tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post6129199593259013121..comments2024-03-28T11:29:46.845-07:00Comments on Whole Health Source: A Serious Challenge to the 2012 Low-carbohydrate "Metabolic Advantage" StudyStephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-86481480059933476542016-09-30T13:24:42.833-07:002016-09-30T13:24:42.833-07:00Hi Stephan. I would be very interested in your vie...Hi Stephan. I would be very interested in your views concerning the recently published results of research by Samantaha Solon Biets into carb protein ratios. These would seems to line up very much with your ideas concerning protein's value for younger people in reproductive years but not for post 50-y-olds where longevity is the goal. Jenxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09989211890876199653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-57576057063263659582016-06-27T16:58:54.039-07:002016-06-27T16:58:54.039-07:00Hi Karl,
Look at it this way. The study Janus ci...Hi Karl,<br /><br />Look at it this way. The study Janus cited measured CHO oxidation shortly after a meal. It didn't measure 24 hr CHO oxidation. If you eat low-glycemic carbs, you oxidize less CHO now and more later because the blood glucose curve is shifted. 24-hr CHO oxidation remains the same.<br /><br />This has to be the case, because the body has a very limited ability to store CHO, and the storage space can't expand infinitely like body fat. What this means is that in the long run, you oxidize exactly the same amount of CHO you ingest, whether that CHO is high or low glycemic. It is literally physically impossible to oxidize less CHO than you consume over a prolonged period of time, unless you're diabetic and you're pissing it out, simply because the body is incapable of accumulating CHO so intake always equals oxidation.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-89438968666639181502016-06-27T02:59:50.112-07:002016-06-27T02:59:50.112-07:00Slightly off topic, but an N=1 experiment in progr...Slightly off topic, but an N=1 experiment in progress is that of Andrew Taylor, or " spud fit" he is on day 180 ish of a full year just eating potatoes.....thus far he has lost 90+ pounds, or 0.5lb per day! Eating approximately 3.5kg of spuds per day. <br />A case in point of 90% plus CHO diet with extremely low reward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-71077897389423865252016-06-26T06:05:56.881-07:002016-06-26T06:05:56.881-07:00@nigel Figure 20 in the following breaks out fats ...@nigel Figure 20 in the following breaks out fats by type from 1909-2000.<br /><br />http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/nutrient_content_of_the_us_food_supply/FoodSupply1909-2000.pdf<br /><br />The lines waver from year to year, but if you lay a straightedge through PUFA and MUFA both are uptrending from 1970-2000. MUFA has a stronger uptrend through the 1990's, and represents the largest single contribution to total fat consumed. According to the USDA analysis this represents increasing use of higher MUFA vegetable oils such as olive and canola for salads and frying. The MUFA contribution from meats, poultry and fish has been steadily declining.<br /><br />So while PUFA consumption is flat in the 1990's it does not indicate any flattening in overall vegetable fat consumption, just a shift in the type of vegetable fat.thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-40500925094331877032016-06-24T20:30:52.805-07:002016-06-24T20:30:52.805-07:00@Stephan
Sorry - but I'm not following your n...@Stephan <br />Sorry - but I'm not following your narrative. Janus said that there is <b>more fat oxidized</b> - you are saying " the body ends up <b>burning the same amount</b> of carbohydrate and <b>fat</b> over a 24-hour period, " I think you mean something other than what it sounds like you mean?<br /><br />I would expect that 'more fats are oxidized' (very small change) to be true due because our bodies adaption to exposure to high levels of carbs (unless you think all of Phinney's papers are wrong?) - this study had periods of only 3-days (I'm not impressed by the design - we need to be doing synthetic diets - under real controlled conditions (people tend to cheat) for longer periods). 3-days is enough to start having an effect if the peak exposure to carbs matters (I'm doubt the effect is linear - but don't think we know). <br /><br />That being said - I'm not impressed by low GI diets as not only does the area under the curve matter - but low GI diets are digested so slowly, that they interfere with the induction of insulin resistance during sleep in the morning hours (needed to lose weight). A meal high in complex carbs at bed time can prevent reaching the normal ketosis by morning.