If You're Sedentery You Will Have A Slow Metabolism

[TripleOG]

There's a slight exercise phobia on here that's odd considering most have weight gain problems adapting to Peat-inspired eating.

Not being sedentary doesn't mean spending 2hrs in the gym swimming in lactate everyday. Simple walking, and activities of similar intensity, are great and restorative.

 

[tara]

Ok, agree, but thata a new factor... 1) diet, 2) moving and 3)being outside in the sun... my queation is still on, ok youre outside, perfect diet... and then just resting... will you have a fast metabolism and good healt, or is it still more important to move...

I think life goes better for most people with appropriate movement - we are designed to move, and some of our systems depend on it for good health. But I don't know that everyone benefits from specific hard 'training' or 'exercising'.

Where people are at metabolically varies. There are times when some people do better resting and recovering and avoiding strenuous exercise, while others can thrive with lots of running, climbing, lifting, etc, and others get just what they need from gardening, walking, playing with children, dancing, daily tasks, etc.

For people recovering from severe prolonged energy deficit (eg post-famine, restrictive eating, extreme over-exercise etc), the body can need a prolonged period without exercise in order to rebuild itself. (I expect some movement is still good for pretty much anyone who can move.)

 

[tara]

Healthy people do move a lot. But I'd argue its correlation not causation. Moving doesn't really result in good health. More accurately, healthy people have excess energy and that's precisely WHY they move a lot, because they have energy to spare.

I think you are proposing causation. And you probably have a point.

How can you have lot of stamina and be low energy?

Isn't it established that people who do a lot of long distance running can train themselves till they get slow heart rates and low resting body temps? These are adaptations to sustain long running, but not necessarily longevity, and not high energy for the whole metabolism (but use energy while running).

Exercise is a stimulus, but if the body doesn't have the energy or the resources to correctly adapt to that stimulus, then it won't build a lot of muscle.

+1

What is a marker of metabolism?

Some DIY markers include: resting body temps, resting heartrate, maintenance calorie consumption (relative to work), ...

Exercise is stress, if it's not overwhelming, it often leads to a positive adaptation.
...

+1

 

[baccheion]

I think you are proposing causation. And you probably have a point.

Isn't it established that people who do a lot of long distance running can train themselves till they get slow heart rates and low resting body temps? These are adaptations to sustain long running, but not necessarily longevity, and not high energy for the whole metabolism (but use energy while running).


+1

Some DIY markers include: resting body temps, resting heartrate, maintenance calorie consumption (relative to work), ...


+1

What heart rate?

 

[tara]

What heart rate?

Resting. Along with other markers, it can be part of a picture about base metabolism. Officially bradycardia in an adult is under 60bpm. But Peat has suggested people with really healthy metabolisms usually have higher - more like 80ish.
Heart rate is also affected by stress hormones, so monitoring at different times can help distinguish whether it's being kept up by thyroid metabolism or more by adrenaline etc.

I think Peat has said that when metabolism is being restored, heart rate can lag behind body temps.

 

[Collden]

Ok, but how you exercise, when you just don`t have the energy for it? How one can build those muscles (very necessary, agreed) when the only action he can take on certain days is to drag himself to the bathroom/kitchen and back to bed?

IMO:

1) Use light weights, light enough that you can:
2) Do slow and perfectly controlled movements, so controlled that you could potentially pause at any point in the movement and then resume
3) Don't try to reach a particular number of reps, just keep going till you feel you've had enough

For any exercise find the weight that is just heavy enough to give some resistance without forcing you to heave, swing, strain or recruit other muscles than those you want to target. If you find that sweet spot you may find you actually enjoy the feeling of using your muscles.

I think lifting weights in this way focusing on form, control and mind-muscle connection while forgetting about numbers like how heavy or how many reps, is the way to sustainably build up your muscles without trashing your body.

Perfect form, keeping the rest of your body still while your targeted muscles do the lifting, means the other muscles in your body will work as stabilizers rather than inadvertently participate in lifting the weight and this will overtime help to correct muscular imbalances incurred due to bad form in the past.

Its the same reason why practices like Yoga and Qigong are considered universally health-promoting - because they focus on developing balance, stability, muscular control and mind-muscle awareness.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Lipid metabolism in the elderly. - PubMed - NCBI

Adrenergically stimulated fat utilization and ageing. - PubMed - NCBI

Thanks for the studies.

Regarding the first one, they don't say that just FAO is lowered, they only say that FAO is lowered, no mention of the rate of glucose oxidation. That means that old people overall burn less fuel, including fat, but, as per the other study I mentioned, the RATE at which fat is burned by young and old cells is about the same, so that means, as I see it, that old people have much less active tissue, including muscle, so naturally they burn less fuel, but at the same rate.

