1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Randle cycle and criticism of low carb from Dr Mick Wilkinson

Discussion in 'The Epi-Paleo Diet' started by René Borg, Aug 18, 2015.

  1. René Borg

    René Borg New Member

    The BTR (Born to Run) coaching model created by Lee Saxby has begun to look a bit wider than their core speciality of biomechanics (he now partners with scientist Mick Wilkinson). I am one of the first batch of BTR coaches and respect Lee and Mick but was troubled by some recent discussion in the closed group where they go strongly against the low carb phenomenon blaming it for a lot of the injury and overtraining resulting from 'local energy crisis' .

    All coaches were asked to review the original Randle cycle paper and Mick Wilkinson summarised this:

    Here is a pithy summary of the Randle Cycle paper as it is quite a daunting read:
    Aerobic metabolism is really three linked sets of reactions, 1) breakdown of carbs to pyruvate called glycolysis 2) breakdown of pyruvate to CO2 and electrons called Kreb's cycle 3) use of potential energy of electrons to produce cell energy, ending with water, called the electron transport chain. This is clean, rapid energy production and produces lots of CO2 which is crucial for health. Fats are metabolised by a lengthy and slow process called beta oxidation that ends with a substance that enters near the end of Kreb's cycle. Energy production is slow and much less CO2 is produced. Energy production from fats greatly reduces breakdown of carbs. This is the Randle effect and explains diabetes. Basically, sugar in the blood can't be removed by cells, regardless of how much insulin you throw at them, because the cells ability to use it is being reduced by use of fats. Insulin resistance results, the pancreas wears out and type 2 diabetes eventually become type 1. Instead of training cells to use fat, resulting in a sluggish metabolism, the ability to use sugar must be maintained by eating plenty of it. Sugar produces a high metabolism and a healthy cell. It does not lead to diabetes!

    The discussion started because a member of the group had overtraining syndromes and Lee's take on it was:

    "Sounds like an ‘energy problem’ to me i.e. a lack of glucose and/or oxygen to the brain. This can be due to ‘orthostatic hypotension’ due to lack of catecholamine production (adrenal fatigue) but I doubt it. In my experience hypoglycaemia is becoming a big problem amongst ‘natural’ runners due to the low carb/sugar phobic/paleo diet obsession. The liver is the ‘glucostatic’ organ and it’s function is to provide the human brain with glucose (the most metabolic expensive organ in the animal kingdom). Solution = maintain blood glucose by eating more often and more sugar. Another problem for ALL modern runners is hypocapnia due to ‘overbreathing’. The blood becomes too alkaline, increasing haemoglobin’s affinity for oxygen which reduces oxygen delivery to the working tissues. Solution = become a ‘nose breather'.

    Both these recommendations seem to fly in the face of what is told here. I am curious as to what these two, otherwise, esteemed, gentlemen are missing primarily to come to these conclusions?

    three of our athletes have won major running titles using a template similar to the Epi-Paleo Rx this year, so I am obviously convinced by practice but I would like to be elucidated about what the breakdown in logic here is?
     
