Lex's Journal

[Erasmus]

Thoughts on 58%...

This is all strictly conjecture  (you have been warned)

Idea 1)
58% is based on a average 100g intake meaning that our absolute protein need 42g (based on the mythical average human) and any additional protein is simply fuel.

Idea 2)
On a ZC diet, glucose needs are met FIRST by dietary protein GNG.  The next use of dietary protein is for structural needs, followed by fuel.

Idea 3)
58% may be the running average of SUPERFLUOUS amino acids in the diet.  That is, the body needs certain AAs to rebuild, not just the ones you eat.

Idea 4)
What happens that makes us need new protein even a body that is at a steady state?  And where does THAT old protein go?  Maybe, on average, the minimal fasting states that we all normally have result in a running average 42g of protein catabolism, requiring a 42g replacement.  In such a case, another 58g or so would most like be needed when on a ZC diet.

Idea 5)
Basic chemistry requires that 58% is at best an average of a very narrow band of dietary conditions.  Assuming an unlimited desire to convert protein:  If the body's capacity to convert is a limiting factor then as dietary protein approaches zero the percentage of conversion approaches 100%.  And if dietary protein is the limiting factor then the conversion is always near 100%. 

Idea 6)
We know that the body CAN utilize far more than 42g of protein a day, weight lifters and children do it all the time.  There may however be an upper limit to this rate that is reached when in a single meal per day environment.  I doubt we reach this when in a steady state.

I don't know.  I tend to think that we need to eat a certain amount of protein to meet our specific AA requirements and that the consequence of that is the GNG of the unneeded AAs.

Just my thoughts.  I could be totally wrong. 

-E

[lex_rooker]

One thing to be mindful of is that all protein is not created equal.  The amino acid profile of plant protiens is totally different than protein from animal sources.  Not only are the proportions of the amino acids different but some amino acids are missing altogether from the various plant sources.  This causes me to believe that the conversion rate of protein to glucsoe is probably dependent on the amino acid profile of the food source. 

If this is true, then it may be that the body can only convert certain amino acids into glucos and, for example, the critical amino acids that the body must get from food sources would not be converted as there is no other source for them.  So the basic idea here is that certian amino acids can be converted to glucose and others can't and this may be the limiting factor.  The total amount of protein converted to glucose would then be dependent on the amino acid profile of the source and have nothing whatsoever to do with what the body needs at any given moment.

I sort of picture it this way.  The food we eat is digested and the products of digestion enter the blood stream which is a big soup cauldron with the soup circulating to every point in the body.  Raw materials are picked up as needed by the cells, but at the same time some of the soup is flowing through the liver, kidneys, and other organs.  If an amino acid that can be converted to glucose makes it to the liver then it is converted.  If it was picked up by a cell to make a repair or other function and it never made a pass through the liver then it is not converted.

There would be no "wisdom" required by the body in this case.  Just the circulation of the magic fluid and what happens to the elements in the fluid depends on what tissue it is passing through at the moment.

Pure speculation of course, but good fodder for the grist mill.   

Lex

[Kristelle]

Hi Lex,

I've been thinking of what you said and what the Bear said and thinking and thinking...based on your results, it does seem that protein contributes to glucose synthesis in the body, that is the only explanation, as far as I can see...unless the Bear wants to chyme in and offer us an alternative explanation which he won't, of course!

But, I also think that excess protein will not automatically convert all to glucose, just convert to enough glucose that is needed by the body at a certain time...no more. If it did convert to more than we needed, then insulin would be produced and lead to fat storage which does not happen on an all-meat diet. Excess protein intake could lead to weight gain and that makes no sense to me.

So, at the moment, I think that protein and fat contribute to glucose, while fatty acids fuel the heart, muscles and some other tissues while the brain mostly runs on ketones (if not almost entirely).

I also think that you may be actually eating EXCESS fat and that's why your ketones are moderate/high (not because you aren't keto-adapted). I suspect you are already keto-adapted and that you just don't need that much fat. I also don't think muscles run on ketones, just fatty acids. You were probably doing just fine before and I don't think it was necessary to change anything. Sometimes, we overestimate how much fat is needed...since reducing my fat, I'm already seeing some improvement. I also didn't understand why my ketones were constantly high, now I think I finally figured it out.

