Thursday, 16 May 2013

No fat belly: no rocks and no hard places.

I finally defeated Google Image Search!
 Boo-Ya, Google!
I've been blogging about the problems associated with having a fat belly. It therefore figures that not having a fat belly is advantageous. I was asked whether "skinny-fat" people might have problems with high serum NEFAs when on a very-low-carbohydrate diet (≤50g/day of carbohydrate).

In my opinion, if fat cells in the belly area aren't stretched to the max, they won't be spewing NEFAs into the blood. Therefore, even "skinny-fat" people can safely go on a very-low-carbohydrate diet and stay on it indefinitely.


Anonymous said...

Hi it's me, I am also visiting this website regularly, this web site is genuinely nice and the visitors are genuinely sharing nice thoughts.

My web site

Kade Storm A.K.A. Hedonist said...

Have a look at the following:!

See, now that's not skinny fat by our conventional body toning standards. His subcutaneous fat is low. However, he has quite a bit of hidden, visceral fat despite looking cut and lean.

Kade Storm A.K.A. Hedonist said...

You never know, perhaps a high fruit--80-10-10--diet could have this peculiar kind of fuel partitioning effect.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

I think that someone with T2DM and a fat belly would have >30%
bodyfat. The chap with 18% bodyfat has a flat belly, so he doesn't have
excess belly fat, even though most of his bodyfat is in his abdomen.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

I'm wondering whether it overloads the liver with fructose.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Fruitarians are really hammering it with the fruit. I also think that they're at risk of Vitamin K2 deficiency. See

Kade Storm A.K.A. Hedonist said...

True. Even PlantPositive is quite clear on the record in saying that veganism is a dietary compromise, but the healthiest one in his opinion, so it needs to be compensated for with adequate supplementation. I think that advice applies even more to raw fruitarians.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

Vitamins A (retinol), K2 (menatetrenone, unless people enjoy eating baked beans in snot for MK7) & B12, also DHA are the four nutrients that come to mind that veg*ns are deficient in. Also D3, as insufficiency is common in veg*ns, omnivores & carnivores.

Veganism healthiest? Yeah, riiiiiight. They don't live the longest. It just feels that way.

Kade Storm A.K.A. Hedonist said...

Not really.

We're not talking about a compromised diet, are we? Who lived longer: the circa World War II Okinawans or the traditional Turks? The former are more or less 80-10-10 with a very mild ominovery that covers their micronutrient needs; very small levels of animal products made up for that need. Just about 100 grams of liver can more or less cover such needs. So the point being made by PlantPositive isn't entirely wrong. Blue Zone studies have shown that longevity does favour groups that lean towards plants as the dominant base of their diets. Of course, this doesn't mean squat because we--as a collective--know very little about this subject and it doesn't take into consideration the issue of genetics and other lifestyle factors.

And the link. Old news and nothing new since there are plenty of other stories going around. it just reinforces and proves PlantPositive right in what he's saying: one needs to supplement on a diet that is built on compromise. If people want to do veg*nism for ethical reasons, that is fine, but if they do it with a bit of intelligence and careful planning, they can create a very healthy and formidable diet--this requires supplementation. Of course, they can also do it like self-righteous retards without any added elements and hit a deficiency within a matter of weeks.

Nigel Kinbrum said...

I suppose it depends on how strict veg*nism is practised. If done for practical reasons, like the Okinawans, there are some animal products in the diet to provide the nutrients found only in animal products.

If done for ethical reasons, the only animal parts that could be consumed would be those from consenting adults i.e. breast milk & placenta.