won't be producing any insulin?
rock.gif


Well if that is true I just found the secret to gaining huge amounts of lean mass with ZERO fat gain! WIN! Oh...wait, its not true.
sad.gif
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 20 2008,01:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 19 2008,20:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Okay, I just can't...

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I thought I could cut by reducing the amount of food I was eating. So that's exactly what I did. After all, that's what everybody was telling me. Would you believe I was eating as little as 600 calories a day and training as much as 90 minutes a day and still I wasn't losing any weight? Any weight, not muscle, not fat, nada. Maybe something was wrong? You bet. But not what you think.</div>

You are either mistaken or you are making this up. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to not have lost weight, unless your maintenance is only 600 calories, in which case you must be a 30 lb hobbit. Or you weren't counting calories accurately.

I was actually reading your post up until you wrote that. But you lost me on that one. Try writing stuff that isn't false and maybe people will read more.</div>
Please explain why you think my personal experience is impossible. We know you don't believe me and you think I'm unreliable but that's not a reason, that's a speculation on your part. I'm asking for the data that makes you think I should be losing weight on such a low calorie diet.

Thank you.</div>
I really didn't want to argue this, because it is proven science. In fact, it is based on scientific law. When people doubt that kind of thing, it is straying into the arena of religious and superstitious discussion, and I refuse to become involved in that sort of a debate.

If you are taking in significantly less energy than the body requires to support itself and it's mass, you will lose weight. There is no way around it. You would have to be getting energy from somewhere to not lose weight.

But you want evidence? Here you go. I'm going to go ahead and reference wikipedia, but I think this particular page is still trustworthy and will make my point:

Thermodynamics
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Mar. 20 2008,12:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The conclusions were that without carbs, and by extension without insulin, it was impossible to accumulate fat.</div>
So you are saying if I don't eat carbs, but I eat a crap-load of protein and fat, that I won't gain any fat because I won't be producing any insulin?
rock.gif
</div>
Protein give you a good insulin rise as well, as Aaron also pointed out.

Fat and protein are essential, while carbohydrate can be omitted. The body can provide sufficient glycogen for the needing organs through gluconeogenesis.

Many of those who eat low carb can still enjoy nuts, berries and a limited amount of fruit, if they want to stay in a state of ketosis (protein sparing).

Those on the paleo diet can eat whatever protein-fat-carb ratio, only they do not eat high-starch products, much like the hunter-gatherer peoples of the world today.

For those who use fasting as a means to lose fat, the fat oxidation rises when glucogen stores are becoming depleted. Some protein oxidation also occurs, but one study point to that this protein is primarily from the fat cells themselfes.

Of course there is the high-carb, low-fat, low-calorie dieters. Somehow they lose weight too, but it seems like a strange bedfellow. I think the overnight fast might be a part of the equation, because there is not much of glycogen stores to take from when low on calories.

As Tot mentioned, not losing weight at all on 600 calories a day rises an eyebrow
rock.gif
, as it doesn't seem possible. But I know one relative of mine is rather heavy, although eating as little as a bird. I believe this can be due to a severly decreased metabolism from being permanently on low calories. There is not much of termogenic effect from digestion as there is not much food, and activity levels drop when strength/stamina isn't that high.
 
<div>
(nkl @ Mar. 20 2008,07:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As Tot mentioned, not losing weight at all on 600 calories a day rises an eyebrow
rock.gif
, as it doesn't seem possible. But I know one relative of mine is rather heavy, although eating as little as a bird. I believe this can be due to a severly decreased metabolism from being permanently on low calories. There is not much of termogenic effect from digestion as there is not much food, and activity levels drop when strength/stamina isn't that high.</div>
I've known a couple people who were rather fat and didn't seem to each much, but we actually took a week and counted out all the calories for these two individuals. It turned out they were getting roughly 2000 calories a day. Combine that with a sedentary lifestyle + plenty of time = fat for most people.
Obviously I've known plenty of people who claimed or seemed to not each much, yet were still fat. Those people are a dime a dozen. But these two individuals were the only ones where I actually helped them figure out how much they really were consuming.

