CaRbO CoNsCiOuS ArE We?

Are people still talking about dietin by trying to lose weight? I thought that was all over now and it is more about fat loss and waistline measurements?!

I thought I established that on a proper Atkins diet, u might gain muscle mass rather than lose it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Possibly but most nutrients come from animal matter anyway don't they?

U could be right here.

Definitely a problem for carnivores

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, a terrible attitude eh?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you consider simply stating "No, it actually does" with no scientific explanation to back it up as establishing anything, then I suppose you did.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The explanation is that to gain a lot of muscle weight, u need a high protein intake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

muscle mass will only increase with excises. Sure eating high protein might help but you have toe be working out as well if you want any results.

 

Real life example:

Morgan Spurlock of "Super Size Me" fame.

From Week 1 to Week 2 on the "Nothing But McDonald's" Diet he gained 10lbs. From Week 2 to Week 3, he LOST a pound. Why? As the nutritionist confirmed, he was losing muscle as quickly as he was gaining fat. In the first couple of weeks, this process sort of evened out that gain vs loss. He was basically eating a couple of Egg McMuffins each morning for breakfast, a Double 1/4lber with cheese for lunch, and another for dinner (it was more varied than that, but you get the picture. The only thing he ate for 30 days was what was on the McD's menu). The McMuffins have about 10g of protein each, the DQPwC have about 45g each. Add to that the fries, the occasional shake, maybe some McNuggets (50g of protein for a 20 piece meal) he was getting more than the RDA of protein for even an active person. Yes, he was eating lots of fat and simple carbohydrates as well, but the fact is, he was losing muscle mass in addition to gaining weight, despite the fact that he was eating huge amounts of protein.

 

Yes! Thats all I said

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do u agree now with this Chunky? That its possible to gain more muscle mass on these diets than on others?

 

its possible if exercising. And I would not call it a diet, as you would need 3000-5000 calories everyday from pumping iron.

I like thos comerical the say low carbs with alchholic drinks, ethanol from the drink is eventually coverted into acetyl-CoA (so it glucose, all carbohydrates, fatts, well everything) and ends up as fatt and glucose and glucose is the central carb!

 

WCF said what I said earlier. The people who are gaining muscle mass on high protein diets are also consuming huuuuge amounts of calories (3000-5000 calories per day, as I indicated in a previous post). These are bodybuilders who have enough extra protein in their diets to build muscle AND be used as energy.

The average person on Atkins consumes 1400 calories a day (From their website). This is considerably less than what the average height/weight person needs to maintain weight (~2000 calories). So, what I said still stands. A low carb/high protein/low calorie diet (which is what "these diets" are which we are talking about) will NOT lead to an increase of muscle mass.

Even with exercise ... Your body needs energy to perform the exercise. If it's using all the protein it takes in (because there are too few carbs) then there is less available for muscle growth. Yes, you get energy from fat as well, but since most muscle-building exercises are primarily anaerobic, fat doesn't really come into play. Your body can't fully metabolize fat in the absence of oxygen. Muscle can burn sugar whether there's oxygen present or not, but fat never really gets fully metabolized unless there is oxygen present. So, if you're exercising and you can't burn fat, and there's no carbs available, you will burn amino acids....protein.

 

That would be called a low calorie diet which is not what I believed Atkins to necessarily believe. You're misunderstanding how I'm using the word diet. I'm using it properly.

Are there really diets which recommend alcohol?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Whoaa, that one's for me!

 

Yes.

Yes but I heard somewhere that u can take more calories than usual on an Atkins diet and lose fat while keeping/gainig muscle at the same time. Is there ANY scientific reason why this couldn't be the case?

Ok this is one good point showing how a higher than u would think intake of protein is necessary for keeping muscle mass.

BTW, I fully believe the reason I am so thin (and always have been) might be because I am a true carnivore

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

that is why I would love u to explain yourself a bit further if there's some info ur hiding

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have given you many many pieces of evidence and physiological explanations. All you have given me is, "I heard somewhere" and "I believe" and "it would seem."

I am fully aware of the proper use of the word "diet." I have referred to low cal AND high cal "diets." So, I'm not using the word "diet" to indicate solely a weight loss program, if that's what you are implying.

Whether or not you "believe" Atkins to be "necessarily" low calorie in design, it usually ends up so by default because so much fat in the diet tends to assuage appetite, and the person on the program eats less overall. Again, on average, 1400 or so calories per day consumed by the average Atkinser. That's a major reason why people do lose weight on it.

