November 19

The votes are in: Dissect it is!

17  comments

I tallied the votes to see whether readers wanted me to dissect the first chapter of The Fat Loss Bible and the ‘yeas’ won, but not by much. The ‘neas’ just missed by six votes, which indicates to me that there is a whole lot of AC fatigue out there right now. One of the things that came through loud and clear in the polling, however, was that readers (of this blog at least) want the dissection done in a non-personal way. I respect that and will go through the chapter with as little mention of our friend as possible.
I think the entire exercise will be educational for all. It certainly has been for me. It will take me a couple of days because even though I’ve already done the work, I have to write it up. I’ll continue to post on other subjects in the interim, but I should have the exegesis posted this week.
I don’t know what the outcome of this in-depth review will be in terms of changing the thinking of those whose minds are set in concrete, but we’ll see what happens. I suspect that my careful critique will be greeted by he who shall remain nameless and his acolytes much in the way callers are greeted on this YouTube video clip.
(Hat tip to Robert)
[youtube]DWwB5MYTr64[/youtube]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

  1. Hi Dr. Eades,
    I look forward to the exegesis!
    Thank you for taking the time, the dissection will help clarify the issues, I’m sure.
    Would a metabolic advantage also help with attaining better overall body composition? As in by helping to produce a better protein:fat ratio given isocaloric daily intakes?
    Hi Billi-Jean–
    I assume that the protein:fat ratio you are talking about is the ratio of lean body mass to fat mass. If so, as long as your caloric intake is in the range where the metabolic advantage makes a difference, it should help.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  2. even though i kinda voted no….actually, i voted ‘it would be futile’…. i’m glad you are going ahead with it, because AC suggested you would rig the votes to avoid it. i knew you wouldn’t, but if the vote had come out ‘no,’ he would have claimed victory. not that you care. but still.
    It will be futile in terms of changing his mind, but who cares whether his mind is changed or not? I certainly don’t. And my goal isn’t to argue with him or try to get him to change his mind. In fact, I don’t give him much thought at all. If he wants to wallow in pigheadedness, that’s his problem. But I think the dissection process will be instructive to readers.
    Best–
    MRE

