Great Blog thanks

Very well written btw and enjoyed your article. I look forward to more like this.

It is good to learn that exercise can be ineffective for weight loss!

Your new fan
-Greg

*Low levels of activity (sitting, sleeping, standing, and slow walking) burn 87.5% fat and 12.5% carbs.
*Moderate level of activity (brisk walking/slow jogging or equivalent exercise) burn 55% fat and 45% carbs.
*High levels of activity (intense exercise) burn 33% fat and 67% carbs. (This makes sense for athletes who “carb-up” before the big competition)

The professor also taught us that we should consume the following ratios of total calorie intake each day:
Carbs 50-60%
Fat 20-30%
Protein 10-20%

I questioned these percentages when I considered my own activity level. I am a student, so most of my hours are spent in a chair or in bed. These are obviously low level activities, so I must be burning more fat than carbs on any given day. Why would I want to get half or more of my calories from carbs, which once digested will be stored, when the type of macronutrient I burn the most as a sedentary student is fat?

Now I find Gary Taubes (thanks to another class at Cal) and it all makes sense.

I understand Taubes has gotten a lot of criticism from the scientific community for not backing up his claims with enough scientific evidence. I have a feeling people might swallow his ideas more easily if he could link the obesity epidemic that has taken off in the last few decades to increased average carbohydrate consumption in America. I don’t know if this data exists, but it couldn’t hurt his reputation if does line up.

I recently asked you about this, I should have checked your archives. Thanks for this post. Looks like you are on the same page with Taubes. Exercise does not directly cause weightloss/fatloss.

This is still a contrarian message, however, when people who are overweight, watch “The Biggest Loser” and get the crazy ideal that they need to train 3hours a day to lose weight, they need to hear this message. They do not need to exercise. To lose weight and significantly reduce their risks of DOC, all they really need to do is eat less carbohydrate.

As always, thanks for all the information.

Pat M

triglycerides are a great indicator of insulin sensitivity. You want them to be LOW.

Anthony Colpo has also opened my eyes in the past. He seems to believe that a little carbohydrate can help, no more than 10%.

Eric-
Taubes book is fantastic, no doubt about it! I have seen first hand what poor nutrition combined with good training can achieve for the past 5 years…almost nothing with regards to body comp changes.

Regarding carbs and Colpo: There is no doubt there are situations that absolutely necessitate certain carb intake levels. I don’t think anyone, least of all Dr. Eades or Gary Taubes, have said anything contrary to this however Anthony really takes them to task on some topics such as a mixed calorie restricted diet vs a simple low carb diet. It starts looking like hair splitting to me but that’s a whole other thing.
Robb

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/quot-wl-110107.php

as does this abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17557973&ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

An activity-induced increase in energy expenditure theoretically disturbs energy balance (EB) by creating an acute energy deficit. Compensatory responses could influence the weight loss associated with the energy deficit. Individual variability in compensation for perturbations in EB could partly explain why some individuals fail to lose weight with exercise. It is accepted that the regulatory system will readily defend impositions that promote a negative EB. Therefore, a criticism of exercise interventions is that they will be ineffective and futile methods of weight control because the acute energy deficit is counteracted. Compensation for exercise-induced energy deficits can be categorized into behavioral or metabolic responses and automatic or volitional. An automatic compensatory response is a biological inevitability and considered to be obligatory. An automatic compensatory response is typically a metabolic consequence (e.g., reduced resting metabolic rate) of a negative EB. In contrast, a volitional compensatory response tends to be deliberate and behavioral, which the individual intentionally performs (e.g., increased snack intake). The purpose of this review is to highlight the various metabolic and behavioral compensatory responses that could reduce the effectiveness of exercise and explain why some individuals experience a lower than expected weight loss. We propose that the extent and degree of compensation will vary between individuals. That is, some individuals will be predisposed to compensatory responses that render them resistant to the weight loss benefits theoretically associated with an exercise-induced increase in energy expenditure. Therefore, given the inter-individual variability in behavioral and metabolic compensatory responses, exercise prescriptions might be more effective if tailored to suit individuals

Chris-
You get best link finder of the year award! Great stuff. Here is an interesting snippet from the first:

“Those resistant to exercise might be better suited to weight management strategies which include controlled dietary intake, in addition to exercise.”

