I'm back in San Francisco, after a short jaunt in the beautiful state of Montana. It felt like an entirely different universe with beautiful skies, beautiful earth, beautiful people, and very interesting and different outlook on life. Just as much as I appreciate the opportunity to interface with the most forward thinking tech enabled folks in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, it's incredibly refreshing to hang with the folks who live the super rural country lifestyle with very different vibes, outlook, and energy.
The beauty of life is to be able to plug into different communities, tap into the benefits advantages of each outlook, each perspective synthesize all those different opinions together to make a decision on how you or me individually want to live our lives and how to operate and how to think about the world around us.
We have very exciting things in the works on the podcast, as well as Health Via Modern Nutrition in terms of new products and new announcements. So 2020 Q4 is gonna be super busy. But we'll talk about all that in due time.
Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/ph/podcast/health-via-modern-nutrition/id1133785570
Please subscribe, like, and comment to help our content rank better on those platforms. It's really the best way you can show me and my team support.
So we had great feedback over the last Four Free Fatty Fridays. So we have a long list of questions. I'm going to go through 5 or 6 of them. So this will be about a half hour mini podcast. Let's get into it.
The first question today is from Charles Tannenbaum. He asks, very nice critique of the IAF study. Any comments on lean mass changes? Does it really make any sense?
So for folks who are just tuning in, there was a big intermittent fasting study that got a lot of coverage in New York Times and other media outlets talking about a UCSF study that showed that quote and quote intermittent fasting might not work. I did a big critique tear down in terms of what I thought were the strengths and weaknesses of that study. I know the authors, Ethan Weiss and Dylan personally. So first of all, we need more researchers doing good human clinical trials on fasting on metabolic interventions. So it was a very valuable piece of data into the corpus of literature. But I think the media, as you know, often times oversimplifies, over extrapolates the headlines. So I really had a good breakdown. And what I thought was the right conclusions we'll take from that individual study. So check out that breakdown in Free Fatty Friday #4, which was published a couple of weeks ago. So that is what Charles is asking about. I'm going to set a timer for 5 minutes and we're going to go answer that question.
So again, the conclusion that I would take from the treats study that UCSF study is that a 16 fasted 8 hour eating window for an overweight, obese metabolically challenged American population is not enough to see a positive interventional change beyond a normal diet. I think that is a reasonable statement, given that a 16/8 fast is a relatively mild fast as well as no changes in macronutrient profile, A.K.A restricting carbohydrate, eating more ketogenic and without intervention and exercise. It's not surprising to me that you don't see that much material change between a normal three meal a day, which ends up giving you a 12 hour fasting window anyways, versus a 16 hour fast. So the intervention was not very substantial. So on the conclusion side, we can say, “Hey, 16 hour fast, not really a enough dose for sick population.” But if you're a very fit, obviously the dosing of six hours, it might be good enough, especially if you have carbohydrate restriction in it, exercise so nuance and in the right conclusions really matter. So I did not like how the New York times and these big media outlets are like, “Okay, this one's the little study intermittent fasting doesn't work.” That is not scientific. That is the fake news that they all complain about. They're contributing to the fake news by not being subtle nuance and scientific enough, okay, lean muscle mass changes let's get into it.
So how do they detect lean muscle mass changes, most studies, including this treat study uses a DEXA scan. And it's something that I've also experimented a lot with. So you go into machine and it basically scans your body and it can detect, uh, your bone density, your fat mass and your lean muscle mass.
But how does that actually work? And if you actually look at the literature and actually do a number of DEXA scans yourself, you realize that the DEXA is a very crude tool. So the DEXA is actually just shooting x-rays through your body and through the attenuation of that x-ray you can extrapolate or calculate given the coefficients of how the extra interacts with bone versus soft tissue versus lean tissue. What the overall ratio of said target is. So essentially one thing that I found interesting in my personal biohacking experiments was that a couple years ago, me and a few other colleagues and HVMN actually had a bet, how can we best reduce fat mass, and increase lean muscle tissue through different biohacks intermittent, fasting diet, etc.. And what you realize is that water weight actually counts as lean muscle mass within the DEXA scan.
