Low Carb 4000+ Calorie Diet?.....Please Help

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
See this E.D.

so its pretty clear that the tests were ordered for hyperinsulinemia, which may lead to type II diabetes because of hyperinsulinemia which is both the cause and effect of insulin resistance (nothing to do with Type I Diabetes).

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/Supplement_2/S262.full

Once again it looks like hyperinsulinemia makes fat cells particularly resistant. This makes the hyperinsulinic response to carbs even greater, causing a spiral.
The hypos that the OP felt were due to lots of insulin, but fat cells being unable to respond due to their IR. Muscles and liver then will end up being exposed to all of that insulin, but they are more sensitive, especially when glycogen gets low, or muscles are used, and the hyperinsulinic levels drive hypos.

So gaining muscle and losing fat may prevent the development of T2D, although I am interested in the diet because it may also cause hepatic insulin resistance which may also be reversible with dietary changes, although these changes tend to be a little different than the ones that could reverse adipocyte resistance. (dietary fat alone can raise adipocyte insulin resistance, but reduce hepatic and muscular insulin resistance). [/quote]

So going off of what you saw, what are some advised macro measurements and examples of foods I should eat that wont make me worse off?

[quote]Mxdamien wrote:
Leading up to the tests I was eating a good amount of carbs around 300g or so a day with things such as angel hair, brown rice, sweet potatoes, wheat breads, leafy greens with the occasional pizza. Also dabbled in weight gainers for some time like Serious Mass and another nutrishop low sugar brand. [/quote]

Cheese pizza? What were your daily fat/oil sources? How many eggs did you eat in an average week? How often did you eat meat and how often did you eat fish?

If you don’t eat actual animal cellular material it is almost impossible to avoid choline deficiency and choline deficiency is known to cause hepatic insulin resistance and eventual diabetes.

Is my description correct so far that you were diagnose with hypoglycemia and so the other tests were done to confirm insulin resistance?

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2010/11/dangers-of-a-zero-carb-diet-ii-micronutrient-deficiencies/

How many of these foods did you eat regularly: Foods highest in Choline

[quote]Mxdamien wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
See this E.D.

so its pretty clear that the tests were ordered for hyperinsulinemia, which may lead to type II diabetes because of hyperinsulinemia which is both the cause and effect of insulin resistance (nothing to do with Type I Diabetes).

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/31/Supplement_2/S262.full

Once again it looks like hyperinsulinemia makes fat cells particularly resistant. This makes the hyperinsulinic response to carbs even greater, causing a spiral.
The hypos that the OP felt were due to lots of insulin, but fat cells being unable to respond due to their IR. Muscles and liver then will end up being exposed to all of that insulin, but they are more sensitive, especially when glycogen gets low, or muscles are used, and the hyperinsulinic levels drive hypos.

So gaining muscle and losing fat may prevent the development of T2D, although I am interested in the diet because it may also cause hepatic insulin resistance which may also be reversible with dietary changes, although these changes tend to be a little different than the ones that could reverse adipocyte resistance. (dietary fat alone can raise adipocyte insulin resistance, but reduce hepatic and muscular insulin resistance). [/quote]

So going off of what you saw, what are some advised macro measurements and examples of foods I should eat that wont make me worse off?[/quote]

Pretty much the same as for anyone. The majority of calories from fat. The majority of those from saturated fat. The majority of those from saturated ANIMAL fat. Near zero Omega-6s. A minimal dose of omega-3s. At least 20% but no more than 30% of daily calories from carbohydrates, and fewer than 25 grams of net fructose per day (and less than 1 alcoholic drink per day on average).

So should I try to get say around 30g of carbs a meal (150g a day) and up monounsaturated daily fats and protein.
With carbs coming from fruits, vegetables, brown rice, nuts, etc

What were your daily fat/oil sources? How many eggs did you eat in an average week? How often did you eat meat and how often did you eat fish?

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What were your daily fat/oil sources? How many eggs did you eat in an average week? How often did you eat meat and how often did you eat fish? [/quote]

Fat -
Almonds, Walnuts, Peanuts, Olive Oil, All natural PB
I started adding a few TBs of Olive Oil to my drinks and also had nuts during meals.
Meats -
Lean ground Beef, Skinless chicken breast, Salmon

As for eggs I was eating about 6 a day but switched over to egg whites and I was doing around 10 egg whites a day but stopped those because with meat I was eating over 320g of protein a day. For fish, I had salmon for every breakfast anywhere from 5 - 7 ounces at a time. Portion size the meat was around 6 ounces.

Interesting. A high protein diet can lower insulin sensitivity too. In fact at above about 200 grams of protein a day all extra protein converts to glucose and keeps your fasting blood sugar a little higher all the time. Even at 150 grams a day over half of the protein you eat becomes glucose.

In my opinion it is much better to “pulse” protein a few times a day and set a baseline of no more than 150 grams. And 150 grams of carbs.

