The Magic Bus Trip

lex_rooker

Lex's Protein to Fat Ratio Experiment

lex_rooker · Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject:

Proposal for an Experiment

I watched the webcast of the lecture that Gary Taubs gave at the California State University at Berkley, having gotten the link from this forum. The primary thrust of the lecture is establishing a link between eating carbohydrates and the accumulation of body fat. I think most of us have plenty of evidence to support this general hypothesis without need for further testing. However, one area that I’ve always been curious about is what determines our base weight, the weight that we will not drop below no matter how few carbs we eat. In his lecture, Gary makes a provocative statement that may hold a clue. He stated that "without glucose to cause a rise in insulin and thereby create glycerol phosphate, no body fat can be stored". He also hinted that eating excess protein, even in the absence of carbohydrates, could raise glucose, hence insulin levels, and this might also result in some increase in body fat, though not nearly as much as directly eating carbs would.

In the absence of carbohydrates in our diet, could it be the protein level that we consume that ultimately determines our minimum or base weight? If I understood Gary’s theory correctly, if we consume only enough protein to maintain nitrogen balance and provide the base for creating the minimum amount of glucose needed to maintain the very few glucose dependent tissues within our bodies, with the rest of our calories coming from fat alone, then our bodies will create the absolute minimum amount of insulin possible and our weight should drop to it’s absolute minimum as well. A protein intake below this level might cause additional weight loss but would also cause us to sacrifice lean tissue to keep our bodies functioning normally.

This could explain things that many of us experience. Our weight drops to some level, then we can eat zillions of calories and we don’t gain weight, but we find we don’t loose any either. Might this be explained by the fact that we continued to consume excess protein, some of which is converted to glucose in the liver, which causes an insulin response that drives some fat storage – small though it may be.

My personal experience was that I started at 215 lbs, cut out all carbs, dropped to 147 lbs within about 9 months, then climbed up to 150 lbs where I was stable for several months, then my weight slowly started to climb to its present level of 160 lbs where it has remained stable for well over one year. During this time I ate the same food with one exception. About 18 months ago I stopped adding additional fat to my food in the form of suet. The rest of the formula remained exactly the same. Could it be that this changed the ratio of fat to protein such that I’m now receiving far more protein than my body actually needs and therefore some of the excess is converted to glucose causing a rise in insulin and storing the excess as body fat – effectively raising my base weight by 10 lbs even though no carbs are consumed in my diet.

My current fat intake is 18% or 68% of calories, and my protein intake is about 140 grams per day and 30% of calories when I consume my normal 800 grams of food. Total calories works out to about 2000 per day. My weight is a very stable 160 lbs or 73 kg. I've read where the minimum need for protein is about 1.2 grams per kilogram of body weight. At my weight of 73 kg, this would work out to a minimum of 88 grams protein per day needed to maintain nitrogen balance and properly service glucose dependent tissues. Since I'm eating 140 grams of protein, I'm consuming well over the minimum.

If Taubs theory is correct, that body fat can't be stored without the presence of insulin, and that excess protein can cause a rise in blood glucose and hence insulin (though a much smaller rise than directly eating carbs), I started wondering what would happen to my body fat, weight, BMI, etc. if I reduce the protein to something a bit over the minimum - say 100 grams per day, while increasing fat from 18% to 30% or about 80% of calories by adding back the missing suet to my food mixture. Might my weight drop back to the previous stable level of 150 lbs – or even the 147 low I hit initially?

I have been eating a mono diet of the exact same food mixture every day for almost 2 years. During this time I’ve kept track of my morning ketone level, fasting blood sugar level, weight, blood pressure, etc and all have been very stable for well over a year – essentially since my weight reached and stabilized at 160 lbs. This makes me an ideal candidate for testing Taub’s theory.

The experiment

I propose to keep the actual amount of food that I eat the same at 800 grams per day. This is the same amount I’ve consumed since I went on the zero carb protocol over 3 years ago. I propose to increase the fat in my diet from the current level of 18% (68% of calories) to 30% (80 % of calories). This would increase calories from the current 2000 to 2700 which is about a 35% increase in gross energy intake. Increasing the fat but keeping the amount of food the same leaves less room for the lean meat so protein is reduced. My calculation based on the USDA Ground Beef calculator is a drop in protein from the current level of 140 grams (30% of calories), to about 100 grams (16% of calories) per 800 gram daily food intake. I further propose to eat this fat enriched mixture for a minimum of 4 months (maybe forever if it works out well).

