All Meat Paleo Carnivore Diets Are Going Mainstream Big Time !

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
Metabolic and intake are both mutually inclusive. If you overeat to the point where you are severely obese, then your metabolic pathways will not function properly and there will be an excess amount of ROS that the cytosol can handle. If this happens to enough cells, then you have insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is not just a "you have it" or "you don't" thing. There are various levels of insulin resistance, from mild insulin resistance to severe, which is why when somebody adopts a lifestyle that allows him to lose weight and get weight-stable, he can slowly come off of insulin therapy, irrespective of diet. The weight loss itself does this. So "excess energy" as reductionist as it sounds, is exactly what's happening at the cell level. This is not my opinion, it's biochemistry. Refined sugars and liquid calories have nothing to do with it. These things make it easier for somebody to gain weight and become insulin resistant, but if one follows a calorie-reduced diet including lots of refined sugar and liquid calories (in the context of a calorie deficit), and loses weight, the result will remain the same, improved insulin sensitivity.

I don't really know what else I can say about this topic other than read biochemistry.
Here is a good video that describes this process in more detail:


You're confusing correlation with causation, as if often the problem when people become zealots to science (I'm not saying you're one of those people!).

People do not want to be obese - it isn't a choice. It's a reflection of their metabolic health. Appetite and hunger signals are not arbitrary things, they're signals from the body that are there for a reason, though these signals can absolutely be influenced by food choices (especially drink choices just from my observation!). So, often people are left with a choice between becoming insulin resistant and "overeating" via easily digestible and "quick" energy sources (that are providing energy and function at the cost of mineral status), or staying at a metabolic deficit which means the body shuts down various systems leaving you as a human being without real function. Anti social, poor sleep, stressed, elevated prolactin and lowered dopamine. Basically unable to function in life. People MUST function to keep going at times, so I can completely understand the choice. They're gravitating towards certain foods and drinks not because they're stupid but because they're EFFECTIVE metabolic stimulants - they provide function at a cost.

Back to the correlation vs causation point - minerals are IMPERATIVE in proper insulin production and response (though so are lifestyle issues like chewing, salivating and proper food combinations). Just a few examples via the first links on google...

Zinc, insulin and diabetes. - PubMed - NCBI

Since Zn plays a clear role in the synthesis, storage and secretion of insulin as well as conformational integrity of insulin in the hexameric form, the decreased Zn, which affects the ability of the islet cell to produce and secrete insulin, might then compound the problem, particularly in Type 2 diabetes.

Intracellular magnesium and insulin resistance. - PubMed - NCBI

Intracellular magnesium and insulin resistance. Magnesium, the second most abundant intracellular divalent cation, is a cofactor of many enzymes involved in glucose metabolism. Magnesium has an important role in insulin action, and insulin stimulates magnesium uptake in insulin-sensitive tissues.

So when you have bastardised mineral metabolism (via vitamin D deficiency, for example) you have an innate insulin resistance that has nothing to do with intake. You can MANAGE this insulin resistance via forced exercise, as people like me and @Cirion have in the past, but it comes at the cost of HPA axis dysfuction which, again, lowers your capacity to function as a human being to meet your innate needs. It drastically lowers your capacity to thrive. In an ideal world we would all have the time and space to recover and get sunshine with a support network and an understanding employer, but that's simply not the real world. Things are further complicated in that these states leave people more susceptile to bacterial imbalances or immune challenges that can overburden the liver and reduce capacity for sleep, exercise and recovery.

If you do not have the mineral status/uptake capacity to correctly respond to food inputs and produce energy via ATP, then forcing exercise will mean running on stress hormones and eventually severely impaired adrenals - you might trivialise this state as preferable to obesity (which could be argued), but it really does depend on a person's life situation and their freedom (and time to sift through information and find their own path!) to move towards recovery. I do not know if you've lived this situation, but it can be crippling.

Thank you for the video.