Best of luck Lex.

[Kristelle]

Further to my post, I just thought about something...you eat organs, right? They contain glycogen (glucose) right?  By increasing fat and decreasing protein, you also decreased organs, a source of glucose. Who's to say if a drop in BG was due to proteins OR organs?

I would also like to mention something about muscle mass loss during starvation. Don't you need to eat protein to maintain muscle mass and if you stop eating it, muscle mass is lost? Isn't that why muscle mass is lost with starvation? That's why we are advised to eat a certain amount of protein to maintain muscle mass. And just as excess fat gets discarded (unlike carbs), excess protein is also discarded. Again, if excess protein were not and always converted to glucose, then as one increases protein intake on zero-carb, one should gain...clearly not my case or yours or many others. I actually weigh less when eating more protein.

Let me know what you think...

[coconinoz]

"Sometimes, we overestimate how much fat is needed...since reducing my fat, I'm already seeing some improvement. I also didn't understand why my ketones were constantly high, now I think I finally figured it out"

hi kristelle,
can you elaborate on the above?

what kind of diet changes both in sources & % are you talking about: raw or cooked, plant or animal fat, land or sea meat, # & timing of meals....

what kind of results have you observed: total body weight, body fat %, strength, daily activities.....

thanks

[Kristelle]

I'm talking about animal fat and protein eaten raw. Before, I ate fat first (i.e. bone marrow, subcutaneous animal fat) and then fatty protein (prime rib, brisket, chuck). From the symptoms I got, it seems I ate so much fat that there was indigestion and all sorts of other problems. Now, instead, I still eat fat first but after, very lean protein like horsemeat muscle, lean fish, or even the occasional organ (for the taste only, I personally don't think it's necessary). I've only made the change very recently but I already notice better energy, no abdominal aches and pains. My ketones are beginning to decrease too.

[Daryl]

I have no idea what the conversion rate is.  However, my BG meter tells me that the more protein I eat at a meal the higher BG rises.  This is keeping total calories the same - just changing the ratio of fat to protein.  To me this is direct evidence that some portion of all the protein I eat is converted to BG. 

Lex

From a woman named Susan on the Active Low Carbers forum:

Both Gary Scheiner "Think Like a Pancreas" and John Walsh "Using Insulin" caution against too much protein and often cite a 48% figure. I have to bolus a lot of insulin for a 12 once steak, about 3 times as much for 2 eggs and bacon which are higher in fat. Most type 1s are restricting their protein for the same reason. If protein were not converted to insulin by a substantial amount, there would be no protein bolus of 1 unit per 1.5 ounces. My carb bolus is 1 unit per 15 carbs. 12 ounce steak = 8 units, according to Bernstein's formula, but more like 6 for me. A half cup of oatmeal (dry) = 45 carbs and 3 units.

Type 2s don't think about the amount of insulin it takes to cover protein because they don't track their insulin usage.

I wished we could devour as much protein as we liked, but the more I read, the more it seems to suggest this isn't the case.

[lex_rooker]

I've been thinking of what you said and what the Bear said and thinking and thinking...based on your results, it does seem that protein contributes to glucose synthesis in the body, that is the only explanation, as far as I can see...unless the Bear wants to chyme in and offer us an alternative explanation which he won't, of course!

Hi Kristelle, Glad I've provided food for thought.  I've read most of what is available on the web written by Stanley Owsley "TheBear" and find that much of what he says is also at odds with my personal experience. 

But, I also think that excess protein will not automatically convert all to glucose, just convert to enough glucose that is needed by the body at a certain time...no more. If it did convert to more than we needed, then insulin would be produced and lead to fat storage which does not happen on an all-meat diet. Excess protein intake could lead to weight gain and that makes no sense to me.

