We’ve covered a lot of ground. What we’ve discussed is that carbohydrates come in the form of simple sugars (monosaccharides) and more complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides). We know that the sugar names all end in “ose” (glucose, fructose, lactose, etc…). Polysaccharides are many of these monosaccharides linked together in a chain and are a common way plants store energy (similar to our fat) for later use.
I’m suggesting you stop thinking about “Carbs” as a food group; instead categorize meat, vegetables, grains, dairy, etc… Starch (potato) and Cellulose (wood) are made from IDENTICAL glucose molecules. They have a different saccharide bonds, only one of which we have the enzyme (amylase) to digest.
So in Part 3, I want to talk about another pseudo-carbohydrate that is critical for you – glycogen. Many of you are familiar with glycogen from athletics. It’s the “load” part of carb-loading in preparation for a race. It’s also the center of your glucose-centric metabolism and the reason I personally don’t think “carbs” are bad or unhealthy.
What is unhealthy is the way we process high-energy foods with even more empty calories and then consume them in excessive quantities.
So, let’s take a little step back to understand what glycogen is and why it’s important to your performance and your life. Your body has three basic storage points for energy: ATP (adenosine triphosphate), glycogen, and fat. the most immediate energy – what is behind the muscle explosion is ATP. You have about 250 grams of this stuff, about the same amount of energy as is contained in a AA battery, energy comes form popping off one of the phosphates to form ADP (adenosine diphosphate + energy)(1). We then use this other enzyme many of you will be familiar with, creatine kinase, to shuttle these phosphates back and forth.
Save the Liver
ATP is at the very basic level of your energy utilization. Just above this in the “energy food chain,” is our friend, glycogen. Think of glycogen as a “fuzzy protein.” It is made of a core protein, glycogenin, surrounded by fuzzy starch (poly glucose) hairs. It is located throughout your body. You have about 2000 calories at any given time; 500 or so is stored in your liver and the rest packed among your muscles where it can be readily accessed. I’m using approximate numbers because everyone is slightly different, but here is an interesting side fact.
It takes (about) 2600 calories to run a marathon. 2000 calories/2600 calories = 77%. Now using that number and knowing a marathon is 42.2Km/26.2M we see that 77% is 32.5Km/20.2 miles. Anyone that has attempted to run a marathon can tell you about that number: THE WALL. If you are like me and would rather freeze your ass off than run a marathon, that is the point where ATP can no longer be generated by glycogen stores (you’ve run out) and you MUST resort to stored fat.
Fat is then the highest level and quantity of stored energy in your body and the body has to work to get it into a primary glucose-based energy system. Conversely, fatty foods (Oils, lards, etc) have the densest energy reserves. It’s simple: fat is there for long term storage. Plants, and Humans have carbohydrate based reserves for the most immediate needs and that is in your blood sugar level and glycogen reserve.
Record marathoners have trained their bodies to dip into fat reserves much earlier and they use fat throughout the race. When we get back to fat metabolism and thermal loading, you’ll find this is a side benefit of conditioning your body to withstand cold – free fatty acids (FFA) liberated from your fat stores. You may remember from BATGirl, that the mitochondria of BAT and other tissue can use FFA in the presence of a special up-regulating proteins to create HEAT instead of generating ATP.
Your ability to regularly engage in this FFA economy can be significantly influenced by running marathons – extreme milage volume causes this switch as does mild cold stress. People make fun of me about cold all the time, but I just think this is far easier than running 50 miles/day. You may see it different.
What happens in Protein-rich diets is you have depleted your glycogen reserves and it’s energetically costly to refill glycogen from converting protein. Your body switches over to fat metabolism and voilà, you start losing weight. That’s how it works and the ultimate decision one should consider is what will be the long term health effects by using your body’s tertiary macronutrient, protein, to drive it into a secondary reserve, fat, by depleting it from it’s primary energy, glucose. The other direction works just as well and in a glycogen replete state, Chris Voigt lost weight eating 20 potatoes a day – all bad carbs. This is an interesting contrast to the high-fat approach and I think it’s far more important than a silly PR stunt.
