Plant Based Nutrition and Fasting

[dontoearth]

27 minutes ago, evadgib said:

I prefer a light breakfast, main meal at lunchtime and light soup if necessary no later than 6pm & > 600 cals in total. The change in diet has caused severe gastro probs as explained in another thread but I saw the Dr today who has updated my meds which should address that issue. The Dr seemed quite impressed with the weekly chart I produced showing weight loss, BP, exercise regime and IF/600cal dates and so did the nutritionist we (wife came too) were directed to at the hospital.

 

My next appt is in 2 months. I hope to shift a further 5+ kgs in that time.

 

HTH

    Thanks.  Are you doing the 600 calories every other day or a 5-2 technique?  Or are you following this everyday?   

[evadgib]

35 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

    Thanks.  Are you doing the 600 calories every other day or a 5-2 technique?  Or are you following this everyday?   

Mon, Wed, Fri but may switch to Mon, Thu. I eat normally at weekends (within reason) inc the odd Sunday dinner if I feel like it.

Edited July 13, 2018 by evadgib

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, Bonobojt said:

There's no such thing as Humane slaughter, you can't do it in a nice way, but if you do believe in the word Humane, then what about Humane rape, humane slavery, humane child molestation, a Humane Holocaust... of course we all agree that you can't rape a woman in a nice way, the act of rape is evil, the act of murder is evil, you can't do it in a nice way.

 

The word 'slaughter' has associations with cruelty. If one has this in mind when using the word, then of course there's no humane slaughter. That would be a contradiction of terms.

 

From the Oxford English dictionary:
"Slaughter: Kill (people or animals) in a cruel or violent way, typically in large numbers. 
Eg. ‘innocent civilians are being slaughtered’.

 

Now we know it is possible to kill people in a humane way. It's called Euthanasia, from the Greek, meaning 'Good Death'.

 

"The RSPCA definition of humane killing is: 'when an animal is either killed instantly or rendered insensible until death ensues, without pain, suffering or distress'. When killing animals for food (termed slaughter), this means they must be stunned prior to bleeding out so they immediately become unconscious."

 

"All methods of humane killing, including slaughter and on-farm euthanasia, must meet the same criteria:
1. death of an animal without pain, suffering or distress
2. instant unconsciousness followed by rapid death without regaining consciousness
3. reliability for both single or large numbers of animals
4. simplicity and minimal maintenance
5. minimal detrimental impact on operators or observers."

 

If you consider the suffering that most 'free' animals experience in their natural environment, such as being slowly eaten alive by predators, or starving to death during a prolonged drought, or dying slowly as a result of an accident, a shorter life on a well-maintained farm run by people who follow the RSPCA guidelines, might be a preferable option for those animals.

[balo]

Actually I'm not much hungry , had one big meal today (eggs&sandwich etc. ) and will not feel hungry until before I go to bed .  Maybe I will feel more hungry tomorrow.  I see no point in eating if I don't feel hungry .  

 

I do drink a lot of tea and coffee. I will steam some veggies later .  

 

 

   

[TravelerEastWest]

14 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

Actually what I meant but stated it incorrectly is that all indications are that I no longer have insulin insensitivity.  Fung's real contention is that excessive carbohydrates lead to insulin insensitivity.  So, I think Fung is very clearly addressing the cause of Diabetes-2 with his protocols.

 

I am a little disappointed that Fung doesn't acknowledge the importance of plant-based eating.  While fasting may address insulin insensitivity as a short-term solution, it's not a long term solution.  Plant based is.

 

You have to remember though that most of his patients are already diabetics and in crisis situations so his concerns are getting them out of danger ASAP, thus his emphasis on fasting, not long-term nutrition.

 

And of course, not everyone with Diabetes-2 will respond to nutritional modification without the need of meds.

 

All I know for sure is that it seems to work for me, and I think anyone facing the prospects of exogenous insulin in their future should explore this before simply accepting that they'll be on meds for the rest of their life.

From what I read it is fat not carbs that cause diabetes. So I don'tt agree with Fung - he is not plant based and does not agree with fat being the main problem

 

Fasting is a tool which I use, but not the solution - low fat plant based diets seem from what I read (Bernard Ornish etc) are teh solution along with regular exercise.

 

"And of course, not everyone with Diabetes-2 will respond to nutritional modification without the need of meds"

 

Perhaps true but as a practical matter most people will respond very well to a plant based diet - and maybe over a long period of time those with mild diabetic conditions such as yourself will be 100% cured.

 

I have had diabetes for more than 20 years and a very serious case so I am not sure that my insulin insensitivity can be cured or my beta cells regenerated (may 80% gone now) but only this year have I focused on the low fat diet so I am still hopeful

[Kohsamida]

3 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

From what I read it is fat not carbs that cause diabetes. So I don'tt agree with Fung - he is not plant based and does not agree with fat being the main problem

 

Fasting is a tool which I use, but not the solution - low fat plant based diets seem from what I read (Bernard Ornish etc) are teh solution along with regular exercise.

