WE WUZ RIGHT, THEY WUZ WRONG ..... - Page 2

archive_PDOGGY · 07-09-2002, 08:26 AM

This struck me, and maybe I know the answer or somebody here knows it, but doesn't know it:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>This is where it gets unavoidably complicated. The fatter you are, the more insulin your pancreas will pump out per meal, and the more likely you'll develop what's called "insulin resistance," which is the underlying cause of Syndrome X. In effect, your cells become insensitive to the action of insulin, and so you need ever greater amounts to keep your blood sugar in check. So as you gain weight, insulin makes it easier to store fat and harder to lose it. But the insulin resistance in turn may make it harder to store fat -- your weight is being kept in check, as it should be. But now the insulin resistance might prompt your pancreas to produce even more insulin, potentially starting a vicious cycle. Which comes first -- the obesity, the elevated insulin, known as hyperinsulinemia, or the insulin resistance -- is a chicken-and-egg problem that hasn't been resolved. One endocrinologist described this to me as "the Nobel-prize winning question."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So somebody, anybody, do you understand the dilemna, this "Nobel-prize winning question" of which comes first?

So you guys, which actually does come first? I never really gave it much thought.

*************************
One day we can stop trippin over how we sound and really trip on what we say. Then we can stop trippin on what we say and trip on what we mean. After that we can stop trippin altogether.

OUT!

retropump · 07-09-2002, 03:46 PM

To me it's no question at all. People do not develop insulin resistance or type 11 diabetes at epidemic proportions if they don't over eat enough to get obese. It's really academic whether the EXCESS insulin caused the obesity or the EXCESS calories caused the obesity induced insulin resistance. Either way the key is EXCESS. I love the taste of junk food as much as the rest of the world, and my whole family is obese. The only reason I am not obese like them is because I realize that I WILL get fat if I indulge in as much junk as I like. I RESTRAIN my inborn urges to gorge myself on easy, tasty refined calories while lying around on a couch all day. This is purely an issue of education combined with some self discipline. But educating the public is only part of the solution. Most people do not have the discipline even when faced with incontrovertible evidence that what they are doing is harmful to them (for instance smoking). Still, this does not excuse the powers that be for giving the public anything less than the whole truth (or at least as much as is known). Education will always be the first step, but even when education is offered absolutely free, many people will chose lack of education and then whine that they are 'victims' of the system.

archive_PDOGGY · 07-09-2002, 04:38 PM

Well what you have stated is a no-brainer and is purely academic.

Perhaps I have misunderstood the context of that passage in the article. I was assuming that outside of caloric excess, the named factors are still yet misunderstood. (regarding the chicken/egg quandary)

I'll examine it further.

*************************
One day we can stop trippin over how we sound and really trip on what we say. Then we can stop trippin on what we say and trip on what we mean. After that we can stop trippin altogether.

OUT!

retropump · 07-09-2002, 06:22 PM

There may be some good clues from looking at unborn children from diabetic mothers:

The metabolic processes that are responsible for the pathophysiology of the fetus of the diabetic mother have been elucidated in recent years and include maternal hyperglycinemia, fetal hyperglycinemia, fetal hyperinsulinemia, and increased levels of maternal, placental,
and fetal insulin-like growth factors. Counter-regulatory mechanisms, such as insulin-like growth factors, binding proteins and leptin also play a role. The FETAL HYPERMETABOLIC STATE LEADS TO INCREASED SOMATIC GROWTH, OBESITY,and metabolic disturbances with short- and
long-term consequences.

(Semin Perinatol 2002 Jun;26(3):232-6;
The pathophysiology of the fetus of the diabetic mother.)

It would appear, at least in the human fetus, that the hormonal derangement is enough to cause obesity by itself rather thn the other way around.

Another recent paper found "The plasma leptin level, an excellent indicator of adiposity, was
significantly related to the glucose (area under the curve) independently of the insulin level. Insulin resistance or increased adiposity alone is not sufficient to impair glucose tolerance, but increased adiposity plays an important role in the development of glucose intolerance in an insulin-resistant state."
(Metabolism 2002 Jun;51(6):716-23
Distinct role of adiposity and insulin resistance in glucose intolerance: Studies in ventromedial
hypothalamic-lesioned obese rats

[This message was edited by retropump on 07-09-2002 at 08:33 PM.]

retropump · 07-09-2002, 07:01 PM

Not wanting to flog a dead horse too much (and apologies for the non-human studies), but findings from Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002 Mar;26(3):318-26 concluded that "These results
suggest that FFA may play an important role in early events involved in the development of insulin resistance and TNF-alpha accelerates insulin resistance together with FFA in the later stage." This was from comparing rat litter mates who had the same bodyweight and body fat at 6 weeks, but some of them went on to develop insulin resistance and obesity by 15 weeks of age.

From these limited studies, it would seem that the hormonal imbalances precede the obesity. No doubt this is why hormonal therapies are currently being intensively researched in the treatment of insulin resistant obesity.....

W8's · 07-10-2002, 03:02 PM

i am below 4% right now and durring my entire diet i never went below 260g carbs per day. i need carbs. if i go below a certain point i personally lose tons of muscle. ya just gotta eat the right ones boys and girls.

kkrammer · 07-12-2002, 09:03 AM

carbs are evil for 25% of people, but are essential for another 25%. The rest falls somewhere in between. This is what a german M.D. says in his book "Leben ohne Brot" (living without bread). He has a 30 year track record in putting patients on low carb diets (max. 70g/day). He bases his figures on WHO-studies and his "adaption theory", where he calculated that men would need at least 500 generations to adapt to carbs coming from an almost meat only diet.

personally, i am in ketosis for 3 weeks now and i am strong like never before. I am eating heavily, not restricting calories, yet i am losing fat but keeping muscle and strength. Will see how that continues but it looks promising for now. No carbs for me anytime soon.

archive_Bjaarki · 07-12-2002, 02:44 PM

A number of people have jumped in on this thread, and have expressed the view that carbs are not "evil" per se, but are a healthy part (and should be a large constituent) of a normal diet. I would agree with the use of dietary carbohydrate so long as it has a low glycemic index - so long as it does not immediately convert to blood sugar, causing an insulin surge, then a blood sugar "crash," and then ravenous hunger leading to more carb intake and ultimately obesity (this sequence was really the heart of the argument of the article that started this thread). As I say, I get my carbs from dairy products, veggies, fruits, legumes, and a very occasional grain product. But grained-based carbohydrates really are a pretty bad idea and should be avoided to the extent possible, though there may be some rare individuals who can tolerate them well.

