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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Jul-17-18, 07:41
Middlemist Middlemist is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 124
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 148/145/130 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 17%
Default Body Type, Endomorph, Mesomorph and Ectomorph

Anyone believes in body types, and different diets according to your body type? I read about them recently and for Endomorph (which is my body type as my hips are larger than my shoulder, and lose with difficulty but am a fast gainer) they recommend low carb diets, as this body type is insulin resistant and has very little tolerance to carbs. This made sense to me as I couldn't lose on other diets where people of other body types say they can lose easily on, e.g very low far vegan etc...
Anyone has thought on this?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Jul-17-18, 08:41
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,006
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Sort of. People can be fat and muscular, naturally carry little fat but be muscular, carry little muscle but be lean, be fat with very little muscle. And then there's pear, apple, subcutaneous vs. visceral fat. So I think having three groups to sort people into is a little tight. But certainly people favour one or the other parent in the way their body turns out, and identical twins separated in childhood are more likely to have their twin's body type than that of members of their adoptive families, although that might be partly because we're all swimming in the same pool these days when it comes to access to junk food etc.

To me, the question is like asking if there are labradors, bulldogs, and grayhounds. There clearly are, but each can still be put in worse shape by the wrong diet.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Jul-17-18, 08:48
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 13,006
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

More on point--insulin resistance likely has more to do with personal fat threshold, this is an idea where once subcutaneous fat is sort of "maxed out" fat starts to gather ectopically, being stored in the liver and visceral area, contributing to insulin resistance. So by the classifications you gave, an endomorph would have a higher total body fat before this started happening than an ectomorph would-the ectomorph might actually get in trouble sooner, on a high sugar diet. There are lots of mouse studies where compromising subcutaneous fat storage leads to fatty liver and insulin resistance, a roadblock to developing a safe diet pill.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Jul-18-18, 01:57
Middlemist Middlemist is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 124
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 148/145/130 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 17%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
Sort of. People can be fat and muscular, naturally carry little fat but be muscular, carry little muscle but be lean, be fat with very little muscle. And then there's pear, apple, subcutaneous vs. visceral fat. So I think having three groups to sort people into is a little tight. But certainly people favour one or the other parent in the way their body turns out, and identical twins separated in childhood are more likely to have their twin's body type than that of members of their adoptive families, although that might be partly because we're all swimming in the same pool these days when it comes to access to junk food etc.

To me, the question is like asking if there are labradors, bulldogs, and grayhounds. There clearly are, but each can still be put in worse shape by the wrong diet.


Yes the theory is some people can be combination of one or two types.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Jul-18-18, 02:02
Middlemist Middlemist is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 124
 
Plan: Low carb
Stats: 148/145/130 Female 5'4
BF:
Progress: 17%
Default

Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, Jul-20-18, 11:09
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,436
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

The same diet should be adequate for all individuals of the same species. An adequate diet allows individuals to develop fully. On the other hand, development can be stunted through (generational) epigenetics, with chronic deficiency for example.

Take a look at the various photos: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_li...e/pricetoc.html

In every example of traditional populations where they eat their traditional diet, they all have excellent features, nothing out of place, no particular deformation. And in every example of the same traditional populations that eat a modern diet, we can instanly recognize certain traits we see regardless of body type or culture or whatever. Overbite for example does not exist in traditional populations, unless they eat a modern diet. We eat a modern diet, overbite is common. Dental arrangement is due to skeletal differences, and this is due to (generational) epigenetics - the effects of a modern diet on a developing human.

I put (generational) in parenthesis because epigenetics also occurs in the same lifetime, but with different effects. For example, an adult who adopts a modern diet will suffer, but won't get the skeletal deformations seen in children. These deformations are due to the effects of a modern diet on growth, and the most growth occurs during a child's growth over several years.

Now imagine certain traits and differences that don't stand out much, but when affected by epigenetics, get amplified. Compare overbite and crowded teeth. Normally, neither exist, but when amplified through epigenetics, subtle differences in teeth shapes produce significantly different overall dental arrangements. Now imagine the same thing happens with other tissues and organs, we get what we call body types. Normally, body types don't exist, we're all pretty much designed genetically to grow into the same overall shape - human. Think of any other species, all individuals of the same species look pretty much the same, it's hard to find any special difference in body shape. The exception is animals we use for various purposes, where we breed them for or against certain traits.

The point is, every example of bad health and deformations in that book is due to the same thing - a modern diet. How is it possible that the same cause produces so many different outcomes in so many different individuals? It's the small and subtle individual differences that get amplified through epigenetics, especialy chronic deficiency or poisoning, especially in children.

Conversely, every case of bad health due to a modern diet, the same positive effects are produced by the same diet - a low-carb diet. Why? Because a low-carb diet removes the thing that causes deformations and bad health for all humans - sugar and wheat primarily, carbs generally.

As a side note, generational epigenetics make us more sick with every new generation, ending with sterility in the last generation. Accordingly, if we compare two individuals of different generations (one of first generation, the other of third generation, for example), we will see differences with insulin sensitivity, or rather with the current poisoning level. The subtle differences will be amplified further with each new generation. Also, the degree or level of chronic deficiency or poisoning will affect each new generation accordingly, so that a lower level will correlate with better health and vice versa. Then, health correlates with fitness, better health better fitness.

With insulin and obesity, insulin makes us fat. The more insulin, the fatter we are. With each new generation, the more insulin, the fatter our children. With body types, we consider fuel partioning, where the level of insulin determines where energy goes - to lean tissue or to fat tissue. If more goes to fat tissue, less goes to lean tissue. Overall growth, especially bones, will also be affected this way, so that obesity also correlates with shorter stature. Other hormones, especially gender hormones testosterone and estrogen, also determine specific tissue distribution.

Everything that determines our shape, is affected by (generational) epigenetics.

That's just how I see it, not necessarily how it actually works.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, Jul-20-18, 11:34
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 8,996
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

To expand the discussion.....
When I studied nutrition and feeding livestock, many tables were provided specifying the range of nutrients fed on a daily bases for optimal growth, by expected adult size.

When visiting a farm that raised a work horse, the Belgium, the feeding regime was much different than what I encountered years later at a barn feeding future Thoroughbred race horses. Different body structures, different maturity age, different feeding regime.

A point of interest, the TB foals , one year of weanlings, all developed epiphicitis. Their joints were enlarged and painful. All growing too fast. The amount of feed specifically grain was pushing these babies faster than was a healthy rate.

Do we see this in humans??? Im honestly curious about the balance of proteins to calories in our children.

My 2 children are very different. One with a BMI of 17.8 and other is 21...... each built very different.

One like an Arab horse, sort of.
One a TB.
And me-- a Belgium.

How to meet the optimal needs nutritionally? Pediatritians follow a growth chart, a sharp up or sharp down is a heads up to look for a problem...... but little to no info on the feeding of children.

Feeding the adult body is easier.
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 09:19.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.