No. The only meat (well, aside from organ meats) that affects me this way is beef.

There was one insulin study done that showed beef caused major insulin spikes back in 1997, but it was a lean diet with very little fat so I take those results with a grain of salt.

All other meats I have tried have been fine.

This could be true. All 3 macronutrients feed into the krebs cycle. Some amino acids can bypass glycolysis while others are converted to glucose which then enters glycolysis. Some amino acids can even be directly converted to citric acid and bypass pyruvate oxidation. Fatty acids are directly converted into acetyl CoA while the glycerol backbone is converted to glucose.

This is why I hypothesize that beef contains higher amounts of the amino acids that convert to glucose and enter glycolysis. Insulin is required for this to occur.

From what I've studied in biochemistry, the body actually prefers high glucose levels over high protein levels because the latter is more dangerous (nitrogen levels). So, it converts the excess protein into glucose and then stores it as fat (or not if your insulin system isn't working correctly).

You are definitely right about the reduced ketones. If you're eating more protein and less fat the body will switch back to a glucose-driven metabolism and the brain will require more glucose, hence more protein is converted.

Good thing we're in the War Zone or statements like this would probably put us there.



I guess a good test of this would be to see whether a seventy percent animal fat, thirty percent protein diet resulted in a higher rate of gluconeogenesis from protein than a similar diet, where some of the fat was replaced with coconut oil or pure MCT's.

I think we're sort of in a murky area--a lot of questions that avowed low carbers find fascinating aren't usually the focus of main-stream science.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6850010




There's stuff like this--just the abstract. But I think here what may be happening is a sparing effect of ketones--so lactate is available for gluconeogenesis instead of being simply oxidized for energy.

Actually, I agree with you on this point.

Too much protein should be avoided. Those who think "low carb" means lean meats have it wrong. Matter of fact, eating all lean meats is almost as deleterious as eating high carbs--not quite, but close.

Using fat as a ballast for at least 60% - 70% of calories is essential. If possible, 80% fat would be even better, but very difficult to attain.

While I have no empirical data aside from my own experience, I find 1 gram of protein per body weight to be ideal. It's important to keep protein at a constant, while animal fat can be liberally increased to whatever amounts.

With enough protein and all fat is the optimal diet.

My guess this is due more to the fat content than the form of protein itself, though I do make room for the possibility the protein in beef is more easily converted into glucose.

During weight lifting, I always feel the quality of my workout is higher and more intense after eating beef the night before.

Regardless, if fat is used as a ballast for calories above one's "adequate" protein levels, there shouldn't be any issues. The mistake is the associating of "lean" protein as the optimal low-carb eating regimen. The optimal diet isn't a "low carb," but rather a "high fat with adequate protein" one.

Protein poisoning is lethal, while carb poisoning just leads to chronic disease.

1 gram per total body weight, or lean body weight?

You look like you're AT your LBW, but in general, for others?

Lean body weight or mass.

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't want to cause confusion. I just go with approximately 130 - 140 grams, give or take.

RE - Fat content

The reason why the ribeye cut is far and away the best is it's very high fat content. A well marbled ribeye will be have approximately a 75/25 fat to protein ratio.

Have this with some cheese and butter, and the ratios will become 80/20.

Any other cuts of beef is 50/50 at best, which isn't nearly enough fat, in my view.

I think there is something missing in the statement in bold. Is that 1 gram of protein per kg of ideal body weight or 1 gram per lb of ideal body weight?

EDIT: Oh, sorry, didn't read far enough, I see someone else had the same question.

But here's another set of related questions:

Has anyone read any convincing studies or observations on when the body converts "excess" protein to glucose? Is it any time that the body ingests more protein than it needs for immediate repair? Or is it dependent on the body (or the brain, most likely) needing a bit of glucose at the moment and protein is available? If both carbs and protein were available, would it be more likely to engage in direct carb burning or gluconeogenesis? Can the body convert protein to fat for storage or is gluconeogenesis the only mechanism for using that excess protein?

