Author Topic: Lex's Journal  (Read 548775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TruthHunter

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #125 on: August 13, 2008, 04:51:55 am »

BG actually rose a bit after my jog this morning and I feel that this supports my idea that I'm releasing stored body fat to obtain the fatty acids and the left over glycerol molecule is being converted to glucose by the liver as when I'm exercising there is no surplus of free fatty acids around to create a new triglyceride as the FFAs are being used by the muscles for fuel. (see yesterday's long winded post for details of what I believe is happening).

BG range today was again from the high 80s to the mid 90s.  Another sign that I'm not really using much of it.  When I first started jogging a week ago my BG would plummet during the jog and be in the low to mid 60s for several hours after the jog.  Now it starts in the low 80s and rises after the exercise.  This is a completely new BG response and it will be interesting to see if it changes again as this adventure continues.

 

Lex
I would guess that the spike in BG at this point was because of a rise in cortisol hormone. The abrupt change in activity was stressful.  You were doing the exercise in the morning when CH is highest and the adrenals are most responsive.  This is why exercise induced euphoria is more common for morning exercise. The rise in CH may have contributed to the 80 to 90 sustained level. CH usually promotes catabolism of protein, so I suspect that this would tend to reduce muscle mass. Which did happen early after the change.

 Thanks for this thread.  You've used readily available tests to shed a lot of light on what is happening. Keep it up. When I first read of your change it seemed extreme. Perhaps you had gone too low on protein.  Now it appears that you are moving in the right directions.  From what I remember, except under extreme stress, only about 20 to 30 gm of protein are actually needed for maintenance.The rest is converted to glucose or otherwise broken down(some amino acids may not be converted?)   40% of 90 -  100 grams is still higher than this, so you probably haven't cut protein too far.

One suggestion I have to offer, for any one doing this kind of personal testing. Perhaps you could add this even at this late date.  When you record the data, do a hand squeeze on a bathroom scale to measure grip strength. This will give a rough measure of muscular development/overall strength.

Protein isn't the only thing to consider.  Does the increased percentage of fat, mean less nutrients? Perhaps you should make more of the remainder organ meats.

Thanks - Keep up the good work.

John

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #126 on: August 13, 2008, 08:44:55 am »
Craig,
You're way ahead of me on much of this.  At this point I'm just doing my best to measure what I can and report my findings as objectively as possible.  The other big issue is trying to keep things as constant as possible so that the measurements are meaningful.  My week at the seminar showed how important this is. 

As for ketones, my observation for the past 5 weeks is that urinary ketones are at the maximum measurable amount (or above) and have stayed at this level with almost no variation based on activity level.  I do my best to reason through what this means but it is pure speculation since I have no way to really know what's going on.

Lex

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #127 on: August 13, 2008, 08:53:34 am »
John,
Thanks for your insight.  Like Craig's post, this is far above my level of knowledge.  I really know nothing about cortisol or the adrenal hormones and their effect on other hormones like insulin.  I also know of no way to measure any of this that is available to consumers.  If you know of additional tests I can make that would add value please let me know and I'll add them to my arsenal.

Unfortunately, my scale is a digital platform with a rim around it and does not lend itself to squeezing with my hands.  My only other scale only goes up to 11 lbs and is not suitable either.  I can say that at my last physical my doctor commented on how good my muscle definition was for my age - especially since I don't lift weights or make any effort what so ever to enhance them.

EDIT:  John, another thought occurred to me regarding testing things like strength, endurance, & etc.  Often performance in these areas is more about the discomfort that the participant is willing to endure rather than a measure of their actual strength or conditioning.  As an example, my jogging is an attempt to tax my body's use of its current primary fuel source (whatever that is at this time) and not an effort to gain any specific level of conditioning.  I currently jog at a 10min/mile pace but could probably do much better if conditioning were my goal.  I don't report my time-per-mile as a measured parameter as I'm no where near VO2max and don't want to be so any report of this type would be totally subjective.  I prefer to sick to reporting objective data like weight, BG readings, Ketone readings etc where my threshold for discomfort doesn't enter into the measurement. Hope this makes sense.

