19 replies to this topic

[ryudoadema]

Sorry to make another thread for this topic guys, but I think it deserves it. Let me start off by saying I had great results in just a couple days from cutting my carb intake in half (from about 250g to about 120g a day) and increasing fats and protein slightly. Skip to ">" to get to the point if u want since this is a huge post.

Second off, I got my Protein Power Lifeplan book in the mail today. I figured what's the point since I'm sure it's gonna say how fat is good, carbs are bad blah blah and I just don't know what to think since this fat=insulin resistance threads came up. Plus it's from 2000 so the study that linked the two wasn't even done yet.

Well, I looked at the table of contents- the 2nd chapter was the "Insulin Connection", the 3rd was "The Fat of the Land". I skipped over to the fat of the land and started reading. To my surprise, the first major point is that dietary fats can cause insulin resistance- and yet in the summary of the book, you can eat as much fat as you want, depending on if you want to lose weight or not, because it is insulin neutral.

So what gives? The chapter goes on to explain that the fatty acids most important function is in the cell membrane. This membrane is made up mostly of two layers of fatty acids called the lipid bilayer. "The fatty acid core of the bilayer prevents molecules that dissolve in water, such as blood sugar (glucose), from passing through the cell membrane." (glucose dissolves in water, not fat). So glucose must be transferred in via the insulin receptors, a protien along the surface of the cell membrane. "Along with insulin receptors many other proteins on and in the cell membrane perform thousands of vital functions involving moving materials into and out of cells. In order to perform optimally they must be able to move and shift and rotate and reconfigure- each twist and turn dependent on the fluidity of the lipid bilayer in which they work. The fluidity and suppleness of the bilayer is a function of the types of fatty acids that make up it's core. And, in turn, the types of fatty acids in the bilayer core are, in great measure, a consequence of the types of fatty acids in the diet" (Eades, 64)

So good fatty acids make the membrane fluid, alowing these transports to work efficiently while bad fats do the opposite. Saturated fats (from natural sources like meat, poultry, dairy and eggs) provide structure to the membrane and polyunsaturated fats provide fluidity. Excess saturates can be converted by desaturase and elongase enzymes into any needed monounsaturates, and those into polyunsaturates. Neither saturates nor monounsaturates can ever be converted to omega 3's or 6's however(hence term essential).

There are two things to keep in mind to have an efficient cell membrane. Omega 6 to 3 ratio should be fixed to around a 2:1 ratio. This balances each others effects (inflamatory vs anti-inflammatory, blood thickener vs thinner etc.) and keeps the membrane working efficiently. Excess omega 6's correlate with increased rates of insulin resistance, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes in countless studies.

Second- Cut out all trans fatty acids. The body tends to incorporate these into the cell membrane before pufas and especially when there is a pufa deficiency. Trans fats inhibit the enzymes that convert saturates and monounsaturates into pufas. So that's 2 ways they contribute to an inefficient cell membrane by increasing pufa deficiency and blocking them from being assimilated into the membrane. Trans-fats also decrease the response of the cells to insulin. In this way they contribute to insulin resistance directly as well as causing hyperinsulinemia. "They hamper proper function of the insulin receptor by changing the fluidity of the lipid bilayer and other cellular membranes and even cause alterations in the size of adipose tissue cells, their number, and their fatty acid composition, further worsening the effects of essential-fatty-acid deficiency." (Eades, 79)

>There ya have it, a proper Omega 6:3 ratio of about 2:1 and no trans fats and your good to go. Remember, this was published way before these flawed studies were conducted. If these scientists had any sense, they would have made several diets cutting out only certain fats or combinations and one with almost no fats- I think we would be getting different recommendations than cutting out all fat.

By the way, this book is amazing! It's got so much more info and the diet is not super high protein or anything. A 150 lb man would have to consume a minimum of 102g protein...that's nothing! Get the book! It's like $7 used on amazon!

[AlexGF]

awesome, thanks for sharing.. I have to find a day soon , to get my cod liver oil!

[rakbs]

So, have a good omega-3:omega-6 ratio and avoid trans fat. You're also saying that saturated fat is beneficial for cells, correct?

Thanks for the post.

[ryudoadema]

So, have a good omega-3:omega-6 ratio and avoid trans fat. You're also saying that saturated fat is beneficial for cells, correct?

Thanks for the post.

What it says is that some saturated fat is needed for structural support of the cell membranes. Any extra that we get should be converted to other fats we need as long as the desaturase and elongase enzymes are working correctly. Trans-fats and some nutrient deficiencies inhibit these enzymes. Otherwise, the book says that saturated fats from natural sources are fine. Just avoid processed or refined concentrated sources of saturated fats, most will contain trans fats anyway.

