Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / November 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

No carbs at all?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Pat in TX - 19 Nov 2006 15:07 GMT
Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I am
thinking, "That can't be working out okay." I remember Dr. Atkins stressing
a need for some carbs--some roughage at least.

Has anyone here tried this sort of radical departure from the Atkins diet?
What were the consequences?  Constipation?  That's the first thing I thought
of.

Pat in TX
jcderkoenig - 19 Nov 2006 15:28 GMT
What is a fat fast?

> Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
> not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Pat in TX
Jeri - 19 Nov 2006 15:42 GMT
> Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
> not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I am
> thinking, "That can't be working out okay." I remember Dr. Atkins stressing
> a need for some carbs--some roughage at least.
<snip>

Did you ask if they were eating vegetables? For some reason many people
think they don't contain carbs so they claim to be eating zero carb when
they really aren't.
Roger Zoul - 19 Nov 2006 16:32 GMT
:: Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The
:: guy told me they are not eating any carbs at all in a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
::
:: Pat in TX

There are a few here (on occasion, anyway) who claim to have a nearly or
actually zero carb diet. I can't remember the posters right now.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe they are really doing a NO carb diet.
Did you press them at all?  Lots of people just use the term in a very
imprecise manner. Also, they probably won't be doing any serious (high heart
rate) cycling for long on a NO carb diet.

Constipation could be an issue, but that is a YMMV kind of thing.  Most
people claim that fiber is needed in the diet and that it has all of these
wonderful properties....but....

Me, I prefer to eat the fibrous veggies and LC fruits as a means to ensure
adequate nutrition.
Curly C - 26 Nov 2006 07:36 GMT
I have been eating 0 carbs for about 8 months now with no ill effects.
The key is to keep the fats high and to also eat more mct fats like
coconut oil which tend to almost act like carbs in the body. I had tried
eating this way before with no luck but this time I eat alot of coconut
oil and it has made it alot easier to do.

I also take alot of fish oils, cod liver oils, HCL betaine, digestive
enzymes, glandulars, very potent vitamins, and liver tabs. I quit
drinking all protein powders, as I wanted to get away from splenda or
any other sweetner too. I am not a big steak eater (I do eat it though),
so I usually eat alot of eggs, turkey, moose meat, and chicken all with
coconut oil. Once in a great while I may throw in some green peppers
with my eggs or a handful of blueberries, so I do get a few carbs
occasionly but its never over 20gm/day and 9 days out of every 10 it is
0gm/day.

I don't worry about the lack of fruits and veggies because meat has more
nutrients anyway. Besides that, most of the nutrients in fruit and
especially veggies are locked up in the cell wall and since humans can't
digest cellulose, there is no way for our body to use them. Even if we
could use them, the fiber would leech most of the nutrients out of our
bodies before we could absorb them. Also, the fruit today is nothing
like what our ancestors ate and neither are the veggies. If you don't
believe me, try eating some wild lettuce. I also live in northern maine,
so I like to eat the way I think I would if I lived here 10,000 years
ago, so that means moose, deer, fish, and maybe an apple or two once a
year. I realize there are no coconuts in maine but I eat that to make up
for the lack of good fats that are in store bought meat.

I have never experienced constipation on this diet. In fact, I am more
regular than ever. The lack of fiber and carbs keeps the bad bacteria at
bay, and I never have any digestive or gas problems anymore. In fact, I
kid my father all the time that I couldn't burp or fart for a million
dollars. The good fats are the best way to stay regular. In fact, before
ww2, coconut oil, mineral oil, and other oils were prescribed for
constipation, never fiber. Now, the bran industry has got everyone
brainwashed.

I have nothing against carbs per se. Actually, I was a heavy carb eater
for years when I use to bike and lift weights alot. I tend to get heavy
easy, so I used to workout 2 hours a day to at least stay in decent
shape. The problem was I would always burn alot of muscle instead of
fat, so I would quit biking and just lift weights which would help get
my muscle and strength back, but I would get fat again too, so I would
start the cycle all over again. Now, I workout only 3 hours a week, I do
no aerobics (just sprints), and I am finally muscular and lean, which is
something I could never do eating high carb when I was either muscular
and fat or small and soft.