Why would you think that the body will not convert whatever amount or type of amino acids or protein to glucose if they are present just because BG is already adequate?  Our bodies don't stop digesting carbs even when BG is very high.  It just releases insulin in response to excessive BG in an effort to try to reduce the level.  Why would you think that the digestion of protein would be any different?  My guess is that amino acids are released into the blood stream through the digestion process and circulated through the body.  If they are not picked up by other tissues to be used for growth or repair, when they reach the liver certain amino acids (probably not all, just specific ones) will be converted to glucose.  This would account for the percentage of conversion being far less than 100%

My approach is that the body always treats each element that it is presented with in a consistent way.  It may treat each element differently, but if Tryptophan is converted to glucose by the liver then it will always be converted to glucose by the liver.  If Glutamine is not converted then it will never be converted.  If BG is high and Tryptophan is converted to glucose which causes BG to rise higher then the feedback loop causes insulin to be released to lower BG.  In other words I don't believe that the liver checks BG levels and then decides to convert or not convert.  This would be consistent with carbohydrate metabolism.  The body doesn't check BG to decide whether to metabolize the carbs we eat - it always digests them, converts them to BG and then other systems take over to manage BG levels independent of the digestion or metabolism process.

Is this theory correct?  I have no idea, but it is the only one that makes sense to me and fits with my observations. 

So, at the moment, I think that protein and fat contribute to glucose, while fatty acids fuel the heart, muscles and some other tissues while the brain mostly runs on ketones (if not almost entirely).

I really have no idea here.  In my case I have no evidence that my skeletal muscles are using ketones or fatty acids.  Ketones don't drop after exercise so they are either not being used or they are manufactured at a rate that keeps up with the rate at which they are being used.  This is not the experience of others like Andrew who sees a variation that tracks with his activity and provides a strong implication that his body is using the ketones to support skeletal muscle activity.  This make me suspect that at this time I'm not using ketones-they're being discarded through the urine.  I have no way to measure fatty acids at home so I'm completely in the dark here.  I do know that BG drops about 10 points after exercise and usually stays down for about 16 hours until I eat my next meal.  Exactly what is happening I have no way of knowing, but it is clear that the increased activity is lowering BG.  This provides evidence to me that something is using it and the only thing used during the increased activity is skeletal muscles.

I also think that you may be actually eating EXCESS fat and that's why your ketones are moderate/high (not because you aren't keto-adapted). I suspect you are already keto-adapted and that you just don't need that much fat. I also don't think muscles run on ketones, just fatty acids. You were probably doing just fine before and I don't think it was necessary to change anything. Sometimes, we overestimate how much fat is needed...since reducing my fat, I'm already seeing some improvement. I also didn't understand why my ketones were constantly high, now I think I finally figured it out.

Yup, I think you are correct, I was just fine before starting this high fat adventure, however, I like to test the various ideas and theories that are in line with the lifestyle I have chosen to lead.  After all, by current standards I was doing fine before going paleo, I was fine when I went raw, and I was fine when I went all raw meat. Yet I've learned a lot from each change and will continue to make changes and correct course as time goes on.

I took Erasmus' advice and diluted my urine by 4 to 1 to see if I could bring my ketones back to a more definitive reading other than "off the charts".  The color patches on the Ketostix show that the darkest patch represents 160.  Even at 4 to 1 dilution I get level 3 (80) or level 4 (160) which equates to ketone levels of 320 to over 640.  I still have more experimentation to do here but the results so far have been interesting.

I also now question just what being "Keto Adapted" actually means.  I'm now convinced that it has little to do with spilling ketones into the urine.  Hopefully I'll understand more as time goes on and this adventure we call life continues,

Lex

[lex_rooker]

Daryl,
Thanks for finding that other post that shows that my results seem to be consistent with the experience of others.  I have a lot of things going and just don't have time to track stuff like that down.  It's nice to get a bit of validation now and then.

Lex

[TylerDurden]

I'm talking about animal fat and protein eaten raw. Before, I ate fat first (i.e. bone marrow, subcutaneous animal fat) and then fatty protein (prime rib, brisket, chuck). From the symptoms I got, it seems I ate so much fat that there was indigestion and all sorts of other problems. Now, instead, I still eat fat first but after, very lean protein like horsemeat muscle, lean fish, or even the occasional organ (for the taste only, I personally don't think it's necessary). I've only made the change very recently but I already notice better energy, no abdominal aches and pains. My ketones are beginning to decrease too.

That fits in with what I've found, despite the conventional wisdom being that fat is more easily converted. Having some lean meats is a good idea.