Uh…yep, but folks have a hell of a time with caloric restriction. The rebound eating and DECREASE in activity level and energy expenditure are pretty potent. The nutritional intervention is nearly always high carb, low fat. it simply does not work. Low carb DOES work but compliance with most dietary interventions is pretty low. But I guess the choices are:1-intervention that is tough to stick to and does not work. 2-Intervention that is tough to stick to and does work.
thanks again for the great links.
Robb

Here is a good review study on the subject where Gerald Reaven (who wrote aboute Syndrome X) mentions there are a substantial number of overweight/obese people who are insulin sensitive:

Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2005 Oct;2(3):105-12.
All obese individuals are not created equal: insulin resistance is the major determinant of cardiovascular disease in overweight/obese individuals.

Reaven G. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA. greaven@cvmed.stanford.edu

The ability of insulin to mediate glucose disposal varies more than six-fold in an apparently healthy population, and approximately one third of the most insulin-resistant of these individuals are at increased risk to develop cardiovascular disease. Differences in degree of adiposity account for approximately 25% of this variability, and another 25% varies as a function of level of physical fitness. The more overweight/obese the person, the more likely they are to be insulin-resistant and at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but substantial numbers of overweight/obese individuals remain insulin-sensitive, and not all insulin-resistant persons are obese. Of greater clinical relevance is evidence that the metabolic benefit and decrease in risk of cardiovascular disease following weight loss occurs primarily in those overweight/obese individuals that are also insulin-resistant. The relationship between insulin resistance and overall obesity, as assessed by measurement of body mass index, is essentially the same as the relationship between insulin action and abdominal obesity as quantified by determining waist circumference. Finally, there appears to be a comparable relationship between insulin-mediated glucose disposal and amount of visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, and total fat as quantified by various imaging techniques, and the magnitude of these relationships is no greater than that between insulin action and simple measure of body mass index.

Ratzo-
Thanks for tracking that down! I’m going to expand on this in another post.
Robb

I posted this question on Art Devany’s site, since I am very curious about it.

If insulin is the key to body composition, then how are there people in studies who are insulin sensitive yet who are obese?

Ratzo-
Different tissues can be insulin sensitive or resistant. The folks who have a normal glucose tolerance test and or “normal” insulin levels may just be along a continuum towards a propensity to be insulin resistant. Relatively normal readings but for them they may have insulin resistance.
If you can dig up a few detailed studies I can try to figure out what the situation is in those cases. Short of that I’m afraid the best I can offer is the above.
Robb

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

DeVany wrote a response to it in his blog today:

http://www.arthurdevany.com

And here is the Eade’s post about low-carbing and the metabolic advantage:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/10/04/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/

I think that Eade’s post is pretty compelling stuff, and Taube’s book is amazing. I’ve been duped before, but this all makes way too much sense to me.

Craig-
It’s certainly interesting stuff. I sent an email to Prof. Devany with some more details on my experiences in this area.
Robb

Chris-
It’s true and most of the studies cited rely on long duration cardio for the exercise effect. What if we looked at sprints? I think the research that has gone this direction shows some better bodycomp shifts.

On the other hand, even when I haven’t been exercising, I’ve found that maintaining a Paleo diet keeps me at around the same body weight and body fat %. Since Paleo is an incredibly satiating way to eat, my body tends to cut back on how much food it wants. It’s amazing (well, not really) that when you give the body the foods that it has evolved to thrive on, it thrives and life is relatively simple. Body weight normalizes, poor health lessens or disappears completely.