  3. Reading the free book by AC, on page 19 he says
    “In a May blog article, Eades claimed that if you are following a lowcarb
    diet, “The protein you eat is converted to glucose instead of the
    protein in your muscles. If you keep the carbs low enough so that the
    liver still has to make some sugar, then you will be in fat-burning
    mode while maintaining your muscle mass, the best of all worlds.”[27]
    Note the double standard here, one that is routinely employed by
    MAD proponents: Eat a low-carb diet and your body will begin
    burning more dietary fat and body fat. But even if it increases the
    need for gluconeogenesis (increased production of glucose from noncarb
    sources such as protein), that same low-carb diet will not
    increase the breakdown of bodily protein, no sirree.”
    Isn’t this why you wrote the book titled “Protein Power”?
    The real thing I learned from your book was that when we low carb, we must have adequate protein (you even have a table and a formula to calculate how much) to support gluconeogenesis in addition to other normal body needs? Of course, low carbing without enough dietary protein, muscle mass is going to melt away … the body has no choice because glucose for the brain is a priority. Now, even dummy like me knows that ….. So what is AC’s problem? MAD must be causing selective mental deficiencies causing skips as he reads your books or blogs.
    I see that he agrees with you on the low carb diet providing higher level of satiation. So even if he does not agree on the metabolic advantage, what is wrong with eating the same calories and being more satisfied and happier? I don’t understand his extreme anger and frustration…. jealously? Right now, it seems to me to be mock anger trying to get some free notoriety like some cheap stunt show for ratings on the shock TV, radio.
    Looking forward to your dissection… I don’t think it will mean anything to AC, but will further our education. Thanks Doc, again for all you do.
    Hi Guru–
    You are precisely correct and AC is precisely wrong. You must keep protein intake up during low-carb dieting so that you have more than enough protein available for gluconeogenesis without having to catabolize your muscle mass. It also helps greatly if you consume protein that contains high levels of l-leucine. You help your muscle building and anti-catabolizing processes greatly if you get 10-12 grams of leucine per day.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  4. So if Mr. A.C. insists (along with much of the nutritional community) that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie…., how do they explain the overfeeding studies. It either is or it isn’t. It only takes one exception to void the whole hypothesis, which is exactly what it is. I actually feel less need for the whole explanation given the obviousness of this example. It would seem a better theory is that some calories are more equal that others.
    P.S. I assume that the SNL show the clip was taken from was hosted by Emilio Estevez, his half brother if I recall correctly.
    Hi Mark–
    I couldn’t have put it better. One exception does indeed void the whole hypothesis.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  5. “You are precisely correct and AC is precisely wrong. You must keep protein intake up during low-carb dieting so that you have more than enough protein available for gluconeogenesis without having to catabolize your muscle mass.”
    Ok, I’m gonna play devil’s advocate and try to clarify AC’s argument .
    I believe his point is that it seems contradictory to hold that, while low-carbing, despite a high fat intake, body fat is burned for energy, while a high protein intake will prevent body protein to be burned for energy.
    For a layman this appears to be a somewhat valid point, although an immediate response would seem to be that the burning of stored fat is much more efficient than the burning of lean muscle mass for energy production.
    If AC’s argument is as you have ‘clarified’ it, then he has a more abysmal understanding of metabolic physiology than I suspected.
    Let’s start with a couple of givens that I don’t think anyone would argue with. Adipose tissue is a reservoir of energy. Muscle is a reservoir of glucose. Why glucose? Because during periods of fasting, the body turns to protein to make glucose, and since the muscles are the largest protein mass in the body, muscle is then the storage form of glucose. (Glycogen is the short term storage form of glucose, but in a fast or a very low-carb diet glycogen is rapidly depleted.)
    Let’s look at what happens when you go on a very-low-carbohydrate diet that that doesn’t provide all the calories you need to maintain your weight. You need energy to run all the body’s activities. Some of this energy comes from the fat in the low-carb diet – the rest of it comes from fat stored in the adipose tissue, which obviously brings about a loss of body fat.
    Your body requires not only energy for bodily functions but glucose as well. Since the glucose from a low-carb diet is minimal – say, 50 grams – your body needs to look elsewhere for the glucose it needs. The body can convert protein to glucose via the process of gluconeogenesis, which it goes about doing. The protein required for the process can come from two places: protein in the diet and protein from the body. If the protein content of the diet is adequate, the body can get the glucose it needs from dietary protein without having to rob the body of its muscle or other protein stores.
    So, you can have a low-carb diet, high in fat and adequate in protein, that causes body fat to be burned yet prevents muscle loss. The one proviso is that this diet must create a caloric deficit in order to burn body fat. It’s all really basic physiology and nothing magic.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  6. great news! now cut out all that drinking and gambling and hurry up and get the dissecting done!
    I’ve got only one more night of drinking and gambling. I’m on Denver -1.5 tonight. Wish me luck.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  7. Gadzooks this fella is even now consuming all the ‘chat’
    What happened to breadth of eclecticism here, sunbeams ?
    Have wondered if folks whose body fat gets past a certain point start developing an obsessive compulsive-type biochemistry/disorder;they become seemingly obsessed with low body fat, keeping their body fat low when surely from an evol perspective it was and presumably is far better hormonally and bio-psychologically to have a bit o weight ?
    I read somewhere where one of the Caesers (not the salad maker,incidentally) was very wary of very slim guards as it was felt they’d be more likely to off him in a coup versus the slightly more portly.
    Please lets not waste good time and energy on the fella..he strikes me as knobhead but maybe if he is as ill as he sounds he is somewhat deserved of our pity and perhaps even compassion..albeit at a distance.
    Hey Simon–
    The dissection will be most educational. Everyone likes to read about studies being deconstructed – that’s all this is. I may not even mention said knobhead’s name.
    Soon it will be over, and we’ll be back to the good stuff. In fact, there is some good stuff going up momentarily. Don’t know if it will apply to you up in the frozen north, however.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  8. Hi Billi-Jean–
    I assume that the protein:fat ratio you are talking about is the ratio of lean body mass to fat mass. If so, as long as your caloric intake is in the range where the metabolic advantage makes a difference, it should help.
    Cheers–
    MRE
    Thanks for the response, Dr. Eades!
    Heck, sorry, I wasn’t very clear with my question, was I?
    What I’d love your opinion on, if you can indulge me a little longer…
    I lost about 35 kilos (77 pounds) doing low cal -argh, it was hell on earth!! Now, if anything, now I’m a little underweight.
    However, I feel like I lost more muscle than fat by dieting that way, and I’ve ended up with a ratio of lean body mass to fat mass that I really am not happy with…you know, like a ‘thin-fat person’.
    What I’m wondering is, will doing low carb (I’ve been nearly zero carb for a month now), perhaps due in part to metabolic advantage(?) help to slowly give me a better lean body mass to fat mass ratio, without having to do weight training? Meaning, will some of my muscle mass that was shrivelled away return just by eating enough protein or do I need to lift weights?
    I so very much appreciate your time! Thanks again!
    Billi-Jean
    Yes, I think the diet you are on will re-compose your body, so to speak. You must make sure you’re getting plenty of leucine – you need somewhere in the neighborhood of 8-12 grams per day, which you should get easily if you’re eating plenty of meat. If not, you should probably supplement. As you continue on your diet (which doesn’t have to be zero carbs, BTW), you should find yourself losing more fat and gaining some muscle. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to do some resistance training along the way to speed up the muscle-building process.
    Hope this helps.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  9. So to get that amount of leucine, I guess were talking about a pound of meat or a couple servings of whey protein?
    I think Mr. Colpo is using the Howard Stern-like theatrics to sell whatever. I don’t like his lack of respect in calling you “Eades” when you have a title. May seem little but I think it speaks volumes.
    Yep, about a pound of meat per day.
    I don’t mind that he calls me Eades – I called him Colpo. In a perfect world I would be Dr. Eades and he would be Mr. Colpo, but it’s not a perfect world. I’ll try to amend my calling him by his last name only.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  10. Dr Eades wrote, “You must keep protein intake up during low-carb dieting so that you have more than enough protein available for gluconeogenesis without having to catabolize your muscle mass.”
    I have a quick question for you, Dr Eades. How many grams of carb (in the diet) per day does it take to do nothing more than provide the blood with it’s required range of glucose level? Not so much as to be stored, but not so little that the body has to make glucose from protein? All of a sudden, I’m very curious about that. And can’t seem to find the answer.
    Thank you!
    Hey Elle–
    As a rule of thumb you can figure that your tissues need about 200 g glucose per day. If you go on a low-carb diet and go into ketosis, the ketone bodies will pinch hit for about 70 or so grams of sugar. So, if your on a low-carb diet, you need about 130 g glucose per day, but you don’t have to get it from the diet. If you’re eating 50 g carbs that means you have a deficit of about 80 grams, which can be made from protein. I wrote a post about this whole process a while back.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  11. Thanks for the example in response to one of the comments that says:
    “… your tissues need about 200 g glucose per day. If you go on a low-carb diet and go into ketosis, the ketone bodies will pinch hit for about 70 or so grams of sugar. So, if your on a low-carb diet, you need about 130 g glucose per day, but you don’t have to get it from the diet. If you’re eating 50 g carbs that means you have a deficit of about 80 grams, which can be made from protein. I wrote a post about this whole process a while back.”
    In the above example, does this mean that we need more than 80 gms of protien (say 100g of protein due to conversion inefficiencies or metabolic advantage) to support gluconeogenesis? How much more protein beyond this is needed to support other normal functions?
    I went back and re-read the metabolism and ketosis post, but this question remained. Thanks for your help again.
    The rule of thumb, at least according to my friend Don Layman, who is one of the world’s experts on protein, is that about 80% of protein can be converted to carb. So, assuming that ketones can pinch hit for about 70 or so grams of carbs and you get 50 grams in your diet, that leaves around 80 or so grams of carbs that have to be made from protein. Therefore 100 grams of dietary protein per day should do the trick.
    Cheers–
    MRE

