RE: Insulin and also Another Warrior Diet Report

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> But to further the point of how I don't see how ketosis could possibly

be

> less efficient than protein-burning, which I think is termed

ketoacidosis but I

> don't know if the two are completely synonymous....

They're not. Ketoacidosis is a life-threatening condition characterized

by dangerously high levels of ketones in the blood. This is not caused

by a low-carbohydrate diet, but by inadequate insulin levels in

diabetics, and I don't think it has anything to do with consuming

protein. AFAIK, protein is not " burned, " but converted to glucose

through gluconeogenesis.

[Guest guest]

>But to further the point of how I don't see how ketosis could possibly be

>less efficient than protein-burning, which I think is termed ketoacidosis but I

>don't know if the two are completely synonymous....

Ketoacidosis is a state where your blood goes acid, due to ketones,

and it is often fatal. Bad, bad stuff. Ketosis is a state where your body

creates

ketones (to use in place of glucose), but you aren't in ketoacidosis. A lot of

people (including doctors) confuse the two.

>If your diet is 75% fat, 20% protein, and 5% carbs, it might be that all the

>protein is needed. Let's assume for the sake of generosity to the opposing

>argument that only half of it is needed for protein-related activities. Or a

>quarter. Say you need 5% of your calories as protein but you consume 20%.

>

>That leaves you with 15% of your diet as protein available for glucogenesis,

>5% of your diet as carbs for glucogenesis, and up to 75% as fat (I'm assuming

>the maintenance of body fat is not considered essential ;-) ). If you're body

>has to pick one and only one method of finding energy, obviously you'll opt

>for ketosis. Even if burning protein is four times more efficient than burning

>fat, (I doubt this but don't know-- again, for the sake of generosity to the

>opposing argument) you would still have more effective caloric value from

>burning fat than burning protein.

The body only seems to need a TINY amount of glucose to burn fat efficiently.

So it probably isn't an either/or. The body uses fat very efficiently, and fat

is THE preferred fuel. It just needs a little glucose to burn it (based on a lot

of complicated chemical equations you can look up).

The body doesn't usually need 20% protein -- kids might, and body builders

might, but that is close to the max (over 30% and you get kidney damage).

Protein is for replacing blood cells and building muscle tissue. But protein

is difficult for our bodies to use for anything else. It seems that under some

circumstances (like, lack of carbs) it can be broken down into glucose, and

muscle

tissue can be also. I've read also that it can be broken down if there is just

too much protein, which, for a lot of us, is true -- we get more than we NEED.

(Note: I'm NOT against protein and I eat a lot of it. But in some healthy

cultures,

they eat meat once or twice a week and do fine).

So the question I'm trying to figure out is: under what circumstances does

a body opt to go into ketosis rather than turn protein into sugar? I'm guessing,

based on tigers and Inuit, that the answer might be hereditary (rather than

percentage

of fat in the diet). If you have some hormone or enzyme or the other, you will

be

apt to turn protein into glucose, because your body is adapted for a low-carb

diet. If you don't have that ability, then you will go into ketosis so your

brain

doesn't starve, which will make you skinnier, which in our culture is a good

thing that is hard to achieve.

>Now I don't know but it would be my guess that you can burn more than one

>thing at once for energy, but again, I don't know. If that's the case, then it

>seems without question that you would use ketosis constantly, but perhaps not

>always or never exclusively.

Normally, no. You use fat+glucose, during most of your life. When you are

doing hard workouts (or, in the rat studies, while you are eating) you burn

mostly

glucose. Ketosis is for if you are " starving " or severely lacking in carbs.

>Furthermore, if your body is moving stored energy, it is obviously in the

>body's interest to dispense with stored fat rather than stored protein, as body

>fat is a burden on the body, whereas more muscle mass makes everything easier

>to the body, including carrying around the excess body fat.

That is true except when your body seems to " perceive " that food is scarce,

in which case it is better to have less muscle, as it is expensive to maintain.

That is why (it is theorized) that folks who go on calorie-restricted diets

lose so much muscle mass (about 1/4 of the weight lost on a 1200 calorie

a day diet is muscle). Fat may be difficult to carry, but it doesn't take many

calories to maintain. Muscle burns calories!