Lex
« Last Edit: August 13, 2008, 09:46:27 am by lex_rooker »

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #128 on: August 13, 2008, 02:32:08 pm »
Craig,
I read and did my best to understand the published studies from the links you provided.  I have a couple of observations:

1. From what I could tell all the subjects ate fairly standard diets so their bodies had to be running on glucose.
2. Any dietary change or fasting was of such short duration that body systems could not possibly have fully keto adapted
3. The researches only made observations of what happened to their test subjects under the test conditions
4. The researchers made no mention at all as to what biochemical reactions were taking place in the body to cause the observed changes.
5. Diet was positively correlated to their findings but only in a general way as there was little or no control of what the subjects ate.

I have observed similar ketone variations to the ones described in the studies.  The musings in my post were an effort to reason through the biological mechanism that was causing the various fluctuations in Ketones and BG.  I found it interesting that the study stated that they could find no relationship between the variations in ketone levels to the variations of any other measured parameter such as BG.  In fact the researchers indicated that ketone levels must be controlled by some independent and currently unknown mechanism.

Not sure this study was very useful for low and zero carbers.  It doesn't tell us anything we haven't already observed for ourselves, and with no hint as to what biological mechanisms are causing the changes in the parameters that were tracked during the study we have little or no useful information to help us understand how to better manage our own situation.

Lex 

Offline Erasmus

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #129 on: August 14, 2008, 01:37:21 am »
Howdy!  Been reading this for months, both here and elsewhere.  Fascinating!

I just had to chime in on the ketostick issue.  I hate "off-scale".  You can extend your ketone measurement range by simply diluting the urine before measuring it.  I know this adds a bit of inconvenience (and mess) to the process, but it would allow you to trend yourself even when you are off the charts.

-E

Offline Kristelle

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #130 on: August 14, 2008, 06:37:10 am »
I don't think muscles burn glucose, EVER! Glucose gets converted in muscle as glycogen for later conversion to glucose if needed by other body parts but that's as far as it goes. Consider that during a fight-flight response (or intense exercise), when muscles are called into action, adrenaline is secreted. Interestingly, adrenaline mobilizes fatty acids and that tells us that muscles need fat for fuel, not glucose.

When you exercised, fatty acids in the blood (or circulation) increased due to increased mobilization (adrenalin). In the process, ketones were also formed from those fatty acids. While you were able to make use of fatty acids for exercise, it could only last so long because your muscles are still not adapted to ketones. If they were adapted, endurance would increase. To last longer, the only option at this point is to eat more fats when you are at your limit to increase fatty acid availability although ketones will continue to increase as well.

Glucose appears to be beneficial for muscle and acitivity but only because it will convert to fats, increasing fatty acid availability.

This is just my opinion, of course.  ;)



« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 07:00:11 am by Kristelle »

xylothrill

  • Guest
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #131 on: August 14, 2008, 06:44:03 am »
I don't think muscles burn glucose, EVER!




Not even anaerobically?

Craig

Offline Kristelle

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #132 on: August 14, 2008, 08:29:56 am »
Hi Craig,

Not even anaerobically.

I earlier said that muscles can use fatty acids and ketones. I now think that muscles ONLY use fatty acids, not ketones. Ketones are used by those cells able to run on either glucose or ketones.

There is only so much fatty acid that can be mobilized but I think, once keto-adapted, when cells in the body aren't starving anymore and using ketones as fuel, the body, as a whole revs up, metabolism increases and fat mobilization increases such that more fatty acid is available to muscles, up to a certain extent, of course. The body needs fat!

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #133 on: August 14, 2008, 11:52:29 am »
Well Kristelle and Craig, I'm going to go out on a limb again and possibly saw the limb off after me :(.

Some additional thoughts on increase of ketones after exercise.

I’ve been following the considerable work done by Mary Massung and Kata Strong regarding how our bodies utilize FFAs, Glucose, and Ketones in the different metabolic states. Mary and Kata do much of their own testing similar to what I’m doing, as well as drawing from recent work done by body builders and performance athletes.  They will tell you that many of their conclusions are speculation, but it is also based on their considerable knowledge and experience.  In sifting through dozens of their notes and online posts here’s what I've come up with.

