Here we’re getting into some good crunchy sciencey stuff. Given that human energy metabolism is fiendishly complex, I certainly won’t pretend to know everything about what I’m writing about, but this understanding has been good enough for me so far. I got most of it from Lyle McDonald, Kiefer, Silverhydra, Prof. Dr. Andro, and Martin Berkhan. They (and their sources) don’t always agree, and odds are excellent that I’ve made mistakes in trying to understand their writing, too. Take this with a pillar of salt.
I repeat: I am going to simplify outrageously and not cite my sources (except as I’ve done above).
Let’s start here. In metabolically healthy people (fixing diabetes is not part of the game plan), insulin is a storage hormone. It encourages cells to take up nutrients from the bloodstream and build stuff with ‘em. Insulin levels are elevated by three things: Carbohydrate consumption; protein consumption; and high blood sugar. Eating protein will cause a short, sharp jump in insulin levels; eating carbs will cause a similar jump, and then a longer second jump as the sugar or turns into blood glucose and gets shuttled away to wherever it’s going.
For the purposes of losing fat specifically, which is what we’re after, insulin is not our friend. It inhibits lipolysis (the breakdown and release of fatty acids from fat tissue) and encourages fat storage. We want to keep insulin levels chronically low (again, please don’t do this if you’re diabetic) in order to support as much lipolysis as we can possibly manage. We do that by cutting out carbs and going ketogenic.
Tissue burns glucose preferentially. Deprive the body of carbs, and the liver will release glycogen (“animal starch”), which gets broken down into glucose. Muscle cells have their own stores of glycogen. In general it takes the liver about a day, maybe less, to burn through its glycogen supply if you’re starting from a normal carby diet. Once it does, provided that blood triglyceride levels are sufficient, it’ll start producing ketones from those trigs, which can be burned in place of glucose by most tissues in the body. (It’ll also start producing small amounts of glucose from fat, which is good because parts of your brain really need it.)
Ketone uptake and metabolism is sufficiently different from glucose uptake and metabolism that it takes a few days for your body (in particular, your brain) to adapt to burning ketones instead of glucose, so you feel like shit for a little while. This is the “low-carb flu” you might’ve heard of, although I’ve never found it to be nearly as bad as actually having the flu. In any case the solution is to embrace the suck. After a few days your cells will have adapted to uptake and process ketones, and you’ll feel fine again.
Fat metabolism, both directly and through ketone production, is significantly less efficient than glucose metabolism. Since we’re trying to burn as many kcal worth of fat as possible, that’s a good thing. But we don’t want to stay in ketosis absolutely forever: Liver glycogen levels act as a metabolic regulator, so if the liver’s out of glycogen (which it has to be in order to produce ketones) your metabolism will slowly drop, which is thoroughly counterproductive. If you try to ramp up your workouts to compensate, you’ll find that without muscle glycogen you can’t lift for shit. Also, when you’re in ketosis your pee will probably smell funny; maybe stay away from asparagus.
The solution is to carefully and selectively reintroduce carbs. We can be clever about this by timing our carb-ups right. General insulin sensitivity is highest in the morning, when the government and the food lobbies want you to be eating Cap’n Crunch and drinking orange juice, and lowest in the evening. But muscle is most sensitive to carbs right after a good hard workout, particularly if it’s empty of glycogen. So by lifting in the afternoon and slamming a bunch of carbs and protein immediately thereafter, we can ensure that the majority of those carbs go right into muscle glycogen, which is right where we want ‘em in order to promote muscle protein synthesis. The remainder will get turned into glycogen by the liver, giving metabolism, thyroid function, and &c. a bit of a kick and probably getting burned up overnight, so we’ll wake up the next morning in ketosis again. This is the general approach taken, to various extremes, by Lyle McD’s targeted ketogenic diet, SilverHydra’s Cheat Mode, and Kiefer’s Carb Backloading: A one- to four-hour (…ish) carb load after each workout.
Another option is to drive the body into deep glycogen depletion over the course of several workouts and low-calorie low-carb days, say over the course of a workweek, then after one final workout to raise muscle insulin sensitivity carb-load like a motherfucker for 30-48 hours. The idea is that any glucose you consume won’t get stored as fat until your liver and muscles are packed full of glycogen, and any small amount of fat you put on from fructose and dietary fats will get dealt with during the next week’s low-cal glycogen depletion hell. While you’re carb-loading you hit the weights as hard as you goddamn can. This, in vastly insufficient detail, is the method behind Lyle McD’s Ultimate Diet 2.0.
About the only downside to carb loading is that you probably shouldn’t drink during the carb-up. The idea is that, if your liver’s processing alcohol, it isn’t doing anything with carbs — it’s not clear to me whether alcohol uptake and conversion to acetaldehyde and acetic acid in the liver actually inhibits glucose uptake; if it doesn’t, it’s plausible that you’ll be burning alcohol (really acetic acid) for energy while you’re storing even more carbs (like the maltose and maltodextrin in your favourite beer) as glycogen. Alcohol does accelerate ketosis, so separating a few glasses of whiskey from your carb up by an hour or two might be a good plan. Kiefer has some interesting things to say on the topic; he’s more sanguine than I am. Clearly this calls for some n=1 experimentation. Anecdotally, when I was running UD2.0, I timed the end of my carb-load for Friday night, wherein I ate tons of chips and popcorn and drank beer and whiskey, limited more by having to squat the next day than by dietary concerns, and I still managed to lose a good pound or more of fat per week.
The latest post at SuppVersity is relevant to what I was saying about bulking from lean being more efficient (and what I’m probably going to say about macronutrient composition if/when I get around to writing about it). Lots of good crunchy data; go have a read.