One of them is a woman who is now thin, after spending years trying to lose weight &quot;by not eating much&quot; and wondering why she was still fat.

The only way I can see someone not being able to lose weight on low calories is if they are not controlling the variable of calories. You have to count them all to be sure that you know what the value is, otherwise it is only an estimation and not a controlled variable. And really, without drug usage, that is the only variable that you can control when trying to lose weight anyway (aside from using training to attempt to increase protein synthesis enough to spare muscle mass.)
 
Interestingly enough, both Lyle McDonald and Coach Hale in Knowledge and Nonsense examined all the popular diets of today and came to the same general conclusions: ALL RESULTANT FAT LOSS is a direct reaction to the amount of calories consumed.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Think of a couple of million years instead. Even 10 thousand years is not enough to bring any significant change in our genetic profile.</div>
I love it when people puke out evolutionary assumptions. I can show you a massive collection of undisputable scientific evidence that our universe is only 10,000 years old to begin with. Oh...we're not supposed to talk about that: it's hushhush! Don't want anyone to lose their funding.
laugh.gif
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 20 2008,14:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(nkl @ Mar. 20 2008,07:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As Tot mentioned, not losing weight at all on 600 calories a day rises an eyebrow  
rock.gif
, as it doesn't seem possible. But I know one relative of mine is rather heavy, although eating as little as a bird. I believe this can be due to a severly decreased metabolism from being permanently on low calories. There is not much of termogenic effect from digestion as there is not much food, and activity levels drop when strength/stamina isn't that high.</div>
I've known a couple people who were rather fat and didn't seem to each much, but we actually took a week and counted out all the calories for these two individuals.  It turned out they were getting roughly 2000 calories a day.  Combine that with a sedentary lifestyle + plenty of time = fat for most people.
Obviously I've known plenty of people who claimed or seemed to not each much, yet were still fat.  Those people are a dime a dozen.  But these two individuals were the only ones where I actually helped them figure out how much they really were consuming.

One of them is a woman who is now thin, after spending years trying to lose weight &quot;by not eating much&quot; and wondering why she was still fat.

The only way I can see someone not being able to lose weight on low calories is if they are not controlling the variable of calories.  You have to count them all to be sure that you know what the value is, otherwise it is only an estimation and not a controlled variable.  And really, without drug usage, that is the only variable that you can control when trying to lose weight anyway (aside from using training to attempt to increase protein synthesis enough to spare muscle mass.)</div>
It makes sense. If a person accustomed to eating &quot;very little&quot; then eats a lot all of a sudden, I once believed they stored that extra energy for harsher times, since they eat above maintenance. But if they eat above maintenance all the time, wouldn't their metabolism shift into a higher gear? Well, there seems to be a limit. For a already fat person with very little lean mass, their resting metabolism wouldn't require so many calories to begin with. If they then eat 1000 calories extra per week they still would keep adding pounds over time. They wouldn't lose weight, that's for sure.
<div>
(quadancer @ Mar. 20 2008,15:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Interestingly enough, both Lyle McDonald and Coach Hale in Knowledge and Nonsense examined all the popular diets of today and came to the same general conclusions: ALL RESULTANT FAT LOSS is a direct reaction to the amount of calories consumed.
</div>
I read a study where some healthy individuals ate low carb at maintenance and lost fat while gaining lean mass. This evidence suggests that it is important to look at what we eat, not only how many calories we eat. The study was: Metabolism, Vol 51, No 7 (July), 2002: pp 864-870, Body Composition and Hormonal Responses to a Carbohydrate-Restricted Diet, by Jeff S. Volek, Matthew J. Sharman, Dawn M. Love, Neva G. Avery, Ana L. Go´ mez, Timothy P. Scheett, and William J. Kraemer (oh no, not Kraemer again!)  
laugh.gif
 
What you eat may have an impact, but I think that is going to be primarily in individuals who are not training. The effect that diet can have on p-ratio is minimal when compared to weight training. Other than steroids, weight training is going to have the most dramatic effect on this compared to anything else you can do.
 