So if I chug five pounds of water, right before a DEXA scan, I'm going to get five extra pounds of lean muscle tissue on that DEXA scan. So the water weight of the amount of water stored in the body really materially changes and overall results. So if you actually look the study, a conclusion that the authors made was that an a controlled diet, which is three meals a day, basically a fake intervention control intervention. The sample lost 0.35 kilograms of lean muscle tissue, which is not statistically significant where the intervention group, which is the 16/8 group lost about 1.1 kilograms of lean muscle tissue go unquote. And that was statistically significant. So the conclusion was, “Hey, interment fasting actually might be detrimental because you will lose more lean muscle tissue to the authors credit.” They did notice that muscle hydration is important factor of how DEXA works.
So they did try to eliminate, or basically not have people drink water 12 hours before coming in for the DEXA scan. So he tried to control it a little bit, but the big thing again is that your glycogen, your liver can store a lot of water. If you have more glycogen, you store more water. So potentially what the lean muscle mass changes might reflect is that the 16 eight group might have a little bit less glycogen stores. Cause they're fasting a little bit longer than the control group. They're storing a little bit less water, and therefore you're really picking up more water, weight change versus actual lean muscle tissue change. Secondly, I'm not very worried about muscle loss or sarcopenia on a relatively short intermittent fasting window. Again, these people very similar caloric load overall. Um, if I were to recommend to my friend, Hey, get enough protein and exercise.
A 16/8 eating window is not going to affect your lean muscle tissue. Trust me if you have enough protein and you actually exercise and you don't have a caloric deficit, you're not going to need to worry about lean muscle degradation. So to me, the DEXA results in the treat study is not super meaningful because one, the actual technique is so a brittle to detection of water. It's mainly used for bone density. That was kind of the original and end point for DEXA is not really detect lean muscle tissue. And just knowing that I've done a number of DEXA scans, I can Jack up my water, weight and differ my lean muscle tissue tremendously is just an important contextual data point to how to incorporate this piece of knowledge. And then to, again, it's not an ecological that just say, Hey, do a 16/8 If you're trying to change your lifestyle and not actually exercise and enough protein again, with adequate protein consumption, without a strict caloric deficit and doing exercise, you're not going to lose, lose lean muscle tissue. You're going to gain lean muscle tissue. So hopefully Charles, that gives you enough context and background science to really understand how to incorporate a value, valuable piece of data and how to actually synthesize it into a firm actually can make sense of the world together. So again, good study by Ethan Weiss, Dylan from UCSF. Let, just make sure that we interpret and extrapolate the conclusions properly and scientifically, all right. That's five minutes a little bit over, but I think it was a good question to really dive into the techniques and the analysis here. Alright, now we're onto question number two.
And this question is from Paul Pladin, He asks, I have been wondering about carbs in liver. It is in the form of glycogen. Do we have digestive enzymes that can let us even access this? Is it available as a nutrient? When is a carb not a carb? When you can’t use it?
Great questions and let's get the timer started clock, we’ve got 5 minutes. So let's talk about glycogen. So the step back, what is glycogen? Glycogen is a storage form of simple carbohydrates like glucose and glycogen is found in two primary areas in the body. There's glycogen found in muscle called muscle glycogen. And as Paul was indicating here in the question, there's also liver glycogen. So glycogen stored in the liver and glycogen is indeed used as an energy source. Again, you can think of there's simple energy substrate floating around when we exhaustively eat food. So when we eat carbohydrate, it gets into our digestive system and carbohydrate or glucose is floating around in our, in our bloodstream.
And that glucose is uptaken by cells that require energy. So that goes into cell and oftentimes requires insulin action to have the glucose transporter activated. Now, of course our systems are nicely evolved. They're designed and there's buffer areas to store local caches of carbohydrates. So when there's no exotic source of just free flowing glucose, what happens? Well, our body stores some glucose just readily available and that storage form is glycogen. So in muscle, there is local caches of glucose and muscle glycogen. And interestingly enough, there is not that enzyme that converts glycogen into free glucose. So what that means is that the muscle glycogen is reserved specifically for the muscle or the organ and tissue itself. It is not used to be a buffer or a cache for overall glucose storage for other tissues in the body. However, liver glycogen is indeed that source of a buffer or a cache of glucose or glycogen that can be released in that process called gluconeogenesis.