 

"And of course, not everyone with Diabetes-2 will respond to nutritional modification without the need of meds"

 

Perhaps true but as a practical matter most people will respond very well to a plant based diet - and maybe over a long period of time those with mild diabetic conditions such as yourself will be 100% cured.

 

I have had diabetes for more than 20 years and a very serious case so I am not sure that my insulin insensitivity can be cured or my beta cells regenerated (may 80% gone now) but only this year have I focused on the low fat diet so I am still hopeful

I agree with you that a lot of the recent research links beta cell dysfunction to high levels of stored fat in the pancreas.  

 

But the question is whether excessive dietary fat or carbs cause this to happen.  Many established studies show no link to excessive dietary fat intake and higher releases of insulin.  In fact most studies show very little insulin response to dietary fat at all.  Whereas there is a demonstrated massive and immediate insulin response to dietary carbohydrates.  So, there must be some other mechanism at work.

 

There’s no question that fat accumulation in the pancreas leads to beta cell destruction, and fat stored in the liver leads to “fatty liver” syndrome but I think the big debate is whether dietary fat or dietary carbohydrates cause this to happen.  

 

There’s compelling evidence to support both as being possible culprits, but I don’t think it should be assumed that dietary fat and stored fat in the liver and pancreas are the same thing because clearly they are not.

 

I have to admit though, that the more I read, the more I lean towards modifying BOTH fat and certain types of carbs from the diet.  

 

Nothing as complex as diabetes is going to be proved as “black & white”.  When the mystery of diabetes is truly unraveled, I’m guessing that BOTH excessive dietary fats and carbs will be involved, not to mention excessive protein since it ultimately is converted  to stored fat, and those macros that are animal sourced are particularly suspect.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Kohsamida

[Kohsamida]

Sorry for some of my long-winded replies.  I get carried away sometimes; my apologies.  The point I'm trying to make in this carb vs fat debate is that I'm confused why studies clearly show that carbs have a massive and immediate effect on insulin release, whereas dietary fats have almost no effect at all.  Clearly, there must be other mechanisms at work besides over production of insulin then, if excessive "dietary" fat is to play a role in Diabetes-2, because dietary fat and stored fat in the liver and pancreas are two different things entirely.

Edited July 14, 2018 by Kohsamida

[dontoearth]

18 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

Sorry for some of my long-winded replies.  I get carried away sometimes; my apologies.  The point I'm trying to make in this carb vs fat debate is that I'm confused why studies clearly show that carbs have a massive and immediate effect on insulin release, whereas dietary fats have almost no effect at all.  Clearly, there must be other mechanisms at work besides over production of insulin then, if excessive "dietary" fat is to play a role in Diabetes-2, because dietary fat and stored fat in the liver and pancreas are two different things entirely.

    Stop thinking about dietary fat and start thinking about body fat!  This seems to be the latest thinking.  Your body fat composition even if you are thin and at appropriate weight may be very high inside your body.  These people are called TOFI  Thin on the Outside Fat on the Inside.  This very dangerous to the body with metabolic diseases like BP and Type II.  It is hard to get a good bf measurement but very worth it.  My health club has a big Tanita commercial scale which does the measurements and provides a body map of where your fat is centered.  It especially points out marks of visceral fat in the stomach area.  This is considered the worst in terms of diseases and the toughest to get off your body.  

     Since I measure my blood pressure everyday I found a big reduction in visceral fat over a few months made me medication free.  

      And that bodyfat is the hardest to keep off regardless of your diet strategy.

[TravelerEastWest]

22 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

I agree with you that a lot of the recent research links beta cell dysfunction to high levels of stored fat in the pancreas.  

 

But the question is whether excessive dietary fat or carbs cause this to happen.  Many established studies show no link to excessive dietary fat intake and higher releases of insulin.  In fact most studies show very little insulin response to dietary fat at all.  Whereas there is a demonstrated massive and immediate insulin response to dietary carbohydrates.  So, there must be some other mechanism at work.

 

There’s no question that fat accumulation in the pancreas leads to beta cell destruction, and fat stored in the liver leads to “fatty liver” syndrome but I think the big debate is whether dietary fat or dietary carbohydrates cause this to happen.  

 

There’s compelling evidence to support both as being possible culprits, but I don’t think it should be assumed that dietary fat and stored fat in the liver and pancreas are the same thing because clearly they are not.

 

I have to admit though, that the more I read, the more I lean towards modifying BOTH fat and certain types of carbs from the diet.  

