Questioning the Diet

[RRM]

I guess he doesnt understand that we constantly replenish lost sugars in small doses.

You'd need constant medical supervision to keep glucose level
balanced while eating frequent carbs.

We have.
This monitor is reporting to us all the time. all we have to do, is (learn how to) listen. This monitor naturally comes with the package (your body)

Eating fat with carbs does not cut the overall glucose load.

It doesnt?
So, if we add fat, we just burn extra energy?
The more energy is ingested, the greater our energy expenditure? Thats like making a car run faster by filling the gas tank to the max regularly.

He would only be right if the fat consumed would not replace any sugar, but would be consumed as an extra.
Of course, in practise we dont consume extra energy with this diet.

Fat does slow down the absorption of sugar, right?

Its very simple.
If you, instead of 100 kcal in sugar, you consume 50 kcal in sugar and 50 kcal in fat (in one setting) this 50 kcal in sugar will not be utilized as fast as the first 50 kcal of that 100 kcal sugar, simply because there will be a shift in the ratio of sugar / fat utilized.

He also he thinks that insulin secretion is somehow not healthy in terms of this diet. He says that blood markers such as insulin level are healthier on a fat/protein diet.

The dominant factor regarding insulin secretion is the size of our meals. The bigger your meals, the greater the amount of excess energy that needs to be stored temporarily.
With normal diets there is a lot of conversion of energy going on, requiring lots of insulin and glucagon. With this diet, its much more about only replenishing lost energy, hence a big decrease in insulin requirements.

[RRM]

I think he is wrong mainly because the way protein digestibilty is calculated.

Yes, indeed.
He reason's that protein taken up in the blood IS digested properly, but scientific research shows that a great deal of the protein digested is not totally digested (decomposed into single amino acids) at all.
They count all the absorbed protein as totally digested protein.

Also, eggs are a bad example.
If you take whole eggs, including the egg white with its enzyminhibitors, yes, cooking will destroy those enzyminhibitors, and more protein will be taken up into the blood (which, again, is not the same as protein digested properly).

Why don't they calculate it to amino acid requirements?

Because that is far more complex (hence the protein charts).

Is nitrogen measuring just sufficient enough?

Nitrogen uptake says NOTHING about the decomposition of protein into single amino acids; that may be nitrogen from 100% peptides or from 100% single amino acids, or anything in between.
Research has shown that the body very effectively takes up peptides (amino acids still linked to each other).
Hartnup disease is a great example.

[nick]

Yes, indeed.
He reason's that protein taken up in the blood IS digested properly, but scientific research shows that a great deal of the protein digested is not totally digested (decomposed into single amino acids) at all.
They count all the absorbed protein as totally digested protein.

I don't think he has fully read the studies on this. Plus he may not even understand this concept.

Also, eggs are a bad example.
If you take whole eggs, including the egg white with its enzyminhibitors, yes, cooking will destroy those enzyminhibitors, and more protein will be taken up into the blood (which, again, is not the same as protein digested properly).

So proper protein digestion is when protein is broken down into its amino acids for utilization as that makes sense.

This other poster mentioned a study where cooked eggs had a digestibilty of 91% compared to raw eggs with 51%. However this is only in regards to nitrogen intake not looking at amino acid intake and such. Does this mean that the body decreased its protein absorption? is that even possible?

Is it possible that on this diet that protein digestion isn't 100%, but perhaps 95%, whereas the remaining intact peptides are negligible concerning acne and cellulite. Since you experimented with liquid amino acids and said your face was smooth as ever, do you think this is possible.

Perhaps, eating half your animal food in the morning then the rest at night would provide a more complete digestionof the protein?

Does that make sense, or does your body do it best all at the same time with proper resting?

Nitrogen uptake says NOTHING about the decomposition of protein into single amino acids; that may be nitrogen from 100% peptides or from 100% single amino acids, or anything in between.
Research has shown that the body very effectively takes up peptides (amino acids still linked to each other).
Hartnup disease is a great example.

Here is what he said about that:

So what? Let´s supose, as you say, that ¨dirty protein¨isn´t fully
broken down. This doesn´t prove that it cause acne and disease. I
also doubt that a Hartnup patient on a raw diet will not absorb
tryptophan linked to other aminoacids because of the absence of
¨dirty protein¨. Even Wai admits that some factors like don´t resting
after a meal can impair comlete protein digestion. There is not a
single piece of evidence that a raw diet has less ¨dirty protein¨
than a cooked diet. Raw meat contains connective tissue; cooking
makes it easier to digest; probably if you eat raw meat, even raw
fish, you will absorb some peptides which are not fully decomposed.
Show us how a raw diet has less dirty protein than a cooked diet.
Then show us how this dirty protein cause acne and disease.
Even if we take as true that protein is related to acne in
individuals which aren´t healthy, it is more probable that Wai´s diet
work in many of them to a reduced protein intake (dangerous for
health in the long run) than because of the absence of dirty protein.