If you were getting 300 grams of carbs and 320 grams of protein you may have effectively been getting 500-600 effective grams of carbs a day.

More and more studies show that more than .8g of protein/lb aint necessary, for various reasons. I’d even try lower than that, around 100g for your weight.

Maybe all OP needs is going back to a very basic nutrition program, with the list of basic bodybuilding bromistakes he seems to have done that may have impacted his health. Give your digestive system a break. You need a list of omegas6 sources to avoid (google them), and eat the good fats listed here. This will probably take care of your protein sources as well. And even some carbs

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
In fact at above about 200 grams of protein a day all extra protein converts to glucose and keeps your fasting blood sugar a little higher all the time. Even at 150 grams a day over half of the protein you eat becomes glucose. [/quote]

Do you have a reference for this?

[quote]EyeDentist wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
In fact at above about 200 grams of protein a day all extra protein converts to glucose and keeps your fasting blood sugar a little higher all the time. Even at 150 grams a day over half of the protein you eat becomes glucose. [/quote]

Do you have a reference for this?[/quote]

x2, Mertdawg that 150g limit for protein is blowing my mind

I will post references if people promise to read them, but I didn’t say 150 gram protein limit. I said that about half of the protein most people eat converts to glucose over a period of 3-6 hours, and that the proportion rises to 100% by about .85 grams per pound of bodyweight. That does NOT mean that there is no net anabolic effect above .85 grams per pound of bodyweight, but that the added potential gain above that level is due to the protein being converted to carbs which of course are anabolic, and stimulate insulin, but also wear on your insulin resistance.

http://journal.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/00v13n3/pg132.htm

“Between 50?60% of protein becomes glucose and enters the bloodstream about 3?4 hours after it’s eaten.”

sweetlyvoiced.com/2013/04/its-cuplicated.html

(see graph)

There?s a great deal of variability across persons. Some people are in nitrogen balance at protein intake of 0.9 g/kg/day; others need as much as 1.5 g/kg/day. At 1.2 g/kg/day, half the sample was in nitrogen balance.

Various factors influence the interpretation of this data:

The sample was of endurance athletes. Endurance exercise increases protein needs, so most people would reach nitrogen balance at lower protein intakes. Resistance exercise doesn?t require as much protein: Experienced bodybuilders are typically in nitrogen balance at 1.2 g/kg/day. [2]
Most of the sample probably ate a high-carb diet. Glucose needs were met from dietary carbohydrates. Low-carb dieters would need additional protein for glucose manufacture.
As Ned states, in caloric deficit, protein needs are increased; in caloric surplus, protein needs are decreased. If you?re restricting calories for weight loss, expect to need a bit more protein to avoid muscle loss.
Supplementing leucine ?increased protein synthesis and decreased protein breakdown? [2], thus leading to nitrogen balance at lower protein intakes.
The point of nitrogen balance is dynamic: if everyone in the sample ate 0.9 g/kg/day, then they?d eventually get into nitrogen balance at 0.9 g/kg/day. The body adjusts to conserve muscle at given food availability.
The average person needs much less protein to be in nitrogen balance. The US RDA for protein, 0.8 g/kg/day, was set so that 97.5% of Americans would be in nitrogen balance. [2] But just to be conservative, and because we?re developing advice for athletes, let?s consider 1.5 g/kg/day as the protein intake that brings our athletes into nitrogen balance.

What about the protein intake that exhausts benefits? At what intake is muscle synthesis no longer promoted?

Ned, citing a review paper [2], offers the following answer: ?[P]rotein intake beyond 25 percent of what is necessary to achieve a nitrogen balance of zero would have no effect on muscle gain.?

On my reading it?s not so easy to infer a clear answer, but let?s go with this. If so, then muscle gains would be exhausted at 1.25*1.5 = 1.875 g/kg/day even for the most strenuous athletes.

What about toxicity?

We deal with this in our book (p 25). At a protein intake of 230 g/day (920 calories), the body?s ability to convert ammonia to urea is saturated. [3] This means the nitrogen from every additional gram of protein lingers in the body as ammonia, a toxin.

Clearly marginal dietary protein is toxic, via ammonia poisoning, at this intake level. A reasonable estimate for where toxicity begins is between 150 to 200 g/day.

Mertdawg, I agree with many of your posts, but I think your zeal for consumption of literature has led you astray here.

The second link is, ahem, not exactly a conclusive scientific source. It’s a blog.

The third is a link to a site from people selling a book. Not a scientific source.

So let’s go to the first, the Diabetes Spectrum article, which is the only “scientific” evidence presented. Now, um, about this quote that you pulled from the Diabetes Spectrum article:

“Between 50-60% of protein becomes glucose and enters the bloodstream about 3-4 hours after it’s eaten.”

