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 > Daily Low-Carb Support > General Low-Carb
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Tue, Apr-28-09, 13:56
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,077
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/277.8/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 49%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pangolina
This is reminiscent of the "don't eat fat and carbohydrates together" rule, which can be also be confusing at first reading. It's intended as a general principle about how we should provide fuel for our bodies, and he's already put it into effect when he created the diet. If we're following ON, then our fat:carbohydrate ratio is high enough that our bodies won't see it as mixing the two.


OK, this makes sense. I guess the more typical standard diet, which of course would be heavily weighted towards carbs, , would be considered the "piggish" way of eating.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Tue, Apr-28-09, 16:33
pangolina pangolina is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 218
 
Plan: Pregnancy / Dr. K / SCD
Stats: 160/000/135 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress: 640%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merpig
OK, this makes sense. I guess the more typical standard diet, which of course would be heavily weighted towards carbs, , would be considered the "piggish" way of eating.

The very high carbohydrate way of eating, with around 60% calories from carbs, is what he calls a "pasture" style. "Piggish" is when you have a mix of carbs, fat, and protein all together, with about 35%-45% calories from fat. This is more fat than the current mainstream nutrition guidelines recommend, but it's not a truly high-fat diet by the standards of Kwasniewski, Groves, etc.

Typically, piggish eaters come from a cultural background of pasture eating, but then they start adding in more meat when their material circumstances improve. They're no longer so vulnerable to the deficiency diseases that are typical of pasture eaters, but they start to develop the "diseases of affluence," such as atherosclerosis. The major problem with piggish eating has to do with the hexose and pentose cycles, which are two different ways of metabolizing glucose. Dr. Kwasniewski's views on this topic are explained in this article, by Stan "Heretic" (the article starts about 2/3 of the way down the page) :

http://www.ptbo.igs.net/~stanb/Heretical.htm
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Thu, Apr-30-09, 08:53
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,090
 
Plan: simple HFLC <30g
Stats: 74/72/62 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29%/27%/24%
Progress: 17%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

I know it is completely baffling to me too!
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Thu, Apr-30-09, 08:57
LOOPS's Avatar
LOOPS LOOPS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,090
 
Plan: simple HFLC <30g
Stats: 74/72/62 Female 5ft 6.5 inches
BF:29%/27%/24%
Progress: 17%
Location: LA SERENA, CHILE
Default

I meant about the protein amounts - carbs vs protein. I guess it all depends what theory you buy.
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Thu, Jun-11-09, 16:26
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,178
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Bumping for Lisa.
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Tue, Jul-21-09, 13:14
Bat Spit Bat Spit is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,050
 
Plan: paleo-ish
Stats: 482/400/240 Female 68 inches
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: DC Area
Default

Bumping this one too.
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Mon, Jul-27-09, 22:39
cbcb's Avatar
cbcb cbcb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 791
 
Plan: South Beach-esque
Stats: 194/159/140 Female 5'3"
BF:34% / 28% / 20%
Progress: 65%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awriter
1: I suffer from a metabolic defect involving Branched Protein Amino Acids (BPAA) that causes in some people greater insulin resistance, and which also causes excess protein to accumulate and store body fat when I eat a LC, high fat diet.


Can you point me to where I can read more about that? (Also, any update on how the Optimal Diet is doing for you?) Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Mon, Jul-27-09, 22:42
cbcb's Avatar
cbcb cbcb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 791
 
Plan: South Beach-esque
Stats: 194/159/140 Female 5'3"
BF:34% / 28% / 20%
Progress: 65%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MizKitty
I get nervous at the thought of dropping my protein that low that i might lose muscle.


