The amounts of water, carbohydrates, fat, and protein lost during a 30-day fast

When it comes to losing fat and maintaining muscle, at the same time, there are no shortcuts. The process generally has to be slow to be healthy. When one loses a lot of weight in a few days, most of what is being lost is water, followed by carbohydrates. (Carbohydrates are stored as liver and muscle glycogen.) Smaller amounts of fat and protein are also lost. The figure below (see reference at the end of post) shows the weights in grams of stored water, carbohydrates (glycogen), fat, and protein lost during a 30-day water fast.

On the first few days of the fast a massive amount of water is lost, even though drinking water is allowed in this type of fast. A significant amount of glycogen is lost as well. This is no surprise. About 2.6 g of water are lost for each 1 g of glycogen lost. That is, water is stored by the body proportionally to the amount of glycogen stored. People who do strength training on a regular basis tend to store more glycogen, particular in muscle tissue; this is a compensatory adaptation. Those folks also tend to store more water.

Not many people will try a 30-day fast. Still, the figure above has implications for almost everybody.

One implication is that if you use a bioimpedance scale to measure your body fat, you can bet that it will give you fairly misleading results if your glycogen stores are depleted. Your body fat percentage will be overestimated, because water and glycogen are lean body mass. This will happen with low carbohydrate dieters who regularly engage in intense physical exercise, aerobic or anaerobic. The physical exercise will deplete glycogen stores, which will typically not be fully replenished due to the low intake of carbohydrates.

Light endurance exercise (e.g., walking) is normally easier to maintain with a depleted “glycogen tank” than strength training, because light endurance exercise relies heavily on fat oxidation. It uses glycogen, but more slowly. Strength training, on the other hand, relies much more heavily on glycogen while it is being conducted (significant fat oxidation occurs after the exercise session), and is difficult to do effectively with a depleted “glycogen tank”.

Strength training practitioners often will feel fatigued, and will probably be unable to generate supercompensation, if their “glycogen tank” is constantly depleted. Still, compensatory adaptation can work its “magic” if one persists, and lead to long term adaptations that make athletes rely much more heavily on fat than the average person as a fuel for strength training and other types of anaerobic exercise. Some people seem to be naturally more likely to achieve this type of compensatory adaptation; others may never do so, no matter how hard they try.

Another implication is that you should not worry about short-term weight variations if your focus is on losing body fat. Losing stored water and glycogen may give you an illusion of body fat loss, but it will be only that – an illusion. You may recall this post, where body fat loss coupled with muscle gain led to some weight gain and yet to a much improved body composition. That is, the participants ended up leaner, even though they also weighed more.

The figure above also gives us some hints as to what happens with very low carbohydrate dieting (i.e., daily consumption of less than 20 grams of carbohydrates); at least at the beginning, before long term compensatory adaptation. This type of dieting mimics fasting as far as glycogen depletion is concerned, especially if protein intake is low, and has many positive short term health benefits. The depletion is not as quick as in a fast because a high fat and/or protein diet promotes higher rates of fat/protein oxidation and ketosis than fasting, which spare glycogen. (Yes, dietary fat spares glycogen. It also spares muscle tissue.) Still, the related loss of stored water is analogous to that of fasting, over a slightly longer period. The result is a marked weight loss at the beginning of the diet. This is an illusion as far as body fat loss is concerned.

Dietary protein cannot be used directly for glycogenesis; i.e., for replenishing glycogen stores. Dietary protein must first be used to generate glucose, through a process called gluconeogenesis. The glucose is then used for liver and muscle glycogenesis, among other things. This process is less efficient than glycogenesis based on carbohydrate sources (particularly carbohydrate sources that combine fructose and glucose), which is why for quite a few people (but not all) it is difficult to replenish glycogen stores and stimulate muscle growth on very low carbohydrate diets.

Glycogen depletion appears to be very healthy, but most of the empirical evidence seems to suggest that it is the depletion that creates a hormonal mix that is particularly health-promoting, not being permanently in the depleted state. In this sense, the extent of the glycogen depletion that is happening should be positively associated with the health benefits. And significant glycogen depletion can only happen if glycogen stores are at least half full to start with.

Reference

Wilmore, J.H., Costill, D.L., & Kenney, W.L. (2007). Physiology of sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. [Note: the figure may be found in a different edition.]

Insulin responses to foods rich in carbohydrates and protein

Insulin is often presented as a hormone that is at the core of the diseases of civilization, particularly because of the insulin response elicited by foods rich in refined carbohydrates and sugars. What is often not mentioned is that protein also elicits an insulin response and so do foods where carbohydrates are mixed with fat. Sometimes the insulin responses are way more than one would expect based on the macronutrient compositions of the foods.

Holt et al. (1997; full reference at the end of this post) conducted a classic study of insulin responses. This study has been widely cited, and paints an interesting picture of differences in insulin responses to various foods. But you have to be careful where you look. There has been some confusion about the results because of the way they are often reported in places like Wikipedia and on various Internet sites that refer to the study.

The key thing to bear in mind when reviewing this study is that the amounts of food used were designed to have the same calorie content: 1000 kJ or 240 kcal (i.e., 240 calories). This led to wild variations in the size of the portions that are compared and their weight in grams. Also, some of the food portions are probably not what people usually eat in one sitting.

In Holt et al.’s (1997) study the participants were 41 lean and healthy university students. They were fed 1000 kJ (240 kcal) portions of the test foods on separate mornings after a 10-hour fast overnight. Blood insulin levels were measured at different times within a 120-minute period after each meal. An insulin score was then calculated from the area under the insulin response curve for each food; white bread was used as the reference food.

Part of Table 2 on page 1267 is shown below (the full text version of the paper is linked at the end of this post), just to illustrate the types and amounts of food served, and the macronutrient breakdown for each food. I hope you can see what I meant when I said that some of the food portions are probably not what people usually eat in one sitting. I don’t think it would be hard to find someone who would eat 158 g of beef steak in one sitting, but 333 g of fish is a little more difficult. Fish has a higher proportion of protein than beef steak, and thus is more satiating. The same goes for 625 g of orange, about 6 oranges. Foods that have more fat have more calories per gram; hence the smaller portions served for high-fat foods.

Table 4 of the article is a bit long, so I am providing it in two parts below. AUC stands for “area under the curve”. As you can see, for isocaloric portions of different foods (i.e., with the same amount of calories), there is a huge variation in insulin response. The insulin AUCs are shown on the second numeric column from the left. Also note that the insulin responses (AUC) for white bread varied in different meals. This complicates things a bit, but at least provides a more realistic view of the responses since each participant served as his or her own control.

Look at the third column from the right, which shows the insulin responses per gram of each food, compared with the response to white bread, always shown at the top for each group of related foods (e.g., protein-rich foods). The gram-adjusted response for whole-meal bread is rather high, and so is the glucose response. The gram-adjusted insulin response to potatoes is less than one-third of the response to white bread, even though the non-gram-adjusted glucose response is higher. The insulin response to beef is also less than one-third of the response to white bread, gram-for-gram. Even cheese leads to a gram-adjusted response that is about half the one for white bread, and I don’t think many people will eat the same amount of cheese in one sitting as they would do with white bread.