 

Nothing as complex as diabetes is going to be proved as “black & white”.  When the mystery of diabetes is truly unraveled, I’m guessing that BOTH excessive dietary fats and carbs will be involved, not to mention excessive protein since it ultimately is converted  to stored fat, and those macros that are animal sourced are particularly suspect.

From what I read it is very clear that fat in the main problem with causing diabetes. You know who I am reading and I think you know what they say.

 

I like your posts don't stop or edit them.

 

I think most evidence that does not support fat as the problem are small or poorly done or sponsered by the meat dairy and egg industries.

 

I am not aware of compelling eveidence that suggests otherw that is not the primary problem

 

Now once you have insulin insensitivty or beta cell damage excessive carbs can be a problem but not the root cause of diabetes.

 

[TravelerEastWest]

2 hours ago, dontoearth said:

    Stop thinking about dietary fat and start thinking about body fat!  This seems to be the latest thinking.  Your body fat composition even if you are thin and at appropriate weight may be very high inside your body.  These people are called TOFI  Thin on the Outside Fat on the Inside.  This very dangerous to the body with metabolic diseases like BP and Type II.  It is hard to get a good bf measurement but very worth it.  My health club has a big Tanita commercial scale which does the measurements and provides a body map of where your fat is centered.  It especially points out marks of visceral fat in the stomach area.  This is considered the worst in terms of diseases and the toughest to get off your body.  

     Since I measure my blood pressure everyday I found a big reduction in visceral fat over a few months made me medication free.  

      And that bodyfat is the hardest to keep off regardless of your diet strategy.

The good news is that if we can get the visceral fat to the correct levels (a small amount of fat in the body is OK) then maybe the body will be in balance and get better.

 

Fasting then may help with autophagy etc.

[Kohsamida]

5 hours ago, dontoearth said:

    Stop thinking about dietary fat and start thinking about body fat!  This seems to be the latest thinking.  Your body fat composition even if you are thin and at appropriate weight may be very high inside your body.  These people are called TOFI  Thin on the Outside Fat on the Inside.  This very dangerous to the body with metabolic diseases like BP and Type II.  It is hard to get a good bf measurement but very worth it.  My health club has a big Tanita commercial scale which does the measurements and provides a body map of where your fat is centered.  It especially points out marks of visceral fat in the stomach area.  This is considered the worst in terms of diseases and the toughest to get off your body.  

     Since I measure my blood pressure everyday I found a big reduction in visceral fat over a few months made me medication free.  

      And that bodyfat is the hardest to keep off regardless of your diet strategy.

Good point, but even more important is not just body fat that you can see (visceral) and that’s reflected in body fat percentage as measured on a Tanita scale, but more importantly, fat that accumulates in the liver and pancreas.  That fat is what gives rise to metabolic diseases such as Diabetes type-2.

 

People with a healthy body fat index as measured on a Tanita scale can still have excessive and dangerous levels of fat in the liver and pancreas.  There are increasing numbers of Vegan athletes (i.e.: cyclists with extremely low BF%, like under 8%, who consumes excessive amounts of carbohydrates and  develop type-2 diabetes in later life, like Sami Inkinen for example.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Kohsamida

[Kohsamida]

3 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

...From what I read it is very clear that fat in the main problem with causing diabetes. You know who I am reading and I think you know what they say....

 

...I think most evidence that does not support fat as the problem are small or poorly done or sponsered by the meat dairy and egg industries....

 

I am not aware of compelling eveidence that suggests otherw that is not the primary problem

 

Now once you have insulin insensitivity or beta cell damage excessive carbs can be a problem but not the root cause of diabetes.

 

With kindest regards, I have to disagree with you on this because there is actually no compelling evidence that either view is entirely valid.  The question of whether one macronutrient or another is primarily responsible for Diabetes is central to the current scientific debate about the cause & treatment of Diabetes-2. 

 

Most of the well performed and unbiased studies draw the conclusion that there is conflicting evidence whether macronutrient differentiation is even a factor, let alone whether carbohydrates, fats, or even proteins are the primary cause.

 

Most valid and unbiased studies clearly cite conflicting results, and only acknowledge that study results are highly dependent on age, heredity, and lifestyle as it relates to health.  See this study for example:

 

The Effects of Carbohydrate, Unsaturated Fat, and Protein Intake on Measures of Insulin Sensitivity 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3631872/

 

This is a highly regarded study, and the primary conclusion was "...Investigations into the effects of unsaturated fat– or carbohydrate-rich diets on glycemic control have yielded conflicting results. ..."

 

So, my view is that the jury is still out and it's really up to the individual to decide for themselves what's the best course of action, be as well informed as possible BUT to make health and lifestyle decisions, based on their own set of personal circumstances, and not just to adhere to a particular point of view, no matter how reputable the authors of the point of view might seem.  If they are strongly advocating only one point of view, they are not reflecting the truth.

