Once Again, Scientific Evidence Supports Bulletproof/paleo/high-Fat

12346

Comments

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Because it's just diversion, like almost everything you say. Plus I don't have time to address all of your overwrought points. I know you're not going to listen and will find further diversion. Apparently I don't have as much time on my hands as you do. 




    So you're steadfastly ignoring my explanations of why I asked you for details on your fat detox claims? You're going to continue to call me a troll after it's been proven that I had a cogent reason for asking you for details? Isn't that incredibly dishonest? 


     


    You've also had the time to respond twice with responses that ignored what I said, so it seems like you have plenty of time. Not to mention that you are still pretending to read my mind. I thought you were interested in truth? Falsely accusing people of having ulterior motives so you can ignore what they say looks more dismissive and dishonest than truth-seeking.

  • ACH85ACH85 ✭✭

    Catching up on this wonderful thread after some time away...


     




    Yes, telling people they don't have to count calories, as Dave Asprey has done with his wonderful, extremely effective, simple, and for me life-changing diet. I am so sold out to this approach for those who are truly suffering, that I will take any opportunity to share things that reinforce the effectiveness of this one bit of advice in particular. 




     


    MLS, the above seems to be the crux of your argument: skipping calorie counting and following BP worked wonders for you so now you recommend it as frequently as possible for the average person who wants to lose fat.


     


    I was an average person who wanted to lose fat, but when I followed standard BP, I discovered I am part of what I believe is a significant minority of people who's appetite is totally killed by ketones. By "going by hunger" I ended up in over a 1000 calorie deficit, and sustained it long enough to cause some metabolic damage. I believe it may have taken me a year or more to get back to baseline. Though I do think the initial switch caused a metabolic "reset" as you describe where I fixed some insulin issues, failing to count calories over the long term was damaging for me. 


     


    Time and again I have seen people come to the forum who, when we analyze their food intake, are massively undernourished. I believe they share my trait of having hunger repressed by ketones to an unhealthy degree. For us, calorie counting is essential while following BP macros, otherwise we don't eat nearly enough. 


     


    Our physiology might be a bit different than yours: your physiology seems to direct you to eat the correct amount of food without counting calories in a low-carb environment, while ours does not. Therefore your personal experience is a poor guide for us, and following your recommendations will lead to metabolic dysfunction.


     


     


    So, it seems to me you are giving recommendations while relying a bit too heavily on your own positive experience and excluding relevant data that doesn't match your worldview.


     


    That's concerning to me, since presumably the people that find their way to the forum are struggling with the BP diet, and might need to hear an alternative viewpoint, especially if they are undernourished. I hope it's clear I'm writing out of concern for them and in the hopes that you might remove a bit of the certainty from your recommendations, not to troll you. 


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Catching up on this wonderful thread after some time away...


     


     


    MLS, the above seems to be the crux of your argument: skipping calorie counting and following BP worked wonders for you so now you recommend it as frequently as possible for the average person who wants to lose fat.


     


    I was an average person who wanted to lose fat, but when I followed standard BP, I discovered I am part of what I believe is a significant minority of people who's appetite is totally killed by ketones. By "going by hunger" I ended up in over a 1000 calorie deficit, and sustained it long enough to cause some metabolic damage. I believe it may have taken me a year or more to get back to baseline. Though I do think the initial switch caused a metabolic "reset" as you describe where I fixed some insulin issues, failing to count calories over the long term was damaging for me. 


     


    Time and again I have seen people come to the forum who, when we analyze their food intake, are massively undernourished. I believe they share my trait of having hunger repressed by ketones to an unhealthy degree. For us, calorie counting is essential while following BP macros, otherwise we don't eat nearly enough. 


     


    Our physiology might be a bit different than yours: your physiology seems to direct you to eat the correct amount of food without counting calories in a low-carb environment, while ours does not. Therefore your personal experience is a poor guide for us, and following your recommendations will lead to metabolic dysfunction.


     


     


    So, it seems to me you are giving recommendations while relying a bit too heavily on your own positive experience and excluding relevant data that doesn't match your worldview.