And I would argue that carb intake makes less, not more, sense for the highly trained athlete, like some of us. The metabolisms of highly trained athletes become progressively more efficient at using fat, not carbohydrate, for energy. The metabolisms of untrained individuals are very poor at utilizing fat, which is one of the reasons that it gets deposited and stored, rather than burned.

Carbs - by that, I mean grain-based carbs - are a bad dietary idea for highly conditioned athletes, because we are very efficient at burning fats. And they're a bad idea for untrained individuals, because their effect on insulin secretion and later blood sugar debt causes ravenous hunger, and these people lack the self-discipline to deal with that hunger except by trying to satisfy it with more carbohydrate. All the epidemiologic data point to that pathway, more than any other, as the common factor underlying the major problem this country now has with obesity. Rampaging obesity (have you noticed how almost every adult you see has a paunch hanging over their belt?) is not due to dietary fat (which has been decreasing for almost two decades), nor to physical activity (which has not changed much, and has even increased in some demographic groups). The problem is that Americans are eating a lot more sugars and grain-based carbs - high glycemic-index foods - they're a lot hungrier than they've ever been, and they're slaking that hunger by eating a lot more food, principally more "healthy" low-fat, high-carb foods.

I know that many of you will disagree with me, but I can't help that, some ideas die very slowly. But the low-fat/high-carb diet idea is dying now, and I will bet that, within 10 years, the low-fat/high-carb diet will be a thing of the past. It has simply been a dismal, dismal failure, by every measure that the public health sciences are able to deploy. It would be wonderful if we, as bodybuilders, could achieve some consensus on that, and use whatever influence we have in our personal circles to lead the way to healthier dietary practices.

Enough, bros. I'm outa here. This has been a fun discussion. Be well, be happy, lift heavy, and journey safely.

Bjaarki

" 'Til the weard of the world, stands, unforgotten,
high under Heaven, the Hero's name!"
Hrolff Krakki's Saga (Iceland)

BECOME SOMEONE'S HERO!

Verbal Gorilla · 07-12-2002, 03:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Carbs - by that, I mean grain-based carbs - are a bad dietary idea for highly conditioned athletes, because we are very efficient at burning fats. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? What does this quote even mean? Because a athlete is efficient at burning fats, carbs are evil? Umm...red herring...

You have yet to make ONE point on why carbs are bad. You obviously make a socio-physiological case on your (IMO poor) theory which is very posh lately, but what have you said universially about your brash initial post...NADA.

No shit modern obesity is not do to DIETARY fats...it aint due to healty serving of pasta either! If you think it isn't due soley to inactivity and poor overall nutrition, then take your flying car back to make-believe land where farmers plant pork ribs and bacon!!

archive_Bjaarki · 07-12-2002, 03:43 PM

VG:

I thought I was pretty clear that the problem with carbs has to do with their effect on hunger. I said that several times, in several ways. I'm sorry you missed it. And the evidence that runs counter to the high-carb/low-fat tradition is anything but "posh." It is still opposed by a majority of physicians, the ADA, dieticians, you name it ... but it is convincing, and growing. Do me a favor and read the article I linked you to before you dive in here headfirst. That's why I gave you the link.

Carbs (again, I mean high-glycemic index carbs) are not a good idea for an athlete, because we don't need them. We can burn fats very efficiently, more efficiently than nonathletes, and maintain much more stable blood sugar levels, develop fewer problems with insulin insensitivity, and experience fewer problems with carb-craving.

And no, the obesity epidemic is not due to inactivity - which has improved in some of the same demographic groups that have grown increasingly obese, and has, as I say, not changed much in the past several decades - or even to "poor overall nutrition" per se. Increased obesity is due (taking a bit of a liberty here just for rhetoric's sake) to that "healthy serving of pasta." With overall calorie consumption held constant or statistically controlled, cultures with the diets highest in grain-based carbohyhdrates (like pasta) have the highest obesity rates in the world.

Bjaarki

archive_MR. BMJ · 07-13-2002, 02:27 AM

We need to get some specifics clarified here before I start slamming down studies.

BJAARKI, please clarify the following:

1. Are you stating that ALL grain-based foods are the cause for obesity, or just those with high GI's? I can show multiple studies showing that whole-grain foods improve insulin sensitivity and lower the risks of type 2 diabetes. Also, there are many whole grain foods that are low in GI ratings...I am not sure if you were counting these as well since you used the term 'grains' so loosely with the term 'high GI'.

2. Show me evidence that consuming high GI foods on a hypocaloric diet will cause obesity. Although high GI foods will halt lipolysis, you will NOT get fat as long as calories are not in excess! This is why low-GI carbs are ideal because of their improvement in keeping insulin levels stable, however, even in excess, they too will cause an increase in fat gain. I do not advocate a high GI diet, but that does not mean it will cause obesity when calories are not in excess...instead, fat loss will be slowed highly. However, you can still lose fat if enough calories are debited on a high GI hypocaloric diet, but this as we know will increase catabolism as well.

Like I said, from a dietary standpoint only, the reason most americans are obese (again, this is only from a diet aspect) is more likely caused from a diet high in high GI carbs and high fat (mostly saturated) intakes in EXCESS calories.

3.) I also disagree with your statement that lack of physical activity is NOT a cause for obesity. While it may not be the overlying factor, it IS part of the problem. Likewise, someone's diet is not the only factor underlying obesity as well. There is multiple reasons for obesity to occur, as I stated above. As a food science and nutritionist I will admit that this is also the uneducated thinking of most dietitians and nutritionists as well...because most (not all [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]) are idiots when understanding the physiology of the body. BAD EATING IS NOT THE ONLY CAUSE FOR OBESITY!!!