Seems complicated, but I just want people to discuss this factually and make informed decisions.
We can equally manage 1) hunger (satiety) and 2) total caloric intake, while maintaining correct micronutrient intake, living permanently thin as opposed to yo-yo dieting. This does require modifications to your lifestyle and I won’t tell you it is trivial, but neither is bypass surgery, insulin shots, high blood pressure, or lugging around an extra 50-200 lbs.
So, there really is not debate that carbohydrate, particularly starch, is a perfectly natural food. As we process with cooking (or over process) ANY carbohydrate, the energy becomes more readily available and then we damn “starch” as the bad-calorie; it’s simply not true. What is interesting is there are many ways to put your body into “survival mode” and only two that have ever demonstrated longevity in laboratory animals: caloric restriction and mild cold stress.
We still have to cover proteins and fats and we’ll keep the rules engaged, neither are food groups. As well, I want you guys to jump in on new commenters in the future and explain when we discuss carbohydrate here, we are primarily discussing high-starch foods that are relatively unprocessed (heated, with no added fat, dairy, or sugar). If you don’t believe me, TRY to go find food in a restaurant that 1) contains a starch and 2) is not loaded with sugar, fat, or dairy. I did it as an experiment for 14 months and know first hand the difficulty.
Brain Drain
We are fat, but let’s not damn potato, squash, and rice – the very staples of Humankind – as the punching bag for of our epidemic obesity. Let’s acknowledge that preparation and added empty calories play the MAJORITY role. When I construct a new paradigm to consider for eating at the end, you’ll see that there is plenty of room for carbohydrate (starchy-foods) on the plate.
Starches are an EXCELLENT food option and contain glucose, the only fuel used by the largest energy consumer of your body: The Brain. When you run low on glucose (and glycogen), gluconeogenesis creates glucose from amino acids by stripping off the nitrogens and using what is left to synthesize glucose. Energy for this is driven through beta-oxidation of FFA. If you have a lot of beta-oxidation is occuring (untreated diabetes or starvation), acetyl-CoA builds up, and is converted to the ketone bodies. That’s the basis of ketosis and why ketones are found in your urine.
The brain-blood barrier is the separation of this distinctly different glucose metabolism from the rest of your body. So, I think is at least it is easily questionable to say carbs are “bad” or even the cause of obesity. At the same time, throwing your body completely into starvation mode, while certainly effective to lose weight, might not be the best long term. Of course we have to consider the implications of caloric restriction too. I just raise the question.
With that is it fair to ask if “carbohydrate” was so bad for you, why did we evolve one of the most advanced, energy-conuming brains of any species to use only a carbohydrate fuel?
Think about it.
(1) “On the prebiotic potential of reduced oxidation state phosphorus: the H-phosphinate–pyruvate system,” David E. Bryant, Katie E. R. Marriott, Stuart A. Macgregor, Colin Kilner, Matthew A. Pasek and Terence P. Kee, Chem. Commun., 2010, 46
**************
Do you like these blogs and want to help me? Please take a minute to scroll up on the right side of the screen consider making a monthly donation to this program. You can also make a one time donation here:
I always love the Chipotle paradigm that I watch every time I go in. The person in front of me will say they are eating healthy, and orders a chicken salad, then adds pico to spice it up, then adds sour cream to cool it down, then adds salsa to spice it up, then adds cheese to cool it down, then adds guacamole for the good fat and flavor. Then they look at me funny when I have the chicken salad with just pico. Sadly, they think they are getting a better value, when in ten years I won’t be paying the deductible for my triple bypass.
Lol. Well, I guess the same could be true for a baked potato. What really makes you fat? Over consumption of calorically dense, nutrient poor foods.
