On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:47:58 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>I'm assuming that "excess" implies that glycogen stores are full.
>If one consumes less than 180g of glucose per day, then these
>reserves are slowly (or quickly) consumed.  That effectively
>raises the threshold of excess.  So, if glycogen stores are
>empty, that means one can consume an extra 400g of carbs, without
>converting much of it to fat.

I think what you describe for your diet with overall low carbs for sake of
emptying the glycogen stores should work similarly in a normal.
"Normally" insulin like glucose goes up only for a limited time of 2-3 hours
after a meal, that makes for 3 meals 6-9 hours, out of 24.
(Pic of this at: http://www.zonehome.com/met/images/fig14.gif )

Despite missing new glucose (from food) the blood suger doesn't drop in
all the rest of 15-18 hours. This would be 2/3 to 3/4 of the time.
All this time the blood sugar needs are satisfied from glycogen stores.

Even if this is only used by tissues for which it's essential  (the
180g/day) it should be able to signinicantly lower the short term stores.
For the given example 2/3 of it =120g carb per day.

>..  After four
>days, I'm out of glucose and I need to burn protein (in reality,
>I think, it's a more gradual transition).  At this point I may
>experience "cravings" for carbohydrate

Why can then anybody experience cravings for carbohydrate, while the
stores are full? Something's not working.
The signal for it's release is glucagon. Does it fail?
The process requires vitamin b6 and zinc. Is it missing?

>, and I can in fact afford
>to indulge in a "carb-up," knowing that the extra glucose will be
>preferentially directed to those glycogen stores.

I think this is exactely the mechanism how normal, well fed grain eaters
like the ordinary farmer of the last century stayed lean and healthy.
With only a little of excess glucose beeing converted to fat in the case
short term storages were full.
Small amounts of fat are easily burnt off easily later (e.g. by the heart).

If a person has a thiamin deficit, a big part of all carb has to be
converted to fat *anyway* before it can be fuelled.
As Walsh describes it, most glucose is burnt by tissues for which it is
essential (180g). This is only 1/4 of all energy, though much more of the
daily energy comes from carbs (in western diets 60%).
This implies that the difference goes to fat and is burnt if form of fat.
Isn't it so?
Isn't it so even, that long insulin time is *required* to allow
(intermediate) fat formation to take place?

I prefer enough thiamin.

>  By eating *less* carbohydrate
>than what we actually need in the course of a day, the difference
>is made up in a calibrated way on an as-needed basis from
>glycogen.

I think this would also work on a hour to hour basis.
By eating less carbohydrate as we actually need in a certain hour...
the difference is made up as needed by glycogen.

Zone diet.
I think this also contradicts Sears' paradigma of frequent small meals.
When should the insulin ever go down then?
Including enough protein with the meal seems to cause that glucagon
production doesn't stop after it -
but insulin .. is actually stimulated by leucin and arginin --protein..
(Walsh's text seems to have a little added regarding this, since it is on
Zonehome http://www.zonehome.com/met/metglucose.htm )

Sears' main goal I understood as good eicosanoid production.
Which is blocked by insulin, he sais....

Amadeus