<br /><br />Somewhat higher BG all the time vs spikes might have some advantage for other disease processes - several bits become toxic only when BG is over a certain threshold. We don't want to forget <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933690" rel="nofollow"> this paper </a> - I remember but can't find another paper that had to do with iron overload vs BG. Even postprandial BG spikes over 110 increase processes that are probably not healthy. ( fit children - fit adults - my father when he was 88 (not over weight (avoided deep-fried food) will maintain BG under 110. The limit I've seen in the medical community of 140 produces cognitive dissonance and makes my head hurt. Seems to be based on averages - not health.) <br /><br />Now if someone gets overweight - it appears one <b>symptom</b> is that the body responds by losing insulin sensitivity (which should produce weight loss). If the medical community responds by giving meds to lower BG (instead of diets), weight loss becomes difficult or impossible. Eating diets high in PUFA (particularly LA) will reduce BG - but apparently at the expense of maintaining or increasing obesity. If the 600-day half life of LA in adipocytes is true - cause and effect are greatly separated in time - reducing the likely-hood that the public will realize what is keeping them overweight (as they eat their LA soaked salads) <br /><br />On a low carb (not low GI) diet long term, we lose the ability to deal with high carbohydrate meals to some extent (probably a lot of personal variation) - it is apparently important to get some exposure to carbs or you can get to the place where even moderate protein consumption can raise BG. These adaptions take time - perhaps a 'time constant' of a week? But if someone is switched to a low-GI diet - it could effect these adaptions a small amount short term.<br /><br />The paper does the usual thinking of changes in insulin levels in the absence of considering changing insulin sensitivity ( which varies quite a bit over the course of a day). With out realizing that sensitivity + level are inputs to the same control loop, understanding remains out of grasp. <br /><br />Stephan, I totally agree with needing to eat less calories - calories in - calories out = the delta of body weight. Our bodies evolved appetite regulation eating quite different foods than the high carb + plus VERY high PUFA diets of today.karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13490274388549702613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-73662640661326082572016-06-23T08:39:20.461-07:002016-06-23T08:39:20.461-07:00Hi Janus,
That is exactly what one would expect. ...Hi Janus,<br /><br />That is exactly what one would expect. Glucose is oxidized by tissues based on availability, and it displaces fat oxidation. So the more glucose you have in your bloodstream at any given time, the more glucose your body burns, and the less fat. High-glycemic carbs create greater glucose availability immediately after the meal, displacing fat oxidation to a greater degree. Low-glycemic carbs have a delayed availability but the glucose still shows up in the bloodstream eventually. If both conditions contain the same amount of carbohydrate, the body ends up burning the same amount of carbohydrate and fat over a 24-hour period, it's just that the timing is different because glucose levels are elevated on different trajectories. <br /><br />This has no implications for body fatness because at the end of the day, the same amount of carbohydrate and fat end up being consumed. The only way low-glycemic carbs could impact body fatness is if they get you to eat fewer total calories or if they increase total calorie expenditure.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-41433041828944873562016-06-23T02:40:05.055-07:002016-06-23T02:40:05.055-07:00Stephan, care to comment on the study below? Appar...Stephan, care to comment on the study below? Apparently a low glycemic diet hightens fat oxidation?<br /><br />http://www.jctejournal.com/article/S2214-6237(16)30006-0/abstractJanushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14591816948426586279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-72611678397304361712016-06-20T12:31:51.764-07:002016-06-20T12:31:51.764-07:00thhq said...