Assuming that the muscles are NOT keto adapted, and activity is increased to a level that will deplete stored glycogen in both the muscles and liver, then the body will start breaking down stored fat (and possibly some lean muscle mass) to create sufficient glucose to fuel the increased activity level.

The muscles also have the ability to use some FFAs directly but prefer glucose (converted to glycogen) as their primary fuel.  The glucose would come from the glycerol molecule that binds the 3 fatty acids in a triglyceride.  Also, about 2/3s of the released FFAs will be utilized directly by the muscles as the activity continues.  This leaves only a small surplus of fatty acids to dispose of by converting to ketones for elimination via urine and lungs so ketones would not rise excessively during exercise.

Once the activity or exercise stops BG would be low to moderate (mid 70s to 80s) as it was the primary fuel for the activity, and stored glycogen in the muscles and liver would be depleted.  In this state the body would continue to break down body fat in an attempt to raise BG and replenish critical minimum levels of stored glycogen in the muscles and liver.  However, since the activity stopped, the muscles are no longer using any the FFAs released from the triglyceride molecule.  Only the glycerol molecule is used as it is converted to glucose and used to replenish BG and glycogen stores.  The excess FFAs have no where to go so they are converted to ketones so that they can be eliminated via urine and lungs – hence the rise in ketone levels after exercise in a NON KETO Adapted person.

The above breakdown of stored fat continues (possibly for several hours) until BG starts to rise again and reaches a trigger point (usually somewhere around 100 mg/dl) causing the release of insulin which stops the breakdown of body fat as this signals that the body’s current energy needs are satisfied.  The rise in BG is either caused by the replenishment of the minimum critical level of stored glycogen in muscles and liver, or eating a meal which would have the same effect.  Again, this would be for a person who’s muscles are using glucose (glycogen) as their primary fuel with FFA’s as the secondary fuel choice, and using ketones as a mechanism to rid the body of excess FFAs.

Mary and Kata call this a BG Cascade effect.  It can easily be recognized by the fact that under this cascade condition both BG and ketones will rise simultaneously after an increase in activity levels though BG will rise somewhat more slowly.

Mary and Kata have done remarkable work and you can follow along on their Yahoo forum at:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaturatedFatForHealth/

Be aware that they get very technical and use very different terminology to designate the various metabolic states and body biochemistry, but it is very worthwhile if this is a subject that interests you.

I also recommend that you take the time to read ALL of Mary’s and Kata’s posts from the beginning of the forum as it will  be difficult to understand the current context of much of what is going on without this background, and it is unfair to ask Mary, Kata, and the rest of the forum to continually repeat past information.

Lex

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #134 on: August 14, 2008, 12:08:30 pm »
I just had to chime in on the ketostick issue.  I hate "off-scale".  You can extend your ketone measurement range by simply diluting the urine before measuring it.  I know this adds a bit of inconvenience (and mess) to the process, but it would allow you to trend yourself even when you are off the charts.

Thanks Erasmus!  I'll look into this.  I'm not a real fan of "off-scale" either, but let's face it, ketosticks don't provide much more than an "order of magnitude" type of measurement at best.  Generally the color patches represent a doubling of ketones.  I'll try a 4/1 cut and see what happens.  This should take a level 4 (Large-160) down to a level 2 (Moderate-40), and then all readings would be multiplied by 4. 

Will post my results,

Lex

Offline Kristelle

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #135 on: August 14, 2008, 01:19:08 pm »
Lex,

I was a member of that forum, remember? I got booted out.

anyways...

Where I disagree is that muscles neither use glucose nor ketones for energy. Fatty acids only. But when fatty acids go up as they do when muscles are called into action, ketones are also produced and that's why they go up. If keto-adapted, these will be used up by those organs that need ketones and possibly allow you to exercise longer because of that and also because fatty acids are better mobilized than in a state of ketosis.