I’m not so sure I’d take bets on your bypass. Perhaps you save the pico and avocado and throw away the chicken and the cheese. You CAN lose weight effectively with this approach. Just not sure about the long term health…
We’ll see.
Ray
I agree. I am interested to see where you go with your research, because I also love the veggie salad, with guac instead of chicken, no cheese, no sour cream. But from what I am reading so far, I’m on the fence as the missing variable is whether or not the oil they cook those fajita veggies is going to be a deal breaker or not. Also, how do we account for the hidden “pinch of sugar” they add to even the salsa and/or guac?
By the way… don’t think the subtle hyperlink didn’t go unnoticed. I see what you did there.
Me? >grin<
I am getting more and more interested, mostly because over the past seven months that I have been on the Slow Carb Diet, Ithere have been timeswhere i will cheat on certain carbohydrate laden foods and they will have a much bigger impact on me than others (e.g. bagels and butter have been much worse for me than rice or even cake and Pizza) I wonder if the seceret formula that you will soon reveal to us all will clarify some of my recent exeriences.
I think the answer will be obvious when we look at fats and protein. There are no “bad” macronutrients, only over consumption of calorie. Despite books to the contrary, calories are calories, unless you counting every other one. Then it’s more of a collection.
There isn’t just one simple answer and that’s why the book schemes are all over the place (and most work, btw). I have a different nemonic for quantifying and it is all based on food. Once we agree on food, the process is simple.
stick with me. Best part we can all test it together. I only learn when i’m wrong (so does everyone else, few will admit it).
Ray
Ok Ray, You’ve got me along for the ride. (BTW, you had me anyway, if nothing else because Tim ferriss is willing to quote you for a chapter in his book, and the fact that you were a NASA scientist) I’ll try out whatever you will eventually say.
Trust him, he is a rocket scientist.
After one week of basically doing slow carb, but focusing more on veggies and legumes and eating less meat, I have lost 5.4 pounds and 3.5 inches. I also swam (kickboarded would be a better description – I have to learn how to breathe so I don’t look like I’m drowning while trying to swim laps) 5 days last week in 82 degree water for 30 to 40 minutes each session. The real key for me is minimizing eating out. We ate at home a lot more this past week. We own a family business, so it is difficult to find the time and a whole lot easier to just go out, but even if you chose the healthier options at a restaurant, they are LOADED with “hidden” calories whether they be from fat or sugar.
Fantastic!!! That’s spectacular. Eating out is a challenge for everyone. I really get it and that’s where many of us fail. I think this is one clear advantage for a cheat day.
Keep us posted!!
Ray
Btw, I’m sort of paddle boarding too. Best part of thermal load with water – the worse you swim, the more you burn! Swimming is all about technique, not power. You burn more when you suck at it like me.
Ray,
Liking all the science and fact behind the ‘idea’. I followed slow-carb pretty strictly as a Type 1 diabetic of 36 yrs for 6 months. Now age 42. Lost 16 pounds then plateaued, and unfortunately not following as closely since. According to doc, low-carb good idea for type1. My concern follows your line of thinking on long-term effects to an already stressed endochrine system.
My question is this, Will their be a stratgey to follow in the ‘revelation’ that will help me as a type 1 to lose weight and avoid the long-term effects that effect of diabetics?
Thanks for all you have done thus far, incredibly interesting……Hunter
Hunter
congratulations and It’s really impressive to see someone that has a REAL challenge other than the complacency I was faced with. Since I don’t know the details of managing Type 1 diabetes, and you obviously have the information on pale/slow carb, perhaps you might want to look at John Mcdougall’s program (drmcdougall.com) and joel fuhrmans (drfuhrman.com). Both currently taking patients. I know mcdougall only takes patients that come through his 10 day program (although he introduced a 5-day one this week). The idea is that compliance is the main issue and having someone eat correctly is key to the long term success. Both deal with Type 1 diabetes extensively.