[stevesurv]

Hey Lex
I'm wondering how your diet has effected your cognitive function over the last few years. Improved? Same?

[Kristelle]

Lex,

Could BG be dropping after exercise because other cells/tissues need glucose during intense activity like red blood cells which transport oxygen to muscles?

[lex_rooker]

Could BG be dropping after exercise because other cells/tissues need glucose during intense activity like red blood cells which transport oxygen to muscles?

Interesting thought.  I don't remember ever reading anything that indicated that passive tissues like red blood cells increase their metabolic activity due to exercise.  The heart pumps faster but I have read, as you've pointed out in your posts, that the heart uses only fatty acids for fuel.  Do you have any experience or a reference that might cause you suspect something like this?  Or possibly, can you think of something that I could do or measure that would help settle the question?

Lex

[lex_rooker]

I'm wondering how your diet has effected your cognitive function over the last few years. Improved? Same?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by cognitive function.  I certainly don't think I've gotten any smarter - no increase in IQ  darn it.

On the emotional side, however, I've become much more stable.  For many years I would alternate between emotional highs and lows almost to the point of being manic depressive.  Since I went paleo and cut out grains, dairy, legumes, etc, all the hills and valleys have leveled out and I pretty much feel the same all the time.  Fortunately, the point where I've level out is on the high side.  I get up every morning looking forward to the day, exited about life.

I don't think there has been much change since I went all raw meat as my diet.  The major changes took place early on when I first went paleo and cut out all non-paleo foods.  I can't even say that cooking or eating raw made much difference in emotional stability either, though it has seemed to make a significant difference in my physical health.

Lex

[stevesurv]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by cognitive function.  I certainly don't think I've gotten any smarter - no increase in IQ  darn it.

On the emotional side, however, I've become much more stable.  For many years I would alternate between emotional highs and lows almost to the point of being manic depressive.  Since I went paleo and cut out grains, dairy, legumes, etc, all the hills and valleys have leveled out and I pretty much feel the same all the time.  Fortunately, the point where I've level out is on the high side.  I get up every morning looking forward to the day, exited about life.

I don't think there has been much change since I went all raw meat as my diet.  The major changes took place early on when I first went paleo and cut out all non-paleo foods.  I can't even say that cooking or eating raw made much difference in emotional stability either, though it has seemed to make a significant difference in my physical health.

Lex

I meant general function. Thanks Lex.

[Daryl]

Lex wrote:

Mary and Kata have done remarkable work and you can follow along on their Yahoo forum at:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SaturatedFatForHealth/

Fascinating stuff there! What are your views on their methods, Lex?

[lex_rooker]

Daryl,
I have the greatest respect for Mary and Kata.  Sometimes I think they draw conclusions a bit too early - before things become fully stable again, and this can cause them to pull back from earlier positions.  That said, I don't know of anyone else that even comes close to them for their understanding of the various metabolic states.  They also freely admit that everything is a work in progress and is subject to change as they move forward with their studies and experiments.  The good thing is that they will correct earlier statements that they come to find in error unlike some of the gurus out there, which I find refreshing.

Lex

[xylothrill]

Lex,

I used to pop into the Saturated Fat Group once in a while when it was open. I'll apply for membership soon. Haven't had time with never-to-be hurricane threats.
I respect you, Lex for keeping us updated in this open forum, which can invite disbelievers wanting to "save" you. You handle everything very well and I do hope you consider Satya's offer to have this experiment, digested or not, published on The Raw Paleo Diet & Lifestyle Resource Site.

Craig

[lex_rooker]

Craig,
Lex starts with an "L" not an "S" : It's the same finger, just on the other hand.

I made a similar error once on a power point presentation to a group of executives.  To say I was embarrassed doesn't even come close.  I just wanted to fade away never to be seen again.   The preferred fix of course would be to have spell-check replace what I said with what I meant to say!     

Fine with me if Satya posts the Journal to the Paleo Web Site.  I'd prefer that we remove the non-relevent posts.  As an example there's several posts related to the ability (or lack of it) to view attachments etc and this is just useless clutter.

I will be adding my 12 week update at the end of this week.

Lex

[xylothrill]

Lex,

How embarrassing! : I'm used to a DVORAK keyboard and have been trying to teach myself QWERTY again! I get finger dyslexia sometimes. I did need a laugh. Was it your name on the power point presentation or something else? My guess is something else. I'd have noticed it if "sex" weren't a word but it is.

I too would prefer your journal be as if it were something you were keeping to yourself - without the comments and replies of others, which would make it harder to follow for those reading it for the first time.

I've edited the "S" I can laugh at myself so I don't mind if anyone saw it. 

Twelve weeks already! Wow! Looking forward to it!

Craig

[lex_rooker]

I made the exact same mistake you did.  It is interesting how our fingers will make a mistake that is a mirror image - same finger, wrong hand.  I assure you that I made sure to proof read everything to death after that.

Lex

[xylothrill]

Lex,

Had that been me, I think would have wanted to sink into the floor.

I discovered that the same fingers on both hands want to do the same thing. I've never taken piano lessons but I remember trying to play something as a child and it was almost impossible to get different fingers on either hand to do something different simultaneously. I don't know what sort of evolutionary advantage this would have whatsoever. It's not so evident with typing because we type one finger at a time but I suppose a signal can take a left instead of a right at times. The finger movements on both hands must be very closely linked somehow.

Craig

[lex_rooker]

I had an interesting experience day before yesterday.  I took my wife out to eat and ordered two 16 oz ribeye steaks as rare as they would make them.  I ordered them without any seasoning.  My wife was unable to finish all of her steak so I ate about another 8 oz of medium rare steak for a total of 2 1/2 lbs.  I felt rather thirsty for several hours after the meal, which we ate a bit earlier than usual at around 2pm, even though the steaks were not salted or seasoned in any way.

I checked BG in the early evening and before going to bed and it had risen about 30 points well into the 100's.  When I got up in the morning I did my usual weigh-in and was up about 1 3/4 lbs.

The USDA website says the average ribeye steak is about 20% fat and 17.25% protein.   2.5 lbs of steak would then be about 225 grams of fat and 195 grams protein.  If 58% of the protein were converted to glucose this would work out to about 113 grams of glucose.  I've read where each gram of glucose causes the body to store an additional 6 grams of water.  Therefore 113 grams of glucose would cause the body to hold and additional 678 grams of water (113 x 6) for a total weight increase of 791 grams (113 glucose + 678 water).  791 divided by 453 to convert back to pounds equals 1.75 lbs which exactly matches my increase in weight.

Since I lowered my food intake to 500g per day my normal protein intake is about 70 - 75 grams .  As you can see, eating those steaks gave me almost 3 times my normal protein for one day and I believe it clearly created a significant increase in glucose based both on the weight gain and the rise in BG.

I also found that I had no trouble eating the 2.5 lbs (1.15Kg) and I assume that this is because of the difference in the ratio of fat.  My normal food is over 30% fat so it takes much less for me to feel satisfied with the significantly higher fat level of my normal food.  In fact, there is no way that I could eat 2.5 lbs of my regular high fat food.  Doing so would make me nauseous.

I thought the observation and the math were interesting.

Lex

[xylothrill]

Thanks Lex,

This now confirms to me even more as to why I can eat so much more "cooked" meat than raw. Even slathered with butter, commercial meat cuts just don't have enough fat to satiate me. The next time I go out, I'll bring some suet with me and maybe save some money!

I've been accepted to the Saturated Fat Group. I'm surprised as I should have a keto driven metabolism yet my ketones stay low to trace (last I checked) I haven't had time to read all the posts yet but I've read the documents they send out upon joining.

Now I have a clue as to what coconinoz was talking about.

Craig

[Nicola]

Thanks Lex,

This now confirms to me even more as to why I can eat so much more "cooked" meat than raw. Even slathered with butter, commercial meat cuts just don't have enough fat to satiate me. The next time I go out, I'll bring some suet with me and maybe save some money!

I've been accepted to the Saturated Fat Group. I'm surprised as I should have a keto driven metabolism yet my ketones stay low to trace (last I checked) I haven't had time to read all the posts yet but I've read the documents they send out upon joining.

Now I have a clue as to what coconinoz was talking about.

Craig

Craig, I thought you are trying to loose weight; does this work on your high fat diet?

Nicola