Regarding the second one, Ray has said that ageing is similar to a whole-body diabetes, and diabetics have an increased amount of fat production, as well as lipolysis , much more than non-diabetic people. The study even says that old people have excessive FFAs in the blood, which are likely PUFAs due to life-long accumulation through consumption of corn oil and soybean oil. And this study is a review, which means they can leave out studies that contradict their purposes and include studies that cannot be replicated. Also, they show no proof that old people metabolize fat at a slower rate, they just state as if it were true, and then ignore the studies showing the opposite

 

[baccheion]

Thanks for the studies.

Regarding the first one, they don't say that just FAO is lowered, they only say that FAO is lowered, no mention of the rate of glucose oxidation. That means that old people overall burn less fuel, including fat, but, as per the other study I mentioned, the RATE at which fat is burned by young and old cells is about the same, so that means, as I see it, that old people have much less active tissue, including muscle, so naturally they burn less fuel, but at the same rate.

Regarding the second one, Ray has said that ageing is similar to a whole-body diabetes, and diabetics have an increased amount of fat production, as well as lipolysis , much more than non-diabetic people. The study even says that old people have excessive FFAs in the blood, which are likely PUFAs due to life-long accumulation through consumption of corn oil and soybean oil. And this study is a review, which means they can leave out studies that contradict their purposes and include studies that were cannot be replicated. Also, they show no proof that old people metabolize fat at a slower rate, they just state as if it were true, and then ignore the studies showing the opposite

Would staying lean reduce PUFA accumulation and FFA in a relevant way? What body fat is then a good target? What if one remained lean and ate "normally" (ie, didn't watch PUFA intake)? Would it then matter?

Thw diabetes thing makes megadose vitamin D3 (+ K2 + magnesium) and iodine protocol sound like good ideas, as they aid in maintaining insulin sensitivity.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Would staying lean reduce PUFA accumulation and FFA in a relevant way? What body fat is then a good target? What if one remained lean and ate "normally" (ie, didn't watch PUFA intake)? Would it then matter?

Thw diabetes thing makes megadose vitamin D3 (+ K2 + magnesium) and iodine protocol sound like good ideas, as they aid in maintaining insulin sensitivity.

I don't know. In theory, it should make less room for PUFA accumulation, so doing a PUFA depletion diet would work much faster for a lean person than for a fat person, so, in that sense, yes, being lean is better when it comes to PUFA accumulation. But if a very lean person eats a lot of PUFA, especially if their fat stores are already saturated with it, all that PUFA will be burned by various parts of the body, likely causing quite a bit of damage to them. At least that's how I see it. That would explain why people who are overweight have less problems on a standard american diet, since they have more room to store the PUFA and keep it away from organs such as the pancreas or the heart.

About the FFAs, I think it depends how someone got to be lean. If they are lean due to fasting and ketogenic diets, then their FFAs will high, even if they're lean, but if someone is lean due to correct hormonal situation, as well as due to lots of CO2 and sufficient carb intake, then yes, they will lower FFAs circulating in the blood.

I'd say as lean as you can get without sacrificing muscle mass, libido, sleep and digestion and without eating less food than you crave. For healthy young people, that's probably between 10% and 20%, but for older people, maybe more is better.

Oh yeah, vitamin D3 is great for blood sugar control. When I don't sunbathe for many weeks and stop supplementing D3, I notice an increase in water retention, same thing with K2. Magnesium deficiency, in my experience, causes very bad mood and poor sleep. These symptoms could be caused by less ATP and CO2 due to inefficient use of carbs, so anyone with blood sugar problems should probably try these substances. I haven't looked into iodine very much at all yet, but I used to drink kelp tea some years ago when I wasn't eating sugar and would make me really hot and it would also lower my blood sugar, so I can see it improving insulin sensitivy.

 

[baccheion]

I don't know. In theory, it should make less room for PUFA accumulation, so doing a PUFA depletion diet would work much faster for a lean person than for a fat person, so, in that sense, yes, being lean is better when it comes to PUFA accumulation. But if a very lean person eats a lot of PUFA, especially if their fat stores are already saturated with it, all that PUFA will be burned by various parts of the body, likely causing quite a bit of damage to them. At least that's how I see it. That would explain why people who are overweight have less problems on a standard american diet, since they have more room to store the PUFA and keep it away from organs such as the pancreas or the heart.

About the FFAs, I think it depends how someone got to be lean. If they are lean due to fasting and ketogenic diets, then their FFAs will high, even if they're lean, but if someone is lean due to correct hormonal situation, as well as due to lots of CO2 and sufficient carb intake, then yes, they will lower FFAs circulating in the blood.

I'd say as lean as you can get without sacrificing muscle mass, libido, sleep and digestion and without eating less food than you crave. For healthy young people, that's probably between 10% and 20%, but for older people, maybe more is better.