And that free glucose is then floating around. So in some conversations you may have heard of the signaling hormone glucagon, which is the opposite of insulin. So insulin brings glucose into cells, glucagon kick-starts gluconeogenesis and releases, glucose, and glucagon often refers to liver gluconeogenesis. So the release of that stored local buffer of glycogen that's what the liver is for. So can we access it? Yes. Uh that's in fact how our blood sugar is stable. We are fasting because there's no exotica source of nutrients or glucose as we fully pull in and start metabolizing that exogenous glucose, when there's lack of external feeding, our body starts naturally releasing that stored glucose. Now, of course, when you run out of liver glycogen, that's when ketosis happens. There's no more stored glucose, no more stored glycogen. Well, do we just go brain dead? Do we starve? No, we start converting our adipose or fat tissue. We mobilize fat. We convert that into ketones, which then can fuel the brain across the blood brain barrier.
So the body is a very elegant system of energy storage and energy utilization, and we have different caches. So you can think of free glucose as like readily available energy, as well as like, you know, free floating triglyceride free fatty acids, ketones are free floating energy at that, that cell, the cells absorb as they're floating around in the bloodstream. And there's a storage form. So a very quick, really accessible storage form is glycogen, whether that's in muscle or liver. And then when we tap out of glycogen reserves, then you have fat adipose tissue, and that's a slower process, but of course you can get metabolically adapted to tap into that a little bit more quickly, as you see keto adapted folks have higher fat oxidation rates.
So it's an elegant system. So don't overthink it. Kind of an interesting question. When is a car, not a carpet feels like a little bit of philosophical question there, but carbohydrate is organic molecule. Oftentimes a ratio of a hydrogen of two to one to oxygen, fatty acids are also organic compounds, but they're usually asset group with a long chain of carbon to two pair links. Well, in one way you can say a carbohydrate gets converted into fat through a process called De Novo Lipogenesis when we have too much carbohydrate, too much energy. And we max out our glycogen storage area, what happens? Well, you actually start converting that excess energy into fat. And that again, it's called De Novo Lipogenesis. So in that sense, hopefully that maybe contentiously answer your question. A carb is not a carb when your body has too much energy available and it starts converting the carbs into fat.
So the carb is a carb is saying like a human as a human, but there's a process in which to store excess energy, excess carbs. It converts into fat. When can you not use it? Again, the body is able to essentially convert in forms of energy, into storage form. So it's pretty readily, readily convertible, back and forth. We can talk about disease or chronic disease conditions where it's harder for the body to use. And that's when we get into metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, where it's really, really hard to start converting and releasing that stored fat and converting into an energy source. Uh, but that is probably an extension of the time we have for this question. That's a quick snapshot on what glycogen is, how it relates into the body and how it relates to the overall energy system. Thanks for the question Paul, and now onto question 3.
The question is from Firestarter and he or she asks what causes insulin resistance? Why would the body resist something that is useful and why do some have no resistance and others do? I know the answer seems to be genetics and poor health, but what is the mechanical aspect of this resistance and why do some develop or are both born with it while others don’t or aren’t?