The surprise for everyone…and this goes all the way back to the early work at Duke by Walter Kemper and now is independently run by Dr. Robert A. Rosati . I saw a presentation by him a few weeks ago and their success is pretty astounding.
This was interesting for me, because I fell into the same line of thinking. I was pushing towards type 2 diabetes (high fasting blood glucose) and had several extreme issues of hypoglycemia and have taken control of all of this with diet. What surprises me is just how many people I’ve met that have significantly reduced/eliminated medication: insulin, blood pressure, cholesterol…way too many for it to be a crazed fringe.
Overall, as you can probably tell, I really look for contradictions and like to dig in deep to understand why. I love to teach and help (although more money in snake oil – just not my style).
keep us posted on what you find. Regardless of the situation of your insulin production/lack there of, you still have a glucose based metabolic system and have to manage it accordingly. Putting the renal system into overdrive seems like a complication, not a solution.
Ray
Ray,
Thank you for solid advice on further avenues to follow based on science and fact; instead of quick tricks…
With the temps turning cooler- I plan on implementing
your moderate uncomfortable cool in order to help use science to my advantage. I have printed your Progress forms and will let you know how it tracks for a Type 1 pumping insulin.
Cheers- Hunter
So if I understand correctly, if I place my body in mild cold stress then the body will use bodyfat to generate heat even if the body is loaded with glycogen?
It’s strange, I visited Melbourne recently. It’s know as a cold city compared with my home town of Sydney. I did notice that there are a lot of skinny people in Melbourne. I would have thought it might have been the opposite with people eating more calories in colder climates.
Try not to equate local climate with thermal loading. Even when presented with the opportunity, many people bundle negating any local climate advantage.
What I am saying is that FFA is converted to heat by mitochondria when you are beyond sufficient levels for waste heat. There is an uptick at 2 hours or so after swimming. I believe that is related, as no other reasonable explanation is offered. Also swimmers get hungry after, but not during swimming. Again, I think it’s making up for caloric deficit
For thermal load examples look to individuals in the climate. How do they dress? Do they worn outside? Those are better indicators.
Like exercise you can’t out cool your mouth. Food throws it all out the window.
Ray
So no tricks are necessary for weight loss with carb depletion, as long as you’re in a deficit, and cool therapy. I heard of doing sprints for 20min(burn the glyc) the jogging for 30-45min to hit the fat directly. For your own personal information, if you wanted some info on how people did on certain diets, I have done many diets starting with the abs diet. It was a mix of foods, 6 meals a day, calorie restriction (about 1500 a day) and lost the first 20 lbs or so. Then I went paleo and maybe lost 10 more and stalled out. I mixed that with intermittent fasting(skip breakfast and lunch every day, and lost massive amounts of weight with rediculous amounts of exercising ,but lost all the muscle and strength and it was not fun, I couldn’t sustain 6′ 2″ frame and 165lbs. Went to vegan diet for six months, and could sustain 175lbs, but eating 8+ times a day was getting tiresome, I was always hungry but never gained, did not “look” as good as when paleo(water retention, bloating, strength loss). I then went paleo with dairy for a bit before trying slow- carb for a month. Ate as much as I wanted and didn’t lose or gain. And now for the last 7 or so months I eat mixed diet of grass fed beef and starches and fruit and veggies, cottage cheese, peanut butter, chicken, but practice calorie restriction and cold therapy and fasting(just skip breakfast usually). I maintain about 180-185lbs with a good amount of muscle and looking to cut after a bad binge vacation a few weeks ago. So pretty much whatever works for you to keep lean, do it. 🙂
Good stuff . I think health and aesthetic fitness are different beasts. My themodynamic basis of food absolutely supports the amazing weight loss success of paleo-centric diets. I know they work and they allow us to eat foods we crave. There is room to assess the real health of that (and vegan) schemes. For me, if I can explain why diets, all diets, with a simple nemonic, then people are more free to experiment and explore. I’m defending carbohydrate, because of how the term is used and the ridiculous assertions. Where people misuse protein I’ll dontue same thing.
