Nutrient partitioning

[imported_daveguy]

Lyle once posted on MFW that fish oil may improve partitioning. I think some rat studies suggested that it increases insulin sensitivity in muscle and decreases it in fat. Of course, these weren't human studies. Has there been more evidence for this effect? And do you think 8 g/day for a 190 lbs man is a good dose?
While we're at it, how else can partitioning be improved? Does interval training or aerobic work or anything else do anything for partitioning?
Dave Guy

 

[Nemesis7884]

smart diet routines? smart diet ratios? r-ala/ala? leptigen from avant labs?

 

[baby a]

At best we can only improve partitioning by only 15-20% over our genetic limits. There are dieting approaches such as cyclical carb dieting, training methods like glycogen depletion WO's (which is all described in UD2.) There are always steroids and ph which may be the best at accomplishing improved partitioning. E/C and clenbuterol can improve partitioning by increasing insulin resistance. The word is still out on Leptigen....

But ala/r-ala has never been proven to have any effect on insulin output or sensitivity, as many companies would have you believe. It is a good anti-oxidant, however, but that is about it in my book.

 

[Nemesis7884]

hey my baby, do you have any studdies to support your claim about r-ala/ala? thx

 

[Ryan]

The only repartitioning device I am aware of is strategic carb depletion such as that in UD2.0.

As far as I have read, supplements/drugs like Bromo, ALA, and vinegar work irregardless of tissue muscle:fat, they don't repartition the disposal of glucose, they send and take away as established by genetics. Now by depleting and carb loading an individual may be divert nutrients away from fat due to muscle tissue needing, but that depends on many factors (best laid out in UD2.0). Now we are getting into "why can't we, over the long-term, burn fat and put on muscle". I advice anyone who doesn't understand the issues spend a few bucks and pick up UD2.0.

Long-chain fish oils more specifically EPA and DHA do repartition once it gets in the system for extended period of time thus changing the makeup of cell tissue. The ratio of 3:6 is more important than absolute values. FWIW, I have been taking 6g of EPA/DHA for several years and have not noticed an ability to stay leaner, so if does work, it has a muted effect.

Everything mentioned heretofore is my interpretation from reading comments by Lyle, Elzi, Barry Sears and a discussion with Lonnie Lowery.

As far supplements to repartition. Hypothetically if such supplements existed they most likely will by controlled by big pharma due to their propensity to invest in R&D and recruit the top minds in the field. An example of a drug that does repartition is testosterone, controlled by pharmaceutical companies or illegally produced or imported. If said supplement did exist out of an independent lab a firm with market power has divisions full marketing and finance types that recognize the present value of such investment and will throw so much cash at that company there is no way it will hit the market under title other than Abbott, Lilly, J&J, Merck, etc. Then again my world view may be little tainted due to the fact that my training is in the field economics/finance, and we think to much about market forces.

I would love to discuss this issue further.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Agreed except it is not the pharmaceutical companies who control the release of these drugs it is the Governments. As a businessperson also, if I had a product that actually did what is spouted to do or hell even if it didn't I would want everyone buying it, prescription or not. IE Viagra.

If you are curious look here to see what Bryan has said about supplements a while back.

http://www.musclemonthly.com/author/bryan-haycock.htm

or

http://www.thinkmuscle.com/newsletter/index.htm

Read the ones by Bryan, Lyle and Rehan.

or

These by Elzi Volk

http://www.musclemonthly.com/author/elzi-volk.htm

 

[Ryan]

Quote[/b] (dkm1987 @ Sep. 05 2004,11:48)]Agreed except it is not the pharmaceutical companies who control the release of these drugs it is the Governments.

I would say it's the other way around, special interest groups control the U.S. Government. One caveat would be immediate death (including stem cells). FDA has very little control in the end. I remember a TV program a few years back, Dateline or 20/20 where a couple of former FDA scientist found statistically significant evidence that soy caused male brain problems. Their data was overlooked by superiors and pushed through. Money talks, gets people elected and keeps them in office.

The controlling of fat burning and pro-hormone supplements serves to prove my point, it's elimates pharmaceutical competition. Plus it allows fat-cat Representatives to get postivie pub by purporting to protect his constiuents children from taking a whole bottle of epherdrine and running several miles on an empty. Yet we can smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol and get behind the wheel, both of which directly lead to death and increased insurance rates.

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (Ryan @ Sep. 07 2004,8:32)]I remember a TV program a few years back, Dateline or 20/20 where a couple of former FDA scientist found statistically significant evidence that soy caused male brain problems. Their data was overlooked by superiors and pushed through.

hahhahhahahaha

that one was funny, murine models at massive doses are always the best way to guestimate the effect on humans.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Something else you may want to consider when thinking of food partitioning is that the conversion of carbohydrates or protein into fat is 10 times less efficient than simply storing fat in a fat cell, but the body can do it. If you have 100 extra calories in fat (about 11 grams) floating in your bloodstream, fat cells can store it using only 2.5 calories of energy. On the other hand, if you have 100 extra calories in glucose (about 25 grams) floating in your bloodstream, it takes 23 calories of energy to convert the glucose into fat and then store it. Given a choice, a fat cell will grab the fat and store it rather than the carbohydrates because fat is so much easier to store.

 

[Old and Grey]

Dan, considering the popularity and purported success of Atkins-type and no/low carb diets, how does what you said figure into those diets? Does 'ketosis' change the natural order of things?

 

[rowdy]

Old and Grey,

I saw an interesting program on the Atkins diet and others. (I think it was a BBC program, shown here in Australia on Quantum, on the ABC)

In one study shown, they had two twins, made them eat the same calories etc, only one was Atkins style diet, the other more standard with carbs. They had them both locked in temperature controlled rooms and had them both do the same exercises every day. I think it lasted for one week. There was no appreciable difference in weight changes for either. They even measured the ketones in urine or something and it made a tiny (bugger all) increase in calories output/lost for the Atkins dieter.

Futher study on Atkins dieters found that even though they were allowed to eat as much as they like, most people actually ended up eating less and lost weight, purely from less total calories. They naturally eat less calories because they end up eating more protein which makes people feel fuller and satisfied. They also pointed out it wasnt the fat that caused the increased satiety.

And when you think about it, before going on the Atkins diet, they were probably eating sh!tty high-gi foods like refined white bread, junk food and sugars. High-gi foods can make you feel hungrier, making you eat more in one sitting.

So when people switch to more protein and eliminate (high-gi) carbs they get a kind of double boost of satiety from their meals..... hence eating less....less calories....they lose weight.

Nothing magic there. It still comes back to calories in vs calories out.

I dont recall if they mentioned fat vs carbs efficiency for fat storage. If its as Dkm suggests then eating excessive calories on an Atkins diet would actually be worse than a normal diet.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (Old and Grey @ Sep. 06 2004,7:17)]Dan, considering the popularity and purported success of Atkins-type and no/low carb diets, how does what you said figure into those diets? Does 'ketosis' change the natural order of things?

Ketosis doesn't change the natural order of things, it is what causes ketosis that does. Eliminating carbs changes how adipocytes are interacted with mostly by insulin or the lack thereof. When carbs are low, so typically is insulin production. Without insulin or when it is low then lipoprotein lipases are much less active and therefore ingested fat can not be broken down into fatty acids and stored. So ketogenesis not only uses the accumulated fat but it also prohibits new fat from being stored.

Also understand that what we are doing when we go into ketosis is reducing our calories for the most part anyway. What I was referring to was when there is an overabundance of calories and how the bodies preference was to store excess fat versus excess carbs or protein.