Exercise endurance and performance is more than muscles having enough fuel, it is also about other tissues (cells) working optimally simultaneously. Some of these are dependent on either glucose or ketones (when keto-adapted). In ketosis, the lack of glucose and inability to use ketones reduce the overall efficiency of these tissues hindering performance and endurance. I suspect than once keto-adapted, these will not only recover but be better than before.

To summarize, during ketosis, endurance and exercise may suffer because mobilization of fatty acids is somewhat reduced and especially because tissues OTHER than the muscle, needed during activity (intense or not), are not thriving due to lack of carbs and inability to use ketones.



Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #136 on: August 14, 2008, 02:25:19 pm »
Hi Kristelle,
I'd appreciate some links or references so that I can follow up with to better understand what you are saying about muscels using only fatty acids as fuel and not glucose (in various disguises like glycogen) or ketones.

I'm also not sure I understand about endurance suffering because mobilization of fatty acids is reduced.  If this is the case, where are the ketones coming from if not partially metabolized fatty acids?

Anything you can provide that will help me understand this stuff better would be appreciated.

Lex

Offline Nicola

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 452
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #137 on: August 14, 2008, 06:55:18 pm »

Offline Kristelle

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #138 on: August 14, 2008, 11:06:57 pm »
Hi Lex,

Even if fatty acids are less mobilized, there are still some that get mobilized and enough so that ketones also rise significantly.

References

'What's the best fuel for muscles?' Jeff Everson- interview With Greg Ellis- Weider's Muscle and Fitness mag, May, year (?)
 
'Body Fat' by Vincent P Dole, Scientific American.

'Dietary hyperphagia in Rats: Role of Fat, Carbohydrate, and Energy Content. Israel Ramirez and mark L Friedman, Physiology & Behavior, June 1990.

'Regulation of Hepatic Fatty Acids Oxidation and Ketone Boldy Production' J D McGarry and D W Foster, Ann. Rev. Biochem 1980 49:395-420.

From The Bear, with 47 yrs of experience on an all-meat diet...

"I am searching for my collection of metabolic studies, but so far it has eluded me. Two studies relate to energy source and exercise, both were done with lab rats. One shows by muscle biopsy/analysis that the glycogen in muscle tissue does not vary with exercise, whether anaerobic or anaerobic. The other shows massive gains in endurance over a sufficiently long period of adaptation to a zero carb diet. This study is one of the very few to use a true zero carb diet against a normal rat-chow control in a test."

"glycogen is never used as a fuel for exercise- the muscles burn only fat). Glycogen is stored around the body and is used as a fast resource when blood sugar drops- since glucose is not consumed by skeletal muscles it remains in the tissues."

"Carbs before a workout will reduce your energy- although some people will have a kind of 'boost' from the sudden insulin rush. The muscles run on fat, and once the body starts to store the glucose as fat, it interferes with energy and strength. Carbs weaken you by initiating fat storage activity just when your muscles need the fat for power."

"I am carb free, I exercise anaerobically by lifting weights. I NEVER get sore muscles the next day- or the day after unless I am forcing a severe weight overload, which causes more severe micro damage to the muscles, and some second-day soreness. So there's the 'practical' proof that glycogen does not deplete with exercise."

"ALL muscle fibres use the same fuel, fast and slow both burn only fat. NO muscle fibre uses carbs. (Once more) glycogen is not used to do work, only ATP-ADP reduction is used, that is rebuilt by fat. Glycogen does not produce ATP. Glycogen is not depleted with exercise- this is proven and is in the literature. Opinions to the contrary are just repeating fairy tales from the past. Carb intake reduces strength/speed, and likewise reduces endurance/distance."
 
"A careful read of the article on

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

reveals that contrary to the assertion, 'glycogen depletion' was not taken as a measure, only oxygen consumption. Glycogen STORAGE was reduced during the first TWO WEEKS and thereafter remained stable- not surprising since much of the reason for holding glycogen in the muscle tissue is the need to quickly remove glucose from circulation- it is much faster to convert glucose into glycogen than for the adipose tissues to convert it to bodyfat. Glycogen is not used up or 'depleted' during exercise, it functions only as quick, emergency source of blood glucose- and that is all. After withdrawal of carbs from the diet, the massive glycogen storage in the liver is also vastly reduced, thus facilitating blood flow through the hepatic vein from the lower body and preventing the 'stitch in the side' so commonly experienced during carb-loaded athletics."