600 cals a day though is really not much.....especially in light of whats being claimed.

600 cals a day, up to 90 minutes of cardio, no fat loss, no muscle loss, no general wgt loss of any kind?

it seems martin is claiming that carbs are the culprit. ok.....thats 150g of carbs, MAX. even 150 of the worst kind of evil, processed, refined carbs out there doing there insulin to fat dance still adds up to a serious cal deficit.

no room left for protein or fat intake yet no muscle loss of any kind. thats pretty amazing. even if the intake wasnt 100% carb the protein intake will be very very low and fat (at 9cals per gram) intake would have to be practically non-existant. this just doesnt seem possible in the real world.....and even in martins examples pro/fat are what is needed for muscle maint/growth.........yet this example defies that as well.

avg. person maint. cal level comes in around bw x 12-14. thats an average so obviously folks come in above an below that but for the sake of discussion lets look at what we are talking about.
avg. small sized man would come in around 150lbs or basically @2000 cals for maint. even at the low low end of bw x 10 for maint. a small man would need @ 1500 cals a day to maintain. lets go ridiculous low end of bw x 6-7 and you get @ 1000.....

we are talking about 600 calories! with 90 min of cardio. even if you just walked slowly around the block for 90 minutes your going to burn 150cals.

carbs might be evil but they are not magic. they can certainly make some peoples body do crazy things (with-in reason) but maint on 600 cals (of any macro make up) for longer then a day seems pretty impossible.
 
<div>
(nkl @ Mar. 20 2008,05:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Pardone me for jumping into the discussion. I'm pretty much a low carb person since I've found that it is benefical for keeping the fat down, and I seem to put on weight in the presence of carbs. What I have read to get IGF-I up and rolling there is a need for some insulin. As protein produces a rise in insulin this could be a trigger. Carbs give a higher insulin surge, but that's not always preferrable. What I would wery much like to know, as you, Martin, mentioned in an early post, is how proteins have a better amino acid storing capacity rather than fat storing capacity (could it be the lesser insulin secretion?). I'm seriously interested in the source of this information.
...</div>
First, flexing muscles immediately increases insulin sensitivity. This happens regardless of our diet. Keep that in mind for what's to follow.

Carbs cause a spike in insulin. Over time, carbs cause an increase in insulin resistance. Cells shut down their insulin receptors until they stop taking in any insulin.

Eating fats do nothing for insulin either way.

Proteins cause a spike in insulin but not as much as carbs. Contrary to the combo carbs/insulin, protein/insulin does not cause an increase in insulin resistance to the same degree. This is probably because amino acids are wanted while glucose is not. And this is probably because glucose is toxic while amino acids are not.

In both cases, insulin is needed. Glucose needs insulin to be fed to cells, so do amino acids. Priority goes to glucose because of its toxicity. Take care of poison first, return to normal functions when that's done. The normal function I speak of is the feeding of amino acids to cells by insulin.

Cells become insulin resistant. Insulin pushes both glucose and amino acids. Glucose first, AA next. Take out carbs from the diet=&gt; Insulin levels go back to normal: Blood level drops to normal, cell sensitivity gets back to normal.

Now flex muscles. Cells become sensitive to insulin regardless of diet. But the starting sensitivity is much lower in a high carbs diet than in a zero carbs diet. This means the resulting sensitivity is also higher after flexing muscles. This means AA is taken in more easily. And since carbs are absent and insulin is normal, AA are taken in quicker.
(edit: -lower- sensitivity in high carbs.)



