Although not new, but so worthy-of-mentioning post by M.Eades to have second thoughts before jumping to some fad detox diet or anti-age therapy. Also allays those who are worried that protein for gluconeogenesis is inevitably sucked out of muscles.

"In going through and catching up on all the online issues of Science, I finally reached the most current issue, which contains an article of interest. Originally published in 1970 in the journal Nature, this article was featured in the current issue of Sage KE, an anti-aging supplement to Science, as a blast from the past in their Classic Papers section. The paper was the first to show that the accumulation of non-functional, or junk, proteins play a role in the aging process. This article caught my eye because of another I had read recently and had touched upon in a previous post.

Anti-aging scientists are now pretty sure that one of the forces behind the aging and senescence process is the junk protein matter that accumulates in the cells, hampering cellular function. If the junk builds up enough, it basically crowds out the working part of the cell, killing the cell off in the process. As this inexorable process proceeds, more and more cells function less and less well until we, as a being, cease to function. There are other processes driving the aging function besides this accumulation of cellular debris, but if we can make some headway with cleaning out the junk, then we should be able to make the cells, and by extension us, function better for longer.

We have little chemically-operated waste disposal systems in our cells called lysosomes. Cellular debris that gets hauled to the lysosomes and dumped in gets degraded into individual amino acids, which are released into the circulation and used to re-synthesize other, functional, proteins. The process of transporting the junk proteins to the lysosomes is handled by enzymes designed for that purpose found within the cells. As long as the enzymes are working up to snuff, the junk doesn’t accumulate. But as the Nature paper shows, the aging process takes its toll. Random errors in protein synthesis of these enzymes due to the aging process means that some end up being functional while others aren’t. The non-functional enzymes then not only don’t help haul the junk to the lysosomes, they themselves become junk. It’s easy to see what’s going to happen as time marches on.

But how can we slow this process and de-junk our cells?

Stay in ketoses a lot of the time. How do we stay in ketosis? By following a low-carbohydrate diet.

How does ketosis help us de-junk our cells?

A paper was published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry last year that tells the story. Ketones stimulate the process of chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA). What is CMA? It is
a cellular process that allows cells to remove proteins, organelles, and foreign bodies from the cytosol [the watery interior of the cell] and deliver them to the lysosomes for degradation.

Why would the body be designed for ketones to stimulate CMA? Simple. Ketosis is one of the signs of long term starvation. Ketones are produced throughout the day and are perfectly normal, but sustained ketosis takes place during starvation and sends a message that the body needs to conserve both glucose and protein. The body begins to conserve glucose by signaling to many of the organs and tissues to start using ketones for energy instead of glucose. The body conserves protein by decreasing its use of glucose because in the absence of dietary carbohydrate (as in starvation) the body makes glucose out of protein. Conserving glucose by switching to ketones allows the body can preserve its protein stores. The other thing the body can do is to make sure that the protein it does break down to use for glucose formation comes from non-essential sources. What more non-essential source can we have than useless junk proteins floating around in the cells?
The ketones themselves stimulate the process of CMA to salvage all the junk protein to be used for glucose conversion. Ain’t nature great?

Now, all we have to do to slow the aging process is to stay in some degree of ketosis most of the time and let nature take her course and clean all the junk out of our cellular attics. How do we do that? Easy. Keep our carbohydrate intake at (or preferably below) 100 grams or so per day. Why that particular number? Let’s figure.

It takes about 200 grams of carbohydrate per day to provide glucose for all the structures in the body that require it. After a period of low-carbohydrate intake or starvation that amount required drops to about 130 grams per day because about 70 grams are replaced by ketones. We never really get below that because certain cells can’t convert totally to ketone use and continue to require some glucose. For instance, the red blood cells must use glucose for energy as do some cells in the kidneys and the brain and central nervous system. But not to worry, the liver can easily make 200 plus grams of sugar per day to ensure that these tissues get all they need. But the liver makes most of this glucose via a process called gluconeogenesis (the generation of glucose out of protein).