I think you're trivialising something that's far more complex than just stating biochemistry. Even beyond all that stuff I've written above, the assumption that our knowledge of physiology and biochemistry is even remotely complete is a dangerous one, especially when it is used to push an authoritarian understanding to a person in a position you've likely never been in. To condemn a person for their sickness.

I'm not saying personal responsibility and food choices aren't important, of course they are, I'm saying that it's a far more complex picture than you're painting. These trends we see in society aren't just people being greedy or lazy, they're people INTUITIVELY finding function as best they can in light of inaccurate information, overwhelming life stress, or lots of other factors like having too many distractions and poor access to information. People are coping as best they can in the circumstances, obesity is NOT a simple choice.

IF a person has insulin resistance and they're also overweight with decent HPA axis and general adrenal function then some forced exercise MIGHT give them the ability and clarity of mind to move towards a more balanced path, absolutely, but if a person is overweight and very very stressed (beyond the innate stress of insulin resistance) then you HAVE TO solve their mineral metabolism issues before pursuing any other path.

I so often see simple correlation in science used as a tool to condemn people in complex health situations and I'm really passionate about making sure these views are challenged. I know plenty of people that haven't once in their life thought about alcohol intake or the foods they eat. They're all from privileged backgrounds with low stress lives and they don't face obesity.

"Over" eating is not simply greed, it's an intuitive coping mechanism to find function to survive and thrive in a challenging environment - mineral metabolism is key.

I understand the point you're making and I'm not refuting that PIECE of the puzzle, but you're using a very slim piece of a very complex puzzle and using it to effectively condemn people to worse health. Looking at insulin resistance in a vacuum is not often helpful to a person's health, although in very very specific cases it might be a temporary tool, but it has to be used in the understanding it's just a coping mechanism and not a path to health!

PS: I am not obese, I'm far closer to recovery than I have been in the past but I have chosen the "lack of function" side of things as I have the time and space to do so. I'm extremely fortunate! Finding such a balance is not easy and has taken years of reflection on my experiences and reactions and sifting through information. I just wanted to assert that this isn't a defensive response and I have no vested interest in the argument - it's merely my own reflection and a very very passionate fight back against what I'm observing in the world.
 
Last edited:

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
eople do not want to be obese - it isn't a choice.
That's so wrong. You can fast and it will cure your overweight, it even reliably cures diabetes type 2, and some doctors are actually using it in practice at least in canada. With 99% success.

Appetite and hunger signals are not arbitrary things, they're signals from the body that are there for a reason
If you are healthy and in touch with your body that is very true. But you can easily become addicted to (unhealthy) food, there is much studies of gut microbiome affecting your cravings, so the bad bacteria are actually manipulating you to consume unhealthy foods that benefit their health. In addition there are aspects like leptin resistance etc. that can prevent appetite functioning correctly.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Complete fasting is even worse than regular calorie restriction... it's like calorie restrictions on steroids... it may cure your overweight but it will also: Raise cortisol through the roof, cause "adrenal fatigue", likely throw leptin even more out of whack, cause a massive weight rebound when eating does occur again, insomnia, mental problems (not being able to function in society, except through stress), among many other things. People often feel "Good" while fasting with "energy" but that's pure stress hormones and major burnout WILL occur when the fast ends. Of course there's a 99% success rate to losing weight if you don't eat at all. Again and again I see people blame obesity as the CAUSE of all disease instead of the SYMPTOM (metabolic syndrome). Fasting treats the SYMPTOM (obesity) instead of the CAUSE (metabolic syndrome). In fact, fasting makes the CAUSE worse.

Plus fasting is a great way to: Catabolize vital organs, bones, skin, etc. You're trading one problem for another. Now, there can be some merit to what some people like Charlie is doing which is basically a "fruit fast" where you eat nothing but fruit for a few weeks, but complete calorie restriction? No.

Regular calorie restrictions have some merit that I also disagree with (unless its not at all forced), but I think it should be unanimous that complete calorie fasting has no basis.

I dunno why people love to promote fasting around here even though RP has clearly stated on many occasions that it is a stressful process on the body, many of us here can not even fast through the night without stress let alone a prolonged fast.
 
