Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004
Two Weeks In, and some questions
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Dan Kaminsky - 26 Jan 2004 12:24 GMT Right. Went snowboarding, first time in my life that being out of shape was clearly a problem. Went on Atkins _immediately_ (as in, I was stripping cheeseburgers of their buns at lunch).
About a week later, once my body had adjusted to the new energy source, I started walking / running. Turns out that whole ability to walk arbitrary distances quickly scales into being able to jog and even run long distances -- constant distance of 8-10 miles, with ever increasing speed, seems to have worked really well for me. I can't recommend this strategy enough; don't feel bad that you can't keep running, just start walking and accept the 20-30% heart rate jump with occasional spiking (Polar makes a great heart rate monitor -- very good for realizing exactly how much you're pushing yourself). Eventually, occasional will become often, and especially once you get going, you just won't stop. This is _much_ better on the ego than running continually to the point of exhaustion and dragging yourself home.
Pretty cool, especially since a couple nutritionists have said it's impossible to do sustained workouts w/o carbs. I'm on less than 10 carbs a day (it's just not that hard), and I'm keeping my heart rate up, sometimes way up, for hours on end as I push through the 8-10 every other day. I pretty much *have* to be burning fat, since there's nothing else to burn :-)
There is one possible concern. I'm using the best ketosis sticks on the market -- Bayer's Ketostix (http://www.westburypharmacy.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?store_code=WP&screen=PROD &product_code=306381). They're meant for diabetics, they're cheap($10.99 for 50), and they actually _quantify_ how many ketones are in your urine. Before I started exercising, I was averaging 40mg/dL -- the "dark" entry on the ThinZ strips. I'm now somewhere between the two "large" marks on the Ketostix, meaning 80-160mg/dL -- and I stay this dark even if I don't exercise for a couple days. I'm curious if I should be concerned. The strips lighten up considerably if I accidentally consume carb-loaded food (for example, the two avocados the other day dropped me back to ~30 mg/dL), so I can tell the strips are good. So should I worry that my blood is basically saturated with fuel from fats?
BTW, is there any science at all to support the assertion that sugar alcohols don't need to be counted? I've been avoiding them for the most part, just because it's relatively easy to.
--Dan
Ignoramus14768 - 26 Jan 2004 14:18 GMT For a healthy dude, being in ketotis or fasting does not mean that it is impossible to exercise a bit. I routinely exercise after my fasting day and before eating.
As for counting sugar alcohols, note that everything containing them is junk food or candy and as such, is not helpful to an atkins dieter trying to get rid of addiction to sweets etc. Even if you are not subject to such an addiction, the health benefit of LC junk food is nil, and possible health consequences from eating a hodgepodge of chemicals are unknown.
So, my suggestion is not to count sugar alcohols, but rather to avoid them.
As for whether sugar alcohols are carbs, abstractly speaking, the answer is yes, they are carbs and they have calories, so they need to be counted. LC junk food is not a blessing.
People have troubles staying on LC diets when they eat LC labeled junk food.
i 223/174/180
Saffire - 26 Jan 2004 20:17 GMT > Pretty cool, especially since a couple nutritionists have said it's > impossible to do sustained workouts w/o carbs. I'm on less than 10 > carbs a day (it's just not that hard), and I'm keeping my heart rate Why are you on less than 10 carbs per day? Are you on Atkins? If so, you can (and SHOULD) have up to 20 carbs per day. At 10 carbs, you can't be taking in much in the way of veggies. Don't get me wrong, I've had days where I had very vew carbs, but it was accidental.
Also, it doesn't matter how dark the ketosticks are. In fact, if they are CONSISTENTLY dark, you probably aren't drinking enough water. Being in ketosis is like being pregnant -- you are or you aren't, so as long as it's registering anywhere from pink to purple, you ARE in ketosis.
 Signature Saffire 205/174/125 Atkins since 6/14/03 Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333
Dan Kaminsky - 27 Jan 2004 11:55 GMT > Why are you on less than 10 carbs per day? Because my favorite foods (eggs, cheese, steak, burgers, chicken, etc) are pretty low carb as it is?
> Are you on Atkins? If so, you can > (and SHOULD) have up to 20 carbs per day. At 10 carbs, you can't be taking in > much in the way of veggies. Don't get me wrong, I've had days where I had very > vew carbs, but it was accidental. I tend to use creamed spinach as a source of veggies. I might start partaking in other fare; got pretty burned by the avocado misadventure. Some refs to argue for it, perchance?