Sorry for the confusion!

I should have been more precise. It should be 1 gram per "lean body mass." In other words, weight minus fat % is lean body weight.

That's body weight in pounds, not kg, right?

Yes, in pounds, not kgs.

However, this is assuming with some exercise and/or resistance activities. For a sedentary individual, 0.75 grams per lean body mass will probably suffice.

Thanks, makes sense. I'm also going to copy and paste an earlier question that you may not have seen in this volley - I wonder if you have knowledge/opinions:

Has anyone read any convincing studies or observations on when the body converts "excess" protein to glucose? Is it any time that the body ingests more protein than it needs for immediate repair? Or is it dependent on the body (or the brain, most likely) needing a bit of glucose at the moment and protein is available? If both carbs and protein were available, would it be more likely to engage in direct carb burning or gluconeogenesis? Can/will the body convert protein to fat for storage or is gluconeogenesis the only mechanism for using that excess protein?

It actually depends on the particular amino acid profile. Only certain amino acids can be converted into glucose. Others are sent directly into cellular respiration for ATP production. So it does depend on the type of meat/food you eat.

I believe excess amino acids can leave via the urine, although this is generally a bad sign if it's occurring. In either case, too much protein will lead to nitrogen overload. When proteins are broken down their amino groups (NH2) are broken down, releasing nitrogen into the blood stream.

From the information I've gathered, glucose/insulin spikes are delayed with protein. Whereas, for glucose they occur relatively quickly. It looks like the spike is delayed by 2-3 hours.

The body will definitely burn carbs first if both carbs and protein are taken in. It is the "path of least resistance" as they say and the most efficient for the body to not waste resources.

However, I do believe that this is why fat burning is preferable to both carbs and protein for ATP production. The glycerol backbone of fats (roughly 10%) is converted into glucose, while the fatty acid tails totally bypass glycolysis. Glycolysis requires 2 ATP molecules to be used in order to occur. Bypassing this process altogether requires less energy to occur. The other steps of the process do not require ATP usage because they are spontaneous or "downhill" reactions.

In addition to minimizing insulin levels, this is another reason why maximizing fat intake is desirable.

I'd imagine it varies from person to person, age, level of activity and dietary regimen.

In my view, all things being equal, protein is toxic and must be used for the following: (1) rebuild muscle; (2) glucose for the brain in the absence of carbs; (3) and, excess protein will be stored as fat via gluconeogenesis.

If a person is extremely active especially in anaerobic exercises, protein will be used to rebuild muscle tissue. The more one tears, the more protein will be needed to rebuild.

However, since pure protein is toxic, either fat or carbohydrates must be used as a ballast. Either will suffice, but fat is better overall, for obvious reasons. Both will slow the rate the protein is absorbed, which is essential. If pure protein is ingested without a ballast to slow it, protein poisoning occurs which is potentially lethal.

I surmise any excess protein than what we need to rebuild or converted to provide glucose to fuel the brain will be converted into fat storage. The key is to determine one's level of "adequate" protein. It isn't efficient to have more or less.

The reason to opt for fat over carbs as a ballast is predictability. If we use carbs as a ballast, the excess protein won't be used as glucose to fuel the brain, since carbs are the most efficient in converting to glucose; whereas, fat is the neutral, thereby making it easier to predict how much protein we need.

For example, without carbs, I can predict that after a workout, I can eat some cottage cheese (or, other form of almost pure protein) for faster absorption for muscle repair.

At other times, the problem with both carbs as a ballast is that they must be burned before fat storage is used. Eliminating carbs and using *only* fat as the ballast to protein is optimal, since our bodies run best on fat stores with protein providing the material to rebuild, heal and whatever glucose out body requires.

Basically, without protein we will perish. Therefore, our options are only a choice of a ballast for our essential protein, which boils down to either Carbs or fat, but *not* both.

Those who suggest to balance carbs and fats have it all wrong, in my view.