A little bit confusing grammar there, but I get your question. Firestarter, let's start the timer and answer it. Great question! Is insulin evil. I mean, let's sit back and answer that question. Why do people care about this notion of insulin resistance? Insulin is a critical essential hormone. I mean, it's a natural part of our bodies and it is absolute required to help transport glucose or carbohydrate into our cells. Insulin is a critical signaling hormone that enables glute4 and all the transporters to make that happen. And it plays critical roles in anabolism the building up of our storage of muscle tissue or energy, and like most things in biology, you can have too much of a good thing. So let me give you some analogies or metaphors. Now, why do you need more alcohol? Why do you need more beers or alcohol shots or wine to get that same buzz as you get more adapted to drinking alcohol, how do you get this alcohol tolerance? Same thing for recreational drugs, why do people need bigger and bigger doses of recreational drugs that get that same high? And now for maybe healthcare examples, why do you need to lift more and more weight as you get stronger? Why do you need to seek more novel experiences when people are adrenaline junkies. Why do they need to do more extreme, extreme activities? Well, that is adaptation and a tolerance buildup, and the same thing happens for insulin. You can have too much of a good thing and that blunts the sensitivity of the receptors to take that and the process that signal. And that makes sense,. As you have more and more exposure to caffeine or nicotine or drugs or alcohol, your body needs to have some sort of buffer to say, “Hey, we cannot be overstimulated all the time.” So there's a natural counterbalance. And I think the beauty of the human system or biologic system is it tries to maintain balance or homeostasis. So the same thing is happening with insulin. As you have more and more insulin coming in, and that's oftentimes triggered by high carbohydrate load, your body starts realizing, “Hey, we're responding and building up a tolerance or a higher threshold to trigger the same response” And same thing for building muscle, right?
If I'm just doing five pound curls after a certain point, like I'm fully adopted to five pound curls, I need to do 10 pounds or 15 pounds or 20 pounds, same thing with insulin. So the point to take here that's practical is that exercise and understand why the mechanism works. Your body is tuning towards homeostasis, and you can challenge for example, with hypertrophy or anabolism or building lean muscle mass in a positive, just like there's a positive feedback loop as you're getting stronger. There's also negative feedback loops. And I think insulin resistance is a classic example of a negative feedback loop, where you need more carbohydrate to have the trigger insulin, and you need more and more insulin to have the same response to actually bring that glucose into a usable a metabolizable form or a place in the cell. And that can be a negative feedback loop where you need more and more insulin to have the same response.
So when you don't have that similar amount of threshold and it doesn't even really bring glucose, and that's why you have high blood sugar, that's why diabetes type 2 is a huge problem. Now, do we want no insulin that body that's actually type 1 diabetes where the body does not endogenously produce insulin. And that's why folks oftentimes have to inject external insulin to get some sort of response. So they're able to utilize carbohydrate.
So hopefully that helps you understand what insulin resistance is and why there is this notion of resistance. And it's again, not unique to just insulin alone. It's unique to all stimulus in a biological system. A biological system wants to maintain homeostasis and balance. And as you have an overabundance of a certain stimuli, whether that's exercise drugs, pharmaceuticals, compounds, hormones, insulin, then you need more, oftentimes more of that dose to have trigger the same response because of sensitive sensitivity tuning and tolerance buildup.
So hopefully that answers your question. They're great question, Firestarter. Alright!
So question for today comes from Dejan Soskic. So he or she asks, so this Ketone Ester, is it the same as ketones our body produces naturally or what? What happens if we chug the whole bottle?
Let's answer that five minutes, timer go! So what is a ketone Ester? It's a form of an exotic ketone and what is an exogenous ketone? Well, it's a ketone that one can consume or eat. Like you can eat a glucose drink, you can drink the carbohydrate drink. You can drink a protein shake. You can have a nut butter bar or a fat bar. These are external forms of fat protein carbohydrate that our body takes in and metabolizes and turns into energy or useful lean muscle tissue. And now with the invention and the creation in the category of exotic ketones, you can actually do the same thing with ketones.
So in normal physiology, ketones are not really stored in nature. In fact, kind of the stored form of ketones is really fat, right? That's why ketogenesis converts fat into ketones. And that's due to some of the instability with beta hydroxybutyrate, azido acetate in a natural form or a biologically produced them. They're not very stable molecules. So the stable form of them is really fat. So scientists in 60’s, 70’s, 80’s are playing around with creating exogenous ketones. So beta hydroxybutyrate acid, salt, esters, different combinations, different molecules to see if you can actually consume ketones in a food form or a drink form. And that's what exogenous ketones or ketone esters are.
