Author Topic: Frequency of low carb meals?  (Read 9841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Diana

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Frequency of low carb meals?
« on: December 15, 2009, 03:17:06 am »
Hi,
I read that in a high fat diet fats are not stored, because there is no insulin to promote storage. This is nice for someone who want to loose weight, but what about those who do NOT want to loose any? I would like to be able to understand how the body gets its energy throughout the day from 2 or 3 fatty meals, when the fats are actually not stored. The muscles will be requiring a continuous supply of fatty acids. How long do these fatty acids stay in the circulation? What happens to the fats which are not needed immediately?

Diana

Offline invisible

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2009, 11:12:20 am »
That's a lie. A marketing gimmick to sell diet books to sloths who want to lose weight but can not stop gorging themselves. Fats are the most effectively stored form of energy.

People lose weight on low carb diets because removing sugars removes hunger. People eat less without realizing because of reduced hunger and think they lost weight on the same amount of calories.

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2009, 01:07:20 pm »
Diana what you heard is correct. Insulin contols blood sugar levels, fat storage and hunger. Fat doesn't cause dramatic changes in blood sugar so there's no major insulin response. Sugars on the other hand cause insulin spikes or continuous elevated insulin levels if snacking on sugars occurs throughout the day.

There's a book called 'Good fats Bad Fats' which will answer all your questions on weightloss.

I don't think overweight people are sloths, I've changed my mind since reading ZIOH and being a 'skinny' person it's easy to label overweight people. The general consensus on ZIOH is the excercise slows down weightloss. This makes sense to me.

“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline wodgina

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,304
  • Opportunistic Carnivore
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2009, 08:47:30 pm »
whoops I meant 'Good Calories Bad Calories' by Gary Taubes
“Integrity has no need of rules.”

Albert Camus

Offline Diana

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2009, 09:40:41 pm »
Thanks for your responses. I am just hoping someone can enlighten me as to what happens with the fats (lipoproteins) after absorption into the system. How long do they stay in the circulation, are they eliminated or broken down when there is excess, and what is it what triggers fat storage in the absence of insulin?

Thanks for your insights!

Diana


Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2009, 01:52:44 am »
Diana,
The subject of fat storage is a complex one.  It is true that when we eat a high carb diet, the main hormone regulating fat storage is insulin, however, when eating a high fat diet with little or no carbs then there are other mechanisms.  Much of my Journal is about testing Taubs theory of "no carbs, no insulin, no fat gain".  I found this to be wrong. 

First, it appears that there is a lot of fat loss because initially our bodies are conditioned to process carbs.  Since there is plenty of glucose in our blood, our cells are conditioned to utilize this as their primary fuel.  Metabolizing glucose is a rather simple process much like yeast and fermentation.

For our cells to use fatty acids as the primary fuel is much more complex.  Mitochondria are needed for this process.  Since most of our lives we’ve had plenty of glucose available as fuel, we only have the minimum level of mitochondria in our cells and not near enough to convert fatty acids directly to fuel.

When we stop eating carbs and start eating fats, our bodies are very inefficient in using the new fuel.  Our cells are demanding glucose as they can’t use fatty acids efficiently until they create more mitochondria which takes time (often several months).  The fat we eat (and the body fat we store) is in the form of triglycerides.  This is three fatty acids clustered around a glycerol molecule. Glycerol can be converted to glucose, but it is very inefficient.  It takes 2 glycerol molecules to make one glucose molecule.  Our liver will take the triglycerides we are eating (as well as some from body fat), strip off the fatty acids and convert the glycerol to glucose as this is what our cells need until they adapt and make more mitochondria to be able to use fatty acids directly.  This means that the body needs two triglycerides and is throwing away 6 fatty acids (75% of the energy) just to be able to make one molecule of glucose.  And, you guess it, we start rapidly loosing weight.  (the excess fatty acids are turned into ketones and eliminated through sweat, breath, and urine.)  If the body is still short glucose it will use dietary protein as well as sacrifice muscle tissue to create the needed glucose through the process of gluconeogenisis.  We get the impression that calories don’t count because we just can’t eat enough food to create the necessary glucose that our body wants from the fat we are eating when 75% of the energy is being thrown away because the cells can’t use it.  Therefore, the body consumes body fat and some muscle tissue to make up the short fall in glucose and we lose weight.

Over time, our bodies begin to adapt to the new fuel source.  The cells add mitochondria and most of our body tissues will convert to using fatty acids and/or ketones as fuel rather than glucose.  When this happens we find that the level of ketones being thrown away in the urine drop to very low levels (because our body is now using them), and weight loss slows or stops completely.  Suddenly calories start to count again, and in a big way because now our bodies are using 100% of the energy contained in the fat as the cells are using the three fatty acids directly as fuel and the left over glycerol is still being converted to glucose.  Body fat is no longer being used to fill in the energy gap.

