"adak" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> Hi Doug,
>
> I define diet as a slightly negative energy balance, just a bit more
> going out than coming in. A diet is not a fast, however.
We are on the same page here.
> The quantity of insulin is not the issue. The point is that eating
> high
> GI foods will cause a marked increase in insulin in non-diabetic
> people.
I can't get my arms around this. Not trying to be cute but how high is
high, and a marked increase is how much?
>
> Everyone is different, but in my experience, a large percentage of
> dieter's do achieve a "sugar rush" if they have high GI intake with
> enough volume. Skinny people who have never dieted, feel this "sugar
> rush", but to a lesser extent. They also just plainly eat less, and/or
> are more active.
And some people do not sense anything. I agree that each individual has
some reaction to high GI food but I also think this has been over
generalized by Sears and even more by Atkins as an worldly egregious
earth shattering implosion. I'm not convinced from any of the literature
that I have read that this is true. Combine this with exercise and GI
it's less important. When human performance labs look into exercise and
calories, they stress complex carbs in general with no notion of GI or
GL. If we look at the elite sports people they are carb freaks. Ever see
what a Kenyan eats daily? I only use the elites because they get the
attention. Performance labs are looking to get the most energy out of
the human body. As part of their testing they do test the spectrum of
ability and the data holds up with volume of exercise and calories.
> muscles mass while dieting:
>
> It's been known since I started lifting weights decades ago (I don't
> lift any more). The problem is the body uses insulin to help the cells
> (especially the muscle cells), increase their intake of nutrients.
> When
> you go into a negative energy balance (a diet), your insulin levels
> drop, and so does the ability of the muscles to intake energy and
> essential amino acids they need to grow and rebuild from exercise.
> So you lose some muscle mass when you diet. You can minimize that
> effect, but you can't stop it.
I'd like to see a paper on this. If a person is reasonably reducing his
input, meaning a general reduction and not all of any food group(like
low carb ketosis), he should be getting sufficient protein to not cause
any muscle loss and in fact likely gain muscle mass and while losing
some fat. Can you show me some data points that relate insulin and
protein that demonstrate this?
> It's your body's way of preserving itself through a time of scarce
> food/famine. The more your body experiences food deprivation, the
> worse
> the muscle atrophy will be. For extreme examples, look at the anorexic
> and Nazi concentration camp photo's.
I understand this in the extreme but I'm addressing those simply
reducing some calories.
> When you say Lance's muscles were "chemo'ed off", you know what caused
> that, right? Intense nausea, and inability to hold down his food. In
> other words, he was put into negative energy balance, or a diet. It
> just wasn't one that he got to choose what he could eat, and keep
> down.
I completely agree. Lance was in in severe calorie reduction(a lot of
lunch blowing from thre chemo) and still exercising. I did read his book
and it's an incredible read. Catabolic comes to mind. We seem to agree
in places yet disagree in others. I'm not looking through the eyes of
someone doing severe calorie restriction(fasting like) and exercise but
more to the average person who wants to lose weight by gentle reduction
calories and some added exercise. In this case I do not see any muscle
loss and just the opposite. If your covering the catabolic case then
yes, one eats himself, both fat and muscle.
-DF