Fundamentally out issues begin with “low fat diets.” not that those didn’t work, but it started the macronutrient shuffle. When most whole foods contain all three, it seems clear we have a problem.
I’m not going to choose one diet over the other. I just aim at keeping the playing field level.
Ray.
I did read a study recently that from the early 1900’s we ate the same amount of carbs as we do now, and the only thing we are eating more of since the obesity epidemic is fat. So what does that say? I am curious about your findings on crave/binge problems with sugars mixed with fat, which seems to be my favorite combo 🙂 another diet I was reading seemed to naturally avoid those combos. Basically overeating on workout days of carb and protein, and rest days under-eating on mostly protein and fat. Maybe there was a unintentional link found.
Seth
The problem is that “carbs’ have no meaning to me in the context of the study. Please reread, because you are doing exactly what I asked you NOT to do. Carbs and protein (or fat) ARE NOT FOOD GROUPS. If you will put that aside and read what I have written, you should know what a carbohydrate is after these three posts.
If I’ve not been clear, I hope someone else will chime in here to help.
This is of fundamental importance. I am not chiding you, but It’s frustrating that we talk this way. Let’s explore this together and perhaps we can make a huge difference.
Ray
Sorry it’s hard to not “think” that way, when i have been trained to. I do need to step back and just listen, and look at food as what it is and not looking at macronutrients. I think that looking at the difference between unprocessed real food vs. Chemically enhanced engineered food is valid argument for the problems we see today.
Its interesting to watch you cover these various macronutrients but I’d have to say that after reading “Good calories, Bad Calories” and the follow up book “Why We get fat” , both by Gary Taubes, as well as personal experimentation, that I have serious doubts over both the calories in/calories out model as well as the “requirement” of carbohydrates at all.
My 2c,
Dave
I started with the same idea, but as I began to measure my own metabolic rate and consider, for example, that 80% of calorie expended are waste heat, I’m not surprised by the caloric conundrum. The Atwater factors are over a century old and while they were carefully measured, most of them were on “real” food (the exception bread).
When you say “need for carbohydrate” it’s clear you and I are using the term differently. Synthesizing carbohydrate by deamination of proteins so that your brain has glucose is not a primary energy pathway. As well, there are clearly chronic illness increase associated with our increased shift to non-food processed product.
I agree with you (and Gary) that fat/salt/sugar-laden breads, chips, fries, candy, donuts, bagels, batter, biscuits, buns…but none of that is the carbohydrate I’m discussing. There’s no way to deny its calorie in – calorie out; that’s thermodynamics. The question remains whether our food labeling system accurately represents calorie and digestability of food.
We live in a world of aggressive marketing where no one reads the primary source work – that leads to wide spread beliefs, for example, that olive oil is “healthy.” We purchase “zero calorie” oil spray – there are no zero calorie oils. We are told that no calorie sweeteners make rats more fat – no one looks at the yogurt they were fed in the diet and considers the amino acid receptors in their taste and perhaps they like the taste of aspartame (the methyl ester of two natural amino acids – phenylanaline and aspartic acid). Perhaps they like the taste better and eat more?
What I’m saying is there is lots of room for error and to invoke a violation of the laws of thermodynamics is really a stretch. To eliminate one of the primary metabolic fuels (starch/glucose) is a leap. It’s fun to think about this and I’d say the wok of some of the more hard-core anthropologist is going to show just how significant USOs were in providing our evolutionary energy needs
Ray
I was trying to make my comment succinct but that is definitely what I was getting at. The digestion to calorie conversions, how calories are determined , the wasted heat factors etc all lead to ridiculous dietary old saws about energy in and energy out. Whether a low carbohydrate diet changes partitioning or what exactly happens, it seems to vastly alter the bodies response to large amounts of food/energy that doesn’t occur on a higher carbohydrate diet.