Now comes the issue of body fat storage. When we are eating fat and protein and little or no carbohydrate, fat storage is accomplished through an enzyme called ASP (Acylation Stimulating Protein).  This little jewel has the ability to directly store fat in the fat cells completely bypassing the glucose and insulin pathways. 

On a zero carb diet, excess fatty acids not immediately needed for energy will be directly stored in the fat cells through ASP.  This stored fat will then be called upon as the body needs energy and is mobilized out of the fat cells through Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL) which will only allow body fat metabolism if insulin, a hormone, is low, hence ‘hormone sensitive’.

As long as the total fat stored is equal to the total fat consumed, body fat will not accumulate.  However, if, on average, less energy is needed than was stored, not all fat stored by ASP from the ZC meals will be remobilized by HSL and body fat will rise.

When I first converted to Paleo/VLC/ZC, I could easily eat 4,000 to 5,000 calories per day and I lost weight.  My body couldn’t use most of the energy so it threw it away.  The ketones in my urine were running the darkest color on the Ketostix, and my breath had an acetone smell from ketones being eliminated through my breath.

After about 18 months my body had adapted to using fatty acids rather than glucose as its primary fuel and the ketone levels dropped to Trace levels and the acetone breath went away.  I was eating until I was satisfied and that was about 2,000 calories per day.  My weight had dropped from 215 and stabilized at 160.  This is when I decided to test Taubes theory and raised the fat in my diet while keeping the amount of food I was eating the same to see if it was impossible to gain weight as there were no carbs to create insulin.  Raising the fat raised the calories from 2,000 per day to about 3,000 per day and I started putting on weight.  I gained about 20 lbs in 2 or 3 months.  The only way I could loose the weight was to reduce the amount of food I was eating so that even with the higher fat I was only eating 2,000 calories per day.  Other Zero Carber’s have had the same experience.  Once their bodies are fully adapted to using fatty acids as their primary fuel, they start to gain weight unless they reduce their calorie intake.

Hope this makes sense.  If not, feel free to ask questions and I’ll do my best to answer.

Lex

Offline Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2009, 02:49:05 am »
Interesting - Lex, you make it sound as if it's not worth it in a way...so why should we be eating this way -\

Nicola

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2009, 09:06:36 am »
Interesting - Lex, you make it sound as if it's not worth it in a way...so why should we be eating this way -\

Nicola

Well, for me it has to do with how I feel, the fact that my blood pressure dropped, my triglycerides dropped, my cholesterol dropped, my migraine headaches went away, and a host of other benefits.  I also find that it is easier to control my weight becuase a diet high in fat satisfies my hunger and I find I naturally don't eat as much.  I actually found it difficult when I started my high fat experiment to continue to eat a full 1kg of food which is what I had been eating before.  I felt really stuffed and I gained weight.  I found that eating 650g of the higher fat food satisfied me the same as as 1kg of the lower fat food and had the same number of calories (about 2,000).

Lex

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,669
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2009, 09:18:38 am »
Just a side comment.

I've never bought into the calorie counting game.  I think the calorie counting game is pointless.

I think it has more to do with our digestion and absorption.

Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline van

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,769
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2009, 10:20:09 am »
Thanks Lex, for I too, after all the reading I've done couldn't step in and answer her question.  It is rather fascinating sometimes when I look back or in the present and notice my energy levels stabilize from eating fat as fuel. 

Offline ys

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,323
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2009, 11:44:33 am »
Quote
I've never bought into the calorie counting game.  I think the calorie counting game is pointless

Well, I think the "calorie" term is used here to help quantify protein/fat ratio.  That's all.

But you are correct, calories are absolutely useless when you say 'I'm consuming 2000 calories'.  That by itself does not say much and means little if nothing at all.

Offline Diana

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2009, 02:59:46 pm »
Thanks so much Lex for your interesting information. This clears up a lot of confusion, and answers many questions I had.

As long as the total fat stored is equal to the total fat consumed, body fat will not accumulate.  However, if, on average, less energy is needed than was stored, not all fat stored by ASP from the ZC meals will be remobilized by HSL and body fat will rise.

Would you mind to explain this sentence? This seems to suggest that the body primarily goes for stored fat rather than fatty acids from the food? I am probably not understanding this.

