My renewed interest in caloric consumption started with my review of my first year on the all carnivorous diet. I gained about ~15 lbs, by not counting calories and stuffing myself at each meal (when I started, I ate 2-3 meals). It's unclear to me whether this weight was put on because I was eating too much protein, too much fat, too much food (too many calories) or or even too many meals (fasting has a fat burning hormonal effect).

There are so many different schools of thought on caloric consumption (sometimes called "volume", other times called "too much fat") that entertaining the idea enters the mind into a world of cerebral gymnastics. Now, I want to be very clear that I believe that hormones are driving fat accumulation, not the quantity of calories, but the question I'm interested in is:

When insulin levels are low, what is responsible if fat is still not being mobilized?

Who is to blame here? Is it volume (calories), meal timing, or a macro nutrient? And if it's a macro nutrient, which one?

We learned from GCBC that whatever makes you fat also makes you sick. This conversation is extremely relevant to obtaining optimal health. Here are some accepted theories as well as points of contention when it comes to what the body does with specific macro nutrients.

• Carbohydrates are converted into glucose and raise blood sugar potentiating the release of  insulin.
• Protein is converted into amino acids. When there is a long term deficit of glucose, gluconeogenesis is initiated, which is the manufacturing of glucose from amino acids. Short term deficits of glucose are covered by dipping into your bodies store of glycogen (stored glucose) in your liver, not by breaking down proteins. (thanks to Dr. Kurt Harris of The PaNu Weblog - read the comments for more info). The second school of thought on the protein to glucose issue is brought to us by my good friend Lex Rooker. Evidenced by his meticulous BG tracking in his wildly popular journal, Lex's data showed a different story on the conversion of protein to glucose. Lex's self experimentation indicated that glucose rises higher after eating a meal containing more protein than when eating a meal containing less protein. This rise in BG happens even when blood glucose before the meal is already at 100 mg/dl. This would suggest that at least some protein is converted to glucose independent of blood glucose levels, glycogen stores, or a "metabolic emergency". For all the details, make sure to stop by the raw paleo forum and give his incredible journal a read.
• Fat does not have a noticeable effect on insulin. Fat can be stored independently of insulin by the enzyme Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASL) - which is influenced by insulin. A very small amount of fat is converted into glucose, but is done so inefficiently by the liver. 

Let's look at some of the greats in the low carb universe and see what they think about calories (and for some, meal timing). I took all of their quotes completely out of context, mostly from message boards, so if they seem a little out of place, they are. I tried my best to represent each all-star's view accordingly. Here they are in no particular order:

Click to read more ...

Here is a repost from Charles Washington over at his Zeroing In On Health Blog. Charles has been on a role lately with some really great posts. I have added bolded text to the post to indicate importance.

"The experts all suggest that the obese would ameliorate their problem or even prevent it if they merely exercised, perhaps sixty or ninety minutes per day, as prescribed by the USDA Dietary Guidelines. By this logic, they need to create a negative energy balance by increasing energy expenditure and eating less. This doctrine is re-enforced in public-health messages, popular writing, and even on electronic displays on stair climbers, treadmills and other exercise apparatus that tell us how many calories we allegedly expended in our latest workout.

The belief in physical activity as a method of weight control is relatively new but it has been contradicted long ago by the evidence. In 1932, Russell Wilder of the Mayo Clinic lectured on obesity and reported that his patients lost more weight on bed rest than they did with strenuous physical exercise. In fact he said strenuous physical exercise actually slowed the rate of loss. He said

“the patient reasons quite correctly that the more exercise he takes the more fat should be burned and that loss of weight should be in proportion and he is discouraged to find that the scales reveal no progress.”

Until the 1960s, clinical investigators routinely pointed out that moderate exercise would lead only to insignificant increases in energy expenditure and these could easily be matched by slight and comparatively effortless changes in diet. In 1942, Louis Newburgh of the University of Michigan calculated that a 250-pound man will expend three extra calories climbing a flight of stairs which is equivalent to depriving himself of one-fourth of a teaspoon of sugar or a tenth of an ounce of butter. “He would have to climb twenty flights of stairs to rid himself of the energy contained in one slice of bread.”

Click to read more ...

Updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 11:21PM by Danny Roddy

Let's take 5 minutes out of our lives and listen to what an obese cartoon pig on YouTube has to say about nutrition.