> Also, it doesn't matter how dark the ketosticks are. In fact, if they are > CONSISTENTLY dark, you probably aren't drinking enough water. Being in ketosis > is like being pregnant -- you are or you aren't, so as long as it's registering > anywhere from pink to purple, you ARE in ketosis. I dunno about this. I was under the impression that, assuming hydration was kept constant, more ketones in the urine meant more fat was being burned for energy (whether or not you're on Atkins). Certainly that's what you read from the diabetic docs; the problem there is the body burns fat instead of the sugars available in the blood stream, and this causes Bad Things. Plus, heavy cardio has multi-day effects on my ketosis levels, nicely filtering out hydration effects.
I'm a geek, so I'm into quantification of such things.
--Dan
jamie - 27 Jan 2004 16:12 GMT > I dunno about this. I was under the impression that, assuming > hydration was kept constant, more ketones in the urine meant more fat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > multi-day effects on my ketosis levels, nicely filtering out hydration > effects. In persons who are not Type I diabetic, there is a feedback loop, where if ketone concentration gets too high, the body ceases metabolizing fats and releases insulin.
 Signature jamie (jamiemck@newsguy.com)
"There's a seeker born every minute."
Dan Kaminsky - 28 Jan 2004 12:06 GMT > In persons who are not Type I diabetic, there is a feedback loop, where > if ketone concentration gets too high, the body ceases metabolizing fats > and releases insulin. Here's a question:
Are free-floating ketones energy sources, or waste material?
--Dan
RRzVRR - 28 Jan 2004 14:26 GMT > Here's a question: > > Are free-floating ketones energy sources, or waste material? > > --Dan Ketones are a fuel source.
The following explaines a lot regarding ketones/FFA:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F01/C431Notes/C431n07Dec.htm
 Signature Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata
Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
Doug Freyburger - 28 Jan 2004 22:02 GMT > Are free-floating ketones energy sources, or waste material? Both. Ketones that arrive within mitochondria get burned in aerobic respiration. Krebs Citric Acid Cycle, freshman boichemistry. Cell membranes are made of fat and protein and ketones dissolve in and pass through fat and protein. So some ketones just plain pass through the skin and leave the body.
Dan Kaminsky - 29 Jan 2004 10:12 GMT > Both. Ketones that arrive within mitochondria get burned in aerobic > respiration. Krebs Citric Acid Cycle, freshman boichemistry. Cell > membranes are made of fat and protein and ketones dissolve in and > pass through fat and protein. So some ketones just plain pass through > the skin and leave the body. Are unabsorbed ketones reconverted into adipose tissue via the "insulin feedback loop" I've seen referred to elsewhere?
--Dan
Doug Freyburger - 29 Jan 2004 14:50 GMT > > Both. Ketones that arrive within mitochondria get burned in aerobic > > respiration. Krebs Citric Acid Cycle, freshman boichemistry. Cell [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Are unabsorbed ketones reconverted into adipose tissue via the > "insulin feedback loop" I've seen referred to elsewhere? The insulin feedback loop is based on free fatty acids not ketones, so the answer is no. But there is some degree of linkage over a period of time. The natural sequence in week 3 is to reduce the production of ketones so it very closely matches the BMR. During Induction the body burns far more fat than needed, and ketones pass through the skin and kidneys and intestines and leak out everywhere. After Induction the sticks go down towards trace because the production of ketones starts to very closely match the metabolic usage. The presence of the trace is from the fact that ketones can't be stopped from passing through the kidneys into the urine. They just dissolve through the cells. And the smallness of the trace is from the fact that the body has adjusted its production of ketones to match the metabolic demand. Just how much insulin has to do with this feedback adjustment, I don't know, but I doubt the effect is completely zero.
On the insulin feedback loop and the free fatty acids. This is to respond to a meal with high fat content. Digestion breaks fat into glycerol and fatty acids for absorbtion into the blood stream. Then the liver and/or fat cells take the glycerol and the fatty acids and they stitch them back into fat. Most likely the fatty acids get editted for length int he process. So eat enough fat and your insulin will go up just enough to keep the fatty acids handled. *OR* release enough stored fat and your insulin will go up just enough to keep the fatty acids handled. Interesting stuff, that. It imples that as long as your blood sugar is low, and your metabolism isn't broken by insulin resistance and so on from diabetes, the level of fatty acids in the blood *can't* get dangerously high. And since the supply of ketones in the blood is based on the liver's supply of free fatty acids, that's why folks who see dark test strips during Induction don't go into ketoacidosis and die. There's an indirect insulin feebback loop that keep the levels from becoming toxic no matter from dietary fat or withdrawn stored fat or both in combination.