Last edited:

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
RP has clearly stated that missing a meal or two is not necessarily bad. This is the most popular type of fasting, called IF. If you are healthy this does not cause you any stress since you are metabolically flexible and can effortlessly dip into ketosis, and in such a context seems to be RP approved. Once you are metabolically flexible an occasional 1-3 day fast comes naturally and feels rejuvenating.

Caloric restriction is completely different since the body starts to adapt to reduced portion size by driving down the metabolic rate. The opposite happens with fasting+ad lib refeeding. It is very anabolic.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
RP has clearly stated that missing a meal or two is not necessarily bad. This is the most popular type of fasting, called IF. If you are healthy this does not cause you any stress since you are metabolically flexible and can effortlessly dip into ketosis, and in such a context seems to be RP approved. Once you are metabolically flexible an occasional 1-3 day fast comes naturally and feels rejuvenating.

Caloric restriction is completely different since the body starts to adapt to reduced portion size by driving down the metabolic rate. The opposite happens with fasting+ad lib refeeding. It is very anabolic.

Please provide me the quote where RP says this. I do know RP has said a healthy person can fast somewhere between 12-16 hrs without problems. The keyword is healthy person. Again, many of us here (including myself) can not last the night with blood sugar, let alone 12+ hour. Someone who is unhealthy must focus on keeping blood sugar up at all times, so fasting, in any form is not recommended.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
But you most probably would be cured if you did a similar fasting intervention as they use to cure diabetes.

IIRC it was fasting for 36 hours 2 times per week until healed.

Sorry cannot provide source reference for the RP claim, i just remember him saying in one of the Q&A shows that missing a meal or two is not necessarily bad. Hopefully someone else can provide the link.
 
Last edited:

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
If that were true RP would be shouting it from the mountaintops. Anyway, Matter (glucose) must come from somewhere... It either must come from:

Food
or
Body fat / protein stores, both of which are a stressful reaction on the body.

If you can explain to me the manner in which method #2 somehow does NOT increase stress, I'd be curious to hear it.

all that said, you did give me an idea of a method of fasting that MAY be useful and that's abstaining from both protein and fats for 16 hrs a day BUT keeping a steady stream of carb intake, and not fasting from that. After all, the main benefit of fasting probably does come from not eating fat or protein, anyway (Haidut has posted a few studies explaining this mechanism), and Charlie is currently doing a Grape fast where all he eats is grapes basically and says he feels great doing that, further proof of that.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Had another look through's Zachs' success story and turns out he did a similar thing. Maybe I'm on to something. (emphasis added myself)

Beyond the diet there some nuances that i really think play an important role. The first is fasting. I dont advise anyone to do a lot of fasting but i think for some, letting digestion rest can be very invigorating to the body and mind. I never fast more then 16 hours at a time and usually have some sugars at all times to keep a constant supply of glucose going. Mainly i dont eat solid foods late at night or early in the morning. I like to eat solid foods between 10am and 6pm.

I also only eat 2 meals a day or one big grazing meal. I get the majority of calories here, aiming for 2500 or so. 3k cals is a normal day for me. I also sip on cream, maple syrup and other sugar sources throughout the morning and night.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Without more information of their background and eating habits I would wager a guess that a lot of the benefit is due to no more processed food intakes (SAD diet).

On eating days, patients are encouraged to eat a diet low in sugar and refined carbohydrates, which decreases blood glucose and insulin secretion

And if this isn't anti-Peat I don't know what is lol.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
Well, here is an actual randomized study where obese/metabolic syndrome patients were cured using the same idea. Long-term effects of a ketogenic diet in obese patients

If you have disordered glucose metabolism you need to stop glucose intake and let the body reset. Carnivore diet achieves this, so it can very well be a good intervention for a big part of society seeing how half of the population has metabolic syndrome in certain countries. Is it a better intervention than fasting? I have no clue.
 