 

I'm not saying that's an easy thing to do.  I read something from Jason Fung and get all excited like I've just read the Holy Grail.  And then I read something by Neil Barnard and feel the same way.  In the case of Fung and Barnard they are very strong advocates of a particular point of view. They BOTH are providing highly credible information and conclusions but neither are providing the single, definitive answer.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Kohsamida

[Kohsamida]

4 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

From what I read it is very clear that fat in the main problem with causing diabetes. You know who I am reading and I think you know what they say.

 

I like your posts don't stop or edit them.

 

I think most evidence that does not support fat as the problem are small or poorly done or sponsered by the meat dairy and egg industries.

 

I am not aware of compelling eveidence that suggests otherw that is not the primary problem

 

Now once you have insulin insensitivty or beta cell damage excessive carbs can be a problem but not the root cause of diabetes.

 

Sorry, What I should have said in my previous reply is "I have to disagree with you as well as myself" ?.  I'm a strong advocate that excessive carbs are the culprit in liver dysfunction. It's my personal point of view based on personal experience, and the conclusions I've drawn from what I've read.

 

There is however compelling evidence to suggest both viewpoints need to be considered.  The studies of Inuit population of Greenland, for example, strongly suggests a link between a high fat diet and impaired glucose tolerance, so I shouldn't (and don't) discount that viewpoint at all.

[ http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/10/1766 ] 

 

I'm just saying that it's easy to think that one's personal view might apply to everyone else, and sometimes feel there is not another valid way to look at it, even when you try being objective.  I'm as guilty of that as anyone can be sometimes, even though it's not intentional.  Just wanted to set the record straight, and not come off sounding arrogant or pompous. 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Kohsamida

[Bonobojt]

does anyone here any issues digesting certain foods ? even if that food is considered healthy

 

I think I have a problem digesting starchy root vegetables like Potatoes, I have been eaten potatoes a lot recently, something I don't normally do in my life, I've been eaten it with wholemeal bread and beans. My digestion hasn't been good at all ever since I included potatoes in my diet, bloated and constipated even though I'm eating whole foods plant based, lots of fiber etc..

 

I've been eating bread and beans, oatmeal, fruit etc for years with no problems, so I'm sure its the potato.

 

though my gut health isn't perfect since I've been on antibiotics way too many times and I got a parasite infection in April which I needed antibiotics to treat. so maybe the poor digestion is a consequence of the parasite infection and/or antibiotic use history. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Bonobojt

[Taggart]

2 hours ago, Bonobojt said:

does anyone here any issues digesting certain foods ? even if that food is considered healthy

 

I think I have a problem digesting starchy root vegetables like Potatoes, I have been eaten potatoes a lot recently, something I don't normally do in my life, I've been eaten it with wholemeal bread and beans. My digestion hasn't been good at all ever since I included potatoes in my diet, bloated and constipated even though I'm eating whole foods plant based, lots of fiber etc..

 

I've been eating bread and beans, oatmeal, fruit etc for years with no problems, so I'm sure its the potato.

 

though my gut health isn't perfect since I've been on antibiotics way too many times and I got a parasite infection in April which I needed antibiotics to treat. so maybe the poor digestion is a consequence of the parasite infection and/or antibiotic use history. 

No. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones with no digestive problems.  In fact baked potato/sweet potato vendors will be one of the first things I'll be searching for in the local areas where I stay when I arrive for a vacation in Thailand in a few months time from now.  

[Kohsamida]

2 hours ago, Bonobojt said:

does anyone here any issues digesting certain foods ? even if that food is considered healthy

 

I think I have a problem digesting starchy root vegetables like Potatoes, I have been eaten potatoes a lot recently, something I don't normally do in my life, I've been eaten it with wholemeal bread and beans. My digestion hasn't been good at all ever since I included potatoes in my diet, bloated and constipated even though I'm eating whole foods plant based, lots of fiber etc..

 

I've been eating bread and beans, oatmeal, fruit etc for years with no problems, so I'm sure its the potato.

 

though my gut health isn't perfect since I've been on antibiotics way too many times and I got a parasite infection in April which I needed antibiotics to treat. so maybe the poor digestion is a consequence of the parasite infection and/or antibiotic use history. 

I don't have a problem with them myself but I know some people can have an allergic reaction to potatoes.  You might be one.  Supposedly for some people, the body mistakes certain proteins in potatoes as harmful and the body reacts by stimulating the immune system to deal with it.  Histamines are released and that could account for your symptoms.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Kohsamida

[Kohsamida]

Starvation Response in Nutritional Fasting:  I thought it would be interesting to provide another slightly more detailed overview of what really happens to your body during a water fast.  It's probably not of interest to most people but for those who are curious, it's worth a read, even if it is a long one.