     


    That's concerning to me, since presumably the people that find their way to the forum are struggling with the BP diet, and might need to hear an alternative viewpoint, especially if they are undernourished. I hope it's clear I'm writing out of concern for them and in the hopes that you might remove a bit of the certainty from your recommendations, not to troll you. 




     


    Thanks for sharing, man! Wow, this is a thoughtful look at the BP experience and what can go wrong/right about it. To tell you the truth, I like the idea of counting calories when you're trying to get more. I think J. Miller feels the same way, and he thinks I don't like counting when it comes to getting more calories. I do. I just haven't had to do that myself. 


    And I DID have a negative experience to start, however, the benefits I experienced when I fully understood the philosophy were numerous. In fact, I can't live without this diet. People think this is a full keto diet, but I beg to differ. Actually, the negative experience I had was from a ketogenic diet. That is decidedly not the Bulletproof approach, I have found after listening to enough podcasts, reading the book, and reading enough of Dave's articles.


    So, the question is, do we throw out the baby with the bathwater when we find that the misunderstood diet can be detrimental? I don't think so. I think we just try to make the diet's message more obvious. The forums seem to be a total critique of the basic principles. Many posters almost completely eschew the main tenets. I am going to hold to the line that in order to lose weight, one need not count—more accurately, limit—calories. The reason I'll do this is that this is one of the principles that sets the diet apart and keeps people from yo-yo dieting and getting frustrated. I believe in it, and everyone I've seen do it right has benefited. Some people gain weight, and if I actually think about it, I gained some weight after getting down way too low (like 160) from a zero-carb diet that almost destroyed my gallbladder. This makes Bulletproof seem like more of a lifestyle that adjusts your body to the appropriate composition for the individual, rather than just a crash diet that makes you look emaciated and anorexic.


    Wouldn't the appropriate response to a forum poster who has fatigue and turns out wasn't eating enough, to just tell them to eat an extra serving of this or that? Or to raise carbs? Rather than tell them to go back to practices that weren't serving them in the past (calorie-counting)? 


    I must say: I can't see recommending that others adjust in patently Bulletproof ways as "concerning." I find the opposite of telling them to do something not Bulletproof as more of an issue.


    Also, let me ask: Did you lose weight, when you weren't getting enough calories but still pretty much following Bulletproof?


  • ACH85ACH85 ✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Wouldn't the appropriate response to a forum poster who has fatigue and turns out wasn't eating enough, to just tell them to eat an extra serving of this or that? Or to raise carbs? Rather than tell them to go back to practices that weren't serving them in the past (calorie-counting)? 


    I must say: I can't see recommending that others adjust in patently Bulletproof ways as "concerning." I find the opposite of telling them to do something not Bulletproof as more of an issue.


    Also, let me ask: Did you lose weight, when you weren't getting enough calories but still pretty much following Bulletproof?




     


    I think telling them to raise carbs and/or eat more is the start of an appropriate response, but can be inadequate for many people: without mentioning the finer points about carbs and water weight, often people who are desperate to lose weight see the scale go up as they add carbs and decide "carbs just aren't for me." Especially because BP does not exist in a vacuum, often people come from Slow Carb, keto, paleo, whatever. At first blush, all of those ideas point to "carbs are evil." This can really put the zap on people's heads by the time they arrive here, which is why I think a period (perhaps only a few days) of macro and calorie counting may be required to help these people understand what their body really requires. So, for many people, I think "eat a bit more carbs and maybe more food" may not be enough, so yeah, a strong voice that anything more is definitely not required concerns me.


     


    This is why my biggest critique of the BP diet has always been the small print under the carbs column on the infographic. "eat a serving of starchy foods a day and take one day to eat more" should not be an afterthought, and as it is currently in fine print many people miss it entirely, then arrive here complaining of serious issues after a month without a refeed. (Hint to the BP team: there should be a weekly timeline across the whole top of the infographic that includes a refeed and ONE exercise day, with larger print saying women and more exercise can require additional refeeds.) 