"@nigel @karl increasing LA is w...thhq said...<br />"@nigel @karl increasing LA is what salty snack foods are all about. The LA is critical for increasing our appetite for them."<br />That may well be true, but in the graph from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100107092519/http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/vegetable-oil-and-weight-gain.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Vegetable Oil and Weight Gain</b></a>, US pufa consumption increased rapidly from 1999. BMI increased rapidly from 1990, when pufa consumption was fairly constant, so pufa consumption wasn't the cause.Nigel Kinbrumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03368973941328529619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-18301906425571434102016-06-15T12:39:10.346-07:002016-06-15T12:39:10.346-07:00@nigel @karl increasing LA is what salty snack foo...@nigel @karl increasing LA is what salty snack foods are all about. The LA is critical for increasing our appetite for them. Yet no one is on a soapbox about limiting the size of salty snack food portions. Paleo/HFLC deflects attention away from fat to fructose, which is not a major issue. Bloomburg deflects attention away from fat to limiting the size of sodas. Yet every day I walk by the empty mylar chip bags...not many empty soda cups....<br /><br />80% of the 500 calorie increase in consumption USDA documents 1970-2005 is refined grains (glucose from potato and corn starches) and added fats (high LA vegetable oils like corn and soy). About equal amounts of each. USDA 2010 diet data shows that 43% of our dietary calories now come from fat. Malhotra wants us to eat more?????? How much do they have to ram down our throats before they're satisfied?<br /><br />thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-69618128672370895072016-06-14T10:30:18.536-07:002016-06-14T10:30:18.536-07:00karl said...
"Seems like LA consumption match...karl said...<br />"Seems like LA consumption matches the time frame better than sugar or carbs.<br /><br />There is a <a href="https://wiki.xtronics.com/images/5/5c/LA-in-human-fat-2011.png" rel="nofollow"><b>graph here</b></a> that I think originally came from Stephan - another one here: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100107092519/http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/vegetable-oil-and-weight-gain.html" rel="nofollow"><b>graph here</b></a>"<br /><br />Those graphs don't explain why BMI is low and stable until 1945, then increases, then stabilises from ~1965 to 1990, then rapidly increases after 1990.<br /><br />Here's an alternative explanation:-<br />After World War 2, the economy was in a slump and something had to be done to get people to buy more stuff, to stimulate economic growth. Corporations changed the way that they marketed to people. Instead of appealing to people’s logic, they began to appeal to people’s emotions. It worked. <br /><br />Edward Bernays pioneered all of the dirty tricks used by the Food Product Industry to get people to over-consume. Ref: <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d29tf_the-century-of-the-self-part-1-of-4-happiness-machines_school" rel="nofollow"><b>http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d29tf_the-century-of-the-self-part-1-of-4-happiness-machines_school</b></a><br /><br />One of Bernays' dirty tricks is confusing the public by promulgating conflicting information. The Tobacco Industry paid health professionals to advertise cigarettes. On the one hand, you had researchers telling people that smoking was bad for them and on the other hand you had a doctor on TV saying that he preferred to smoke Camel cigarettes. This confused the public and made them mistrust researchers & science. Another dirty trick was setting-up organisations with scientific-sounding names to promulgate conflicting reports which the press published as “science”, saying that “X” was good for you, then some time later “X” was bad for you, then some time later “X” was good for you again and so on. The public mistrusted researchers & science even more.<br /> <br />The recent NOF report from Malhotra et al telling people to eat more fat is conflicting information, resulting in even more public confusion and even more mistrust of researchers & science. This is exactly what the Food Product Industry wants.Nigel Kinbrumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03368973941328529619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-19339660789854429222016-06-14T08:16:20.030-07:002016-06-14T08:16:20.030-07:00Another problem with the Phinney/Volek/Lustig appr...Another problem with the Phinney/Volek/Lustig approach is the cost of protein vs fat or carbs. 8 cans of tuna a day is $10 (and at least $50 if you did it on fresh wild fish or reindeer the Paleo way). 