Re: How do I lose that last layer of fat?

[Guest guest]

I gain weight very easily when I eat nuts, because of the type of fat in them.

I lose weight when I eat lots of saturated fat. Sounds like you eat really well!

I don't know how old you are, but at my age of 43, I've found the best way for

me to lose weight and build muscle is eating wap-style and exercising. I mostly

walk, 4-5 times a week for about 30 minutes a time and it's made all the

difference. Nothing excessive, just get the ipod on and walk around the

neighborhood.

Gone are my youthful days when I could just diet and get thin ) And a gentle

reminder that every body is different. The weight may not come off exactly where

you want it to...our bodies seem to have ideas of their own on that matter! Good

luck to you.

Danae

How do I lose that last layer of fat?

have always had a layer of fat on my chest and around my waist that bothers

e. My level of fat never varies as far as I can tell no matter how much I

xercise or watch my diet. I don't eat processed foods and workout regularly

ncluding high intensity cardio. Since my level of fat has been so consistent

hroughout my life my fat level is probably genetic. So am I screwed? Will I

nly be able to get rid of that last layer by torturing myself with excessive

xercising and food deprivation? I more or less follow the Nourishing

raditions traditional diet, so my diet is high in animal fats, and I eat palm

nd coconut oil but many believe that fat is not necessarily fattening because

t does not trigger the pancreas to produce insulin like simple carbs do. I

on't eat simple carbohydrates. I eat a lot of raw honey, and the only bread I

at is sprouted multi-grain which has a low glycemic index. My metabolic type

s mixed, and the only foods that change the way I feel are sugar (even

nprocessed) and granola, so I avoid them. Which foods in general besides

imple carbs are fattening and I should avoid to lose fat? What dietary changes

hould I make to lose that last layer of fat? Are glycemic index tracking and

alorie counting reliable methods for losing fat? Fat is high in calories but

ot necessarily fattening, and grains may be fattening even if they have a low

lycemic index I believe. Thanks for any replies.

-----------------------------------

[Guest guest]

> I have always had a layer of fat on my chest

I would ditch the honey and grains. The fructose in the honey and the PUFAs are

what could be causing extra fat problems for you. Have you done a Fitday

analysis to see what your percent of PUFA is?

If I were in your shoes I would tilt the food toward meat, fat, and starchy veg

(not fruit) and away from sugar, grains, and vegetable oils .

Connie

[Guest guest]

Make sure to consume half your calories in fat and the other half in

carbohydrate. Consume 0.62g of protein for every pound of bodyweight. You

absolutely need those carbs on days you are active. On days you aren't active

you can switch to 70% fat, 15% carb, 15% protein.

Try consuming 14 calories for every pound of lean body mass you have. Based on

your daily activity level multiply your total caloric intake by 1.5 to 2.

You will need to get a device to check your bodyfat. Try googling for the

bodybugg calorie counter and buying that if you don't want to do all the math

and work involved in checking bodyfat.

One problem you may be having is that you are overtraining yourself and not

doing enough quality intense work. Running works mostly the slow twitch muscle

fibers which do not account for size or quality looking muscle hypertrophy. On

average a distance runner will have 1.39% bodyfat but they don't look that

muscular because of the type of muscle fibers they work out. You instead want

to do more intense activities like 50-400 meter full on sprints,

calisthenics/bodyweight exercises, yoga/stretching, bat swinging/kettlebells,

weightlifting, and pylometrics. These will work far more of the type 1 and 2

fast twitch muscle fibers that account for muscle hypertrophy. Spend between a

half hour to an hour and a half doing a full body routine three times a week

every other day on the weekdays. Avoid any type of distance running.

You may want to maintain or gain a little bit of weight in order to develop more

muscle. Weightloss isn't always the answer and can lead to muscle atrophy.

Dan Holt

________________________________

From: <ccmg5678@...>

Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 8:33:25 AM

Subject: How do I lose that last layer of fat?

I have always had a layer of fat on my chest and around my waist that bothers

me. My level of fat never varies as far as I can tell no matter how much I

exercise or watch my diet. I don't eat processed foods and workout regularly

including high intensity cardio. Since my level of fat has been so consistent

throughout my life my fat level is probably genetic. So am I screwed? Will I

only be able to get rid of that last layer by torturing myself with excessive

exercising and food deprivation? I more or less follow the Nourishing

Traditions traditional diet, so my diet is high in animal fats, and I eat palm

and coconut oil but many believe that fat is not necessarily fattening because

it does not trigger the pancreas to produce insulin like simple carbs do. I

don't eat simple carbohydrates. I eat a lot of raw honey, and the only bread I

eat is sprouted multi-grain which has a low glycemic index. My metabolic type

is mixed, and the only foods that

change the way I feel are sugar (even unprocessed) and granola, so I avoid

them. Which foods in general besides simple carbs are fattening and I should

avoid to lose fat? What dietary changes should I make to lose that last layer

of fat? Are glycemic index tracking and calorie counting reliable methods for

losing fat? Fat is high in calories but not necessarily fattening, and grains

may be fattening even if they have a low glycemic index I believe. Thanks for

any replies.

[Guest guest]

> You need to take in more carbs if you are doing any

> higher intensity activities like calisthenics,

> weightlifting, pylometrics, and sprinting.

> about 50/50 carb to fat.

Or for another point of view. If you are working at such high volume or

intensity that you have to take in more glucose every day, that is going in the

wrong direction. ( Although good for athletic competition. )

Again from Mark Sisson, a former nationally-ranked triathlete.