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
Well, here is an actual randomized study where obese/metabolic syndrome patients were cured using the same idea. Long-term effects of a ketogenic diet in obese patients

If you have disordered glucose metabolism you need to stop glucose intake and let the body reset. Carnivore diet achieves this, so it can very well be a good intervention for a big part of society seeing how half of the population has metabolic syndrome in certain countries. Is it a better intervention than fasting? I have no clue.

This study tells us nothing since it isn't being compared to anything. If you compared it to an isocaloric diet of low fat, high carb it would surely show the same thing. And yes, actual randomized controlled metabolic ward studies have shown this time and time again. And the theory of carbohydrates inducing insulin resistance is wrong. Actually ketogenic diets induce insulin resistance.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
It's like you cannot read. People are being cured left and right from a chronic and progressive disease by the mechanism you think causes it.

Please present published studies where carbs or pufa cessation or whatever is used to cure diabetes? I don't know of such. But every method that prevents excess insulin reliably does cure it, as per my links.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
I can attest to keto diet inducing insulin resistance. I followed one strictly for two years. If I so much looked at a meal with more than 5 gram of carb, I would go into a carb induced coma. Seriously. It was bad lol. When I tried to wean off keto, it was not a pleasant process to say the least.

Most people are stuck in a "fat burning" mode though which is why they think they do better on keto. Even I have repeatedly been guilty of considering myself a "fat burner" which is why I started way too dietary fat starting off on RP style eating.

Have you guys not read Glucose and sucrose for diabetes. ?
 

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
You're confusing correlation with causation, as if often the problem when people become zealots to science (I'm not saying you're one of those people!).

People do not want to be obese - it isn't a choice. It's a reflection of their metabolic health. Appetite and hunger signals are not arbitrary things, they're signals from the body that are there for a reason, though these signals can absolutely be influenced by food choices (especially drink choices just from my observation!). So, often people are left with a choice between becoming insulin resistant and "overeating" via easily digestible and "quick" energy sources (that are providing energy and function at the cost of mineral status), or staying at a metabolic deficit which means the body shuts down various systems leaving you as a human being without real function. Anti social, poor sleep, stressed, elevated prolactin and lowered dopamine. Basically unable to function in life. People MUST function to keep going at times, so I can completely understand the choice. They're gravitating towards certain foods and drinks not because they're stupid but because they're EFFECTIVE metabolic stimulants - they provide function at a cost.

Back to the correlation vs causation point - minerals are IMPERATIVE in proper insulin production and response (though so are lifestyle issues like chewing, salivating and proper food combinations). Just a few examples via the first links on google...

Zinc, insulin and diabetes. - PubMed - NCBI



Intracellular magnesium and insulin resistance. - PubMed - NCBI



So when you have bastardised mineral metabolism (via vitamin D deficiency, for example) you have an innate insulin resistance that has nothing to do with intake. You can MANAGE this insulin resistance via forced exercise, as people like me and @Cirion have in the past, but it comes at the cost of HPA axis dysfuction which, again, lowers your capacity to function as a human being to meet your innate needs. It drastically lowers your capacity to thrive. In an ideal world we would all have the time and space to recover and get sunshine with a support network and an understanding employer, but that's simply not the real world. Things are further complicated in that these states leave people more susceptile to bacterial imbalances or immune challenges that can overburden the liver and reduce capacity for sleep, exercise and recovery.

If you do not have the mineral status/uptake capacity to correctly respond to food inputs and produce energy via ATP, then forcing exercise will mean running on stress hormones and eventually severely impaired adrenals - you might trivialise this state as preferable to obesity (which could be argued), but it really does depend on a person's life situation and their freedom (and time to sift through information and find their own path!) to move towards recovery. I do not know if you've lived this situation, but it can be crippling.

Thank you for the video.

I think you're trivialising something that's far more complex than just stating biochemistry. Even beyond all that stuff I've written above, the assumption that our knowledge of physiology and biochemistry is even remotely complete is a dangerous one, especially when it is used to push an authoritarian understanding to a person in a position you've likely never been in. To condemn a person for their sickness.

