mTor
I've been very familiar with insulin and mTor the last few years, and leptin to a slightly lesser degree. I've realized insulin and leptin's importance in health and disease as well. However, mTor has taken on a new life for me after watching the AHS 12 lecture Dr. Rosedale did and the subsequent reading of Dr. Rosedale's book. I have known about mTor for a few years because it has been a bit of a buzz word/hot topic in the fitness/bodybuilding nutrition scene for awhile. A hot topic, but for completely different reasons than what Dr. Rosedale points out. In the fitness world everyone is trying to up regulate it as often as they can because you can induce protein synthesis independent from exercise via a bolus dose of any complete protein source containing 2.5 to 3 grams of leucine. This of course is done with the goal of building muscle faster. The logic being, if resistance training triggers protein synthesis, then being able to trigger it via high protein meals as well would be even better. Particularly by having a high protein meal right after training in hopes of a synergistic response. Knowing what I know now and the potential risks of the above practices(thank you Dr. Rosedale), I seriously question this idea and am now leaning towards the idea that building muscle would be best achieved by improving insulin sensitivity, having adequate protein available and just letting resistance training be the primary/only trigger for protein synthesis. All while keeping carbs low to let fat fuel the process of course. Seems like the fitness world has once again missed the mark in a similar fashion as they did with purposely trying to spike insulin post workout in an effort to build muscle.... Am I correct in my logic?
Keyboard shortcuts
Generic
| ? | Show this help |
|---|---|
| ESC | Blurs the current field |
Comment Form
| r | Focus the comment reply box |
|---|---|
| ^ + ↩ | Submit the comment |
You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac
mikejulian26 closed this discussion on 16 Jan, 2013 05:18 AM.
mikejulian26 re-opened this discussion on 16 Jan, 2013 05:31 AM
Support Staff 1 Posted by Dr. Rosedale on 16 Jan, 2013 06:35 AM
Perfectly.
2 Posted by mikejulian26 on 16 Jan, 2013 06:54 AM
Thanks for the confirmation. I forgot to ask in the original post whether or not there is such a thing as mTor resistance due to excess stimulation such as stated above? Or is the problem just that it becomes harder and harder to keep up with the increased protein turnover brought about by consuming excess protein? I've noticed in the past that when hitting a plateau in muscle building, if I lowered my protein for a few weeks, even as little as five days and then brought it back up, I'd start building again. Was I on to something without knowing it?
Support Staff 3 Posted by Fiona on 16 Jan, 2013 06:58 AM
Dr. Ron said.. 'I has not seen any articles supporting mTOR resistance, though it would not surprise me.'
4 Posted by mikejulian26 on 16 Jan, 2013 07:22 AM
Thanks again! I'd love to see this study redone with keto adapted subjects. I have a feeling the elderly subjects would have better results.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/106/6/2040.long
Support Staff 5 Posted by Fiona on 22 Jan, 2013 11:40 AM
I agree, in fact would love to see many studies done with keto adapted subjects!
6 Posted by danco3636 on 09 Mar, 2013 06:23 PM
Interesting topic.... I also wondered if up-regulation of mTOR using a protein pulse in a workout window would be healthy and a good thing in a fat adapt person. Would just upping BCAA's in this widow have a similar effect but perhaps healthier? I know Art De Vany talks about this as well.
Great to find this discussion.
7 Posted by mikejulian26 on 12 Mar, 2013 06:48 AM
My take on it at this point is that with pulsing, you're really just manipulating the turnover rate. Hoping to take advantage of a negative feed back loop. So much focus is put on protein synthesis in the fitness community that we tend to forget that we are turning over proteins all the time. Rather than focusing on the anabolic side of the coin, we'd be we'll served by focusing more on preventing the breakdown of muscle tissue. Ultimately, whether or not you gain muscle is due to a balance of how fast you build it as opposed to how fast you tear it down. Keeping the building rate the same, but slowing the breakdown rate will put you ahead of the game. It's about protein economy/efficiency, not being anabolic at all costs. This is what a diet like Dr. Ron's delivers. The necessary protein is there for building/repairing new tissue, but your body becomes very thrifty with is usage and due to a lack of any excess, and with plenty of fuel around in the form of fatty acids, it seldom if ever decides to use protein for fuel. The end result is slower turnover rate and a net positive gain if you incorporate the right training stimulus.