" Bottom line: Fats and ATP were the two primary energy sources for locomotion:

we either moved slowly and steadily or " fight or flight " fast, and we became

stronger and healthier the more we used only those energy systems.

....

" It all comes down to this: fat loss depends 80% on what and how you eat.

Retrain your energy systems to burn fat and not glucose. Cutting out all simple

carbs is the key. It's about insulin management. If you can readjust the diet to

encourage the body to burn fats, you won't need to replenish lost glycogen every

day. You'll always burn fats and you'll always have energy. The low level

aerobic stuff becomes " filler " …so you only do it if it's fun, like a hike or

walk with friends or golf or mountain biking. The real muscle growth will come

from the short anaerobic bursts like sprints, intervals or weight-training. "

[Guest guest]

> I've watched fat adapted people and they are very limited to the intensity

they can preform at. I would be interested in hearing the highest VO2Max a fat

adapted person could attain and how long they can hold it for.

I don't know of any studies on that specifically.

The question assumes you want to train for some kind of athletic max. That is

not the same goal as a health-first goal.

For an athletic max you might want to eat the more glucose, and just suck up the

consequences.

For health you might want to eat for longevity and suck up the lesser VO2max.

Again from an interview with Mark S (can you tell I like his writing, and the

emphasis *** is mine)

" Q. How did you get into that, how long did you keep it up, and how fast were

you?

A. (Sisson) I started running distance at 13—because I was too scrawny to play

other sports—and became a fairly good runner. I had no speed, so the longer the

race, the better I was. My VO2Max was only 68, but I had a high

threshold. I ran over 100 miles a week for several years in the late & #699;70s,

raced 10ks and marathons many, many times and finished fifth at the last AAU

National Championships in 1981 with a time of 2:18:01. After classic overuse

injuries and a high-carb inflammatory endurance diet cut my marathon career

short, I migrated to triathlon where I did well in the early days. I could ride

well and my running background allowed me to hold my own in the run without a

lot of training miles. For a short time I held the world record in the

Versa-Climber mile climb (5,280 feet in 22:30).

***

But I stopped competing at anything 15 years ago, and my health and fitness have

improved each year since. "

****

[Guest guest]

Do you use the honey as a sweetner or for the health benefits? I'm asking

because you can probably find raw bee pollen which gives more health benefits

than the honey with far fewer calories (and a lot of predigested protein - if

you're building muscle!)

Sometimes what we see in the mirror is not how we appear to others, tho -

anorexia is an extreme example - they see fat while everyone else thinks they're

too thin. I wonder if your diet is so careful if you're having as much of a

problem as it seems to you.

>

>

> I have always had a layer of fat on my chest and around my waist that bothers

me. My level of fat never varies as far as I can tell no matter how much I

exercise or watch my diet. I don't eat processed foods and workout regularly

including high intensity cardio. Since my level of fat has been so consistent

throughout my life my fat level is probably genetic. So am I screwed? Will I

only be able to get rid of that last layer by torturing myself with excessive

exercising and food deprivation? I more or less follow the Nourishing

Traditions traditional diet, so my diet is high in animal fats, and I eat palm

and coconut oil but many believe that fat is not necessarily fattening because

it does not trigger the pancreas to produce insulin like simple carbs do. I

don't eat simple carbohydrates. I eat a lot of raw honey, and the only bread I

eat is sprouted multi-grain which has a low glycemic index. My metabolic type

is mixed, and the only foods that change the way I feel are sugar (even

unprocessed) and granola, so I avoid them. Which foods in general besides

simple carbs are fattening and I should avoid to lose fat? What dietary changes

should I make to lose that last layer of fat? Are glycemic index tracking and

calorie counting reliable methods for losing fat? Fat is high in calories but

not necessarily fattening, and grains may be fattening even if they have a low

glycemic index I believe. Thanks for any replies.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Make sure to consume half your calories in fat and the other half in

carbohydrate. Consume 0.62g of protein for every pound of bodyweight. You

absolutely need those carbs on days you are active. On days you aren't active

you can switch to 70% fat, 15% carb, 15% protein.

>

No you don't. You absolutely don't need any carbs to be active, at least after

your body adjusts to using fat for energy. Read Taubes, _Good Calories, Bad

Calories_

....feeling like a broken record...please read the book already and stop

repeating false " minimum carb " claims. I would eliminate the honey and bread,

then cut out even starchy carbs if you still need to lose. If you eat a high

fat, low carb breakfast, you can often go all day without hunger and the fasting

will also go some ways to cut down on insulin. Whatever you do, don't snack

throughout the day.

Now I can't guarantee that this is the healthiest approach or that this works

uniformly for all. But it is the best shot if your only goal is to lose weight.

Bill

[Guest guest]

Sorry, fructose is the worst. Again, see Taubes.

>

> If it's unheater raw unfiltered honey then it's okay to have.

>

> Dan Holt

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@...>

>

> Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 9:00:08 AM

> Subject: Re: How do I lose that last layer of fat?

>

>

> > I have always had a layer of fat on my chest

>

> I would ditch the honey and grains. The fructose in the honey and the PUFAs

are what could be causing extra fat problems for you. Have you done a Fitday

analysis to see what your percent of PUFA is?

>

> If I were in your shoes I would tilt the food toward meat, fat, and starchy

veg (not fruit) and away from sugar, grains, and vegetable oils .