I have a commercial UNIVEX FA-73 fat analyzer used by meat markets to determine the fat content of their ground beef. I test the fat content of every batch of food I make and can easily stay within one half of one percent tolerance of any level between 10% and 30%.

If the (calories in) minus (calories burned) theory is correct I should gain substantial weight because over the 120 day period I will consume 60,000 extra calories without increasing my activity level. At 3000 calories per pound of body fat, I should gain 20 pounds or about 10kg.

However, along with the increase in calories, this proposed dietary change will be reducing excess protein, which in my case is the only source for creating glucose since I consume no carbohydrates at all, and therefore insulin production should also be lower. If Taubs is correct, with lower insulin levels less body fat would be stored, so in theory I could actually loose weight while eating all those extra calories.

I plan to document everything and post all the measurements I take on a daily basis for the forum participants to monitor and comment. Whatever parameters I decide to measure, I will monitor and determine my current baseline before I make the actual change to my food mix. This will make it easy to monitor any deviation after the macro ratio change is made.

I don’t have any fancy lab equipment and can’t afford professional lab tests, but since we are only monitoring to see what changes, and by about how much, the blood glucose meters and urine test strips, etc available to the general public should suffice for our purpose. Below is my current list of things I propose to track and my proposed method of measurement. I’d appreciate any ideas for additional parameters that might be useful (along with a proposed method of measurement), or any suggestions for better measurement methods than the ones I propose.

I’d also like to get an idea of how often and when a given test should be done. For instance, Ketones are accumulated in the urine over time and therefore measuring more than once per day may not tell you much, but the time of day that the measurement is taken may be important. I currently check ketones in first urine of the morning using Bayer Ketostix.

Blood Glucose on the other hand, may change significantly for several hours directly after eating a meal. Therefore, testing first thing in the morning for “fasting levels” and then every ½ hour for 2, or even 3 hours after eating my daily meal might be appropriate. Whatever is decided, this testing protocol should be run for at least a full week to establish a baseline before the change is made. If Taub’s theory about excess protein being converted to blood glucose is right, we might see a significant difference in the after meals blood sugar curves between the high protein and high fat diets.

The other parameters on my list are:

I’ve found that Bayer makes a test strip that will test for 10 different items in urine that include: Glucose, Bilirubin, Ketone, Specific Gravity, Blood, pH, Protein, Urobilinogen, Nitrite, and Leukoctyes. If I can get these at a reasonable price I’ll add these tests to the list.

Comments and suggestions welcome,

Lex

Badger · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:03 am Post subject:

Anthony Colpo will never accept these results. Wink

I look forward to them greatly. I'm excited to see what happens. Sorry I don't have any parameter suggestions but if I come up with any I'll be sure and give my input.

Taubes has an e in his name.

Dean · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:27 am Post subject:

Tracy · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:53 am Post subject:

Lex, I think you are the (very well equipped) test subject the bus has been waiting for. This will be fascinating to follow - thanks!
_________________
www.fearandloathinginthekitchen.com

lex_rooker · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:46 am Post subject:

Tracy/Badger
I actually think this will be rather boring as most long term metabolic experiments are. Some measurements might show a bit of action in the first week, but after that any changes should be incremental and rather slow.

As you can see from my initial post, weight changes between periods of stability took months. Nine/Ten months from initial 215 to first stable weight of 150, and then three/four months from 150 to my current 160.

The real problem for most people is sticking with it for the long term. I eat this way anyway so it's not a problem for me.