    Brother John likes this.
  2. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    It always ties back to light and circadian biology (and our master clock, the SCN). Clock neurons employ daily anti-phase sodium and potassium conductances to drive rhythmic activity. ATP and Potassium ions are linked to molecules of H2O. When you eat ketogenic you make more ATP by beta oxidation versus glucose metabolism.......36 vs 147 ATP (glucose to fat). ATP function in a quantum cell theory opens proteins structure up to expose more water binding sites in proteins. When electrons are added to proteins it makes them more hydrophilic and this increases the exclusion zone of water inside a cell to make a larger battery in which to run things more energy efficiently. As a result, the amount of ATP required by a cell is reduced. This happens in CT and in REM sleep. ATP production in a cell is stochastically linked to potassium concentration inside the cell. This is why potassium has a much higher concentration inside the cell and sodium is excluded. It is a function of protein recycling (ubiquitin) and ATP levels from mitochondria. So if you all of sudden eat ketotic, but not fat adapted, but become dehydrated quickly inside your cells (high BUN/creat ratio), you can not fully take advantage of the energy surge from water and you think you need carbohydrates to run your physiology. Water is designed to bind to very specific parts of proteins (COO- groups) and potassium to other sites (beta and gamma carbonyl and imino groups). This makes an "intracellular gelatin" or water cable that limits the rotational freedom of K+ and EZ water. EZ water has a net negative charge and K+ is positively charged so they are electrostatically attracted. This is how a cell structures its water from bulk water to structured water (EZ) to make a semiconductor. Structured water means it forms a large exclusion zone. This allows water to become a superconductive cable in a cell to transfer energy (proton tunneling) and it allows water to gain a three dimensional form similar to a liquid crystalline structure of matter. Water is anisotropic in this form so it gives energy flow a specific direction to make deterministic decision for the type of biochemistry possible. In this way what happens at a surface where water exists determines how biochemistry can proceed. to perform quantum processes in tight spaces, like microtubules........so if you are dehydrated and then switch fuels you have only done step one correctly. Go back and look at the Cold Thermogenesis protocol closely: what does it say to due before CT? It says drink cold 32 oz of water before you begin!!! Cold water contains more electrons and therefore it is easier to convert to EZ inside a cell with hydrophilic proteins. Why? What good is using cold to increase your current of flow if you don't have the EZ water surrounding your mitochondria and proteins to make the superconducting cables to begin with?

    ATP function is not its use of a high energy substrate as modern cell theory teaches.......ATP is designed to unfold proteins fully to open their carbonyl and imino side chain groups to intracellular water. EZ water is the battery that life runs upon.http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S0092867415009137
     
    Brother John, Danco3636 and JanSz like this.
  3. René Borg

    René Borg New Member

    Thanks Jack, I think there is too big a gap in basic assumptions and knowledge for me to carry that message across but will try to influence bit by bit. I cannot access the full article without paying 31.50 for it unfortunately but I take it this refers to the implications of Gilbert Ling's A-I hypothesis basically as described below:

    Ling’s Association-Induction hypothesis goes further in proposing an alternate purpose for ATP in the protoplasmic gel, within Ling’s model ATP acts as a “Cardinal Adsorbent”, that is ATP is capable of changing protein conformation, and hence also the structuring of water within the “cell”. Here adenosine triphosphate (ATP) binds to proteins at certain cardinal sites and in so doing induces changes in electron density of the protein changing its electronic properties, and the way in which it interacts with water. When ATP is bound to proteins it acts to withdraw their electrons allowing them to extend and structure water into a highly ordered, low entropy (Kosmotropic) resting state. Ling (1981) presents evidence that this has nothing to do with hydrolysis, and that ATP has such effects in mitochondria, returning them to a normal size after swelling.
     
    Brother John likes this.
  4. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Ling got ATP right.......water wrong. Pollack fixed Ling by moving water from a stackable dipole to a charged EZ.........Other than that Ling was spot on. When electrons are withdrawn from proteins they become less hydrophilic and more hydrophobic making the EZ lower.........This is another reason why ATP is not the be all end all for life.
     
    Brother John and Danco3636 like this.
  5. René Borg

    René Borg New Member

    Ok, trying to rephrase this in my head in layman's terms and relate it to the long ongoing discussion on versus

    Exercise physiologists today will say that glucose is always the better fuel because They will then go on to say that being fat adapted does not make sense because fat metabolism competes with glucose metabolism thus making an athlete 'less good' at burning the glucose 'they need' for high performance. (gross oversimplifications I know but this is what leading people in that particular field will say)

    Their argument rests on two facts they consider rocksteady: 1) the fact that beta-oxidation is slower than glycolysis 2) they assume that the function of ATP is to be a catalyst upon which enzymes act to create energy (rather than its real role of unfolding proteins to increase current?). so they believe that more ATP quicker has to be the end-game because enzymes can then act on it quicker creating energy quicker. What seems to be said here is that if you have the revised physics in mind then that matters less because ATP's role is to increase the current/throughput of energy in the cell. so presumably in this scenario - with turbocharged cells - it does not matter that beta-oxidation is slighty slower than glycolysis in delivering ATP?