>

> Connie

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Taubes argues that the glycemic index is not a reliable guide to controlling

insulin, precisely because fructose is more damaging than glucose despite its

low glycemic index. I used to buy fructose instead of sugar and buy

fruit-sweetened treats to avoid sugar, and now it looks like that was the worst

thing to do. I'm sure there are a lot of positive aspects to raw honey--I have

it sometimes. But if you decide to go the very low carb route, then you'll need

to cut it out since it provides a lot of carbs. And concentrated fructose is

probably worse than sugar, so even if you are eating carbs, I would avoid

overdoing it with the honey.

Bill

>

> Yeah, but it also has an anti-insulin factor that causes the carb to digest at

a rate that is more convenient for the body. Raw Honey is known to be good at

balancing your blood sugar too.

>

> Depending on the type of raw honey you get it has a glycemic index of 35-65.

That just represents the rate at which it absorbs at. I'd guess the stuff with

a glycemic index of 35 would be ideal.

>

> Dan Holt

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Bill <lynchwt@...>

>

> Sent: Wed, December 2, 2009 11:24:07 AM

> Subject: Re: How do I lose that last layer of fat?

>

>

> Sorry, fructose is the worst. Again, see Taubes.

>

> --- In , Holt <danthemanholt@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > If it's unheater raw unfiltered honey then it's okay to have.

> >

> > Dan Holt

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > From: cbrown2008 <cbrown2008@ ...>

> >

> > Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 9:00:08 AM

> > Subject: Re: How do I lose that last layer of fat?

> >

> >

> > > I have always had a layer of fat on my chest

> >

> > I would ditch the honey and grains. The fructose in the honey and the PUFAs

are what could be causing extra fat problems for you. Have you done a Fitday

analysis to see what your percent of PUFA is?

> >

> > If I were in your shoes I would tilt the food toward meat, fat, and starchy

veg (not fruit) and away from sugar, grains, and vegetable oils .

> >

> > Connie

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Again, I would recommend reading the relevant parts of Taubes. He's quite clear

that the evidence shows fructose is more damaging than glucose and that glycemic

index misleads as a result. If I recall correctly, barley malt and brown rice

syrup are mostly glucose, so they may be better sweeteners to cook with.

Bill

>

> I was comparing the glycemic index food list with another chart showing the

harmful effects of refined sugars and fruits on the blood leukocytes. Starches

did far less damage. What was not included on the chart were vegetables, raw

milk, or a specification of the types of starches that were used. It listed

heated honey but not unfiltered unheated raw honey and heating destroys the

anti-insulin factor. I found some more information in another book that showed

that fruits didn't have much if any fiber and therefore were higher on the

glycemic index. Foods high in fiber are far lower on the glycemic index. This

glycemic index went by the quantity of carbs in comparison to an equal quantity

of carbs in different foods.

>

> So the harm may actually have more to do with the rate of digestion rather

than the type of carb in it. Starches obviously take much longer to digest so

they do less damage. Foods high in fiber also take longer to digest too.

However, refined starches will do a lot of damage too if they digest fast just

like refined or low fiber simple carbs.

>

> Dan Holt

>

[Guest guest]

what brand on honey is this?

>

> I don't know about bee pollen but unfiltered unheated raw bee honey had an

anti-insulin factor in the carbohydrates so it's a better source of

carbohydrates. It also goes good with blending with raw milk.

>

> So does bee pollen have more benefits than honey or is it just more compact in

nutrients? What are the benefits of both and what are the difference in

nutrients they contain?

>

> I can get a brand of raw bee honey that also contains bee pollen, propolis,

and honey comb on the top layer.

[Guest guest]

Again, Matt Stone is quite brilliant. The title of this blog post says it all!

http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2009/07/low-carb-oops.html

> >

> > Make sure to consume half your calories in fat and the other half in

carbohydrate. Consume 0.62g of protein for every pound of bodyweight. You

absolutely need those carbs on days you are active. On days you aren't active

you can switch to 70% fat, 15% carb, 15% protein.

> >

>

> No you don't. You absolutely don't need any carbs to be active, at least after

your body adjusts to using fat for energy. Read Taubes, _Good Calories, Bad

Calories_

>

[Guest guest]

> Again, Matt Stone is quite brilliant. The title of this blog post says it all!

Not to me. Read from the earliest posts and you notice he's all over the place

with whatever latest enthusiasm. he's good at stirring-the-pot however which is

probably the main point. Traffic traffic traffic.

Connie

[Guest guest]

Right. He's been on a " journey " of discovery as we all have! And because of

that, he has come to some awesome conclusions (or near-conclusions). What's

wrong with that? I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that he doesn't have all

the answers to all the health problems, but he sure asks the right questions,

which, IMHO, is often more valuable and trustworthy.

The fact that he's not embarrassed or apologetic about his early escapades in

nutrition is highly respectable. We've all been there. We learn, self-correct,

and move on.

>

> > Again, Matt Stone is quite brilliant. The title of this blog post says it

all!

>

> Not to me. Read from the earliest posts and you notice he's all over the

place with whatever latest enthusiasm. he's good at stirring-the-pot however

which is probably the main point. Traffic traffic traffic.

>

> Connie

>

[Guest guest]

> he sure asks the right questions, which,

> IMHO, is often more valuable and trustworthy.

>

Well yes, and if that's what you like to read from a blogger, that is what you

like. I was responding more to the " brilliant " comment. To me brilliant means

original contributions like of Hyperlipid, as opposed to bloggers who

comment on comments of others. That has its place too, I agree.