4.) BJAARKI...are body is very good at adapting to changes, otherwise we would probably have been extinct by now. Just because our ancestors ate foods different than what is consumed today, does not mean that the body cannot handle and digest these foods. I am not sure what you mean when you state..."we are not biologically adapted to consume [grains]." Our body easily digests and uses grains for energy, and glycogen and fat storage just like any other carb based food.

5.) Any macronutrient will cause obesity if eaten in excess.

I'm gonna stop here because i'm tired, but will add more tomorrow, unless I read you wrong. If I misunderstood you in anyway, just let me know.

BMJ

archive_Bjaarki · 07-14-2002, 05:38 AM

I thought that this thread would die quickly, because it just "preaches to the choir," while that one I posted on the Parssinen study would generate controversy. Instead, just the opposite happened. This is fun. We're all learning something. Looks like you may have a lot to teach. Dive in and do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Are you stating that ALL grain-based foods are the cause for obesity, or just those with high GI's? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those that are high-GI. But that is most grain-based carbs. But combine even lower-GI grains like barley or millet with the amount of carbohydrate in a "serving" - what you guys call the "glycemic load," I think, and you have a pretty significant carb dose. I have a pretty nifty website I use for a reference source on this, http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Show me evidence that consuming high GI foods on a hypocaloric diet will cause obesity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is none, of course. I never meant to imply that. If you have a significant calorie debt, you will of course not gain weight. But eating lots of carbs makes it much more difficult to limit caloric intake, because they keep you hungry most of the day. Why put yourself through that, maybe consume more food when the hunger gets too intense, and then rely, like some of the guys do here, on ephedrine, T3, Clen, or even DNP to burn off those extra calories? You make a problem by consuming a substance, then you have to fix it by consuming another substance. That has never made any sense to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I also disagree with your statement that lack of physical activity is NOT a cause for obesity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to be a little clearer here. Lack of physical activity, combined with adequate or hypernutrition, will cause weight gain. But epidemiologic data show that, in the United States, a significant "leisure exercise movement" began in the early 1980's and continues; throughout the 1990's, exercise levels for the population as a whole did not change, while obesity rates continued their rise of the past two decades. This clearly points to something other than a lack of exercise as the explanatory factor for rising obesity rates in the U.S. The article that I cited suggests, and it makes sense to me, that the obesity epidemic is due to the increased consumption of high-GI carbs, which increase hunger, and make people eat more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I am not sure what you mean when you state..."we are not biologically adapted to consume [grains]." Our body easily digests and uses grains for energy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mean just what I say, bro. Sure, we can digest grains, but we didn't have access to them in any quantity until 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. They're difficult to use in a way that keeps us muscular and lean. We've had threads like this before, and the discussion is always interesting.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Any macronutrient will cause obesity if eaten in excess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. Of course. But a bolus of dietary fat does not, generally, make you crave a follow-up bolus. A bolus of protein does not make you crave a follow-up bolus. They just don't affect insulin and glucose that way. Carbohydrates do, though, and that's the problem.

Don't know if that gives you the clarification that you wanted. Hope so.

Bjaarki

Beezers · 07-14-2002, 07:22 AM

This is a Hall of Fame thread.

archive_Mr. Nobody · 07-14-2002, 08:40 AM

In less elaborate terms here is my response:
High GI carbs elicite an overly sudden and high insulin response, which clears sugar very quickly and leaves you with low blood sugar shortly afterwards. Low blood sugar makes you feel tired....couch potato.....and hungry for carbs...starting the cycle again. Further down the road comes insulin resistance which promotes an even higher insulin response (note: only muscle cells become insulin resistent, fat cells are happily accepting sugar anytime).
Lets add fat (french fries plus coke = fat ass)
High insulin plus fat = immediate transport of fat into fat cells.

The general public has no business eating high GI carbs ever, the athlete should only eat them after workouts. Insulin also transports AA's and that is an exclellent thing for post workouts.

What B is saying is that everybody should strive to keep their insulin levels low (post workout is the exception) and insulin sensitivity high

Lets sum up the reasons high GI carbs promote fat gain in the general public:
high insulin response, causing low blood sugar
low blood sugar causing hunger and tiredness
high insulin causing insulin resistance (but not in fat cells)
insulin resitance causing higher endogenous insulin, shifting the equation ever more towards fat storage.

Add poor timing of carbs (in the evening the body is more insulin resistant) and huge quanitities of foods and you spell Central Florida population.

Disclaimer:
Mr. Nobody is presenting fictitious opinions and does in no way, shape or form encourage, use nor condone the use of any illegal substances or the use of legal substances in an illegal manner.
The information discussed is strictly for entertainment purposes only and shall not take the place of qualified medical advise.

archive_Ulter · 07-14-2002, 08:50 AM

"...and you spell Central Florida population."

Amen.

DaMan · 07-14-2002, 11:57 AM

Re avoiding slin surge / low GI carbs etc:

Will someone NOW finally listen to me about taking acarbose???

archive_MR. BMJ · 07-14-2002, 02:20 PM

Thanks BJAARKI. YES, that helped clarify things quite a bit.

The overall theme of you post I am in total agreement with. There is no denying that Low GI foods are healthier for individuals in 'promoting' a fat burning environment. Studies show that the health benefits far outweigh those of a diet made up of high GI foods. However, and this is what I was trying to stress, is that even though low GI meals are more beneficial towards health and fat loss, a diet consisting of high GI foods, when calories are not excessive, will not necessarily get you fat. However, we all know that fat loss is stopped with a high GI diet due to its spike in insulin, which MR. NOBODY mentioned nicely. So to sum it up, High GI foods will stop fat loss, but will not get you fat if calories are not excessive.

