Diet feedback and fat fast theory

[BrothaBill]

So Ive been a way from the board for awhile and my alter still works. BUT, I was wondering about knowledgable feedback on the fat fast that wass discussed in the atkins book.
If I remember correctly a ten day fast at a naval hospital the ones who didnt and had a true fast lost 21 lbs and lost only 6 lbs of fat the rest was lean body mass, but those on 1000 calories lost 15 lbs with average of 14.5 lbs being fat onle a half pound of lbm.
Ive been pondering this and I have my own theory ( and I work in medicine) so if carbs stimulate insulin and fat storage and inhibite fat release. Then carbs are out, but why would fat consumption be more effective at fat burning. CONUNDRUM?
Protein consumed as an energy source goes through a proces of glucoNEOgenesis. Basically converting protein into sugar, thus raising insulin, hence pure fast is stimulating energy by fulfilling the energy sugars through muscle mass converint to sugars.

Sure everyone will lose weight through 1000 cal/day diet, but we want the most effective. MY question is this... DO you think that providing a base energy source of 1000cal of fat (Flax seed oil or similar) is far more effective b/c it prohibits the release of insulin caused by muscle loss. Basically insulin rate is reduced and glucagon is upped due to the nonpresent of both carbs and protein sugars of either lowfat and/or true fast diets. Is the holy grail of weight loss??? A minimal calorie consumptionf fat, the study cited that potassium levels remained within normal limits while the true fast levels dropped to dangerous levels.

IS fat the preferred energy source. The gold of metabolism and energy source. Afterall, why evolutionally speaking do we not store the preferred energy source as carbs if that is what the nutrionists tell us to be true??? We store it is as fat... just pondering the ideas of inquisitive minds.

Should we just be more concerned with the insulin/glucagon ratio than carb/fat/protein consumption???

How does the conundrum of the naval hospital study showing consumption of more calories with a doubling of fat loss and the preservation of lean body mass. I Get confused withou thinkg that the gluco neogenesis of protein isnt the key to it all.. THat is the conbersion of lbm to sugars therby raising insulin.

ANY THOUGHTS????

 

[massatronic]

Surely it makes sense for the body to store energy as fat because it is more dense calorie wise and so you can store more fuel for less excess weight.

Is the fact that those fasting on 1000kcal lost more fatnecessarily related to the type of calorie they ingested.

On a crash 0kcal fast would the body be designed to burn muscle first? It would sense it such psyiological dire straits to save the calorie dense nutrients to last and save energy by burning excess muscle tissue and so reducing the metabolic rate of the body, giving the body maximum survival time at 0kcal intake. At 1000kcal intake the body could burn fats and preserve its functional integrity giving the organism time to turn things around.

At a chemical level I could not offer any insight on the processes involved. But I feel these reactions and interactions are more complicated than they are given credit for. Remember how lame dietary advice was in the 60s and 70s? If you strictly followed theory then you would be shafted. Science has a lot to learn and thats why I prefer the practicalk results of BB to being blinded by science.

Sometimes something works and if asked 'but why? It shouldn't.' the answer should be 'dunno but it does.' Sports nutrition is always on BBs heels. Take the new Atkins diet or ultra new GI diet which BB did not know about them 10 years ago?

General concensus seems to be toward fat can burn fat and isn't evil any more. Rather than carbs OR fats being good, we should see that there are good and bad in carbs and fats. Infact that rule applies to lots of things, rich and poor, men and women, American and Iraqi.

The only purely bad substance that science has identified is Frenchness.

 

[BrothaBill]

Surely it makes sense for the body to store energy as fat because it is more dense calorie wise and so you can store more fuel for less excess weight.

Is the fact that those fasting on 1000kcal lost more fatnecessarily related to the type of calorie they ingested.

On a crash 0kcal fast would the body be designed to burn muscle first? It would sense it such psyiological dire straits to save the calorie dense nutrients to last and save energy by burning excess muscle tissue and so reducing the metabolic rate of the body, giving the body maximum survival time at 0kcal intake. At 1000kcal intake the body could burn fats and preserve its functional integrity giving the organism time to turn things around.

At a chemical level I could not offer any insight on the processes involved. But I feel these reactions and interactions are more complicated than they are given credit for. Remember how lame dietary advice was in the 60s and 70s? If you strictly followed theory then you would be shafted. Science has a lot to learn and thats why I prefer the practicalk results of BB to being blinded by science.

Sometimes something works and if asked 'but why? It shouldn't.' the answer should be 'dunno but it does.' Sports nutrition is always on BBs heels. Take the new Atkins diet or ultra new GI diet which BB did not know about them 10 years ago?

General concensus seems to be toward fat can burn fat and isn't evil any more. Rather than carbs OR fats being good, we should see that there are good and bad in carbs and fats. Infact that rule applies to lots of things, rich and poor, men and women, American and Iraqi.

The only purely bad substance that science has identified is Frenchness.

Thanks for the feedback. And yes other studies show that the type of nutrient has an impact and low cal mainly carb diets significantly underperform high protein and high fat low cal diets. And although you have a good point about fat versus muscle using in times of famine. This one study showing these results has always bugged me for some reason it just doesnt seem to make sense and youre right in the starvation mode twice as muscle is burned to fat. 14 lbs lbm vs 7lbs of fat so that is part my annoyance that I started to think about these results. It seems to me that a caveman would want to conserve muscle to help it hunt and aquire more nutrients and fat is basically useless for that and would serve as the primary energy source. Maybe b/c the participants were locked up in a Naval hospital which would be a rather sedentary lifestyle so not much burning of the muscle glucose reserve would happen, but a caveman would be constantly on the move to hunt for more food thereby burning their muscle glucose levels and would constantly be replaced by the muscle breakdown through neoglucogenesis hence more muscle loss. The problem you raise is the control group of starvation no cal participants were in the same hospital under similar conditions so their is no clear explanation for this. I dunno gives me a headache. Im going to think about this a little more. Just my own hypothesis mind you that I have. And the diet recommended for lowering cardiovascular risk for patients is the mediterraen diet which is higher in fat, but good fat like olive oil vs saturated fat. Sat fats arent bad for you in some circles now unless you combine it with processed carbs so a hamburger on a bun is bad but a hamburger and a light salad is ok. How all this works together is still highly contentious in experts with phd's and a lifetime of research, they just dont agree on anything it seems like, but we do know that the low fat craze was touted by everyone a few years back and has been debunked so the search for answers continues on.

 

[massatronic]

Yeah the theories keep changing, thats why I don't worry like I used to about the extremes of bodybuilding theory, about getting everything 'just right'. Its easy to get paranoid about diet and training.

BBs often tell others that this diets useless or that training doesn't work- generally to convince themselves that they are getting it right! I read a link where a guy who ate fruit and drank milk after training was told that he was wasting his time, PWO nutrition should be whey and dextrose period. But milk, eggs and fruit didn't hold Arny back that much! (Although whey and dextrose are probably better)

I think the traditional pre-fad foods are the most reliable base. Eggs, raw meat, (fish except I hate the stuff), white meat and milk. Even Plato writes about the mass building properties of beef (Milo the Westler, The Meno)

Remember that cavemen have no need to bench 315Lbs. Endurance would probably be far more important than strength for survival. Strength lets you dominate other men, endurance keeps you alive in the wild. In extreme dietary zones (0 kcal) the body would want a low metabolicrate and more toward marathon runner build but saving fat for later. Fat does not burn as much energy as muscle, so if the muscle comes off first the fat reserves will last much longer. Bodies are well designed after plenty of evolutionary trial and error.

In a natural environment 1000kcal a day means food is scarce or you have been unlucky in hunting. 0 kcal means drought, famine, ecological disaster, you are very ill, injured and cant hunt etc. So your body must be ready for the long haul.

Don't see why you are worrying your head so much. Why would you want to be on a 0 kcal diet? Time your exercise to burn fat and relax in the knowledge that the best way to burn fat IS to eat, even if not that much. Cut the carbs and eat some veg and 1000 kcal can be filling... almost.