    So take Mick Wilkinson who goes on to claim:

    >> Aerobic metabolism is really three linked sets of reactions, 1) breakdown of carbs to pyruvate called glycolysis 2) breakdown of pyruvate to CO2 and electrons called Kreb's cycle 3) use of potential energy of electrons to produce cell energy, ending with water, called the electron transport chain. This is clean, rapid energy production and produces lots of CO2 which is crucial for health. Fats are metabolised by a lengthy and slow process called beta oxidation that ends with a substance that enters near the end of Kreb's cycle. Energy production is slow and much less CO2 is produced. Energy production from fats greatly reduces breakdown of carbs. This is the Randle effect and explains diabetes. Basically, sugar in the blood can't be removed by cells, regardless of how much insulin you throw at them, because the cells ability to use it is being reduced by use of fats. Insulin resistance results, the pancreas wears out and type 2 diabetes eventually become type 1. Instead of training cells to use fat, resulting in a sluggish metabolism, the ability to use sugar must be maintained by eating plenty of it. Sugar produces a high metabolism and a healthy cell. It does not lead to diabetes!

    The last assertion is staggering: 'instead of training cells to use fat, resulting in sluggish metabolism, the ability to use sugar must be maintained by eating plenty of it.'

    Now Mick Wilkinson is an exercise physiologist so not a specialist in this area but the goal of the course has created with Lee (to quote Lee Saxby) is:

    ' looks like we are beginning to “drown in information whilst starving of wisdom”! The BTR energy course has been created in an attempt to bring clarity to the ‘natural running’ community and their perception of ‘health’ just as the technique course was developed to bring clarity to the ‘natural running’ community and their perception of ‘barefoot technique’. IMHO the ‘teaching the body to burn fat’ over-simplification is as dangerously naïve as the ‘take your shoes off and mother nature will heal you’ over-simplification. The symptoms of hypoglycaemia a la Andrew Barefut are reaching epidemic proportions within the paleo/crossfit/’mover’ fraternities and needs to be addressed. A good place to start is to understand the difference between ‘homeostasis’ and ‘allostasis’ and undisputed pathophysiology of starvation (attached)'

    Seems like classical 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' - i.e. 'natural runners/CrossFitters suffer hyperglycaemia from 'teaching the body to burn fat' so 'teaching the body to burn fat is dangerous and here is the research to back it up.

    As a running coach this concerns me a great deal when very important influencers in our community seem to have missed the paradigm shift!
     
  6. René Borg

    René Borg New Member

    What Lee/Mick seem to be worried about is their perception that pursuing LCHF/Keto/fat adaptation creates a form of allostatic overload, with energy demand outstripping supply, pushing athletes into survival mode until this allostatic load is lessened (i.e. overtraining syndrome to stop the activity). Their fix is to ensure there is always plenty of sugar around

    It is particularly interesting that they see low-carb diets as allostatic because the very core of the BTR model is evolutionary biology and evolutionary medicine. They seem to have opted for an interpretation of human evolution and subsequent physiology which puts us down as omnivores (not disagreement there) but with a preference for carbs/sugars (big disagreement there) which seems an odd choice. I can only assume it is because they believe the key adaptations we have today were formed during our species' time in the Rift Valley area and they assume that, at the time, carbs were plentiful year round and our main source of fuel. This also implies they believe that we have not yet fully adapted to the northern climates we migrated to where carbs were clearly not available year round. Alternatively, they may believe that the 'winter metabolism' (fat dominant) is allostatic and thus not suited for high performance sport whereas only the summer (carb dominant) metabolism is homeostatic. Conclusion then, for them, would invariably be that performance athletes need to stay in 'summer metabolism' year round as they cannot perform in a state of allostasis.