I don't advocate a high GI diet, but I do think that post-workout meals that are spiked with high GI meals are very beneficial in recovery. Mr. Nobody also explained this very nicely. This is an example of having a supra-high GI meal in a hypocaloric diet, which from eeverbody i know that does it, they do not get fat. Having these meals all day long with high insulin levels defeats the purpose of trying to lose fat, so obviously you don't want them for every meal.

The point I was making with the high GI and fat meals, was also nicely explained by Mr. NOBODY [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]. High GI foods filled with fats, especially saturated/trans fatty acids, does a number on insulin sensitivity levels, and although there are no studies showing that insulin insensitivity is the cause of obesity, it is my opinion that it plays a big role in its formation, which is probably common sense. I mean, a McDonald's fat ass burger with high GI buns and cheese is the typical meal for a lot of America. Now, some may not get fat from these meals, but those are usually people who only eat once or twice a day anyway, and their calories are relatively debited. However, those who eat excessive calories with these types of meals are just looking for trouble in every way....

I am a big supporter of using fats in my diet as well, but to do this, it is best to use them with a low GI meal obviously, which as you stated, is an ideal state. I also use them later in the days where my carb calories are debited, therefore, it will have less negativities than if it were taken with meals that had carbs included. However, and like I mentioned earlier, when calories are debited, this is not really a problem, so mixing fats with carbs is not really a problem anyway. Plus, as you stated, the decreased absorption rate of solid foods and fats is great for quenching hunger...well sometimes. It may be better than carbs at quenching hunger, but for most, hunger is a problem on debited calorie diets no matter what you do (from a competition stand-point obviously).

BTW...the menoza GI list is my favorite. However, the Journal of Clinical Nutrition has just released a new revised GI list covering over 1300 entries. It is in there July edition. here is the link descibing it:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/1/5

It is not on-line, (unless you subscribe to it) so you'll have to get it at a library.

I pretty much think we are on the same page, as low GI's are definately more beneficial, however as long as calories and fat are not present or excessive in any major degree, it is fine to consume a high GI diet...or meal.

I'll agree that processed carbs/grains are not exactly ideal or beneficial as whole grains, but I still disagree that the body doesn't have a problem digesting and using them when eaten.

I'll try to post some studies/abstract later when I have time comparing low GI and high GI diets.

MR. BMJ

archive_PDOGGY · 07-14-2002, 03:00 PM

I have Nexis.com and it's still not online. It shows as "in process".

I'll keep looking and when it comes up, I'll download it and send it to Ulter to make a like on the page or however we decide to do it.

*************************
One day we can stop trippin over how we sound and really trip on what we say. Then we can stop trippin on what we say and trip on what we mean. After that we can stop trippin altogether.

OUT!

retropump · 07-14-2002, 04:03 PM

There's nothing as good as nutrition topics to get a lively debate going. There is no field other than religion and politics that seems to engender so much passion and differences of opinion.

Although I prefer hard science to demographic and epidemiological studies, in the case of nutrition for lifetime health we have little else to go on besides epidemiological evidence. Most of this evidence shows that whole grains are beneficial even when they comprise a large part of the diet (eg the Hunzas and Dinkas). The evidence is also clear that refined and processed carbs ar evil [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]
So I remain to be convinced that whole, natural foods of any sort are defacto "bad" for you. As a side note, most of the truly healthy cultures rely quite heavily on fermentation of their dairy, grains AND meats, as well as a lot of raw or marginally cooked organ meats (in meat eating cultures). Even the eskimos would bury and ferment their meats when possible which no doubt increased the digestibility and overall nutritional benefit of the meat. It's not clear that eating large quantities of feedlot fattened overcooked skeletal muscle is as beneficial to longe term health as these more primitive diets.

I believe the evidence is compelling that if most people ate as the ACS/AHA originally recommended, that degenerative diseases would be hugely reduced. There is a big difference between saying that people HAVE to eat a low carb diet to be healthy versus saying that people CAN eat a low carb diet and be healthy.

However this is a bodybuilding oriented site and there's no denying that what's good for Joe Average is not necessarily optimal for an elite BB. I eat a diet very high in whole grains, veggies and legumes, but I no longer eat any intentionally high GI foods/meals, even post workout. This is due to my advancing age (like Bjaarki) along with the realization that refined carbs are bad news in general. My body has no need for them and I, like Bjaarki, intend to have people asking me how I manage to look and feel so fit and young even into my old age. I wouldn't dare to say that Bjaarki is right and I am wrong. I think we are both right at least as far as keeping our insulin levels low. Different ways to skin a cat. I also think that men fare better in general on a diet relatively higher in proteins and fats than women. Purely speculative I'll be the first to admit.

retropump · 07-14-2002, 04:13 PM

BTW here's the full article....unfortunately the actual table is proving problematic to copy in a sensible format. If someone would like to take the job on, shoot me an email and I'll send the raw text.

International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 20021,2

Kaye Foster-Powell, Susanna HA Holt and Janette C Brand-Miller

1 From the Human Nutrition Unit, School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences, University of Sydney, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Reliable tables of glycemic index (GI) compiled from the scientific literature are instrumental in improving the quality of
research examining the relation between GI, glycemic load, and health. The GI has proven to be a more useful nutritional
concept than is the chemical classification of carbohydrate (as simple or complex, as sugars or starches, or as available or
unavailable), permitting new insights into the relation between the physiologic effects of carbohydrate-rich foods and
health. Several prospective observational studies have shown that the chronic consumption of a diet with a high glycemic
load (GI x dietary carbohydrate content) is independently associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers. This revised table contains almost 3 times the number of foods listed in the
original table (first published in this Journal in 1995) and contains nearly 1300 data entries derived from published and unpublished verified sources, representing > 750
different types of foods tested with the use of standard methods. The revised table also lists the glycemic load associated with the consumption of specified serving sizes
of different foods.