I'm not saying personal responsibility and food choices aren't important, of course they are, I'm saying that it's a far more complex picture than you're painting. These trends we see in society aren't just people being greedy or lazy, they're people INTUITIVELY finding function as best they can in light of inaccurate information, overwhelming life stress, or lots of other factors like having too many distractions and poor access to information. People are coping as best they can in the circumstances, obesity is NOT a simple choice.

IF a person has insulin resistance and they're also overweight with decent HPA axis and general adrenal function then some forced exercise MIGHT give them the ability and clarity of mind to move towards a more balanced path, absolutely, but if a person is overweight and very very stressed (beyond the innate stress of insulin resistance) then you HAVE TO solve their mineral metabolism issues before pursuing any other path.

I so often see simple correlation in science used as a tool to condemn people in complex health situations and I'm really passionate about making sure these views are challenged. I know plenty of people that haven't once in their life thought about alcohol intake or the foods they eat. They're all from privileged backgrounds with low stress lives and they don't face obesity.

"Over" eating is not simply greed, it's an intuitive coping mechanism to find function to survive and thrive in a challenging environment - mineral metabolism is key.

I understand the point you're making and I'm not refuting that PIECE of the puzzle, but you're using a very slim piece of a very complex puzzle and using it to effectively condemn people to worse health. Looking at insulin resistance in a vacuum is not often helpful to a person's health, although in very very specific cases it might be a temporary tool, but it has to be used in the understanding it's just a coping mechanism and not a path to health!

PS: I am not obese, I'm far closer to recovery than I have been in the past but I have chosen the "lack of function" side of things as I have the time and space to do so. I'm extremely fortunate! Finding such a balance is not easy and has taken years of reflection on my experiences and reactions and sifting through information. I just wanted to assert that this isn't a defensive response and I have no vested interest in the argument - it's merely my own reflection and a very very passionate fight back against what I'm observing in the world.

I agree with mostly what you said. I hope I didn't come off as insincere when I said "obesity is a choice." I did not mean this to imply that one who is obese should feel guilty. I have been obese myself and lost >40# so I do know what it is like. Truth is, if an obese person simply stops eating altogether, he/she will lose weight until no longer obese. Indeed, there has been a controlled study where a severely obese man lost >200# in one year while under medical supervision, while only having <200kcal/day from amino acids and also supplementing with minerals. Nobody should try this unless under the care of medical staff. But the point I'm making is, if somebody has the will to lose weight he will be able to. I made that statement not to make anybody feel guilty but to empower them.

I have helped hundreds of people lose weight in practice and I know that weight loss depends on energy expenditure>energy intake. So the CICO concept is true in that regard. What the CICO concept does not take into account is that different people have different metabolic rates. Peat has stated this many time, so this idea does not go against the conceptual arguments presented all throughout this forum. One woman could have a BMR of 1000kcal/day while another woman at the same weight and body composition could have a BMR of 1300kcal/day.

So you at least have to concede that calories do matter. The goal that I strive for when working with people is to help them get to a point where they are not metabolically broken. In other words, I try to help them get to a place where they are burning the most amount of calories as possible while at a healthy body weight. As @Cirion and I have discussed, sometimes somebody may actually have to increase calorie intake first in order to have the motivation to exercise. I would agree with him on that 100%. But also, in my experience, I work with people who don't have the ability to wait six months, a year, etc to "get healthy" and improve metabolism first. In a medical setting where people are 100+ pounds overweight, and have multiple co-morbidities, it is totally indicated to go on a reduced calorie diet in order to help them live a longer life. These people are more interested in making it to next year, let alone improving metabolic rate. So in many cases somebody has to temporarily go on a reduced calorie diet, and transiently lower metabolism, leptin levels, etc and then hold their weight for a period of time, sometimes 1 to 2 years until leptin, thyroid hormone, ghrelin, etc levels reset. I am in no way saying this process is easy, which is why it helps to have medical expert supervision and support from dietitians/nutritionists etc to make this process easier.