    So allostatic theory posits that metabolic syndrome, for instance, is created by a combination of hypervigilance (the brain crying 'where is my usual food gone!') and hyposatisfaction ('I cannot believe I cannot eat that cake like all my friends'). There are some big leaps in that logic, although its compelling, such as 1) what if you enjoy the new food more than the old, 2) what if you allow small deviations at important social events, 3) what if you perception of what food is healthy changes, 4) what if you change the environmental signalling that caused the craving for the particular food from which you are now deprived is changed and 5) what if the body is setup to use the new food better than the old (thus the brain picks up an internal signal about 'healthier' cells).

    I can see why you'd read this into it: i.e. Paleo guy who loves his carbs goes on ketogenic diet while continuing to do CrossFit. Suddenly there is a huge physiological demand for carbs (CrossFit exercise, environmental signalling from bluelight etc.) strengthened by a psychosocial signal creating more stress ('everyeone else is eating carbs, how will I cope? the doubt!') . Easy to imagine that going awry and coaches then loking at it and concluding 'its not worthwhile turning people who have eaten primarily carbs into anything else as the physiological and psychosocial stress caused by this change will be too big for adaptation to occur).
     
  7. Joe Gavin

    Joe Gavin Face Everything And Rise

    Interesting Rene. Have you read the Phinney and Volek books on low-carb performance? Not just about reducing carbs, other factors at play. Might be helpful. Also, you know where this tribe stands on Light, Water and Magnestism. Circadian biology, etc. Seasonal eating of carbs. Blue Light. Fair number of confounders at play with the Wilkinson group. I guess my take is this: the body has 100,000 calories of fat, and about 2-3,000 calories of carb. Plus we know fat grams throw off MUCH more ATP vs sugar grams. Yet, Wilkinson doesn't even seem to care or conveniently dismisses. Hard to reconcile that in my mind.
     
  8. René Borg

    René Borg New Member

    Thanks Joe. I was trying to meet them in the area where there was most common understanding first before launching into light, water and magnetism (sage advice from Barry who has been down this road many times). I think I might have failed so far, the below was my latest attempt. I am aware I left out much of the 'real story' and again it was in an attempt to meet them on 'common ground'.


    I looked at the graph (ed: Lee Saxby posted a a graph showing how gluconeogenesis happens during later stages of starvation and to support his assertion that gluconeogenesis represents an allostatic, thus stressful state, and not a homeostatic state) but it does not tell me what it tells you, to explain myself: we agree on the OBSERVATION (lots of runners getting hypoglycaemic from their attempt to implement what they perceive as ‘low-carb’) but we disagree on the FACTS that you use to form the THEORY and because of that we divert on the WISDOM (how to fix it).


    The facts we disagree on:

    1) the Randle cycle interpretation is too simplistic (the inhabitation of carbohydrate metabolism by fatty acids is turned off during exercise by the activation of AMPK in skeletal muscle turning on catabolic ATP-generating pathways (fatty acid oxidation and glycolysis) and turning off anabolic ATP consuming processes (lipid and protein synthesis) This provides an immediate metabolic adaptation to the stress conditions regardless of whether you are ‘fat’ or ‘carb’ adapted. And there’s much more to this than that.

    2) low-carb = gluconeogenesis = starvation response = stress (it is not that simple: ok, so gluconeogenesis occurs when blood glucose is low. For that reason it also happens every night while we sleep).


    The latter is an example of correlation not being causation in a nutshell -> you seem to be telling me that ‘because gluconeogenesis occurs in the later phases of starvation and starvation is a stressor then gluconeogenesis is a stressor.’ That’s a bigger assumption than I can accept – because it rests only on what I interpret as the misconception that cortisol is always released during GNG (in fact it would be ludicrous – because we use gluconeogenesis while we sleep and cortisol is low while we sleep and rises when we have to wake!) . That is because glucagon is triggered before blood sugar rises to a level that triggers cortisol (glucagon is triggered at 65 mg/Dl blood sugar threshold whereas cortisol only kicks in at 55 mg/Dl). The lower threshold is only reached if glucagon is somehow obstructed such as if you have a GNG disorder, eat insufficient protein, or have been engaged in long periods of fasting. It’s easy to test if people doubt this: buy a glucometer and eat as you have been doing. Perform a test. If the result is lower than 55 mg/Dl then start by trying to eat more protein or timing and frequency of meals. Failing that simple solution have a trained nutritionist look over three days of food intake to see what you might be doing wrong.