Dave
Argreed. Protein rich (or carbohydrate low) essentially puts you in starvation mode. Amino acids are a tertiary fuel soruce of last resort (with obvious issues of atrophy).
Most of the success comes from throwing out the bad carbohydrate (highly processed and loaded with fat condiment or cooking) with good: correctly prepared starchy-food. I say just throw out the bad (as an option) with fat and excess simple sugar. That way when you do eat carbohydrate your body doesn’t go into a tail spin.
Again, this is about optimum health and not just about losing weight.
I did understand your point. I just think Gary took it a little far.
Ray.
I have been using a modified Slow-carb diet…closer to the “Anabolic Diet” championed by Mauro DiPasquale and akin to the cyclic ketogenic diets of Dan Duchaine and earlier, Michael Zumpano.
I started this year again on a slow-carb diet with the one cheat day and then have morphed it into a more low-carb diet during the 6 day carb “fast” and ahev had no problems with atrophy, performance or losing bodyfat despite taking in rather shocking amounts of fat and protein during the week days ( > 4000 kcal).
I think the health industry is borderline shambolic when it comes to dietary advice and while you say Gary perhaps took it too far, I’m sure that’s what they said about all outside the box thinkers who have actually looked into things properly.
Sincerely,
Dave
Thanks Dave
I don’t disagree at all about how slow-carb, atkins, and paleo work to lose weight. I am dubious about just how important glycemic index really is. Had a discussion with Mark Hyman and we disagreed on some issues, and yet there were more basic biochemistry issues, that he certainly didn’t question.
As for Gary, I would suggest he’s more in the box. He has very much to offer and did dig in deeply. I do believe that with a false premise, anything can be proven and there are many false premises that are going around. I am not attempting to squelch the and have continually disrupted in many fields. I just think that the entire Macronutrient-centric approach is counter productive for people until we start “printing” protein, carbohydrate and fat ala this weeks TEDMED presentations. What we need to do is to rethink food and stop trying to myopically categorizing it into three forced labels.
after all potato chips does not equal potato
Ray
I tried the Slo-Card and would lose 0.5 lbs a day consistently, then on my cheat day I would gain almost all of it back. Go big or go home! 🙂 At the end of my 40 day experiment I really didn’t lose much in terms of inches/weight. I felt fine, but didn’t get the result I was looking for. I am trying the Paleo out now, although I am eating grass fed beef and ghee and the high end butter, the high level of fat is still freaking me out. So is my bullettproof coffee every morning. I am not counting anything in terms of calories/portion and I am not walking around hungry. The reality is that when I cut the carbs the weight/fat will come off, but I agree the long term effects of eating this much fat is what concerns me. Most people claim that after being on the paleo their choelestrol numbers are better than ever.
Now the program allows for up to 50 grams of carbs a day if you are in an aggressive fat loss mode and this number can be up’d once you are in a maintanence program. I have been working out and more active than at any time since college and am convinced that I cannot simply exercise my way out of eating habits (although some how I did when I was in college). When I was younger I had no idea what a carb was, rice is a staple of Indian food and I would eat enough for a small country, but I think since I was active it never packed on the fat like it does now.
I played with the cold protocol (after reading the 4HB), but nothing organized. Moving snow in a long t-shirt here some cold packs there. The cold shower/tub was a no go. Since I was not consistent it is impossible to determine how that was working, but the theory makes sense to me. Whenever I am out in the cold and then come back into a 70 degree room, I immediately start to sweat. Internal furnace was cranked up and must have been burning something. Still, what did people in tropical climates do to stay so thin all these years?
The few that are thin simply don’t eat much, in many cases because of poverty… But for the most part they aren’t “thin” at all. Even aboriginals are sitting around 20% bodyfat and less muscle than a 9 year old girl. Their lack of muscle makes it so that even while being fat their frame looks slender, but don’t be fooled cause they are certainly not lean/thin/fit.