Connie

[Guest guest]

Matt Stone's High-everything Diet states that eating massive amounts of all

macronutrients will " train " your metabolism and allow you to lose weight

effortlessly. Avoid sugar, PUFAs, etc. It's an interesting idea, which I gather

he gets from Schawzbein, who I have not read but may be worth reading if

thyroid problems are suspected. Unfortunately, Stone presents anecdotal evidence

only. I am not aware of any studies that would back that up and I'm a little

suspicious, especially since the ability to eat like that without consequences

is dependent on age and individual differences.

The difference is that Taubes covers the studies supporting low-carb diets in

great detail. There are even details in there about individual variability--some

patients had to reduce carbs more than others to see progress. It may well be

that this is not the healthiest diet if you don't need to lose weight and that

is why I qualified my suggestion that the initial poster try lowering carbs

further if their main goal was to lose weight. Losing weight is not the be all

and end all of health--it can be counterproductive.

It is also true that Taubes does not really address whether the negative effects

of SAD come only from refined carbs or from carbs generally. Given that the

initial poster already followed a WAPF diet, which if you are not cutting

calories while doing it, is already pretty close to a High Everything Diet--and

that was not working--I think the suggestion to cut carbs more is the most

likely to work. Certainly the idea of eating every couple hours, like Stone

talks about, doesn't make a lot of sense in this context. Hunter-gatherers

apparently ate once or twice a day, for the most part. They therefore went

through long periods of the day with low insulin levels that constant eating

would prevent. I think the fact that dieticians tell us (and diabetics!) to

graze constantly to keep our blood sugar steady is one of the big contributors

to obesity and health problems aside from the amount of carbs or refined carbs

in the diet.

I do think Matt Stone writes an interesting blog and I do learn a lot reading

it. And no doubt the issue of how we may be disregulating our metabolisms in

ways more complex that just spiking insulin is an interesting idea. But clearly

we did not evolve for constant grazing and lower carb diets did not suppress the

metabolism of hunter gatherers. Recall that early agriculturalists suffered in

health by the evidence of bone and teeth remains, compared to hunter gatherers.

There is a lot of evidence and plausible evolutionary logic to think that low

carb diets are healthy and can lead to weight loss.

Bill

> > >

> > > Make sure to consume half your calories in fat and the other half in

carbohydrate. Consume 0.62g of protein for every pound of bodyweight. You

absolutely need those carbs on days you are active. On days you aren't active

you can switch to 70% fat, 15% carb, 15% protein.

> > >

> >

> > No you don't. You absolutely don't need any carbs to be active, at least

after your body adjusts to using fat for energy. Read Taubes, _Good

Calories, Bad Calories_

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The glucose point is different than the fructose point. It's the damaging role

of fructose that calls into question the glycemic index, for Taubes:

" Paradoxically, the glycemic index appears to have had its most significant

influence not on the clinical management of diabetes but on the public

perception of sugar itself. The key point is that the glycemic index of sucrose

is _lower_ than that of flour and starches--white bread and potatoes, for

instance--and fructose is the reason why. The carbohydrates in starches are

broken down upon digestion, first to maltose and then to glucose, which moves

directly from the small intestine into the bloodstream. This leads immediately

to an elevation of blood sugar, and so a high glycemic index. Table sugar, on

the other hand--i.e.sucrose--is composed of both glucose and fructose. ... The

glucose moves into the bloodstream and raises blood sugar, just as if it came

from a starch, but the fructose can be metabolized only in the liver, and so

most of the fructose consumed is channeled from the small intestine directly to

the liver. As a result, fructose has little immediate effect on blood-sugar

levels, and so only the glucose half of sugar is reflected in the glycemic

index.

" That sugar is half fructose is what fundamentally differentiates it from

starches and even the whitest, most refined flour. If Yudkin was right that

sugar is the primary nutritional evil in the diet, it would be fructose that

endows it with that singular distinction. With an eye towards primitive diets

transformed by civilization, and the change in Western diets over the past few

hundred years, it can be said that the single most profound change, even more

than the refinement of carbohydrates, is the dramatic increase in fructose

consumption that comes with either the addition of fructose to a diet lacking

carbohydrates, or the replacement of a large part of the glucose from starches

by the fructose in sugars. " (197)

....

" By defining the carbohydrate foods as good or bad on the basis of their

glycemic index, diabetologists and public-health authorities effectively

misdiagnosed the impact of fructose on human health. The key is the influence of

glucose or fructose not on blood sugar but on the liver....Fructose passes

directly to the liver, where it is metabolized almost exclusively. As a result,

fructose " constitutes a metabloc load targeted on the liver, " the Israeli

diabetologist Eleazar Shafrir says, and the liver responds by converting it into

triglycerides--fat--and then shipping it out on lipoproteins for storage. The

more fructose in the diet, the higher the subsequent triglyceride levels in the

blood. " " (199-200)

" Moreover, fructose apparently blocks both the metabolism of glucose in the

liver and the synthesis of glucose into glycogen, the form in which the liver

stores glucose locally for later use. As a result, the pancreas secretes more

insulin to overcome this glucose traffic-jam at the liver, and this in turn

induces the muscles to compensate by becoming more insulin resistant. " (200)

This is why I would avoid honey if looking to lose weight and even if not, would

avoid overdoing it.

