Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46   ^
Old Mon, Apr-22-13, 13:22
Daci's Avatar
Daci Daci is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 72
 
Plan: Hflc
Stats: 150/138/130 Female 5 foot 3 inches
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: Near new Bern NC USA
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Corn just isn't food for humans. .


I'm of the impression that corn is not a good food for anything,yet it's fed to virtually everything.
You can even buy "deer corn" here...I find feeding a herbaceous critter corn to be really disturbing.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #47   ^
Old Mon, Apr-22-13, 14:12
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowling
For anyone interested in the discussion about the viability of gluconeogenesis to supply carbs to ultramarathoners, I highly recommend Paul Jaminet's article. Paul notes (with a reference to a science paper):
Ignoring the energy requirements to produce glucose via gluconeogenesis already noted in our discussion here, there's a very real question if the kidneys and liver would be able to produce sufficient glucose for ultramarathoners. See the link in Mr. Jaminet's article for the link to his discussions on the dangers of zero-carb diets. I deeply appreciate the diligence -- both the reasoning and references to science papers -- that Paul provides.

In its simplest form, Occam's razor can be expressed this way:

A causes B
If B therefore A
or
If not B therefore not A
or
If not B therefore A does not cause B

A more practical form of the same expression is:

Fire burns
If burns therefore fire
or
If no burns therefore no fire
or
If no burns therefore fire does not burn

We know fire burns, or more specifically we know the circumstances where fire can burn, and where fire cannot burn. For example, if we stand too close to the fire, it burns, but if we do not, it does not. Bear this in mind.


Jaminet argues for something he calls "glucose deficiency", and he argues this can be caused by "dietary glucose deficiency". He offers evidence for it, but the most direct way to offer such evidence is an experiment where we feed humans a zero-carb diet. And we have such evidence in the form of the Bellevue all-meat trial. This evidence does not support Jaminet's arguments. On the contrary, it supports an alternative hypothesis whereby "dietary glucose deficiency" exposes an underlying condition which is the true cause of "glucose deficiency". This alternative hypothesis is expressed with this statement:

If not B therefore A does not cause B

The Bellevue all-meat trial supports this alternative hypothesis because B (glucose deficiency) was not found, in spite of applying A (dietary glucose deficiency). We cannot claim that A was not applied since an all-meat diet is the ultimate form of dietary glucose deficiency, next to outright starvation. We cannot claim that B was not found due to oversight or some other human failure: The evidence for B is obvious, and the experiment was designed specifically to find B.

If we continue to believe A causes B in this case, then we're just putting our heads in the sand while our butts are burning.
Reply With Quote
  #48   ^
Old Mon, Apr-22-13, 15:27
Bowling Bowling is offline
New Member
Posts: 18
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 278/233/185 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
And the simplest explanation is that less carbs is better than more in a dose-response fashion.
Only if it's fact-based. So far, you have categorically failed to demonstrate that an ultramarathon athlete could be viable consuming zero carbs while racing.
Repeating your beliefs without reconciling them against the facts does not work. Ockham would not be impressed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
Quote:
Ignoring the energy requirements to produce glucose via gluconeogenesis already noted in our discussion here, there's a very real question if the kidneys and liver would be able to produce sufficient glucose for ultramarathoners.
Jaminet argues for something he calls "glucose deficiency", and he argues this can be caused by "dietary glucose deficiency". [SNIP]
You failed to address the issue of Jaminet's article that's pertinent to our discussion here. Mr. Jaminet notes -- with reference to a science paper -- that our liver and kidneys can only produce 600 kcal/day of glucose (or ~25 kcal/hour) through gluconeogenesis. Even if an ultramarathoner could afford the energy to produce those carbs, is that amount really sufficient to sustain an ultramarathon athlete?

Until you start producing some facts about your [claimed] zero-carb ultramarathoners, their existence is in serious doubt. Or have you retracted your conjecture that zero-carb ultramarathoners actually exist?
Reply With Quote
  #49   ^
Old Mon, Apr-22-13, 16:05
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowling
Mr. Jaminet notes -- with reference to a science paper -- that our liver and kidneys can only produce 600 kcal/day of glucose (or ~25 kcal/hour) through gluconeogenesis.

...after 3 days of fasting:
Quote:
After 3 days of fasting, when the brain’s glucose consumption has been roughly halved by ketosis and the rest of the body is conserving glucose, the body’s rate of glucose manufacture in liver and kidneys is about 600 calories per day.

We cannot infer that glucose production will remain there, when glucose production gradually increased from the point of start of fasting. On the contrary, we can infer that it will continue to rise up to a point that will maintain normal blood glucose. Or we can infer that glucose substitution with ketones will continue thereby reducing glucose requirements further, also maintaining normal blood glucose.

Jaminet further argues that "glucose deficiency symptoms" appear much later than only 3 days after start of fasting, in spite of normal blood glucose:
Quote:
A clue is the fact that starving people develop a hacking cough in their final weeks of life. Despite blood glucose levels in the normal range, they cease producing mucus and their airways become dry and irritated.

This part of Jaminet's argument is quite telling in that it shows that what he calls "glucose deficiency" is not in fact a deficiency of glucose, but some other disorder. Note however, that neither starvation nor the conditions caused by starvation could be called a disorder.
Reply With Quote
  #50   ^
Old Mon, Apr-22-13, 18:03
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

GSD comes in different types. For the purpose of this point, I'll use those types which include hypoglycemia as one of the symptoms.

Here we have at least one possible underlying condition which could explain a true glucose deficiency. However, unlike what Jaminet calls "glucose deficiency", GSD results in a true glucose deficiency which we call "hypoglycemia". These forms of GSD benefit from dietary glucose supplementation, yet we are not otherwise confused about the source of the disorder, i.e. we don't call them "glucose deficiency disorders".

Accordingly, we have at least one example which shows us that even though Jaminet argues in favor of dietary glucose supplementation for treatment of some disorder he calls "glucose deficiency", this disorder is not in fact a disorder of glucose deficiency, but some other as-of-yet unknown disorder.

We often use an analogy: Nobody suffers from statin deficiency.
Reply With Quote
  #51   ^
Old Sat, Apr-27-13, 14:13
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Teaser:

Quote:
And fat burning during exercise might be higher vs glucose oxidation after eat superstarch. But then what? Either the glucose coming in is stored as glycogen during the exercise, or downregulates the breakdown of glycogen--I mean, it must, if the respiratory quotient is lower.


Bowling;
Quote:
I'm not following your last point. Some amount of carbs are needed by these athletes while training and racing, and this seems to be an excellent way to get those carbs. I think this audience has widespread agreement that it's far better to get those carbs this way than GU Energy, or traditional "energy" beverages.


I didn't mean to refer to ultramarathoners here. What I meant, was that replete glycogen stores might theoretically get in the way of weight-loss for some--even if blood glucose and insulin levels weren't super-elevated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:04.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.