You have to understand that by depriving the body of glucose, you force
it to burn fat for energy, not only bodyfat but the incoming fat from
your diet too. That is why the fast burning mct fats work great on this
diet. When I ate carbs, my body was a great carb burner but a terrible
fat burner and if I used my carbs up on a long bike ride, the muscle is
next to be used for fuel instead of fat. Now, I am burning fat whether I
am working out or watching tv because I have no glucose present or
insulin that would enable me to use another fuel source.
Tom G - 19 Nov 2006 16:35 GMT
> Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
> not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I am
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> What were the consequences?  Constipation?  That's the first thing I thought
> of.

  Stanley Owsley (Bear), formerly of the Greatful Dead, has been eating as
close to 0 carbs for over 47 years.
  http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=287013

  Also the Activenocarb forum people. There are a few that have taken on a
totally meat diet.
  http://activenocarber.myfreeforum.org/index.php

  This guy has posted here a few times but was not welcomed.
   http://zerocarbdaily.blogspot.com/

 There are some good threads in some of these forums that argue on whether
it is possible to survive long term on only meat. For example, Vit C and D,
and calcium are lacking in such a diet( steaks ). How is it that a person
can eat like this and not show a deficiency? Are the vitamins from plant
sources different from meat sources? Is fiber really needed?

  There was also the case of the 25 egg per day man.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n5_v10/ai_10894447
Nicky - 19 Nov 2006 20:11 GMT
>   There was also the case of the 25 egg per day man.
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n5_v10/ai_10894447

Wow!!

Nicky.

Signature

A1c 10.5/5.5/<6  T2 DX 05/2004
100ug Thyroxine
95/72/72Kg

glassman - 19 Nov 2006 17:28 GMT
> Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
> not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Pat in TX

 When folks go from 200 carbs a day to 10 or 20 they think they are eating
zero carbs.  They don't realize that most things have some carbs in them.

Signature

JK Sinrod
www.SinrodStudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

UsenetID - 19 Nov 2006 17:39 GMT
> Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
> not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> What were the consequences?  Constipation?  That's the first thing I
> thought of.

I've known a few people on lists who eat only meat with a high fat content
(hence no constipation) and eggs (which do have minimal carbs of course) - a
couple that have been doing it for years and whose health and bloodwork are
perfect (or nearly so).  While I couldn't do it because I love my veggies
too much, I certainly admire those who can/do.

Sherry
lowcarb.owly.net
Gill Murray - 21 Nov 2006 02:40 GMT
My husband was put on "zero carbs" by his internist following an attack
of pancreatitis; he is a type 2 diabetic.

Well, we all know there is literally no thing as a "zero carb" meal.
Heck, even lettuce has a carb or two.

I will say that we travelled in the RV for five months this summer, and
I kept hum as low as I could to a zero-carb diet. Potatoes, rice, pasta,
flour, rice, what's that?? I had to be creative but when he went to the
Dr after we returned ALL numbers were normal. From HgbA1c to Trigs (
used to be 2000), Chol ( used to be 500) and so forth. As a Med tech, I
was really impressed. In addition, he reduced the insulin by 75%, and
discontinued one of the other meds. The Dr then discontinued one of the
anti-lipid drugs.

So, all I can say is that from personal experience you can get "near to
zero" carbs, and do well. Regarding constipation, Jim takes metamucil
when he thinks of it, or nibbles on pistachios ( I buy those because he
can only eat them one at a time since they have to be shelled). I
suspect the people you met were like DHs Dr; no carbs were potatoes,
pizza etc.

Gillian

> Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
> not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I am
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Pat in TX
Roger Zoul - 21 Nov 2006 03:20 GMT
I still have to wonder if your doctor said "zero carb" knowing that
otherwise it would be hard to keep carbs low.

Other than for seizure control, is there any recommended medical use for a
zero carb diet?

:: My husband was put on "zero carbs" by his internist
:: following an attack of pancreatitis; he is a type 2
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
:::
::: Pat in TX
Susan - 21 Nov 2006 03:32 GMT
> I still have to wonder if your doctor said "zero carb" knowing that
> otherwise it would be hard to keep carbs low.

No, I think he meant zero.  Folks I know with pancreatitis have been
taken off food, period, to give the pancreas a rest.