With biochemistry, I am not implying that biochemistry is > than everything else. But I do think it is of utmost importance to understand the mechanism behind things before anybody can make any claims of causation. As you said, correlation does not equal causation. Not sure where you found that I am implying correlation to equal causation. To give you an example of why mechanism is very important: Just look at the vegan anti-saturated fat and cholesterol zealots. They use inferential research, correlative data, and epidemiology to support their arguments that LDL cholesterol causes heart disease. They choose to ignore the data that say being overweight or obese is highly correlated with elevated levels of LDL cholesterol. Therefore, when looking at Dean Ornish' research that shows adopting an Ornish program lowers LDL cholesterol and reverses atherosclerosis, how do we know that it isn't the weight loss itself that causes the reversal of atherosclerosis? We don't, but vegans consistently claim in a reductionist way, that it is LDL cholesterol lowering that does it. What about the fact that Ornish' program incorporates meditation, stress reduction, calorie restriction, and regular exercise? Could these confounders possibly be even more helpful to lowering cholesterol than adopting a vegan diet? Probably. Furthermore, as somebody who follow's Peat's work, I'm sure you've read the works of Dr. Broda Barnes and have seen research showing that hypothyroidism increases LDL cholesterol, and improving thyroid hormone status or taking a thyroid supplement lowers LDL cholesterol again. How do we know whether elevated LDL levels are more likely to be the result of hypothyroidism than saaturated fat intake? We don't.

So this is why it is very important to understand the mechanism of why things work before making any claims such as "elevated insulin and high carb intake causes insulin resistance and type II diabetes." This statement is irrevocably wrong. It's not supported by biochemistry, it's not supported by empirical or epidemiological data, it's not supported by randomized controlled metabolic ward research, etc... Just take a gander at the most recent research by the NUSI in order to see this.
 
Last edited:

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
It's like you cannot read. People are being cured left and right from a chronic and progressive disease by the mechanism you think causes it.

Please present published studies where carbs or pufa cessation or whatever is used to cure diabetes? I don't know of such. But every method that prevents excess insulin reliably does cure it, as per my links.

You're an idiot. I clearly can read research. All your links show is that one can MANAGE type II DM with a low carb diet. Why? Because lowering total glucose load, you don't need as much insulin to manage it. It does nothing to cure diabetes as evidenced by the fact that people on ketogenic diets consistently fail oral glucose tolerance tests. You're the one making ridiculous claims saying people can be "cured" by following a carnivore diet. Please present research where a carnivore diet "cures" diabetes. I am the only one here presenting biochemistry and mechanistic evidence of why the carbohydrate theory of insulin resistance is wrong. Carbs are absolutely not the cause of insulin resistance as you so vehemently state. Here is some good supporting research you're asking for:

Most recent news on the topic: NUSI Ketogenic Studies:
(1) Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men
Gary Taube's funded metabolic ward study: 17 participants in a metabolic ward for 4 weeks on a high carb baseline diet followed by 4 weeks of a ketogenic diet with clamped protein: Utilizing DLW, doubly labeled water; DXA, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, researchers measured weight loss and fat loss changes. Both diets resulted in weight loss and body fat. The isocaloric ketogenic diet phase did not show any more fat loss. The subjects lost 0.8 ± 0.2 kg (P = 0.002) of body weight over the last 15 d of the BD period (Figure 2A) with 0.5 ± 0.1 kg (P = 0.005) of this unintentional weight loss coming from body fat (Figure 2B). The body weight and composition changes indicated an overall state of negative energy balance that was calculated to be −373 ± 97 kcal/d (P = 0.002) by using standard coefficients for the energy densities of body fat and fat-free mass (18) as shown in Figure 2C. Introduction of the KD was followed by a rapid additional 1.6 ± 0.2 kg of weight loss (P < 0.0001), likely primarily the result of body water loss because fat mass decreased by only 0.2 ± 0.1 kg (P = 0.09) over the next 15 d. Over the entire 28-d KD period, the total weight lost was 2.2 ± 0.3 kg (P < 0.0001), with 0.5 ± 0.2 kg (P = 0.03) from loss of body fat. The energy imbalance during the last 2 wk of the KD was calculated to be −242 ± 94 kcal/d (P = 0.02; Figure 2C) and was not significantly different from the last 2 wk of the BD period (P = 0.33).