Lex

jem51 · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:47 am Post subject:

lex , you are the perfect candidate. i don't know when the best time is to check ketones. first thing in the morning, if you haven't vioded during the night would make them higher, i would think, since urine would be more concentrated. i think if you just stick to the same time daily, it doesn't matter....except if you eat at different times each day. maybe morning would be the best time just because of inconsistencies in your schedule. in the hospital, glucose is tested first thing in the morning then just before meals and 2 hr post prandial. you need to check just before eating so you'll know the actual rise. of course for your own information you can check it as often as you like. i do know that some of the peop who debunk carb/no carb myths, check every 15 min so they can see the spike as well as the end result at two hours. the sticks you mention are what we use in hosps and offices so i think you should be able to get some. online if nowhere locally. do you know about how much water you consume? or is it random...just when thirsty. i think for the expirement, you should probably consume the same amt. then you can see how it effects speicific gravity, pH and all the rest. i hope others will chime in.

lex_rooker · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:09 am Post subject:

Jem,
I always eat about the same time every day, around 4 pm in the afternoon.

I void urine at least once during the night, and have as long as I can remember. I have been measuring Ketones between 6am and 7am every morning depending on when I get up.

I just did my first post prandial glucose measurement. I took 1 reading right before eating, then one reading every ½ for the next 3 hours. Interesting results.

Initial 1/2hr 1hr 1.5hr 2hr 2.5hr 3hr
99 102 103 106 108 109 110

It appears that when carbs are not eaten there is no traditional “spike” – just a gradual increase. Looking at this initial data, 3 hours is not long enough to see the down side of the curve. I’ll keep measuring every hour for a while and see what happens. At this point I’m trying to determine what the measurement protocol should be. Everything published is for diabetes patients so we’re forging new ground.

Found the Bayer SG10 Multstix at my local CVS Pharmacy. Should have them tomorrow. Just don’t know if I’ll have to get a loan on the house to afford them.

Lex

Kristelle · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:12 am Post subject:

Upon reading your proposal, I looked back on my experiences with zero-carbing, increasing or decreasing protein/fat content. I also reread my journal. Thank god for my journal. Good thing I started one. Wink

There was a point in time when I was feeling my best, tons of energy, ketones in urine were reducing, body was changing for the better except that dark circles and ear blockage were still present. This point in time was when I was eating very high fat meats that contained much less protein (i.e. beef shortribs). Some of you may remember.

I know that, during that time, I never got tired after eating and eyes stopped itching and tearing for good. I slept well too. I switched to veal a few days later as sinus problems still remained and thought it might be due to amines in beef. But, I may have switched too soon, too prematurely, as I often do (mea culpa).

But what if I was on the right track? What if too high protein and not enough fat was preventing me from keto-adapting, increasing insulin too much for me, as I was becoming very insulin-sensitve, especially in the morning, when I would often get tired after eating a high protein meal.

I now STRONGLY suspect that for most of my zero-carb diet journey, I have eaten far too much protein relative to fat, except for that short period when I felt on top of the world (read my journal). The combination of excess protein, too much insulin (and glucose) due to increased insulin sensitivity (especially in the AM) and too high ketones in my blood would explain all the symptoms I got and still get like:
hives, lethargy, drowsiness, fogginess, etc. I'm not sure about amines anymore and if anything, I expect that less insulin (and glucose) combined with a keto-adapted state would improve food intolerances/allergies as this is the case for many who low-carb.

I should have just been more patient. I was already seeing improvements but not enough for my liking. Again...impatience! The only thing was minor headaches that would last no more than 20 minutes and this, after eating almost a kilo of shortribs, usually more than my apetite would dictate. So, from now on, eat until satiated, No more!

Lex, you may have unlocked something for me and if this revelation happens to have all the positive repercussions that I expect it will have, I owe you big time!!! And I mean it. Thank you from the bottom of my Heart

And I hope that your experiment works out like you want it to and helps others in their quest to attain a healthier and happier life. Amen!

Happy

p.s.: I'm switching back to beef shortribs. Grin

Bipolar? ME?! No!!!! You must be mistaken. Bonkers

_________________
"When you give up your dream, you die"

Badger · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:46 am Post subject:

Long term and slow, yes. Boring? To some, perhaps, but I very much doubt to me.