  12. Hello Dr Eades
    I was wondering if this was still happening or if you changed your mind?
    Cheers
    Sherrie
    Nope, it’s happening. I’ve just had a lot going on lately and haven’t been able to give it the attention it needs.
    Cheers–
    MRE

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Be The First To Know When New Content Is Premiered!

Sign up to be notified about new blog posts, podcast interviews, tasty recipes, scheduled appearances or live talks, or interesting special offers. And especially sign up to learn when and where you can begin to pre-order our next book, Protein Power 2.0!

__CONFIG_colors_palette__{"active_palette":0,"config":{"colors":{"5e279":{"name":"Fun Blue","parent":-1}},"gradients":[]},"palettes":[{"name":"Default","value":{"colors":{"5e279":{"val":"var(--tcb-skin-color-0)"}},"gradients":[]},"original":{"colors":{"5e279":{"val":"rgb(31, 85, 173)","hsl":{"h":217,"s":0.69,"l":0.4,"a":1}}},"gradients":[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__
__CONFIG_colors_palette__{"active_palette":0,"config":{"colors":{"3e1f8":{"name":"Main Accent","parent":-1}},"gradients":[]},"palettes":[{"name":"Default Palette","value":{"colors":{"3e1f8":{"val":"var(--tcb-local-color-5e279)"}},"gradients":[]},"original":{"colors":{"3e1f8":{"val":"rgb(19, 114, 211)","hsl":{"h":210,"s":0.83,"l":0.45}}},"gradients":[]}}]}__CONFIG_colors_palette__
Sign Up