 

The reason I am posting this is simply because there is so much "myth" involved in what is really happening inside you body during a water fast, whether it's one  of short duration or longer.  Everything I am including is scientific fact; nothing is pseudo-science, conjecture or hypothesis unless it is specifically cited as such.

 

So, "nutritional fasting" is just another term for eliciting a "starvation response", or rather, a set of adaptive biochemical and physiological changes that alter metabolism in response to lack of food.  

 

The energetic requirements of a body are composed of the basal metabolic rate and the physical activity level. This caloric requirement can be met with protein, fat, carbohydrates, alcohol, or a mixture of those. Glucose is the general metabolic fuel, and can be metabolized by any cell. Fructose and some other nutrients can only be metabolized in the liver, where their metabolites transform into either glucose stored as glycogen in the liver and in muscles, or into fatty acids stored in adipose tissue.

 

Because of the blood–brain barrier, getting nutrients to the human brain is especially dependent on molecules that can pass this barrier. The brain itself consumes about 18% of the basal metabolic rate: on a total intake of 1800 kcal/day, this equates to 324 kcal, or about 80 g of glucose. About 25% of total body glucose consumption occurs in the brain.

 

Glucose can be obtained directly from dietary sugars and by the breakdown of other carbohydrates. In the absence of dietary sugars and carbohydrates, glucose is obtained from the breakdown of stored glycogen. Glycogen is a readily-accessible storage form of glucose, stored in notable quantities in the liver and in small quantities in the muscles.

 

When the glycogen reserve is depleted, glucose can be obtained from the breakdown of fats from adipose tissue. Fats are broken down into glycerol and free fatty acids, with the glycerol being utilized in the liver as a substrate for gluconeogenesis.

 

When even glycerol reserves are depleted, or sooner, the liver starts producing ketone bodies. Ketone bodies are short-chain derivatives of fatty acids, which, since they can cross the blood–brain barrier, can be used by the brain as an alternative metabolic fuel. Fatty acids can be used directly as an energy source by most tissues in the body.

 

After the exhaustion of the glycogen reserve, and for the next 2–3 days, fatty acids are the principal metabolic fuel. At first, the brain continues to use glucose, because, if a non-brain tissue is using fatty acids as its metabolic fuel, the use of glucose in the same tissue is switched off. Thus, when fatty acids are being broken down for energy, all of the remaining glucose is made available for use by the brain.

 

After 2 or 3 days of fasting, the liver begins to synthesize ketone bodies from precursors obtained from fatty acid breakdown. The brain uses these ketone bodies as fuel, thus cutting its requirement for glucose. After fasting for 3 days, the brain gets 30% of its energy from ketone bodies. After 4 days, this goes up to 75%.

 

Thus, the production of ketone bodies cuts the brain's glucose requirement from 80 g per day to about 30 g per day. Of the remaining 30 g requirement, 20 g per day can be produced by the liver from glycerol (itself a product of fat breakdown). This still leaves a deficit of about 10 g of glucose per day that must come from some other source. This other source is the body's own proteins.

 

After several days of fasting, all cells in the body begin to break down protein. This releases amino acids into the bloodstream, which can be converted into glucose by the liver. Since much of our muscle mass is protein, this phenomenon is responsible for the wasting away of muscle mass seen in starvation, but their is a caveat to this!

 

The body can selectively decide which cells break down protein and which do not. About 2–3 g of protein must be broken down to synthesize 1 g of glucose; about 20–30 g of protein is broken down each day to make 10 g of glucose to keep the brain alive. However, to conserve protein, this number may decrease the longer the duration of fasting is.

 

What's more, the body is also selective about which proteins are broken down.  Through the process of autophagy, damaged or dysfunctioning intracellular proteins are favored as a fuel source over essential proteins such as those found in the heart and striated muscle as long as the body's fat stores can provide the bulk of fuel required.

 

Furthermore, The human starvation response is unique among animals in that human brains do not require the ingestion of glucose to function.  During starvation, less than half the energy used by the brain comes from metabolized glucose. Because the human brain can use ketone bodies as major fuel sources, the body is not forced to break down skeletal muscles at a high rate, thereby maintaining both cognitive function and mobility for up to several weeks. This response is extremely important in human evolution and allowed for humans to continue to find food effectively even in the face of prolonged starvation.