4 tubs of cottage cheese about $10. This is protein equivalent to 6 - 14 oz tofu packs which cost about $15. The cheapest option of all would probably be eating half a bag of Bob's gluten or TVP at $5. For an aggressive 6 month weight loss plan to lose 50 lbs you could mix them up to enhance your daily enjoyment. Or you could just buy the 1600 cans of tuna or 80 sacks of TVP at Costco right up front, move into your man-cave, and do it right.<br /><br />The new high protein approach to dieting makes old-style Atkins look like a smorgasboard.thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-50492877667237503112016-06-13T21:39:55.933-07:002016-06-13T21:39:55.933-07:00@nigel, in thhq's link above, you'll find ...@nigel, in thhq's link above, you'll find a graph of nitrogen balance:<br />http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Phinney-Ketoadaptation-Nitrogen.003.jpg<br /><br />I assume Hall's study will give us similar nitrogen data.<br /><br />In terms of the brain's utilization of ketones, see Cahill and Owen's famous study:<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC292907/<br /><br />In any case, we're talking about a relatively small increase in REE due to these metabolic changes. The TEE changes are potentially more interesting. A lot of people report feeling an increased "energy" on VLC, even a mild euphoria, but obviously there's a lot more variation in TEE.<br /><br />More interesting to me is the effect on appetite, and I'm hoping Hall says something about that when his study is published. He alluded to "interesting" appetite effects in his interview.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-42426350576735642292016-06-13T16:50:04.078-07:002016-06-13T16:50:04.078-07:00@Nigel Kinbrum who wrote "BMI in the US began...@Nigel Kinbrum who wrote "BMI in the US began to increase slowly after ~1945,"<br /><br />Seems like LA consumption matches the time frame better than sugar or carbs.<br /><br />There is a <a href="https://wiki.xtronics.com/images/5/5c/LA-in-human-fat-2011.png" rel="nofollow">graph here</a> that I think originally came from Stephan - another one here: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100107092519/http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/vegetable-oil-and-weight-gain.html" rel="nofollow"> graph here </a><br /><br />While correlations do not show causation - this warrants better studies. One place claims a 200 day half life of LA in adipose tissue - thus cause and effect are distant and less noticed by people. <br /><br />Some oils were being added to foods after the war - rations that didn't spoil etc. Even in 1960 - 1965 few people were packing much weight. It was in about 1960 that the push to market vegetable oils really took off. <br /><br />My hunch is the effect of LA on mitochondria and insulin sensitivity is the real problem. Once people get overweight, they become insulin resistant (as they should - they need to be resistant to lose the excess weight) and the system breaks. <br /><br />You can't look at insulin by itself - only with the backdrop of sensitivity will it make sense. The receptors sensitivity is just as important as the signal. We know that LA effects insulin sensitivity. <br /><br />Uncontrolled studies like this are not likely to give us the answers we quest for. ( We need synthetic diets on controlled subjects (prison populations? ). <br /><br />My hunch ( anyone on either side of the argument that says they know for sure, clearly does not understanding the question) is that eating low-carb can compensate for the effects of a high LA diet to some extent.karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13490274388549702613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-83488950072804641952016-06-13T12:51:45.064-07:002016-06-13T12:51:45.064-07:00Very interesting. Two tangential questions: what d...Very interesting. Two tangential questions: what do you use to stay abreast of these PubMed comments--do you choose papers or topics that it will send alerts on? And why don't you reply with your thoughts that you wrote here? Or do you feel Hall addressed then enough? I guess he'd have dibs on any rejoinder.Tom Jeannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11830745967830134664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-18940376349560352302016-06-13T10:12:47.105-07:002016-06-13T10:12:47.105-07:00The very serious problem with the Ludwig/Phinney/V...The very serious problem with the Ludwig/Phinney/Volek elevated protein methodology is that it only makes sense on a high calorie diet for athletes. For an obese 100 kg person eating 1500 calories a day for weight loss, the protein level needed to preserve lean mass consumes a very significant part of daily calories. Using Phinney's 1.7 g protein/kg cyclist, it's 170 grams a day - 10 cans of tuna - 45% of daily calories on a 1500 calorie per day diet.<br /><br />Eating that much tuna would be a challenge for most people. I can't imagine how someone would do this on a primarily vegetarian diet.thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-72607351711971007912016-06-13T08:34:38.279-07:002016-06-13T08:34:38.279-07:00I accidentally added a " to the end of the ur...I accidentally added a " to the end of the url of the clickable link in my previous comment, which broke it.<br /><br />Either delete the " off the end of the url, or try <a href="http://bit.ly/1UvEkF0" rel="nofollow"><b>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjzW6c3UkAIxkVu.jpg:large</b></a><br /><br />Sorry about that.Nigel Kinbrumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03368973941328529619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-50855036824069903422016-06-13T07:15:57.840-07:002016-06-13T07:15:57.840-07:00In case I forgot to paste