Key Words: Glycemic index o carbohydrates o diabetes o glycemic load

INTRODUCTION

Twenty years have passed since the first index of the relative glycemic effects of carbohydrate exchanges from 51 foods
was published by Jenkins et al (1) in this Journal. Per gram of carbohydrate, foods with a high glycemic index (GI)
produce a higher peak in postprandial blood glucose and a greater overall blood glucose response during the first 2 h after

07-09-2002, 08:26 AM	#26 (permalink)
archive_PDOGGY Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 442 Rep Power: 6301	BACK TO THAT ARTICLE, REALLY QUICK!!! This struck me, and maybe I know the answer or somebody here knows it, but doesn't know it: <BLOCKQUOTE class="*-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This is where it gets unavoidably complicated. The fatter you are, the more insulin your pancreas will pump out per meal, and the more likely you'll develop what's called "insulin resistance," which is the underlying cause of Syndrome X. In effect, your cells become insensitive to the action of insulin, and so you need ever greater amounts to keep your blood sugar in check. So as you gain weight, insulin makes it easier to store fat and harder to lose it. But the insulin resistance in turn may make it harder to store fat -- your weight is being kept in check, as it should be. But now the insulin resistance might prompt your pancreas to produce even more insulin, potentially starting a vicious cycle. Which comes first -- the obesity, the elevated insulin, known as hyperinsulinemia, or the insulin resistance* -- is a chicken-and-egg problem that hasn't been resolved. One endocrinologist described this to me as "the Nobel-prize winning question."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So somebody, anybody, do you understand the dilemna, this "Nobel-prize winning question" of which comes first? So you guys, which actually does come first? I never really gave it much thought. *********************** One day we can stop trippin over how we sound and really trip on what we say. Then we can stop trippin on what we say and trip on what we mean. After that we can stop trippin altogether. OUT!**

07-09-2002, 04:38 PM	#28 (permalink)
archive_PDOGGY Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 442 Rep Power: 6301	Hmmm.. Well what you have stated is a no-brainer and is purely academic. Perhaps I have misunderstood the context of that passage in the article. I was assuming that outside of caloric excess, the named factors are still yet misunderstood. (regarding the chicken/egg quandary) I'll examine it further. *********************** One day we can stop trippin over how we sound and really trip on what we say. Then we can stop trippin on what we say and trip on what we mean. After that we can stop trippin altogether. OUT!**

07-12-2002, 02:44 PM	#33 (permalink)
archive_Bjaarki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 3,673 Rep Power: 9560	A number of people have jumped in on this thread, and have expressed the view that carbs are not "evil" per se, but are a healthy part (and should be a large constituent) of a normal diet. I would agree with the use of dietary carbohydrate so long as it has a low glycemic index - so long as it does not immediately convert to blood sugar, causing an insulin surge, then a blood sugar "crash," and then ravenous hunger leading to more carb intake and ultimately obesity (this sequence was really the heart of the argument of the article that started this thread). As I say, I get my carbs from dairy products, veggies, fruits, legumes, and a very occasional grain product. But grained-based carbohydrates really are a pretty bad idea and should be avoided to the extent possible, though there may be some rare individuals who can tolerate them well. And I would argue that carb intake makes less, not more, sense for the highly trained athlete, like some of us. The metabolisms of highly trained athletes become progressively more efficient at using fat, not carbohydrate, for energy. The metabolisms of untrained individuals are very poor at utilizing fat, which is one of the reasons that it gets deposited and stored, rather than burned. Carbs - by that, I mean grain-based carbs - are a bad dietary idea for highly conditioned athletes, because we are very efficient at burning fats. And they're a bad idea for untrained individuals, because their effect on insulin secretion and later blood sugar debt causes ravenous hunger, and these people lack the self-discipline to deal with that hunger except by trying to satisfy it with more carbohydrate. All the epidemiologic data point to that pathway, more than any other, as the common factor underlying the major problem this country now has with obesity. Rampaging obesity (have you noticed how almost every adult you see has a paunch hanging over their belt?) is not due to dietary fat (which has been decreasing for almost two decades), nor to physical activity (which has not changed much, and has even increased in some demographic groups). The problem is that Americans are eating a lot more sugars and grain-based carbs - high glycemic-index foods - they're a lot hungrier than they've ever been, and they're slaking that hunger by eating a lot more food, principally more "healthy" low-fat, high-carb foods. I know that many of you will disagree with me, but I can't help that, some ideas die very slowly. But the low-fat/high-carb diet idea is dying now, and I will bet that, within 10 years, the low-fat/high-carb diet will be a thing of the past. It has simply been a dismal, dismal failure, by every measure that the public health sciences are able to deploy. It would be wonderful if we, as bodybuilders, could achieve some consensus on that, and use whatever influence we have in our personal circles to lead the way to healthier dietary practices. Enough, bros. I'm outa here. This has been a fun discussion. Be well, be happy, lift heavy, and journey safely. Bjaarki " 'Til the weard of the world, stands, unforgotten, high under Heaven, the Hero's name!" Hrolff Krakki's Saga (Iceland) BECOME SOMEONE'S HERO! __________________ First, say to yourself what you would become. Then, do what you have to do.

07-12-2002, 03:17 PM	#34 (permalink)
Verbal Gorilla Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 165 Rep Power: 6030	<BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Carbs - by that, I mean grain-based carbs - are a bad dietary idea for highly conditioned athletes, because we are very efficient at burning fats. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? What does this quote even mean? Because a athlete is efficient at burning fats, carbs are evil? Umm...red herring... You have yet to make ONE point on why carbs are bad. You obviously make a socio-physiological case on your (IMO poor) theory which is very posh lately, but what have you said universially about your brash initial post...NADA. No shit modern obesity is not do to DIETARY fats...it aint due to healty serving of pasta either! If you think it isn't due soley to inactivity and poor overall nutrition, then take your flying car back to make-believe land where farmers plant pork ribs and bacon!!