Higher protein intakes promote an accelerated turnover rate. Any initial gains due to the increased protein synthesis will be compensated for shortly thereafter by an acceleration in breakdown. Once an equilibrium is established/homeostasis, you're back to square one, except now you've speed everything up and increased the wear and tear associated with it.
BCAA's as a stand alone is a mixed bag of outcomes. The leucine present will up regulate mTOR, but if all the other essential amino acids are not present in the blood stream, nothing will happen in terms of protein synthesis. Or they will become a fuel source in the form of glucose because they are readily converted to glucose via gluconeogenisis in the liver. This offers short term protection of your muscle mass during training sessions if you're a sugar burner, but further promotes your bodies ability to want to turn to protein as a fuel source long term rather than burn fats. BCAA's are also a stimulator of insulin so their ingestion will compromise your ability to use fatty acids for fuel, forcing you to rely on your glycogen stores and once tapped, you're back to converting those BCAA's into glucose. Once they're gone, you still don't have access to fatty acids and you turn to muscle breakdown for fuel. A better bet would be to stay in fat burning mode all the time and protect your lean mass by never allowing a fuel shortage or readily available glucose to be available to interrupt the process.
Support Staff 8 Posted by Dr. Rosedale on 13 Mar, 2013 12:29 AM
Hi Mike and Ken. Great comments. I might add that by avoiding excess protein, one allows for an increase in the genetic expression of maintenance and repair, and as part of this, autophagy is upregulated. What this is, essentially, is housecleaning whereby damaged and used up proteins within a cell are rearranged and rebuilt improving their function, including muscle cells and function, while preventing the wasteful breakdown of protein into fuel..
9 Posted by Amely on 13 Mar, 2013 05:08 AM
Hi Mike. Great info and discussion re BCAA's. I have been so curious about these for quite a while. I was playing around w them but was worries about insulin spikes as a result ( ESP since they are frequently packaged w stevia). Thanks for sharing this insight. Hard to find this type of info!! Btw I posted some questions to you re our previous discussion. For some reason they are not being posted to the site so I don't think you are seeing them. Wondering if I can forward them to you offline somehow. Interesting to see Dr. Jack Kruses name come up again. I have been reading his stuff for months and even some discussions of his w dr Rosedale. Dr Kruse is not moderate protein though... ESP during his leptin reset. Anyhow thanks for posting this and for so mentioning the athlete angle. There is sooo much bad info out there for athletes and the whole vlc thing gets geared towards people who are completely our of shape.
10 Posted by mikejulian26 on 14 Mar, 2013 02:11 AM
Dr. Ron brings up yet another reason why his approach works so well. You get the beneficial clean up effects of taking a break from a constant anabolic state. This is something that is largely tied to fasting, but with his approach, you don't have to fast to have it happen. Autophagy is a productive aspect of catabolism, the yin to the yang of anabolism. It clears out and cleans up any damaged tissue so that when you do enter an anabolic state you have a clean foundation to build upon and much of the cleared out parts can be reincorporated into healthy tissue. Anabolism and autophagy are complementary states and to my knowledge they potentiate one another. Meaning you get more from one state by fully entering the other, and vice versa, but you dont want to chronically stay in one or the other. its about balance. Being chronically anabolic as is common amongst the fitness world actually promotes a more severe catabolic state should you seize training and or back off on an unnecessarily high protein intake. This is not the beneficial autophagy that we should be seeking. An exaggerated case of this is in the case of steroid users. They are exceedingly anabolic and will almost always experience a drastic loss of size and strength upon seization of the drugs. The direct opposite of this is being chronically catabolic as in the case of starvation. It's not uncommon for someone to rapidly grow back into their healthy size once nutrients are reintroduced. Dr. Ron's diet accomplishes the healthy balance of both of these state and capitalizes on the beneficial aspects of them while not allowing you to chronically overdo one over the other. This restoration of balance between healthy acute anabolism and healthy acute catabolism/autophagy is where the health benefits come about, as well as why your body becomes so efficient with its usage of the nutrients you provide it.