Billi-Jean · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:32 am Post subject:

Yipee! This is precisely the kind of experiment I would love to see! Lex, you're a gem!! Yup

I lost weight via semi-starvation many years ago and kept it off via near semi-starvation. Roll Eyes

So, when I switched to VLC, I did not need to lose any weight.
Thing is, because I once weighed over 80kg (176 lbs), my concern has always been that my natural 'base weight' or 'fatostat' may be at a weight that is set higher than my current weight and therefore that I would gain even on VLC.

Gaining a kilo or 2 is no concern, but, 5 or more would be a concern (I'm barely 5'1" so believe me it makes a big difference!)

I haven't been consistent for long enough at any given fat:protein ratio to figure out whether fluctuations up or down in weight are a sign of anything really, and I find it frustrating to not be able to draw any conclusions regarding the whole excess protein issue.

Hence, this experiment could provide some pretty revealing data/results that could give people some real insight into what they might need to do if they find themselves unable to maintain their weight at a base level that they are comfortable with even on zero carb.

I will certainly be keenly tuned in to this one! Cool

Badger · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:35 am Post subject:

I was curious about the Univex 73 so I googled it. Didn't find the answer to my question (how much meat does it require as a sample to analyze?) but I did find one listed on Ebay for $250.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Univex-New-Gr...015QQcategoryZ95085QQcmdZViewItem

jeff · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:55 pm Post subject:

According to the Eades, excess protein is not converted to glucose. The body only converts what it actually needs. Not the the Eades can't be wrong. Does anybody have any independent info about this? BTW, welocome Lex.
_________________
Eat, Drink and Be Merry, For Tomorrow We'll Die

lex_rooker · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject:

Badger,
The FA-73 comes with a calibrated measuring thimble which is the black colored plastic thing directly in front of the UNIVEX label in the picture in the e-bay posting. I'd say it is about 1 tablespoon.

The amount is very small so you must grind your sample very fine or you'll get an inaccurate reading. A chunk of fat or lean will throw the reading off by a bunch.

The sample is heated and the drippings go into a small glass vial that has a precise internal diameter. The scale is then adjusted up and down against the vial to measure the height of the fat in the vial.

I paid about $500 for mine new several years ago, and it came with a half a dozen measuring vials as these are delicate and will break on occasion. The vials are the small circular things you see lined up to the left of the unit itself.

Lex

lex_rooker · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject:

My first attempt at creating an after-meal blood sugar curve has had totally unexpected results. I expected to see a typical curve where the values started low, peaked after a couple of hours, then returned close to starting levels a few hours later. Here I am after 16 hours and blood sugar is at 106 which is only 4 points lower than the high of 110 that was reached about 2-3 hours after the meal. It reached 106 about 4 hours after the meal and has held steady for the past 12 hours - amazing. I'm going to continue measuring at 2 hr intervals to see how long it takes to start dropping back to the level immediately before my meal which was 99.

The curve is very shallow which I expected, however the long stable period of slightly elevated levels is a surprise. This may require rethinking the testing interval for Post Prandial blood glucose. I can't afford to measure too often as the test strips are expensive, however, it appears that it's going to take many hours to record the curve and this may only be extended further when the fat is increased.

Lex

Dean · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject:

Wow, Lex, this is going to be so cool to watch. You are gonna reveal so many things.

Thanks for doin' this. Cool

_________________
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
- Jimi Hendrix

Every day you'll see the dust
Never get off the Bus!

Badger · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject:

Thanks for the info re: the machine.

As for the blood glucose measurements, I'd probably take a bunch of readings for a few days to see if that response pattern remains consistent, then use that data to figure out when you should take less frequent readings to get the same basic info while saving on the strips. Probably what you were already planning on doing, but I thought 'd throw my 2 cents in.

On an unrelated note, I take it that you don't hold with Vince Garonda or any of the others who claiming that the grinding of meat destroys enzymes and other nutrients. I've always found that an unlikely claim, but possible.

As for GNG, the Eades say that it doesn't happen, I've seen Red say that it always does, she even posted a formula in this thread:

http://activenocarber.myfreeforum...tra44308.php&highlight=#44308

I really have no idea what the truth of the matter is.

Erasmus · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject:

I think the problem variable hydration level can be mitigated by the morning reading. That reading will be high due to the body being at its lowest hydration level unless water is taken in during the mid-night void. So, while the reading will be high, it will still be valid for trending purposes.