Susan
Jackie Patti - 24 Nov 2006 20:24 GMT
>> I still have to wonder if your doctor said "zero carb" knowing that
>> otherwise it would be hard to keep carbs low.
>
> No, I think he meant zero.  Folks I know with pancreatitis have been
> taken off food, period, to give the pancreas a rest.

When I had it, it was zero carbs, zero protein, zero fat and zero water.
   I even had to take my narcotics via IV... *nothing* goes into the
stomach during an acute pancreasitis attack as *anything* can increase
the pain.

But... that is not a diet, it's a fast.

When the pain went away and I got better, I was allowed ice.  After
tolerating ice for a day, I was required to eat something without pain
before being discharged and I opted for sugarfree jello and beef broth.

The instructions for being at home were to eat "bland" foods for a few
days and avoid alcohol and fat (overindulgence in alcohol is the most
common cause, with gall bladder problems running a close second).

But... we knew it was neither alcohol nor a gall bladder problem, so I
ignored those bits of the instructions.  I pretty much stuck to
sugar-free jello and broth when I got home for a few days, then started
adding small portions of cottage cheese to my diet, and after that
worked for a few days, I gradually transitioned back to my normal
low-carb diet.

I had an acute attack of pancreasitis, not a chronic case; I don't know
how recommendations might differ for a chronic case.

A zero-carb diet would pretty much have to be 100% meat.  You can't do
veggies or dairy or eggs.  Heck, even spices and herbs have carb.

I've heard of people doing an all-meat diet, but have never heard of a
doctor recommending it for anything before and can't see how it would be
at all relevant to pancreasitis.
Nicky - 24 Nov 2006 22:50 GMT
> I had an acute attack of pancreasitis, not a chronic case; I don't know
> how recommendations might differ for a chronic case.

Sounds awful - what causes it?

Nicky.

Signature

A1c 10.5/5.5/<6  T2 DX 05/2004
100ug Thyroxine
95/72/72Kg

Gill Murray - 24 Nov 2006 23:56 GMT
>>I had an acute attack of pancreasitis, not a chronic case; I don't know
>>how recommendations might differ for a chronic case.
>
> Sounds awful - what causes it?
>
> Nicky.

My husband's attack of acute pancreatitis was out of the blue. Unlike,
Jackie, he was allowed to come home, and I had to follow all the dietary
rules. I suspect he was not as far advanced.  The MD said usually they
hospitalise folks with this, and put them on IVs. He trusted me to keep
a tight rein, and I did, and have.

Nope, there is no such thing as No-carb, or the tooth fairy. However,
one can get as close as reasonable, without losing some pleasure in life.

Gillian

T2 support person!!
Curly C - 26 Nov 2006 07:53 GMT
I also have noticed that alot of "no carbers" will try to do it the 65%
protein 35% fat way which I feel is all wrong. True ketogenic diets are
always more fat than protein. I suspect that a heavy protein eater will
have more glucose present than a heavy fat eater, even if no carbs are
eaten. That doesn't mean that we can't eat lean meats though, it just
means that if you do, you better have some coconut oil with it.
Actually, I cook my lean meats in coconut oil and then even spread
coconut oil on the meat before I eat it too. If I eat steak, I don't
add any fats because steak has plenty already.

People run into problems when they eat chicken breasts for dinner and
turkey for supper, as they tend to get carb cravings and hunger pains.
They then wonder what they are doing wrong. WHERE IS THE FAT??

If they would just up their fat/protein ratio to 70%/30%, all their
problems would disappear.
Jackie Patti - 26 Nov 2006 15:27 GMT
> My husband's attack of acute pancreatitis was out of the blue.

Yeah, mine was too.  I'd met my husband for dinner at a truck stop.  He
was on the road, and left again after dinner.

I came home and suddenly got sick.  I thought it was food poisoning, but
puking didn't help at all, and the pain just got worse and worse.  I
didn't think I could drive safely, so called my daughter to take me to
the hospital.

> Unlike,
> Jackie, he was allowed to come home, and I had to follow all the dietary
> rules. I suspect he was not as far advanced.  The MD said usually they
> hospitalise folks with this, and put them on IVs. He trusted me to keep
> a tight rein, and I did, and have.