http://www.meandmydiab...In case I forgot to paste <br /><br />http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2011/05/30/steve-phinney-and-richard-johnson-sugar-ketones-fat-uric-acid-in-health-and-diseaseev/<br /><br />thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-21925835037497192122016-06-13T07:14:23.151-07:002016-06-13T07:14:23.151-07:00Here's the Phinney reference on lean weight lo...Here's the Phinney reference on lean weight loss at .25 lb in 3-4 days. It's also noted that the riders were eating 1.7 grams of protein per kg body weight. Weight loss dieters (such as myself) who don't dramatically increase their protein consumption would suffer much more muscle atrophy/lean mass wasting than the riders. In a reduced calorie weight loss diet 45% protein/35% carb/20% fat would be a good target IMO. That's a LOT of tuna and tofu.thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-37387958665972087942016-06-13T06:13:32.638-07:002016-06-13T06:13:32.638-07:00In searching for Phinney's comments on the 25 ...In searching for Phinney's comments on the 25 grams a day ketosis protein loss I found this interesting interchange between Aragon and Volek in 2013.<br /><br />http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2013/03/13/2013-nsca-personal-trainers-conference-looking-back-at-my-debate-with-dr-jeff-volek/<br /><br />While this debate does not pertain directly to muscle loss, it includes a reanalysis of Phinney's 1983 bicyclist study which claimed no loss in performance among keto riders. Aragon picks up on Phinney's statement that sprint performance was deteriorated in the keto riders. And to Stephan's point above, Aragon also picks up on the problems with statistics in that study of 5 riders:<br /><br />"However, the authors’ conclusion is misleading since 2 of the 5 subjects experienced substantial drops in endurance capacity (48 & 51-minute declines in TTE, to be exact). One of the subjects had a freakishly high 84-minute increase in TTE, while the other increases were 3 & 30 minutes. The outlying high value was instrumental in skewing the results away from any significant decline in the keto condition’s mean TTE."<br /><br />An honest scientist would throw out the outlier, especially an outlier so extreme that it determines the study's no-effect conclusion.<br /><br />In this study Davis and Phinney note that muscle loss is indicated in ketosis weight loss diets with insufficient protein due to loss in VO2 max, but does not give grams muscle loss.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2104036<br /><br />I recall reading of a .25 lb loss in muscle mass in the first 3-4 days of one of Phinney's ketosis studies on trained athletes, but cannot locate that study.<br /><br />thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-71760713551179513952016-06-11T20:04:38.915-07:002016-06-11T20:04:38.915-07:00normalcarb said...
"@nigel, there is some pro...normalcarb said...<br />"@nigel, there is some protein catabolism during the transition to a VLC diet. It's been documented by Stephen Phinney to start at around 25g in the first day and to taper off to zero after about 3 weeks."<br />Link us to the document, as 25g/day is <b>way</b> too low. <br /><br />According to <a href="http://bit.ly/1PTfIKk" rel="nofollow"><b>Liver and Kidneys Synthesize Glucose</b></a>, hepatic glucose production from amino acids peaks at ~50g/day from amino acids, and renal glucose production peaks some time later at ~30g/day from amino acids. Conversion of protein to glucose is ~50% efficiency (not 67%), so protein catabolism peaks at ~100g/day for the liver and ~60g/day some time later for the kidneys.<br /><br />Your assumptions and the rest of your maths are therefore invalid, apart from <br />"The brain uses about 500 kcal/day." which is about right.<br /><br />"2/3's supplied by ketones" is incorrect. Scroll down to "Circulating Nutrients in Starvation."<br />"After about 2 weeks of adaptation, about 50% of the brain's energy comes from glucose, and the remaining 50% from oxidation of ketone bodies."<br /><br />"Interesting that my estimates matches Ludwig's results, eh? :)"<br />When you pull numbers out of thin air, I'm not surprised that you arrive at the desired result.