Thanks for explaining the mechanism behind the protein-based diet, Ray. Your conclusion, though, both teases and frightens me. You say ” the ultimate decision one should consider is what will be the long term health effects by using your body’s tertiary macronutrient, protein, to drive it into a secondary reserve, fat, by depleting it from it’s primary energy, glucose.” So, what ARE the long-term consequences? And what do you mean by “long-term?”
Sandra
Thank you and I don’t know. This is where I am currently self experimenting and researching. There are a lot of positive correlations between animal protein and chronic illness. And at the same time, I have research physicians that I very much respect that don’t seem to give pause to the issue.
In general, our modern medicine has been very good in acute care: bypass surgery, transplants, ACL repair, etc.. Most of the increased life expectancy comes from our control of infectious disease. Yet we seem to fail horribly at chronic care – diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer. We are trying to find the magic pill to fix things (acute care) rather than examine the lifestyle changes that prevent illness.
My investigations are leaving no options off the table, but I personally found myself empowered after my weight loss. I went from despair to excitement.
I believe when we are through with this, you will be empowered by separating food, from macronutrients.
Ray
The idea that there can be any inherent bad in animal protein is just too far fetched, at least in my opinion, considering humans are semi-predatorial hunter-gatherers. If we were eating meat for however many million years, how is it possible that we didn’t adapt? Without agriculture, veganism is simply out of the question and agriculture only dates back a few thousand years. Trying to show that animal protein isn’t bad is, in my view, akin to defending the claim that there isn’t a teapot orbiting Saturn. If anyone wants to believe in Russell’s teapot then they should be free to do so but I don’t see any merit in wasting time disproving them.
With all that said, the idea that *something in the animal protein that is available to the average american in the average grocery store* can create health problems seems much more reasonable to me. Solution: either move to somewhere you can hunt or don’t be poor so you can afford game meat and wild caught fish.
This in turn brings up a related issue, the institutionalization of medicine/science results in a level of stubbornness that makes it very difficult to mend any mistakes that are made. The present model is suited for a world where human intellect is boundless and monolithically sage authorities such as the FDA are incapable of making mistakes. When you mythicize science and knowledge and appoint a governing body over it (like the FDA) then this body inevitably takes on the responsibility of always being right. As such, they will refuse to even consider they are wrong unless faced with a stone tablet from the heavens that tells them so. Like you alluded to earlier, almost any bad claim can be defended to the point of reasonable doubt, and it’s even easier to defend your bad claims when you are the governing body that defines the status quo.
I might have agreed with you 3 years ago. I don’t anymore. I firmly believe we were more gatherers than hunters. On the seldom times when I debate it with people, It’s usually people that have never hunted. I have and I can tell you that it’s laborious even with today’s great knowledge/technology.
Finding USOs year round seems more logical as the primary energy source (which our krebs cycle is ideal for). We are “starchovoires” in my opinion based on some very compelling evidence I have seen from Nathaniel Dominy. I do believe we always ate meat, but it was probably more as a filler when the other food wasn’t around. I do not believe the current running around in the woods ideas that were popularized by Cordain. I know how these work to lose weight – that is simple metabolic science, but I do believe there will be health consequences.