     


    I lost weight at first, then I'd stop losing weight but also not be hungry, so instead of ramping back up to rebuild my BMR, I'd naturally eat less with hunger, lose a bit more, rinse and repeat. So I did lose weight, but I backed myself into a low-calorie corner (without calorie counting - again just going by hunger.) I was down near 1500 calories/day and when I finally realized my mistake, I could gain fat eating 1700/day. Nutty. Just for reference, my daily burn seems to be around 2450 now, considerably more with activity. 


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited July 2016

    Just continuing to fight advice that doesn't work, and blames the individual (rather than bad information and bad food) for their problems. CICO and steady-state cardio in combination has been the prevailing paradigm for years that has fed the corporate and governmental landscape of dietary intervention. Now is the time for things to change. Bulletproof is a huge step in the right direction, and I won't stand by if this lifestyle, which is the antithesis to that horrible lie, starts to be coopted by people claiming quite incorrectly that calorie-counting and steady-state cardio has anything to do with it. Whether you think those things work or not, you're just wrong if you think those things are Bulletproof, or at the very least you're definitely wrong if you think they're part of the major principles and recommendations of this alternative approach.




  • Just continuing to fight advice that doesn't work, and blames the individual (rather than bad information and bad food) for their problems. CICO and steady-state cardio in combination has been the prevailing paradigm for years that has fed the corporate and governmental landscape of dietary intervention. Now is the time for things to change. Bulletproof is a huge step in the right direction, and I won't stand by if this lifestyle, which is the antithesis to that horrible lie, starts to be coopted by people claiming quite incorrectly that calorie-counting and steady-state cardio has anything to do with it. Whether you think those things work or not, you're just wrong if you think those things are Bulletproof, or at the very least you're definitely wrong if you think they're part of the major principles and recommendations of this alternative approach.




     


    Lets agree to disagree.

    Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all Time; become Eternity; and [thus] shalt thou know God. Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all,—all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.  – Corpus Hermeticum XI “The Mind of Hermes”

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    [...]coopted by people claiming quite incorrectly that calorie-counting and steady-state cardio has anything to do with it. Whether you think those things work or not, you're just wrong if you think those things are Bulletproof, or at the very least you're definitely wrong if you think they're part of the major principles and recommendations of this alternative approach.




    Nobody has said this. Jason has been explaining how you are wrong about the science behind counting calories, not saying that calorie counting is part of Bulletproof. He hasn't mentioned steady state cardio at all. Where are you getting this?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Lets agree to disagree.




     


    Fine, but the majority of posters tend to pile on my threads that advocate exactly what Dave is saying.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Nobody has said this. Jason has been explaining how you are wrong about the science behind counting calories, not saying that calorie counting is part of Bulletproof. He hasn't mentioned steady state cardio at all. Where are you getting this?




     


    We've had other threads where we've disagreed on steady-state cardio. I'd dig it up, but I don't want to get back into that thread.

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod
    It's very healthy activity just so we are clear, anyone that says otherwise needs to be dealt with high caution.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016

    I think he's confusing chronic cardio with steady-state cardio.

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod
    And you have to define chronic, as all volumes of properly fed activity will be beneficial as long as you are within your maximum recoverable volume, and food/rest is a large component of your MRV.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭

    As far as the colloquial usage, chronic cardio usually means performing cardio without adequate recovery periods leading to some sort of physiological degradation or burn out. I don't think it is a term recognized in any sort of medical literature, though the colloquial usage does put it outside your MVR.


     


    We could coin the term "chronic CICO" or "chronic calory counting" in the same way, a psychological obsessiveness or overexertion in one specific area that takes something beneficial and turns it detrimental, in this case counting calories. I think there's a term in psychology that would encompass that though, orthoerexic? Orthorexia? It might fall underneath that category.


  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod
    Ohhhh, I see, I guess someone with "CCC" could psychologically fall apart if they ate 3253cal instead of 3252cal, how do do you throw up 1cal? And what if you wanted that 1cal to be a specific macro? I guess you could lift one weight or take one more step. We almost have a reality tv script, where's Skeletor to write this shit down!
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭


     where's Skeletor to write this shit down!




    Sitting on the sidelines. Reading. Judging.


