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
  #16   ^
Old Sun, Nov-25-18, 17:26
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,485
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_rose
Do you think astronauts are suffering from a lack of protein rather than weightlessness then?

Yes, I do, sure. They eat pure crap, basically mouse chow. Maybe I exaggerate, but not that much. Think of the SAD, but dehydrated. However, it's not an either or, it can be both. Unfortunately, it's only about load for NASA, check for yourself. They talk about nothing else in this context, certainly not about the crap they feed the astronauts. So their only fix is exercise, they just don't know any better than that, or at least publicly.

This is so absurd, it borders on the stupid. Hey, your muscles are wasting? Do a few pushups it's gonna fix you right up. No way we're so naive. We know about diet, diseases, health, medicine, physiology, disorders, and everything in-between. How can we possibly become so retarded when it comes to micro-gravity and its effects on our physiology? When we're on the planet and there's gravity, we take it for granted of course but that's not the point, and we see something new and it's wrong like a disease for example, we treat it as something unknown, not something we know everything about and know how to fix. Well, we know pretty much nothing about micro-gravity and its effects on our physiology, yet we act as if we knew exactly how to fix the problem.

On the flip side, we're pretty retarded when it comes to diet and health on this planet, so I guess it shouldn't be a surprise when we go to space. But I know one thing for certain, there's not a single piece of code in our DNA to tackle micro-gravity, not a single life form on this planet is adapted to that. There's code to handle everything on the planet, but nothing for outer space. So it's probably wrong to tell somebody to just do a few pushups when his muscles are wasting, it's most absolutely certainly wrong to tell that to somebody who's muscles are wasting due to micro-gravity.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Sun, Nov-25-18, 19:23
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Posts: 3,983
 
Plan: n=1:TheraKeto
Stats: 170/138/140 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 107%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

Quote:
This sort of reminds me of the calcium thing. We've got calcium recommendations over a gram, supposed to protect people from osteoporosis, meanwhile we've got people eating a third of that in a lot of places, without osteoporosis being a problem. In that case as well--exercise is a big deal.

A plug for vitamin D probably fits in here somewhere as well.
Many years ago I had a full-body dexascan. I was fine, but the prediction was that by the time I was 70 I'd have osteoporosis.

As you know, I make my decisions differently than most people. I do my research, and despite my doctors pushing calcium supplements on me, I declined. I take Vitamin D3 and as many of you know, I've been walking an hour every morning for 5 years.

Full-body dexascans are hard to get paid through Medicare, so mine is yearly and of the hand only. I got my Bone Densitrometry Report last March. Normal is T1 and my reading was T1.217 or 87%. This for age 73 is quite acceptable, and I attribute my success to both diet and WALKING. Using the big bones. However, I still believe I should eat more protein, and some days I pile on extra using my MetRX powder and Collagen Peptides.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Mon, Nov-26-18, 09:50
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,459
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Diet is everything. A no protein diet, and you probably won't hold on to your lean mass for long. But months of bed rest won't do you any good, either.

Put one arm in a cast, it withers compared to the free, useable arm. Okay, stress of injury doesn't help. Suspend rats by their tails, shame on you, but now you know that their hind limbs will wither. Again, sort of stressfull. But both cases are consistent with deloading causing muscle loss, there wasn't a diet intervention.

Take somebody eating the exact same diet but not working out, add a reasonable workout--go excessive, IronMan or marathons, and increased oxidation of protein during the workouts etc. might actually waste lean mass--instead, two or three, half hour workouts, with weight or calisthenics or weight bearing yoga a week, and eating the same amount of protein, it's more likely you'll see increased lean mass or at least a positive nitrogen balance with than without the exercise. These observations are really freaking robust, I find it hard to believe we're even having the conversation.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Mon, Nov-26-18, 09:59
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,459
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

Okay, that said--suppose that giving astronauts a diet of X amount of protein totally prevented muscle loss during a space mission. We do not have that data, we can only hope that it might be true. That doesn't remove in the slightest the data about the effect of deloading, it only changes the conditions under which that deloading has that effect. We could say, the deloading increased the protein requirement. What we can't say is, it's about protein, it's not about deloading. We can't make the judgement, if it turns out that higher protein will avoid deleterious effects of deloading, that this approach is preferable to re-loading. Not without more study.