Oh yeah, vitamin D3 is great for blood sugar control. When I don't sunbathe for many weeks and stop supplementing D3, I notice an increase in water retention, same thing with K2. Magnesium deficiency, in my experience, causes very bad mood and poor sleep. These symptoms could be caused by less ATP and CO2 due to inefficient use of carbs, so anyone with blood sugar problems should probably try these substances. I haven't looked into iodine very much at all yet, but I used to drink kelp tea some years ago when I wasn't eating sugar and would make me really hot and it would also lower my blood sugar, so I can see it improving insulin sensitivy.

What protects against damage when depleting/burning PUFAs? Or is there a way to deplete without them being burnt up? How good is the protection?

 

[milkboi]

What protects against damage when depleting/burning PUFAs? Or is there a way to deplete without them being burnt up? How good is the protection?

Vitamin E, Taurine, zinc, selenium are protective IIRC (I’m not 100% sure about the latter two). I don’t think you can totally negate the damage.

 

[Cirion]

What protects against damage when depleting/burning PUFAs? Or is there a way to deplete without them being burnt up? How good is the protection?

Ideally, you wouldn't burn PUFA at all. The liver can "disable" and purge fat via stool or urine without burning it. Burning PUFA always detrimentally affects the metabolic rate, regardless if you eat SFA or supplement VE or whatever. Just maybe a little less so.

This is why blocking FAO (burning of fats) is critical, at least while in the PUFA depletion phase. I'm using Pyrucet to accomplish this, but Orlistat and Mildronate would be even more powerful ways to block FAO.

If you block FAO by 100% you can indeed more or less negate 100% of the effects. This is the safest way to purge PUFA. Mildronate and DNP are pretty much the only things that block FAO by 100%. Coincidentally they are pretty much the best fat lowering drugs too (which seems paradoxical until you understand that burning fat is not the only way to remove it).

 

[Braveheart]

IMO:

1) Use light weights, light enough that you can:
2) Do slow and perfectly controlled movements, so controlled that you could potentially pause at any point in the movement and then resume
3) Don't try to reach a particular number of reps, just keep going till you feel you've had enough

For any exercise find the weight that is just heavy enough to give some resistance without forcing you to heave, swing, strain or recruit other muscles than those you want to target. If you find that sweet spot you may find you actually enjoy the feeling of using your muscles.

I think lifting weights in this way focusing on form, control and mind-muscle connection while forgetting about numbers like how heavy or how many reps, is the way to sustainably build up your muscles without trashing your body.

Perfect form, keeping the rest of your body still while your targeted muscles do the lifting, means the other muscles in your body will work as stabilizers rather than inadvertently participate in lifting the weight and this will overtime help to correct muscular imbalances incurred due to bad form in the past.

Its the same reason why practices like Yoga and Qigong are considered universally health-promoting - because they focus on developing balance, stability, muscular control and mind-muscle awareness.

That's Body by Science....

 

[milkboi]

Ideally, you wouldn't burn PUFA at all. The liver can "disable" and purge fat via stool or urine without burning it. Burning PUFA always detrimentally affects the metabolic rate, regardless if you eat SFA or supplement VE or whatever. Just maybe a little less so.

This is why blocking FAO (burning of fats) is critical, at least while in the PUFA depletion phase. I'm using Pyrucet to accomplish this, but Orlistat and Mildronate would be even more powerful ways to block FAO.

If you block FAO by 100% you can indeed more or less negate 100% of the effects. This is the safest way to purge PUFA. Mildronate and DNP are pretty much the only things that block FAO by 100%. Coincidentally they are pretty much the best fat lowering drugs too (which seems paradoxical until you understand that burning fat is not the only way to remove it).

By what mechanism does the body get rid of MORE body fat when FAO is blocked? Why is glucuronidation increased?

 

[redsun]

What protects against damage when depleting/burning PUFAs? Or is there a way to deplete without them being burnt up? How good is the protection?

Depending on body fat, you could never possibly remove all the PUFA "safely" within an even mildly reasonable amount of time. If your overweight this becomes impractical if not impossible. The "damage" can be reversed. A VLF diet would lower body fat and PUFA stores pretty quickly. Its important to have adequate protective nutrients like Vitamin E, B6, zinc, other antioxidants if one wants to deplete PUFA.

@Cirion I believe I read from haidut you need very good vitamin E status to effectively remove PUFA. Without that I dont it works well at all. The RDA is definitely not nearly enough to meet this need, especially considering PUFAs themselves increase Vitamin E requirements.

As for DNP, you lose the fat by oxidizing it. It reduces the efficiency of ATP production, therefore you make way less ATP and your body tries to burn through its energy reserves to make more ATP to compensate. So you are oxidizing fat with uncouplers like DNP, just a lot of is wasted as heat and not being turned to ATP.