THAT was why I started studying body builders. Having been on a 1200

calorie diet, and losing lots of weight, I killed my metabolism and still

had a lot of fat compared to muscle (tho I was skinny!). Body builders

are the only group that seems successful in banishing fat without killing

muscle.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/23/03 1:53:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Ketoacidosis is a state where your blood goes acid, due to ketones,

> and it is often fatal. Bad, bad stuff. Ketosis is a state where your body

> creates

> ketones (to use in place of glucose), but you aren't in ketoacidosis. A lot

> of

> people (including doctors) confuse the two.

So is muscle eaten up by the acid in the blood? Is that the connection

between ketoacidosis and muscle-wasting? In that case you aren't actually

burning

protein for energy, but the muscle just wastes away anyway?

I could have just looked it up. Well, anyway, Walcott says in Metabolic

Typing Diet that protein types who don't get enough protein will break down

muscle

to burn as energy, so while I don't have complete faith in his book I imagine

this is based on soemthing in reality and there must be some connection

between burning protein for energy and breaking down muscle. So presumably if

you

are in protein-burning mode you need more of your calories from protein than

otherwise in order to avoid breaking down muscle.

> The body only seems to need a TINY amount of glucose to burn fat

> efficiently.

> So it probably isn't an either/or. The body uses fat very efficiently, and

> fat

> is THE preferred fuel. It just needs a little glucose to burn it (based on a

> lot

> of complicated chemical equations you can look up).

So if fat is the preferred fuel, then what's the question? A tiny bit of

glucose could probably be gotten from glycogen in the muscle and liver tissue

they ate, depending on how you define tiny.

> The body doesn't usually need 20% protein -- kids might, and body builders

> might, but that is close to the max (over 30% and you get kidney damage).

> Protein is for replacing blood cells and building muscle tissue. But protein

> is difficult for our bodies to use for anything else. It seems that under

> some

> circumstances (like, lack of carbs) it can be broken down into glucose, and

> muscle

> tissue can be also. I've read also that it can be broken down if there is

> just

> too much protein, which, for a lot of us, is true -- we get more than we

> NEED.

> (Note: I'm NOT against protein and I eat a lot of it. But in some healthy

> cultures,

> they eat meat once or twice a week and do fine).

Yes, but they eat about 15% of their diet as protein. I didn't analyze the

figures myself, but just taking Sally's word that all of the healthy societies

Price studied had a breakdown of 15%-20% protein. That included ones who ate

meat once or twice a week so they must have been around 15% range.

As far as I can tell this whole need for protein thing is quite

controversial, as well as its relation to kidney damage. My guess is 15-20% is

necessary,

if nothing else because it's basically a universal constant in all traditional

societies. Moreover, if you look at the development of agriculture, humans

had a very, very clear preference for plants that were high in protein. And if

you look at the places where humans were unfortuanate to develop agriculture

without local plants high in protein, like the New Guinea highlanders, you

find canniabalism.

Either way, like I said, if you use need just 5% it's still presumably MUCH

more efficient to burn fat, especially when you consider that only a portion of

that 5% is glucogenic amino acids.

> So the question I'm trying to figure out is: under what circumstances does

> a body opt to go into ketosis rather than turn protein into sugar? I'm

> guessing,

> based on tigers and Inuit, that the answer might be hereditary (rather than

> percentage

> of fat in the diet). If you have some hormone or enzyme or the other, you

> will be

> apt to turn protein into glucose, because your body is adapted for a

> low-carb

> diet. If you don't have that ability, then you will go into ketosis so your

> brain

> doesn't starve, which will make you skinnier, which in our culture is a good

>

> thing that is hard to achieve.

I thought that what determined an amino acids glucogenicity was its own

composition, not presence or absence of an enzyme. Either way, what *portion*

of

the amino acid gets turned to glucose? Unless it's the entire thing, you

suffer from the same problem as ketosis-- it's not efficient. When you add in

the

fact that you need a certain amount of protein for absolutely essential body

building tasks, and you have 5 times more availalbe fat to burn, it's hardly

efficient to avoid ketosis!

> Normally, no. You use fat+glucose, during most of your life. When you are

> doing hard workouts (or, in the rat studies, while you are eating) you burn

> mostly

> glucose. Ketosis is for if you are " starving " or severely lacking in carbs.

Ok, so in " normal " life you burn fat without going into ketosis? If that's

the case wouldn't it make more sense that the Inuit burned fat in non-ketosis

than they burned all their protein?