Yeah, that may be - there was no one to come home to in my case except 4
cats.  ;)

I think the IV was in case it went on for too long, so I wouldn't
dehydrate.  As it was, I was only hospitalized for 2 days, so probably
could've gotten by without the IV.

Well, it was also a good way to give me narcotics too since anything in
the stomach might stimulate the pancreas.

> Nope, there is no such thing as No-carb, or the tooth fairy. However,
> one can get as close as reasonable, without losing some pleasure in life.

Did the doctor just intend to prescribe no-carb until the pancreasitis
cleared up?  That would make some sense to me cause I'll don't know if I
entirely buy that it's completely unrelated to diabetes.  I'd bet that
carb would make it worse faster than protein or fat as the pancreas has
more to do when you eat carb.

Usually, the recommendation for diabetics in an ongoing sense is either
the dumb-a.s "eat lotsa carbs so you don't eat fat" crap or the bit
where carb intake is based on bg readings.

Have you read this:

http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm

> T2 support person!!

T2!  Going on two decades now...
Jackie Patti - 26 Nov 2006 15:11 GMT
>> I had an acute attack of pancreasitis, not a chronic case; I don't know
>> how recommendations might differ for a chronic case.
>
> Sounds awful - what causes it?

It's most often caused by overindulgence in alcohol or secondary to gall
bladder problems, neither of which was the case for me.

I asked if it might be related to diabetes, but they didn't think so.
Apparently, the only correlation they know of between pancreasitis and
diabetes is they both effect the pancreas.

Basically... it is just that the pancreas is inflamed, like any other
tissue can become inflamed.  So anything that causes inflammation in
general likely could cause pancreasitis.

It just hurts bloody worse than most inflammation.

The treatment is to not eat or drink to allow the pancreas to recover
and lots of pain meds in the meantime.
Nicky - 26 Nov 2006 20:12 GMT
>>> I had an acute attack of pancreasitis, not a chronic case; I don't know
>>> how recommendations might differ for a chronic case.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> It's most often caused by overindulgence in alcohol or secondary to gall
> bladder problems, neither of which was the case for me.

Thanks for the explanation. Sounds ghastly!

Nicky.

Signature

A1c 10.5/5.5/<6  T2 DX 05/2004
100ug Thyroxine
95/72/72Kg

Susan - 26 Nov 2006 22:13 GMT
>>It's most often caused by overindulgence in alcohol or secondary to gall
>>bladder problems, neither of which was the case for me.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. Sounds ghastly!
>
> Nicky.

It can also be the result of infectious diseases that goes undiagnosed,
such as Lyme disease or babesiosis, in some cases.

Susan
Gill Murray - 21 Nov 2006 15:36 GMT
Since his doctor didn't know me, that may well be the case. No pizza,
french fries, potato chips etc may have been his meaning.  However being
a cooking enthusiast, and Med Tech, I took the challenge!LOL.

Gillian

> I still have to wonder if your doctor said "zero carb" knowing that
> otherwise it would be hard to keep carbs low.
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> :::
> ::: Pat in TX
Nicky - 21 Nov 2006 08:26 GMT
> ALL numbers were normal. From HgbA1c to Trigs ( used to be 2000), Chol (
> used to be 500) and so forth. As a Med tech, I was really impressed. In
> addition, he reduced the insulin by 75%, and discontinued one of the other
> meds. The Dr then discontinued one of the anti-lipid drugs.

Great going!!

Nicky.

Signature

A1c 10.5/5.5/<6  T2 DX 05/2004
100ug Thyroxine
95/72/72Kg

tunderbar@hotmail.com - 21 Nov 2006 15:03 GMT
> Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
> not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I am
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Pat in TX

In terms of carbs themselves, it really isn't a zero carb plan because
up to 40% of most can be converted to carbs. And there is no such thing
as an essential carbs in the same way as there are essential fatty
acids and essential amino acids.

Having said that, here is where I see a problem. If these people have
been eating the typical SAD diet with copious amounts of refined carbs
and other crappy manufactured foods, they are already is a state of
nutrient depletion (ie. vitamins and minerals). Then they go on a
no-carb diet and stop eating all carbs including nutrient rich whole
food carbs. If they were in a partially nutrient deficient state to
begin with, cutting all carbs may make them more nutrient deficient in
some vitamins and minerals. If they eat only the freshest meats with
plenty of healthy animal fats, cooked whole, like beef broths or
chicken soup broths, it won't be that bad. But if they eat only lean
meats or worse, processed or pre-prepared pre-packaged meats, then
their nutrient intake will be quite poor.