    Cortisol is seen as leading to insulin resistance, among others things, but it only does this within very narrow contexts. Cortisol levels are not simply cortisol levels just as a 4 mmol/lactate can mean many different things. An athlete’s cortisol profile depends on:

    1. cortisol production,

    2. cortisol clearance rates and

    3. 11β-HSD1 expression in fat cells versus11β-HSD1 expression in the liver (thisdetermines when and where cortisol is regenerated)


    What research actually shows is that a ketogenic diet IMPROVES the cortisol PROFILE while reversing symptoms of metabolic syndrome. If it was a contributory factor to insulin-resistance and metabolic syndrome this simply could not be the case.

    To narrow it down to the more specific context: hypoglycaemia from OVEREXERCISE/OVERTRAINING. On the wisdom front: Easily fixed by carb cycling after exercise and taking in carbs during longer strenuous exercise. I.e. instead of putting the athlete straight into ‘2 hour fasted state runs’ you have him do a ‘long run without breakfast’ where he takes some dextrose or similar after 45 min and again at 90 min. next time it might be 60 minutes at 90 minutes etc. This is what Barry did – working up to 5-6 hour bike rides and ultra runs on nothing.

    During the day, relying mainly on a very low level of ketones plus gluconeogenesis to supply the brain with fuel and otherwise burning fat does not require a cortisol response unless we have the aforementioned GNG disorders. This observation born out in practice (and research): I never feel more relaxed than during days where no carbs are eaten for breakfast. If a workout is then done at lunch and I can feel the ‘stress reaction/hyperglycaemic reaction’ I simply up the dose of post-exercise carbs a bit on normal. I know when I get it right because the ‘tense feeling’ disappears. If I overeat carbs I also feel the effect – getting very sluggish and wanting to nap straight away or later in the afternoon. This is N=1 but consistent with the theory are looking at and the practice of a wide range of highly respected nutritionists (although I admit, not the mainstream). Also, again, I am not discussing full-blown ketosis here. As far as I am concerned the data suggest this is mainly valuable for treatment of specific diseases and disorders, I know many scientists would like to go further than that in their conclusions.

    Hypoglycemia always goes hand in hand with cortisol but low carb does not necessarily cause hypoglycaemia which is what I feel is being presented here.

    So we disagree on some key facts and it leads to a different practical conclusion ‘i.e. ‘how we can we ensure people can do it right, so it is not stressful’ rather than ‘let’s stop this low-carb nonsense before it hurts anyone else’. Those are our two diverging paths out this forest it seems ,if I am reading the discussion so far right?

    So in summary: I cannot accept that graph because I do not accept it as a fact that gluconeogenesis is inherently an abnormal, and stressful, response. Rather the opposite. Excessive gluconeogenesis. Different story. Gluconeogenesis in people with glucogan issues, different story.

    Suppose I will know soon if I managed to raise an eyebrow.
     
    freesia likes this.
  9. René Borg

    René Borg New Member

    Oh, and yes I did read Volek and Phinney's two books. While I found them convincing I had the feeling I was not going to get anywhere when one group - the Czech coach Daniel McVisser, who is a master coach, in the system threw a dismissive line about Volek, basically saying that the Eskimo ketogenic myth had been debunked (no examples found in 60 years I believe was the claim) and seemed to use that as reason enough to dismiss the entirety of Volek's work.

    So I just decided not to go down that alley as I'd have to first rehabilitate Volek and reestablish him as credible in the eyes of the group.
     

Share This Page