That’s not quite accurate. Glucose is manufactured through a demand-driven process called gluconeogenesis. And in times of fasting, glycerol (the backbone binding free fatty acids) is a key source of this process. This makes perfect evolutionary sense. Otherwise, after 48-72 hours without food, our body would be breaking down lean tissue and we would be dying. This is further highlighted by the fact that even on a shorter fast, i.e. 24 hours, human growth hormone levels have been shown to increase by 2000% in men and 1300% in women. Another protective mechanism against lean tissue breakdown.
Thanks for the clarification.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
It is useful for me to know that blood pressure should be prioritized over lipids. My blood pressure has typically been good, though I’ve seen it creep upward as I’ve gotten older. I gather that is normal (or at least typical). Disappointing to hear that exercise doesn’t have that much effect, at least when tested across a population.
As for lipids and diet, I expect that will remain contentious. My numbers are currently looking quite good, but that is with the assistance of a statin (which I have been taking for 20 years with no apparent side effects). I occasional wonder how much I should worry about side effects, especially if there are asymptomatic ones that will only cause issues down the road. Unknowable, I suppose. (Of course, not asking you to provide medical advice remotely).
My blood sugar tends to run at the high end of what is considered normal, but it was that way even before I started taking the statin. On occasion, those numbers have gotten worse, but that clearly happened as the result of letting myself get too fat. If I keep my weight down and exercise regularly, I seem to be able to keep things in a normal range.
I find it quite disturbing that people are seeking advice on lipids and triglycerides and all this other type stuff on an exercise forum.
Welcome to the age of social media. Self educated experts on almost any topic are found all over the internet. It is definitely a mixed bag in terms of what you get.
Personally, I pay a lot of attention to what my Doctor tells me. But my Doctor isn’t infallable or God-like in his knowledge of the world. So I like to check his advice against other sources of information. That doesn’t mean I believe or act upon every bit of advice that my searches turn up.
Pettersson’s opinion interests me because he appears to be a practicing physician.
Also remember that this thread started with an inquiry about the consequences of Dr. Darden’s dietary advice regarding consumption of white bread. This isn’t strictly an exercise forum. There is a lot of advice being giving about nutrition, diet, and weight loss. Saying that white bread is OK does go somewhat against the mainstream advice to eat mostly whole grains, so it isn’t exactly out of bounds to inquire about possible negative consequences.
Why do you continue to call people inflammatory names? Chowderheads? That is not very nice? Did you ever listen to your parents?
For your information, many on here most likely have advanced education. Do you have an advanced education. If not, your offensive retort seems juvenile at best.
Ha ha , look who’s talking, like you’ve never done that. Suddenly you’re Mr. nice guy.
Many diet gurus claim a high carb low fat diet leads to weight gain. This is a tired old myth! (See study)
You would think that HiT would supercharge Dr. Darden’s original diet recommendations of 60/20/20 carb/fat/protein.
10 % fat is low fat.
This level of fat in the diet can stop insulin resistance.
Thus, a high carb - low fat diets unleash and supercharge insulin, which is THE primary anabolic hormone.
I don’t know who all these diet gurus are who are claiming a macro split leads to weight gain, but a caloric surplus or deficit is what leads to weight gain or weight loss. Both high carb and low carb diets work fine. We have pro bodybuilders on here who used lots of carbs, and we have one of the strongest and most muscular people on the site using low carb.
I think most of the research in this area suggests that calorie intake matters more than the way it is distributed. (Of course, the nature of the food you consume may influence satiety and the ease of keeping food intake reasonable.)
As for terminology: In diet studies, the low fat condition is often something like < 30%. Proponents of certain low-fat high-carb diets (e.g., Ornish, McDougall, Esselstyn) will often say that isn’t low enough, and you need to go below 10%. More main stream nutritionists will classify that as a very low or extremely low fat diet.
Regardless of how you want to label it, some people have spectacular success with weight loss by keeping fat below 10%, and some may even lose weight without intentional calorie restriction. If you eat mostly plant foods, and keep both fat and protein low, you likely lose weight just because it is difficult to take in an excess of calories eating that way. But that is a pretty restrictive way to eat, and many people raised on Western diets will have a lot of difficulty adhering to it long term.
Quoting webmd is like quoting cnn
The article is citing the Women’s Health Initiative, although I am not quite sure what he is trying to achieve by referring to this, or the article by Barry Sears. And I’m reluctant to find out. Life is too short.
Quote from article
The study may well refute the claims of some popular diet gurus that a low-fat diet makes people fat. Indeed, women who ate the least fat lost the most weight.
End Quote from article
Another quote from said article:
‘After seven and a half years, they [the intervention group] still weighed about a pound less than the women in the group who did not receive special training.’
Wow, mind blowing!
They were not dieting!
So to avoid any further ambiguity here, what is your point by citing this? Is it that the obese subjects in the intervention group did not gain further weight (i.e. they weighed about 1lbs less than the control group who, incidentally, were asked to follow national dietary guidelines)? If so, it’s not statistically significant. Talking of which, do you know the only statistically significant finding of the same study? Women with a previous history of CVD who were assigned to the intervention group were 26% more likely to suffer further CVD complications than their counterparts in the control group. That’s statistical significance right there.
Excess carbs get stored in your muscles as glycogen. We can store up to 1,500-2,000 calories of glycogen, as it takes sustained overfeeding of carbs before your body begins the process of converting carbs to fat, called De Novo Lipogenesis. This does NOT happen on Dr. Darden’s diets. He limits TOTAL calories.
There is storage areas for excess dietary fat, as excess fat you eat gets stored as fat. Easy enough to rationalize a low fat diet.
Dr. Walter Kempner’s rice diet (>90 % carb) was used to treat hypertension and kidney disease. Patients lost weight on this diet. The potato hack diet resulted in weight loss. Lotta carbs.
The greatest endurance runners, the Tarahumara, have a carbohydrate diet which consists of corn but they also eat squash, beans and chili. Let us not forget the Kenyan runners carbohydrate diet. Weight lifting is a pure glycolytic event.
Do not forget the brains primary/preferred fuel - carbohydrates.
I would personally like to link this to the peripheral nerve system concerning quality of lifting weights and/or neuromuscular connection - but I’m not sure I can find any dietary studies with EMG on this (for objectiveness). Not forgetting the need for glycogen in order to produce significant muscle force/output.
Question remains though: Why avoid carbohydrates?
Remember, carbohydrates are not an essential macronutrient. Ergo, they are not our primary/preferred fuel for brains. Now, in absence of carbs, the brain will function normally on glucose, via gluconeogenesis, and/or from ketones (produced by the liver). The latter continues to attract interest in the treatment of cognitive decline. This is especially true in the case of dementia, which is now being referred to as ‘type 3 diabetes’. Also, with Alzhiemer’s there is research showing improved brain energy metabolism with ketones.
Indeed. Few people need to avoid them. Carbs generate significant oxidative stress (this is why your body tries to metabolise them first, i.e. to get rid. Hence the fallacy: carbs are the body’s preferred fuel source). So it seems logical to limit them in terms of quality versus quantity. The starting place being, the more metabolically healthy you are the more you can ingest.
Note, I won’t go into your point about glycogen. Studies by Volek/Phinney has demonstrated keto athletes replenish glycogen as quickly as their carb-fuelled counterparts.