Useful would be (possibly) using a bodyfat measuring scale that does hydration levels.

How long do you plan to do baseline measurements before you start the experiment? I would think a full week to account for weekly variables a minimum.

I gotta say kudos and way cool, by the way. Thanks for starting this up. I really look forward to your data.

And lastly, you've shamed into doing something I've wanted to do for a long time. $500 for a fat tester? I guess I need to go ahead and get that magnetic stirring hot plate that I've wanted for so long. Bonkers

-E

lex_rooker · Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject:

Well there may be trouble in paradise. I’m having trouble getting consistent readings of blood glucose levels. I’ve tried 2 different meters: FreeStyle Freedom & OneTouch Ultra2. I tried 4 successive measurements with each meter. The results varied by as much as 10 points for both meters. The FreeStyle gave readings between 99 and 108. The OneTouch gave readings between 92 and 103.

These are fine for diabetics, but may be of limited use for monitoring small variations in blood glucose levels. I even tried a second run with different vial of test strips with similar results.

Any ideas for getting consistent readings? Anyone know of a meter that is known for it’s accuracy?

Help would be appreciated,

Lex

Erasmus · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:34 am Post subject:

Wow. A quick google comes up with that the FDA requires a 20% or better margin of error. Wow

Sad. That you are at 5% is pretty good.

I suggest that you just note the margin of error and continue. Sadly, if your experiment shows a reliable number under that 5%, we'll never know.

-E

lex_rooker · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:40 am Post subject:

I ran across the 20% number also. If the error was related to a calibration standard, but consistent with every measurement, it wouldn't be a problem. The issue I'm seeing is up to a 10% difference between consecutive readings on the same meter taken approximatelly 15 sec apart - as fast as the meter will cycle.

It could be my technique. In the past I've only taken a few readings per week and never consecutive readings so I'd never see the problem. I'm re-reading the manual and making sure I follow the insturctions to the letter. We'll see if this (and a bit more practice) helps.

Lex

jem51 · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:53 am Post subject:

lex, i think you just need to pick a tester and stick w that particular one. i have read that meat/fat eating has that effect on blood sugar; small rise that stays steady for a long while. are you doing a morning reading just to see what it is after the night? does the lower number remain about the same as pre-meal? i'm not sure that the body adapts to using ketones to the point of none in the urine. if we use all we need and there are some left over, then obviously they'll be excreted. i would think that if you have eaten this way for several years, and complete keto adaptation theory is true, you would have no ketones....i've been talking about picking up a glucosemeter for a couple years now...guess i'll go do it.

lex_rooker · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:00 am Post subject:

More on the meter issue. Using the FreeStyle, I tried the forearm to see what kind of reading I'd get there. Took 2 readings an hour a go a few seconds apart and one was 106 the other was 107 - thought I hit paydirt!

Well time for another hourly reading. Same meter. Same method - fresh blood draw for each test from the same site. This time first reading was 111 and the second reading 15 seconds later was 103 - not good. This is the same problem I'm seeing when using a finger for the blood source.

lex_rooker · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:06 am Post subject:

In trying to get as much background as I can for this experiment, I spent some time reviewing a thread in the Carnivore Cafe where Dean summarized some of the Bear's wisdom on creation (or not!) of glucose from protein. If I understood the Bear correctly, he was adamant that under normal conditions (not in starvation mode), little or no glucose is needed by someone well adapted to a no-carb diet, and any glucose that may be necessary will be created from glycerol that is available in the blood stream and liver as a by-product of normal fat metabolism.

I am seeing a small rise in blood glucose, say 10%, after eating my daily meal. This then tapers off to about 5% above the low about 5-6 hours after eating and stays there for 12-15 hours before dropping to a low an hour or two before my next meal. The entire cycle is taking 24 hours.

I seem to be having some consistency problems with the glucose meters but this is a trend I'm seeing after 2 days of measuring. If, as the Bear says, there is no "automatic" conversion to glucose of either fat or protein, then what is causing the glucose to rise after a meal when no carbs are eaten? From Bear’s comments, I wouldn’t expect any rise in blood glucose at all, “as any glucose deficiency would be immediately made up as it occurred, by conversion of glycerol which is readily available at all times in the blood stream and liver” (per the Bear).

