In my family, everyone is skinny but me. We were brought up on the same diet. Everyone but me has high blood pressure. However, most are still average size.

In my greatgrand parents generation relatives ate carbs, fruits grains, Sunday dinners full of rolls and pies. None of them had health problems and they lived long lives into their 80's, 90s, 100s.

My father eats carbs, smokes and drinks...he is 93 and has no health problems other than a hernia. He is skinny.

We all have individual stories and can relate those of others we know. That doesn't make them absolute diet truth.

As I've stated you can't take an individual situation and extrapolate it to the whole population.

The foundational theory to all "Metabolic Typing Diets" is wrong because all humans are essentially carnivorous with the ability to remove excessive glucose from the blood by using it for energy or storing it as body fat. The human body operates in a much more healthy manner burning fat, not glucose. Carbohydrates are converted to blood glucose for a quick burst of energy but at the expense of causing future "age related" diseases as described in my carbohohydrate study at the beginning of this thread. Dr. Lutz and Allen describe carbohydates as pathogenic in their book, Life Without Bread, even though they suggest a diet with a maximum level of 72 grams of carbs. Dr. Lutz appears to have not done any research at lower carb levels.

The Second Opinion web site has a very good study that shows human physiology is much more like a carnivous wolf than a herbivorous sheet or cow.

Second Opinions by Barry Groves, PhD.

"The design of our digestive organs and digestive enzymes today shows that mankind is basically a carnivorous (meat eating) species with the ability to digest carbohydrates from fruit and vegetables. Health is damaged by the consumption of these carbohydrates in ratio to the percentage ingested."

7,700-Year-Old Woman Who Ate Like A Wolf.

Kent

Did you know there is also a website that proves that early man was a herbivore? As I said, I don't beleive in absolutes. Early man was a bit of a scavenger; he ate whatever was easiest and available. Sometimes that was fruit and vegetation.

I've never read the book, but it does seem to make sense that not all of us have the same metabolic needs. I mean look on this board, some people do beautifully on low carb, some people do not. My sister eats carbs carbs carbs all day, whatever she wants whenever she wants. Not complex fiberous carbs with protein, either, she eats sugars and white breads. Even though she eats this way, she never had the problems with crazy blood sugars and extreme hunger that sent me into a spiral of hunger and obesity.

On the other hand, my sister thinks the way I eat is absolutely disgusting. She hates the taste of "savory", heavy, protein food. She likes to graze on light carby type things. She doesn't have a problem with weight or energy.

Very interesting, Kent.

You say hypoglycemics have an especially adverse reaction to LC diets at first, and pre-LC they tended to nibble on carbs all day.

When I first started LC I felt *absolutely terrible*, and it wasn't sugar addict withdrawl symptoms (you know the "three day sickness" most people get on atkins). I was nauseaus all the time, the thought of eating made me sick. I litterally thought I was going to throw up when I would eat. This feeling lasted the entire induction and gradually stopped.
Pre-LC I would eat literally all day long. I ate tons of fruit and fruit/sugar drinks all day. When in a position where I was not permitted to snack all day long, I would get symptoms of what I now recognize as severe hypoglycemia.

I've never taken the metabolic typing test so I can't say whether or not I would test as a carb protein or mixed type, but I must say that your descriptions of people prone to hypoglycemia taking awhile to settle into LC fits me to a T.

My husband comes from a family of bone-racks. But they do LOVE their junk food! They believe a person should be able to eat what he wants when he wants. And why not, when you're not skinny as a rail? Try telling them that diet and health are related and they'll label you a fanatic. They only know what they experience in their little world.

If I ate like they do, I'd be the Goodyear blimp.

When I started Atkins induction, I had the "3 day syndrome," but after that stopped I developed constant nausea, especially during and just after eating. I could hardly even look at food. This lasted until I got up to 30 carbs/day, and then it went away as mysteriously as it had come.

However, pre-LC I never grazed and I didn't have a sweet tooth to speak of. I only ate at mealtimes--sometimes I ate too much, to be sure--but never between. In fact, I would not be hungry when I woke up and could go many hours without hunger or eating. Even now, on a Targeted Keto Diet, I am rarely hungry in the morning and must force myself to eat my assigned breakfast. (I know from experience that I feel much better all day if I eat properly in the AM, whether I'm hungry or not.)