 

[Cirion]

Depending on body fat, you could never possibly remove all the PUFA "safely" within an even mildly reasonable amount of time. If your overweight this becomes impractical if not impossible. The "damage" can be reversed. A VLF diet would lower body fat and PUFA stores pretty quickly. Its important to have adequate protective nutrients like Vitamin E, B6, zinc, other antioxidants if one wants to deplete PUFA.

@Cirion I believe I read from haidut you need very good vitamin E status to effectively remove PUFA. Without that I dont it works well at all. The RDA is definitely not nearly enough to meet this need, especially considering PUFAs themselves increase Vitamin E requirements.

As for DNP, you lose the fat by oxidizing it. It reduces the efficiency of ATP production, therefore you make way less ATP and your body tries to burn through its energy reserves to make more ATP to compensate. So you are oxidizing fat with uncouplers like DNP, just a lot of is wasted as heat and not being turned to ATP.

Yeah I mean I would still take VE (I have been lately). 2000 mg a day can be used as a practical upper limit of how much may be needed even in extreme cases. That's maybe 3 pills of my VE supplement which is like 1000 IU. Although the Schute brothers used dosages as high as 5-6000 mg I think.

I don't know how DNP works, but I know mildronate you do NOT oxidize the fat. Obi-wan said he literally craps out the fat with mildronate (sorry if tmi lol).

It's literally impossible to burn fat with FAO blockers, that's the whole point, so I don't see how you can burn fat with an FAO blocker. Now pyrucet only blocks about 50%, so you still get some FAO, but not as much.

 

[Collden]

That's Body by Science....

Have not read the book but yes it seems similar in parts, with the emphasis on time under tension and slow controlled movement. Not sure I would do it quite that extreme, it sounds pretty miserable. I think lifting weights should be enjoyable if you're doing it right, so you should want to do it more than 12 minutes a week.

 

[Adrienlcrx]

Do you want to say that k2 improve insulin sensitity @Rafael Lao Wai ? Mk4 ?

 

[Braveheart]

Have not read the book but yes it seems similar in parts, with the emphasis on time under tension and slow controlled movement. Not sure I would do it quite that extreme, it sounds pretty miserable. I think lifting weights should be enjoyable if you're doing it right, so you should want to do it more than 12 minutes a week.

It is not extreme or miserable at all...on the contrary...working every muscle in my body...15 minutes 3 times a week is working well for me at the moment...what could be easier?

 

[Kingpinguin]

That's it. Nothing to add...

Even fuel consuption in cars is low if they dont move fast (lot of moving), dont drive, or dont accelerate a lot (hit)

Your mobile phone does not use up much energy if its just on stand by,

Why should sedentery humas then have a fast metabolism...

When you sit around you dont burn much, when you go into deficit by 300cal while siting, then you get easily defficient, not just by calories but by other factors


If you use 6000 calories with moving, then you can eat 5.700 calories, use fat, and still have enough energy, minerals and macros for hormones, digestion and so on...

So your metabolism (engine), while moving and eating, will be a hardcore machine that burns, but if you sit around and eat, you slow down, your digestion slows, you get slugish, constipated, stuffed, blocked (like a engine full of garbage-fuel and dust that wasnt burned fully because of slow driving)

Also while moving and training you dont need to eat, its even hard to train after a big meal, if you are hungry you can start moving and hunger goes away, and you can eat later... there is no need to go low calories, only not to be stuffed and blocked with undigested food, or a super full thummy all the time

Excercize is stress and bad because its often done with low calories, from people trying to lose weight... or with overtraining... also when your metabolism gets slow, when you stuff your self with lots of food you cant really be good at moving... but with time that should chage, slow increase in moving and calories, not siting and constant increase in food... i never see advices here to move, to train, mostly just diet...
Why should you be sedentery and your body and metabolism should work faster and better as when you move... makes no seanse... if you want to burn more calories (and eat more) move more... (so im not claiming to go to a bigger deficit or to go for a defficit at all)

I'm just thinking, not that i did it and became super healthy...
I want to eat like crazy and rest and get ripped just saying :)

Wrong. If you move to hard you will release adrenaline and cortisol which can help you burn fat and calories just like a positive metabolic state. I would like to call em negative and positive metabolisms. Positive metabolism is an anabolic enviroment for the body where you supply it with glucose and protein keeping stress down and thyroid up. You can still exercise in this state you just have to learn to be able to know when you start shifting into the negative stop and let your body rest from exercise. Its like the car example. A moving car in the right gear will have power and strength to spin the wheels easily. While if you put the car in 1st or 2nd gear and push pedal to the metal then thats more describing the over-exercising state. The RPM is too high and the motor wont feel good. Likely statt coming smoke out of it.