And so are these the same ketones that our body produces naturally? In short, yes! The only do wants or correction or Celsius there is that like many other organic compounds or molecules there's stereo isomers or chiral forms of these molecules.
So specifically with beta hydroxybutyrate, the primary ketone body that we all talk about, there's actually a DNL form. Righthanded, lefthanded form. So same molecular formula, same weight, but like your hands, they can overlay on top of each other, or they do not fully overlay on top of each other, even though there's four fingers and a thumb. They're left handed right handed. So our body, the liver produces D-BHB only, but in a chemical reaction, you can equally create DNL. There's no preference and synthetic manufacturer or a synthesis of beta hydroxybutyrate. So that would be the only difference in terms of the difference between an exogenous ketone and endogenous ketosis. So what our liver produces through ketogenesis.
Another question that is probably relevant here as I have a couple extra minutes is, if you drink exogenous ketones, is it exactly the same as endogenous ketogenesis?
And the answer is kind of a Venn diagram. There is some overlap in the sense of ketones themselves have signaling properties, which likely implies that exogenous ketones have the same signaling pattern as endogenously produced ketone body. And that's because D-BHB that you drink in D-BHB that you've produced in your liver are exactly the same, but is there other signaling or other metabolic pathways that are triggered when your body has to produce its own ketones through ketogenesis, which likely implies carbohydrate restriction or calorie restriction versus just drinking ketones on top of a standard diet, that is an open area of research. And I think that it actually is a difference between exogenous ketones versus endogenous ketogenesis. So this is really an open area of current state of the art, academia and research. That is what a lot of researchers are actually trying to understand now, what exactly is a difference in nuance between ketogenesis and exogenous ketosis.
There is some overlap in terms of the benefits, but there are also likely will be differences. And that oftentimes we will have to relate to performance, metabolism, potential therapeutic differences between the two, but in short, because the molecules of exotic ketones are the exact same as the form produced by your liver. The body's not doesn't care where these things come from, right? There's no science that suggests that it can tell if it's some of the synthetic source of your own source, we'll put it that way. But downstream effects and the process of ketogenesis versus exogenous ketosis. That's a very exciting area of research that I'm personally interested in. And hopefully we'll be able to answer this with more scientific rigor and more definitive answers. My personal hypothesis is that a lot of the benefits of ketosis can be triggered to exogenous ketones, but not all of them.
So in short, how does this apply to practical life? Have your exogenous ketones choose the form of ketones that your body naturally produces or D-beta hydroxybutyrate is a preferred form. Although there is potential for signaling properties or different properties of L- beta hydroxybutyrate, that's another open air research, but just because you have exogenous ketones, it doesn't mean that you can eat a standard crap diet or not consider shortening your eating window. I think these are all separate levers or tools use exogenous ketones use intermittent fasting, use carbohydrate restriction, increase your protein intake, eat healthy fat, use all of them together. That's the overall best strategy. I think it's silly when people are so dogmatic. Oh, my way is the only way, uh, that's bullshit. And people that say that, or I don't like them because they're showing their own book. I think I really enjoy our platform and our integrity because Hey, there are multiple ways to get to the same goal.
We want to be the people that tell you, educate you on how these things work. So you can figure out which tools and which combinations work for yourself. So hopefully that answers your question. And if you want to have more details, happy to answer, go a couple layers deeper, however deep you want to go in that rabbit hole. I'm happy to help guide you along the way. Thanks for the question. All right.
Now question number 5 is from Ericson Alarcon. He asks, what's your view with alternate day fasting and hypertrophy training on feeding days?