I don't know what type I would have tested out as.

Emily

I don't know if the types match up, but there's been a similar approach for centuries in Indian/Yogic medicine, ayurveda. Their 'vata' or 'pitta' type might match the 'fast metabolizer'.

For anyone interested here's the questions to determine your metabolic type.

The results given can be a clear indication that your one type alone or that your one type with a bit of another, i.e. your a clear protein type who might do best on Neaderthin or your a protein type that needs a little or some carbs or carbs of certain types. Additionally you could be a carb type who needs non fruit carbs but carbs from grains. And then there's the whole question of which kind of fats you'd do best on...those from dairy...proteins...or vegetable fats.

The book's point is that each person can be anywhere on the continuum of protein:carb:fat needs and from different sources. It's a very individual thing.

When one eats a high-carbohydrate diet the metabolism is hyped by the insulin rush. This does not mean a person is a "carbohydrate type." Everyone gets a metabolic rush from eating carbs. This is why the low-carbohydrate diet lowers the metabolism which has been proven scientifically to increase longevity.

The "Metabolic Type" diet theories are based on this response. If you like carbohydrates and eat a lot it zings your metabolism and therefore you must be a high-metabolism carb type. This is circular reasoning and a just a bunch of nonsense to sell a book.

When I used to eat a lot of carbs I had a high metabolism, naturally that is what carbs do. Using the stupid metabolic typing reasoning I should have stayed on the high-carbohydrate diet that was making me very sick. The low-carb diet restored my health and lowered my metabolism to a healthy state.

Don't believe this Metabolic Typing Diet nonsense.

Kent

Kent,

I had always believed that insulin (and through extension, a high carbohydrate diet) inhibits metabolic (energy transforming) activity, which is why we low carbers can usually eat more and still lose as much as a HC dieter? Insulin directly suppresses metabolism; the higher your insulin, the less calories your body will burn, and therefore the easier it is for you to gain weight. Some very insulin resistant (high levels of insulin) people are so bad off they will gain on even starvation levels of a very high carb diet.

Perhaps what you mean is that insulin/sugar damages the body and metabolism via some other mechanism more readily than fat or protein? Certainly your claim that insulin and sugar "rev up" the metabolism as you claim can't be true. If that were true, HCers could eat more than LCers and that is just not the case.

No It The Wooo, I meant exactly what I said.

How much carbohydrates and the resulting insulin rush hypes the metabolism is based on insulin resistance. A person with high insulin resistance will convert the glucose to body fat while feeling weak and low on energy. This is what causes obesity.



Your quote above is backwards. Insulin increases the metabolism. This is why high carb eaters feel warmer and sweat easier than people on low carb. Insulin forces the cells to accept and burn the glucose until resistance sets in.

Basically, your understanding of insulin, metabolism and weight gain is seriously incorrect. I suggest you read Atkin's books or Protein Power.

Kent

This is partially correct, but your mistake is focusing on the insulin, and not the sugar. The energy from sugar is what causes the "energy rush", insulin merely facilitates the process.

Insulin has zero positive/increasing effect on the rate at which energy is used. While it is true insulin is a necessary component for metabolic activity to occur, in that it regulates the usage of sugar, but apart from this necessary function it does not cause an INCREASE in the rate of metabolic activity at all. It is by its nature neutral in how much or little energy is burned, it merely facilitates the processes. In fact, after a long enough time, insulin causes metabolic suppression, and I will explain why. Here is how it works.

First a brief introduction to IR. Insulin resistance is basically how sensitive your body's cells are or aren't to the effects of insulin. A young and healthy metabolism has no problem handling sugar and keeping energy balanced, even when dietary composition is very rich in sugars and starches. This is because the body's cells are receptive to the effects of insulin, and degree of insulin resistance is very low. Things are fine for a long time.