Ray
Ray,
Let me throw this out there if I could, redeem myself maybe, more about carbohydrates on a hormonal level, and more of a case against it perhaps. You stated that the human brain uses carbohydrates as its primary energy source, which , if the human body had no glycogen stores, could easily convert fat to glucose. The energy sources the human body can’t do without is fat and protein. If you look at the hormones that maintain blood sugar, you will see that there are several that are designed to raise glucose levels(glucagon, epinephrine, norepinephrine, cortisone, and growth hormone) and only one hormone to lower it, insulin. So in all actuality, insulin is more of a defense mechanism for the human body and not a regulator, which is an indication that carbohydrates were not meant to be used by the body in even small amounts. So 5 hormones to raise it and 1 to lower it. With all the diseases out there associated with the energy of carbohydrates(diabetes, cardiovascular disease, inflammation, syndrome x to name a few), is it really the healthiest choice? Perhaps the reason our body uses carbohydrates as an energy source first is another defense mechanism to try to get rid of it first, because it’s so volatile to the blood stream? Or the fact that the body likes to convert carbohydrate energy to fat as soon as it could. How often did we need and use the glycogen stores in our muscles? And why would we have to replace them so quickly with more carbohydrates and not just simply fat conversion. If humans lived in and through the ice age, how many readily available starches were there to consume? You got me on the amylase, perhaps another mechanism where starch could be more dangerous than glucose in the blood stream? There, some food for thought(pun intended, I guess) and just a few points/counterpoints i wanted to say, and a different way to look at it. What say you?
To me, the fact that there’s 5 hormones to raise blood sugar and only 1 to lower it implies that carb consumption is so natural and inherent to humanity that all sorts of extreme measures need to be taken to provide the brain with carbs if a human is foolish enough to turn down the best and most easily obtained energy sources. But that type of extreme conjecture on the rationale behind processes that were developed through millions of years of stochastic evolution has little value, in my opinion, mainly because there need not be any rationale to byproducts of evolution (why do we have 5 toes, why do we have an appendix, etc). Also, the fact that you’ve been told that modern degenerative diseases are associated with carbohydrates doesn’t mean that they actually are – correlation does not imply causation and all those diseases have a lot more to do with being fat than they do with eating baked sweet potatoes. Finally, if you look at research into DNL (de novo lipogenesis) you will realize theres pretty compelling evidence to believe that the body does not actually “convert carbohydrate energy to fat as soon as it could,” and that DNL does not happen to any significant degree until your carb intake approaches your TOTAL metabolic rate (extreme over-eating of carbs that leaves no room to even eat fat and protein*). How often do we tap into glycogen stores? In our original setting as hunter gatherers, at least once an hour whenever we hoist something heavy or run at a speed above the lactate threshold. When looking at a species that a) cant even use fat to fuel their brain, b) cant use fat to fuel any physical activity beyond a grandma jog, and c) used its brain to dominate a planet, it seems pretty evident to me that we should be eating carbs.
*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC295308/pdf/jcinvest00059-0365.pdf
The only studies you’ll ever find that show significant DNL are done on ICU patients that are literally sleeping 24/7. This makes sense in light of everything that’s been said and in light of the purpose of carbohydrates.
Ray… did you have too much Halloween candy? I can haz Protein part 1, plz?
Ray,
I hope you’ll also cover the use of salt in food in one of your pieces. Some doctors say that for diabetics, it’s salt that’s more dangerous than sugar.
What do you think about wheat as a food taken once in a while.Wheat is made of corn.Corn is natural food.I know that wheat has no vitamin and minerals and it is not a nutrient dense food.But in terms we haven’t got any unnecessary fat stored,can we permit ourself some empty calories from the wheat.It is vitamin poor,but is it harmful for the human health?
We are omnivores. We can eat most foods, but that’s the problem. We mix it do frequently it destroys our digestive track. Many have a wheat-gluten sensitivity (but not as many as claim too). Wheat and corn are not the same thing. Corn is fine as a source of energy (starch), but like most foods, if you grind it, squeeze it, squish it, mush it, etc you can trams form it from something that is edible and healthy to something that is highly processed and ends up in over consumption.
Until you have a good control on your system and especially when you are making modifications, you should keep the diet simple.
Ray
Have you seen this video by Dr John McDougall
http://www.drmcdougall.com/video/starch_solution.html
Your thoughts
I know John McDougall well. He’s got a lot of facts on his side and has treated a lot of patients over 40 years with great success. I’ve attended two of his advanced study weekends and he seems open to conflicting views. He debates, but that he constantly challenges his ideas is a good sign.
His new book drops in April/may and should be a good read.
Thanks!
Ray