Okay. Let's do five minutes here. Ready, go! I think it's a reasonable strategy. I, in fact, I liked doing that when I was doing a lot more longer fasts, do rest days, recovery days on fasting days, and right before breaking fast, do an intense hypertrophy focus, workout. So high intensity interval training, heavyweights, lower reps. So I think it's a very reasonable strategy, but before giving out random protocols again, I think, and you should think about what is your starting baseline and what is your goal from overweight, obese type two diabetes? And my goal is to increase autophagy whatever that quote and quote that means lose weight. That's one specific protocol to consider versus, “Hey, I'm a college athlete and I want to make the Olympic team for power Olympic lifting.” I would recommend very, very different protocols and nutrition programs for each of that person. So in general, do I have anything bad to say about alternate day fasting and hypertrophy training on feeding days? I think it's very, very reasonable, but I would like to understand your starting conditions and your end conditions state that you’re trying to target, before giving more specific advice. So I would say that if you are trying to be endurance athlete, I don't know if that's going to that program is Optima optimal for you to win the tour de France, right? For people that are fit in, why not be fitter and be anabolic and gain muscle mass eating is important. So I wouldn't necessarily risk putting myself into a spot of caloric deficit and not being able to rebuild and refill my body, right? If you're not eating as much, you can't train as much. So in a healthy context, when you're trying to become a Olympic gold medalist, you likely want to be fueling much more, right? I would not recommend doing long intermittent fast ahead of your Olympic meets or your MMA fight, in pre-training, as you're getting boosting fat metabolism and building a baseline of aerobic base, that's a different story.
I know a lot of athletes it's actually do facet, cardio FASA workouts at the starting block of a training camp, and then feed more and more and try to peak at near the competition day. And they're likely feeding and just storing as much energy as well possible. So that's an elite athletic context, but hey, if you're overweight obese and you're looking to be in a calorie deficit and looking to shed body weight, then yeah I would recommend longer fasts and combined that with exercise. That's exactly what I think great program for you want to be depleting glycogen. You want to be wrapping up fat oxidation mobilizing your fat stores. So if you're overweight definitely, that's going to be challenging, right? Cause it sucks. The exercise facet, cause you don't have a lot energy flooding around you feeling weak and then you're pushing her body, but that's kind of the challenge you have to do to yourself because I don't want to sound mean or blunt, but you got fat because you treated your body in a poor way.
And now yeah, you have to dig yourself out of that hole. And that means having some sacrifice and diligence, some work ethic to do some hard work, to get your body back into a position for it. It's in a virtuous cycle. So if you are overweight, obese, have type two diabetes, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah. Uh, doing fast workouts more is a very, very reasonable strategy. It's gonna suck. It's gonna feel like crap. You don't really want to move when you're fasted and you have bad metabolism or metabolic input and flexibility where you can't mobilize fat that well. So all the stored fat, you're not really able to burn super well, but forcing your body to say, Hey, on a glycogen, I have all this fat by not really accessing it because all my enzymes and a metallic is geared towards more carbohydrate burning and is not very good at ketogenesis and fat burning forcing it by a combination of exercise, caloric restriction, carbohydrate restriction, time restriction, or intermittent fasting.
Those are very, very reasonable strategies to consider. So again, kind of to the last question, these are all tools in the tool kit of how you can manipulate your diet, your exercise or activity to create an outcome. And you need to understand where you're starting from and where you're going right now. I am trying to just continue to gain strength. So I'm a little bit of an anabolic phase. So I not trying to do alternate day fasting. I'm trying to build muscle and recover faster, some feeding more and then exercising more. So depending on your goals. And if you give me your starting condition, I can give you a little bit more tailored, free advice. Overall, hopefully that gives you a general form of how to think about hypertrophy, training, feeding, timing, everything, a long story short, it's a little bit of a choose your own journey, understand the mechanisms of why these strategies work and then build your personal protocol.
Obviously talk to your primary care doctor or a nutrition coach or a fitness coach help you dial it and, happy to do so as well. If you want to ask a question more tailored to you specifically. All right. Thanks Ericson. All right. Now we have time for the last question of today.
And this question is from Liz Lekatz. How much should blood glucose fluctuate after a meal?
I'm gonna start a timer now. Thanks for asking Liz all slice this question in a couple ways. So does blood glucose have to flux after a meal? So if you're eating very, very cleanly, the ketogenic, so no refined carbohydrate, and I've done this for extended periods of time. If, for example, I'm eating a leafy green salad with a lot of olive oil and having some protein like some steak, you basically have, you can have no blood glucose fluctuation.