After a long enough time of this kind of diet, eventually your cells' ability to respond to insulin begins to decline. Basically, what body is doing is inducing insulin resistance on itself to protect from premature cellular aging/death. By eating a high sugar diet, you are exposing the body to an abnormally high flood of potential energy that it must deal with via metabolic activity. Metabolic activity causes aging; living causes dying (shocker eh?). Insulin resistance - making energy using tissues less sensitive to the reception/usage of energy - is the survival mechanism your body developed to protect itself from premature cellular death. Insulin resistance itself contributes to a whole host of other problems when sever enough, but it is important to remember that IR is to your body a last-ditch survival mode. Think of your body using insulin resistance to survive in much the same way as a drowning man using his own clothes to stay afloat the rising tides. Even though stripping himself will expose him to hypothermia and kill him that way after a long enough time, he still does it because he has a more immediate threat to deal with (the flood of water). SO it is the same with your body. Even though IR will eventually kill you (uncontrolled type 2 diabetes), your body sees it as a necessary action that must be taken to deal with a more pertinent threat (threat of cellular death).

Now that that is out of the way, let me explain why insulin - a hormone that starts out neutral to metabolic rate, eventually contributes to a decrease in metabolic activity.

I already explained what insulin resistance is, and why your body does it. It is important to also know that not all cells are the same, and some types of cells are more readily prone to become insulin resistant than others. As I said, your body uses insulin resistance as a survival mechanism to protect itself from abnormally high metabolic rates. These metabolic rates aren't caused by the insulin itself as you claim, but they are caused by over eating sugar. The flood of sugar = flood of energy = more demand on metabolism/cellular activity.

Your body intelligently selects which cells to make insulin resistant, and which cells to leave more insulin sensitive. Cells that are more likely to spend energy (i.e. muscle tissue) are the most likely to become insulin resistant. Fat cells are generally the last to become insulin resistant. Like I said, your body does this for a reason - it makes energy using tissues more insulin resistant before others, so as to prevent premature cellular aging/death. What your body is doing is trying to HALT the continuous flood of energy it is being exposed to, as this high sugar/energy will cause early cellular death. Therefore, your body is most likely to make cells with the highest metabolic expense the most insulin resistant, and fat cells the last to become insulin resistant. This is because fat cells have the least net metabolic expense; for every bit of energy they burn, they also preserve some.

Now imagine this with me: pretend your body is a sieve, and each hole of the sieve represents clusters of body cells. Pretend each hole in the sieve of your body is a different size, and how small/large the hole is = how insulin resistant that particular cell is. Fat cells are represented by larger holes, and LBM is more accurately represented by the smallest holes. Pretend sugar is the water. When you pour water (carbs) into the sieve of your insulin resistant body, here is what happens. The water will more easily fall into the fat cells than the muscle cells. Because the water can't get into the "energy using" holes effectively any more, a greater and greater percentage of the water will go into the less insulin resistant "energy sparing" holes (fat cells).

The result? Very insulin resistant people who eat a high sugar - low fat diet will experience the following unfortunate symptoms.
1) Fatigue and low energy levels. This is because the body cannot effectively utilize the energy you are giving it for vital metabolic activity. Your body responds to this by drastically lowering basal metabolic rate and making you feel tired sleepy and sluggish so you are less likely to increase demand for energy via activity.
2) So what happens to all that energy then that you can't use? Easy. It goes where it can go, the relatively insulin sensitive cells: the fat cells. Making you fat.

This is how it is VERY possible for an extremely insulin resistant person to gain weight on a 1000 calorie a day diet, if the composition of that diet is all wrong (i.e. high sugar and low fat).

Where do you go from here if you don't change what you are doing? Simple. Diabetes occurs eventually. First what happens is type 2 diabetes. The muscle tissue and the fat tissue have become so extremely insulin resistant, that even the very high insulin levels your pancreas is already churning out just isn't enough anymore. The sugar quite simply has no where to go because your body refuses to deal with it. Blood sugar levels are through the roof, and you are losing large amounts glucose through the urine. Starved for energy, your body starts to cannibalize itself and you become ketogenic at the same time as having extremely high blood sugar. You are losing weight rapidly. You are also extremely thirsty and can't hold to any nutrients including liquids (insulin also regulates fluids and minerals and the like). This is the danger zone. Your life hangs in the balance. If you don't get medical attention soon to help control your sugars, you will eventually go into a diabetic coma and you will die.