Even if you take into account that there is a small level of carbohydrate in some of the organ meats that I eat, I would expect them to metabolize quickly like any other carb source, and I wouldn't think there would be a sufficient quantity (5-10 grams at most) to keep blood glucose levels elevated for 18 to 20 hours.

Also, if the Bear is correct, then I don’t believe I should see any change in any parameter that I’d be able to measure when I change the fat/protein ratio of my daily meal. Bear believes all blood glucose would be coming from glycerol as a by-product of fat metabolism, and all excess protein eaten is just flushed out by the body. As long as I’m getting “enough fat” and “enough protein” in my current food mix to satisfy my “fatostat”, then any excess of either nutrient will just be discarded. Changing the ratio should have no effect whatsoever.

Wish I could get good consistent readings from a glucose meter. The ability to check this value accurately might be very important to this experiment.

Thoughts?

Badger · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:42 am Post subject:

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=396174

This thread has a lab technician who is frustrated with the inaccuracy of these tests looking for the most accurate one. Various people recommend different meters as having been accurate for them relative to the lab test. Lots of technical discussion. You may find it interesting.

Dean · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:47 am Post subject:

I thought Bear was only talking about protein not being used for GNG. While he thought glycogen stores had a very slow turnover, I don't recall him saying that all dietary fat was flushed from the system. One possible explanation of the small rise in BG is that dietary fat is being converted by the liver via GNG and the glucose produced is being released to be absorbed by muscle glycogen stores.

The dispersal of glucose in both liver and muscle glycogen stores is critical to keeping blood glucose levels at a certain range throughout the entire body. Obviously the extra glucose is coming from somewhere, and that somewhere is more than likely your food intake. It will be interesting to see how the various macro ratios affect the amount of the rise in BG levels. One thing you could try is to eat lots of protein with little fat, and then see what your BG levels are. If Red is correct, your BG levels would go way up. My money is on them staying the same as they have been. Only carb intake is gonna drive BG up to really high levels. Not a very desirable situation, if you ask me.
_________________
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
- Jimi Hendrix

Every day you'll see the dust
Never get off the Bus!

lex_rooker · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject:

Badger

Thanks for the link. I'll investigate today. First blood Glucose readings this morning were all over the map. 108, 104, 114, 100. This isn't good enough with the small BG swings I'm experinecing.

Dean,

I'll go back and look at the thread again, but I came away with the understanding that both unused fat and protein were discarded. If this is not true, and we overeat fat calories necessary to maintain body mass, then why don't we gain lots of weight? That energy has to go somewhere.

Lex

Erasmus · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject:

lex_rooker · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject:

I read the post regarding Accuracy/Reliability of Glucose Meters for home use that Badger provided. Looks like the absolute best we can expect is about a 5 point difference between consecutie measurements. Following the recommenadations of how to take the measurement did allow me to make several measurements that where the max difference was 8 points between lowest and highest, but most readings were about 4 points apart from one to the next: I.E. 95, 101, 97, 93

My BG only rises about 10 points after a meal. With an average 4-5 point spread possible between readings, looking for a change of 10 points, the error in the reading could easily be off by 25%-50% of the total move. This is not overly useful, but it appears to be the best we've got.

Oh well, we may be able to see general trends.

Lex

Erasmus · Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject:

You could do multiple reads and employ some nasty, long hair, black magic statistics to reduce the error.

Or just multi read, use the average and call it a day. After all, it's not going into pubmed. Wink

-E
_________________
“Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans ... are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit.” - Anthony Bourdain

Dean · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:00 am Post subject:

Dean · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:24 am Post subject:

Based on the glucose concentration in the blood, the pancreas will constantly release insulin and glucagon. These two hormones will in turn regulate hepatic GNG. So, insulin will tell the liver to stop producing glucose and glucagon will tell the liver to start producing glucose. Turning off and on GNG is how proper blood glucose levels are maintained. The range is very critical.