Amely, I'm interested to hear your questions and thoughts. I'm not sure why your posts on the other thread haven't posted. Try to repost them. I'd like to keep the discussions public on here because I think they could be beneficial to others and I'd rather not post my email address publicly. Dr. Kruse has some interesting thoughts, but I tend to find myself leaning more inline with the thinking of Dr. Rosedale on a lot of these topics.
11 Posted by Amely wurmbrand on 14 Mar, 2013 03:39 AM
Hi Mike,
Let me try and post my questions from our previous discussion on "rosedale diet for athletes" here in case it will post here...People can always refer back.
My post was:
Hi Mike,
Thank you for being so detailed AND long winded!! This is wildly helpful. I find so few of the books and info on paleo, or paleo related eating are geared to athletes as that is really not the general population. So I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Did you really think it is necessary to go dormant for 2 month to switch? I ask because of course I don't want to. I am just entering my USTA season. I have been doing moderate protein here for about 4 months for the most part, Paleo with mostly low carb and very low fruit for 8 months. Basically the Rosedale switch for me would just be to monitor my protein a little more carefully and reduce it by maybe 10-20g a day (depending on day), and then to take the safe starches back out of my diet ( they have been in and out over the last 8 months depending on what I have been reading as I like to experiment). So that said, do you think you could have switched over by just reducing your training regiment and sticking through it? I was doing VLC and high fat and training back in Dec. and feeling pretty fantastic...of course I had not hit that burn out I have heard of. I am currently taking some adrenal support herbs and DHEA (low dose 15mg due to low testosterone blood levels) which seems to help with the energy quite a lot. I am also on magnesium, vit. k Selenium. I will look into a few that you mentioned. But do you think you could have powered through so to speak and just lifted a bit less those 2 months? I feel like my body might be somewhat primed for this as I am not going in cold turkey from the standard American Diet.
2.Cutting... So I got down this path of being an athlete in the first place due to wanting to lose some baby weight. I started paleo, because I could not get the last 7 lbs off ( and still really haven't in some ways). I have gone from 25% bf down to 22%bf since July...so this is not nothing. That said, I do eat so carefully (compared to most of the western world), and work out so regularly and at such a high level, that were it not for some hormone issues ( which I am trying to work out) I would think I would be maintaining easily at 18%...and this is my goal. So have you found that maintaining the Rosedale plan helps you stay cut? Did you have any weight (body fat specifically) that you were trying to lose in the first place. Really my goal is to get rid of the more or less last 6 lbs. I am not fully tied to the number per se, but I tend to agregate subcutaneous fat in my hips and thighs. I have started progesterone supplementation after tracking my levels and Dr. Rosedale tipping me off to the issue with estrogen/progesterone imbalances ( or low estrogen levels) being tied to that type of accumulation in women. So aside for metabolic vigour increasing your ability to build muscle ( which I am doing regardless with the above activity/diet), has your goal/need ever been to cut down some body fat, and are you able to stay cut using this? I am not talking 6% cut here for photo/competition mode, but a more reasonable male level of 12-15%? Not sure if this was ever a goal for you but am curious.
3. Do you include dairy in what you are doing? I can't recall Dr. Rosedale's position on this but I have removed it as I tend to get congested with it so am sensitive to it. I was just curious.
4. Given my bodyfat reduction goals...in addition to Dr. Rosedale's book, do one of the other books above stand out as the one you might suggest I read next?
Thanks again for sharing all of this. It is really tough to drill down and find this type of information or knowledge out there. So many trainers/builders/coaches are just barely getting their heads around paleo. Seems like just like you , I like to do my own research and have read a ton over the last 8 months. I have read Gary Taubes, then the Paleo authors, Dr. Rosedale, then more recently Nate Miyake ( who I am not sure I can fully recomend) who is really a safe starch guy for athletes...but interestingly, not for the general population. He is much more Rosedale for this, but he mostly writes for figure competitors (which by the way I am not, nor am I aspiring to be). I have also read almost all of what Dr. Rosedale has online including his interviews, discussions with Dr. Jamminet, and I spend months reading a lot of the info on Dr. Jack Kruse's site...which you can see is really dense.
