Posts by valtorpublic

I'm going to give an example with numbers.  I won't include exercise here to keep it simple.

Let's say we have a person in a metabolic ward with a measured BMR that is currently at 2000 calories per day, before they start the experiment.  This person eats exactly 1800 calories per day of a low-fat diet (60% carbs, 15% fat, 25% protein).

He eats his first meal of the day.
600 calories total.
400 is taken up by the fat cells to be used in between the next meal.
200 stays in circulation in the blood stream and/or was used for digestion.

Normally when the circulating available energy becomes a bit low, your insulin will also be lower, allowing energy to exit from your fat cells.  BUT if this person has a problem with insulin resistance, the insulin levels will stay high longer after the meal and less energy will be able to exit the fat cells.
If non IR: In 5 hours 400 calories will be released from fat cells.
If IR: In 5 hours only 200 calories might be released from fat cells.

For the same time frame depending on your metabolism you might use less energy from your fat cells.  Also, if the person is IR they will become hungry earlier than if they were not insulin resistant.

So when the person reaches the second meal.
If non IR: 0 calories from the previous meal is still stored in the fat cells.
If IR: 200 calories from the previous meal is still stored in the fat cells.

Repeat this for all the meals and you come to this.
If non IR: 0 or -200 calories removed from fat cells.  His metabolism could have slowed down to match the available energy (1800 calories).  So his actual measured BMR at the end of the day would be 1800. No weight change.  If his metabolism did not yet adjusted to the lower available energy, an extra 200 calories will have been taken from the fat cells and a small weight loss occurred.

If IR: 400 calories added to fat cells.  His metabolism could have slowed down to match the available energy (1200 calories).  So his actual measured BMR at the end of the day would be 1200 and weight was gained.  If his metabolism did not yet adjusted to the lower available energy, this person will really be hungry now.  In the longer period from super to breakfast of the next day, his insulin will have a chance to be lower.  So his fat cells might be able to release an extra 400 calories during this time and there was no weight change.

So as you can see with the same numbers you could lose, maintain or even gain weight on the calorie restricted diet.  BUT your calorie intake per say had nothing to do with losing or gaining here.  It's only the type of calories and/or the way that your body handles the food molecules that had an effect on gaining or losing.

This scenario would be completely different if the person was eating a zero-carb diet (75% fat, 25% protein), but I'm just too tired of typing for now and might do this part in another post. :)

Patrick

I think it's a shame that they punished him instead of researching this.

I started looking into all this because my lowcarb adventure managed to lower my metabolism.  My temp was at 95.3 in the morning a couple weeks ago.  I am now taking desiccated thyroid and adrenals.  My morning temp is now 96.5.  Still too low.  I'm going to start on Iodoral this week.

I am also currently following Matt Stone's advice from 180 Degree Health.  I'm on the HighEverything diet.   I feel much better and stronger, because I am now losing weight in a Anabolic state.

Patrick

Original Post by trustwomen:

The only two parts of that that I know for sure is incorrect is that bit about the resting pulse, and "no accurate medical test".

Resting pulse becomes lower with improved cardiovascular fitness, as well as being naturally lower in young and slim adults. The lower limit of normal is actually 60, and athletes often get a lower one than that all (I met an 80-year-old marathon runner who has a resting pulse of 45).

Also, there is a very good, reliable test of thyroid function, it is TSH - thyroid-stimulating hormone, produced by the pituitary gland (one of the pituitary's several important functions). When a person has a sluggish thyroid, the pituitary responds by trying to stimulate it with more TSH, so high TSH equals low thyroid function. (If the pituitary is not doing its job, on the other hand, you're in much bigger trouble than mere hypothyroidism and your symptoms will be somewhat more impressive).

As for the claim of epidemic of hypothyroidism, not so sure. It becomes a chicken-and-egg argument about sedentariness vs. lack of energy.