The glycogen stores in the muscles and liver are reserves for blood glucose, so they will need to get replenished. When you remove the concept of dietary glucose, it is easier to make sense of what is going on. Our blood cells must have glucose. Our liver makes this glucose via gluconeogenesis (GNG). This GNG is regulated (turned off and on) by insulin and glucagon, which our pancreas creates and releases based on the concentration of glucose in our blood. The glycogen stores will take in so much of this glucose (to keep their reserves at a certain level) and then stop taking it in. The system works great.

Once you introduce dietary carbs, your glucose levels rise out of sight, and your pancreas starts losin' it. "Oh, my god, we have to start puttin' out insulin to go tell the liver to STOP making glucose! STOP that GNG!" This is what is happening. Cells don't need insulin to uptake glucose, and excess glucose will get sucked into cells and burned up, just to get the excess glucose out of the blood. This is not a good thing for the cells, however. Free radicals are the end result of this type of emergency metabolism. One of the byproducts of this glucose metabolism in the cells is glycerol phosphate. This glycerol phosphate will aid fat storage. That's how eating carbs will make you fat.
_________________
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
- Jimi Hendrix

Every day you'll see the dust
Never get off the Bus!

lex_rooker · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject:

I've read the post on futile cycles and still don't quite understand how this could happen without signifcantly raising body temperature or creating a sweat reaction to keep core body temperature stable. Just minor exercise, burning an extra couple of hundred calories per hour, will cause noticable sweating as the body attempts to keep it's internal temperature stable.

As I understand it, metabolic functions & reactions are exothermic and so give off heat. It just seems that doing enough (futile?) work to consume several thousand excess calories per day without generating additional heat equivalent to consuming the same number of calories through exercise is violating some law of physics. Work is work.... or is it?

Lex

Erasmus · Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject:

Dean · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:58 am Post subject:

You know, that's what a lot of us were saying back when jeff did that high fat week. We suspected excretion. The gall bladder can only deal with so much fat, so, there is probably only so much that gets digested at one time. However, if there ends up being any excess fat digested, then futile cycles could use that without it going to fat stores. FFAs get released into the blood from the lymph system. I'm sure there is a limit to how much fat can get absorbed into the body and put into that lymph system at one time. Lex, why don't you eat 80,000 calories of fat throughout the day and see if you catch on fire? Shock

_________________
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
- Jimi Hendrix

Every day you'll see the dust
Never get off the Bus!

lex_rooker · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:28 am Post subject:

lex_rooker · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:39 am Post subject:

I'm making some progress with getting more consistent readings on the glucose meters. There is a bit of technique required. Now most of my consecutive readings are within a couple of points and that's a good thing. Once in a while there's an outlier, but I think the situation is managable.

When changing to a new batch of test strips there's a big jump in readings but they seem to stay realtively consistent within each batch. Trouble is I'm burning through them at the rate of about 30 per day so a bottle of 50 lasts about a day and a half. Hope to get about 3 or 4 days out of 50 once I get the testing protocol down.

Lex

Dean · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:09 am Post subject:

jeff · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject:

Heather L · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject:

Valcan · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject:

Lex,

Great experiment, I will be reading your updates daily. You can get the urine strips you mentioned near the beginning of this thread at Amazon for $37.75:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000ND7Q...=dealtime-hpc-20&linkCode=asn

Val

lex_rooker · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject:

Valcan - thanks for the link. Much less than half the price I paid at my local pharmacy. I knew I could get them cheaper on-line but didn't want to wait for a week or so for shipping. Will definately re-fill through Amazon as that is the cheapest I've seen them.

Futile wars - Worrying over futile cycles is futile. No way to measure them or even know what they directly or indirectly affect.

Lex

lex_rooker · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject:

I have some preliminary data on my Blood Glucose levels. I took measurements every ½ hour from the start of my meal at 1600hrs (4pm) continuing for 3 hrs until 1900hrs (7pm). From 1900hrs (7pm) until 2200hrs (11pm), I took a measurement every hour. Upon arising at 0700 (7am) until my meal at 1600hrs (4pm) I measured every 2 hrs. The readings were very stable starting 3 hours after eating until about 3 hours before eating. I only measured a couple of times in the middle of the night, and the readings were consistent with the readings taken just before bed time and the first reading of the morning so I took the liberty of filling the night hours with the average.