     


    lol

    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod
    Here's a nice little explanation of carb and fat metabolism broken down into basic terms for those not interested in spending the time to learn in great detail. Before someone screams "HORMONES", they are a part of, not separate from, calories out.


    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Sitting on the sidelines. Reading. Judging.




    Plotting your revenge against that do-gooding He-Man!

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    It's very healthy activity just so we are clear, anyone that says otherwise needs to be dealt with high caution.




     


    I believe that it's inflammatory from my own experience. What does this mean, "needs to be dealt with high-caution?" Are you seriously putting me on some alternative health terrorist watch list?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Here's a nice little explanation of carb and fat metabolism broken down into basic terms for those not interested in spending the time to learn in great detail. Before someone screams "HORMONES", they are a part of, not separate from, calories out.





    This is patently not the interpretation of the science that Dave subscribes to. This is not my experience or really anyone's experience who's eaten excess calories in the form of fat. If I'm understanding it correctly, you're saying fat makes you fat. The current Paleo/high-fat movement (which is incidentally one of the keywords in the title of this thread), which is based on good research and experience, purports that indeed, fat does not make you fat.

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod
    Because calories are not in surplus, even a basic terms video is too hard for you? This is basic physiology that applies to you and everyone else unless you are an alien, the only place fat stores is in fat, that is the storage location for fat in surplus. As I've said, low carb and paleo is a naturally low calorie diet. Paleo and low carb diets get you to not look at what you are doing so that you can't see what you are doing. If low carb was so magical then why are so many people failing at it? Once you go 0 carb where do you go from there? Protein fasting? Only eating in a randomly non specific small window? Ohh...nevermind.


    A very common experience I have is people saying "ok, I'll follow your plan but it has to be strict paleo", no problem at all, I want you to eat the way you feel the most comfortable. Two days later "OK, this is impossible, there no conceivable way I can eat this much food"
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod


    I believe that it's inflammatory from my own experience. What does this mean, "needs to be dealt with high-caution?" Are you seriously putting me on some alternative health terrorist watch list?




    As we've already covered before, science doesn't care what you believe, the literature is quite clear that all health markers improve with regular cardiovascular activity, steady state just means literally one speed, moving at one speed or many different speeds does not imply danger in any sense, it's the healthy regular activity that improves health markers.


    Dealt with caution simply means that you should be cautious listening to someone that says that a known healthy activity is dangerous or unhealthy, as they are likely to say many other things that are very suspect and unsupported, like calories aren't real for instance haha.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Because calories are not in surplus, even a basic terms video is too hard for you?  Ohh...nevermind.




     


    I've learned to see past statements like this and not let them phase me at all, even though they're incredibly rude, because I have no recourse except to "take it" because moderators on this site always seem to side with you (or you are a moderator, I'm not sure). But really, honestly, I'm done being affected by it.


     


    The rest of your statement had substance, however. What I'm saying is that this model is in conflict with what has been said about insulin resistance. No, I don't research this stuff all day, but this video is essentially too basic. He didn't even say "once you hit caloric surplus, this is what happens to carbs, and this is what happens to fat." I don't think it's this simple, either. It doesn't take hormones into play at all. From my understanding of the "basic" picture is that glucose is the major issue, and insulin decides where to shuttle nutrients. Glucose could go into muscles or fat cells. I'm not exactly sure how it decides that (a complex interaction of hormones). I do know that when there's excess glucose floating around from someone eating too many carbs and being insulin-resistant, the excess generally gets stored in fat cells. In general, in the presence of insulin, doesn't this happen? 

  • John BrissonJohn Brisson The Legend Formerly Known as Ron Swanson ✭✭✭

    No one here is talking about the gut, it has a lot to do with this.


    My book Fix Your Gut, is offered on Amazon for $9.99.

     

    I also offer coaching:  http://fixyourgut.com/health-coaching-information/

     

    Please join or like the Fix your Gut Facebook. Also please add me on twitter @FixYourGutJB.

     

    http://www.fixyourgut.com

     

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    As we've already covered before, science doesn't care what you believe, the literature is quite clear that all health markers improve with regular cardiovascular activity, steady state just means literally one speed, moving at one speed or many different speeds does not imply danger in any sense, it's the healthy regular activity that improves health markers.