> That is true except when your body seems to " perceive " that food is scarce,

> in which case it is better to have less muscle, as it is expensive to

> maintain.

It's expensive to maintain when you don't have enough protein available or

calories. But folks who have excess body fat always have proportionately more

muscle because walking around is working out the muscles. So the Inuits' body

would have to be kind of dysfunctional I'd think to store extra fat and at the

same time break down muscle for food! The excess body fat would presumably

be telling the body to use more of the protein for muscle-building.

> That is why (it is theorized) that folks who go on calorie-restricted diets

> lose so much muscle mass (about 1/4 of the weight lost on a 1200 calorie

> a day diet is muscle). Fat may be difficult to carry, but it doesn't take

> many

> calories to maintain. Muscle burns calories!

I don't think the Inuit were calorie-restricted.

> THAT was why I started studying body builders. Having been on a 1200

> calorie diet, and losing lots of weight, I killed my metabolism and still

> had a lot of fat compared to muscle (tho I was skinny!). Body builders

> are the only group that seems successful in banishing fat without killing

> muscle.

Them and gymnasts. So anyway, I've been taking you to say that the Inuit

burned protein for energy rather than fat. But you seem now to be saying that

lack of ketosis is no indication of lack of fat-burning, but then still follow

in with they must have been burning protein. I don't know if they would go

into ketosis, but of the available macronutrients it seems clear that they would

most efficiently utilize fat, because if they avoid utilizing fat, they simply

have next to nothing available for calories for energy. Plus I'd think

they'd be bubbling over and waddling rather than walking if they were

continuously

storing 75% of the calories as body fat!

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/23/03 12:37:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> If there is carbohydrate available, then the Krebs cycle is the most

> efficient, absolutely. Burn the fat plus a little glycogen. If there is no

> carb, then ketosis is better because it spares muscle.

That makes sense, but both ways utilize fat, which supports what I was trying

to say but seems to contradict what you were saying before.

> You can burn fat without going into ketosis IF there is sufficient carb.

> If there is extra protein in the diet and it can be turned into glucose,

> that would make sense. I really don't know what happens with the Inuit,

> but I'd guess it would be similar to what tigers do, if they have adapted

> to a truly carnivorous diet. Our paleo ancestors may have been

> more adapted as carnivores than we are too. Tigers don't " burn " their

> own muscle tissue unless they are starving ... but they don't go

> into ketosis either, it seems. They eat meat!

I'd be interested to compare the fat and protein ratios. I think the Inuit

probably got more fat than a tiger does, but I don't really know. Not all

animals are high in fat, but the Inuit seemed to go out of their way to get the

fattiest ones. It just seems to me very unlikely that eating a normal amount of

protein that is probably just about adequate for the body's protein needs

that they would burn a whole lot of it for glucose.

> Not " burning protein " in the sense of using up muscle tissue ... just

> converting some amino acids into glucose. When we eat meat, it

> converts into a lot of amino acids, and we typically don't need

> all of them -- some get excreted, which may be why people think

> too much protein is hard on the kidneys. If there is plenty

> of food, and no carb, wouldn't you think the person would just

> eat a little more meat to turn into glucose, if they were adapted

> for an all meat diet?

But the Inuit *didn't* consume more protein than others as a percentage of

their calories according to what I've read.

I absolutely agree -- they are using fat. Fat is great energy. The question

> is, are they getting glucose from somewhere (synthesizing it, like tigers)

> or are they always in ketosis? But like I said in a previous post, I

> can see there are two philosophies here and that makes it harder

> to resolve.

Well I think they're probably doing both, but I don't know. I thought you

were saying they were burning more protein than fat, which I disagree with. How

they're burning the fat is another matter.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>So is muscle eaten up by the acid in the blood? Is that the connection

>between ketoacidosis and muscle-wasting? In that case you aren't actually

burning

>protein for energy, but the muscle just wastes away anyway?

I'm not sure exactly when muscle gets used for energy ... it seems to be

during " emergencies " (working out too hard, getting cancer, diabetes, starvation

diets). Actually that is a big question that folks are trying to answer -- it

seems

that if cancer patients take l-glutamine they lose less muscle tissue.

>So if fat is the preferred fuel, then what's the question? A tiny bit of

>glucose could probably be gotten from glycogen in the muscle and liver tissue

>they ate, depending on how you define tiny.