(2) The second NuSI-funded diet trial has arrived
12 month free-living study, where researchers told participants to eat either a high carb low fat (20g/day) or a high fat low carb (20g/day diet).
Both diets caused similar weight and fat loss at 12 months (-5.3 kg [-12 lb] for LF vs. -6.0 kg [-13 lb] for LC). These are better 12-month results than most diet trials.


In patient metabolic balance study: 19 obese adults confined to metabolic ward for two 2 week periods. The authors in this study suggest that in isocaloric diets, dietary fat restriction results in more weight loss than dietary carb restriction. This is food for thought. It obviously has it's limitations, being short-term. Using double labeled water methods and using metabolic chambers. The most sensitive method for detecting the rate of body fat change requires calculating daily fat balance as the difference between fat intake and net fat oxidation (i.e., fat oxidation minus de novo lipogenesis) measured by indirect calorimetry while residing in a metabolic chamber. Several days of the RF diet led to a steady fat imbalance of 840 ± 60 kcal/day, or equivalently 89 ± 6 g/day of body fat loss (Figure 3A), which was significantly greater than the steady rate of body fat loss of 500 ± 60 kcal/day, or 53 ± 6 g/day, achieved during the RC diet (p = 0.0002) (Figure 3A). In contrast, the RC diet led to significantly greater transient carbohydrate imbalance (Figure 3B) with little difference in protein balance (Figure 3C) compared with the RF diet.
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2

8 obese subjects in a metabolic ward of the clinical research center at the univ of vermont were followed for 8 weeks with isocaloric diets. This study compares isocaloric high carb vs. ketogenic diets. Weight loss was higher for the keto group initially, which later leveled off. Fat loss was about the same in both groups. LC diet was 1% CHO. Group A lost 4.8% and group B lost 5.7% fat loss.
Comparison of carbohydrate-containing and carbohydrate-restricted hypocaloric diets in the treatment of obesity. Endurance and metabolic fuel homeostasis during strenuous exercise.

This study compares similar protein intakes and either high-carb or low-carb diets for six weeks:
https://proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-...t-loss-with-low-or-hgh-carbohydrate-diets.pdf

Noakes et al, nutrition metabolism. 83 subjects for 4 weeks. This study compares Low carb/High carb diets and fat loss. Authors conclude fat loss is similar among diets. Metabolic ward with 30% energy restricted, isocaloric diets (6000kj for 8 weeks).
Isocaloric VLCARB results in similar fat loss than diets low in saturated fat, but are more effective in improving triacylglycerols, HDL-C, fasting and post prandial glucose and insulin concentrations. VLCARB may be useful in the short-term management of subjects with insulin resistance and hypertriacylglycerolemia. % fat loss of VLCARB diet was 4.5% vs 4.0% for the very low fat diet.
Comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk

This is a meta-analysis of 23 long-term RCTs comparing high carb and low carb diets. The authors conclude both are effective for weight loss: Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials
Our findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective as low-fat diets for weight loss, regardless of gender, age, length of intervention, diabetes status, and level of carbohydrate restriction. In the present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing low-carbohydrate diets with low-fat diets, we found that both diets were equally effective at reducing body weight and waist circumference. Both diets reduced participants' blood pressures, total to HDL cholesterol ratios, and total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood glucose, and serum insulin levels and raised HDL cholesterol; however, participants on low-carbohydrate diets had greater increases in HDL cholesterol and greater decreases in triglycerides but experienced less reduction in total and LDL cholesterol compared with persons on low-fat diets. These findings have important clinical and public health implications. Over the past several decades, low-fat diets have been recommended to the public for weight loss primarily because of their beneficial effects on metabolic risk factors (4). Our study suggests that low-carbohydrate diets might provide an alternative approach for weight reduction without worsening metabolic risk factors.
 