So folks who are very, very seriously keto restricting under 5,10, 20 grams carbohydrate over a day, you can have rock solid, stable blood glucose. So is that necessary? Is that optimal? I think that's an open question. That's debatable. But for folks eating more of a regular diet, so you have carbohydrate with meal. The standard guidance is that you'll see a glycemic response, you see a sugar or glucose spike, and then your body will rapidly dispose of that. Glucose brings it into muscle, brings into your liver. It's packed away in sort of way. If you have a very, very high attending slowly attenuating blood glucose, that's a potential sign. You have some sort of insulin resistance or some sort of problem in terms of disposing of glucose, AKA type 2 diabetes. So if you have a very, very slow ramp of glucose being disposed, talk to your doctor, I'm not gonna diagnose you. I'm a doctor. I'm not gonna diagnose you. It's just, it's just on a podcast, but that's likely a sign, an indication of type 2 diabetes.
Now what would be then if we want to talk numerically, what's kind of a general good guideline. So 140 milligrams per deciliter, after an hour or two of consuming a meal, you want to be below that. I think that's a pretty broad, generous guideline. I would say that folks that are very, very metabolic health conscious, you probably want to target under 120 an hour or two after a meal. So you can get there by increasing your metabolic health, as well as reducing carbohydrate intake to bring that blood sugar down to stability quicker. And that number 120, 140 is my opinion, my general guidance talk to your primary care practitioner. If you want to dial that in more for your specific use case, but that's in context of the general guidance that you want to have a facet blood glucose.
When you wake up without eating of a hundred, a hundred milligrams per deciliter, again, we're folks are a little bit more serious and refined about their metabolic health. Oftentimes people will recommend being below 90 milligrams or in the 80 milligram per deciliter fasted. I think those are generally fine. So for me again, now we have these numbers, is this now the, the Holy scripture that we need to stick to? And again, the question is context matters. So if I am, pre-loading a lot of carbohydrate because I'm about to go compete in a marathon and I'm just trying to get carbs in. It is okay to spike a beyond 140 and get to 160,180. You just don't want to do that too often. And you want to hopefully bring that down to more staple curve afterwards. If again, you see just like your blood sugar hang very, very high. Talk to your doctor checks, check it out. You probably want a more healthier disposal or quicker disposal of glucose.
So hopefully that answered the question. Well, it looks like, I mean, I answered this question pretty quickly, so let's see if we can tap in one last question here.
So Schareen Sison asks, can keto help build muscle? Is keto diet recommended for long-term use?
Okay, let's answer this question in 5 minutes, time go! Can keto help build muscle Like clearly multiple forms of diets can help build muscle. The critical path in terms of building muscle is to have enough protein and then having enough stimulus, AKA exercise to create an anabolic response. So to me, the keto with carbon striction is really orthogonal to muscle building anabolism right. You have great muscle bodybuilders who eat a ton of carbohydrates. They, of course, obviously are building a lot of muscle. And of course you can also see a lot of very fit keto, dieters, who are also very, very jacked. So again, the critical path to building muscle is protein intake and a stimulus, AKA the right exercise, lifting heavy to trigger an anabolic response. Now, is keto optimal for building muscle? And I might be going a little bit of grants against the grain, uh, for all the keto fans out there.
I would argue that keto is not necessarily optimal for getting the most jacked as possible. Now let me explain ,why carbohydrate triggering insulin response, having availability of glycogen, uh, that's all useful for giving your body the easiest way to store glycogen recover and get energy to work out again. So if you have ready carbohydrate, you'll likely be able to work out harder, easier. And if you have more and more stimulus, you'll have more and more anabolic response, right? So does this mean like you can't get jacked on keto? No, of course there's like very, very Jack people that are beating pure keto that are way more jacked than a sensible. But is it the optimal nutrition protocol to get the most jacked? I think not, again, triggering some insulin, triggering all their anabolic pathways that glucose protein, can provide. It's just, it it's like saying, Hey, this is a tool that is helpful for, for hypertrophy anabolism, but we're going to stay away from it because we dogmatically hate carbohydrates. That is just as unscientific as saying, “Hey, keto is not doesn't work.?” So I'm actually pretty here, which is that you can get jacked on Quito. But if I were to recommend, Hey, getting as much muscle building as possible, have some carbohydrate recover faster, we're punishing glycogen in a much easier way. Of course you can do gluconeogenesis. You can store it like a gin from eating fat and converting protein into carbohydrates or glycogen, but it's less efficient. So if you're going for performance stack, stack up the easiest way your body can get those replete nutrition, but is ACU diet going to make you not be able to build muscle? Of course not. So it kind of transitions into long-term use is keto diet recommended for long-term use, for what? it's everything in nutrition.