"ATP is not CREATED by fat, the ADP produced from ATP during work by the muscles is RECYCLED in the cell by a mechanism FUELED by the complex: n,acetyl carnitine:fatty acid."

"Actually insulin is NOT anabolic to somatic working muscles, striped and short-striped- only to the involuntary, smooth kind found in the intestines and arteries, where the effect is undesirable."

"Carbs of any kind, glucose OR glycogen are NOT used to do work by the muscles. Until you are free of carb intake long enough top fully keto-adapt, which takes from 3 to 6 weeks, you will experience a feeling of lower energy. ANY carb intake, no matter how brief, will derail the keto-adaptation process. Your 'keto-diet' is complete nonsense."

"Insulin is not anabolic to the skeletal muscles, it will cause an apparent increase in size due to an increase in intramuscular glycogen storage and the associated water retention, as well as fat (marbling) but the muscle cells do not show any increase in the size or number of active fibre bundles as is associated with genuine anabolics, like testosterone and its derivatives."

"Yes indeed, high carbs are absolutely great at building intramuscular fat,looks good, big and meaty, but carbs strongly limit any addition of larger muscle fibres (real muscle size)"

"Muscle cells 'run' on ATP-ADP conversion. ADP-ATP re-conversion is done with FFA's. It makes no difference whether the exercise is anaerobic or aerobic, the muscles still work the same way. This is like a car- whether in first gear or in overdrive, it still uses the same fuel. Glucose is not a fuel. Glycogen is not a fuel. Neither can be used to translate ADP back into ATP until converted into FFA first. Mitochondria mediate ADP to ATP conversion which is why there are two 'types' (fast and slow twitch) of muscle cells, fibre bundles with more mitochondria have a different response to the two types of work, aerobic and anaerobic. The mix of types in a given muscle can be altered to some extent by training."

   
     

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #139 on: August 15, 2008, 12:59:22 am »
Nicola, Thanks for the link.

Kristelle, Very informative and I appreciate the references. I will follow up as time permits and try to add a bit more to my knowledge on this stuff.  I have read most of what Stanley Owsley (The Bear) has written and found many inconsistencies as well as what appears to be inaccuracies in his musings.  I also acknowledge that these seeming inconsistencies could be a result of my lack of knowledge.

One interesting observation that I've made, Owsley states that Gluconeogenesis only happens under conditions of starvation.  As I remember he also states that very little glucose is created from fat.  If this is true, then why does my BG rise significantly for several hours after eating a meal.  This doesn't make sense to me.  What I find is that the rise in BG after eating seems to coninside directly with the amount of protein I've consumed at that meal - more protein higher rise in BG - less protein, lower rise in BG.  This seems at odds with Owsley's statements.

Lex

Offline Kristelle

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #140 on: August 15, 2008, 01:11:28 am »

Gluconeogenesis only occurs in two instances:
1) when reducing carbs all the while keeping protein high enough (and not eating enough dietary fat) such that cells in the body can still get all the glucose they need from dietary protein. The body will never break down bodily protein in such a situation. If insufficient dietary protein is eaten for glucose needs, then ketones begin to form. 
2) in starvation, when body fat reserves are used up and protein needs to be broken down to provide glucose to critical systems allowing us to stay alive for somewhat longer.

Since you are in ketosis, I believe that BG increase is due to glycerol conversion to glucose. You do not have sufficient protein to provide glucose. BG rises for several hours after your meal because of glucose needs, perhaps increased after a meal so more glycerol is converted to glucose. That's all. 

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #141 on: August 15, 2008, 01:36:44 am »
Gluconeogenesis only occurs in two instances:
1) when reducing carbs all the while keeping protein high enough (and not eating enough dietary fat) such that cells in the body can still get all the glucose they need from dietary protein. The body will never break down bodily protein in such a situation. If insufficient dietary protein is eaten for glucose needs, then ketones begin to form. 