 

Consider this chart which shows the oxidation rate of protein during extended fasting.  Note how proteins are spared as fat metabolism rapidly ramps up. (from Dr. Kevin Hall's of the NIH in his textbook, “Comparative Physiology of Fasting, Starvation, and Food Limitation”):

 

Initially during a fast, the level of insulin in circulation drops and the levels of glucagon, epinephrine and norepinephrine rise.  At this time, there is an up-regulation of glycogenolysis, gluconeogenesis, lipolysis, and ketogenesis. The body’s glycogen stores are consumed in about 24 hours. In a normal 70 kg adult, only about 8,000 kilojoules of glycogen are stored in the body (mostly in the striated muscles).The body also engages in gluconeogenesis to convert glycerol and glucogenic amino acids into glucose for metabolism. Another adaptation is the Cori cycle, which involves shuttling lipid-derived energy in glucose to peripheral glycolytic tissues, which in turn send the lactate back to the liver for resynthesis to glucose. Because of these processes, blood glucose levels remain relatively stable during prolonged starvation.

 

However, the main source of energy during prolonged starvation is derived from triglycerides. Compared to the 8,000 kilojoules of stored glycogen, lipid fuels are much richer in energy content, and a 70 kg adult stores over 400,000 kilojoules of triglycerides (mostly in adipose tissue).   Triglycerides are broken down to fatty acids via lipolysis. Epinephrine precipitates lipolysis by activating protein kinase A, which phosphorylates hormone sensitive lipase (HSL) and perilipin. These enzymes, along with CGI-58 and adipose triglyceride lipase (ATGL), complex at the surface of lipid droplets. The concerted action of ATGL and HSL liberates the first two fatty acids. Cellular monoacylglycerol lipase (MGL), liberates the final fatty acid. The remaining glycerol enters gluconeogenesis.

 

Fatty acids by themselves cannot be used as a direct fuel source. They must first undergo beta oxidation in the mitochondria (mostly of skeletal muscle, cardiac muscle, and liver cells). Fatty acids are transported into the mitochondria as an acyl-carnitine via the action of the enzyme CAT-1. This step controls the metabolic flux of beta oxidation. The resulting acetyl-CoA enters the TCA cycle and undergoes oxidative phosphorylation to produce ATP. The body invests some of this ATP in gluconeogenesis to produce more glucose.

 

Triglycerides and long-chain fatty acids are too hydrophobic to cross into brain cells, so the liver must convert them into short-chain fatty acids and ketone bodiesthrough ketogenesis. The resulting ketone bodies, acetoacetate and β-hydroxybutyrate, are amphipathic and can be transported into the brain (and muscles) and broken down into acetyl-CoA for use in the TCA cycle. Acetoacetate breaks down spontaneously into acetone, and the acetone is released through the urine and lungs to produce the “acetone breath” that accompanies prolonged fasting. The brain also uses glucose during starvation, but most of the body’s glucose is allocated to the skeletal muscles and red blood cells. The cost of the brain using too much glucose is muscle loss. If the brain and muscles relied entirely on glucose, the body would lose 50% of its nitrogen content in 8–10 days.

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Kohsamida

[TravelerEastWest]

On 7/15/2018 at 1:32 PM, Kohsamida said:

With kindest regards, I have to disagree with you on this because there is actually no compelling evidence that either view is entirely valid.  The question of whether one macronutrient or another is primarily responsible for Diabetes is central to the current scientific debate about the cause & treatment of Diabetes-2. 

 

Most of the well performed and unbiased studies draw the conclusion that there is conflicting evidence whether macronutrient differentiation is even a factor, let alone whether carbohydrates, fats, or even proteins are the primary cause.

 

Most valid and unbiased studies clearly cite conflicting results, and only acknowledge that study results are highly dependent on age, heredity, and lifestyle as it relates to health.  See this study for example:

 

The Effects of Carbohydrate, Unsaturated Fat, and Protein Intake on Measures of Insulin Sensitivity 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3631872/

 

This is a highly regarded study, and the primary conclusion was "...Investigations into the effects of unsaturated fat– or carbohydrate-rich diets on glycemic control have yielded conflicting results. ..."

 

So, my view is that the jury is still out and it's really up to the individual to decide for themselves what's the best course of action, be as well informed as possible BUT to make health and lifestyle decisions, based on their own set of personal circumstances, and not just to adhere to a particular point of view, no matter how reputable the authors of the point of view might seem.  If they are strongly advocating only one point of view, they are not reflecting the truth.

 

I'm not saying that's an easy thing to do.  I read something from Jason Fung and get all excited like I've just read the Holy Grail.  And then I read something by Neil Barnard and feel the same way.  In the case of Fung and Barnard they are very strong advocates of a particular point of view. They BOTH are providing highly credible information and conclusions but neither are providing the single, definitive answer.

While I am not a scientist -the study was small, of short duration, used unsaturated fats and most import there was no low fat- high carb diet to compare to as all 3 diets were high in fat.

 

Also another very key point is that high fat diets can show good short term results but longterm all case mortality increases. This is why Bernard and Ornish and others in their school of thought are to me very clearly correct.