While the quantity of foods are important to some degree. The quality
of foods is of the utmost importance. Inuits were know to survive on
raw frozen fish and not much else for about 8 months of the year
without any ill effects or signs of malnourishment. But English sailors
eating white flour biskets and salted meat would start sickening and
dying off within a matter of months.

If you are cutting carbs, only cut the crappy, nutrient-depleted,
refined crap.

Eat fresh produce raised in the best soils, picked at the peak of
ripeness, and eaten immediately with the minimal processing and cooking
necessary.

TC
Susan - 21 Nov 2006 15:10 GMT
> In terms of carbs themselves, it really isn't a zero carb plan because
> up to 40% of most can be converted to carbs.

Actually, it's up to about 58% of protein eaten that slowly converts to
glucose.  That doesn't mean that it isn't zero dietary carb, which is
what's under discussion here.  The body isn't running on zero glucose,
but it certainly can run on zero carb.

Susan
tunderbar@hotmail.com - 21 Nov 2006 18:53 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Susan

That was my point. A zero carb diet still provides eough glucose. Where
you lose is in the vitamins and minerals to some extent. But then
again, healthy animla sourced meats and fats is very nutrient dense
especially when compared to grains like wheat.

TC
Susan - 21 Nov 2006 18:54 GMT
> That was my point. A zero carb diet still provides eough glucose.

That's not even close to what you said.

Susan
Cheri - 21 Nov 2006 20:02 GMT
Gotta agree with Susan there. :-)

--
Cheri

>x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Susan
Jbuch - 21 Nov 2006 21:42 GMT
> Gotta agree with Susan there. :-)
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>
>>Susan

One more agreement with Susan, here.

No room for arguing the point, either.

Signature

1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

Pat in TX - 22 Nov 2006 00:03 GMT
>> Gotta agree with Susan there. :-)

>> Susan wrote in message <
>>>That's not even close to what you said.

> One more agreement with Susan, here.
>
> No room for arguing the point, either.

Dang! I forgot what the point was!

Pat in TX
Cheri - 22 Nov 2006 00:09 GMT
Me either, but it was a good one. :-)

--
Cheri

>Dang! I forgot what the point was!
>
>Pat in TX
Stephen - 27 Nov 2006 20:32 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Susan

58% ?? What studies is this based on??   citing The Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 86, No. 3 1040-1047 Copyright ? 2001
by The Endocrine Society

Volunteers were admitted to the SDTU on the evening before the study
and were given a standardized meal at 1700 h. Subsequently, only water
ad libitum was allowed. The following morning at 0300 h, two indwelling
venous catheters were inserted, one in the antecubital vein and the
other in the dorsum of the contralateral hand. The catheters were kept
patent with a slow infusion of 0.9% saline. An infusion of
tritium-labeled glucose (D-[3-3H]-glucose) and 14C bicarbonate (NEN
Life Science Products, Boston, MA) was started at 0300 h at a constant
rate of 0.11 ?Ci glucose/min and 0.52 ?Ci 14C HCO3/min, respectively.
This was continued until 1600 h.
At 0800 h, either 50 g beef protein (tenderloin, <5% fat, 236 g raw
weight), or water alone was given in random order. This was consumed
within 15 min. During the subsequent 8-h period, the volunteers were
allowed to drink water ad libitum. Arterialized blood samples were
drawn from the hand hourly from 0300-0700 h and then every 15 min
until 0800 h. Subsequently, blood samples were drawn at 15-min
intervals for 90 min, then at 30-min intervals for 150 min, and every
hour for the final 4 h of the study. Subjects were studied over an 8-h
period to assure complete absorption of the 50 g protein. The time
interval between studies was at least 2 weeks to allow adequate time
for the isotopes to be cleared from the body, but less than 3 months.