Not all of this is hanging together for me.  My direct experience is that under this high fat diet, at one point body fat increased and lean muscle mass decreased (based on weight and skin caliper readings) which is at odds with the above statement.


2) in starvation, when body fat reserves are used up and protein needs to be broken down to provide glucose to critical systems allowing us to stay alive for somewhat longer.

I have personally done a 31 day water-only fast and I assure you that lean muscle mass as well as fat was sacrificed during the entire period - there was no waiting for fat reserves to be depleted.  It took me over 2 years to recover from this foolish undertaking and I'm not anxious to repeat the experience.

Since you are in ketosis, I believe that BG increase is due to glycerol conversion to glucose. You do not have sufficient protein to provide glucose. BG rises for several hours after your meal because of glucose needs, perhaps increased after a meal so more glycerol is converted to glucose. That's all. 

I've been eating between 90 and 100 grams of protein per day.  If 58% of this were converted to glucose there would still be plenty of protein for body maintenance.  If BG rises after a meal only because of glucose needs, if I'm in heavy dietary ketosis then why do I have these needs?  The idea of the body only making this glucose due to "need" doesn't fit with BG curves of a person eating a normal carb driven diet.  There are large glucose spikes when carbs are eaten and it certainly isn't due to any "need" for the glucose.

I can't say that what you are proposing isn't true, only that it doesn't seem to fit with my direct experience.

Lex 

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,914
  • Country: at
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #142 on: August 15, 2008, 01:48:26 am »
31 days!!!? I'd heard of people dying from 13 or 16-day water-fasts.
"If it is right for me, it is right. It is possible that it is wrong for others: let them take care of themselves"
"Whoso is full of sacred (religious, moral, humane) love loves only the spook, the "true man," and persecutes with dull mercilessness the individual, the real man." Max Stirner

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #143 on: August 15, 2008, 02:02:42 am »
Yup, 31 days.  This was due to blindly following Bragg, Sheldon, Carrington, and a few other gurus who had convinced me that I was highly toxic and needed to remove all this toxic waste through fasting.  The mantra of the day was to fast until "true" hunger returned and then everything would be wonderful.  I went from 185 lbs to 96 lbs and was so thin that I could litterally put my hands around my waist and touch thumbs and middle fingers - we're talking 6" in diameter or about 18" in circumference.  I looked like survivor from a concentration camp.

It took years for me to recover from this and I imagine that even after 28 years there's still some health consequences.  I was young, stupid, and gullible.  I suppose today that the only real difference is that I'm no longer young..... :)  though I hope I've learned something along the way.

Lex

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #144 on: August 15, 2008, 02:04:01 am »
I'm having real trouble eating the full 600g-650g of food each day.  The last 150g or so is really tough to get down and on occasion even makes me a trifle nauseous.  I'm going to reduce my food intake to 450g-500g per day which is the level where I usually feel satisfied.  Then, if I get overly hungry, I'll add the 150g back in as a second meal if necessary.

I really want to continue with one meal per day as my normal protocol, but I have found over the years that when doing heavy manual labor like digging ditches for sprinkler systems all day I needed to eat additional food.  Since I'm now jogging every other day it will be interesting to see if I need more food during the 24 hours after the jog and less food on the off day.

I'll keep you posted on what happens,

Lex

Offline Kristelle

  • Buffalo Hunter
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #145 on: August 15, 2008, 06:52:09 am »
In ketosis (or starvation), lean muscle mass will decrease because you have less energy, reduced overall activity and don't need that much muscle. Less activity will lead up to muscle atrophy...simple as that. Muscles develop according to activity level and type of activity.

In ketosis, increased body fat is not surprising because cells are starving, you aren't providing them with glucose and as such, metabolism slows down so fatty acids mobilization decreases and the body holds on more strongly to fat. Sensing starvation, the body now holds on to fat, as much as possible.

I suspect that if you eat around 80/20 fat/protein, you will naturally eat just enough protein for purposes other than glucose. Perhaps the 58% conversion rate is wrong...who knows?!