07-12-2002, 03:43 PM	#35 (permalink)
archive_Bjaarki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 3,673 Rep Power: 9560	VG: I thought I was pretty clear that the problem with carbs has to do with their effect on hunger. I said that several times, in several ways. I'm sorry you missed it. And the evidence that runs counter to the high-carb/low-fat tradition is anything but "posh." It is still opposed by a majority of physicians, the ADA, dieticians, you name it ... but it is convincing, and growing. Do me a favor and read the article I linked you to before you dive in here headfirst. That's why I gave you the link. Carbs (again, I mean high-glycemic index carbs) are not a good idea for an athlete, because we don't need them. We can burn fats very efficiently, more efficiently than nonathletes, and maintain much more stable blood sugar levels, develop fewer problems with insulin insensitivity, and experience fewer problems with carb-craving. And no, the obesity epidemic is not due to inactivity - which has improved in some of the same demographic groups that have grown increasingly obese, and has, as I say, not changed much in the past several decades - or even to "poor overall nutrition" per se. Increased obesity is due (taking a bit of a liberty here just for rhetoric's sake) to that "healthy serving of pasta." With overall calorie consumption held constant or statistically controlled, cultures with the diets highest in grain-based carbohyhdrates (like pasta) have the highest obesity rates in the world. Bjaarki __________________ First, say to yourself what you would become. Then, do what you have to do.

07-09-2002, 03:46 PM	#27 (permalink)
retropump Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 361 Rep Power: 6194	To me it's no question at all. People do not develop insulin resistance or type 11 diabetes at epidemic proportions if they don't over eat enough to get obese. It's really academic whether the EXCESS insulin caused the obesity or the EXCESS calories caused the obesity induced insulin resistance. Either way the key is EXCESS. I love the taste of junk food as much as the rest of the world, and my whole family is obese. The only reason I am not obese like them is because I realize that I WILL get fat if I indulge in as much junk as I like. I RESTRAIN my inborn urges to gorge myself on easy, tasty refined calories while lying around on a couch all day. This is purely an issue of education combined with some self discipline. But educating the public is only part of the solution. Most people do not have the discipline even when faced with incontrovertible evidence that what they are doing is harmful to them (for instance smoking). Still, this does not excuse the powers that be for giving the public anything less than the whole truth (or at least as much as is known). Education will always be the first step, but even when education is offered absolutely free, many people will chose lack of education and then whine that they are 'victims' of the system.

07-09-2002, 06:22 PM	#29 (permalink)
retropump Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 361 Rep Power: 6194	There may be some good clues from looking at unborn children from diabetic mothers: The metabolic processes that are responsible for the pathophysiology of the fetus of the diabetic mother have been elucidated in recent years and include maternal hyperglycinemia, fetal hyperglycinemia, fetal hyperinsulinemia, and increased levels of maternal, placental, and fetal insulin-like growth factors. Counter-regulatory mechanisms, such as insulin-like growth factors, binding proteins and leptin also play a role. The FETAL HYPERMETABOLIC STATE LEADS TO INCREASED SOMATIC GROWTH, OBESITY,and metabolic disturbances with short- and long-term consequences. (Semin Perinatol 2002 Jun;26(3):232-6; The pathophysiology of the fetus of the diabetic mother.) It would appear, at least in the human fetus, that the hormonal derangement is enough to cause obesity by itself rather thn the other way around. Another recent paper found "The plasma leptin level, an excellent indicator of adiposity, was significantly related to the glucose (area under the curve) independently of the insulin level. Insulin resistance or increased adiposity alone is not sufficient to impair glucose tolerance, but increased adiposity plays an important role in the development of glucose intolerance in an insulin-resistant state." (Metabolism 2002 Jun;51(6):716-23 Distinct role of adiposity and insulin resistance in glucose intolerance: Studies in ventromedial hypothalamic-lesioned obese rats [This message was edited by retropump on 07-09-2002 at 08:33 PM.]

07-09-2002, 07:01 PM	#30 (permalink)
retropump Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 361 Rep Power: 6194	Not wanting to flog a dead horse too much (and apologies for the non-human studies), but findings from Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2002 Mar;26(3):318-26 concluded that "These results suggest that FFA may play an important role in early events involved in the development of insulin resistance and TNF-alpha accelerates insulin resistance together with FFA in the later stage." This was from comparing rat litter mates who had the same bodyweight and body fat at 6 weeks, but some of them went on to develop insulin resistance and obesity by 15 weeks of age. From these limited studies, it would seem that the hormonal imbalances precede the obesity. No doubt this is why hormonal therapies are currently being intensively researched in the treatment of insulin resistant obesity.....

07-10-2002, 03:02 PM	#31 (permalink)
W8&apos;s Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 929 Rep Power: 6748	i am below 4% right now and durring my entire diet i never went below 260g carbs per day. i need carbs. if i go below a certain point i personally lose tons of muscle. ya just gotta eat the right ones boys and girls.

07-12-2002, 09:03 AM	#32 (permalink)
kkrammer Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 20 Rep Power: 5097	carbs are evil for 25% of people, but are essential for another 25%. The rest falls somewhere in between. This is what a german M.D. says in his book "Leben ohne Brot" (living without bread). He has a 30 year track record in putting patients on low carb diets (max. 70g/day). He bases his figures on WHO-studies and his "adaption theory", where he calculated that men would need at least 500 generations to adapt to carbs coming from an almost meat only diet. personally, i am in ketosis for 3 weeks now and i am strong like never before. I am eating heavily, not restricting calories, yet i am losing fat but keeping muscle and strength. Will see how that continues but it looks promising for now. No carbs for me anytime soon.