I have been doing high fat for about a month now, but not happy with this because my liver is complaining, and I was at the point of giving up. Now I understand that it is naturally going to be a long process to activate those mitochondria I will try to continue. You say that a lot of energy is wasted initially, so would it make sense to reduce fat to a comfortable level and then gradually increase the amount of fat? Or is it better to keep the fat very high so as to activate those mitochondria optimally? What do you think?



Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2009, 04:16:09 pm »
As long as the total fat stored is equal to the total fat consumed, body fat will not accumulate.  However, if, on average, less energy is needed than was stored, not all fat stored by ASP from the ZC meals will be remobilized by HSL and body fat will rise.

Would you mind to explain this sentence? This seems to suggest that the body primarily goes for stored fat rather than fatty acids from the food? I am probably not understanding this.

Fat storage is dynamic and not static.  By this I mean that we don’t just eat a meal, end up with excess energy, have it stored as fat, and then we are done with it.  Fat is constantly mobilized into and out of storage using both ASP and Insulin pathways.  Even when there is and abundance of free fatty acids in the blood, some is being stored while some is being released from storage on a continual basis.  If there is generally more energy consumed as food than is needed by the body then there will be a net storage of fat over time.  If more energy is being used by the body than is being consumed as food then there will be a net loss of fat over time.  If we get most of our energy from fat, then as long as the amount of fatty acids (energy) we eat roughly equals the fatty acids (energy) our body uses, then over time our weight will remain constant. 

Think of the process like a checking account at a bank.  You are regularly putting money in (eating meals) while at the same time randomly but consistently drawing money out to meet expenses (burning energy).     


I have been doing high fat for about a month now, but not happy with this because my liver is complaining, and I was at the point of giving up. Now I understand that it is naturally going to be a long process to activate those mitochondria I will try to continue. You say that a lot of energy is wasted initially, so would it make sense to reduce fat to a comfortable level and then gradually increase the amount of fat? Or is it better to keep the fat very high so as to activate those mitochondria optimally? What do you think?

I really don’t know what to tell you here.  If you read my journal you’ll find I faced the same issue.  I added physical exercise, changed fat to lean ratios of my meals, and I’m not sure that any of it did much to speed up the transition.  I can say that I felt better when eating less fat in the early stages of transition (the first 18 months).   During that time I found that 65% to 75% of calories as fat (ground meat marked 15% to 22% by weight) seemed best.  After 4 years I can now eat (and truly enjoy) very high fat (85% of calories as fat, 35% by weight) without a problem, I just naturally want to eat less.  I eat more or less depending on my level of activity and let hunger drive how much I actually eat.  If I try to force myself to eat too much then I feel bloated and over time will start to gain weight.

What I have learned over time is that I seem to naturally want to eat about 2,200 calories per day.  If I’m eating 70% of calories from fat then I will naturally eat about 1kg of food before I feel satisfied and this calculates out to about 2200 calories.  If I’m eating 80%-85% of calories from fat then 600g of food may be more than enough and again this calculates out to about 2200 calories.    If I’m doing heavy physical labor then I’ll naturally eat more.  My weight doesn’t vary much more than a 1 or 2 pounds from around 160.

I also found that when I first started this adventure, my weight was around 215.  Over the first 9 to 12 months my weight dropped to a low of 148.  Then over the next 6 to 8 months I started to regain some weight until I stabilized at about 160 at about the 18 month point. During all this time I was constantly eating about the same amount of food.  My weight dipped to the low because my body wasn’t burning fat efficiently.  Without changing anything, over time my body adapted to the fat and my weight rose and then stabilized based on the amount of energy I was consuming vs the energy I was burning.  My weight then stayed stable at the 160 range until I did my high fat experiment which is recounted in my Journal.  During that experiment, when I switched to eating much higher levels of fat (I went from 68% calories as fat to over 80% calories as fat) and attempted to eat the same volume of food, calories were significantly increased and I started to gain weight.

Many on the ZIOH forum have now been eating ZC for long enough that they too have fully adapted and are beginning to put on weight.  They’ve found that, in the end, calories do count.  Hunger is much easier to control and weight fluctuations are not as rapid or as large as when eating carbs, but you will gain weight if you over eat even when eating ZC.

Lex 

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2009, 01:51:51 am »
Well, I think the "calorie" term is used here to help quantify protein/fat ratio.  That's all.

But you are correct, calories are absolutely useless when you say 'I'm consuming 2000 calories'.  That by itself does not say much and means little if nothing at all.

Actually, I use the term calories to denote a quantity of energy.  If it is useless to say that when I consume 2000 calories per day my weight stays stable, and if I raise the number of calories I consume to 3000 per day I gain gain weight, then what words better explain this phenomenon?  The makeup of the food is identical in both cases, only the amount of available energy has changed by eating more or less volume.