 

Now if you are focused on short term results the answer could be very different...

 

 

[Bonobojt]

new vegan film is out now, if you want to support the creator's you can rent or buy the film here  http://dominionmovement.com

 

here's the trailer 

 

Edited July 16, 2018 by Bonobojt

[FracturedRabbit]

20 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

While I am not a scientist -the study was small, of short duration, used unsaturated fats and most import there was no low fat- high carb diet to compare to as all 3 diets were high in fat.

 

Also another very key point is that high fat diets can show good short term results but longterm all case mortality increases. This is why Bernard and Ornish and others in their school of thought are to me very clearly correct.

 

Now if you are focused on short term results the answer could be very different...

 

 

Could you point me to the studies that indicate that high fat diets have a poor long term outcome. Interested because I am currently on such a diet! Thanks!

[TravelerEastWest]

1 hour ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Could you point me to the studies that indicate that high fat diets have a poor long term outcome. Interested because I am currently on such a diet! Thanks!

I can point you To Dr Dean Ornish and Dr Neal Bernard & Dr Cyrus Khambatta to start; they have both done research and even better they explain the results of research by others.

[Taggart]

Lots of information available in the books and the websites of Pritikin and Dr. John McDougall.  Both have done the research and have been recommending low fat, high carb diets to their patients for well over forty years now.  Pritikin allows low fat dairy and 3.5 ounces of lean meat/seafood per day (only once per week if you have heart disease).  McDougall doesn't allow any animal foods and his diet is up to 90% starch based.  He also has an open page at Facebook that anyone can access.

[FracturedRabbit]

Thanks for the suggestions. All of the names you suggested are of people who advocate low fat diets; so of course they do not reference studies that show short and longer term outcomes for low carb/high fat nutrition. 

I am currently getting very good results from an LCHF diet; so guess I will just continue until I am not!

 

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Kohsamida]

38 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Thanks for the suggestions. All of the names you suggested are of people who advocate low fat diets; so of course they do not reference studies that show short and longer term outcomes for low carb/high fat nutrition. 

I am currently getting very good results from an LCHF diet; so guess I will just continue until I am not!

 

Thanks again for the feedback.

I do not entirely agree with a lot of the LCHF camp but if you want to check out valid science-based studies that support LCHF, the leading researchers would probably be Dr. Stephen Phinney and Dr. Jeff Volek.   

 

Most of their present research focuses specifically on the physiology and functional application of low carbohydrate nutrition.  They both have numerous, peer-reviewed studies that have been published and easily found by googling their names.

 

Hope this is useful.

[FracturedRabbit]

11 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

I do not entirely agree with a lot of the LCHF camp but if you want to check out valid science-based studies that support LCHF, the leading researchers would probably be Dr. Stephen Phinney and Dr. Jeff Volek.   

 

Most of their present research focuses specifically on the physiology and functional application of low carbohydrate nutrition.  They both have numerous, peer-reviewed studies that have been published and easily found by googling their names.

 

Hope this is useful.

Thanks.

[Kohsamida]

3 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Thanks.

You're welcomed.  Just wanted to add, while I and many others on this thread lean towards a lower fat diet, there is a lot of research and anecdotal evidence that also supports diets which are lower in carbs and higher in fats.  At this point in our understanding of nutrition, I think it's fair to say that nothing is etched in stone as far as the fat vs carb debate goes.

 

There's a lot of compelling truth to Phinney's and Volek's research.  And there are well known examples of people successfully implementing LCHF diets, including people suffering from type-2 diabetes, and even world-class athletes who believe sports performance can come from becoming adapted to burning fat instead of carbs as fuel for the body. 

 

A couple of people you might want be read about in these regards are Sami Inkinen and Tim Olson. 

 

Sami Inkinen, a world-class triathlete who found out he had diabetes, and decided to deal with it by implementing a low carb / high fat diet.  He now suffers no symptoms of diabetes and continues to compete, now well into middle age. 

 

He's a very vocal advocate of low carb eating and he brought it to other people's attention in a pretty dramatic way...he and his wife rowed a small boat across the Pacific Ocean fueling their bodies entirely on a low carb diet a couple of years ago.  Pretty impressive stuff!

 

There's also Ultra-Marathoner Tim Olson.  He is the two-time winner and previous record holder of Western States 100 Mile race, with numerous other ultra-running wins.  He's also a very strong advocate of low-carb nutrition.

 

While I lean towards High Carb / Low Fat, it's hard to deny the success of people like Inkinen and Olson, and when you read the research of Volek and Phinney, it's hard to deny many of their findings.

 

Until the fat vs carb debate is settled, I think the best diet is really the one that works best for YOU.  You should be informed, confirm your health through periodic blood testing, and have a good physician you can trust to guide you, but in the final analysis, it's your choice to make.  So, best wishes ?