I don’t have the energy to blog about the NSA’s data-harvesting the way I might once have, but that’s okay, because Mike Masnick, Mike Riggs, and some guy on Reddit have said everything I’d have said (and more). While the third link is presently lodging itself deep in my midbrain to nourish my sense of nameless, protean dread for the next few months, my frontal lobe would like to point out that Masnick’s post is the most immediately concerning (and Riggs’s post is why we’re fucked). For the next few decades, at least (although the Germans were probably saying the same thing in 1931), I’m less concerned about secret-police brownshirts rounding up political dissidents* than I am about individual shitbirds using the data for their own nefarious purposes. (Some say this is already happening.) Those of you who might protest that the NSA is “only” storing metadata might consider the mischief caused if a true-believer with the courage of s/h/its convictions extracted a list of the phone numbers of people who’d called Planned Parenthood clinics within the past few months. Other examples might occur to you.
* The “police rounding up dissidents” rant is a Drug War topic, and is ably covered elsewhere
There’s a longstanding alcohol wage puzzle: drinkers earn more than non-drinkers even after correcting for a bunch of stuff. Chris Auld found that moderate drinkers earn 10% more than non-drinkers and that heavy drinkers earn 12% more than non-drinkers; plenty of other studies have found similar effects.
Correlation not being causation, I look for upstream connections. Way back when, Psychology Today noted that intelligent people drink more, and it doesn’t take Bryan Caplan to deduce that intelligence is a half-decent predictor of income. I’d lay 90% odds on smart people not being able to get through a day surrounded by nattering nihilistic nabobs without the promise of getting soaked at the end, and 10% on an eerie Harrison Bergeron-style conspiracy in which normals are made to feel better about themselves because they can be almost as productive as I can when I’m murderously hungover.
He considers philosophy majors (in the broader context of Whether Brick And Mortar Colleges Can Survive In The Face Of The Internet), and notes that philosophy majors make (relatively speaking) a shit-ton of money… because they’re smart. I have no reason to doubt that he’s correct; the only philosophy majors I met in undergrad who were dumber than I was — I’ll note, perhaps unpleasantly, that I went on to get a doctorate — were in a bunch of required courses whose names started with “one-” and, maybe, “two-”. So yeah, the PHIL majors in my sample tended to be pretty clever.
Thoreau, however, wonders whether “[t]here is value in training capable people to attain the level of intellectual sophistication that a good philosophy program instills.”
I submit that this conundrum is a catastrophic conflation of correlation with causation. (I don’t even have an English Lit degree and I pulled off some pretty awesome polysyllabic alliteration there. Govern yourselves accordingly.)
I’ve been reading a lot of The Last Psychiatrist lately, partly because he drinks more than I do but also because he’s put a fair bit of effort into unravelling why people send their kids to college at ruinous expense (mostly, but not always, to the kids) for absolutely no good goddamn reason at all. In the first part of his epic Hipsters on Food Stamps rant — go ahead and click through, I’ll still be here in an hour when you’re done — he wonders:
I am not anti-liberal arts, I am all in on a classical education, I just don’t think there’s any possibility at all, zero, none, that you will get it at college, and anyway every single college course from MIT and Yale are on Youtube. Is that any worse than paying $15k to cut the equivalent class at State?
Now, let me tell you a story a friend of mine loves to tell, from his perspective. Text in brackets is mine.
The three of us — William [not his real name], me, and Matt, took Advanced Software Engineering last semester [or whenever]. It was basically User Interfaces In Java, although we saw the Design Patterns book for a few minutes in the second lecture. William loved that shit, so he went to all the lectures, and he got a seven [out of nine]. I didn’t really care, so I skipped most of the lectures, and somehow I got an eight. But Matt only attended the first lecture, the midterm, and the final, and he got a nine in that class.
(Yes, I’m the Matt in that story.)
I tell you that not to convince you that I’m amazing — the Ph.D. will have either done that already or convinced you irretrievably otherwise by now — but to convince you that that course was a waste of my fucking money. Not my time, I spent all of maybe twenty hours on it that semester, and I can’t say it wasn’t a little bit educational. I learned that I hate Java with the burning fire of a thousand suns, and also that 2000-vintage Swing was, while eminently hateable, better than anything else on the GUI-widget-set market at the time. Also, in the first lecture one of the other guys in the class found out the hard way that he was colour-blind, so that was a thing. I dunno what the fuck else I was supposed to have been educated upon in that course. And they gave me the highest mark they could!
So if you’re an undergraduate programme committee member — and if you really are, I’m sorry — why would you put a course like that on the required list in the syllabus? There are a lot of excellent cynical reasons, but the only pedagogical reason I can come up with is “so that every student we graduate must demonstrate, at the end of a semester of either skipping or attending class, that s/h/it knows how to make a calculator in Java.” Actually I did that in high school, but thanks for taking four months to make me prove it to you.
This is not to say that I got no knowledge or skills of value from my undergrad. If nothing else, the compilers course was worth the price of admission (and if you’re a CS student reading this blog, for fuck’s sake take a compilers course, it will change your life). But I kind of doubt that I had to go to university to learn any of this stuff… maybe I had to go to university to be persuaded to study LL languages before attempting to write a compiler, but if you’re reading this sentence you don’t. In any case compilers wasn’t a required course; I selected into it (as did both of my friends from the anecdote above). And, of course, I got a B.Sc. and a GPA that convinced a grad school to admit me, whence I got a Ph.D. and a bunch of publications, whence I got a useful job.