Bill

Bill

>

> Brown rice syrup is a starch, is not refined, and still has the fiber in it,

moreso than white rice. I don't think it's glucose, as glucose itself is almost

as harmful as fructose when not connected with fiber to slow down the digestion.

>

> What is misleading about the glycemic index is that most sources don't compare

same quantity amount of carbs and it's affect on blood sugar from different

foods. They will show 3.5oz of peanuts to 3.5oz of fruit to 3.5oz of refined

sugar. This isn't relevant as you can't discern the affects the type of carb in

these foods will have in blood sugar at a higher quantity.

>

> Taubes doesn't address this point. I think the main issue with carb intake is

the affect it has on blood sugar. I can see that it is a good point to take in

lower carbs as it does have some detrimental affect on the immune system. But

how you go about it can counterbalance these affects. It's all balance.

>

> Dan Holt

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Bill <lynchwt@...>

>

> Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 8:45:26 AM

> Subject: Re: How do I lose that last layer of fat?

>

>

> Again, I would recommend reading the relevant parts of Taubes. He's quite

clear that the evidence shows fructose is more damaging than glucose and that

glycemic index misleads as a result. If I recall correctly, barley malt and

brown rice syrup are mostly glucose, so they may be better sweeteners to cook

with.

>

> Bill

>

> --- In , Holt <danthemanholt@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > I was comparing the glycemic index food list with another chart showing the

harmful effects of refined sugars and fruits on the blood leukocytes. Starches

did far less damage. What was not included on the chart were vegetables, raw

milk, or a specification of the types of starches that were used. It listed

heated honey but not unfiltered unheated raw honey and heating destroys the

anti-insulin factor. I found some more information in another book that showed

that fruits didn't have much if any fiber and therefore were higher on the

glycemic index. Foods high in fiber are far lower on the glycemic index. This

glycemic index went by the quantity of carbs in comparison to an equal quantity

of carbs in different foods.

> >

> > So the harm may actually have more to do with the rate of digestion rather

than the type of carb in it. Starches obviously take much longer to digest so

they do less damage. Foods high in fiber also take longer to digest too.

However, refined starches will do a lot of damage too if they digest fast just

like refined or low fiber simple carbs.

> >

> > Dan Holt

> >

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Besides sugar and high fructose corn syrup, honey, fruit juice, and agave syrup

are high in fructose.

For more information, see

http://www.thenutritionreporter.com/fructose_dangers.html

Bill

> The glucose point is different than the fructose point. It's the damaging role

of fructose that calls into question the glycemic index, for Taubes:

>

> " Paradoxically, the glycemic index appears to have had its most significant

influence not on the clinical management of diabetes but on the public

perception of sugar itself. The key point is that the glycemic index of sucrose

is _lower_ than that of flour and starches--white bread and potatoes, for

instance--and fructose is the reason why. The carbohydrates in starches are

broken down upon digestion, first to maltose and then to glucose, which moves

directly from the small intestine into the bloodstream. This leads immediately

to an elevation of blood sugar, and so a high glycemic index. Table sugar, on

the other hand--i.e.sucrose- -is composed of both glucose and fructose. ... The

glucose moves into the bloodstream and raises blood sugar, just as if it came

from a starch, but the fructose can be metabolized only in the liver, and so

most of the fructose consumed is channeled from the small intestine directly to

the liver. As a result, fructose has

> little immediate effect on blood-sugar levels, and so only the glucose half

of sugar is reflected in the glycemic index.

>

> " That sugar is half fructose is what fundamentally differentiates it from

starches and even the whitest, most refined flour. If Yudkin was right that

sugar is the primary nutritional evil in the diet, it would be fructose that

endows it with that singular distinction. With an eye towards primitive diets

transformed by civilization, and the change in Western diets over the past few

hundred years, it can be said that the single most profound change, even more

than the refinement of carbohydrates, is the dramatic increase in fructose

consumption that comes with either the addition of fructose to a diet lacking

carbohydrates, or the replacement of a large part of the glucose from starches

by the fructose in sugars. " (197)

> ....

> " By defining the carbohydrate foods as good or bad on the basis of their

glycemic index, diabetologists and public-health authorities effectively

misdiagnosed the impact of fructose on human health. The key is the influence of

glucose or fructose not on blood sugar but on the liver....Fructose passes

directly to the liver, where it is metabolized almost exclusively. As a result,

fructose " constitutes a metabloc load targeted on the liver, " the Israeli

diabetologist Eleazar Shafrir says, and the liver responds by converting it into

triglycerides- -fat--and then shipping it out on lipoproteins for storage. The

more fructose in the diet, the higher the subsequent triglyceride levels in the

blood. " " (199-200)

>

> " Moreover, fructose apparently blocks both the metabolism of glucose in the

liver and the synthesis of glucose into glycogen, the form in which the liver

stores glucose locally for later use. As a result, the pancreas secretes more

insulin to overcome this glucose traffic-jam at the liver, and this in turn

induces the muscles to compensate by becoming more insulin resistant. " (200)

>

> This is why I would avoid honey if looking to lose weight and even if not,

would avoid overdoing it.

>

> Bill

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dan,

The point is that fructose does its damage separate from that issue, not that

spikes of glucose in the bloodstream are not damaging as well. It's the

combination of glucose and fructose that gives sugar a double-whammy of damage,

according to Taubes.

It is also not clear whether slowly absorbing glucose is all that much better

than faster (it might well be, but it's not real clear that that is necessarily

the case)--it is the acceptance of the glycemic index as the indicator of the

damage that sugars do that makes us think that.