That is exactly the question ... if you are on a *truly* ketogenic diet, or

work out too hard, there isn't enough glycogen (event the tiny amount),

and that is when ketones are produced. According to some people,

but the Atkins books have a different take, so it seems there are 2 camps.

But true carnivores, it seems, don't produce ketones even on a pure

meat diet.

The other question is that some folks do burn *just* glycogen, no fat --

which is why they need to eat constantly. In an ideal state a person

could live off fat+a little glycogen, and no food, for a good long

time (and seems to have trained himself to do that!).

>As far as I can tell this whole need for protein thing is quite

>controversial, as well as its relation to kidney damage. My guess is 15-20% is

necessary,

>if nothing else because it's basically a universal constant in all traditional

>societies. Moreover, if you look at the development of agriculture, humans

>had a very, very clear preference for plants that were high in protein. And if

>you look at the places where humans were unfortuanate to develop agriculture

>without local plants high in protein, like the New Guinea highlanders, you

>find canniabalism.

I agree, that one is controversial. They are doing a kind of collagen

sampling on old bones and our ancestors ate a LOT of meat.

So were they in a ketogenic state or not? That's a good question ...

>I thought that what determined an amino acids glucogenicity was its own

>composition, not presence or absence of an enzyme. Either way, what *portion*

of

>the amino acid gets turned to glucose? Unless it's the entire thing, you

>suffer from the same problem as ketosis-- it's not efficient. When you add in

the

>fact that you need a certain amount of protein for absolutely essential body

>building tasks, and you have 5 times more availalbe fat to burn, it's hardly

>efficient to avoid ketosis!

If there is carbohydrate available, then the Krebs cycle is the most

efficient, absolutely. Burn the fat plus a little glycogen. If there is no

carb, then ketosis is better because it spares muscle.

>Ok, so in " normal " life you burn fat without going into ketosis? If that's

>the case wouldn't it make more sense that the Inuit burned fat in non-ketosis

>than they burned all their protein?

You can burn fat without going into ketosis IF there is sufficient carb.

If there is extra protein in the diet and it can be turned into glucose,

that would make sense. I really don't know what happens with the Inuit,

but I'd guess it would be similar to what tigers do, if they have adapted

to a truly carnivorous diet. Our paleo ancestors may have been

more adapted as carnivores than we are too. Tigers don't " burn " their

own muscle tissue unless they are starving ... but they don't go

into ketosis either, it seems. They eat meat!

>Them and gymnasts. So anyway, I've been taking you to say that the Inuit

>burned protein for energy rather than fat. But you seem now to be saying that

>lack of ketosis is no indication of lack of fat-burning, but then still follow

>in with they must have been burning protein.

Not " burning protein " in the sense of using up muscle tissue ... just

converting some amino acids into glucose. When we eat meat, it

converts into a lot of amino acids, and we typically don't need

all of them -- some get excreted, which may be why people think

too much protein is hard on the kidneys. If there is plenty

of food, and no carb, wouldn't you think the person would just

eat a little more meat to turn into glucose, if they were adapted

for an all meat diet?

People do burn muscle under stress, which is a side issue.

You can burn fat without ketosis and without burning muscle.

>I don't know if they would go

>into ketosis, but of the available macronutrients it seems clear that they

would

>most efficiently utilize fat, because if they avoid utilizing fat, they simply

>have next to nothing available for calories for energy. Plus I'd think

>they'd be bubbling over and waddling rather than walking if they were

continuously

>storing 75% of the calories as body fat!

I absolutely agree -- they are using fat. Fat is great energy. The question

is, are they getting glucose from somewhere (synthesizing it, like tigers)

or are they always in ketosis? But like I said in a previous post, I

can see there are two philosophies here and that makes it harder

to resolve.

-- Heidi

>Chris

>

[Guest guest]

>Well I think they're probably doing both, but I don't know. I thought you

>were saying they were burning more protein than fat, which I disagree with.

How

>they're burning the fat is another matter.

>

>Chris

I probably didn't make myself clear. I was talking about two forms of

fat burning. The body DOES break down protein into various things --

I just wasn't aware it could be made readily into glucose.

What further complicates the matter is those rats in the Medscape

article -- they rigged them up so they could tell if they were burning

fats or carbs, and they seem to be able to switch between fats

and carbs within minutes. They burn carbs when they are eating,

or when they are *viewing* food. When food is removed, they

go to fats ( " within minutes " according to the article).