This also explains two other mechanisms one anti-obvious and one obvious.
The anti-obvious one is that with a reasonable total calorie intake, eating more dietary fat results in more stored fat being withdrawn from storage. It's why the original fat fast experiment showed the folks eating 1000 calories of 90% fat lost more than the folks eating 0 calories. It's why Atkins is high-fat, medium-protein not the other way around. For the same total calories, more fat annd less protein works better all the way until you hit your daily protein minimum and trigger starvation mode. It is very much the opposite that eating more fat should lead to loss, but as long as you keep your total calories limited it does and you'll see post after puzzling post reporting that someone ate a huge T-bone and had a whoosh, or that someone binged by drinking over a cup of heavy cream and had a whoosh. The hormone mechanism is that eating dietary fat indirectly triggers the release of glucagon, and glucagon levels determine flow of fat out of storage. More dietary fat, more glucagon, more fat withdrawn from storage.
The obvious one is that if you eat far too much calories in the form of far too much fat, it overwhelms the glucagon effect. But it takes far above the guideline calories to do so and no plan endorses chronic over eating so no plan endorses eating that much anything whether it's fat or not. But there's the biochemical mechanism raising it's complex head: Eat too much fat and the intestines release too much free fatty acids. Fatty acids *indirectly* cause glucagon release and increase stored fat withdrawal, but too much fatty acids *directly* cause insulin release. Since insulin in the blood suppresses glucagon production, the overwhelm situation starts forcing fat back into storage anyways.
So go from 60-80 grams of fat (low) to 100-140 grams of fat (high) and you will withdraw *more* fat from storage. But go from 100-140 grams of fat (high) to 200-260 grams of fat (ultra-high)and it is enough to overwhelm the loop, trigger the extra insulin, and push fat into storage. Atkins is high-fat and takes advantage of this mechanism, but Atkins is not over-eat so it avoids the overwhelm trigger. It combines the anti-obvious of more-fat-more-withdrawn and the obvious of eat-too-much-store-new-fat.
Luna - 27 Jan 2004 16:27 GMT > > Why are you on less than 10 carbs per day? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > misadventure. Some refs to argue for it, perchance? > I don't have any references, other than common knowledge that non-starchy vegetables have a lot of vitamins that you need. Oh, and fiber. Spinach is a great one. I actually have to be careful with my spinach consumption, not because of the carbs, but because sometimes I get too much fiber, if ya know what I mean.
 Signature Michelle Levin http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
billydee - 27 Jan 2004 17:56 GMT > > Why are you on less than 10 carbs per day? > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > --Dan When Lance Armstrong recommends a low carb diet I'll believe it. Your body can be forced to do lots of crazy things--not all that are good for you.
Dan Kaminsky - 28 Jan 2004 12:05 GMT > When Lance Armstrong recommends a low carb diet I'll believe it. Your > body can be forced to do lots of crazy things--not all that are good > for you. They need to give Lance Armstrong a cameo in X3; damn guy's a mutant
:-) Who the hell goes through chemo and is *stronger* for the experience?
Watch out for the American cliche of, that which is easy and presently good must necessarily be dangerous and long-term painful.
--Dan
LCer09 - 29 Jan 2004 14:58 GMT >They need to give Lance Armstrong a cameo in X3; damn guy's a mutant >:-) Who the hell goes through chemo and is *stronger* for the >experience? No kidding. What's his resting heart rate again? 3?
LCing since 12/01/03- Me- 265/234/140 & hubby- 310/260/180
carla - 28 Jan 2004 12:59 GMT >> When Lance Armstrong recommends a low carb diet I'll believe it. Your > body can be forced to do lots of crazy things--not all that are good > for you. I guess that makes sense, if you are an endurance athlete. Lance Armstrong demands more from his body in one day of training than I do in probably a month of workouts. I would imagine his carb and energy needs are quite a bit different from mine.
carla
Doug Freyburger - 28 Jan 2004 22:12 GMT > > Why are you on less than 10 carbs per day? > > Because my favorite foods (eggs, cheese, steak, burgers, chicken, etc) > are pretty low carb as it is? In spite of the fact that Atkins spent 30+ years to design a process that works better than anything the Joe on the street can think up in a few minutes. If your goal is the best possible loss, follow the actual directions in one of the popular plans in spite of their not being what is obvious. Decades of testing beats obvious. On the other hand if you're happy with your progress and your loss rate is not important to you, go with what you're doing.