As for why you are thin on a mostly carnivorous diet: As I've mentioned in another thread, and perhaps here, you can be thin and still have a low percentage of lean muscle mass and a high percentage of fat. The fat can be marbling in your muscles (like in a steak). Since fat is less dense and lighter than muscle, you can have "muscles" equal in size to a fit athlete, but you would be as thin and weigh less because those muscles are saturated with fat. (A lean steak about the size of a VHS tape would weigh more than the same sized piece of steak with considerable marbling). As you get older and if you are not very active, eventually those fatty muscles will get over saturated. Then, the fat that you would normally deposit there, would manifest itself as subcutaneous fat, and you'll get tubby.

 

I have just counter argued your claims. What u have given cannot explain everything. High protein diets with exercise increase muscle mass. Eating more than enough calories in protein rather than carbs can make u lose fat. On the very first page of this thread I also showed how u were wrong in some of your other assumptions of the Atkins diet.

Why do u think I am implying that? Lets get back to the argument and not get side-tracked here!

I don't care what actually happens and why really. We just need to find out if the diet will intrinsically make u lose fat whether u feel hungry or not. I still believe it does. It is not tricking u into losing fat in any way - it actually WILL do that.

Interesting. So does this mean that (at least in my case) fat tends to deposit in my muscles first?

 

I think we need a nutritionist on this forum.

The best scientifically backed diet is one high in complex carbohydrates, low-saturated fats, plant protein as opposed to animal protein because of all the saturated fat that comes with animal meat. The most healthiest diet on earth was found to be the diet of the people of Crete: high in olive oil (unsaturated fat) whole grain wheat (complex carbs) some fish and goats. They had the lowest rates of heart disease and colon cancer. The problem is healthy and thin are not always one in the same, by this diet would you be skinny? Hey at least you would be healthy.

 

Explain the process?

Essentially, yes. Think about really overfat people. Did they get that way overnight? Did they wake up one morning and look in the mirror and say, "Ah...no...." No. It takes quite awhile to put on a lot of fat. If a person is starting to get a gut, chances are their muscles have been full of fat for awhile. Basically, people who are starting to become overweight have already been overfat for quite awhile. This is also why many people get frustrated with workout and diet regimens, because the opposite happens. You may be losing fat during the regimen, but it may not be so easily noticeable because most of the fat you lose at first is from the muscles. Your body wants to hold onto the other...mostly the gut for guys and the butt and thighs in women... the toughest chunks of fat for people to lose. So, since the results aren't readily noticeable, they often quit from that frustration.

Again, this is how some people can leave college being slim and continue to be so for many years, even though they are more sedentary now (no more walking to class, outdoor activities and so forth ... they work now) and eat the same fatty foods they used to and still look slim. "I just have a fast metabolism," they'd say. Then, as time moves along, they start to notice their "metabolism slowing down" as they get older. That's likely not what is happening. What's likely happening is the fat has caught up with them and it is beginning to be stored subcutaneously instead of intramuscularly. Intramuscular fat replaces muscle that has atrophied, so weight gain is not all that noticeable (and size change is not really noticeable at all). Subcutaneous fat is just additional fat, replacing nothing. So it just becomes extra weight and tubbiness.

 

Exaclty.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can certainly understand the frustration held by many people. So many "experts" giving conflicting advice everywhere.... "Don't eat carbs....EAT CARBS....Eat grapefruit....NEVER EAT GRAPEFRUIT.....You need vegetables....VEGETABLES ARE BAD....Never eat dairy ... ONLY EAT DAIRY, etc." Really hard to know where the truth really lies. Further frustration arises from the notion that what works for some doesn't seem to work for others. However, I would have to say that the basic "eat less and exercise more" would work for anyone. It's only within the last 3/4 of a century that we have become so dependent on cars and have, therefore, become more sedentary, and it's also within the last half century or less that food is readily available everywhere. Added to that, TV and internet leading to even more sedentary people. We no longer have to wait til harvest to get our grains, we no longer have to wait til the piggies and moocows are ready to be slaughtered before we can have meat. We don't have to go out and hunt our food. We don't have to wait for any particular season to get our fruits and vegetables. Everything is readily available and everywhere and cheap. We go to restaurants where they give you 2 to 3 times the proper serving size (I have taken home half my restaurant meal in a doggie bag and find, when I pour it out on an average sized dinner plate, it fills the plate and then some....waaay more than I would normally make for myself when I cook at home.) No wonder 65% of Americans are fat.