I'm done throwing logs on the fire on how much I dislike the vegan way of eating, so I'll disregard the talking pig’s pro-vegan message. Obviously the video was not made by an impartial source. The people at Bizzaro.com have a clear anti-fur, pro-tofu agenda, so it’s understandable they would create a video promoting vegan ideals. What really grinds my gears is that these propaganda-style videos are made to appeal to people who know very little about nutrition, which is fine except for when the information spouted is completely incorrect.

Before I start sounding arrogant (may be too late), I'll do the only thing I know how to do; pick the video apart so we can see how absurd the claims truly are.

The pig states that humans are not evolutionarily designed to eat meat for the following reasons: 1. Our teeth and jaws are rounded and are optimized for vegetation, 2. We fail to posses natural hunting skills (specifically night vision), and 3. Our digestive system lacks enzymes to digest animal products.

The first factoid can be dismissed by a very basic understanding of our dental structure. Human mouths contain incisors, canines and molar teeth in both jaws, as well as ridged molars. The jaw moves up and down like other carnivores, not in a rotary motion like most herbivores. This up and down motion indicates it's objective is to crush and tear. So, the video’s depiction of the caveman biting into a woolly mammoth is probably a little sensationalized to say the least. If you check out Barry Groves comparison betwen carnivores, herbivores and man you will see that we have far more in common with the carnivores than we do the herbivores, especially in regards to the digestive process.

Click to read more ...

Thanks to Chris from conditioningresearch.com for the heads up on this video. It's interesting listening to Mary G. Enig and Sally Fallon expand on how "unhealthy" saturated fat went from an idea into conventional wisdom. Definitely worth the watch.

The footage is originally from Tom Naughton's documentary Fat Head, which I don't recommend.

 

Updated on Monday, June 29, 2009 at 11:57AM by Danny Roddy

Updated on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 12:42AM by Danny Roddy

Updated on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 1:20AM by Danny Roddy

Updated on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 11:48PM by Danny Roddy

In my vegan days I considered myself quite the fiber superstar. While the RDA recommended a poultry 20-25 grams per day, I consumed 40-50 grams a day from veggies and fruits. By mainstream health authority standards I was kicking ass. While I marveled at my accomplishment I couldn't help but feel conflicted. I was secretly constipated and feeling terrible.

Where did I go wrong? Too much fiber? Not enough fat? Both? To understand the gravity of how badly I was screwing up my body, we have to understand what fiber is, why it's not needed, and most importantly; why it can be harmful to ones health.

Fiber is the indigestible roughage of plants and grains. In short humans do not have a digestive enzyme to breakdown fiber, so it collects (ferments) with bacteria in the colon until it's excreted.

Click to read more ...

It's not everyday that all of my friends collectively send me a link about health, but today it happened. The ominous link informed me that eating red meat was going to kill me. The killer red meat was going to take my life by two methods, cancer or cardiovascular disease.

Let's take a look at the article by CNN Health.

Over a 10-year period, people who ate the most red meat every day (about 62.5 grams per 1,000 calories per day, equivalent to a quarter-pound burger or small steak per day) had about a 30 percent greater risk of dying compared with those who consumed the least amount of red meat (a median of 9.8 grams per 1,000 calories per day). The excess mortality was mostly the result of cardiovascular disease and cancer.

So my first question, what else did these people eat!? Were they washing their burger meat down with a tall glass of bourbon? Or perhaps a Snickers bar for dessert? You see, unless we isolate fresh fatty beef as the sole food for these 50-71 year olds this study tells us nothing. We can't conclude that a single food in a mixed diet caused harm to these people.

Now follow me on a hypothetical journey. It's possible that the 50-71 year olds who ate the least meat were also the most "health conscious". Perhaps they avoid processed food, sodas, and consume less sugar. As for the ones who weren't so lucky... Maybe they didn't care what went into their bodies. They were the crazy BBQ junkie grandpas that pounded beers and potato chips along with their killer red meat.

As you can see this is just another alarmist article about the American diet. I would encourage anyone to try to read between the lines on these kinds of things.

http://tinyurl.com/d6maa9 (Full CNN Health article)

The fallacy of incorporating fake sweeteners in the place of real sugar is ripe. As Charles Washington explains, just the very taste of something sweet creates a insulin response. This insulin response is what we are trying to avoid for weight, health, and not encountering a chronic disease.