But the researchers that Taubes talks about think that just adding fat to sugar,

thereby giving it a better glycemic index, does not make a difference. I know

this goes against what the WAPF says, but it may be that spreading out the

damage (by slowing absorption) does not lessen the damage--only spread it out.

If this is true, then WAPFers who just add lots of fat to their carbs may still

suffer if their level of carbs is too high.

I usually eat two meals and a snack, the first is lower on carbs (bacon, eggs,

milk), whereas the latter, ten or twelve hours later, often but not always has a

starch, like potatoes. If you can't cut out carbs completely, this may be a good

way to go. If I am very hungry, as I sometimes am after exercising, I will have

ice cream or three meals the next day. So I'm not real low carb, but this is an

adjustment from how I started out on a WAPF diet a couple years ago, when I was

definitely " High everything. " The result, eventually, was a little extra weight.

Shifting to lower carb promptly dropped the extra weight to the point now where

I had to add some carbs back in to avoid becoming emaciated.

Everyone has different metabolisms and dietary histories, so it might not work

for everyone. But the neat thing about my experience with lowering my carbs and

going longer periods without meals or snacks is that I could modulate it to get

the results I wanted and then let up some. The reports of clinical experience

with low-carb diets that Taubes talks about suggests that some people had to be

more ruthless than others.

The other point to make is that I don't worry about limiting my calories, eat a

hell of a lot (just ask my wife), and eat more when I'm hungry, so I don't see

that I could be lowering my metabolism as Matt Stone suggests low-carb diets do.

Much of the experience with low-carb diets that Taubes discusses involves

calorie-unrestricted diets, and not just ones that inadvertently lower calories,

too. His criticism of the people who fallaciously claim that the law of

thermodynamics means that the only way to lose weight is to eat less and/or

exercise more is worth the price of admission. As for Matt Stone, again, he

raises some very interesting possibilities, and I'm not necessarily rejecting

his criticism of extreme low-carb diets that don't consider any other issues,

but sometimes he really can sound off the wall as when he says that Taubes's

speaking voice shows evidence of a suppressed metabolism. Sounds a little too

Dr. House for me...

Bill

>

> Based on the different sources I read and the actual science I have looked at

I just can't agree with Taubes logic.

>

> I'm sticking to this:

>

> If the carb source slowly digests into your system it won't do much damage.

If it digests quickly it will do much damage.

>

> Case in point: Unrefined Starches take longer to digest so they don't do as

much damage. Unrefined Starches that are connected to fiber take much longer to

digest so they do much less damage. Refined starches that digest as fast as

refined simple carbs do almost just as much damage, for example: maltodextrin.

Simple carbs that contain the anti-insulin factor don't do much damage. Simple

carbs connected to a good amount of fiber don't do much damage. Simple carbs

that don't have an anti-insulin factor or connected to fiber do almost as much

damage as refined simple carbs. Refined glucose almost does as much damage as

refined fructose.

>

> I think you can go with just two meals a day. Maybe two meals and a small

bedtime snack. You can store alot of carbs in your system at once. So if you

metabolize 200g of glucose a day you can consume two meals of 100g of glucose.

I think fat takes 5 hours to digest. You eat a lot of fat in a meal. It takes

5 hours to digest so you don't consume anymore fat for 10 hours.

>

>

> Dan Holt

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Bill <lynchwt@...>

>

> Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 2:48:46 PM

> Subject: Re: How do I lose that last layer of fat?

>

>

> The glucose point is different than the fructose point. It's the damaging role

of fructose that calls into question the glycemic index, for Taubes:

>

> " Paradoxically, the glycemic index appears to have had its most significant

influence not on the clinical management of diabetes but on the public

perception of sugar itself. The key point is that the glycemic index of sucrose

is _lower_ than that of flour and starches--white bread and potatoes, for

instance--and fructose is the reason why. The carbohydrates in starches are

broken down upon digestion, first to maltose and then to glucose, which moves

directly from the small intestine into the bloodstream. This leads immediately

to an elevation of blood sugar, and so a high glycemic index. Table sugar, on

the other hand--i.e.sucrose- -is composed of both glucose and fructose. ... The

glucose moves into the bloodstream and raises blood sugar, just as if it came

from a starch, but the fructose can be metabolized only in the liver, and so

most of the fructose consumed is channeled from the small intestine directly to

the liver. As a result, fructose has

> little immediate effect on blood-sugar levels, and so only the glucose half

of sugar is reflected in the glycemic index.

>

> " That sugar is half fructose is what fundamentally differentiates it from

starches and even the whitest, most refined flour. If Yudkin was right that

sugar is the primary nutritional evil in the diet, it would be fructose that

endows it with that singular distinction. With an eye towards primitive diets

transformed by civilization, and the change in Western diets over the past few

hundred years, it can be said that the single most profound change, even more

than the refinement of carbohydrates, is the dramatic increase in fructose

consumption that comes with either the addition of fructose to a diet lacking

carbohydrates, or the replacement of a large part of the glucose from starches

by the fructose in sugars. " (197)

> ...

> " By defining the carbohydrate foods as good or bad on the basis of their

glycemic index, diabetologists and public-health authorities effectively

misdiagnosed the impact of fructose on human health. The key is the influence of

glucose or fructose not on blood sugar but on the liver....Fructose passes

directly to the liver, where it is metabolized almost exclusively. As a result,

fructose " constitutes a metabloc load targeted on the liver, " the Israeli

diabetologist Eleazar Shafrir says, and the liver responds by converting it into

triglycerides- -fat--and then shipping it out on lipoproteins for storage. The

more fructose in the diet, the higher the subsequent triglyceride levels in the

blood. " " (199-200)

>

> " Moreover, fructose apparently blocks both the metabolism of glucose in the

liver and the synthesis of glucose into glycogen, the form in which the liver

stores glucose locally for later use. As a result, the pancreas secretes more

insulin to overcome this glucose traffic-jam at the liver, and this in turn

induces the muscles to compensate by becoming more insulin resistant. " (200)

>

> This is why I would avoid honey if looking to lose weight and even if not,

would avoid overdoing it.

>

> Bill

> Bill

>

> --- In , Holt <danthemanholt@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > Brown rice syrup is a starch, is not refined, and still has the fiber in it,

moreso than white rice. I don't think it's glucose, as glucose itself is almost

as harmful as fructose when not connected with fiber to slow down the digestion.

> >

> > What is misleading about the glycemic index is that most sources don't

compare same quantity amount of carbs and it's affect on blood sugar from

different foods. They will show 3.5oz of peanuts to 3.5oz of fruit to 3.5oz of

refined sugar. This isn't relevant as you can't discern the affects the type of

carb in these foods will have in blood sugar at a higher quantity.

> >

> > Taubes doesn't address this point. I think the main issue with carb intake

is the affect it has on blood sugar. I can see that it is a good point to take

in lower carbs as it does have some detrimental affect on the immune system.

But how you go about it can counterbalance these affects. It's all balance.

> >

> > Dan Holt

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ __

> > From: Bill <lynchwt@ >

> >

> > Sent: Thu, December 3, 2009 8:45:26 AM

> > Subject: Re: How do I lose that last layer of fat?

> >

> >

> > Again, I would recommend reading the relevant parts of Taubes. He's quite

clear that the evidence shows fructose is more damaging than glucose and that

glycemic index misleads as a result. If I recall correctly, barley malt and

brown rice syrup are mostly glucose, so they may be better sweeteners to cook

with.

> >

> > Bill

> >

> > --- In , Holt <danthemanholt@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > I was comparing the glycemic index food list with another chart showing

the harmful effects of refined sugars and fruits on the blood leukocytes.

Starches did far less damage. What was not included on the chart were

vegetables, raw milk, or a specification of the types of starches that were

used. It listed heated honey but not unfiltered unheated raw honey and heating

destroys the anti-insulin factor. I found some more information in another book

that showed that fruits didn't have much if any fiber and therefore were higher

on the glycemic index. Foods high in fiber are far lower on the glycemic index.

This glycemic index went by the quantity of carbs in comparison to an equal

quantity of carbs in different foods.

> > >

> > > So the harm may actually have more to do with the rate of digestion rather

than the type of carb in it. Starches obviously take much longer to digest so

they do less damage. Foods high in fiber also take longer to digest too.

However, refined starches will do a lot of damage too if they digest fast just

like refined or low fiber simple carbs.

> > >

> > > Dan Holt

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> If the carb source slowly digests into your system it won't do much damage.

If it digests quickly it will do much damage.

I think your model is good as far as it goes, but it is incomplete.

Digestion is only half of the issue with carb energy. The other half is

'uptake'. If you think of it as 'energy flow' - what you want is a flowing

through of the energy with no stagnant puddling (storage of fat).

Continuing with the water analogy - think of carbs as the flow of water over a

field. Then think of muscle use and healthy metabolism as the water capacity of

the field. Large muscle mass and healthy metabolism, can handle a large flow of

carbs, just like a field with good deep open soil can handle a lot of water.

Small muscle mass and something wrong with metabolism, can't handly many carbs;

like a soil too hard and dense for water; flooding happens and erosion and all

kinds of destruction.

So, even if someone uses slowly-digesting WAPF-style carbs, but too much of

them, flooding of the system (excess weight) can still happen. This is how

diabetics eating frequent amounts of low glycemic carbs, per standard advice,

continue to gain weight. Taubes points out the particular study that led to this

practice - someone found out that if you spread out the carbs it keeps blood

sugar even (but at the expense of constant high insulin, i believe).

Connie

[Guest guest]

> If you have less body mass, that is higher in bodyfat, you simply consume less

calories and thus less carbs.

> Dan Holt

Except that ends up starving all tissues if you keep the macronutrients the same

as higher calorie levels. Not to mention possibly keeping stored fat locked up

depending on how one eats those fewer calories. Even the USDA Pyramid

acknowledges that smaller LBM people, if they keep at 50% carbs, are at risk for

not meeting nutritional requirements. I do not think calories and percent of

calories are the right numbers to base things on, but if I did, then the less

LBM I have, and the less active I am, the lower the percent of carbs in a

nutritious diet.

On the other hand, if you start with stature (height and LBM), and have a base

of protein and fat for that, then add different mixes of fat and carb for

energy, it can work out. Like Kwasniewski does. Just my opinion!!!

[Guest guest]

--- Connie <cbrown2008@...> wrote:

> the less LBM I have, and the less active I am, the lower the

> percent of carbs in a nutritious diet.

Connie, what you're saying makes sense to me for achieving or maintaining an

ideal weight. One of the biggest mistakes I see in people switching to a more

traditional diet is that they bring their sugar addiction with them and switch

from refined sugar to less refined forms like honey, maple syrup, or rapadura

and still eat too much sugar that includes high amounts of fructose. That said,

I also recognize that even cutting starchy carbs and eliminating added sugars

may not be enough to achieve an ideal weight when you're overweight.

