Why We Get Fat - Page 9

explain? links?


personally, I'm 145/ 6'1", eat 2500-3000 calories a day (high carb, low sugar and fat) and don't do any dedicated exercise. Aside from a high metabolism and being generally high strung (correlative imo), I also believe I have an extremely short digestive track. I've read a study out of Harvard by William Sheldon that was conducted in the 20's (?) that referenced autopsical evidence of the variation of adult male intestinal length reaching 50%. Does anyone with a scientific background know of any related findings? This is really the flip side of metabolic rate (digestive potential) and I'm amazed that it is never discussed.

The people eating all those damned Ho Hos ...

Low sugar is good, but high carb is counter-intuitive. Trust me. You do have a great metabolism. I would say try eating primally (like a caveman). The link is Mark's Daily Apple Blog.

Metabolic rates for humans vary from person to person, of course. But trust me when I tell you this: if you eat the way I do, you will feel better, be less hungry and your body will just "work." Try the whole30 program on www.whole9life.com to start if you are skeptical. It basically challenges you to eat nothing but whole foods (read: unprocessed) for a month.

The obesity epidemic is here because the bulk of the American diet is easily digested carbohydrates. Period. When you eat carbs, they turn immediately to sugar in the blood, which causes an insulin spike, which then causes fat cells to retain their fat (fatten), which then wreaks havoc on the body's homeostatic balance. Again, hormones come into play here. It's why it's called a "sugar high." It's why you get a "beer belly."

You seem like you're interested in your health; I would say please read the books I've mentioned a couple of posts above. They've changed my life, and for the better.

Great post Roguls. I think it's also worth mentioning that although guys like PaulYAY exist (my best friend is the same), they're not typical by any means. It's not just about leanness- the same friend has a father just like him who had 3 blockages at age 53 that required three stents, all while maintaining a 6-pack his whole life. Why? Because just like Roguls pointed out, but in layman's terms, insulin spikes had his insides on fire.

You're forgetting the gylcogen pathway. Plus the simple fact that if your BMR is 2000kcal and you eat (or absorb) 2000kcal of carbs, your body can't store fat because, uh, you need your basal calories.

Makes sense. But what if in the presence of insulin (regardless of basal need) those cals were sucked up by greedy fat cells and the body simply trigged your hunger, telling one to eat more in place?

lol at this troll what taubes is suggesting and what you guys have yet to respond to is that ONLY insulin causes fat gain. if this were true you could have somebody drink a liter of olive oil a day (that's approx 8000 calories) and not gain any weight since fat doesnt cause insulin spikes. in addition you guys advocate eating lean meat and veggies on the premise that neither cause insulin spikes, but its been known for many years that PROTEIN (and fruit) CAUSES INSULIN SPIKES TOO. http://www.ajcn.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf+html lean beef filets with the fat trimmed off cause greater insulin production than white pasta and you guys have still to respond to taube's conclusion that fat people dont get fatter by eating more, they eat because they're getting fatter. total bullshit even in his rebuttal letter he continues to cherrypick his sources using 1960s and 1970s studies that have been disproven just so he can make his point fucking low carb zombies

Still @ "i ate twice my maintenance for 8 months and didn't gain a pound" and "i eat 5000 calories of meat and brocolli a day and gain no weight" America has a serious math + science problem

Too many calories, of course.

Weigh yourself every day at the same time. If you weigh too much, eat less. (Skip a meal. Skip the snacks.) If you weigh too little, eat more.

MinnMD

Guess what, anything in excess causes weight gain.

And explain how people have been getting ripped on high carb diets since as long as anyone can remember? Why am I sub 10% while eating 500+g carbs 3x per week?Why do the overwhelming majority of athletes perform like shit on low carbs? And if carbs 'wreak havoc on the the body's homeostatic balance' then why are carbs required for optimal performance almost universally?

Taubes doesnt debunk anything, he cherry-picks the data that supports his confirmation bias. Anyone could write a referenced book using outdated data and worthless self-reporting food intake studies to support any conclusion they want. Doesnt mean a single thing.


1) brb thinking that saying 'period' after something makes it true. youre a stupid fuck. period.
2) protein causes an insulin response as well. herp derp.
3) your description of insulin's effect on the body is oversimplified to the point of uselessness and you clearly don't have the slightest clue about what you're tlaking about.

Again, if only you would actually read what Taubes writes you'd understand a lot more- because you're just not getting it. He has talked and wrote about proteins effect on insulin levels many times over. From that, I know protein and carbs both trigger a major insulin response, but protein also triggers a rise in glucagon, which is antagonistic to insulin. A rise in insulin due to protein is different than overall effects of a rise due to carbs. Also, remember that Paleo/Primal diets are HIGH FAT, and moderate in protein. Whole grain myth debunked a troll? No You're hopeless.

Swings in blood sugar cause hunger, insulin actually suppresses it. Eating refined carbs makes you hungry because you get an immediate spike in blood sugar, then insulin is produced to reduce that blood sugar, which then tends to make you hungry. Eat exactly the same number of grams of carb in a complex carb, and it will not make you hungry, despite the same amount of insulin being produced.

Insulin will shuttle glucose into your cells (muscle and fat, don't forget), but if you're eating at a deficit, other processes will kick in and pull that stored energy out of the fat cells.

Very well put, however, outside of the science Taubes and many others have provided on this, I personally have found this to be false.

That's generalized to the point of being meaningless. Glucagon does not counteract the effects of insulin. It stimulates the liver to released stored glycogen, which raises blood sugar. Glucagon production also stimulates the pancreas to release insulin, so that that blood glucose can be used. The only sense it could be said to be antagonistic to insulin is that it triggers lipolysis, where insulin triggers lipogenesis. That doesn't mean you can't gain weight from eating protein, however, since other metabolic pathways will trigger to store excess calories when in a low insulin or high glucagon state.


Protein is interesting regarding insulin. While studies of normal people find significant increases in insulin release from protein, I find that I need to inject very minimal amounts of insulin for protein, and much more slowly than for carbs (even complex carbs). I suspect that I'm just cutting the insulin---glucagon loop out entirely, I never get the original insulin spike, and my liver never releases glucagon to compensate. I can't measure my glucagon levels though.

Found what part of it to be false? There are many considerations to hunger beyond insulin. If you are in a sated state, complex carbs should not make you hungry. If you are hungry, a meal of pure complex carbs will probably not result in as sustained satiety, but not because of insulin. Eating a meal of pure olive oil sure as hell isn't going to make you feel sated very long either, and insulin is totally uninvolved there.