    Dealt with caution simply means that you should be cautious listening to someone that says that a known healthy activity is dangerous or unhealthy, as they are likely to say many other things that are very suspect and unsupported, like calories aren't real for instance haha.




     


    I'm talking about what has been called "aerobics" specifically (as defined by Richard Simmons). Shooting for 65-85% for 15-45 minutes, what have you. When I've seen people saying "steady-state cardio," this is generally what they mean. Sorry if I've gotten the nomenclature wrong. I do not agree that this is a healthy activity for everyone. People suffering from toxicity particularly have difficulty with this kind of activity. It just wears us down. Notice I don't say exercise, because this kind of activity doesn't fit the definition of exercise I prescribe to. It exists in this nebulous wasteland of pointlessness.


     


    "There are five keys to Bulletproof exercise. Make it:



    Brief

    Intense

    Infrequent

    Safe

    Purposeful"


     


    Read more about it, of course, in Body by Science. Anything else that calls itself exercise, especially since it makes me feel sick and inflamed, as opposed to invigorated and detoxed, I do not recommend to anyone, because it's a waste of time.


     


    Oh, and walking is fine of course, just in case you haven't picked that up.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    No one here is talking about the gut, it has a lot to do with this.




    Then talk about it bro-son! 

  • John BrissonJohn Brisson The Legend Formerly Known as Ron Swanson ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    An excellent explanation. I've seen so much blind adherence to "activated charcoal cleanses toxins from the body" without reference to how the toxins end up in the digestive system from elsewhere (like the fat or the blood). Activated charcoal follows a pretty straightforward path through the body, so toxins have to be placed in this path somehow. 


     


    Any idea on toxin excretion percentages vs metabolic re-uptake? Does excretion increase with exercise as it would for water-soluble toxins? 


     


    Another concern is determining that there are actually any toxins in your fat cells to begin with, which is why I try and ask people what toxins they are trying to detox. Is there a general list of toxins lurking in most people's fat cells that require an activated charcoal regimen?


     


     


    I believe there was some discussion during the Moldy Q&A about certain mold-related toxins secreted in the bile not being easily bound up by charcoal and needing more specifically targeted drugs to bind the bile, like the anti-cholesterol one Dave mentioned (I'll fill in the name if I can find my notes) or something like glucomannan or modified citrus pectin, otherwise they would remain dissolved and reabsorbed in a continuous cycle. Unfortunately I could not get Dave to answer or acknowledge any of my questions during the Q&A, so all I have are scribbled notes from his brief mention of a few of the "Asprey Cocktail" ingredients. 


     


     


    As someone who is beginning the hard work to recover from living in an environment that has air that could be considered clinically toxic, it's important to know what toxins you are dealing with, where they are in your system, what to use to bind and eliminate them safely, and how to target your detox regimen (when to take your sups, how to promote toxin excretion, any supplement interactions so you don't waste money binding your other sups or have an adverse reaction, that kind of thing).




     


    I typed a response a week ago but my daughter messed with the computer and deleted it haha.


     


    We do not have a lot of data on toxin reabsorption but we know that it occur because of enterohepatic circulation. Some toxins that are released from the liver from bile would get reabsorbed when the bile does. Some medications hinder enterohepatic circulation and in doing so may cause injury to the gastrointestinal system. Some drugs might be used twice or more by the body by going through enterohepatic circulation which could have negative effects (bad for liver toxic medications.)


     


    BPA seems hard to reduce in the body because of enterohepatic circulation: http://www.karenhurd.com/kh-assets/kh-textfiles/EnterohepaticRecirculation.pdf.


     


    The body releases it from fat cells and into bile, it gets reabsorbed and goes back to the liver. It either enters systemic circulation and gets redistributed somewhere else OR gets sent through the biliary system again.


     


    Exercise would increase detox by increasing motility. We mostly again lose our toxins from number ones and number twos, occasionally a number three. Occasionally, our body needs a little help in eliminating toxins or heavy metals, it can do it on its own most of the time but can be slow doing so.