In ketosis, you have important glucose needs because cells are not yet adapted to using ketones. Ketones replace glucose and as long as you are not adapted and remain in ketosis, glucose needs will be significant.

On a "normal" carb-diet, people eat alot of carbs because they eat so little fat. Some cells needs glucose, some cells need fat. They try to meet both of these needs with glucose and that's why carb consumption is high. They don't have that natural craving for fat but instead for glucose (which need is already met) so that excess glucose is just stored as fat. And so the cycle continues...



xylothrill

  • Guest
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #146 on: August 15, 2008, 09:24:22 am »
Yup, 31 days.  This was due to blindly following Bragg, Sheldon, Carrington, and a few other gurus who had convinced me that I was highly toxic and needed to remove all this toxic waste through fasting.  The mantra of the day was to fast until "true" hunger returned and then everything would be wonderful.  I went from 185 lbs to 96 lbs and was so thin that I could litterally put my hands around my waist and touch thumbs and middle fingers - we're talking 6" in diameter or about 18" in circumference.  I looked like survivor from a concentration camp.

It took years for me to recover from this and I imagine that even after 28 years there's still some health consequences.  I was young, stupid, and gullible.  I suppose today that the only real difference is that I'm no longer young..... :)  though I hope I've learned something along the way.

Lex
Lex,

It's a wonder you're still here!

I hear you about the food amount. I could probably put away 10 lbs or so a day on SAD. Now even 2 can be a struggle at times. People seem to be surprised when I say that but I'm sure, because of your experiment, it's the amount of fat I eat.

Craig

xylothrill

  • Guest
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #147 on: August 15, 2008, 09:28:27 am »


I suspect that if you eat around 80/20 fat/protein, you will naturally eat just enough protein for purposes other than glucose. Perhaps the 58% conversion rate is wrong...who knows?!


I used to disbelieve that before this experiment too. If the 58% is net protein then it would depend upon how much the body requires for tissue repair etc..

Craig

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #148 on: August 15, 2008, 11:26:32 am »
In ketosis (or starvation), lean muscle mass will decrease because you have less energy, reduced overall activity and don't need that much muscle. Less activity will lead up to muscle atrophy...simple as that. Muscles develop according to activity level and type of activity.

This is where semantics become an issue.  Lean muscle mass will drop during starvation due to atrophy...  So where does it go?  My understanding is that the protein is broken down during this process and recycled or converted to other forms as needed to keep the body alive.  Atrophy usually implies wasting away but there has to be a reason for this (in this case starvation) and the energy/nutrients released by the atrophy process don't magically disappear.  I suspect that the idea that they are reused is most accurate therefore my initial supposition that they are broken down to provide needed energy seem to hold water.

In ketosis, increased body fat is not surprising because cells are starving, you aren't providing them with glucose and as such, metabolism slows down so fatty acids mobilization decreases and the body holds on more strongly to fat. Sensing starvation, the body now holds on to fat, as much as possible.

If Taubes is correct, little fat can be stored without Alpha Glycerol Phosphate which mainly comes from the metabolism of glucose in the presence of insulin.  Since I eat no carbs, and your position is that protein is not converted to glucose unless under conditions of starvation (which I'm clearly not), then where is the AGP coming from to create the triglycerides to transport and store fat?  If it's just being recycled then I could only maintain.  If the glycerol molecule is being converted to glucose to support systems requiring glucose then there would be a decrease in available AGP and weight should be lost.  The fact that metabloism slows would not be a good explaination either as many of us have proven that we can eat thousands of calories above what is required to maintian our systems yet we don't gain weight.  If I were buring all those thousands of excess calories through a very high metabolism then my body temperature should increase or I should be sweating profusily in an effort to keep my body cool from the buring of all that excess energy.

I suspect that if you eat around 80/20 fat/protein, you will naturally eat just enough protein for purposes other than glucose. Perhaps the 58% conversion rate is wrong...who knows?!