[Danny©]

Sorry I have to say that Protein Power is not a good plan.
Eades is a clown who have shown the net to ignore everything about proper physiology and biochemistry and have made a food of himself many times.
If you go to Amazon you see a lot of people lamenting that their either didn't lose weight or gained fat while on the diet. The reason is that Eades is an idiot who really says that calories don't matter as long as you eat mostly fat (a retarded theory which has never been proven by any study on earth) and when people started complaining that they weren't losing weight or improving in health he saved his ass by admitting "well, it's time we count your calories" ... while the book still promote that pseudoscientific nonsense idea.

Eades is not well known for having success with athletes, dieters or when confronting with serious physiologists and biochemists. He is known for insulting women scientists, for acting childish in his blog and for nit-picking about absurd extreme ideas never proven on studies. Eades is neither particularly healthy, thin or athletic. I have yet to find a diet monger whether high fat or low fat who knows what he is talking about. There are people there who knows their stuff, but they're unpopular and not interested in marketing tactics and exploiting people need for well being and improvemente, which they can't guarantee.

Anyway what really impairs insulin sensitivity is fat mobilitation which causes an higher concentration of fatty acids in the blood.

[Dotty1]

It might be interesting to note that a gram of fat has double the calories than a gram of carbs or protein, etc.

In a way, people are eating double the quantity of what appears on their plate, if it is a fat. So, yes, I can see why others might gain weight on the diet.

Also, what year was the book written?

[Danny©]

The problem is that we are in need of unbiased nutritional information without all the marketing hype of wannabe rich doctor who sell products, supplements and pretend to sell miracles.
There's nothing magical about a proper dose of protein and manipulating carbs and fats for personal results. There's no physiological or metabolical advance or trick, there's no miracle or diet-cute-it-all and no "eat whatever you want you want gain weight".

High carb has its pros and cons
Low carb has its pros and cons
Low protein has only cons

A real unbiased source of information would just explain what happens in the body with details and proofs and without all the marketing talk, the salesman attitude and the distracting pseoscientific hype. Eades is a salesman. Few nutritional authors are there are not ignorant salesmen, those who are not are not well known and sell few books.

It's like with weight training.
You have a trainer that tells you that if you follow his method and take his supplement you will gain 10 pounds of muscles a month. Then you have the trainer who knows his physiology and biochemistry and tells you that you will gain at most 1 pound at month and that he won't be able to do miracles cause growing muscle tissues is a slow process that may take years.

Who do you think people will believe and will follow?
Everyone wants to listen to people who tells them what they want to hear, no matter if everything is just fake marketing hype, a buch of lie or exaggerated promises that will never be maintained (it remembers politics doesn't it?)

[rakbs]

It might be interesting to note that a gram of fat has double the calories than a gram of carbs or protein, etc.

In a way, people are eating double the quantity of what appears on their plate, if it is a fat. So, yes, I can see why others might gain weight on the diet.

Also, what year was the book written?

The thing is, fat is more than 2x more filling than carbohydrates. If I eat cream for breakfast (which I commonly do), I eat at most 400 calories.

But I can eat well over a thousand calories worth of cereal+fat free milk--and I often used to do that, or I did the same thing with chips or popcorn or another high-carb food.

[Danny©]

It might be interesting to note that a gram of fat has double the calories than a gram of carbs or protein, etc.

In a way, people are eating double the quantity of what appears on their plate, if it is a fat. So, yes, I can see why others might gain weight on the diet.

Also, what year was the book written?

The thing is, fat is more than 2x more filling than carbohydrates. If I eat cream for breakfast (which I commonly do), I eat at most 400 calories.

But I can eat well over a thousand calories worth of cereal+fat free milk--and I often used to do that, or I did the same thing with chips or popcorn or another high-carb food.

It depends on the saxiety index though. Potatoes are more satiating than fat for example, but I still thing that these indexes are based on subjects average ... so some will be satiated with potatoes more than fat and some won't.

[DeAntonio]

Its all about Visceral Fat...

[ryudoadema]

Danny, I respect your opinion, but if you look it up you can see the studies done on omega 6 and trans fats in relation to insulin resistance. I haven't seen anything so far that looks like pseudoscience. Also 440 reviews and 4.5 out of five seems like it works for most people...Also, he is an associate of Loren Cordain's (The Dietary Cure for Acne), and his diet pretty much matches up with his (both are based on paleo) except he doesn't say it's for acne. I've been on his diet for about a month before even knowing about it and my acne improved about 50% in a few days and continues to get better. Also, not a hypoglycemic episode in 3 weeks.