As an aside, somewhere in the middle of reading posts in this thread from April/May, I started wondering about if and how much the burning of muscle spikes insulin (hello vicious stall circle), at least in some people, the way that excess protein in the diet can. It doesn't really answer your question at all, but your question made me think of it.
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Mon, Aug-03-09, 21:30
cbcb's Avatar
cbcb cbcb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 791
 
Plan: South Beach-esque
Stats: 194/159/140 Female 5'3"
BF:34% / 28% / 20%
Progress: 65%
Default

Eek - I see I have a trifecta of posts going here, back to back. I had a couple basic questions:

-Does anyone recall what, if anything, Dr. K. says about alcohol as regards weight loss with his way of eating (white wine, rum)? (Alcohol is, after all, not a carb... you could say it's a 'high energy' fuel like fats. But I don't know if he's anti-tipple or not.) I read on his forum (by searching from Google) that 'moderation' is recommended but that's all it said, and it wasn't him speaking - maybe his son.

- What, again, does he say about calorie levels with his way of eating, for weight loss... and if he says ANYTHING about lower calories (like 1200-1400).

Going by a post from that forum (I think maybe it was his son's, not 100% sure), it said for the first few weeks of the plan with weight loss in mind, to go 1:2:.5-.8. So what that works out for me if I base it off the protein and go with exactly those gram counts... is 1440 calories all added up (using the .5 instead of the .8)... 120 fat grams, 60 protein grams and 30 carb grams. What's unclear is whether he considers that calorie level adequate. It's completely fine with me, and more than I normally eat... but it would be good to know if he ever said something like "never drop your calories under 1800" or "try to stay as low in calories as the ratios allow" or whatever.

I do see where awriter mentioned she didn't lose when she dropped calories but started losing again on 1700 or a bit higher.

Thank you!

Last edited by cbcb : Mon, Aug-03-09 at 23:42.
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Tue, Aug-04-09, 09:28
capmikee's Avatar
capmikee capmikee is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,160
 
Plan: Weston A. Price, GFCF
Stats: 165/133/132 Male 5' 5"
BF:?/12.7%/?
Progress: 97%
Location: Philadelphia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcb
(Alcohol is, after all, not a carb... you could say it's a 'high energy' fuel like fats. But I don't know if he's anti-tipple or not.)

Ethanol is CH3COOH, or C2H4O2. I don't remember the definition of carbohydrate, but I think it's essentially carbon and water. I'm pretty sure all sugars have the same ratio of C:H:O as alcohol.
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Tue, Aug-04-09, 10:12
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,178
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcb
Can you point me to where I can read more about that? (Also, any update on how the Optimal Diet is doing for you?) Thanks.

I haven't seen her on the forum in a looong time. You might try to PM her.

You asked about burning muscle spiking insulin, frankly I don't know but my guess is that would be really anti-evolutionary. The body destroying protein to create excess glucose, which requires excess insulin, seems like a ticket to really quick death for people who were starving or not getting quite enough protein as it would quickly eat away at important muscles, like the heart.

If that did happen, those people would've died off and not bred, hopefully. (Sorry not-quite ancestors!) Since you can live easily 30-60 days without food the body would need to be REALLY sparing about burning muscles and hopefully wouldn't go ripping up muscle to make extra energy it didn't need, just to release insulin and store it as fat.

My guess is that the reason we get really weak when fasting is because the body is trying to last as long as possible and probably keeps the blood sugar pretty low.

Last edited by Nancy LC : Tue, Aug-04-09 at 10:19.
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Tue, Aug-04-09, 11:30
cbcb's Avatar
cbcb cbcb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 791
 
Plan: South Beach-esque
Stats: 194/159/140 Female 5'3"
BF:34% / 28% / 20%
Progress: 65%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
You asked about burning muscle spiking insulin, frankly I don't know but my guess is that would be really anti-evolutionary. The body destroying protein to create excess glucose, which requires excess insulin, seems like a ticket to really quick death for people who were starving or not getting quite enough protein as it would quickly eat away at important muscles, like the heart.