Added to the deloading studies, sort of stressful--training one arm and not the other, a somewhat less stressful proposition than tail suspension, results in increased muscle mass in the trained arm.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Mon, Nov-26-18, 17:21
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,485
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Teaser, just do a quick search for "why do astronauts lose muscle mass", then read the stuff direct from NASA, you'll see what I mean by "they don't know any better". Also, straight from NASA, you can read that the fix they use (2 1/2 hours per day of exercise) doesn't actually work. Then another quick search for "what do astronauts eat in space". You'll see for yourself, my point of view is spot on.

Also, I did say "it's not an either or, it can be both", and I did say "it's only about load for NASA". I'm not arguing it's all about protein, I'm pointing out that NASA doesn't know any better. Put it this way, if you wanted to find out what the best diet for humans is on Earth, or wanted to find out what the best fix for muscle wasting disorders is on Earth, would you ask NASA?

You've heard of Biosphere 2, right? They learned a ton about diet and its effects on body/muscle mass. Never mind that they went in with a heavy bias for a plant-heavy diet. Granted, it's a closed system where a ton of variables can have an effect on our physiology so it's almost impossible to draw a firm conclusion on that, but diet is one of the top factors. If that's the only source of knowledge about diet and muscle mass, it's already enough to at least conclude that 2 1/2 hours of exercise per day as the only fix for muscle wasting in micro-gravity is literally a stupid idea. But look around, by far it's not the only source of knowledge about diet and muscle mass, so I'm not sure how to describe something worse than a stupid idea.

Now, if we also include the ton of knowledge you're talking about, for load and muscle mass, and we still decide that 2 1/2 hours per day should suffice, we really gotta come up with a better description than just "worse than a stupid idea".
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Mon, Nov-26-18, 18:10
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,485
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Teaser, that thing about training just the one arm reminds me of a famous bodybuilder who had an obvious asymmetry to his body. Famous but just can't find it, so meh. Anyways, while training one muscle will only stimulate this muscle (either only one arm and not the other, or only the legs and not the arms, i.e. isolation training/motions as opposed to compound training/motions), the same happens without dedicated training already. Just check vasculature, it's a reliable indicator of growth. You'll see that one arm has more than the other even if there's no obvious difference in size.

I've thought about that for years if not decades. My conclusion on this is that merely having one side dominant (right handed or left handed) is in fact training in the same sense as dedicated training with heavy weights and lots of repetition and so forth. When we pick stuff up or do whatever, it's the same motions and the same arm or leg, it has no choice but to grow either bigger or a more extensive vasculature or both. I think this is true most especially during our initial child growth and puberty where the bulk of our growth already occurs.

Also, there's a few disorders where one side or limb grows bigger than the other side/limb. Generally it's called hemihypertrophy or hemihyperplasia. Here it's certainly not about training. So I guess it's possible that the dominant side becomes dominant just cuz it's grown more. I mean, if one arm was already too weak to do stuff, I'd use the other stronger arm to do it, ya?

Let's put all this together and imagine that diet is deficient and there's some training going on and there's a dominant side. Since diet is deficient, something's gonna grow less. Since there's some training, something's gonna grow more. Since there's a dominant side, one side is gonna grow more. The deficiency will exacerbate the difference much in the same way that excess insulin exacerbates fuel partitioning in favor of excess fat accumulation. Fix the deficiency and at least we made sure that nothing's gonna grow less, just like fixing excess insulin we make sure that fuel partitioning no longer favors excess fat accumulation.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Mon, Nov-26-18, 18:17
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,485
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Another idea.

2 1/2 hours per day of exercise cannot possibly compensate for a dietary deficiency, but the inverse is actually possible where eating more protein can compensate for lack of exercise since protein on its own causes growth (never mind that carbs stimulate insulin stimulate excess fat accumulation).