[nick]

We have.
This monitor is reporting to us all the time. all we have to do, is (learn how to) listen. This monitor naturally comes with the package (your body)

Wicked!

Its very simple.
If you, instead of 100 kcal in sugar, you consume 50 kcal in sugar and 50 kcal in fat (in one setting) this 50 kcal in sugar will not be utilized as fast as the first 50 kcal of that 100 kcal sugar, simply because there will be a shift in the ratio of sugar / fat utilized.

Ahhh. So this shift in ulitization is what stabilizes the sugar level. So the blood increases its fat intake, while decreasing the sugar intake compared to 100kcal of sugar only. With no fat, the sugar is taken in and is either used for energy or stored depending on the need.

Can the body increase the intake of sugar over fat when you consume both?

So the dominant factor in keeping a stable sugar level is a steady supply of sugar and fat helps in keeping it stable instead of sugar only? Only sugar would produce a rise then a fall?

Also, why do people on normal diets not lose more muscle if they eat only three meals and some snack in between? My roomate is ripped and sometimes he won't all morning. I would think that eventually he would start losing muscle in the long run due to breaking down muscle tissue for energy.

Perhaps they are different body types than me?

[RRM]

This other poster mentioned a study where cooked eggs had a digestibilty of 91% compared to raw eggs with 51%. However this is only in regards to nitrogen intake not looking at amino acid intake and such. Does this mean that the body decreased its protein absorption? is that even possible?

The body didnt. As I said, the digestibility is decreased by the enzyminhibitors in raw egg white.
That is why they take eggs as an example; to 'show the benefits of cooking'.

Is it possible that on this diet that protein digestion isn't 100%, but perhaps 95%

Absolutely. Many foods naturally contain some enzyminhibitors, as even fiber acts as one, as it decreases the uptake of cholesterol, minerals and protein.

, whereas the remaining intact peptides are negligible concerning acne and cellulite.

Yes, because they are readily decomposed (as not damaged) by the enzymes in the blood and all organs except for the skin.

Perhaps, eating half your animal food in the morning then the rest at night would provide a more complete digestionof the protein?

In the morning you likely will be physical active to some degree after, so that consuming all protein in the evening may be more beneficial.

Does that make sense, or does your body do it best all at the same time with proper resting?

Not better by doing at the same time, but better given the right conditions.

So what? Let´s supose, as you say, that ¨dirty protein¨isn´t fully
broken down. This doesn´t prove that it cause acne and disease.

That carcinogens originate due to the influence of heat has been proven, just as has been proven that carcinogens cause cancer.

I also doubt that a Hartnup patient on a raw diet will not absorb
tryptophan linked to other aminoacids because of the absence of
¨dirty protein¨.

We never claimed so.

Show us how a raw diet has less dirty protein than a cooked diet.

The significance of the influence of heat is that it originates unnatural molecules that are harder to digest by enzymes that are designed to decompose natural compounds.
That is why unnatural carcinogens can have such devastating effects inside our body, and that is why unnatural oxysterols and trans fats accumulate in our body (Adipose fat in Americans on the average contains 5% unnatural trans fats.) and that is why you will find protein deposits in your arteries.

Then show us how this dirty protein cause acne and disease.

Undigested protein remainders may cause acne if your skin produces much sebum, by increasing water retention and water pressure in the true skin, pinching off sebum canals.

Dirty protein partly consists of heterocyclic amines, and many of these have toxic and/or carcinogenic properties, causing cancer and brain diseases.

Even if we take as true that protein is related to acne in
individuals which aren´t healthy

Why would that be?

it is more probable that Wai´s diet work in many of them to a reduced protein intake (dangerous for health in the long run) than because of the absence of dirty protein.

Dirty (damaged) protein is harder to digest than completely intact protein.
Reduced protein intake is only unhealthy if amino acid requirements are not met, correct?

[RRM]

So the blood increases its fat intake, while decreasing the sugar intake compared to 100kcal of sugar only.

The blood doesnt. Its the supply of food; how much fat/sugar you consume.

Can the body increase the intake of sugar over fat when you consume both?

No, it will take in both. It utilizes what it is offered.

So the dominant factor in keeping a stable sugar level is a steady supply of sugar and fat helps in keeping it stable instead of sugar only?

Yes.

Only sugar would produce a rise then a fall?

All energy intake will. But if your energy intakes are small and frequent enough, the blood sugar level will remain stable.
This also goes for the intake of sugar only. Taking in both sugar and fat its just easier to keep the blood sugar level stable.