The data was collected over a 4 day period and I averaged the 4 different readings of each hour of the day to smooth the data. This gave me numbers that had a decimal point and I rounded these up or down to the nearest whole number

What is interesting is that on a relatively high fat diet like I eat, my blood glucose levels don't fall to "fasting" levels for about 20 hours after eating. I eat my meal at 1600 hrs every day. The BG peaks within 1 hour and the peak at around 109 is less than 5 points above the normal average of 106. Within 3 hours it has dropped to its average level of 106 and stays there for the next 18 hours. At about 1300 my BG rapidly drops 10 points to 95 or so until I eat again at 1600 hrs and the process starts over. Fascinating. What a difference from the yo-yo effect we see from eating a high carb diet.

I've taken almost 100 readings over the last 4 days so my fingers are feeling a bit abused, but I think it's worth it as I've never seen data like this before.

Lex

jeff · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject:

Very cool. Thanks Lex.
_________________
Eat, Drink and Be Merry, For Tomorrow We'll Die

Badger · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject:

Beautiful. You are probably not diabetic. LOL

Though, according to the ADA a "fasting" glucose reading can be taken as little as 8 hours after eating. The result of 106 that you get at that time says that you have prediabetes with a risk of actually getting diabetes. I suspect that this is not the case and that the diagnostic standards are simply not applicable to a ZC diet.

Moving forwards, what's the next step?

lex_rooker · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject:

Badger,
I assume you are correct that a high fat, zero carb diet doesn't fit the blood glucose curves caused by the Standard American Diet. However, it is clear that with what I am eating today, there is a "fasting" level, it just takes over 20 hours to for my body to return to it. I usually start getting hungry between 1pm and 2pm and it looks like the blood sugar curves explain why. I'll also be showing this to my doctor who wants me on Metformin becasue the lab values for my blood tests taken at 10am with no food intake since my meal the previous day indicate pre-diabetes. Wonder if there will be any significant change when I up the fat and reduce the protein?

What's next?????

Right now I'm measuring about 20 differenet things, many of which don't seem relevent, so the first step is to figure out what is relevent and reasonable to measure as well as the measurement protocol. Then I need to make sure I've captured a good baseline for each paramenter measured. The hardest part for me is to work out the best approach to dispaly the captured data so that daily changes can be evaluated against the base line and/or a longer term trend.

It really is a lot of work because I've never made many of these measurements before so getting consistent results presents a significant challenge. I've never done much with Excel so I'm having to do a lot of experimentation to get things to work at all - much less the way I want them too. I'm wearing out the F1-Help key on my PC. There is also the learning curve of actually getting the stuff posted to to the Forum which is completely new to me. Thank goodness I have Dean to help me through the muck and mire of this primordial ooze.

Lex

Erasmus · Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject:

You could just use google docs and post all the data. Grin

-E

Valcan · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject:

Hi Lex,

If you are having problems with formulas in excel, here is a video to help:

http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=627e85f85fa328bfb59f

If formula's are not what is causing you grief, just search on Teachertube until you find what you want. Lots of great videos to learn from.

Val

Heather · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject:

So, on the 20th hour the BG drops 10 points in one hour? Is that a normal drop? I thought it would be more gradual slope. Interesting....
_________________

Heather

Dean · Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject:

Here's a thought.

What if Lex's body is so used to him eating on this schedule, that it has become adapted to doing GNG over those 20 hours, and distributing the glucose to the various muscle glycogen reserves throughout his body, and it knows just how much to make, and has determined the rate at which to make it, then it stops and waits for him to eat again, therefore supplying more fat or protein for GNG? The body always tries to find the most efficient ways to do things. Hence the reason for randomization with eating and exercising to throw off the body, to force it to try to adapt. Our ancestors randomized eating times naturally, since the food supply was a bit erratic at times. Calorie cycling may just be the ticket to shedding pounds on zero carb. Huh? Maybe I'll try it.

_________________
When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.
- Jimi Hendrix

Every day you'll see the dust
Never get off the Bus!