I see this argument much like saying we don't believe in gravity.  Our belief or disbelief is immaterial.  We will be subject to its effects either way.  The same goes for consuming more energy than we use.  Whatever we call it, the effect will be the same, we will gain weight, and choosing to disbelieve this fact, or using a word other than calories has no effect on the outcome.

Lex
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 08:08:17 am by lex_rooker »

Offline Diana

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2009, 02:34:21 am »
Thanks Lex for your very informative answers.
It all makes sense now, and it helps to stay motivated.
I think for the time being I will reduce my intake of fat a bit, I am just scared of pushing it too far,  At present I am fairly comfortable with 50-60% of the calorie need, which is already much more than I could ever tolerate before when doing the raw vegan/high carb/low fat diet.
Thank you for sharing your experiences and the results of your experiments! Very interesting.

Diana

Offline BaronSky

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2009, 05:19:07 am »

Offline Diana

  • Egg Thief
  • **
  • Posts: 40
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2009, 02:55:48 pm »
Thanks for the link BaronSky!
This is fascinating.
 
Diana

Offline miles

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,904
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2010, 08:17:35 am »
Hi Lex,

Do the number of Mitochondria increase in an 'evolution-style' way? That is: When you are eating lots of fat relative to protein/carbs, and you push yourself e.g. physical exercise, are the cells without sufficient mitochondria more likely to die, and as the body repairs it's cells divide, and each time there are more mitochondria-rich cells dividing?

If not, how does it work?

And why is it that the metabolism of ketones takes more mitochondria than glucose metabolism to be effective 'in the first place'? Is this something to do with how fat needs more oxygen in order to be metabolised?

[1mass unit of fat would have 2energy units
1mass unit of carbohydrate would have 1 energy units

But to use the one mass unit of fat takes 0.5 energy units, and to use 1 mass unit of carbohydrate takes 0.2 energy units(0.4 if you double it for the same return as fat, so 0.1 less expenditure per 2energy units).]

Or something like that...? That small difference couldn't account for needing so many more Mitochondria could it? What more is there to this?

Edit: Is it not more to do with what transports the ketones to the mitochonria; e.g. L-Carnatine? I only just read about this(http://www.nahanniriverherbs.com/94,321) and you may have read hundreds of articles so I'm just asking... Would it be to do with how the body absorbs this L-carnatine? That is: It comes from meat, so if you are not yet good at absorbing it would you need more meat relative to fat until you get better at this? But anyway... just asking if it's more about the pathway of the ketones from the liver->blood->mitochondria, than the mitochondria themselves.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2010, 08:34:36 am by miles »
5-10% off your first purchase at http://www.iherb.com/ with dicount code: KIS978

Offline roony

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 401
    • View Profile
Re: Frequency of low carb meals?
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2010, 08:47:15 pm »
Hi Lex,

Do the number of Mitochondria increase in an 'evolution-style' way? That is: When you are eating lots of fat relative to protein/carbs, and you push yourself e.g. physical exercise, are the cells without sufficient mitochondria more likely to die, and as the body repairs it's cells divide, and each time there are more mitochondria-rich cells dividing?

If not, how does it work?

And why is it that the metabolism of ketones takes more mitochondria than glucose metabolism to be effective 'in the first place'? Is this something to do with how fat needs more oxygen in order to be metabolised?

[1mass unit of fat would have 2energy units
1mass unit of carbohydrate would have 1 energy units

But to use the one mass unit of fat takes 0.5 energy units, and to use 1 mass unit of carbohydrate takes 0.2 energy units(0.4 if you double it for the same return as fat, so 0.1 less expenditure per 2energy units).]

Or something like that...? That small difference couldn't account for needing so many more Mitochondria could it? What more is there to this?

Edit: Is it not more to do with what transports the ketones to the mitochonria; e.g. L-Carnatine? I only just read about this(http://www.nahanniriverherbs.com/94,321) and you may have read hundreds of articles so I'm just asking... Would it be to do with how the body absorbs this L-carnatine? That is: It comes from meat, so if you are not yet good at absorbing it would you need more meat relative to fat until you get better at this? But anyway... just asking if it's more about the pathway of the ketones from the liver->blood->mitochondria, than the mitochondria themselves.

Cell division has been proven to be slowed down on LCR, low calories restricted diet, but the studies were conducted on cooked foods

I'm not sure the same applies to raw foods, as environmental factors play a much larger part when it comes to raw animal food & cell division

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk