Calories
 

I am not here to knock low carbing but would just like to state some facts here if you eat less calories then your burn you lose wieght no matter where they come from all crabs all fat whatever.

One of the reason Lowcarbing works so well for people is because there eating so few calories

So all im saying is if your not losing wieght look no further then your calories

If you want to lose bodyfat which is really what everyone wants because most people are looking to have a v shape (not just a smaller pear) you get into the macros

Re: Calories
 

This assumes a lot of things, but mainly:

1. Biochemical properties of protein, are identical to that of fat, and identical to carbohydrates as well.

I.e. If my truck runs well on unleaded, grade 97 fuel with X amount of energy, I can simply replace it it with any other fule (diesel) for equivelant energy amount. Different properties of fuels don't matter

2. Different bodily functions and enzymes behave in the same way toward any food source, regardless of their properties.

3. There is no such thing as Insulin. Or it's there, but it doesn't matter in terms of sugar metabolism. Same can be assumed for glucagon.

So, if the above assumptions are correct, then you are correct, it's just about calories! ;)

Wa'il

When it comes to the loss of wieght no it does not matter, when the body does not have enough energy it tears down it reseveres gratned this will be in LBM and Fat

If you want to lose body fat on the other hand it does matter what your macros are

If you would like me to get technical pm me

Actually, the biochemical properties matter for both, loss and gain of both muscle and fat.

The process is biochemical on both accounts. Hence, the mechanical simplification of it in terms volumes, amounts and/or energy alone cannot explain the gain or loss of organic tissue. The biochemical interaction of these elements does.



Why PM? This is a very important topic, and any information on it could benefit everyone here.
So please free to share and get technical, many here would appreciate such technical discussion.

Wa'il

Low carb details as asked for....
 

just to continue my arguement....having to many Ketones in your blood will cause an effect in the liver called deanimation (Break down of proteins for energy) and causes your kidneys to work harder to cleanse your blood it messes up your bloods ph. Does this sound bad? It is! And it gets worse because if your carbs are too low those extra Bcaa's and Glutamine and fats you are dumping in your system can't be properly utilized. Try a carb rotation diet by reducing carbs to 100 gr for 3 days and increasing them to 200-300 for 4 days. But don't believe me put down Mr. Atkins book and pick up an Anatomy and physiology book and look under metabolism that diet will fry your hard earned muscle! I can tell you 100 ways to do this w/out the ketones Don't compromise your health

Hi Tiger,

Your post was made seperately, so I merged here to maintain some focus on the discussion.

Which textbook are you referring to?

For one thing, the above paragraph you posted would not be allowed in any decent college textbooks.

Why? Technical and medical textbooks go through a lot of reviews to ensure correctness as much as possible and being upto date with scientific findings.

Sure, a mistake can occure in a textbook, but not in such abundance :)

If I'm mistaken, I hope you would provide the exact title, ISBN and page number in order for me to verify that it managed to slip into a textbook.

Wa'il

Re: Low carb details as asked for....
 

This is where I must jump in and take exception. I have over 20 lbs of new, shiny muscle thanks to weight lifting while eating low carb (<60g a day). My health has never been better; blood lipids, blood sugars, blood pressure. I sleep the whole night through now. I have lost body fat and kept my lean mass, hell, I've increased it.

The only thing Ive compromised are my fat cells.

Nat

Re: Low carb details as asked for....
 

False and inaccurate. :thdown: First, de-amination of proteins isn't a harmful process. It's a normal thing for a liver to do ... When there is NO OTHER SOURCE OF ENERGY AVAILABLE proteins from the diet or most usually, proteins from the body, such as worn-out and dead cells, will be de-aminated. That is, the amine part of the amino acid molecule gets removed, so what's left is ketone or other acetyl group, which enter the Krebs cycle to be used as energy/fuel by the body. The amine molecule which has been removed is converted to urea, which is eliminated via the kidneys. Healthy kidneys excrete urea and other by-products of metabolism .. creatinine, etc. To say that making the kidneys do their job is harmful, is like saying that aerobic exercise is harmful because it forces the heart to pump harder, the blood vessels must dilate, and the alveoli in the lungs must filter more oxygen in and more carbon dioxide out.

Persons following a ketogenic diet, such as Atkins, or such as medical ketogenic diet used for small children with epilepsy have plenty of fuel available in the form of ketones made from body fat, and from dietary fat. So de-amination of proteins in the liver would never occur on a significant scale.

I won't bother to address the rest of the statements, as they are also erroneous.

BTW, I got my info. from my first year A&P Text, "Principles of Anatomy and Physiology", Anagnostakos and Tortora. ISBN - 0-06-388770-3.

Doreen

Somone from Curves for Women tried to tell me that 40% of what I've lost over the past year has been muscle until I got on the weight machines and proved her wrong. The trainer pronounced my upper body strength better than most women, and my lower body strength above average for someone my age. Not bad for someone who's lost (supposedly) 25 lbs of muscle in the last year. It's metabolically inefficient for your body to consume it's own lean muscle mass in the presence of adequate dietary protein. :D

Doreen, you are the offical lowcarb.ca debunker of myths! :D

Lisa, don't you just love the look on their faces when they have to admit they're wrong? I know it's extremely petty of me, but I just wanna shout out "nah nah nah nah nah naaaaaaaaah"

Nat

Right, and the other 43 lbs was all water. ;)

Doreen

I attribute my success to the all crab all fat diet. It's very easy to do if you live on the West Coast which has a steady supply of crab. We ship the fat in from the Praries. ;)

Karen

There are too many variables to answer that question. keto diets done on occasion, no problem. For life, yes you will eventually develop problems due to it. What problems who knows. I know I'm not trying to find out.

The body is designed to use ketones as alternate energy source for "some" cells in emergencies. Your body will not perform at optimum efficiency while in ketosis and never will

As a short term diet these are fine but let me see someone who has been low carbin(sorry to all those who dont have spell check and mis type carb crab (i know im not petty enough to point that out when having a serious discussion)) for 20+ years

Not sure how many variables are there to providing a source of information. ISBN and page number would do.


This is absolutely false. Can you point to any clinical study showing this?

The ketogenic diet is the longest time-tested plan ever. Also known as the hunter-gatherer plan. It's amazing how people can make such a claim, yet their own plans have never been tested in the long-term. If eating low-carb is dangerous, our human race would have died a looooong time ago.

So far, the increasing problems of obesity, heart disease, and diabetese in North America, provide a testimony to the success of government sponsored plans of high-carb, low-fat diets, and the growing industry of processed foods and sugar laden products.

I appreciate your support of ketogenic plans as a "short-term" solution, but if you have no scientific bases for the "long-term" problems, it would be wise to at least look for some.

Wa'il