Not sure about that all the fat you can eat thing. He saysno trans fats and rancid fats and get a good ratio of omegas. If you are getting enough protein you need not worry about fats as they will take care of themselves (accompanying the meat etc.) And added olive oil, flax, marine oils, butter or ghee, egg yolks, raw/roasted seeds/nuts, avocados are all fine. He's not saying splurge on fat all day, just that if you get the other two nutrients in place, u need not worry about fats. And he says nothing like calories don't matter as long as your eating mostly fat! He says to get a minimal amount of protein, a max of carbs (which is pretty moderate-120g not counting fiber for me!) and then fill the rest with healthy fat up to the calories you need to lose, maintain, or gain weight.

[sepsi]

Anyway what really impairs insulin sensitivity is fat mobilitation which causes an higher concentration of fatty acids in the blood.

What does fat mobilitation mean?

I couldn't find it from any medical or normal dictionary. Enlighten the dummy please.

[ryudoadema]

It might be interesting to note that a gram of fat has double the calories than a gram of carbs or protein, etc.

In a way, people are eating double the quantity of what appears on their plate, if it is a fat. So, yes, I can see why others might gain weight on the diet.

Also, what year was the book written?

It was published in 2000

[Glennart]

If you go to Amazon you see a lot of people lamenting that their either didn't lose weight or gained fat while on the diet.

Customer Reviews
440 Reviews
5 star: 72% (320)
4 star: 14% (62)
3 star: 3% (17)
2 star: 2% (11)
1 star: 6% (30)

Obviously you did not even check Amazon yourself. Looks like pretty good stats IMO.

And you sound like anthony colpo, trust me, that is a bad thing.


For those interested take a look at Eades blog it's worth reading. He is certainly not an idiot and makes some very interesting posts.

[Veen]

Danny, I respect your opinion, but if you look it up you can see the studies done on omega 6 and trans fats in relation to insulin resistance. I haven't seen anything so far that looks like pseudoscience. Also 440 reviews and 4.5 out of five seems like it works for most people...Also, he is an associate of Loren Cordain's (The Dietary Cure for Acne), and his diet pretty much matches up with his (both are based on paleo) except he doesn't say it's for acne. I've been on his diet for about a month before even knowing about it and my acne improved about 50% in a few days and continues to get better. Also, not a hypoglycemic episode in 3 weeks.

Not sure about that all the fat you can eat thing. He saysno trans fats and rancid fats and get a good ratio of omegas. If you are getting enough protein you need not worry about fats as they will take care of themselves (accompanying the meat etc.) And added olive oil, flax, marine oils, butter or ghee, egg yolks, raw/roasted seeds/nuts, avocados are all fine. He's not saying splurge on fat all day, just that if you get the other two nutrients in place, u need not worry about fats. And he says nothing like calories don't matter as long as your eating mostly fat! He says to get a minimal amount of protein, a max of carbs (which is pretty moderate-120g not counting fiber for me!) and then fill the rest with healthy fat up to the calories you need to lose, maintain, or gain weight.

Thats sounds like good advice to me!

[ryudoadema]

Here's a link that talks bout a study in which trans-fats increased insulin resistance in monkeys.---Monkeys
Both monkey groups ate a diet with 35% fat. One with monounsaturated fats and no trans, and one with 27%monounsaturated fats and 8%trans fat-the latter of which were on the verge of diabetes.

Here's a site that talks about efa deficiency causing insulin resistance and how trans fats can contribute to the deficiency.---LINKY Other parts of this site are quite informative too, like the one that links trans fats with allergies!

[Danny©]

Danny, I respect your opinion, but if you look it up you can see the studies done on omega 6 and trans fats in relation to insulin resistance. I haven't seen anything so far that looks like pseudoscience.

I didn't mean to say that everything he says is pseudoscience and indeed the omega 6/3 ratio has indeed relevance to insulin resistance no doubting this.

My problem, as someone an athletic health nut and someone with a real passion for nutrition and for seeing people improving their health, is that the majority of books and authors out there are 40% half-truth, 40% hype and 20% nonsense. I ask please everyone to ignore whatever source who sounds like a bunch of hype. Whatever an author or books tells you that the truth is all in one side, that if you do X you'll live healthy forever and if you do Y you will die in a year, that as long as you follow their method you'll be thin, beautiful, strong and healthy and that prompt you to buy their products ... you should ditch the whole thing.

Eades is a salesman with a poor understanding of basic biochemistry and a lot of mumbo-jumbo about more detail biochemistry. Overall he says correct things from time to time but he coats them in pure hype, exaggerated claims, sci-fi concept and marketing tactics.
I just can't stand hype, extremism and one-sided concepts and to me even a right concept when coated in exagerrated hype lose all its interest, realiability and strength.