I have no idea what the conversion rate is.  However, my BG meter tells me that the more protein I eat at a meal the higher BG rises.  This is keeping total calories the same - just changing the ratio of fat to protein.  To me this is direct evidence that some portion of all the protein I eat is converted to BG.  To state that I would "naturally eat just enough protein for purposes other than glucose" is nonsense as I'm totally manipulating and precisely controlling the makeup of my food.

In ketosis, you have important glucose needs because cells are not yet adapted to using ketones. Ketones replace glucose and as long as you are not adapted and remain in ketosis, glucose needs will be significant.

I would expect that this is correct.  Now my question is, after 3 years of eating only meat, and now almost 3 months of 80% or greater fat content of my food, just when does this adaptation take place and how do I recognize when I'm there?

On a "normal" carb-diet, people eat alot of carbs because they eat so little fat. Some cells needs glucose, some cells need fat. They try to meet both of these needs with glucose and that's why carb consumption is high. They don't have that natural craving for fat but instead for glucose (which need is already met) so that excess glucose is just stored as fat. And so the cycle continues...

My experience tells me that the basic premise of the above statement is incorrect.  If you look at the SAD it is high in fat and very high in carbs and low in protein which is the worst of all scenarios.  Fast food (fries, donuts, Big Macs, KFC, Pizza, Taco Bell, etc) all very heavy in fat as well as carbs - very little protein.  Frosting, double stuff cookies, twinkie filling etc is nothing more than pure fat mixed with powdered sugar - fat and carbs.  Cookies, pies, cakes, and most candies are loaded with fat as well as sugar.  In the South, gravy is made by melting a pound of fat, adding 1/4 cup flour and frying it in the fat until golden brown, and then cold water is wisked in to make a thick emulsion - almost pure fat.  My wife is Greek and they consume mostly carbs soaked in olive oil for every meal.  Again, your statements don't ring true with my experience.

Lex
« Last Edit: August 15, 2008, 11:30:08 am by lex_rooker »

Offline lex_rooker

  • Trailblazer
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,231
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Lex's Journal
« Reply #149 on: August 15, 2008, 02:15:48 pm »
For those interested in the conditions under which I conducted my 31 day water fast I thought I’d expand a bit further.  Many people assume that such a long fast would be done with lots of bed rest and much reduced activity.  Take time off work, relax and catch up on some reading.  For me this was not the case. 

During the fast I never missed a day of work.  I lived 23 miles from my place of employment and at the time didn’t have a car so I took the bus.  The closest bus stop was over 1 mile from my home and a similar distance from the bus stop to my place of employment.  Every day I walked almost 5 miles round trip between the bus stops, home and work.  During the 31 days I racked up well over 100 miles walking just getting to and from work.

Twice during the 31 day period I was called out after hours when the buses were not running and I rode my bicycle 23 miles each way to and from work to make the service call.  I usually made the 23 mile trip in 1 hour and 10 minutes each way.

My job was Telecommunications Technician and I installed, repaired, tested, and maintained communications equipment like microwave systems, telephone switches, 2-way radio base stations, remote controlled television systems etc for Southern California Edison Company the 2nd largest electric utility in the US. 

Once at work I would pick up a company truck and head for the job site.  Many of the sites were on mountain tops at 3,000 ft level or above and equipment had to be packed in with backpacks.  Much of the test equipment weighed 50 to 70 pounds (remember this was in the late 1970’s).  I’d pack the equipment in (often making several trips), make tests and repairs, pack the equipment out, and then move on to the next job.

When working at comm sites in the city it wasn’t much better.  Many of the buildings were very old (built in the 1920s) and had narrow circular stairways and no elevators.  Equipment had to be carried up the stairways as they were so tight and narrow that you couldn’t use hand trucks or dollys.  Believe me it is no fun hauling a 70 lb signal generator up a narrow twisting flight of stairs at the best of times, let alone when you haven’t eaten for the better part of a month and weigh only about 30 lbs more than the equipment you’re carrying.

I’m 6’1” and when I ended the fast I weighed about 96 lbs.  This is a BMI of around 13 or so.  It took many months – in fact years for me to fully recover from this folly.  If anyone has specific questions I’ll do my best to answer them.

Lex