So, if we decrease our carbohydrate intake to below, say, 50 grams per day, the amount advised in Protein Power and other enlightened books on carb restriction, we’re in a deficit to the tune of about 150 grams per day. No problema. The liver makes up the deficit out of protein. As we start making ketones to replace the glucose, the deficit drops to about 80 grams per day, which the liver can easily provide. But here is the neat part. Most of the glucose the liver makes won’t really come from protein from our tissues; it will come from the protein we eat. We’re not starving; we’re eating a high-protein diet. So we have plenty of protein to make glucose as we need it without robbing our muscles and other protein tissues that would get pillaged were we really starving.

But, deep in the bowels of our cells this fact is unknown. All the cells know is that ketones are all over the place, which is the signal to start the CMA process to break up junk protein.

We end up losing body fat, which is both burned for energy and converted to ketones to replace glucose, while at the same time we maintain our needed protein structures because we’re eating protein, and we de-gunk our cells. All while eating steak and eggs and lambchops and ham…

It just one more reason the low-carb diet rules."

The take home message, eat at least adequate protein. In the context of a low carb diet, if you don't the body will make up the 70g it needs (we're assuming a keto -adapted body) from muscle.

Dr Eades often mentions the constant complaints from low carbers who can't understand why they aren't losing bodyfat when they've practically eliminated carbs completely. They aren't gaining, but they aren't losing either. These stalls are always resolved by the patients maintaining their low carb level but reducing the amount of fat they eat.

Eos this issue seems to be a bit like your inability to see that dairy foods (particularly the low carb ones, like cheese and yoghurt) are perfectly healthy
components of the human diet for the overwhelming majority of people of European (and apparently African as well ) descent who are neither lactose nor casein intolerant - for absolutely compelling evolutionary reasons .

There may well be some low carbers who can lose bodyfat while eating a more fat than they burn. I and most low carb commentators think that this is a reporting problem rather than some metabolic magic. However, this forum alone (in fact most low carb forums) is proof positive that most low carbers can only lose bodyfat if they get their fat intake low enough.

Yep, if you consume too many calories you will gain weight regardless the source. I feel like I have been doing that lately and should be gaining, but I am still losing the 5 lb I gained back last month-- probably due to increased exercise?

Well Mike, I do think it's important to qualify that by saying that in the context of a low carb dietary approach, consuming too many calories (particularly fat calories), may not tend to result in bodyfat gain but it (in the overwhelming majority of humans) will also sure as hell almost guarantee that you won't lose either.

And heck, for most people simply being able to eat fat 'recreationaly' (ie in excess) without gaining much is certainly much better than storing every excess calorie.

But it ain't as good as losing .

And Eos, I must also stress that I am hardly a supporter of low fat. Fat (ketones or FFa's), wether dietary fat or body fat, for the clear metabolic reasons that I actually think we do agree on , should supply human energy needs. And the tiny amount of glucose required from non ketone elective tissues can be easily supplied by adequate dietary protein, without kicking the body out of ketosis.

Ketosis which is becoming better understood as the ideal metabolic state for the human body.

But you must keep dietary fat in perspective. Too much, and you'll have a much harder time losing bodyfat, and/or oxidatively damage every cell you own.

I should also mention that my experience of adding seven months of 24/24 very low carb Intermittent Fasting to five years of just very low carb, has made it really clear to me that excess calories are not a good metabolic idea. Sure some human bodies (like mine) can dispense with the excess through mitochondrial protein uncoupling, without either storing, metabolizing, or excreting them. But the improvements in muscle growth and general subtle health indicators from simply consuming way less excess fat, has made it abundantly clear to me that having to 'waste' calories is a bit like having a badly tuned car, which uses far too much petrol to get the same amount of work done.

Getting the 'cleanest' burn with the minimal amount of carbs and adequate protein leaves the rest to dietary fat or bodyfat.

It depends how much you've got of the latter just how much you should be consuming of the former .

But how many calories is too many calories? May daily caloric needs are in the vacinity of 2500-2800 per day. As an experiment a couple of months back I consumed an average of over 4000 calories per day for an entire week. This should have been enough excess calories for me to gain about 2.5 pounds. The result? I actually lost one pound. My diet was 90% fat, 1% carb, 9% protein. With insulin levels very low, it is very difficult to store fat.

Will you pls show at least one post of mine where I would call for disregarding protein. (tip: better don’t waste your time, ‘cause you won’t find any).