That statement is literally under a headline that says:

“The following statements are not based on scientific evidence yet are often given as advice to people with diabetes”

Let me repeat that: the quote you presented is listed under a list of things MARKED AS NOT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Who are you, T. Colin Campbell? That sort of misleading presentation of information is like something I’d expect to read in The China Study.

It’s like asking if I have a problem with black people, my answering “No, I don’t have a problem with black people” then you quoting me as saying “I…have a problem with black people.”

The summary of research with athletes in the third source, which is fully cited shows that most athletes are in nitrogen balance with about 1 gram per kilo, or 90 grams for a 200 pound athlete. Some are not.

.7 grams per pound puts 90% of athletes in nitrogen balance. This would be 140 grams for a 200 pound athlete.

.85 grams per pound (or in another source cited there, 25% above nitrogen balance) produces the maximum amount of new protein synthesis, IOW protein synthesis does not go higher at more than about 170 grams for the 200 pound athlete.

100% of protein converts to toxic ammonia above 230 grams per day, or 1 gram per pound in another cited source.

ONE russian research study showed that over a 6 month period, athletes consuming 1.7 grams per pound were able to gain slightly more muscle over a 1 year period than athletes consuming .85 grams per pound. This would be the equivalent of the 200 pound athlete going from 170 to 340 grams of protein, but the did not test any intermediate level between .85 and 1.7 grams per pound BW so it is wholly possible that all of the marginal gains occured before reaching the 1 gram per pound or 230 gram per day level.

Also since ALL added protein converts to ammonia above 230 grams a day or 1 gram per pound, there can not be additional nitrogen retention at that point because all of the nitrogen is excreted. So the LIMIT of plausible added benefits and definite harms is 1 gram per pound.

That still leaves the door open to the possibility that more protein above that level would supplement glucose (it has to all turn to glucose when its yielding ammonia of course), and supplementing glucose may cause fuller glycogen stores, or more daily insulin production, but since it must yield a toxin (ammonia) it is less beneficial than simply adding glucose polymers that would not have the toxic byproduct.

I need to find one more, the study that shows that high protein can lead to insulin resistance…

The first source is Diabetes Spectrum. Is that a blog? I thought it was some kind of journal.

The third link references all of the original research and they have no reason to promote lower protein. Many of the followers of that diet complained when the diet reduced protein recommendations in light of the cited sources.

From the end of that Diabetes Spectrum article, after they had reviewed what’s available in the literature (admittedly, this was back in 2000:

[b]Let’s review recommendations given to people with diabetes in regard to protein and try to determine if the research supports any or all of them.

“Between 50-60% of protein becomes glucose and enters the bloodstream about 3-4 hours after eaten.”

Perhaps 50-60% of protein goes through the process of gluconeogenesis in the liver, but virtually none of this glucose enters into the general circulation.[/b]

Is this the newest research out there on the topic? 2005 was minute ago… The 70s were quite a few minutes ago…

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
From the end of that Diabetes Spectrum article, after they had reviewed what’s available in the literature (admittedly, this was back in 2000:

[b]Let’s review recommendations given to people with diabetes in regard to protein and try to determine if the research supports any or all of them.

“Between 50-60% of protein becomes glucose and enters the bloodstream about 3-4 hours after eaten.”

Perhaps 50-60% of protein goes through the process of gluconeogenesis in the liver, but virtually none of this glucose enters into the general circulation.[/b][/quote]

If you have full liver glycogen your body will be less insulin sensitive because it doesn’t need to refill liver glycogen so glucose in the liver preserves blood glucose from other sources. Where else is it going to go?

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:
From the end of that Diabetes Spectrum article, after they had reviewed what’s available in the literature (admittedly, this was back in 2000:

[b]Let’s review recommendations given to people with diabetes in regard to protein and try to determine if the research supports any or all of them.

“Between 50-60% of protein becomes glucose and enters the bloodstream about 3-4 hours after eaten.”

Perhaps 50-60% of protein goes through the process of gluconeogenesis in the liver, but virtually none of this glucose enters into the general circulation.[/b][/quote]

If you have full liver glycogen your body will be less insulin sensitive because it doesn’t need to refill liver glycogen so glucose in the liver preserves blood glucose from other sources. Where else is it going to go? [/quote]

Do you actually read the articles you post, or just skim them looking for a single quote that supports your point?

The Diabetes Spectrum article has an entire section discussing about this.

“This raises the question of why, if gluconeogenesis from protein occurs, does the glucose produced not appear in the general circulation?”

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Is this the newest research out there on the topic? 2005 was minute ago… The 70s were quite a few minutes ago…[/quote]

Find something newer that says otherwise. The only study that ever showed muscle gains above .85 grams per pound used .85 and 1.7 and found a small increase. If they had used .85 and .95 they could easily have found the full effect.

And if 100% of protein above 230 grams per day becomes ammonia, what does it matter whether they found that out in 2005?