So many things going on - low calories coupled with exercise

[LittleGreyCat]

After reading the latest patient information sheet from Newcastle I have noted that an 8 week crash diet is not considered the only way to improve BG control or even reverse diabetes.

As posted elsewhere,
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/documents/Diabetes-Reversaloftype2study.pdf
says

"Could it work for people with a normal BMI?

 Yes, most certainly, provided that the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes is correct. Some people are
unable to cope with even moderate amounts of fat in their liver and pancreas. Type 2 diabetes
only happens when a Personal Fat Threshold is exceeded. Losing weight within the range which
is “normal” for the general population is then essential for health.
Practical advice

 The particular diet used in the study was designed to mimic the sudden reduction of calorie intake
that occurs after gastric bypass surgery. By using such a vigorous approach, we were testing
whether we could reverse diabetes in a similar short time period to that observed after surgery.

 The essential point is that substantial weight loss must be achieved. The time course of weight
loss is much less important.

 It is a simple fact that the fat stored in the wrong parts of the body (inside the liver and pancreas)
is used up first when the body has to rely upon its own stores of fat to burn. Any pattern of eating
which brings about substantial weight loss over a period of time will be effective. Different
approaches suit different individuals best. "

So I am aiming to see if I can find and go below my Personal Fat Threshold.

Having thought the Newcastle Diet was all about flushing out the liver and pancreas in an intensive effort (and it takes 8 weeks to flush the pancreas), I am struggling to accept that I can just work to reduce the fat in my liver and pancreas in the same way as I reduce the fat on my bum and this will free off the pancreas to resume normal or near normal function.

However it seems logical that you can lose fat all over including in your internal organs.

Anyway, I am within 'normal' BMI - six foot tall and weighed in this morning at 12 stone 7 lbs.
My target is to go down a stone over the next three to six months, preferably the next three months.

I am eating low carb and quite high fat, and limiting my food intake although on LCHF this is not really a struggle because I feel to be eating well.

I think the 8 week low calorie diet may be too aggressive, especially as I am losing around 1 lb a week at the moment anyway.

So, as posted elsewhere I am to do shorter stints on the 800 kcal/day, probably a week at a time, and maintain my current eating pattern.

However I am also on a fitness kick through cycling and building myself up to 2 hours+ of continuous cycling at a reasonable pace.
I don't intend to change this when I go on the restricted calorie diet.
This does leave me all sorts of questions, though.

1. I have read elsewhere that if I cycle continuously for more than 2 hours I will burn all the glucose stores from my liver/pancreas and then will have to start burning body fat (or muscle). This sounds a good reason to cycle for more than 2 hours. However will this preferentially burn fat from my liver and pancreas?
2. I have also read that if you take aerobic exercise at a medium intensity you are already burning fat - roughly 50% fat to 50% glucose. How does that relate to (1)?
3. I have read about 'bonk training' which isn't as much fun as it first sounds. As I understand it the premise is that after a period of continuous exercise however much food you take on during the exercise you hit a point where you run out of glucose in your muscles because you can't take it in from the blood as fast as you burn it. So you have to switch over to burning other energy stores such as fat. This can lead you to 'hitting the wall' even though you are hydrating and taking calories on board. The idea seems to be that you exercise with depleted glucose/glycogen stores right from the start to get to this alternative energy process early on in the exercise session and work on training your body to run on non-glucose/glycogen energy so that you don't have a sudden switch well into an endurance run or ride. Sounds good again for burning fat, but how does this relate to (1) and (2)?
4. If extended aerobic exercise (say 2-3 hours 3-4 times a week) is burning fat out of your system, given that above it says "It is a simple fact that the fat stored in the wrong parts of the body (inside the liver and pancreas) is used up first when the body has to rely upon its own stores of fat to burn." does this mean that this approach could burn all the fat out of your liver/pancreas without necessarily having the major weight loss reported for participants in the Newcastle Study? I must say that I don't think even obese people have 15kg of fat in their liver/pancreas (although I could well be wrong) and Google isn't helping at the moment. If that was so all that would happen on a crash diet would be that the belly would shrink but weight wouldn't go from anywhere else. Perhaps the liver and pancreas have their fat stores topped up again using fat from elsewhere in the body? Does anyone know what weight of fat is generally held in the liver and pancreas in an obese person and a 'normal weight' person?