> > Also, it doesn't matter how dark the ketosticks are. In fact, if they are > > CONSISTENTLY dark, you probably aren't drinking enough water. Being in ketosis [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was being burned for energy (whether or not you're on Atkins). > Certainly that's what you read from the diabetic docs The problem with the above: It assumes that carbs are the control mechanism in how much ketones are released. They're not. Carb level enables ketone release and fat controls the amounts.
The other problem with the above: It ignores the calendar. There is a very specific pattern of events that is to be expected and that happens whatever you do with your carb level. Somewhere during week 3 an assortment of metabolic changes occur and they do so whether you're at 25, 20, 15, 10 or 5. T3 drops, loss rate takes a week off (for most), the sticks head towards trace, the intensity of the smell reduces, any headaches stop, etc. You are between 1 and 7 days before this happens and changing your carb levels somewhat will have no effect on the natural process because it's a cycle based on body cycles not on exact carb counts.
Yet another problem with the above: You are trying to get more accuracy out of the testing system than it has. The sticks aren't good enough to really tell levels of ketosis with any consistancy. The details of ketosis are effected by far more than the exact recent carb intake, especially after the first 2 weeks. You're over analyzing the data by overreading the testing mechanism, and you happen to be early on enough that your efforts have worked so far. But that week 3 body cycle will start very soon.
Dan Kaminsky - 29 Jan 2004 12:12 GMT > In spite of the fact that Atkins spent 30+ years to design a process > that works better than anything the Joe on the street can think up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the other hand if you're happy with your progress and your loss rate > is not important to you, go with what you're doing. Bit hostile, are we?
My impression is that alot of the system is predicated on preventing people from falling off the wagon. For example, caffeine seems to be forbidden because "it makes people want sweets". This is pretty alien to me.
I'm not disagreeing, since clearly you have more experience with the diet than I do.
> The problem with the above: It assumes that carbs are the control > mechanism in how much ketones are released. They're not. Carb > level enables ketone release and fat controls the amounts. Of course. According to the FAQ posted earlier, ketone release is mediated by a lack of glucose in the bloodstream. (The analogy of fat as an "extended liver" was really cool.) The actual level of ketosis seems be mediated by the amount of exercise I'm getting. What's been <b>extremely</b> interesting is that my level of available energy for exercising has utterly skyrocketed -- I've gone from being semi-sedentary to handling multi-mile stretches without slowing down. This is rather alien to me :-)
I don't think we disagree -- the more fat burnt, the more acetoacetate is floating around your bloodstream, makes its way into your urine, and burns the strips. A spike of carbs that temporarily knocks the liver out of ketone production would thus cause a gradual (or not so gradual) decline in the overall ketone count as measured by the strips. You're the biochem master, not I, so I ask:
1) What is the lag time between changes in ketone production and effects visible in the urine? 2) Do you deny the linear relationship people draw between fat burning and ketone count? Isn't ketone generation the direct byproduct of burning fat?
> The other problem with the above: It ignores the calendar. There > is a very specific pattern of events that is to be expected and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have no effect on the natural process because it's a cycle based on > body cycles not on exact carb counts. I haven't suffered any particular smell, at least that I'm aware of. I would appreciate a deeper set of predictions. Fundamentally: If I never go into trace, what then?
Are there specific reasons I should be consuming more carbs? Thought isn't fuzzy (you wouldn't *believe* the stuff I've come up with in the last few weeks), energy seems plentiful ... sleep/week is up, but I think that's reasonable considering the levels of exertion, etc. I'm looking for actual data.
> Yet another problem with the above: You are trying to get more > accuracy out of the testing system than it has. The sticks aren't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > happen to be early on enough that your efforts have worked so far. > But that week 3 body cycle will start very soon. The Bayer sticks seem pretty solid; they were designed for life-critical operations (testing for a diabetic entering ketoacidosis) so they have five different intensities, from something like 10 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL. I'd wager there'd be some pretty nasty suits if they didn't hit their mark reasonably. The sticks, at least early on, underwent major shifts within hours if I ate anything that was high carb; the so-called "getting blown out of ketosis". Does this change?
Thanks for the thoughts.
--Dan
RRzVRR - 29 Jan 2004 13:23 GMT > A spike of carbs that temporarily knocks the > liver out of ketone production would thus cause a gradual (or not so > gradual) decline in the overall ketone count as measured by the > strips. Actually when BG levels are high the body will not only stop ketone production, but will also dump ketones because of glucose availability. Therefore you could have a high carb meal and then a few hours later show a very high level of ketosis on the strips -- but you would not be in ketosis when you measure.
 Signature Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata
Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
|
|
|