 

Edited July 17, 2018 by Kohsamida

[TravelerEastWest]

10 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Thanks for the suggestions. All of the names you suggested are of people who advocate low fat diets; so of course they do not reference studies that show short and longer term outcomes for low carb/high fat nutrition. 

I am currently getting very good results from an LCHF diet; so guess I will just continue until I am not!

 

Thanks again for the feedback.

Actually they reference lots of studies and the key point is that LCHF diets can give you good short term results but long term results show a higher death rate.

 

If you read for about a week you will see a trend in the data available,

[TravelerEastWest]

10 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

I do not entirely agree with a lot of the LCHF camp but if you want to check out valid science-based studies that support LCHF, the leading researchers would probably be Dr. Stephen Phinney and Dr. Jeff Volek.   

 

Most of their present research focuses specifically on the physiology and functional application of low carbohydrate nutrition.  They both have numerous, peer-reviewed studies that have been published and easily found by googling their names.

 

Hope this is useful.

I went to his website and watched the first two videos and looked at the papers that he mentions. (I will checkout more later in case I missed something)

 

Two thoughts:

 

The researched was funded by who? His company - so I am very skeptical...

 

Cohort size? Small.

 

Time period? mostly short.

 

He clearly says over and over again that what he suggests is complex and not safe without a doctors care.

 

So in summary I have seen no good evidence that supports a longterm LCHF diet is safe. But I have seen  short term results that are good.

 

 

[Kohsamida]

5 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

I went to his website and watched the first two videos and looked at the papers that he mentions. (I will checkout more later in case I missed something)

 

Two thoughts:

 

The researched was funded by who? His company - so I am very skeptical...

 

Cohort size? Small.

 

Time period? mostly short.

 

He clearly says over and over again that what he suggests is complex and not safe without a doctors care.

 

So in summary I have seen no good evidence that supports a longterm LCHF diet is safe. But I have seen  short term results that are good.

 

 

Fact is, on a personal basis I, like you, lean towards a plant-based diet with minimal animal fat.  

 

However, the scientific understanding of how the body works and what effect nutrition has on it has barely scratched the surface and much is simply unknown.  Furthermore, how our bodies work and how nutrition effects them is highly variable based upon the individual.  What works for one person may not work for another for a variety of reasons.

 

Much of the current scientific research into how diet effect health falls into two camps; one advocating a low fat diet, and the other advocating a low-carb diet.There are compelling, science-based arguments for BOTH schools of thought.

 

As I pointed out, there are many people who have benefited (in the long term) by adopting a low carb diet, and their success is supported by sound scientific understanding (known and emerging) of how the body works, so it should hardly be discounted, any more than examples that support a low-fat diet.

 

I simply think it's a mistake to make sweeping conclusions about whether a low-fat diet or a low-carb diet is healthier.  Subjects like this rarely have a simple "black & white" answer.  In the final analysis it will probably be elements of BOTH viewpoints that prove correct.

 

I'm just saying that I think the smarter choice for now is to objectively explore all valid schools of thought, and then make a personal decision what's best for you, not for everyone, just for you.

 

I just think it's a big mistake to accept one viewpoint as gospel truth over another until much more is really known.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Kohsamida

[FracturedRabbit]

33 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

Fact is, on a personal basis I, like you, lean towards a plant-based diet with minimal animal fat.  

 

However, the scientific understanding of how the body works and what effect nutrition has on it has barely scratched the surface and much is simply unknown.  Furthermore, how our bodies work and how nutrition effects them is highly variable based upon the individual.  What works for one person may not work for another for a variety of reasons.

 

Much of the current scientific research into how diet effect health falls into two camps; one advocating a low fat diet, and the other advocating a low-carb diet.There are compelling, science-based arguments for BOTH schools of thought.

 

As I pointed out, there are many people who have benefited (in the long term) by adopting a low carb diet, and their success is supported by sound scientific understanding (known and emerging) of how the body works, so it should hardly be discounted, any more than examples that support a low-fat diet.

 

I simply think it's a mistake to make sweeping conclusions about whether a low-fat diet or a low-carb diet is healthier.  Subjects like this rarely have a simple "black & white" answer.  In the final analysis it will probably be elements of BOTH viewpoints that prove correct.

 

I'm just saying that I think the smarter choice for now is to objectively explore all valid schools of thought, and then make a personal decision what's best for you, not for everyone, just for you.

 

I just think it's a big mistake to accept one viewpoint as gospel truth over another until much more is really known.

Wise words. The only universally accepted truths seem to be that processed foods and excessive sugar are bad, and you can't go wrong with a leafy veggie!  Fasting seems to be generally hailed as a good thing too.