In summary, insulin responses to protein-rich foods are often 50 to 70 percent lower than responses to equivalent amounts of refined carbohydrate-rich foods. Also, insulin responses to unrefined carbohydrate-rich foods (e.g., potato, fruits) are often 70 to 90 percent lower than responses to equivalent amounts of refined carbohydrate-rich foods.

Why do insulin levels go up in response to dietary protein?

One of the reasons is that insulin is needed for tissue protein synthesis. That is, increased circulating protein (as amino acids) and insulin have a net anabolic effect, promoting muscle growth and inhibiting muscle breakdown. (Muscle protein synthesis and breakdown happen all the time; the net effect defines whether muscle grows or shrinks.) In this respect, insulin acts in conjunction with other hormones, such as growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1.

Reference:

Holt, S.H., Miller, J.C., & Petocz, P. (1997). An insulin index of foods: The insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 66, 1264-1276.

Subcutaneous versus visceral fat: How to tell the difference?

The photos below, from Wikipedia, show two patterns of abdominal fat deposition. The one on the left is predominantly of subcutaneous abdominal fat deposition. The one on the right is an example of visceral abdominal fat deposition, around internal organs, together with a significant amount of subcutaneous fat deposition as well.

Body fat is not an inert mass used only to store energy. Body fat can be seen as a “distributed organ”, as it secretes a number of hormones into the bloodstream. For example, it secretes leptin, which regulates hunger. It secretes adiponectin, which has many health-promoting properties. It also secretes tumor necrosis factor-alpha (more recently referred to as simply “tumor necrosis factor” in the medical literature), which promotes inflammation. Inflammation is necessary to repair damaged tissue and deal with pathogens, but too much of it does more harm than good.

How does one differentiate subcutaneous from visceral abdominal fat?

Subcutaneous abdominal fat shifts position more easily as one’s body moves. When one is standing, subcutaneous fat often tends to fold around the navel, creating a “mouth” shape. Subcutaneous fat is easier to hold in one’s hand, as shown on the left photo above. Because subcutaneous fat tends to “shift” more easily as one changes the position of the body, if you measure your waist circumference lying down and standing up, and the difference is large (a one-inch difference can be considered large), you probably have a significant amount of subcutaneous fat.

Waist circumference is a variable that reflects individual changes in body fat percentage fairly well. This is especially true as one becomes lean (e.g., around 14-17 percent or less of body fat for men, and 21-24 for women), because as that happens abdominal fat contributes to an increasingly higher proportion of total body fat. For people who are lean, a 1-inch reduction in waist circumference will frequently translate into a 2-3 percent reduction in body fat percentage. Having said that, waist circumference comparisons between individuals are often misleading. Waist-to-fat ratios tend to vary a lot among different individuals (like almost any trait). This means that someone with a 34-inch waist (measured at the navel) may have a lower body fat percentage than someone with a 33-inch waist.

Subcutaneous abdominal fat is hard to mobilize; that is, it is hard to burn through diet and exercise. This is why it is often called the “stubborn” abdominal fat. One reason for the difficulty in mobilizing subcutaneous abdominal fat is that the network of blood vessels is not as dense in the area where this type of fat occurs, as it is with visceral fat. Another reason, which is related to degree of vascularization, is that subcutaneous fat is farther away from the portal vein than visceral fat. As such, it has to travel a longer distance to reach the main “highway” that will take it to other tissues (e.g., muscle) for use as energy.

In terms of health, excess subcutaneous fat is not nearly as detrimental as excess visceral fat. Excess visceral fat typically happens together with excess subcutaneous fat; but not necessarily the other way around. For instance, sumo wrestlers frequently have excess subcutaneous fat, but little or no visceral fat. The more health-detrimental effect of excess visceral fat is probably related to its proximity to the portal vein, which amplifies the negative health effects of excessive pro-inflammatory hormone secretion. Those hormones reach a major transport “highway” rather quickly.

Even though excess subcutaneous body fat is more benign than excess visceral fat, excess body fat of any kind is unlikely to be health-promoting. From an evolutionary perspective, excess body fat impaired agile movement and decreased circulating adiponectin levels; the latter leading to a host of negative health effects. In modern humans, negative health effects may be much less pronounced with subcutaneous than visceral fat, but they will still occur.

Based on studies of isolated hunger-gatherers, it is reasonable to estimate “natural” body fat levels among our Stone Age ancestors, and thus optimal body fat levels in modern humans, to be around 6-13 percent in men and 14–20 percent in women.

If you think that being overweight probably protected some of our Stone Age ancestors during times of famine, here is one interesting factoid to consider. It will take over a month for a man weighing 150 lbs and with 10 percent body fat to die from starvation, and death will not be typically caused by too little body fat being left for use as a source of energy. In starvation, normally death will be caused by heart failure, as the body slowly breaks down muscle tissue (including heart muscle) to maintain blood glucose levels.

References:

Arner, P. (2005). Site differences in human subcutaneous adipose tissue metabolism in obesity. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 8(1), 13-17.

Brooks, G.A., Fahey, T.D., & Baldwin, K.M. (2005). Exercise physiology: Human bioenergetics and its applications. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Fleck, S.J., & Kraemer, W.J. (2004). Designing resistance training programs. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Taubes, G. (2007). Good calories, bad calories: Challenging the conventional wisdom on diet, weight control, and disease. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

The Friedewald and Iranian equations: Fasting triglycerides can seriously distort calculated LDL

Standard lipid profiles provide LDL cholesterol measures based on equations that usually have the following as their inputs (or independent variables): total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides.

Yes, LDL cholesterol is not measured directly in standard lipid profile tests! This is indeed surprising, since cholesterol-lowering drugs with negative side effects are usually prescribed based on estimated (or "fictitious") LDL cholesterol levels.

The most common of these equations is the Friedewald equation. Through the Friedewald equation, LDL cholesterol is calculated as follows (where TC = total cholesterol, and TG = triglycerides). The inputs and result are in mg/dl.

    LDL = TC – HDL – TG / 5

Here is one of the problems with the Friedewald equation. Let us assume that an individual has the following lipid profile numbers: TC = 200, HDL = 50, and trigs. = 150. The calculated LDL will be 120. Let us assume that this same individual reduces triglycerides to 50, from the previous 150, keeping all of the other measures constant with except of HDL, which goes up a bit to compensate for the small loss in total cholesterol associated with the decrease in triglycerides (there is always some loss, because the main carrier of triglycerides, VLDL, also carries some cholesterol). This would normally be seen as an improvement. However, the calculated LDL will now be 140, and a doctor will tell this person to consider taking statins!

There is evidence that, for individuals with low fasting triglycerides, a more precise equation is one that has come to be known as the “Iranian equation”. The equation has been proposed by Iranian researchers in an article published in the Archives of Iranian Medicine (Ahmadi et al., 2008), hence its nickname. Through the Iranian equation, LDL is calculated as follows. Again, the inputs and result are in mg/dl.

    LDL = TC / 1.19 + TG / 1.9 – HDL / 1.1 – 38

The Iranian equation is based on linear regression modeling, which is a good sign, although I would have liked it even better if it was based on nonlinear regression modeling. The reason is that relationships between variables describing health-related phenomena are often nonlinear, leading to biased linear estimations. With a good nonlinear analysis algorithm, a linear relationship will also be captured; that is, the “curve” that describes the relationship will default to a line if the relationship is truly linear (see: warppls.com).