If that did happen, those people would've died off and not bred, hopefully. (Sorry not-quite ancestors!) Since you can live easily 30-60 days without food the body would need to be REALLY sparing about burning muscles and hopefully wouldn't go ripping up muscle to make extra energy it didn't need, just to release insulin and store it as fat.


But since insulin raises muscle synthesis bigtime, if the burning of muscle spikes insulin it could be a feedback loop that assures when dietary intakes don't provide enough protein, the body does everthing it can to boost muscle building and retention along with fuel storage... carbs into fat cells.
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Tue, Aug-04-09, 15:41
Matt51 Matt51 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 704
 
Plan: semi-low carb
Stats: 277/200/177 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 77%
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Default I have ordered the book from Warsaw

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcb
Eek - I see I have a trifecta of posts going here, back to back. I had a couple basic questions:

-Does anyone recall what, if anything, Dr. K. says about alcohol as regards weight loss with his way of eating (white wine, rum)? (Alcohol is, after all, not a carb... you could say it's a 'high energy' fuel like fats. But I don't know if he's anti-tipple or not.) I read on his forum (by searching from Google) that 'moderation' is recommended but that's all it said, and it wasn't him speaking - maybe his son.

- What, again, does he say about calorie levels with his way of eating, for weight loss... and if he says ANYTHING about lower calories (like 1200-1400).

Going by a post from that forum (I think maybe it was his son's, not 100% sure), it said for the first few weeks of the plan with weight loss in mind, to go 1:2:.5-.8. So what that works out for me if I base it off the protein and go with exactly those gram counts... is 1440 calories all added up (using the .5 instead of the .8)... 120 fat grams, 60 protein grams and 30 carb grams. What's unclear is whether he considers that calorie level adequate. It's completely fine with me, and more than I normally eat... but it would be good to know if he ever said something like "never drop your calories under 1800" or "try to stay as low in calories as the ratios allow" or whatever.

I do see where awriter mentioned she didn't lose when she dropped calories but started losing again on 1700 or a bit higher.

Thank you!


When it gets here I will answer your questions. A glass of wine has five grams of carbs, so a drink or two should still fit within a low carb diet. I have started drinking a glass of wine every night for the health benefits, and I am staying at 20g per day.

I would be safe with the protein, make sure you get enough. The carbs can go as low as you can stand. I typically run a range of 1:1 fat to protein, to 1.5:1 fat to protein, I find it hard to get to 2.5:1 ratio. I stay above 2000 calories per day now.
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Wed, Aug-12-09, 08:28
cbcb's Avatar
cbcb cbcb is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 791
 
Plan: South Beach-esque
Stats: 194/159/140 Female 5'3"
BF:34% / 28% / 20%
Progress: 65%
Default Weight loss with Kwasniewski (but calorie-limited) vs. South Beach

I tallied up my last 39 days or so of experiences on a South Beach-similar approach and then a calorie-limited Kwasniewski approach.

Here's what I ended up with:

Weight loss on the South Beach-similar approach: Over 1 month, lost 4.6 lbs. (could be more like 3 if I ignore the upward fluctuation above norm that preceded the first day).

Weight loss on calorie-limited Kwasniewski: Over 9 days, lost additional 4.6 lbs.

(Could some be water weight as is found when you lower carbs? Yes, although in the past when I've gone from something like 20 carbs a day to more like 60 I haven't noticed significant upward weight fluctuation in the next several days. My body fat percentages have stayed about the same throughout the last 39 days.)

Here's more detail:

South Beach-like approach over 30 days - mainly phase 1, a little phase 2 (may be higher fat than other South Beachers would have):
Weight loss: 4.6 lbs.
Typical average daily intakes over a week:
Calories: 1,228
Fat: 39.3g
Carb: 80.1g
Protein: 135.9g
Burned through exercise: 47 calories
(About 45% of calories are from protein, 29% fat and 26% carb.)