That is my understanding of the mechanisms involved. It's oversimplified but it makes sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Mar. 20 2008,06:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The conclusions were that without carbs, and by extension without insulin, it was impossible to accumulate fat.</div>
So you are saying if I don't eat carbs, but I eat a crap-load of protein and fat, that I won't gain any fat because I won't be producing any insulin?
rock.gif


Well if that is true I just found the secret to gaining huge amounts of lean mass with ZERO fat gain! WIN! Oh...wait, its not true.
sad.gif
</div>
Read the research. Make up your mind after. Now, you're set to never read the research because you believe it's impossible so any research that shows otherwise must be wrong.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 20 2008,06:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Mar. 20 2008,01:41)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 19 2008,20:45)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Okay, I just can't...

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I thought I could cut by reducing the amount of food I was eating. So that's exactly what I did. After all, that's what everybody was telling me. Would you believe I was eating as little as 600 calories a day and training as much as 90 minutes a day and still I wasn't losing any weight? Any weight, not muscle, not fat, nada. Maybe something was wrong? You bet. But not what you think.</div>

You are either mistaken or you are making this up. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to not have lost weight, unless your maintenance is only 600 calories, in which case you must be a 30 lb hobbit. Or you weren't counting calories accurately.

I was actually reading your post up until you wrote that. But you lost me on that one. Try writing stuff that isn't false and maybe people will read more.</div>
Please explain why you think my personal experience is impossible. We know you don't believe me and you think I'm unreliable but that's not a reason, that's a speculation on your part. I'm asking for the data that makes you think I should be losing weight on such a low calorie diet.

Thank you.</div>
I really didn't want to argue this, because it is proven science. In fact, it is based on scientific law. When people doubt that kind of thing, it is straying into the arena of religious and superstitious discussion, and I refuse to become involved in that sort of a debate.

If you are taking in significantly less energy than the body requires to support itself and it's mass, you will lose weight. There is no way around it. You would have to be getting energy from somewhere to not lose weight.

But you want evidence? Here you go. I'm going to go ahead and reference wikipedia, but I think this particular page is still trustworthy and will make my point:

Thermodynamics</div>
Actually, when people doubt the science, that's the scientific method at work.
 
<div>
(nkl @ Mar. 20 2008,07:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As Tot mentioned, not losing weight at all on 600 calories a day rises an eyebrow
rock.gif
, as it doesn't seem possible. But I know one relative of mine is rather heavy, although eating as little as a bird. I believe this can be due to a severly decreased metabolism from being permanently on low calories. There is not much of termogenic effect from digestion as there is not much food, and activity levels drop when strength/stamina isn't that high.</div>
That's a plausible explanation. Add insulin resistance and we got a winner.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Mar. 20 2008,08:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(nkl @ Mar. 20 2008,07:17)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">As Tot mentioned, not losing weight at all on 600 calories a day rises an eyebrow
rock.gif
, as it doesn't seem possible. But I know one relative of mine is rather heavy, although eating as little as a bird. I believe this can be due to a severly decreased metabolism from being permanently on low calories. There is not much of termogenic effect from digestion as there is not much food, and activity levels drop when strength/stamina isn't that high.</div>
I've known a couple people who were rather fat and didn't seem to each much, but we actually took a week and counted out all the calories for these two individuals. It turned out they were getting roughly 2000 calories a day. Combine that with a sedentary lifestyle + plenty of time = fat for most people.
Obviously I've known plenty of people who claimed or seemed to not each much, yet were still fat. Those people are a dime a dozen. But these two individuals were the only ones where I actually helped them figure out how much they really were consuming.

One of them is a woman who is now thin, after spending years trying to lose weight &quot;by not eating much&quot; and wondering why she was still fat.

The only way I can see someone not being able to lose weight on low calories is if they are not controlling the variable of calories. You have to count them all to be sure that you know what the value is, otherwise it is only an estimation and not a controlled variable. And really, without drug usage, that is the only variable that you can control when trying to lose weight anyway (aside from using training to attempt to increase protein synthesis enough to spare muscle mass.)</div>
2000 calories a day used to be the recommended amount (by some organization or other) below which we would starve. Now we consider it too much? It doesn't make sense. We haven't evolved so quickly to make it so. There must be something else going on that we don't know about.

I was sure. I still am. 600 calories. Not loss. You figure it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top