07-13-2002, 02:27 AM	#36 (permalink)
archive_MR. BMJ Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 1,869 Rep Power: 7882	We need to get some specifics clarified here before I start slamming down studies. BJAARKI, please clarify the following: 1. Are you stating that ALL grain-based foods are the cause for obesity, or just those with high GI's? I can show multiple studies showing that whole-grain foods improve insulin sensitivity and lower the risks of type 2 diabetes. Also, there are many whole grain foods that are low in GI ratings...I am not sure if you were counting these as well since you used the term 'grains' so loosely with the term 'high GI'. 2. Show me evidence that consuming high GI foods on a hypocaloric diet will cause obesity. Although high GI foods will halt lipolysis, you will NOT get fat as long as calories are not in excess! This is why low-GI carbs are ideal because of their improvement in keeping insulin levels stable, however, even in excess, they too will cause an increase in fat gain. I do not advocate a high GI diet, but that does not mean it will cause obesity when calories are not in excess...instead, fat loss will be slowed highly. However, you can still lose fat if enough calories are debited on a high GI hypocaloric diet, but this as we know will increase catabolism as well. Like I said, from a dietary standpoint only, the reason most americans are obese (again, this is only from a diet aspect) is more likely caused from a diet high in high GI carbs and high fat (mostly saturated) intakes in EXCESS calories. 3.) I also disagree with your statement that lack of physical activity is NOT a cause for obesity. While it may not be the overlying factor, it IS part of the problem. Likewise, someone's diet is not the only factor underlying obesity as well. There is multiple reasons for obesity to occur, as I stated above. As a food science and nutritionist I will admit that this is also the uneducated thinking of most dietitians and nutritionists as well...because most (not all [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]) are idiots when understanding the physiology of the body. BAD EATING IS NOT THE ONLY CAUSE FOR OBESITY!!! 4.) BJAARKI...are body is very good at adapting to changes, otherwise we would probably have been extinct by now. Just because our ancestors ate foods different than what is consumed today, does not mean that the body cannot handle and digest these foods. I am not sure what you mean when you state..."we are not biologically adapted to consume [grains]." Our body easily digests and uses grains for energy, and glycogen and fat storage just like any other carb based food. 5.) Any macronutrient will cause obesity if eaten in excess. I'm gonna stop here because i'm tired, but will add more tomorrow, unless I read you wrong. If I misunderstood you in anyway, just let me know. BMJ

07-14-2002, 05:38 AM	#37 (permalink)
archive_Bjaarki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 3,673 Rep Power: 9560	Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Mr. BMJ ..... I thought that this thread would die quickly, because it just "preaches to the choir," while that one I posted on the Parssinen study would generate controversy. Instead, just the opposite happened. This is fun. We're all learning something. Looks like you may have a lot to teach. Dive in and do so. <BLOCKQUOTE class="-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Are you stating that ALL grain-based foods are the cause for obesity, or just those with high GI's? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Those that are high-GI. But that is most grain-based carbs. But combine even lower-GI grains like barley or millet with the amount of carbohydrate in a "serving" - what you guys call the "glycemic load," I think, and you have a pretty significant carb dose. I have a pretty nifty website I use for a reference source on this, http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm <BLOCKQUOTE class="-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Show me evidence that consuming high GI foods on a hypocaloric diet will cause obesity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There is none, of course. I never meant to imply that. If you have a significant calorie debt, you will of course not gain weight. But eating lots of carbs makes it much more difficult to limit caloric intake, because they keep you hungry most of the day. Why put yourself through that, maybe consume more food when the hunger gets too intense, and then rely, like some of the guys do here, on ephedrine, T3, Clen, or even DNP to burn off those extra calories? You make a problem by consuming a substance, then you have to fix it by consuming another substance. That has never made any sense to me. <BLOCKQUOTE class="-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I also disagree with your statement that lack of physical activity is NOT a cause for obesity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have to be a little clearer here. Lack of physical activity, combined with adequate or hypernutrition, will cause weight gain. But epidemiologic data show that, in the United States, a significant "leisure exercise movement" began in the early 1980's and continues; throughout the 1990's, exercise levels for the population as a whole did not change, while obesity rates continued their rise of the past two decades. This clearly points to something other than a lack of exercise as the explanatory factor for rising obesity rates in the U.S. The article that I cited suggests, and it makes sense to me, that the obesity epidemic is due to the increased consumption of high-GI carbs, which increase hunger, and make people eat more. <BLOCKQUOTE class="-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I am not sure what you mean when you state..."we are not biologically adapted to consume [grains]." Our body easily digests and uses grains for energy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I mean just what I say, bro. Sure, we can digest grains, but we didn't have access to them in any quantity until 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. They're difficult to use in a way that keeps us muscular and lean. We've had threads like this before, and the discussion is always interesting. <BLOCKQUOTE class="**-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Any macronutrient will cause obesity if eaten in excess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course. Of course. But a bolus of dietary fat does not, generally, make you crave a follow-up bolus. A bolus of protein does not make you crave a follow-up bolus. They just don't affect insulin and glucose that way. Carbohydrates do, though, and that's the problem. Don't know if that gives you the clarification that you wanted. Hope so. Bjaarki __________________ First, say to yourself what you would become. Then, do what you have to do.

07-14-2002, 07:22 AM	#38 (permalink)
Beezers Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 297 Rep Power: 5972	This is a Hall of Fame thread.

07-14-2002, 08:40 AM	#39 (permalink)
archive_Mr. Nobody Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 5,080 Rep Power: 11861	In less elaborate terms here is my response: High GI carbs elicite an overly sudden and high insulin response, which clears sugar very quickly and leaves you with low blood sugar shortly afterwards. Low blood sugar makes you feel tired....couch potato.....and hungry for carbs...starting the cycle again. Further down the road comes insulin resistance which promotes an even higher insulin response (note: only muscle cells become insulin resistent, fat cells are happily accepting sugar anytime). Lets add fat (french fries plus coke = fat ass) High insulin plus fat = immediate transport of fat into fat cells. The general public has no business eating high GI carbs ever, the athlete should only eat them after workouts. Insulin also transports AA's and that is an exclellent thing for post workouts. What B is saying is that everybody should strive to keep their insulin levels low (post workout is the exception) and insulin sensitivity high Lets sum up the reasons high GI carbs promote fat gain in the general public: high insulin response, causing low blood sugar low blood sugar causing hunger and tiredness high insulin causing insulin resistance (but not in fat cells) insulin resitance causing higher endogenous insulin, shifting the equation ever more towards fat storage. Add poor timing of carbs (in the evening the body is more insulin resistant) and huge quanitities of foods and you spell Central Florida population. Disclaimer: Mr. Nobody is presenting fictitious opinions and does in no way, shape or form encourage, use nor condone the use of any illegal substances or the use of legal substances in an illegal manner. The information discussed is strictly for entertainment purposes only and shall not take the place of qualified medical advise.