But TSH won't tell you if your liver is not converting T4 to T3 properly or if you are creating rT3 (reversed T3) instead which is inactive and won't stimulate your metabolism.

I believe what they meant is that there is no accurate single test, because the issue is too complex to test with a single test, like TSH.  So you would actually have to go through a battery of tests instead to detect subclinical hypothyroidism.

Patrick

I am now convinced it's mainly fructose, caffeine and PUFA vegetable oils that are the worst offenders and represents the cause of 80% of obesity.

Patrick

I think I found an interesting study.

"Intermittent fasting dissociates beneficial effects of dietary restriction on glucose metabolism and neuronal resistance to injury from calorie intake"

Dietary restriction has been shown to have several health benefits including increased insulin sensitivity, stress resistance, reduced morbidity, and increased life span. The mechanism remains unknown, but the need for a long-term reduction in caloric intake to achieve these benefits has been assumed. We report that when C57BL/6 mice are maintained on an intermittent fasting (alternate-day fasting) dietary-restriction regimen their overall food intake is not decreased and their body weight is maintained. Nevertheless, intermittent fasting resulted in beneficial effects that met or exceeded those of caloric restriction including reduced serum glucose and insulin levels and increased resistance of neurons in the brain to excitotoxic stress. Intermittent fasting therefore has beneficial effects on glucose regulation and neuronal resistance to injury in these mice that are independent of caloric intake.

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/10/6216.abstr act

Patrick

Thank you Peaches.

Of course I agree that a chronically catabolic diet will have a very bad effect on people and I would never recommend such non sense.  How could your body reconstitute itself properly if you're always in a catabolic state.  We all need anabolic states everyday, otherwise we will become emaciated.  I don't think anyone here wants to lose weight per say.  What we want is to reduce the size of our adipose tissue. :)

Patrick

Original Post by smwhipple:

Do you perhaps miss the "Getting Started Guide"?

How about the "Help" page?

Additionally, there's also a stickied post at the top of each and every forum created by a moderator with information about the forum and information that is pertinent to that forum.

If you have chosen to just jump straight in and only use the tools and forums that you feel like that's your decision; however, I must point out that all the information that you stated is missing is available to you in multiple places.

Thank you.  I did read it, but I had never found this bit before from the Q&A: "Two examples of a balanced eating pattern are the USDA Food Guide at MyPyramid.gov and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH Diet)."

You all know here what I think of the USDA Food Guide.    But at least, I stand corrected.  So does that mean that I am not allowed to tell people anything that is against what is prescribed by the USDA?  Even if what I have to say has as much science, if not more, to back it up than the USDA has for what they prescribe?

What I have to say may not always agree with the "conventional wisdom", but that does not mean that what I say is fallacy.  I hope there is still space for critical thinkers here?  Based on the forum rules I'm not certain anymore, that's why I'm asking.

Thanks,

Patrick

Original Post by gi-jane:

'a real unbiased scientific food pyramid'.... do you have any idea just how depressing that sounds?... 

When I read your posts I can't help but wonder if you're sat at home with a nice juicy apple, prevaricating over whether 'an apple a day keeps the doctor away' is just biased 'conventional wisdom'  and therefore not 'healthy eating' and instead consulting a 'real unbiased scientific food pyramid' for reassurance.  Suspect you don't get a lot of pleasure out of food any more.

LOL   Yeah I see the mental picture.  Well it's true that I am a geek.  So for me consulting science for reassurance is fun, it's not a burden.  Plus I get to lose weight easier, faster and manages to be healthy at the same time.  Actually, I do not eat any fruits at all (shocking hey!).  I get all my minerals & vitamins from non-starchy vegetables and animal fats.  Fruits are just too carby for me and I don't miss them at all.

For some people, having to count calories is what sounds depressing.  But I do get a lot of pleasure out of eating, much more than before in fact.  What was actually a real burden to me was to weight everything.  I don't need to do that anymore, since I understand the effect certain foods will have on my hormones.  I would say that my current diet is close to Dr. Kwasniewski's Optimal Diet.