So...eat less, exercise more, lose weight. Nothing fancy. No magic pill, no magic diet. No elimination of particular foods or entire food categories. No need for supplements or vitamins or anything else. Simple.

 

Basically, when u look at it, I am saying u will more lose/gain less fat on a high protein diet than a high carb diet. What happens is, if u are overweight and limit your carb intake, your body will start breaking down its fat reserves at the same time it is trying to metabolise the protein inake (or even earlier). The body finds it easier to obtain energy from fatty acids than proteins. There is also an insulin connection. Reducing the carbs generally reduces blood sugar levels which increases insulin sensitivity and prevents the abdominal type obesity seen in Insulin Resistant people.

This is just a few facts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And remember, caloric restriction is the only scientifically proven way of extending your life

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, which is it? Lose or gain?

I understand the problem with the insulin spikes from eating carbs, but this is primarily from simple carbs (though, even that is a controversial notion)*. I have no problem with the idea of avoidance of simple sugars, white rice and regular pasta - any processed grains. They're empty calories. It has been shown, however, that more complex carbohydrates like those found in whole grains and legumes don't cause that reaction because they take more time to be broken down. Insulin release is slower and to a lesser degree.

The only way to build muscle is through exercise. Muscle building is an anaerobic activity. Fat can't be completely metabolized in the absence of oxygen. It never makes it past pyruvate stage and never enters the Krebs Cycle. Fat is burned only after a period of sustained aerobic activity over a given period of time (typically 65-80% of max heart rate for 15-20 minutes). Until then, most of what's being burned is sugar. This is like the example I often give of carbs being like lighter fluid (quick burn, low heat, but readily useable) while fat is like charcoal (once the lighter fluid has done its job, the heat built up in the coals allows them to burn very hot for a very long time). Your body may find it easier to get the energy it needs from fatty acids than from protein (I'm not really sure that's the case. Everything I've read on the subject indicates otherwise...the chain of command for ease of energy release is carb, protein, fat, which is why it takes so much effort to lose fat, and just sitting around all day doing nothing will cause a loss of muscle mass). Nevertheless, it's MUCH easier to get that energy from carbs. The carbs stoke the fire and allow for the fat burning to go on for much longer. Plus, the muscle that's built will continue to burn fat to some degree even when in rest.

Basically, I'm reiterating a very simple concept: Use your food for what it was intended for: Carbs for energy and brain food; protein for muscle building, tissue repair, and enzyme synthesis; fat for stored energy, hormone and neurotransmitter synthesis, and a home for fat-soluable vitamins.This is the way our bodies are set up to work. Why try to change that? Why risk messing with your body? Why have to worry about supplements and constant check ups and doctor care and potential muscle loss and keeping tabs of every thing you eat and eliminating so much from your diet, especially considering that just about every single report regarding the program, even the ones that have come out saying there might be something to it, always ends with the caveat of "Due to lack of longterm studies, it is not known the longterm effects or risks of this diet." Few people stay on it long enough to get good studies of longterm reports. (Many of the elements that are tested for to test for kidney failure/damage, for example, aren't even really detectable until the damage is nearly 80%. Way too late to do anything about it. So, people who say, "I've been on it for 6 months and my kidneys are fine" may possibly need to be ready for a rude awakening a few years down the road...if they end up staying on the diet).

Some info from independent sources:

http://www.eatright.org/Public/Media/PublicMedia_16442.cfm
http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=11234
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/53/60634.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348}

.......................

*A lot of Atkins followers swear that eating no carbs will keep your insulin under control. Well, that isn’t necessarily the truth. According to Dr. Gerald Raven from Stanford University. "Protein--when eaten alone--increases insulin secretion. I see no reason in the world why it would be any different if protein were eaten with carbohydrate" (Nutrition Action Newsletter Jul/Aug 1996).

Clinical studies indicate that beef and cheese cause a bigger insulin release than pasta, and fish produces a bigger insulin release than popcorn. (Holt SHA, Brand Miller JC, Petocz P. An insulin index of foods; the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66:1264-76.)

 

That was a typo. Should have read:

Just swap the "lose" and the "more" around

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Heh....

Lionel Hutz: Now don't you worry, Mrs. Simpson, I - uh-oh. We've drawn Judge Snyder.
Marge Simpson: Is that bad?
Hutz: Well, he's kind of had it in for me, since I accidently ran over his dog. Actually, replace `accidently' with `repeatedly', and replace `dog' with `son'.