Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnBama  ...I'm still thinking that for weight loss, a low-carb (not necessarily zero-carb), low-fat diet is the way to go. This based on my own experience so YMMV. |
There are but three macro-nutrients. Carbs, Fats, and Proteins. Low carb, and low fat implies either high protein or calorie restriction (simply less food with a 'normal' or higher amount of protein). Is that right? "Eat less" is probably a good mantra for a lot of folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fgummett ... I currently have a very low-tolerance for most, if not all carbs. I believe that my body's ability to manage sugar has been overwhelmed by too many years of too much fast-acting sugar. It is possible that as my weight and insulin sensitivity improve I may be able to allow myself more flexibility in my diet... |
I light just went on.
The concept of dynamic temporal shifts in macro-nutrient needs based on stasis is a nice compliment to my favorite newborn science of nutrigenomics.
Nutrigenomics tells you what you're programmed for whereas
homeostatic (im)balance describes current state. Both are critical bits of info in slaying the dragon of generalization.
If we had a good individual profiles of both of these for a given individual
we could Rx food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMenace Apparently not. It's that fat-storage-hormone that seems to be at fault. Whether fat itself gets stored as fat is unclear, but I think it's safe to say it at least doesn't get stored as efficiently as carbs. Carbs trigger insulin, and insulin CAUSES fat storage. That's the simple and relevant message. Even low carb neigh-sayers have to acknowledge this. The Mayo clinic does: Insulin and weight gain: Keep the pounds off - MayoClinic.com , but they are so caught up in fat-is-bad that they won't say low-carb is good. |
Helpful as always, thanks John.
