What did you learn today?

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #745

That’s not actually how I read that paper. The loss is from the oxidation of the excess amino acids, not gluconeogenesis.

It’s an interesting study. Their conclusions make sense, but I worry that the study was underpowered (n = 6), and the p-values of their statistics are all very high. In the world of physics, the p-values would have to be at least two orders of magnitude smaller before anyone would pay attention. The other concern I have is that they were using tagged leucine, but they didn’t measure the supply of the two other essential BCAA’s, and if they weren’t ingested in the correct proportions, that might have been a limiting factor on the protein synthesis.

#746

Militant vegans love this paper. They use it to ‘prove’ that you don’t need more than 20 grams of protein :roll_eyes:

(The amazing autoimmune 🦄) #747

I learned that there are two types of fat cells you can have in your body. You either have large fat cells or you have small fat cells(this part is fact)

Oddly enough current theory is having the small type is better as they feel it is more adaptable(this part is pure speculation).

Also people who have the small type lose faster and easier than the larger celled people(still hypothetical but more grounded in fact).

I read the blog post atomic bunny put up in the science wing of the forum🤓

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #748

LOL! If you read the paper, that was 20 g of additional protein, possibly repeated five or six times a day! So, up to 100-120 grams of protein above and beyond the amount needed for daily maintenance. Talk about only seeing what you want to see! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

#749

I know right? Sigh.

(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #750

Everyone will be glad to learn I triaged my own finger, maintained a very clean bandage with some cut off latex finger tips to keep it dry and used some clean snips to cut off the part that wasn’t going to make it. I didn’t even use antibiotic ointment, just good old soap and water. Thanks amazing body! (And sorry for sparking the healthcare debate.)

#751

FWIW I actually did learn something …:slightly_smiling_face:

(Running from stupidity) #752

No no, it was very interesting and informative.

(The amazing autoimmune 🦄) #753

And sad for us Americans.

#754

Agreed, all of that is not explained in that paper (it’s a paper not a textbook). I was just glad to see those particular curves.

But you are right, surplus protein will not automatically be converted to fat and not immediately (it may not even happen at all) - the surplus protein first undergoes gluconeogensis or conversion to glucose. Granted the body may well consume this glucose - or of course it’ll face the familiar insulin pathway and end up as adipose tissue or visceral fat after all.

I agree with you excess protein it is not automatically and immediately converted to fat. But it gets there in a round about way and it’s the mostly like outcome (in a context of surplus dietary intake)

(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #755

Welp, I just learned that when you put the blue color on the brown hair you end up with black-gray hair. #itstemporary

#756

I wouldn’t know about that.

(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #757

I see plenty of cartoon face hair in the perfect shade for coloring!

#758

Just as long as it’s not blue!

(squirrel-kissing paper tamer) #759

It also comes in pink, purple, green, etc. You don’t have to use blue.

#760

I think I’ll stick to my naturally graying shade. :slight_smile:

(Running from stupidity) #761

#picsoritdidnthappen

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #762

Now, many researchers have pointed out that gluconeogenesis is demand-driven, not supply driven. Prof. Bikman, for example, makes this point repeatedly in various lectures. He is very clear that excess protein does not end up as glucose. And the paper you linked to says nothing about gluconeogenesis, but rather talks about the oxidation of amino acids. In order to convert amino acids into glucose, they need to be deaminated first, which is a different process from oxidation. And there is a steady stream of amino acids already being deaminated (apparently they come from proteins being broken down by autophagy), which is one of the reasons our diet requires protein in the first place.

So we have a number of mechanisms for dealing with amino acids: protein synthesis, storage in the labile pool, deamination, oxidation, albumin protein synthesis, and proteinuria. The only one of those processes that would permit the formation of fat would be deamination, and not all deaminated amino acids get turned into fat, because people suffering from ammonia toxicity aren’t usually gaining weight.

I’m intrigued, as well, by the implicit assumption that people seem to make that excess protein is required to be turned into fat which is then required to be stored. Even if it were true that all excess protein were automatically turned into fat (instead of being excreted, or whatever), why would that fat have to be stored? Could it not be burned for energy? Prof. Bikman makes a great deal out of mitochondrial uncoupling in the adipose cells, by which the cells metabolize far more fat than they need just to do their jobs, in effect “wasting” energy. And why can’t some of this “required” fat be turned into ketone bodies and either used or excreted? It seems to me that the body can avail itself of many different pathways for handling what we give it, and that many of these pathways seem to drop from consideration when caloric intake is discussed.

#763

Hmm, very nice try Mr Paul, I really mean that, very nice try indeed.

But are you saying the one and only way to get fat is to over eat carbs as long as you don’t over eat carbs then for one reason or another you just cannot get fat?

I’m afraid I cannot agree. Here’s a simple alternative - you eat too much (of anything), it all adds up and you get fat after all. Initially you will stop losing weight, then you go into weight maintenance but if you keep overeating beyond that - you will get fat.

I believe Chapter 16 in “The Art and Living of low-carb … Living” explores this quite well and puts the question beyond doubt. Granted they only discuss “Weight Loss” (CI < CO) and “Weight Maintenance” (CI = CO), they do not explore eating beyond that (CI > CO) - but is it too much of an extrapolation to suggest after leveling out - the pendulum keeps swings and goes the other way - you will actually start to gain weight, probably as fat.

In their “big loser” example - a man is eating 1600 Calories for Weight Loss and then needing 3200 Cals for Maintenance, that is his CI = CO. That is full double his food! Wow - that is a lot.

Let’s think about that. If he “only” eats 2999 Cals that’s still quite a lot more food for that guy - he may well conclude and come in this forum saying “hey keto is magic - I can eat virtually unlimited amounts of food and still not get fat”. And he would be right, he would still lose a bit!

Even though Phinney and Volek don’t explicitly explore CI > CO in that chapter and state what I think is completely obvious - which is to say - “if you eat beyond CI > CO then you will not only arrest Weight Loss, go past Weight Mainteance - you will indeed start putting weight back on.

I know it can seem like you can eat unlimited food, even just about a full double, but then we will just define excess to mean 2.1 times your regular intake… (For the woman it was 1400 and 2000, so 2001)

Interesting that chapter shows CICO is real. It also shows “you can eat virtually all you want on keto and you won’t get fat”. Both sides were right in the great CICO debate. BUT notice the example had the man running about more, “in their clinical experience … “ they “noticed people become more active” this was assumed in the 1600 vs 3200 example (oh no, now they’re saying “eat less and more more”… )

(Diane) #764

It appears from your response that you haven’t taken the time to view any of the many wonderful presentations Dr. Bikman has given at various low carb conferences or on podcasts regarding his research into the mechanisms of insulin and glucagon. One of the benefits of scientific inquiry is that new information is being discovered on an ongoing basis. And our understanding has the opportunity to continue to expand.

I find @PaulL ‘s response to this thread well written and compelling. I cannot say the same for yours.