Also 440 reviews and 4.5 out of five seems like it works for most people...

That's not what I meant to say.
I explained what's the problem with the negative reviews.
Eades keeps repeating the absolute nonsense that you can eat whatever you want as long as it's high fat and you'll lose weight. A lot of low-carb gurus have realized how retarded this concept is and have ditched it once and for all. Because of ignoring calories enough people following the books (amazon is just one source of this, there are forums, owns Eades blog, other blogs and more) have not lost fat but actually gained it. When this happened Eades himself admitted that "we need to count calories and create a caloric deficiency" which is a vital information completely lacking in the book. The reason why many people had success is because usually when you substitute carbs for fat you get full sooner and stay full longer and the end result is that you eat less. But taken to the extreme, the idea that you can eat whatever you want in a low-carb and lose weight nonetheless; lead often to people pigging on low-carb foods and gaining weight (which is logical)

He says to get a minimal amount of protein, a max of carbs (which is pretty moderate-120g not counting fiber for me!) and then fill the rest with healthy fat up to the calories you need to lose, maintain, or gain weight.

Don't know the new version but in the old version there was no explanation on how to count calroies, how to predict your caloric needs, how to create a steadily caloric deficienty if you're not losing weight, how to gradually reduce calories, how to calculate your TEEF and very important concepts like these ones.

[ryudoadema]

Danny, I respect your opinion, but if you look it up you can see the studies done on omega 6 and trans fats in relation to insulin resistance. I haven't seen anything so far that looks like pseudoscience.

I didn't mean to say that everything he says is pseudoscience and indeed the omega 6/3 ratio has indeed relevance to insulin resistance no doubting this.

My problem, as someone an athletic health nut and someone with a real passion for nutrition and for seeing people improving their health, is that the majority of books and authors out there are 40% half-truth, 40% hype and 20% nonsense. I ask please everyone to ignore whatever source who sounds like a bunch of hype. Whatever an author or books tells you that the truth is all in one side, that if you do X you'll live healthy forever and if you do Y you will die in a year, that as long as you follow their method you'll be thin, beautiful, strong and healthy and that prompt you to buy their products ... you should ditch the whole thing.

Eades is a salesman with a poor understanding of basic biochemistry and a lot of mumbo-jumbo about more detail biochemistry. Overall he says correct things from time to time but he coats them in pure hype, exaggerated claims, sci-fi concept and marketing tactics.
I just can't stand hype, extremism and one-sided concepts and to me even a right concept when coated in exagerrated hype lose all its interest, realiability and strength.

Also 440 reviews and 4.5 out of five seems like it works for most people...

That's not what I meant to say.
I explained what's the problem with the negative reviews.
Eades keeps repeating the absolute nonsense that you can eat whatever you want as long as it's high fat and you'll lose weight. A lot of low-carb gurus have realized how retarded this concept is and have ditched it once and for all. Because of ignoring calories enough people following the books (amazon is just one source of this, there are forums, owns Eades blog, other blogs and more) have not lost fat but actually gained it. When this happened Eades himself admitted that "we need to count calories and create a caloric deficiency" which is a vital information completely lacking in the book. The reason why many people had success is because usually when you substitute carbs for fat you get full sooner and stay full longer and the end result is that you eat less. But taken to the extreme, the idea that you can eat whatever you want in a low-carb and lose weight nonetheless; lead often to people pigging on low-carb foods and gaining weight (which is logical)

He says to get a minimal amount of protein, a max of carbs (which is pretty moderate-120g not counting fiber for me!) and then fill the rest with healthy fat up to the calories you need to lose, maintain, or gain weight.

Don't know the new version but in the old version there was no explanation on how to count calroies, how to predict your caloric needs, how to create a steadily caloric deficienty if you're not losing weight, how to gradually reduce calories, how to calculate your TEEF and very important concepts like these ones.

Well, in this book (the lifeplan one), he definitely doesn't say u can eat whatever you want low carb. He does say you must take in less calories than you burn in order to lose weight, but also that insulin plays a role as well. Maybe you should check it out, like I said $7 on amzon- buy it used and it wont go to the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo artist. Some topics covered are Insulin, Fats, cholesterol, antioxidants, leaky gut, magnesium, sun- each with it's own entire chapter. Some may be on the pseudoscientific side like you say, however most is very interesting and informative...

[Danny©]

Some may be on the pseudoscientific side like you say, however most is very interesting and informative...

As always ... take what works and is true and ignore what doens't work and it's a lie ... no book is 100% perfect after all.

[ryudoadema]

Some may be on the pseudoscientific side like you say, however most is very interesting and informative...

As always ... take what works and is true and ignore what doens't work and it's a life ... no book is 100% perfect after all.

word!