For me, intermittent fasting was the best way to lose additional weight when I

plateaued after cutting carbs and eliminating added sugars. I am still eating

during a 6 hour period on weekdays (breakfast and lunch) and have found that

even that didn't stop me from gaining 6 pounds over the last several months. I

am still going to have to be careful how much I eat during those 6 hours and on

the weekends when I break the fasting routine.

My peak weight was 243 pounds about four to five years ago and I dropped to

about 198 pounds late last spring but have slowly rebounded to 204 pounds since

then. I have probably gained at least about 10 pounds of muscle mass from

routine walking and running, so I've lost at least 50 pounds of fat. However, I

would like to get down to about 190 pounds for my 6'1 " frame. I have managed to

halt my weight gain the last month, but I'm still not losing again. I'm just

going to have to cut back on the calories to start the weight loss again.

[Guest guest]

> I also recognize that even cutting starchy carbs

> and eliminating added sugars may not be enough

> to achieve an ideal weight when you're overweight.

I agree. It was true for me. I needed to cut down on protein too, it turns out.

I had acclimated myself to more than was needed; when I was heavier it didn't

matter as much as it does now that I'm getting closer.

> However, I would like to get down to about 190 pounds for my 6'1 " frame. I

have managed to halt my weight gain the last month, but I'm still not losing

again. I'm just going to have to cut back on the calories to start the weight

loss again.

Congratulations! Wow you are within 15 pounds of goal and for a guy 6'1 " , that's

not much more to lose. Sounds like you really have it dialed in how your body

works. What a nice thing to learn.

I still shudder when I hear someone trying to " cut back calories " since calories

are about the most irrelevant characteristic of food imaginable - but your body

is saying you are getting enough food to store some extra, so a deficit is in

order somehow. Personally I find it easiest to keep protein and starch at

minimum levels and then playing with fat grams is easy. I don't like extra carb

grams as fuel because above the metabolic minimum, the only way to burn it off

is intense exercise, and that just raises my cortisol if I do it a lot. eyew.

I do a 14-15 hour overnight fast too and it seems to help. On the guidelines I

follow - Kwasniewski - he says that eventually people get to 2 meals a day,

early and late. So there is plenty of rest time for the digestion and what not.

[Guest guest]

I will try again to help you understand a different way of figuring out how much

to eat.

Then we can agree to disagree and quit boring everyone here.

LOL

> Calories represent energy. Your body burns a certain amount of energy. It's

great and convenient that we can actually measure how much energy our body can

take in and how much it can expend.

Except that food is not always burned as energy.

Some fats, for example, go to lipid layers without being burned first.

Proteins can be decomposed to amino acids and then amino acids are reused

without being burned.

It's as if you asked " how many gallons does my car need " and you were talking

about oil, gas, transmission fluid, and water. Gallons in that case is not the

only thing to consider and neither is calories in food.

Of the " food calories " we take in, it can't be directly measured how much of

them are burned. We can measure our burn ratethough, directly. why spend the

hundreds of dollars? I guess if I wanted my RMR I would.

> It doesn't matter what height, age, or gender you are.

The common calorie equations have been directly measured to be more than 30% off

predictions for my height, age, and gender. That matters to me.

Google " validation resting metabolic rate "

Validation of several established equations for resting metabolic rate in obese

and nonobese people.

enfield DC, Rowe WA, JS, Cooney RN.

Department of Clinical Nutrition, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA

17033, USA.

" Calculated resting metabolic rate was more than 10% different from measured in

22% of subjects using the Mifflin equation, 33% using the -Benedict

equation (P=.05 vs Mifflin), and 35% using the Owen equation (P<.05 vs Mifflin).

The error rate using -Benedict with adjusted weight in obesity was 74% (vs

36% in obese subjects using actual weight in the standard -Benedict

equation). "

A commentator on a fitness web site says it well;

" The test subjects used to develop the -Benedict equation did not include

an adequate representation of obese people, nor of younger and older people.

These omissions continue to become more significant as populations become older

and heavier. "

> Once you figure this amount out you can consume 1/1 carb/fat ratio in the

proper proportion. Fat won't be locked and tissues won't starve as long as you

have enough calories.

Now that you can see that the original calorie numbers are not trustworthy for

me, maybe you can see why composing a diet plan based on calories doesn't work

with confidence.

But, starting out with macronutrient grams and then tweaking up and down, works

just fine. I supposed I could then figure out the percent calories but there is

no use or need for that.

Connie

[Guest guest]

> That first paragraph made absolutely no sense.

Try it another way. Go to the USDA web site and pretend you are a really short

old overweight lady. Plug in the numbers, and see if you get a message that you

should eat 50% carbs but that you might not get enough protein, vit E, and you

have to exercise " more than other people " .

This is one known flaw in the calories-in-calories-out thinking.

If you assume everyone has the same calorie burning engine (regardless of

obesity, age, and gender) and you keep macronutrient percentages the same across

the entire bell curve, those at the ends of the bell curve will show different

effects than those in the middle. For little old ladies it is inadequate protein

and fats and excess pure energy. I expect for giant athletes it would be excess

protein and fat and not enough pure fat and carb for energy.

The equations are best used for population-wide planning like prison and school

cafeterias. They are not so reliable for individuals unless the individual is

very middle of the demographic road.