As to dairy, we talked helluva lot of it, but you still vehemently support your casomorphin addiction. Well, this is your choice, keep on getting high, but why confounding others whom your wishful thinking can harm.

For the last time, fats are not harmful, while oveareating on protein is. http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fat-not-protein.html

I’ve given you enough of examples in “Metabolism & Ketosis” proving there ARE people that do lose fat this way. But as if a silly young maximalist, you stick to just one truth, conveniently forgetting the world and people are diverse.

Nonetheless, I do agree with you that for some of us who eat high-fat, as long as we get closer to ideal weight, the time may come to watch calories, which is easier to do by reducing fats.

So, JL, I think there’s no point for now to worry of overconsuming calories.
Btw that’s a very illustrative example of yours! I also know one forum member at magicbus, who ate at the range of 4000 calories, lost some fat and didn’t gain after. However I know the reason for it, it still amazes me.

That was me!!! And Dr. Michael Eades explained very nicely how this is possible.

That's you Jeff.
OUR test subject
Thank you for you willingness to experement.
Diane
Don't ever get off the bus. That's my post for this month.

Whoa, what a coincidence! Pleased to meet you in person, walking celebrity!

Another person to make Anthony Colpo rollerblade naked down the main street, huh?

Jeff, thank you for setting very vivid example high-fat works!

I always try to remember why it is that LC is so effective. Its what we are adapted to eat. I don't think man ever ate 90% of his calories as fat, animals don't come that way and I don't think they were that wasteful even in times of plenty.

As for casein, its a protein like any other. You break it down to amino acids and make other proteins with it, or turn them into glucose and/or ketone. Having some phobia about casein seems unnatural. Again, we are adapted to eat casein from mother's milk, so I don't see there being a good mechanislm for completely switching off that ability and casein becoming a poison. But I haven't been reading this argument in the other thread so forgive me if I restated something that has already been said.

I don't buy your premise that you have to watch calories on a low carb diet.

I think that if you eat an excess of protein and amino acids - your body will store some of the excess as muscle and other lean body mass (such as organs).

I have been able to eat enormous amounts of protein and fat and still burn fat and build muscle. Granted my weight does not change (or changes only a small amount) - because I am building muscle.

People don't believe me when I tell them I eat two omelettes with piles of bacon and sausage for breakfast. Or 6 to 8 hotdogs for lunch. One pound of beef or pork for lunch. 1.5 pound steak for dinner. etc.

Oh, my! Not again. Irrespective of your wishsful assumptions, dairy does contain opioid substances, generally called exorphins, activating opiod or “reward centers” in the brain, producing motivation, reduction of anxiety, sense of well-being, in other words they are to varying degree addictive. Actually this is their addictive lure that made primitive people drive off their usual 3 mln (!!!) lifestyle. What else is there to say?

…Probably that before posting you should have read “How much is the opiate for the masses?” at Paleo thread.

Ditto. My calorie range is also off the mark.

Btw what is the approx. fat to protein ratio, can you pls tell?

No idea. Eggs have little fat but loaded with amino acids. I typically have nine small organic eggs every morning. Then a pound of hamburger or pork for lunch. Then 1.5 pounds of ribeye or NY strip (fatty steaks are more tender) for dinner. I try to cut large portions of fat off of the steak ...

Then other days I eat a lot of pork rinds which I think are high in fat. Some cheese and sour cream.

Granted my Way of Life (WOL) is not designed strictly for losing weight. It is designed to burn fat and build muscle.

In fact, it might not be recommended for women - who usually don't want to build lean mass.

So you're not against casein per se, but other compounds in milk. Making my point valid and not wishful thinking. I'll check the thread when I get time, sounds whacky though to attrribute man's change to a carb-based diet on the use of dairy. Doesn't change the fact that man adapted to eating a higher level of protein and fat than you are espousing as being ideal.

Eating more calories than you burn and not gaining weight, is an interesting concept. Either you are burning more than you think, or excreting more than a normal person, or eating less than you think. Or do you not subscribe to the conservation of mass?

KE I think you're doing high protein not high fat. But I like the way you eat! "High on the hog" as they say.