Ad Widget


HCLF vs HFLC-help!



No announcement yet.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by monkspeed View Post
    What makes you think its all lies and myths? Care to give us some links so we can check for ourselves? Thanks (despite good evidence that says otherwise but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt)

    My PB & Workout Log
    I dont care to go on and on about this. There are so many reasons why "becoming a fat burning beast" is downright silly. Also the theory that we evolved in harsh climates and are adapted to eating low carb is also ridiculous. There is a great animated map somewhere online that shows our migration out of africa, following warm weather and coastlines. People only moved into colder regions fairly recently, i believe the Inuit civilization to be only a few thousand years old. Our genetics have nothing to do with that. Sure we are a robust and adaptable species, that does not prove at all that we can thrive on such diets. Also the fact that we have the amylase gene shows that we have been eating starch for eons. Fruit has been a staple food since we first evolved. Also the fact that PUFA is so inherently poisonous to us would show that we evolved in warm weather climates where saturated fat is the predominant fat. PUFA is hibernation food.


    • #17
      Originally posted by sabrina90 View Post
      I'm looking for some advice. I've seen a huge shift in opinions on this site over the past few months or so. Instead of trumpeting VLC and HF everything, high carb is now coming more into the picture. I have been wondering a lot about this because I haven't been seeing results with HFLC. So I'm considering a transition, but I still have some questions. Any advice would be much appreciated.

      1) Isn't fat the preferred fuel that our body wants to burn? Wouldn't I just start having blood sugar crashes again if I ate more carbs and less fat?

      2) Large amounts of carbs were not naturally found in the wild except for maybe tropical areas and summer, and many cultures thrive on virtually no carbs for their entire lives. So shouldn't we follow the most natural approach?

      3) I have heard that it may depend partly on genetics. Does this relate at all to our ancestry&what they would have eaten?
      From a HFLC (low carb being under 150g/day) proponent and IMO:

      1. First part TRUE. Second part totally dependent on your metabolic state of health and your lifestyle.
      2. True for large times periods of our evolution and in certain areas, but also true is that humans have thrived on a quite wide variety of foods.
      3. Yes. For instance some humans simply have more amylase alleles, which seems to correlate with a predisposition to handling starchy foods better.


      • #18
        From the perspective of someone who tried HFLC to lose weight and failed, IMO:

        1. I think our bodies preferentially burn glucose. Our neurons preferentially use glucose as fuel although they can also use ketone bodies. Our muscles burn glycogen during bouts of intense activity because beta-oxidation is too slow for such intense activities. When you ingest fat and carbs, your body preferentially burns glucose from the carbs. I may be wrong, however.

        Regarding blood sugar crashes--I have no idea. I have personally never experienced blood sugar crashes. I've never experience sugar highs or sugar crashes. So when I transitioned from HFLC to HCLF, I did not experience any sugar crashes because I didn't experience them on a conventional diet to begin with. If you used to have these crashes and they stopped when you went HFLC, then they may start again once you start eating high carb again.

        2. I don't know. You can follow whatever approach you feel like. Sorry this isn't helpful, but I really can't say. I thought this was the case when I started primal, but it really didn't work for me. I don't believe in blindly following a theory when faced with clear experiential evidence to the contrary.

        3. Again, I don't know, but I am of Asian descent, which may mean that I evolved to eat more starch. I have no idea. Evolutionary biology and genetics are not my forte.

        My journal


        • #19
          1) highly individual. There might be a macrat that optimizes your meal initiation and meal termination behavior. My best guideline has been classic cuisines, i.e. it's no accident that protein, starch, and vegetables all taste bad with zero fat but there's also a diminishing return when adding more.

          2) Varies with latitude. I never believed that macrats are the most important detail in nutrition compared to nutrient density.

          I personally do best on carbohydrate at 20~30% of TDEE but advising this to others seems to successfully enrage every health tribe simultaneously. FWIW my rationale is mainly CVD oriented: Capping glucose exposure at this level will reinforce lipolytic pathways which keeps trigs low and allow room for a high SFA intake which keeps HDL high. Peak BG also stays low at this level.

          My peculiar nutrition glossary and shopping list