So context dependent in terms of where you're starting and what your goals are. Given the literature of kitchen diets being used throughout a number of ancestral indigenous cultures, as well as a lot of use in the early 1900 for epilepsy to now, when companies like Virta Health and other researchers are doing long-term longitudinal, ketogenic diet studies. Everything's always open and open to change, but I am very confident to say that given my understanding and read of the literature, the ketogenic diet is completely fine for long-term use. And it might be optimal for certain types of metabolic conditions. Like if you're overweight, obese, have metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance going keto and doing that sustainably long-term is a very, very reasonable, safe, sustainable, uh, palatable way to live. And you can find tens of thousands of people who've been doing this for years and decades.
Is it the only way to eat? No, personally, I like cycling blocks of ketogenic diet and mixed diet. Again for me, because I have relatively high energy consumption or utilization because I like exercising. I like getting out there. I can dispose of carbohydrate much more efficiently, so I have very good, metabolic overall health in regards to fast insulin, fasted blood glucose, C reactive protein inflammation, markers, etc. I can get away with a little bit more carbohydrate and I don't even want to say get away with it. It just helps me perform a little bit better cause I have that readily available energy substrate. And when I want to do heavy lifts or anaerobic training, the interesting question is that is keto potentially useful for longevity or immunity. And I think there's something definitely magical or very interesting happening with the signaling properties of ketones or ketosis.
So do, does one need to be permanently in ketosis or can you cyclical you get there through ketogenic diet, fasting and exercise, some combination of those three factors? it's a little bit of an open research question, whether cyclical versus a chronic or a perpetual keto, is there differences or advantages? There was an animal study showing that cyclical, keto and longitudinal chronic keto were equivalent in terms of longevity, boost anti-aging or longevity benefits against a Standard Western Diet. I think this is a little bit of an open area of research. I can see arguments both ways. I think just in terms of like day to day, living being cyclical is a little bit easier to manage because you can do bursts of hardcore discipline and then have bursts of dialing it back a little bit where you don't feel like you're cheating.
And then once you get into that losing mindset of like, Oh, I'm cheating on myself, it's hard to maintain. So long story short can keto help build muscle? Keto is orthogonal to anabolism meaning that it doesn't necessarily harm it, but it's not necessarily optimal for it. Carbohydrate is a very, very dense, useful form of energy. And if you don't have metabolic problems and you want to get jacked have some carbohydrate, like the insulin response will be helpful for you, let's put it that way. Is Keogh diet recommended for long-term use? I would say it's like not, there's no contraindications where I would say, Hey, like keto is bad for long-term use. Again, what is your starting position? What is your goal? Keto can be an important part of it. I personally like doing more of a cyclical approach cause it's easier to maintain and I see a little bit of additional performance gain if I have carbohydrates ahead of heavy exercises. I hope that answered your question, Schareen. Alright!
So that's all the time we have for this Free Fatty Friday. Thank you so much for asking the questions, keep them coming. It's been a blast! Thank you so much for honoring me with your time, your question, your attention, as always the best way to support this program is to like subscribe, give us five stars. All those things that helps increase our ranking. All the algorithms gets us more discoverable. So I appreciate your time, your attention. I know that in this super busy world with an upcoming election and pandemic and all this stuff, attention, afford to invest our time. I don't take that lightly. So keep them coming, get educated, stay resilient, be prepared, and I'll see you next week.
Talk to you all very, very soon!
Geoffrey Woo out!