Now this is fascinating! Assuming they were viewing CARB food

(since that is generally what lab rats get fed), then maybe

the body is able to switch based on what seems to be available.

That is, when carbs are readily available (and carbs are often

the most scarce food, in nature) then it's best to preserve

glycogen. But if there are plenty of carbs around, then its

best to preserve fat -- the body stores only a little glycogen,

but has days (months, in the case of some of us!) worth of fat.

If that is true, then I wonder if that is why the high-fat

diets work. You are convincing your body that carbs

are rare and fats plentiful, so it switches to fat

mode more readily -- regardless of whether the

diet is truly ketogenic or not (Schwartzbein's diet,

for example, is too high in carbs to be ketogenic).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>>>>AFAIK, protein is not " burned, " but converted to glucose through

gluconeogenesis.

----->this is correct.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

Ketoacidosis is definitely different from ketosis. Both have ketones

in the urine, but in a diabetic, ketoacidosis is mainly a state of

extremely high sugar in the blood over several days (like over 500

where 60-150 is normal -- some people even go up to 1000). In a Type

II (adult onset) diabetic, they can have blood sugar as high as this,

but won't usually have ketones. In a Type I (juvenile) diabetic,

blood sugar over 240 is an alarm signal to check for ketones, for the

ketones along with the high blood sugar are a sign of life-

threatening ketoacidosis.

Although I have insulin resistance and developed diabetes at 40,

which are characteristic of Type II diabetes, the fact that I had to

go on insulin in a little over a year, and that I do get ketones in

my urine when my blood sugar is high made my doctor change my

diagnosis to Type I (late onset). But it would be very unlikely to

go into ketoacidosis through a low carb diet, even for a diabetic,

because it's eating carbs that would make blood sugar rise so high.

I suppose if a Type I diabetic totally refused to take any insulin at

all for a long time, then perhaps eventually they could develop it on

even a low carb diet, but that would be suicidal.

Ann

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <ChrisMasterjohn@a...>

>

> > But to further the point of how I don't see how ketosis could

possibly

> be

> > less efficient than protein-burning, which I think is termed

> ketoacidosis but I

> > don't know if the two are completely synonymous....

>

> They're not. Ketoacidosis is a life-threatening condition

characterized

> by dangerously high levels of ketones in the blood. This is not

caused

> by a low-carbohydrate diet, but by inadequate insulin levels in

> diabetics, and I don't think it has anything to do with consuming

> protein. AFAIK, protein is not " burned, " but converted to glucose

> through gluconeogenesis.

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:31:19 -0700

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> The other question is that some folks do burn *just* glycogen, no fat --

> which is why they need to eat constantly. In an ideal state a person

> could live off fat+a little glycogen, and no food, for a good long

> time (and seems to have trained himself to do that!).

>

LOL!

I have been fasting for about 20 years. I didn't realize I was adapting

to anything, I was just trying to make sense of all that I was reading

at the time. Most suggested you continue in your normal life, which for

me included working out.

However, Dr. Buchinger says that during a fast your need for protein

drops to about 15-20 grams a day (after about a week), and that your

body actually spares protein quite efficiently.

So on a juice fast for instance, you would be storing glycogen, burning

fat (and some glycogen), and needing very little protein. And, in my own

experience and that of others, your body adapts very very quickly.

Except for my very first fast, where I was detoxing some very bad crap,

I have experienced very little discomfort.

But Dr. Buchinger reportedly supervised thousands of fasts and

unfortunately I don't have his book to quote from him directly.

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> I have been fasting for about 20 years.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I just wanted to be the first one to urge you to consider eating

something.

(Just kidding...I find endless delight in the ambiguities of

language...)

mike parker

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 01:28:22 -0000

" Anton " <bwp@...> wrote:

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ :

> > I have been fasting for about 20 years.

> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

> I just wanted to be the first one to urge you to consider eating

> something.

>

> (Just kidding...I find endless delight in the ambiguities of

> language...)

>

> mike parker

>

Thanks Mike,

I will eat something first thing in the morning. Maybe

some of those insects you have been talking about. Sounds like a great

way to break a fast <g>.

I remember as a kid a neighbor of ours having chocolate covered insects.

I imagine they might be pretty nutritious. Certainly wouldn't need any

nuts added to the chocolates ;-)

Recall Arnold

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030812.shtml