Plasma glucose was determined by a glucose oxidase method using a
Beckman glucose analyzer with an O2 electrode (Beckman Coulter, Inc.,
Fullerton, CA). Serum immunoreactive insulin was measured by a standard
double-antibody RIA method using kits produced by Endotech (Louisville,
KY). Glucagon was determined by RIA using 30-K antiserum purchased from
Health Sciences Center (Dallas, TX). Serum nonesterified fatty acids
(NEFAs) were determined by the colorimetric assay of Duncombe (12).
Triglycerides were determined using an EktaChem analyzer (Eastman Kodak
Co., Rochester, NY). Plasma lactate was determined by the method of
Hohorst using lactate dehydrogenase (13). Plasma and urine urea
nitrogen were determined using the Ortho Vitros 950 instrument. The
total -amino nitrogen was determined by the method of Goodwin (14).
Amino nitrogen concentration is a measure of the total concentration of
amino acids in serum.

As expected, when the subjects ingested only water (fasting controls)
there was a gradual decrease in serum glucose concentration over the 8
h of the study (33). When the subjects ingested 50 g beef protein there
was a small initial and transient increase in glucose, but by 2.5 h the
glucose concentration had decreased and continued to decrease until the
end of the study. Over the last 5.5 h, the concentration was slightly
less than when only water was ingested

where did all the glucose go if infact 58% protein eaten that slowly
converts to
glucose
DJ Delorie - 27 Nov 2006 21:09 GMT
> where did all the glucose go if infact 58% protein eaten that slowly
> converts to glucose

The key is "up to" 58%.

> and were given a standardized meal at 1700 h.

I.e. these aren't low carbing test subjects.  That makes the results
meaningless for us.
Stephen - 27 Nov 2006 21:31 GMT
> > where did all the glucose go if infact 58% protein eaten that slowly
> > converts to glucose
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I.e. these aren't low carbing test subjects.  That makes the results
> meaningless for us.

that makes sense  the as  protein to glucose conversion rate would be a
bit  higher in the absence of alternatives ( carbs ) ..

It would be good to see a the results of a similar study performed on
LC subjects or at least subjects in ketosis.  do you know of any?? as a
claim of 58% seems extremely difinitive...

TIA
DJ Delorie - 27 Nov 2006 21:58 GMT
> It would be good to see a the results of a similar study performed on
> LC subjects or at least subjects in ketosis.  do you know of any?? as a
> claim of 58% seems extremely difinitive...

I don't personally know of any, but I got that number from Lyle, and
he doesn't give out numbers without the studies to back them up, so I
trust it.
Jackie Patti - 27 Nov 2006 22:09 GMT
> that makes sense  the as  protein to glucose conversion rate would be a
> bit  higher in the absence of alternatives ( carbs ) ..
>
> It would be good to see a the results of a similar study performed on
> LC subjects or at least subjects in ketosis.  do you know of any?? as a
> claim of 58% seems extremely difinitive...

Up to 58% is based on stoichiometry, knowing the pathways protein can
use to convert to glucose and calculating how much it could possibly
produce.  It just means no *more* than that could convert because if you
converted *all* your protein to glucose, that's how much glucose you'd
get.

It doesn't mean how much would convert for any one person or in any
particular situation, just that the answer must be something between 0%
and 58% cause that's all that's possible based on the mass of the
various molecules involved.

We know it does convert - people who actually eat a zero carb diet do
not have bg of 0; similarly, diabetics who go eat too much protein see
bg rise also even in the absence of carb because of the protein
conversion.

As a diabetic myself, I eat the amount of carb that doesn't raise my bg,
the amount of protein calculated to be sufficient for my basic
requirements, and then the rest of my calories come from fat.  I do this
in hopes that the protein conversion to glucose will be minimized.
Stephen - 27 Nov 2006 23:06 GMT
> > that makes sense  the as  protein to glucose conversion rate would be a
> > bit  higher in the absence of alternatives ( carbs ) ..
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> requirements, and then the rest of my calories come from fat.  I do this
> in hopes that the protein conversion to glucose will be minimized.

Statistical assumptions can vary wildly ...

I guess what I  really trying to figure out  ( in a round about
fashion)   is if ones protein intake is too high , based on this
conversion assumption, it is quite possible that it could  prevent
certain induviduals from entering Ketosis.....??
Jackie Patti - 27 Nov 2006 23:34 GMT
> Statistical assumptions can vary wildly ...
>
> I guess what I  really trying to figure out  ( in a round about
> fashion)   is if ones protein intake is too high , based on this
> conversion assumption, it is quite possible that it could  prevent
> certain induviduals from entering Ketosis.....??