07-14-2002, 08:50 AM	#40 (permalink)
archive_Ulter Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 15,388 Rep Power: 21828	"...and you spell Central Florida population." Amen. __________________

07-14-2002, 11:57 AM	#41 (permalink)
DaMan Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 735 Rep Power: 6078	Re avoiding slin surge / low GI carbs etc: Will someone NOW finally listen to me about taking acarbose???

07-14-2002, 02:20 PM	#42 (permalink)
archive_MR. BMJ Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 1,869 Rep Power: 7882	Thanks BJAARKI. YES, that helped clarify things quite a bit. The overall theme of you post I am in total agreement with. There is no denying that Low GI foods are healthier for individuals in 'promoting' a fat burning environment. Studies show that the health benefits far outweigh those of a diet made up of high GI foods. However, and this is what I was trying to stress, is that even though low GI meals are more beneficial towards health and fat loss, a diet consisting of high GI foods, when calories are not excessive, will not necessarily get you fat. However, we all know that fat loss is stopped with a high GI diet due to its spike in insulin, which MR. NOBODY mentioned nicely. So to sum it up, High GI foods will stop fat loss, but will not get you fat if calories are not excessive. I don't advocate a high GI diet, but I do think that post-workout meals that are spiked with high GI meals are very beneficial in recovery. Mr. Nobody also explained this very nicely. This is an example of having a supra-high GI meal in a hypocaloric diet, which from eeverbody i know that does it, they do not get fat. Having these meals all day long with high insulin levels defeats the purpose of trying to lose fat, so obviously you don't want them for every meal. The point I was making with the high GI and fat meals, was also nicely explained by Mr. NOBODY [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]. High GI foods filled with fats, especially saturated/trans fatty acids, does a number on insulin sensitivity levels, and although there are no studies showing that insulin insensitivity is the cause of obesity, it is my opinion that it plays a big role in its formation, which is probably common sense. I mean, a McDonald's fat ass burger with high GI buns and cheese is the typical meal for a lot of America. Now, some may not get fat from these meals, but those are usually people who only eat once or twice a day anyway, and their calories are relatively debited. However, those who eat excessive calories with these types of meals are just looking for trouble in every way.... I am a big supporter of using fats in my diet as well, but to do this, it is best to use them with a low GI meal obviously, which as you stated, is an ideal state. I also use them later in the days where my carb calories are debited, therefore, it will have less negativities than if it were taken with meals that had carbs included. However, and like I mentioned earlier, when calories are debited, this is not really a problem, so mixing fats with carbs is not really a problem anyway. Plus, as you stated, the decreased absorption rate of solid foods and fats is great for quenching hunger...well sometimes. It may be better than carbs at quenching hunger, but for most, hunger is a problem on debited calorie diets no matter what you do (from a competition stand-point obviously). BTW...the menoza GI list is my favorite. However, the Journal of Clinical Nutrition has just released a new revised GI list covering over 1300 entries. It is in there July edition. here is the link descibing it: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/1/5 It is not on-line, (unless you subscribe to it) so you'll have to get it at a library. I pretty much think we are on the same page, as low GI's are definately more beneficial, however as long as calories and fat are not present or excessive in any major degree, it is fine to consume a high GI diet...or meal. I'll agree that processed carbs/grains are not exactly ideal or beneficial as whole grains, but I still disagree that the body doesn't have a problem digesting and using them when eaten. I'll try to post some studies/abstract later when I have time comparing low GI and high GI diets. MR. BMJ

07-14-2002, 03:00 PM	#43 (permalink)
archive_PDOGGY Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 442 Rep Power: 6301	hmm.. I have Nexis.com and it's still not online. It shows as "in process". I'll keep looking and when it comes up, I'll download it and send it to Ulter to make a like on the page or however we decide to do it. *********************** One day we can stop trippin over how we sound and really trip on what we say. Then we can stop trippin on what we say and trip on what we mean. After that we can stop trippin altogether. OUT!**

07-14-2002, 04:03 PM	#44 (permalink)
retropump Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Posts: 361 Rep Power: 6194	There's nothing as good as nutrition topics to get a lively debate going. There is no field other than religion and politics that seems to engender so much passion and differences of opinion. Although I prefer hard science to demographic and epidemiological studies, in the case of nutrition for lifetime health we have little else to go on besides epidemiological evidence. Most of this evidence shows that whole grains are beneficial even when they comprise a large part of the diet (eg the Hunzas and Dinkas). The evidence is also clear that refined and processed carbs ar evil [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] So I remain to be convinced that whole, natural foods of any sort are defacto "bad" for you. As a side note, most of the truly healthy cultures rely quite heavily on fermentation of their dairy, grains AND meats, as well as a lot of raw or marginally cooked organ meats (in meat eating cultures). Even the eskimos would bury and ferment their meats when possible which no doubt increased the digestibility and overall nutritional benefit of the meat. It's not clear that eating large quantities of feedlot fattened overcooked skeletal muscle is as beneficial to longe term health as these more primitive diets. I believe the evidence is compelling that if most people ate as the ACS/AHA originally recommended, that degenerative diseases would be hugely reduced. There is a big difference between saying that people HAVE to eat a low carb diet to be healthy versus saying that people CAN eat a low carb diet and be healthy. However this is a bodybuilding oriented site and there's no denying that what's good for Joe Average is not necessarily optimal for an elite BB. I eat a diet very high in whole grains, veggies and legumes, but I no longer eat any intentionally high GI foods/meals, even post workout. This is due to my advancing age (like Bjaarki) along with the realization that refined carbs are bad news in general. My body has no need for them and I, like Bjaarki, intend to have people asking me how I manage to look and feel so fit and young even into my old age. I wouldn't dare to say that Bjaarki is right and I am wrong. I think we are both right at least as far as keeping our insulin levels low. Different ways to skin a cat. I also think that men fare better in general on a diet relatively higher in proteins and fats than women. Purely speculative I'll be the first to admit.