What’s your thoughts Robb? I tend to look at it as nutrition 75%, exercise 15%, recovery (sleep, etc) 10%. Maybe the percentages are off, but that’s the value that should be placed on nutrition.

Ok, that’s enough rambling.
Cheers
Scott Kustes
Modern Forager

Scott-
It is interesting. I have struggled to gain weight, hopefully muscle my whole life. I am by no means huge but it’s relatively easy for me to run around at 170-175lbs now and I’m lean and have great performance. This actually seems to get easier as time goes on and I swear I am eating less over all. I think I have about the same amount of muscle no matter what I do, just sometimes I’m fatter and sometimes leaner. When I leave things alone things certainly go better than the micromanaging and force feeding.

As to percentages… I’m inclined to say 49% nutrition and 49% sleep leaving 1% to exercise and 1% to other lifestyle factors! This is an exaggeration but it just seems like if either the food or sleep go sideways, everything else follows suit.
Robb

On another topic did you see this release on CR:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/uab-srd102407.php

Chris-
Great stuff! It is an interesting paradox that caloric restriction and or Intermittent fasting might actually forestall muscle loss and performance decreases associated with aging. Ketosis appears to mimic certain elements of this scenario and this is what has lead me to recomend some intermittent fasting and “enough” carbs to do the activities you want to do. If you are a CrossFitter Zone levels are about right. For a sprinter or Olifter you can likely get by on much less and IMO stay in or near ketosis most of the time. Very interesting stuff.

http://www.lowcarbmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5694#post5694

A lot of Colpo nutswingers, but some very valid comments.

I’m still waiting on the book from the library. Apparently it’s quite popular, since I was sixth on the queue the day it came out.

Aside from that, better food choices and habits is the key to eliminating bodyfat for myself. I know this, yet it’s continually a problem. Lazy and disinclined to change. My stints with strict low carbs or semi-strict Zone are markedly better than my stints with IF and poor food choices. IF plus proper food choices is what is going to probably be my personal best path for body comp changes.

I’m not quite a full blown PM style nutter about it, though, yet. It’s still vaccinations and nightshades for me.

Shaf-

Taubes does not present it as magic, just that in the long term insulin control is THE most effective way to reduce bodyfat. I think Dr. Eades did a great piece dispelling the thermodynamic question a while back. No laws of the universe are violated in a low carb scenario but here is an interesting scenario:

Two caloric restricted diets. Equal calories but one is lets say 80% fat and 20% protein (ketogenic), the other lets say protein, carbs and fat but in classic high carb, low fat fashion. 60% carbs, 20% fat, 20% protein. The folks eating the protein/fat plan will receive a “thermodynamic advantage” in that some of the protein and glycerol backbones of the fats will be converted, inefficiently, into glucose. Even in ketosis we make some glucose for certain tissues and for things like the pentose phosphate pathway to make ribose for DNA. That is NOT an efficient process and one will tend to whittle through a significant number of calories in that process as compared to the higher carb scenario in which all the carb needs are met dietarily. That is one element. The other is the markedly lower insulin levels and thus HUNGER in the ketogenic state. This was one of my issues with the use of the standard Zone with CrossFit in that for many folks that is too many carbs too often. In our training practice I have folks at about 1/2 the recommended carbs for the base zone, I add more fat and if they will actually do what I ask them to do they lean out and are never hungry. Snacky, perhaps. Bored perhaps, but not hungry in that Always-Hungry-Carb-Crash-Zombie fashion.

The book also highlights some interesting phenomena:feed 100 people one thousand excess calories per day for six months…what happens? The conventional wisdom holds that EVERYONE gains weight. The reality is that some gain no weight and for others the weight gain can range by a factor of 10! Anywhere from 1lb. to 10lbs. Interesting, paradoxical and complex stuff. I may be full of shit but I really think insulin control is the key for whatever ones desired bodycomp goal is.

I also enjoy both nightshades and vaccinations. I do live in Chico after all.
Robb