"Remember all carbohydrates, regardless of sweetness, require insulin to process them. I'm not at all talking about blood sugar, I'm talking about insulin response. The sweetness or the perception thereof only has to with anticipatory insulin. When you eat a non-sweet carb from a vegetable, your body breaks this down to glucose in your mouth and insulin is secreted upon detection of the glucose. If you have carbohydrates as a part of your diet, even if you only eat salads, it takes some insulin to process them and you may very well require supplements as your body uses vitamins and minerals to process them. And alcohol, of course you will secrete insulin in anticipation of it and in reaction to it. We know it's not sweet at all."

 

-Charles Washington

Chris over at conditioningresearch.com posted a fantastic article on the effects of artificial sweeteners on health:

Carbohydrate ingested from meals & beverages breaks down into glucose, which stimulates the sweet-sensing proteins in these gut taste cells. Activating the sweet–sensing proteins of the gut taste cells promotes secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), an intestinal hormone that plays a key role in promoting insulin secretion and regulating appetite.

 

So what it is saying is that your gut has taste sensors. It doesn't matter that you are eating something no real glucose in it, your gut can't tell...it still tastes sweet. What happens then? Your gut secretes a hormone that promotes insulin secretion. So it seems that insulin is produced because the gut senses sugar even it it is only nutrasweet....Then the insulin will do its work.... insulin is a storage hormone, affecting nutrient storage in tissues including fat cells. So, artificial sweeteners could be getting you to shift excess more calories into fat.....that is what your body does with sweet things!

There are so many people out there ingesting lots of artificial sweeteners thinking that they are calorie free and therefore ok....but they may be promoting the same hormonal responses which are the real problem.

Here is an article from second-opinions.co.uk by Barry Groves. What interested me about this article was the chart that lists that our stored human fat as a mixture of 40% saturated, 57% monounsaturated and a mere 3% polyunsaturated fat. "Heart healthy" oils like canola, safflower, and margarine have an abundance of polyunsaturated and low amounts of saturated fat, the exact opposite of what is stored in your body.

"Have you ever wondered why polyunsaturated margarine has to be kept in a fridge, yet coconut oil can be kept out at room temperature for a year or more without any untoward effects? All fats and oils in Nature are a mixture of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. The only difference between them is the proportions of each. Whether they are in plant or animal tissues, this is governed by the temperature at which the different fats and oils are designed to operate. This point, which is often neglected when discussing the healthiness or otherwise of fats and oils, is actually the most important consideration. The degree of saturation or unsaturation determines not only a fat's melting point, but also its chemical stability and its likelihood of auto-oxidising and creating harmful free radicals. The higher the proportion of saturated fatty acids a fat is, the less likely it is to go rancid; the more polyunsaturated fatty acids it contains, the more difficult it is to stop it going bad."

 

Table I: Fatty Acid Composition of Selected Fats

Fat or oil	Saturated (%)	Monounsat (%)	Polyunsat (%)
Coconut	91	6	3
Palm kernel	83	16	1
Butter	60	34	6
Human milk	54	39	8
Lamb	53	41	5
Beef	45	51	5
Pork	43	48	8
Human (body fat)	40	57	3
Hen's Egg	39	47	14
Chicken	35	48	16
Cod	26	16	59
Margarine (polyunsat)	24	21	55
Soya oil	18	24	58
Olive oil	17	74	9
Corn oil	13	24	59
Sunflower oil	10	20	66
Safflower oil	9	12	75
Canola oil	6	67	27

Here is more about the fat debate with excellent insight from Charles Washington.

"If we consider a porterhouse steak with a quarter-inch layer of fat, broiling it will reduce to almost equal parts fat and protein. Fifty-one percent of the fat is monounsaturated and ninety percent of that is oleic acid. Saturated fat constitutes forty-five percent of the total but a third of that is stearic acid (metabolized as oleic acid in the body), which will increase HDL while having no effect on LDL. The remaining four percent is polyunsaturated which lowers LDL but has no meaningful effect on HDL. Perhaps as much as seventy percent of the fat in a porterhouse will improve the relative levels of LDL and HDL cholesterol compared to the effect that bread, potatoes and pasta would produce. The remaining 30 percent will raise LDL cholesterol but will also raise HDL and have virtually no effect on the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL. This all suggests that eating a porterhouse in lieu of bread or potatoes would actually reduce heart-disease risk."

 

Good luck finding a nutritional authority that will say this publically. And guess what? The same is true for lard and bacon!

Here is a thread on the issue over at Zeroing In On Health Forum