    My book Fix Your Gut, is offered on Amazon for $9.99.

     

    I also offer coaching:  http://fixyourgut.com/health-coaching-information/

     

    Please join or like the Fix your Gut Facebook. Also please add me on twitter @FixYourGutJB.

     

    http://www.fixyourgut.com

     

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Anything else that calls itself exercise, especially since it makes me feel sick and inflamed, as opposed to invigorated and detoxed, I do not recommend to anyone, because it's a waste of time.




    This is what Jason Miller meant.

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    BPA seems hard to reduce in the body because of enterohepatic circulation: http://www.karenhurd.com/kh-assets/kh-textfiles/EnterohepaticRecirculation.pdf.




    I for one am glad that I haven't been exposed to large quantities of BPA (that I know of). Is there a basic test for BPA accumulation in the body?


     


     




    The body releases it from fat cells and into bile, it gets reabsorbed and goes back to the liver. It either enters systemic circulation and gets redistributed somewhere else OR gets sent through the biliary system again.




    So this is the point at which things need to be bound up and eliminated, if you are in fact dealing with these types of toxins. I wonder if there is any medication that specifically uses this process to stick around longer?


     




    Exercise would increase detox by increasing motility. We mostly again loose our toxins from number ones and number twos, occasionally a number three. Occasionally, our body needs a little help in eliminating toxins or heavy metals, it can do it on its own most of the time but can be slow doing so.




    A major pain in the rear is trying to utilize something like activated charcoal during a workout to take advantage of said increased motility. Not only do you need to target digestion time, the activated charcoal might also be binding some of the other workout supplements you want to take! Especially concerning if you have time constraints and need to knock out as many things at once as you can.

  • ACH85ACH85 ✭✭


    Glucose could go into muscles or fat cells. 




     


    Or glycogen stores, if they are not yet full. 


     


     




    I'm not exactly sure how it decides that (a complex interaction of hormones). I do know that when there's excess glucose floating around from someone eating too many carbs and being insulin-resistant, the excess generally gets stored in fat cells. In general, in the presence of insulin, doesn't this happen? 




     


    From what I can tell, the body "decides" where to put glucose based on which "tanks" could use more energy... a lot like is described in the video. The hormones actions are mediated by the body's overall energy balance. 


     


    Insulin is released by the pancreas in response to sugar in the blood stream - the GLUT2 transporters of the islet cells are "always on" waiting for blood sugar. A muscle that has been recently worked out expresses the GLUT4 transporter, insulin not required, but insulin also causes muscle and fat cells to express GLUT4. And liver glycogen stores (if not full) also readily accept glucose - in the presence of insulin. So yes, hormones (insulin) are involved, but their effects are determined by whether or not the "tanks are full." Post workout, when the "tanks are low," the blood sugar will begin going into muscle cells immediately, and also trigger islet cells to release insulin, but then more blood sugar will be shuttled to glycogen stores that need refilling, and once it's been reduced insulin will go back down. All told, the muscle and glycogen "tanks" will take up the majority of this glucose and not much will end up in fat. 


     


    This is why I can slam 100g of fast-acting carbs after a big workout and see only a moderate and brief increase in blood glucose as measured by a glucometer, but the same meal without the workout creates a much bigger and longer spike, during which those carbs are more likely to be shuttled into fat cells, and likelier still if my glycogen stores are full. That's when the excess blood sugar starts going into fat cells. 


     


    So for your last sentence I quoted, the key seems to be "excess" glucose and "too many" carbs. It's not excess/too many if the tanks need refilling. 


     


    All this to say I generally agree a strict-ish interpretation of BP works for people who are sedentary and well-fed (full tanks) but people who want to exercise need to start making adjustments beyond strict BP. And people who come to BP from an underfed (tanks are low) state may also run into trouble, and I believe would be better served by a higher carb period. 

  • Haha, just listened to the latest Quantified Body podcast, after a long super sciencey discussion of biochemistry and fat soluble vitamins, Chris Masterjohn says that if he were to make a recommendation to the general public of one thing to track it would be......caloric intake! (Followed by macros).
Sign In or Register to comment.