Anyway, an online calculator that implements both equations (Friedewald and Iranian) is linked here; it was the top Google hit on a search for “Iranian equation LDL” at the time of this post’s writing.

As you will see if you try it, the online calculator linked above is useful in showing the difference in calculated LDL cholesterol, using both equations, when fasting triglycerides are very low (e.g., below 50).

The Iranian equation yields high values of LDL cholesterol when triglycerides are high; much higher than those generated by the Friedewald equation. If those are not overestimations (and there is some evidence that, if they are, it is not by much), they describe an alarming metabolic pattern, because high triglycerides are associated with small-dense LDL particles. These particles are the most potentially atherogenic of the LDL particles, in the presence of other factors such as chronic inflammation.

In other words, the Iranian equation gives a clearer idea than the Friedewald equation about the negative health effects of high triglycerides. You need a large number of small-dense LDL particles to carry a high amount of LDL cholesterol.

An even more precise measure of LDL particle configuration is the VAP test; this post has a discussion of a sample VAP test report.

Reference:

Ahmadi SA, Boroumand MA, Gohari-Moghaddam K, Tajik P, Dibaj SM. (2008). The impact of low serum triglyceride on LDL-cholesterol estimation. Archives of Iranian Medicine, 11(3), 318-21.

The PCSK9 enzyme, LDL cholesterol, and cardiovascular diseases

Cardiovascular diseases are currently the leading cause of death in most developed countries. They are particularly common among seniors; i.e., those aged 65 and older. Part of the reason for this is that infectious diseases do not kill as many people as they used to.

Given the trend toward population aging, with seniors making up an increasingly larger percentage of the population, the market for drugs against cardiovascular diseases is growing. A new class of such drugs is making the news lately; they target the PCSK9 enzyme ().

Enzymes are (usually) proteins that speed up chemical reactions, and are needed in virtually all metabolic processes that occur in cells. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) is an enzyme that degrades LDL cholesterol receptors on the surface of liver cells. Fewer LDL cholesterol receptors mean reduced uptake of the particles that carry LDL cholesterol, and thus more LDL particles in circulation. This may be problematic if these are small-dense LDL particles ().

Small-dense LDL particles include particles that are significantly smaller than the gaps in the endothelium (). The endothelium is a thin layer of cells that line the interior of arteries. Those gaps are about 25-26 nanometers (nm) in diameter. Small-dense LDL particles can contribute a lot more to the formation of atheromas (atherosclerotic plaques) in predisposed individuals than large-buoyant LDL particles.

There is evidence of the natural occurrence of low LDL cholesterol in individuals of African descent due to genetic mutations influencing PCSK9 levels (). This leads us to a very important question. By reducing PCSK9 in circulation, can we also reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease?

The answer to this question depends on whether LDL cholesterol is a causative factor in cardiovascular disease. If it is, then reducing PCSK9 in circulation can indeed reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease. The problem is that, most of the evidence so far suggests that LDL cholesterol is NOT a causative factor in cardiovascular disease.

Yes, there are studies that show that LDL cholesterol is correlated with cardiovascular disease, but the problem is that LDL cholesterol is a marker of other factors that are better candidates for causes of cardiovascular disease – hence the correlation. For example, LDL cholesterol goes up with mental stress (), and chronic mental stress seems to be a good candidate for a cause of cardiovascular disease.

LDL cholesterol is also a marker of a diet with more saturated fat in it (). In many contexts, a diet with more saturated fat in it is a more nutritious diet, which leads to a negative association between LDL cholesterol and mortality.

The graph below shows the shape of the association between total cholesterol (TOTCHOL) and mortality from all cardiovascular diseases (MVASC), based on an analysis of the China Study II dataset (). LDL cholesterol is the main component of total cholesterol in most people. The values are provided in standardized format; e.g., 0 is the average, 1 is one standard deviation above the mean, and so on. The best-fitting curve was obtained with the software WarpPLS ().

In fact, when we combine the totality of the evidence linking LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular diseases, LDL cholesterol seems to come out as a marker of protective factors. A reflection of this is a widely cited study by Weverling-Rijnsburger and colleagues, of LDL and HDL cholesterol as factors in cardiovascular diseases among people aged 85 and older (). The conclusions of the study were that:

- There was no association between LDL cholesterol level and risk of fatal cardiovascular disease.

- A low HDL cholesterol level was associated with a two-fold higher risk of fatal cardiovascular disease.

- Both low LDL cholesterol and low HDL cholesterol levels were associated with an increased mortality risk from infections.

The results above are particularly interesting because the study participants, given their ages, were at a high risk of mortality from cardiovascular diseases. It seems that the best scenario for these folks would have been a concomitant increase in both LDL and HDL cholesterol levels, which seems to be exactly what happens when one increases his or her intake of foods rich in saturated fat and dietary cholesterol ()!

Should you take a drug that targets the PCSK9 enzyme, to reduce your LDL cholesterol? Maybe you should ask Peter ().

Ischemic heart disease among Greenland Inuit: Data from 1962 to 1964

The traditional Inuit diet is very high in animal protein and fat. It also includes plant matter. Typically it is made up primarily of the following: fish, walrus, seal, whale, berries, and fireweed (of which syrups and jellies can be made).

Kjærgaard and colleagues (see under References, at the end of this post) examined data from an Inuit population in Greenland from 1962 to 1964, prior to the heavy westernization of their diet that is seen today. They investigated 96.9% of the whole population in three areas, including Ammassalik in East Greenland (n = 1,851).

Of those, only 181 adults, or 9.7 percent, had anything that looked like an abnormality that could suggest ischemia. This included ventricular hypertrophy (an enlargement of the heart chambers), leading to an overestimation because benign ventricular hypertrophy is induced by continuous physical exertion. These 181 adults were then selected for further screening.

Benign ventricular hypertrophy is also known as athlete's heart, because it is common among athletes. A prevalence of ventricular hypertrophy at a relatively young age, and declining with age, would suggest benign hypertrophy. The opposite would suggest pathological hypertrophy, which is normally induced by chronic hypertension.

As you can see from the figure below, from Kjærgaard et al. (2009), the pattern observed among the Inuit was of benign hypertrophy, suggestive of strong physical exertion at a young age.

A pattern of benign hypertrophy induced by robust physical activity is also consistent with reports by Stefansson (1958) about the life of the Eskimos in Northern Alaska. It is reasonable to assume that these Eskimos had a diet and lifestyle similar to the Greenland Inuit.

Back to Kjærgaard et al.’s (2009) study. The 181 adults selected for further screening then had a 12-lead ECG performed (this is a widely used test to check for heart abnormalities). The results suggested that only two men, aged 62 and 63 years, had ischemic heart disease. All in all, this suggests a prevalence of ischemic heart disease of 0.11 percent, which is very low.

(The authors of the article estimated the prevalence of ischemic heart disease at 1.1 percent, because they used the n = 181, as opposed to the original n = 1,851, in their calculation. The latter is the correct baseline sample size, in my opinion. Still, the authors present the 1.1 percent number as quite low as well, which it is.)