Also, why do people on normal diets not lose more muscle if they eat only three meals and some snack in between?

Because they fill their glycogen and fat depots with every meal, and function on that in between.

I would think that eventually he would start losing muscle in the long run due to breaking down muscle tissue for energy.

Only if he doesnt eat when he the stored energy (glycogen, glycerol) can no longer adequately replenish lost blood sugar.

Perhaps they are different body types than me?

Everybody is different, absolutely. Hormone levels are an essential factor, for example, as they influence building new muscle.
Put a few individuals in exactly the same conditions, and you will see different results.

[Oscar]

Because they fill their glycogen and fat depots with every meal, and function on that in between.

But if the glycogen depots are empty, and the blood sugar is low, then the body will use the muscle protein for muscle energy, right?

[RRM]

Indeed.

[avalon]

But if the glycogen depots are empty, and the blood sugar is low, then the body will use the muscle protein for muscle energy, right?

Or, maybe fat stores first? Which would go first muscle or fat?

That's not even why I'm posting

Just Questioning again...I've been reading a good pro-vegetarian article:

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/basic-nutrition.html

...and it sounds so- pure and clean. I do like the taste of sashimi and even raw beef, and to be honest- I do still season each with maybe wasabi, soy or sea salt and pepper depending...and to be honest again, I've never tried being vegetarian. I would have to be a wheat-free veggie though

Have many any of you been vegans/veggies before Wai? I know there have been primal diet converts, meaning from veggie to raf...

I might have to try this path sometime so I can judge for myself, lest the mystery torment me for all eternity in my newly developed Robotic Body with a nuclear powered heart!

[avalon]

I want to stress that if I do try being vegetarian/fruitarian that it would be 'raw'. And I would have to decide on my b12 intake. I suppose cheese, yogurt or egg yolks would be choices???

The site I mentioned above stresses the value of starchy foods, and then another raw food site says go without... never easy. Though my gut seems to be saying, go without

[RRM]

But if the glycogen depots are empty, and the blood sugar is low, then the body will use the muscle protein for muscle energy, right?

Or, maybe fat stores first? Which would go first muscle or fat?

Muscle protein first because it is a far better source of glucose (75% versus 25% efficiency).

From adipose fat there is only one glycerol molecule with every 3 fatty acids released in the blood.
From muscle tissue there are 20 different amino acids available, and 15 of these are readily converted into glucose (methionine, cysteine, valine, threonine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, histidine, proline, and serine, and also phenylalanine, tyrosine, isoleucine, and tryptophane)

[avalon]

And then something like this:

Dr. Cordain concludes from these studies that, "Human dietary lipid requirements were shaped eons ago, long before the agricultural revolution, and long before humanity's adoption of cereal grains as staple foods. Hence, the lipid composition of diets based upon cereal grains, legumes, vegetable oils and other plant products is vastly at odds with that found in wild game meat and organs, the primary, evolutionary source of lipids to which the human genetic constitution is optimally adapted." (p 36)

from:
http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/tru ... grains.htm

Makes me wonder again

Are we meat eaters? Obviously we can eat meats/fishes...but we aren't built as predators...OY!

[Wintran]

Muscle protein first because it is a far better source of glucose (75% versus 25% efficiency).

From adipose fat there is only one glycerol molecule with every 3 fatty acids released in the blood.
From muscle tissue there are 20 different amino acids available, and 15 of these are readily converted into glucose (methionine, cysteine, valine, threonine, alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, glycine, histidine, proline, and serine, and also phenylalanine, tyrosine, isoleucine, and tryptophane)

Oh, how irritating! I mean, I have a lot of use of my muscles, and as humans do have the specific ability to store energy as fat I would at least expect my body to use up the fat first before eating up my muscles. I mean, what use is there if I lose all my muscles but keep all my fat? In an evolutionary sense, if I were to keep my muscles and lose the fat it would seem like I'd have a much better chance of surviving in the wild.

[Oscar]

Why irritating? I think the system works very well. Don't forget, we're talking about a situation where both blood sugar is low and glycogen depots are empty.

[Wintran]

Why irritating? I think the system works very well. Don't forget, we're talking about a situation where both blood sugar is low and glycogen depots are empty.

It's just that I thought that the function of fat was mainly for situations just like that, while muscles have other purposes that I thought were valued higher by the body. It seems to me like the "fat system" isn't really that effective if muscle protein is still preferred over fat for stored energy, as muscles do so much more. But I'm guessing there's at least some kind of limit when no more muscles can be spared and the stored fat is used up instead. I've no idea how that could be measured by the body, though, but I'm noticing that I easier lose muscles that I recently built than those I've had for a long time. I'm also assuming that fat is preferred over energy converted from internal (vital) organs.