Looking forward to your thoughts. I leave for a tennis tourney tonight but will write as I can from the road. Thanks so much,
Amely
12 Posted by danco3636 on 24 Apr, 2013 11:17 PM
Amely
Interesting questions... I would like to hear some thoughts on these as well.
Thanks!
13 Posted by Sharon on 01 May, 2013 11:09 PM
I have been looking over Art DeVany's work and he says the following about eating high fat diets. He is pretty educated on diabetets and knowledgable all around.
Could this be true about eating fat? He claims he trims all of his meats from fat.
He is also big on eating mostly seafood as is Jack Kruse, yet he regularly eats bacon, so where is the fat going there? He advises to avoid butter and lard. Getting very confusing.
"Whether my diet is strictly Paleo or not has never been that much of a concern to me. If anything, my diet is PaleoMediterranean --- lean meats, seafood, fresh vegetables, a bit of wine, and seasonal fruit with lots of fresh spices such as basil, rosemary, garlic, onions, leeks, and olive oil (which I regard as a spice or flavor enhancer). In other words, Mediterranean without the beans, bread, or grains.If my book or approach receives criticism it is most often from PaleoTypes, not the usual suspects who you think would be those who recommend low fat and high grain-based diets.To me, a high-fat meal is unpalatable; I just do not like the taste or texture. But, there are more fundamental reasons for my preference for a moderate fat diet.
A high fat diet is inflammatory. Several pathways are involved. First, insulin sensitivity falls, partly as an adaptation if fat replaces carbohydrates. Second, because both the insulin receptors and the beta cells of the pancreas (that release insulin) are degraded by inflammation. It seems fat is toxic to the receptors and beta cells through an inflammatory process. The beta cells, in particular, have low reserves of glutathione and other means of protection from ROS and are vulnerable."
Support Staff 14 Posted by Dr. Rosedale on 01 May, 2013 11:49 PM
hough there are some knowledgeable people, I would not listen to most so-called "experts" in the "Paleo" community. In particular, the last paragraph is especially wrong. A very low carbohydrate, low to moderate protein, and high fat diet (avoiding excess omega 6) particularly reduces inflammation and is arguably the most powerful way to do so. The reasons for this are many. Leptin itself is very pro-inflammatory and is even being studied in many places including Harvard as being a mediator of autoimmune diseases. Perhaps even more importantly it mediates the manufacture within fat of very powerful proinflammatory cytokines. mTOR also mediates inflammation a great deal. Glycation, and therefore glucose, is extremely pro-inflammatory and this is extremely well known to be toxic to islet cells. It is even called glucose toxicity in diabetic journals. For decades I have likely been more successful than anybody in treating diabetes with a very high fat diet including T1 diabetics. I have even been successful in restoring islet cell function in T1 diabetics if it is caught early enough. You might check out a website called meandmydiabetes.com
15 Posted by danco3636 on 02 May, 2013 01:05 AM
Just to give Art DeVany credit, later in a comment post which are now gone he goes on to say that a higher fat diet works well as long as the right fat sources are used. I also believe he is against butter just for the fact that most don't use a grass or pasture finished/ raised cows for their butter. He is all for higher fat seafood source, limits nuts and most fruit is of a low glicymic load type and used sparingly. He even goes on to talk about the benifits of keton as fuel and beneficial for mitocondria and anti-inflammatory.
Seems like good stuff to me.
- Dan
Support Staff 16 Posted by Fiona on 02 May, 2013 01:14 AM
Great discussion here. Dr. Ron is all good with butter.. he goes through a lot of it himself - yes prefers organic grass fed. Coconut oil has many other benefits. Fruit - limited really only some blueberries once in a while. Seafood - wild. Nuts he is good with, cashews have a high sugar content so those sparingly, with nuts he mainly just makes people count the protein and make sure it fits in their daily protein limit.
17 Posted by danco3636 on 02 May, 2013 05:09 AM
In would have thought nuts would be limited due to there higher omega 6 content. Some nuts carry a carb source as well but are most fat rich.