Runenight201

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
1,942
At the end of the day CICO always holds true, but the type of food consumed can make the weight loss a physiologically or psychologically miserable process, or make it a pleasant journey towards higher health.
 

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
To those of you who would non-dogmatically like to understand the "Peat-approved" concept of why it is not a good idea to be a "fat burner" I highly suggest you take a look at Dr. Mamounis' article here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...nd_PUFA_Why_You_Don't_Want_to_be_a_Fat_Burner

Kyle is a good friend of mine and a PhD who follows Peat's work. Basically we all have two choices of fuel: Mostly fat or mostly carbs. When we run on mostly fat (as in the case of a ketogenic diet), we activate the catacholamines (epinepherine/norepinepherine) transiently to induce gluconeogenesis, break down muscle tissue to supply the body with it's need for glucose. At the same time we increase glucagon. As the weeks and months go on, we have increased levels of cortisol and decreased insulin levels. This is at the expense of thyroid hormone conversion of T4 to T3, as liver glycogen is part of the activation energy required for optimal use of the deiodinase enzymes.

So the hormonal environment of someone on a keto diet is described below:
>catacholamines
>cortisol
<Insulin
<thyroid hormone

The hormonal enviroment of someone on a diet with sufficient carbs is described below:
<catacholamines
<cortisol
>insulin levels
>thyroid hormone levels

Now don't take this to mean that somebody on a higher carb diet has uncontrollable levels of insulin. Super high insulin levels as in the case of insulin resistance has more to do with prolonged excess energy intake and inactivity. Excess energy overburdens the mitochondria, excessive amounts of H2O2 and superoxide inhibit glucose transporters and voltage gated ion channels (that allow fatty acids to enter the mitochondrion). Rejecting energy from entering the cell causes hyperglycemia. So as long as somebody is not on an obesogenic diet (i.e. a hyper-palatable, hypercaloric diet such as the SAD diet), and as long as somebody is not overconsuming calories more than the mitochondria can handle then he can handle carbohydrates no problem, in the context of caloric maintenance.

By the way, going back to what I said above, the catacholamines are elevated by a keto diet (or carnivore diet for that matter). Catacholamines have the ability to make one feel euphoric and alert in the same way that cocaine or caffeine can. Peat has wrote about this many times. Increased catacholamines can mask how one really feels. So if one really is tired, catacholamines can inappropriately raise energy during a time when somebody really should feel sleepy and go to bed. Increased catacholamines is in general a stress response and no way to live long term in my opinion. This is why it is not surprising to me why so many people on the carnivore diet are complaining about poor sleep. It can make you feel wired but tired. This is exactly how I felt when I tried it 8 years ago when I followed vonderplanitz. It did not cure me of anything and was the worst I ever felt on any diet.
 
Last edited:

stevrd

Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
240
At the end of the day CICO always holds true, but the type of food consumed can make the weight loss a physiologically or psychologically miserable process, or make it a pleasant journey towards higher health.

Agree 100%
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
I still think some level of hypercaloric intake is required to heal from Hypo, and that calorie restriction isn't the answer to that, except perhaps in the most extreme of cases and even then I dunno, but we already agree to disagree on that and that's cool, since otherwise we mostly agree. I think most of the dangers from hypercaloric intake is the type of foods used in overfeeding (and on that, I think we all agree).

I have to eat 5000 calories to bring my waking temps to anything decent (Did 100 gram fat, 200 gram protein, 800 gram carb yesterday) and got my waking temp to 98.3F this morning.

I am hoping eventually that will level off as my body learns to use carbs again though, at which point I won't need 800 grams of carbs anymore lol. Am also trying to get my fast down from 100g to lower, but so far that's as low as I can tolerate, but I did get just 4 gram of PUFA yesterday so I consider that a win.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom