Ok well...I just realized where I went wrong all this time and I've been zero-carbing mostly for about 1 year now. I was eating too much fat! I had mentioned that earlier in my journal but did not give it enough time. Now, it's crystal clear.
Since reducing my fat intake to about 60-65% (and that seems to be even a little too much right now), I feel like a new person. In other words, I feel amazing. My problems had nothing to do with cooking, nothing at all and my theory was wrong. I'm still struggling a little with abdominal cramps, some bloating but overall, I can't complain. If the indigestion persists in the following days, I plan to reduce fat intake even further.
Interestingly, my ketones have reduced. And thinking back, when protein was higher and fat lower, my weight was less. The more fat I ate, the heavier I became. No doubt about this. That's strange considering protein supposedly converts to glucose to a greater extent than fat because if that were the case, shouldn't I be gaining weight on more protein instead?? I personally don't believe in protein gluconeogenesis, doesn't hold up in my own experience and Charles, from
http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/index.php had some interesting things to say about this today...
"Francis Benedict's study from 1915 was on a subject who fasted for 31 days. This study remains the most complete of all balance studies in spite of many inadequate analytical methods. He demonstrated that for the first 5 or 6 days of fasting, a small component to the fuel of respiration was provided by carbohydrate and then none at all. After that, it was all about fat and protein. Fat contributed 85% and protein 10%. Benedict remarked that fat was the most abundant and and possibly expendable.
Many problems were unexplained and the general belief in gluconeogenesis was directly under fire. The brain supposedly requires 120-130 grams of glucose daily, although the IOM report that Taubes cited says that really only 100 grams are required. The extra 30 was set as a precaution. Everyone agrees that ketones can provide 75 grams, but they dispute is over the last 25 grams.
Total carbohydrate stores are barely adequate for 1 day's supply for cerebral function and gluconeogenesis must provide this amount. However, data shows that gluconeogenesis falls far short. Nitrogen (protein) excretion in several days decreases to 10 grams per day and in more prolonged fasting, it decreases to levels approaching 3 grams per day.
We all know of people who have fasted considerable longer than 7 days.
This renders impossible rendering more than several grams of glucose even if all amino acids were glucose producing.
The body doesn't use up the limited supply of protein it has making glucose for those tissues that need it which means that the brain has to be using something else. The 100 grams of glucose requirement is more a belief than it is science since it obviously has not been shown in rigorous testing.
Let's put this gluconeogensis from too much protein idea to rest. If you are gaining weight on your zero-carb diet, it has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of protein you're eating. Protein conversion is too expensive and can be toxic since that results in more nitrogen which would build ammonia in the blood and kill you. I was under the impression that the muscles didn't use ketones but indeed they do. They use more than what reserchers thought.
The next problem that is equally frustrating to researchers is the very one that MAC and I were discussing just the other day. What is the signal that mobilizes just the quantity of free fatty acid needed by the liver and carcass from fat tissue and likewise, what is the signal to muscle which directs mobilization of muscle protein as amino acid into the blood to be removed by liver (and kidney) during gluconoeogenesis? In other words, when the liver "goes after the muscles" to get protein, what gets rid of the nitrogen that's left over?
There are two schools of thought. The first is that insulin (its level) is the primary mediator (not surprising) and some think it is something in the brain which signals the release of peripheral fuel using neural pathways via the central nervous system. This means that the only time that the body would convert protein for energy would be if there were no fat or ketones available, so one would have to be fasting for more than nine months before this would occur. Again, the Bear is very astute.
The researchers tend to equate fasting and diabetes because in one case, insulin is low. In the other case, insulin is not effective due to the high level. This makes a huge difference to me, but the researchers seem to think they are somehow equivalent. The Bear also noted that these two cases were in no way similar.
Taubes provided David Kipnis's studies showing how fat tissue is exquisitely sensitive to insulin and we know that insulin fascilitates release of free fatty acids in response to the changing levels. The Randle cycle, which describes the glucose-fatty acid metabolism informs us how insulin levels effect the release of free fatty acids. This is well-known to all of us zero-carbers because we have no dietary glucose (or very little) and our fatty acids are not inhibited from circulating by insulin. Yet we all know that if we provide a glucose load, the fatty acids will decrease in circulation and the majority of the glucose will be stored.
Another note I found interesting, was that Benedict determined that if a man has enough fatty acids at the start, he may survive a fasting period of 6 to 9 months and probably even longer. At the end of 30 days of fasting, fat provides 90 percent of calories and protein only provides 10%. On an 8 day fast, fat provides 86% and protein provides 14%. On a 40-day fast, fat provides 95-97% and protein only provides 3%. The subjects on the 40-day fast were all obese.
For a man to survive a fast, protein conservation is critical, particularly in a primeval setting where maintaining muscle mass would be necessary. This is why we zero-carbers don't have to live in the gym. If we go once or twice per week, we are not in danger of losing our muscle mass. One-third to one-half loss of total body nitrogen is barely compatible with survival. This is the same for all the animals in the kingdom.
This leaves open the question as to what fuel supplies the gluconogenic precursor to provide the brain its necessary fuel. The probable answer is that the brain gradually decreases its utilization of glucose and uses ketones and hydroxybutyrate to become the most important fuels.
In conclusion, the question of how much the brain needs really depends on the state of the body at the time and the availability of peripheral fuels just as it does with regard to weight management. Insulin is the primary regulator of most of these processes so when contemplating your zero-carb regimen, it's important and prudent to focus on insulin first. If you do this, you will enjoy great health regardless of weight loss."
Topic: Kristelle's Journal (Read 18852 times)