<br /><br />Arguing about which foods/macronutrients/micronutrients cause obesity is pointless, as foods/macronutrients/micronutrients aren't responsible for causing obesity.<br /><br />Refined sugar & ultra-fine flour were invented in ~1880 and Americans ate more carbohydrate from 1909 to 1929 than they do now (graphs elsewhere on Stephan's blog), yet BMI in the US began to increase slowly after ~1945, according to <a href="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjzW6c3UkAIxkVu.jpg:large%22" rel="nofollow"><b>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjzW6c3UkAIxkVu.jpg:large</b></a>. How come?<br /><br />BMI started to increase rapidly after 1990, ~10 years after the so-called fattening guidelines were released (guidelines which weren't followed, by the way). How come?Nigel Kinbrumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03368973941328529619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-1464968436426912422016-06-11T16:51:08.615-07:002016-06-11T16:51:08.615-07:00@normalcarb interesting. 25 grams a day of dry pro...@normalcarb interesting. 25 grams a day of dry protein loss from muscle wastage during ketosis dieting? That represents half a pound a day of muscle weight, and even with the taper-off over 3 weeks would represent 5 pounds of muscle lost. It was hard to preserve muscle mass when I was losing weight at a 10 pound per month rate. I blame a snapped rotator cuff tendon (supraspinatus) on the resulting weakness in my shoulders. It appears that ketosis dieting would have been far worse, and I'm glad I didn't go that way.<br /><br /><br />thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-89100761033224350182016-06-11T09:06:40.817-07:002016-06-11T09:06:40.817-07:00I adopted a term for this behavior, which one of m...I adopted a term for this behavior, which one of my technicians used in another context. Flogging. The worst floggers were researchers who had the ability to get grant money based on their tenure/prestige. I remember one academic researcher who had the ability to get Canadian government grant money for his endless studies. His work was meticulous and always impressed me when I read it in journals. At a conference I discussed one of his presentations with some Canadian industrial researchers, who commented "At least you don't have to pay for it". After that I paid closer attention to my own work...thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-59668117003335990312016-06-11T08:31:59.977-07:002016-06-11T08:31:59.977-07:00As a career industrial researcher, sorting out the...As a career industrial researcher, sorting out the significant effects in multifactorial experiments was matter-of-course. I lost pride of ownership for my own ideas pretty early in my career. My foolish ideas made good conversation starters with real-life observers though, and resulted in better experimental designs going forward.<br /><br />With the HFLC (or vegan, or fruitarian, or cleasers, pick any of them) nutritional warriors I don't see normal rational discussions. They're unwilling to compile lists of factors, then subject them to simple screens like Pareto analysis, and move on to verification. This shouldn't take any longer than a few months. They're modern flat earth fraternities, which don't subject their simplistic single factor viewpoints to verification. thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-15969864378766277962016-06-10T21:34:58.982-07:002016-06-10T21:34:58.982-07:00@nigel, there is some protein catabolism during th...@nigel, there is some protein catabolism during the transition to a VLC diet. It's been documented by Stephen Phinney to start at around 25g in the first day and to taper off to zero after about 3 weeks.<br /><br />So, assuming 25g is the peak, and that the protein is being converted to glucose via GNG at 67% efficiency, we can estimate the peak increase in RMR due to that protein catabolism at around 33 kcal. Hall saw a much higher peak than that, so it probably wasn't just due to protein.<br /><br />So what's the source of the chronic increase increase in RMR? My guess is that it represents the cost of ketogenesis. Ketones can supply about 2/3's of the brain's energy requirements on a VLC diet. Those ketones aren't free. Hall himself estimates the cost as around 20% (in a communication to Peter Attia).<br /><br />The brain uses about 500 kcal/day.<br /><br />2/3's supplied by ketones = 333 kcal/day.<br /><br />If the cost is 20%, then we'd need 67 kcal/day extra to supply that 333 kcal/day of ketones.<br /><br />Interesting that my estimates matches Ludwig's results, eh? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-75544493057620169232016-06-10T16:03:41.734-07:002016-06-10T16:03:41.734-07:00Hi Vikram,
I have done some reading about it. It...Hi Vikram,<br /><br />I have done some reading about it. It makes some sense, but the problem is that low-protein diets don't seem to cause overeating and fat gain in humans in the long term. Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.com