The prevalence of ischemic heart disease in the US of approximately 6.8 percent. That is, the prevalence in the US is 63 times higher than among the Inuit studied (using the 0.11 percent as the basis for comparison). And, it should be noted that there are many countries with a higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease than modern US.

It is possible that the low prevalence of ischemic heart disease among the Inuit was partly due to a higher mortality of those with the disease than in modern US, where medical intervention can prolong one's life in the presence of almost any disease. That is, perhaps many of those Inuit with ischemia would die quickly, and thus would not be captured by a study like this.

It is doubtful, however, that this would explain a difference as large as the one observed. Moreover, if many Inuit were dying due to ischemia, there would probably be plenty of evidence suggesting that. (I would imagine that the mysterious deaths associated with chest pain, and other related symptoms, would be a constant topic of conversation.) Reports from early explorers, however, suggest the opposite (e.g., Stefansson, 1958), and are consistent with the study described here.

In conclusion, this study suggests that the diet and lifestyle of the Greenland Inuit prior to the 1960’s (i.e., not their traditional diet and lifestyle, but approaching it) could be seen today as heart-healthy (at least for them), even though the Greenland Inuit ate a lot of animal protein and fat.

References:

Kjærgaard, M., Andersen, S., Holten, M., Mulvad, G., Kjærgaard, J.J. (2009). Low occurrence of ischemic heart disease among Inuit around 1963 suggested from ECG among 1851 East Greenland Inuit. Atherosclerosis, 203(2), 599-603.

Stefansson, V. (1958). Eskimo longevity in Northern Alaska. Science, 127(3288), 16-19.

Large LDL and small HDL particles: The best combination

High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is one of the five main types of lipoproteins found in circulation, together with very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and chylomicrons.

After a fatty meal, the blood is filled with chylomicrons, which carry triglycerides (TGAs). The TGAs are transferred to cells from chylomicrons via the activity of enzymes, in the form of free fatty acids (FFAs), which are used by those cells as sources of energy.

After delivering FFAs to the cells, the chylomicrons progressively lose their TGA content and “shrink”, eventually being absorbed and recycled by the liver. The liver exports part of the TGAs that it gets from chylomicrons back to cells for use as energy as well, now in the form of VLDL. As VLDL particles deliver TGAs to the cells they shrink in size, similarly to chylomicrons. As they shrink, VLDL particles first become IDL and then LDL particles.

The figure below (click on it to enlarge), from Elliott & Elliott (2009; reference at the end of this post), shows, on the same scale: (a) VLDL particles, (b) chylomicrons, (c) LDL particles, and (d) HDL particles. The dark bar at the bottom of each shot is 1000 A in length, or 100 nm (A = angstrom; nm = nanometer; 1 nm = 10 A).

As you can see from the figure, most of the LDL particles shown are about 1/4 of the length of the dark bar in diameter, often slightly more, or about 25-27 nm in size. They come in different sizes, with sizes in this range  being the most common. The smaller and denser they are, the more likely they are to contribute to the formation of atherosclerotic plaque in the presence of other factors, such as chronic inflammation. The larger they become, which usually happens in diets high in saturated fat, the less likely they are to form plaque.

Note that the HDL particles are rather small compared to the LDL particles. Shouldn’t they cause plaque then? Not really. Apparently they have to be small, compared to LDL particles, to do their job effectively.

HDL is a completely different animal from VLDL, IDL and LDL. HDL particles are produced by the liver as dense disk-like particles, known as nascent HDL particles. These nascent HDL particles progressively pick up cholesterol from cells, as well as performing a number of other functions, and “fatten up” with cholesterol in the process.

This process also involves HDL particles picking up cholesterol from plaque in the artery walls, which is one of the reasons why HDL cholesterol is informally called “good” cholesterol. In fact, neither HDL nor LDL are really cholesterol; HDL and LDL are particles that carry cholesterol, protein and fat.

As far as particle size is concerned, LDL and HDL are opposites. Large LDL particles are the least likely to cause plaque formation, because LDL particles have to be approximately 25 nm in diameter or smaller to penetrate the artery walls. With HDL the opposite seems to be true, as HDL particles need to be small (compared with LDL particles) to easily penetrate the artery walls in order to pick up cholesterol, leave the artery walls with their cargo, and have it returned back to the liver.

Interestingly, some research suggests HDL particles that are larger in size, when compared with other HDL particles (not with LDL particles), seem to do a better job than very small HDL particles in terms of reducing risk of cardiovascular disease. It is also possible that a high number of larger HDL particles in the blood is indicative of elevated levels of "effective" HDL particles; i.e., particles that are effective at picking up cholesterol from the artery walls in the first place.

Another interesting aspect of this cycle is that the return to the liver of cholesterol picked up by HDL appears to be done largely via IDL and LDL particles (Elliott & Elliott, 2009), which get the cholesterol directly from HDL particles! Life is not that simple.

Reference:

William H. Elliott & Daphne C. Elliott (2009). Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 4th Edition. New York: NY: Oxford University Press.

Heavy physical activity may significantly reduce heart disease deaths, especially after age 45

The idea that heavy physical activity is a main trigger of heart attacks is widespread. Often endurance running and cardio-type activities are singled out. Some people refer to this as “death by running”. Others think that strength training has a higher lethal potential. We know based on the Oregon Sudden Unexpected Death Study that this is a myth ().

Here is some evidence that heavy physical activity in fact has a significant protective effect. The graph below shows the number of deaths from coronary heart disease, organized by age group, in longshoremen (dock workers). The shaded bars represent those whose level of activity at work was considered heavy. The unshaded bars represent those whose level of activity at work was considered moderate or light (essentially below the “heavy” level).

The data is based on an old and classic study of 6351 men, aged 35 to 74 years, who were followed either for 22 years, or to death, or to the age of 75. It shows a significant protective effect of heavy activity, especially after age 45 () . The numbers atop the unshaded bars reflect the relative risk of death from coronary heart disease in each age group. For example, in the age group 65-74, the risk among those not in the heavy activity group is 110 percent higher (2.1 times higher) than in the heavy activity group.

It should be noted that this is a cumulative effect, of years of heavy activity. Based on the description of the types of activities performed, and the calories spent, I estimate that the heavy activity group performed the equivalent of a few hours of strength training per week, plus a lot of walking and other light physical activities. The authors of the study concluded that “… repeated bursts of high energy output established a plateau of protection against coronary mortality.”

Heavy physical activity may not make you lose much weight, but has the potential to make you live longer.

A viral cure for cancer only a few years away?

Adopting an evolutionarily sound lifestyle may reduce the probability that one will develop cancer, but there will be those who will nevertheless have cancer. As we live longer lives, cancer diagnoses are likely to become more and more common.

There are viruses that cause the formation and growth of cancer tumors: oncoviruses. However, and quite interestingly, there are also viruses that seek and kill cancer cells: oncolytic viruses. The video below discusses emerging treatments based on oncolytic viruses.



This Penn Medicine YouTube video is about 6 minutes in length. (A previous HBO video was about 40 minutes in length, and it was worth watching in full. However it became unavailable soon after I linked it here. Its title on YouTube was "Vice Special Report: Killing Cancer".)

Cancer treatment via oncolytic viruses had a promising start in the mid-1990s. However, due to technical complications it has been sidelined for years. Interest has been picking up dramatically in recent years. Could it be foundation for the long promised cure for cancer, as the video implies?

Only time and research will tell …

What is the probability that you are NOT diabetic if your fasting blood glucose is 110-126 mg/dl?

Often I hear from readers who have changed their diets and lifestyles toward a more evolutionarily sound direction () that their fasting blood glucose (FBG) readings have gone up. Frequently numbers in the range 110-126 mg/dl (6.1-7 mmol/l) are mentioned.

If you have a FBG reading of 110-126 mg/dl (6.1-7 mmol/l) very likely your doctor will tell you that you are either diabetic or well on your way be becoming diabetic.

Diabetes is a condition that in humans is most frequently associated with damage to the beta cells in the pancreas, significantly impairing insulin secretion. With limited insulin, glucose levels tend to go up, leading to high FBG levels and high glucose peaks after consumption of carbohydrates. The latter, high glucose peaks, appear to be particularly damaging when happening regularly over time.

What is the probability that you are NOT diabetic with this FBG reading?

I put together the table below, based on data from a widely cited meta-analysis () conducted by the research group called The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. It shows the distribution of FBG levels in urban settings among individuals who do not have diabetes.

The numbers in this table are fairly consistent with those from various other surveys of large numbers of individuals in urban settings.

The study mentioned above also tells us that the incidence of diabetes in urban populations is in the neighborhood of 6.8 percent. This may not sound like much, but as disease incidences goes, it is very high – approximately 1 in every randomly selected group of 15 people has diabetes.

The vast majority of those diagnosed will have diabetes mellitus type 2, which tends to develop over time and be associated with the metabolic syndrome ().

We know from Bayes' theorem, which is a fundamental element of the increasingly popular Bayesian statistics, that the probability of an event A given that an event B has occurred [denoted P(A|B)] is given by:

P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B).

In the equation above, P(B|A) is the probability of event B given A, P(A) is the probability of event A, and P(B) is the probability of event B.

To answer the question posed in the title of this blog post, we need to calculate the probability that a person will have no diabetes given that he or she has a fasting blood glucose of 110-126 mg/dl.

Replacing A and B in the equation above with “NoDiabetes” (short for not having diabetes) and “FBG=110-126 mg/dl” respectively, we arrive at the formula to calculate the probability that answers the question:

P(NoDiabetes|FBG=110-126 mg/dl)=P(FBG=110-126 mg/dl|NoDiabetes)*P(NoDiabetes)/P(FBG=110-126 mg/dl).

From the table above we know that P(FBG=110-126 mg/dl|NoDiabetes)=7 percent. From our previous discussion, we know that P(NoDiabetes)=(100-6.8)/100 =93.2 percent.

Finally, the study tells us that P(FBG=110-126 mg/dl) is 9.1 percent. This includes individuals with diabetes (2.1 percent) and without diabetes (7 percent).

With these numbers, we can calculate the probability that a person will have no diabetes given that he or she has a FBG of 110-126 mg/dl:

P(NoDiabetes|FBG=110-126 mg/dl)=0.07*(1-0.068)/0.091=0.72.

That is, if your fasting blood glucose is in the 110-126 mg/dl range (6.1-7 mmol/l) then the probability that you DO NOT have diabetes is 72 percent. It would be much safer to bet that you do not have diabetes than that you do, even at that relatively high range.

Surprising eh!?

The above discussion not only highlights the lack of reliability of fasting blood glucose levels for diabetes diagnoses in the 110-126 mg/dl range (6.1-7 mmol/l), but also begs the question – what could cause high fasting blood glucose levels in healthy individuals?

Some of the folks I heard from have gone through insulin sensitivity tests (see, e.g., ), and were found to be insulin sensitive (in at least one case, highly sensitive), even though their baseline glucose levels are generally high. This goes against the possible speculation that they are prediabetics well on their way to becoming diabetic.

One possibility has been discussed in a previous post, which also mentions what could happen with HbA1c levels ().

How much protein does one need to be in nitrogen balance?

The figure below, from Brooks et al. (2005), shows a graph relating nitrogen balance and protein intake. A nitrogen balance of zero is a state in which body protein mass is stable; that is, it is neither increasing nor decreasing. It seems that the graph was taken from this classic study by Meredith et al. The participants in the study were endurance exercisers. As you can see, age is not much of a factor for nitrogen balance in this group.

Nitrogen balance is greater than zero (i.e., an anabolic state) for the vast majority of the participants at 1.2 g of protein per kg of body weight per day. To convert lbs to kg, divide by 2.2. A person weighing 100 lbs (45 kg) would need 55 g/d of protein; a person weighing 155 lbs (70 kg) would need 84 g/d; someone weighing 200 lbs (91 kg) would need 109 g/d.

The above numbers are overestimations of the amounts needed by people not doing endurance exercise, because endurance exercise tends to lead to muscle loss more than rest or moderate strength training. One way to understand this is compensatory adaptation; the body adapts to endurance exercise by shedding off muscle, as muscle is more of a hindrance than an asset for this type of exercise.

Total calorie intake has a dramatic effect on protein requirements. The above numbers assume that a person is getting just enough calories from other sources to meet daily caloric needs. If a person is in caloric deficit, protein requirements go up. If in caloric surplus, protein requirements go down. Other factors that increase protein requirements are stress and wasting diseases (e.g., cancer).

But what if you want to gain muscle?

Wilson & Wilson (2006) conducted an extensive review of the literature on protein intake and nitrogen balance. That review suggests that a protein intake beyond 25 percent of what is necessary to achieve a nitrogen balance of zero would have no effect on muscle gain. That would be 69 g/d for a person weighing 100 lbs (45 kg); 105 g/d for a person weighing 155 lbs (70 kg); and 136 g/d for someone weighing 200 lbs (91 kg). For the reasons explained above, these are also overestimations.

What if you go well beyond these numbers?

The excess protein will be used primarily as fuel; that is, it will be oxidized. In fact, a large proportion of all the protein consumed on a daily basis is used as fuel, and does not become muscle. This happens even if you are a gifted bodybuilder that can add 1 lb of protein to muscle tissue per month. So excess protein can make you gain body fat, but not by protein becoming body fat.

Dietary protein does not normally become body fat, but will typically be used in place of dietary fat as fuel. This will allow dietary fat to be stored. Dietary protein also leads to an insulin response, which causes less body fat to be released. In this sense, protein has a fat-sparing effect, preventing it from being used to supply the energy needs of the body. As long as it is available, dietary protein will be favored over dietary or body fat as a fuel source.

Having said that, if you were to overeat anything, the best choice would be protein, in the absence of any disease that would be aggravated by this. Why? Protein contributes fewer calories per gram than carbohydrates; many fewer when compared with dietary fat. Unlike carbohydrates or fat, protein almost never becomes body fat under normal circumstances. Dietary fat is very easily converted to body fat; and carbohydrates become body fat when glycogen stores are full. Finally, protein seems to be the most satiating of all macronutrients, perhaps because natural protein-rich foods are also very nutrient-dense.

It is not very easy to eat a lot of protein without getting also a lot of fat if you get your protein from natural foods; as opposed to things like refined seed/grain products or protein supplements. Exceptions are organ meats and seafood, which generally tend to be quite lean and protein-rich.

References

Brooks, G.A., Fahey, T.D., & Baldwin, K.M. (2005). Exercise physiology: Human bioenergetics and its applications. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Wilson, J., & Wilson, G.J. (2006). Contemporary issues in protein requirements and consumption for resistance trained athletes. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 3(1), 7-27.

Should you do resistance exercise to failure?

Doing resistance exercise to failure is normally recommended for those who want to maximize strength and muscle mass gains from the exercise. Yet, going to failure tends to significantly increase the chances of injury, after which the ability to do resistance exercise is impaired – also impairing gains, in the long term.

From an evolutionary perspective, getting injured is clearly maladaptive. Prey animals that show signs of injury, for example, tend to be targeted by predators. There is also functional loss, which would be reflected in impaired hunting and gathering ability.

So, assuming that going to failure is at least somewhat unnatural, because of a higher likelihood of subsequent injuries, how can it be advisable in the context of resistance exercise?

The graph below is from a study by Izquierdo and colleagues (). They randomly assigned several athletes to two exercise conditions, namely resistance training to failure (RF) and not to failure (NRF). A control group of athletes did not do any resistance exercise. The athletes were tested at four points in time: before the initiation of training (T0), after 6 wk of training (T1), after 11 wk of training (T2), and after 16 wk of training (T3).

The graph above shows the gains in terms of weight lifted in two exercises, the bench press and squat. It is similar to other graphs from the study in that it clearly shows: (a) improvements in the amount of weight lifted over time for both the RF and NRF groups, which reflect gains in strength; and (b) no significant differences in the improvements for the RF and NRF groups.

When you look at the results of the study as a whole, it seems that RF and NRF are associated with slightly greater or lesser gains, depending on the type of exercise and the measure of gains employed. The differences are small, and one can reasonably conclude that no significant difference in overall gains exists between RF and NRF.

It is clear that going to failure leads to increased metabolic stress, and that increased metabolic stress is associated with greater secretion of anabolic hormones (). How can this be reconciled with the lack of a significant difference in gains in the RF and NRF groups?

The graph below provides a hint as to the answer to this question. It shows resting serum cortisol concentrations in the participants. As you can see, after 16 wk of training (T3) cortisol levels are higher in the RF group, which is particularly interesting because the NRF group had higher cortisol levels at baseline (T0). Cortisol is a catabolic hormone, which may in this case counter the effects of the anabolic hormones, even though going to failure is expected to lead to greater anabolic hormone secretion.

It seems that cortisol levels tend to go up over time for those who go to failure, and go down for those who do not. I am not sure if this is a strictly metabolic effect. There may be a psychological component to it, as strength and power gains over time tend to be increasingly more difficult to achieve (see schematic graph below); perhaps leading to some added mental stress as well, as one tries to continue increasing resistance (or weight) while regularly going to failure.

And, of course, it is also possible that the results of the study reviewed here are a statistical “mirage”. The authors explain how they controlled for various possible confounders by adjusting the actual measures. This approach is generally less advisable than controlling for the effects of confounders by including the confounders in a multivariate analysis model ().

Nevertheless, in light of the above I am not so sure that regularly doing resistant exercise to failure is such a good idea.

Can intermittent very-low-calorie dieting cure diabetes?

The health effects of very-low-calorie diets (VLCDs) adopted for short periods of time (e.g., 5 days) have been the target of much recent in the past. Consuming 400-600 kcal/day would be considered VLCDing. VLCDing for significantly longer periods of time than 5 days can be dangerous, and in some cases potentially fatal. Nevertheless, there is speculation that it can also cure type II diabetes ().

Intermittent VLCDs mimic in part what probably happened with our ancestors in our evolutionary past. Successful hunting and gathering would lead to weight-maintenance food intake most of the time, with occasional periods of severe food scarcity. This has probably been a regular pattern in our evolutionary history, leading to health-promoting adaptations that are triggered by VLCDs.

The part that VLCDs alone do not mimic is the “hunting and gathering part”, or the exercise required to obtain food when it is scarce. This is an important point, because VLCDs are likely to induce lean body mass loss without exercise, together with body fat loss. VLCDs without exercise are not very natural, even though they can have very positive effects on one’s health, as we’ll see below.

An interesting and well cited study of the effects of VLCDs in participants with type II diabetes was published in 1998 in an article authored by Katherine V. Williams and colleagues (). The study included 54 participants, and lasted 20 weeks in total. The site of the study was the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. The participants were split in three groups, referred to as:

- Standard behavioral therapy (SBT). The participants received a 1,500−1,800 kcal/day diet throughout, with the goal of inducing gradual weight loss.

- Intermittent 1 day/week VLCD (one-day). The participants received a VLCD for 5 consecutive days during week 2, followed by an intermittent VLCD therapy for 1 day/week for 15 weeks, with a 1,500−1,800 kcal/day diet at other times.

- Intermittent 5 day/week VLCD (five-day). The participants received a VLCD for 5 consecutive days during week 2, followed by an intermittent VLCD therapy for 5 consecutive days every 5 weeks (5-day), with a 1,500−1,800 kcal/day diet at other times.

There is a reason behind this complicated arrangement. The researchers wanted to make sure that the average caloric intake for the two VLCD groups was identical, but 18,000-28,000 kcal lower than for the SBT group. The SBT group served as a baseline group.

All of the three diets were designed to make the participants lose weight. Exercise was not manipulated as part of the experiment. The one-day and five-day groups consumed 400-600 kcal/day while VLCDing, with the majority of the calories coming from high-protein-low-fat minimally processed food items – notably lean meat, fish, and fowl.

The graphs below show results in terms of weight loss and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) reduction. They suggest that, while there were significant differences in weight loss between the VLCD groups and the SBT group, the differences in FPG reduction were relatively minor across the three groups.

Glucose was measured in mmol/l and weight in kg. One mmol/l is equivalent to approximately 18 mg/dl (), and one kg is equivalent to about 2.2 lbs.

The graph below, however, shows a different picture. It shows results in terms of the percentages of participants with HbA1c below 6 percent. The HbA1c is a measure of average blood glucose over a period of a few months ().

The graph above tells us that the intermittent VLCD interventions, particularly the second (five-day), were reasonably successful at promoting average blood glucose control. A threshold normally used to characterize poor blood glucose control is 7.3 percent (), which is based on studies of HbA1c levels associated with diabetes complications.

The graph below, which is probably the most telling of all, shows long-term FPG changes (at the 20-week mark) plotted against short-term changes (at the 3-week mark). What this graph tells us is that those who experienced the most improvement right away were the ones with the most improvement in the long term.

This study tells us a few interesting things. Firstly, intermittent VLCDing with a focus on high-protein foods (lean meats) seems to be a powerful way of controlling average blood glucose levels in diabetics. It is essentially a low carbohydrate diet that is also low in calories (). Secondly, results with respect to FPG levels are not as telling as those in terms of HbA1c levels, even though HbA1c and FPG are highly correlated.

Thirdly, intermittent VLCDing may not actually “cure” diabetes when significant beta cell damage has already occurred (). This conclusion is speculative, but it follows from the short-term versus long-term results.

It seems that intermittent VLCDing helps diabetics in general with glucose control, but is truly curative for those in which enough beta cell function has been preserved. At least this is one explanation for the fact that those with immediate positive results (at the 3-week mark) tend to be the ones who retain those results over the long term.

The immediate positive results may well be due to those individuals not having reached the point at which significant and irreversible beta cell damage occurred. In other words, this study suggests that intermittent VLCDing can be particularly helpful in the long term for prediabetics.

This third, and speculative, conclusion may have to be revisited in light of the excellent discussion by Roy Taylor on the etiology and reversibility of type II diabetes (), linked by Evelyn (see comments under this post). This refers to the effects of an extended and more extreme version of VLCD than discussed here, where uninterrupted VLCD would last as long as 8 weeks.

For those who are not diabetic, I personally think it would be better to alternate VLCD with glycogen depleting exercise (e.g., sprints, weight training), every other day or so, with a lot more food consumed on exercise days (). After excess body fat is lost, it would be advisable to stick to weight-maintenance calorie intake, averaged over a week.

Doing crossfit and looking like a bodybuilder?

Top crossfit athletes like Annie Thorisdottir and Rich Froning Jr. (pictured below; photos from Crossfitthestables.com and List09.com) look like bodybuilders even though their training practices are markedly different from those of most top natural bodybuilders. It is instructive, from a human physiology perspective, to try to understand why.

First of all we should make it clear that what makes Annie Thorisdottir and Rich Froning Jr. look the way they do is not only crossfit training. Genetics plays a key role here. Some people don’t accept this argument at all. Can you imagine someone arguing that top basketball players are generally tall because the stretching and reaching moves inherent in playing basketball make them tall? Top basketball players are not tall because they play basketball; the causality is stronger in the opposite direction: they play basketball because they are tall. The situation is not all that different with top crossfit competitors.

Often people will point at before and after photos as evidence that anyone can achieve the level of muscularity of a champion natural bodybuilder, if they do the right things. The problem with these before and after photos is that one can “go down” in terms of muscularity and definition quite a lot, but there is a clear ceiling in terms of “going up”. For example, if one goes from competitive marathon running to competitive bodybuilding, after a few years the difference will be dramatic if the person has the genetics necessary to gain a lot of muscle.

In other words, those who have the genetics to become very muscular can lose muscle and/or gain body fat to the point that they would look like they don’t have much genetic potential for muscle gain. Someone who doesn’t have the required genetics, on the other hand, will also be very effective at losing muscle and/or gaining body fat, but will be much more limited at the upper end of the scale.

The table below is from a widely cited and classic study by Fryburg and colleagues on the effects of growth hormone, insulin, and amino acid infusion on muscle accretion of protein. The article is available online as a PDF file (). The measurements shown on the table were taken basally (BAS) and at 3 h and 6 h after the start of the infusions, one of which was of a balanced amino acid mixture that raised arterial phenylalanine concentration to about twice what it was before the infusion. Phenylalanine is one of the essential amino acids present in muscle ().

There were four experimental conditions, two with only amino acid infusion, one with insulin and amino acid infusions, and one with insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and amino acid infusions. Protein synthesis and breakdown numbers are based on phenylalanine kinetics inferences. The balance number is based on the synthesis and breakdown numbers; the former minus the latter. Note that at BAS the balance is always negative; this implies a net amino acid loss from muscle. At BAS the measurements were taken after a 12 h fast.

All infusions – of insulin, IGF-1, and amino acids – were continuously applied during the 6 h period. There was no exercise involved in this infusion study, and the amino acid mixture was balanced; as opposed to focused on certain amino acids, such as BCAAs.

The numbers in the table suggest that insulin infusion brings the balance to positive territory at the 3-h mark, with the effect wearing down at 6 h. IGF-1 infusion brings the balance to positive territory at 3 h, with the effect increasing and almost doubling at 6 h. Amino acid infusion alone brings the balance to positive territory a bit at 3 h and 6 h, and much less than when it is combined with insulin or IGF-1 infusions.

The effects of these infusions were due to both reductions in breakdown (amino acid loss) and increases in synthesis. We see that insulin exerts its effect on the balance primarily by suppressing breakdown. IGF-1 exerts its effect on the balance primarily by increasing synthesis. The effect of IGF-1 on the balance is significantly stronger than those of insulin and amino acid infusions, even when these latter two are taken together.

While this is an infusion study, one can derive conclusions about what would happen in response to different types of exercise and nutrients. Under real life conditions, insulin will increase in response to ingestion of carbohydrates and/or protein. IGF-1 will increase in response to growth hormone (GH) elevation, of which a major trigger is intense exercise.

The type of exercise that leads to the highest elevation of GH levels is intense exercise that raises heart rate significantly and rapidly. Examples are sprints, large-muscle resistance exercise, and resistance exercise involving multiple muscles at the same time. At the very high end of GH secretion are exercises that use large upper and lower body muscles at the same time, such as the deadlift. At the low end of GH secretion are localized small-muscle exercises, such as calf raises and isolated curls.

Anecdotally it seems that, at least for beginners, those exercises that lead to the highest GH secretion are the least “comfortable” for them. That is, those are the exercises that cause the most “huffing and puffing”. So next time you do an exercise like that, use this as a motivator: these are the exercises with the biggest return on investment; whether you are looking for health improvement, muscle gain, or both.

Competitive crossfit practitioners tend to favor variations of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), with an emphasis on a blend of endurance and strength exercises. Endurance and strength are both needed in crossfit competition. Competitive bodybuilders tend to focus more on strength, often exercising with more resistance or weight than competitive crossfit practitioners.

Extrapolating from the infusion study, one could argue that high GH secretion exercises are critical for amino acid accretion in muscle. Both groups mentioned above – competitive crossfit practitioners and competitive bodybuilders – exercise in ways that lead to high GH secretion. Surprising as this may sound (to some), if you do chin-ups, you’ll probably have better results in terms of biceps hypertrophy than if you do isolated bicep curls. This will happen even though the overall load on the bicep muscles will be lower with the chin-ups. The reason is that the GH secretion will be significantly higher with the chin-ups, because more muscles are involved at the same time, including large ones (e.g. the lats).

It is interesting to see competitive crossfit practitioners talking about needing to lose some weight but not being able to (). The reason is that they do not have much body fat to lose, and the types of exercise that they do create such a powerful stimulus toward positive nitrogen balance () that they end up gaining weight even as they restrict calorie intake.

Carbohydrate ingestion prior to exercise may raise insulin levels, but will blunt GH secretion; protein without carbohydrate, on the other hand, will raise insulin levels without blunting GH secretion (). Whether ingesting protein immediately before exercising is necessarily good in the long run is an open question, however, because GH secretion is likely to be greater for someone who is exercising in the fasted state, as GH secretion is in part a response to glycogen depletion (, ). And, as we have seen from the infusion study, GH secretion is disproportionately important as a positive nitrogen balance factor.

Compensatory adaptation applied to human biology () suggests that the body responds to challenges over time, in a compensatory way. Which scenario poses the bigger challenge: (a) high GH exercise with more amino acid loss during the exercise, or (b) high GH exercise with less amino acid loss during the exercise? I think it is (a), because the message being sent to the body is that “we need more muscle to do all of this and still compensate for the loss during exercise”.

Maybe this is why top crossfit practitioners end up looking like bodybuilders, and cannot lose muscle even when a slightly lighter frame would make them more competitive in crossfit games. Their bodies are just responding to the stimuli they are getting.

Could we have evolved traits that are detrimental to our survival?

Let us assume that we collected data on the presence or absence of a trait (e.g., propensity toward risky behavior) in a population of individuals, as well as on intermediate effects of the trait, downstream effects on mating and survival success, and ultimately on reproductive success (a.k.a. “fitness”, in evolutionary biology).

The data would have been collected over several generations. Let us also assume that we conducted a multivariate analysis on this data, of the same type as the analyses employing WarpPLS that were discussed here in previous posts (). The results are summarized through the graph below.



Each of the numbers next to the arrows in the graph below represents the strength of a cause-effect relationship. The number .244 linking “a” and “y” means that a one standard deviation variation in “a” causes a .244 standard deviation increase in “y”. It also means that a one standard deviation variation in “a” causes a 24.4 percent increase in “y” considering the average “y” as the baseline.

This type of mathematical view of evolution may look simplistic. This is an illusion. It is very general, and encompasses evolution in all living organisms, including humans. It also applies to theoretical organisms where multiple (e.g., 5, 6 etc.) sexes could exist. It even applies to non-biological organisms, as long as these organisms replicate - e.g., replicating robots.

So the trait measured by “a” has a positive effect on the intermediate effect “y”. This variable, “y” in turn has a negative effect on survival success (“s”), and a strong one at that: -.518. Examples: “a” = propensity toward risky behavior, measured as 0 (low) and 1 (high); and “y” = hunting success, measured in the same way. (That is, “a” and “y” are correlated, but “a”=1 does not always mean “y”=1.) Here the trait “a” has a negative effect on survival via its intermediate effect on “y”. If I calculate the total effect of “a” on “w” via the 9 paths that connect these two variables, I will find that it is .161.

The total effect on reproductive success is positive, which means that the trait will tend to spread in the population. In other words, the trait will evolve in the population, even though it has a negative effect on survival. This type of trait is what has been referred to as a “costly” trait ().

Say what? Do you mean to say that we have evolved traits that are unhealthy for us? Yes, I mean exactly that. Is this a “death to paleo” post? No, it is not. I discussed this topic here before, several years ago (). But the existence of costly traits is one of the main reasons why I don’t think that mimicking our evolutionary past is necessarily healthy. For example, many of our male ancestors were warriors, and they died early because of that.

What type of trait will present this evolutionary pattern – i.e., be a costly trait? One answer is: a trait that is found to be attractive by members of the other sex, and that is not very healthy. For example, a behavior that is perceived as “sexy”, but that is also associated with increased mortality. This would likely be a behavior prominently displayed by males, since in most species, including humans, sexual selection pressure is much more strongly applied by females than by males.

Examples would be aggressiveness and propensity toward risky behavior, especially in high-stress situations such as hunting and intergroup conflict (e.g., a war between two tribes) where being aggressive is likely to benefit an individual’s group. In warrior societies, both aggressiveness and propensity toward risky behavior are associated with higher social status and a greater ability to procure mates. These traits are usually seen as male traits in these societies.

Here is something interesting. Judging from our knowledge of various warrior societies, including American plains Indians societies, the main currency of warrior societies were counts of risky acts, not battle effectiveness. Slapping a fierce enemy warrior on the face and living to tell the story would be more valuable, in terms of “counting coup”, than killing a few inexperienced enemy warriors in an ambush.

Greater propensity toward risky behavior among men is widespread and well documented, and is very likely the result of evolutionary forces, operating on costly traits. Genetic traits evolved primarily by pressure on one sex are often present in the other (e.g., men have nipples). There are different grades of risky behavior today. At the high end of the scale would be things that can kill suddenly like race car driving and free solo climbing (, ). (If you'd like to know the source of the awesome background song of the second video linked, here it is: Radical Face's "Welcome Home".)

One interesting link between risky behavior and diet refers to the consumption of omega-6 and omega-3 fats. Risky behavior may be connected with aggressive behavior, which may in turn be encouraged by greater consumption of foods rich in omega-6 fats and avoidance of foods rich in omega-3 fats (, ). This may be behind our apparent preference for foods rich in omega-6 fats, even though tipping the balance toward more foods rich in omega-3 fats would be beneficial for survival. We would be "calmer" though - not a high priority among most men, particularly young men.

This evolved preference may also be behind the appeal of industrial foods that are very rich in omega-6 fats. These foods seem to be particularly bad for us in the long term. But when the sources of omega-6 fats are unprocessed foods, the negative effects seem to become "invisible" to statistical tests.

We share an ancestor who probably lived no more than 640 years ago

This post is a revised version of a previous post. The original post has been or will be deleted, with the comments preserved. Typically this is done with posts that attract many visits at the time they are published, and whose topics become particularly relevant or need to be re-addressed at a later date.

***

We all evolved from one single-celled organism that lived billions of years ago. I don’t see why this is so hard for some people to believe, given that all of us also developed from a single fertilized cell in just 9 months.

However, our most recent common ancestor is not that first single-celled organism, nor is it the first Homo sapiens, or even the first Cro-Magnon.

The majority of the people who read this blog probably share a common ancestor who lived no more than 640 years ago. Genealogical records often reveal interesting connections - the figure below has been cropped from a larger one from Pinterest.

You and I, whoever you are, have each two parents. Each of our parents have (or had) two parents, who themselves had two parents. And so on.

If we keep going back in time, and assume that you and I do not share a common ancestor, there will be a point where the theoretical world population would have to be impossibly large.

Assuming a new generation coming up every 20 years, and going backwards in time, we get a theoretical population chart like the one below. The theoretical population grows in an exponential, or geometric, fashion.

As we move back in time the bars go up in size. Beyond a certain point their sizes go up so fast that you have to segment the chart. Otherwise the bars on the left side of the chart disappear in comparison to the ones on the right side (as several did on the chart above). Below is the section of the chart going back to the year 1371.

The year 1371 is a mere 640 years ago. And what is the theoretical population in that year if we assume that you and I have no common ancestors? The answer is: more than 8.5 billion people. We know that is not true.

Admittedly this is a somewhat simplistic view of this phenomenon, used here primarily to make a point. For example, it is possible that a population of humans became isolated 15 thousand years ago, remained isolated to the present day, and that one of their descendants just happened to be around reading this blog today.

Perhaps the most widely cited article discussing this idea is this one by Joseph T. Chang, published in the journal Advances in Applied Probability. For a more accessible introduction to the idea, see this article by Joe Kissell.

Estimates vary based on the portion of the population considered. There are also assumptions that have to be made based on migration and mating patterns, as well as the time for each generation to emerge and the stability of that number over time.

Still, most people alive today share a common ancestor who lived a lot more recently than they think. In most cases that common ancestor probably lived less than 640 years ago.

And who was that common ancestor? That person was probably a man who, due to a high perceived social status, had many consorts, who gave birth to many children. Someone like Genghis Khan.