Possibly, yes.

I suspect this is why folks who try to do low-carb and low-fat diets
seem to have less success.  If you're avoiding carb and fat, the only
macronutrients left are protein and alcohol, either of which can convert
easily to glucose in the absence of carbs.
Stephen - 28 Nov 2006 01:31 GMT
> > Statistical assumptions can vary wildly ...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> macronutrients left are protein and alcohol, either of which can convert
> easily to glucose in the absence of carbs.

I suspect that also...

Cheers...
Doug Freyburger - 28 Nov 2006 22:49 GMT
> > Statistical assumptions can vary wildly ...

Why the 58% number is "at most" - The body uses protein to
grow and to replace used up lean.  At the cellular level
enzymes break down and need to be created again.  It is
the *excess* protein grams that are converted to glucose,
and since there are about two dozen types of amino acids
that each have their own pathway the 58% number is an
average based on the average amino acid mix.  So 58% is
an average of an excess.  Hard to nail down exactly.

> > I guess what I  really trying to figure out  ( in a round about
> > fashion)   is if ones protein intake is too high , based on this
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> macronutrients left are protein and alcohol, either of which can convert
> easily to glucose in the absence of carbs.

There's an added reason why combining low carb and low fat
doesn't work as well as many think.  Folks want to think in terms
of calories so lowering calories means better loss.  There's more
to metabolism than calories, though.

In high carb eating lots of insulin is released.  In low carb dieting
little insulin is released.  One reason that lower isn't better is
below some level you're already at an idle level of insulin and eating
less carbs more longer means less insulin.  For those on Atkins
that level is CCLL when you fall out of ketonuria.  Farther below
that is fewer calories without less insulin.

But insulin isn't the only hormone invovled.  The other one is
glucagon.  Withdrawal of stored fat is based on some idling
level (how low fat diets work) plus the ratio of glucagon to insulin.
You want higher glucagon in addition to lower insulin.  The deal is
glucagon is release in (indirect) response to dietary fat.  Eat
more dietary fat, release more glucagon, withdraw more fat from
storage.  It's a pattern that is the reverse of the obvious.  It's a
pattern that overeaters overwhelm with excess caloires.  It's also
a pattern that folks who combine low fat plus low protein hit like
a wall.

Both protein and fat are filling.  For the same total calories, less
protein and more fat gives better loss.

Compare 500 calories of: lean turkey breast meat, dark chicken
meat, beef, salami.  Which gives better loss?  It's easy to think
that since they are all 500 calories it won't matter.  It's easy to
think that since the turkey is bigger it will be more filling.  It's
easy to notice that 500 calories of salami is smaller than 500
calories of turkey.  But they are all about as filling as the others
and the salami triggers more insulin release.  So the salami gives
better loss at 500 calories.
Susan - 27 Nov 2006 23:57 GMT
> I guess what I  really trying to figure out  ( in a round about
> fashion)   is if ones protein intake is too high , based on this
> conversion assumption, it is quite possible that it could  prevent
> certain induviduals from entering Ketosis.....??

If calories are also too high, I guess.  But who cares?  I mean, if your
diet is working for you, who cares if you're in ketonuria?

Susan
Susan - 27 Nov 2006 22:50 GMT
> 58% ?? What studies is this based on??

Almost all of them.  If you can get a hand on any scientific review of
metabolic research.  In fact this is why type 2 diabetics must use
insulin to cover glucose increases brought on by even pure protein meals.

> where did all the glucose go if infact 58% protein eaten that slowly
> converts to
>  glucose

I never said it raises blood glucose, I said it's converted to it.  The
fact that the process is very slow and very inefficient is why it
doesn't raise blood glucose, except in type 1 diabetics.  It's why it's
such an important part of diabetic dietary management, along with fats.

Susan
vallatonwille@gmail.com - 26 Nov 2006 12:42 GMT
Pat in TX kirjoitti:

> Yesterday, I met a couple out riding their bikes. The guy told me they are
> not eating any carbs at all in a drive to lose weight.  So, of course, I am
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Pat in TX

I eat about 75 g of carbs per day. Most carbs coming from things like
veggies and yoghurt.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.