Patrick

That's right.  One if the biggest argument against IF like Fast-5 is the social one.  I think I would have difficulty doing Fast-5 just because of the social consequences.  Also, I would not like having to explain to my boy why daddy is not eating.

Patrick

Original Post by susiecue:

The scientific community is not divided on their opinion of calorie-restricted diets promoting longevity.  (At least, not a 50-50 split like you're implying.  There are a couple of people who think it's a good idea and an awful lot who think it's a bad idea.)

I meant that they are divided on what is considered "healthy" in general not CR specifically.  Also, after all I read on the science of nutrition, I don't really care what scientists think.  They are normal people like everyone else.  So now I only care about controlled-studies demonstrating a direct causality link on every subject I research, be it nutrition or else.  We need to think by ourselves, because there is too much contradictory opinions out there.

Original Post by susiecue:
So, unless you're suggesting that we starve our children so that they don't hit puberty until 25, there's really not a good analogy to humans.

I consider throwing the "not our children!" argument to be FUD and an attempt to discredit the speaker without cause.  I will comment on it anyway.  Of course, you would have to be a fully developed adult before attempting CR.  I don't think anyone thought this would apply to children.

Patrick

Original Post by gi-jane:
...CC's posting guidelines exclude messages that promote dangerous, unhealthy or fad diets...

It would really help if CC would put up some definitions of what CC considers dangerous, unhealthy or fad.  Because I can assure you that the scientific community is divided on those subjects.  If CC gives us their definitions then we will know what they mean.  Otherwise I can come in here and tell people what science considers healthy and still be acting against CC's guidelines without even knowing.

Patrick

Original Post by elfkittie22:...I cannot get covered because I have a "preexisting condition" (anxiety). Even the state funded programs that aren't supposed to deny anyone denied me...

I have a lot of things to say against our socialized health care system here in Canada (Québec).  Our health care system costs me 800$ per month in income taxes (50% of our income taxes).

But a comment like yours makes it all worth it.  I did not know that some people could be refused on health care insurance in the states.  That's disgusting.  This really puts things in perspective for me.

It costs our society an incredible amount of money here, but at least everyone here is covered forever.

Patrick

Thank you for your comments Gi-Jane.

I'm trying to find from where comes the thinking that multiple smaller meals a day is healthier?  From what I read, we evolved for millions of years on a pattern of eating that looks very much like intermittent fasting.  Also, science shows us that eating is stressful on the body and that calorie restriction makes you healthier and helps you live longer.  It is said we can get the same result from intermittent fasting.

So I'm really curious to know what are the supporting scientific evidence for multiple meals a day and/or the evidence against intermittent fasting?  If anyone knows I'd like to have your point of view.

Thanks.

Patrick

Looks like I lost.  I only lost 7.6 pounds since march 11.

Patrick

It looks like vitamin D3 in doses of 5000 UI per day can help a lot to increase adiponectin, thus weight loss.

http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/content/abstrac t/EJE-08-0952v1

In the overall population, 25(OH)D is significantly inversely correlated with body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure (SBP), waist circumference (WC), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin levels and HOMA index and positively correlated with adiponectin and HDL-cholesterol (p<0.01 for all variables). In males, these correlations are still significant for BMI, SBP, WC and adiponectin (p=0.02,p=0.01,p=0.04 and p=0.01 respectively); also, 25(OH)D is inversely correlated with LDL-cholesterol (p=0.007). In females, 25(OH)D is only inversely correlated with FPG and HOMA index (p<0.001 and p=0.03 respectively). In multivariate regression analysis models, after adjustment for sex and BMI, 25(OH)D is an independent predictor of FPG and SBP (p=0.032 and p=0.05 respectively) in the overall population, while in males 25(OH)D is a predictor of LDL-cholesterol and SBP independently of BMI (p=0.007 and p=0.035 respectively).

Patrick