Sometimes you can also become type 1 after a long enough time of being type 2. If you have a particularly strong pancreas, you may very well be able to handle the demand for insulin your insulin resistant body cells require. Your insulin levels will be through the roof, and trouble is certainly lurking around the corner, but your symptoms right now may very well be minimal. However, even the strongest beta cells will burn out after awhile. If you don't do something to reduce the demand for insulin, you may eventually lose the ability to make it and have to depend on synthetic injections.

*whew* that was a lot of typing. Anyway, I hope I have clarified this confusing subject.

Basically, insulin definitely doesn't cause an increase in metabolic activity, nor is it truly accurate to say insulin causes a decrease in metabolic activity (although this is certainly more accurate than the former, because insulin in high levels lowers energy-transforming metabolic activity as describe above. However, even insulin isn't the cause in this case, as its presence is reactionary). Insulin is by its nature neutral, it does what is needed of it.
It is the sugar. It's always been the sugar. Insulin simply regulates the flow of energy/sugar, how it is spent and used. It is a traffic cop. Blaming insulin for IR/diabetes/etc is like blaming a traffic cop for a traffic jam because the streets are congested with too many cars. Blaming insulin for the excessive flood of energy caused by YOUR dietary choices is equally as foolish.

Your body does what it has to do in times of crisis. IR is a necessary evil from a biological perspective.

Regardless of rate, any body warmth we experience is the byproduct of metabolic activity. The energy (calories) in food is used by the body, used and transformed into heat (thermogenic energy). This process of transforming energy from food calories into heat is known as "metabolic activity". You are aware of this, correct?

Knowing this, we can understand why hypothyroid people report feeling abnormally cold - their metabolic rate is low, and because of this they aren't burning enough energy to maintain a normal body temp.

In fact, by recognizing the fact that low carbers often report feeling warmer, you are basically proving yourself wrong. The increase in body temp associated with low carb pretty much offers solid evidence that low carbers raise their metabolic rates slightly, which is why we can afford to consume more energy (calories).


I don't appreciate your rude and condescending tone. I have been doing LC for over a year, and have read all relevant books for my plan. I have done extensive research on the subject via internet, and am quite familiar with the science behind low carbing. What I speak of is the conventionally accepted belief. What you are claiming is not. It is up to you to provide any semblance of evidence to support your beliefs.

Its The Wooo,

I see you blocked, copied and paste information from all over the web and mixed in some of your own statements to make it appear to be your own. This is commonly called plagiarism. Much of what you said above does not agree with what you said earlier.

I can tell from your misunderstandings that you must be apart of the medical establishment. These are the same people who think eating 60% cabohydrates is healthy.

If I want to read a book I will select it myself. You don't need to copy and post if for me.

Your mixture of copied truth and personal ranting was simply boring. I read just enough to see the tactic you were using and stopped. My guess is nobody of the 45,000 people on this board will ever read your post... LOL


Kent

Folks...let's keep the discussion to the facts at hand, not what you think of the poster.

There are a few things to address, though:



Not according to this link: http://cal.man.ac.uk/student_projec.../metabolism.htm

Insulin directly influences the rate at which glucose is used. Remember, though, that this is for a healthy, non-insulin resistant individual.


Sometimes you can also become type 1 after a long enough time of being type 2.

Type 1 diabetes and type 2 have similar symptoms (uncontrolled blood sugars), but very different causes:
http://www.diabeteslead.org/300/330.html

For this reason, type 2's do not become type 1's although they can become insulin-dependent type 2's for a variety of reasons, but type 2's can eventually become insulin dependent due to beta cell burnout, not beta cell destruction (as in type 1). The end result is the same (no insulin produced by that cell any longer), but again the root cause is different. In beta cell burnout, the cells simply wear out due to high demand over a prolonged period of time, in beta cell destruction, the cells are directly attacked and destroyed.



I think you're arguing two sides of the same coin here. Without the insulin, you would not experience that "sugar rush" because the sugar would have no way to get into the cells. Without the high amount of sugar/carbs, the high amounts of insulin would not be present that eventually will lead to IR in some (not all) people.
I think a better question would be why it is that some people seem to be able to consume a high carb diet and not develop insulin resistance or diabetes. Along those lines, I think that genetics and activity levels play a big role.