This is First Law we're talking where we can't create protein (the protein required for growth regardless of how this growth was stimulated) out of nothing.

I guess I shoulda started with this.
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Mon, Nov-26-18, 20:09
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,964
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesinger
dexascans ... of the hand only. I got my Bone Densitrometry Report last March. Normal is T1 and my reading was T1.217 or 87%. This for age 73 is quite acceptable, and I attribute my success to both diet and WALKING.
Maybe you should walk part of your route on your hands or do you lift some weights to get up to 87% density? I think the average woman loses ~25% of the density.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Mon, Nov-26-18, 22:18
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Posts: 3,983
 
Plan: n=1:TheraKeto
Stats: 170/138/140 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 107%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

Hadn't considered walking on my hands. No, I don't lift weights. I do yoga and the walking, was doing some waterx, but had to give it up because the pool chlorine was causing me skin problems.

I've been eating LCHF much of the time since 1972 and my prescription of choice (my only one) is Estradiol. I have to pay for it myself, since Medicare won't cover HRT for women over 65. Like so many other things our medical profession decides is "right" I decided that, for me, it would be wrong to stop. I opted to continue HRT in spite of them. Just had to find a doctor willing to prescribe it for me. It's very inexpensive. (Because of the nature of my hysterectomy I'm able to take unopposed estrogen. Recently I had my estrogen levels lab tested at my own expense, and my levels are fine.)

My health is excellent except that I have allergies and my bone marrow consistently makes too many red blood cells. Either they are totally wrong about what is "right" or I'll be exploding soon.
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Tue, Nov-27-18, 00:11
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,459
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...3-life-04-00295

You have a point that they might not be pushing the protein envelope to the point of diminished returns. Here they actually worry that increasing protein past a point will result in increased bone loss. Mmph. A bit late to dig into whether they have some special low gravity related reason for this, or are just playing that old saw about acid/base balance versus bone mass...
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Tue, Nov-27-18, 03:28
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,485
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Yeah, they worried about renal failure, that's a bust. They worry about bone loss, they gonna find it's also a bust. They worry about animal-plant protein ratio, another bust to find. Next, maybe they gonna try low-carb just for kicks and find that's some awesome stuff. But there's the problem of lower overall food intake in spaceflight, low-carb won't fix that, it's gonna make it worse cuz hunger just drops. Maybe at some point they gonna look at direct hormone/enzyme therapy, like ghrelin analogs to increase food intake cuz it works real well for that, then at myostatin/follistatin to increase muscle mass, and maybe at GH and testosterone and other stuff shunned on Earth. Or maybe they've already been looking at that privately cuz you know how it goes with that stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Tue, Nov-27-18, 04:04
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 11,423
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/139/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 116%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
After reading that crap, I feel a little bit vegan. But then, I know better.


Making you vegan is the point. Most of the anti-protein articles I see are vegan propaganda, I think.

I feel better when I get real meat protein on a regular basis. I seem to do well with dairy, too, and I eat the high fat and grass fed versions, preferably. But whey protein makes me hungry; which is what I go by.

Protein and fat rocks satiation, and that is the feedback signal I want.
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Tue, Nov-27-18, 10:20
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 13,459
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I don't think I'd go so far as to call NASA a vegan organization. Maybe more victims of the ocean they swim in, everybody has to give a nod to plant proteins...
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Wed, Nov-28-18, 16:41
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 2,858
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

And then there's Tang, originally inspired by astronauts . . . Very challenging to go deer hunting on the moon.
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Wed, Nov-28-18, 22:33
wyatt's Avatar
wyatt wyatt is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 243
 
Plan: Ketogenic
Stats: 235/220/210 Male 6' 3"
BF:
Progress: 60%
Location: SF Bay Area
Default

I like this thread.

Adequate protein intake coupled with resistance training and you should conveniently bypass unnecessary sarcopenia for the duration.
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 20:18.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.