High-fat, limited protein, carb, calorie Kwasniewski approach for 9 days:
Weight loss: 4.6 lbs.
Average daily intakes over the last week:
Calories: 1,277
Fat: 95g (52g saturated)
Carb: 36g
Protein: 64g
Burned through exercise: 36 calories
(About 68% of calories are from fat, 20% from protein and 12% from carb.)

I should add that, for me, this is all unusual progress. My history for much of my life is not losing, and sometimes gaining, on these kind of calorie intakes. For me, the South Beach approach is lower fat and higher protein than I would normally tend to, and the Kwasniewski approach is much higher fat than I would normally tend to.

I've felt pretty good on both plans. I have had more energy since starting the Kwasniewski-esque plan and it is, in a very pronounced way, like when I breathe I'm getting a deeper breath or I'm in the middle of a woods or countryside area with terrific fresh air... though I never felt anything that I would describe as a breathing problem before at any weight. But I did do an exercise test once a few years ago (while on a relatively low carb and calorie-limited plan, as has been typical) and came up with slightly lowish Vo2 max though. That's low maximum oxygen uptake, a measure of aerobic capacity. When you don't have high VO2 max, as I understand it, you don't exactly feel like doing sprints - when you exercise, lower-level endurance exercise is easier and more feasible.

Last edited by cbcb : Wed, Aug-12-09 at 08:56.
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Wed, Aug-12-09, 16:55
Matt51 Matt51 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 704
 
Plan: semi-low carb
Stats: 277/200/177 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 77%
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Default You are doing great!

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcb
I tallied up my last 39 days or so of experiences on a South Beach-similar approach and then a calorie-limited Kwasniewski approach.

Here's what I ended up with:

Weight loss on the South Beach-similar approach: Over 1 month, lost 4.6 lbs. (could be more like 3 if I ignore the upward fluctuation above norm that preceded the first day).

Weight loss on calorie-limited Kwasniewski: Over 9 days, lost additional 4.6 lbs.

(Could some be water weight as is found when you lower carbs? Yes, although in the past when I've gone from something like 20 carbs a day to more like 60 I haven't noticed significant upward weight fluctuation in the next several days. My body fat percentages have stayed about the same throughout the last 39 days.)

Here's more detail:

South Beach-like approach over 30 days - mainly phase 1, a little phase 2 (may be higher fat than other South Beachers would have):
Weight loss: 4.6 lbs.
Typical average daily intakes over a week:
Calories: 1,228
Fat: 39.3g
Carb: 80.1g
Protein: 135.9g
Burned through exercise: 47 calories
(About 45% of calories are from protein, 29% fat and 26% carb.)

High-fat, limited protein, carb, calorie Kwasniewski approach for 9 days:
Weight loss: 4.6 lbs.
Average daily intakes over the last week:
Calories: 1,277
Fat: 95g (52g saturated)
Carb: 36g
Protein: 64g
Burned through exercise: 36 calories
(About 68% of calories are from fat, 20% from protein and 12% from carb.)

I should add that, for me, this is all unusual progress. My history for much of my life is not losing, and sometimes gaining, on these kind of calorie intakes. For me, the South Beach approach is lower fat and higher protein than I would normally tend to, and the Kwasniewski approach is much higher fat than I would normally tend to.

I've felt pretty good on both plans. I have had more energy since starting the Kwasniewski-esque plan and it is, in a very pronounced way, like when I breathe I'm getting a deeper breath or I'm in the middle of a woods or countryside area with terrific fresh air... though I never felt anything that I would describe as a breathing problem before at any weight. But I did do an exercise test once a few years ago (while on a relatively low carb and calorie-limited plan, as has been typical) and came up with slightly lowish Vo2 max though. That's low maximum oxygen uptake, a measure of aerobic capacity. When you don't have high VO2 max, as I understand it, you don't exactly feel like doing sprints - when you exercise, lower-level endurance exercise is easier and more feasible.


You are losing a half pound a day, which is terrific! Keep up the great work!
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 13:36.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.