Reading through the above I am struggling to find full consistency between all the points.

Anyway, I am assuming that riding after a 600 kcal shake will not be quite 'bonk training' but should get me into major fat burning fairly soon into the ride.
Which may well accelerate the flushing of fat out of the liver/pancreas.

Encouraging general facts - yesterday I went out for a ride about an hour after eating two eggs, a large tomato, two rashers of bacon and some mushrooms. This should come in around 800 kcals, I think.

BG at the start was 7.4 which is pretty good for 1 hour post meal.
Rode about 38 kilometers with a few brief stops and at a pace designed to let my breathing recover between the short, sharp hills.
Back home a bit over 2 hours later, and BG was 5.8.
A rest for an hour and a pint of water and back out again for another 12k (to pick up car) then drove back.
BG 4.3 but although feeling tired, I didn't feel at all unwell.

Now through all that I must have burned up any glucose stores knocking around - looking at a couple of sites I should be burning around 550-575 kcal/hour at my current average speed of 20 kph, so I should have burned off all the calories in breakfast and started on the energy stores. Say 2 hours at 20 kph burns 1,100 kcals. That sounds quite impressive aligned with an 800 kcal/day diet. However, noted that 1 lb of body fat represents around 3,500 kcals. now from this web site http://www.diabetes.co.uk/bmr-calculator.html my BMR is around 1,600 kcal/day. Add the burn from cycling every other day, (1100/2=550) gives a calorie burn of around 2150 kcals or a deficit 0f 1,350 kcals/day. Which looks like a potential weight loss of 2.7 lbs/ week.

So 1lb a week on current eating plan, 2.7 lbs a week on diet week, say 5.7 lbs/month? Looks good for losing a stone in 3 months!

As I said at the start, there are all sorts of questions fizzing around and I am finding some of it a bit bewildering.

One thing I think I have picked out of all this is that exercise is not the magic bullet for losing weight.
If I am burning 550 kcals/hour doing fairly vigorous cycling then this usage alone would burn a pound of fat in about 6 hours if I didn't eat anything.
In alternative numbers, I am burning about 2 Mars Bars per hour.
So assuming I was a steady weight if I didn't change my diet at all and rode vigorously for 6 hours a week I would lose 1 lb a week.
Which is why. I think, so many people throw themselves into exercise and find they don't lose weight because exercise just makes them hungry.

Anyway, any clarifications, recommendations, suggestions etc. most welcome.

I am bracing myself to start the reduced calorie diet and we shall see what happens.

Cheers

LGC

P.S. Read http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/1lb-does-not-equal-3500-calories/ for a completely different view.
This seems to say that very reduced calorie diets will not strip off fat but will instead strip off lean body mass. I may, of course, be reading it wrongly.

 

[Spiker]

Bunch of questions there but I think your 4 answers your 1 - Prof Taylor (as I read him) says that liver fat is always preferentially metabolised. I think the drawback of your proposal, to burn liver fat through exercise rather than through carb/cal restriction, is just the same problem that always affects the use of exercise vs diet restriction. The 800 cal diet is a massive percentage reduction in available calories, from baseline. Even huge amounts of exercise don't shift the baseline energy consumption much in percentage terms. As I say, this is a problem in all attempts to reduce fat via exerc ise rather than by diet restriction.

In theory I think it will work, but it will be slow going and quite hard, compared to doing the restricted calorie diet.

Re 1, it is not necessarily body fat and body muscle you will start to metabolise. This could equally be dietary fat and protein recently digested into the bloodstream, and I believe that would be used preferentially over structural protein. Though a lot depends on your blood insulin level.

One thing I have not seen discussed is, how does the Newcastle diet differ if you do 800kcal of low carb, rather than 800kcal of mostly carbs. Any ideas or research or opinions on that? I guess my instinct is it would be easier for diet compliance, and also more ketogenic, leading to faster loss of hepatic fat. But who knows. I'm just speculating.

 

[runner2009]

Bunch of questions there but I think your 4 answers your 1 - Prof Taylor (as I read him) says that liver fat is always preferentially metabolised. I think the drawback of your proposal, to burn liver fat through exercise rather than through carb/cal restriction, is just the same problem that always affects the use of exercise vs diet restriction. The 800 cal diet is a massive percentage reduction in available calories, from baseline. Even huge amounts of exercise don't shift the baseline energy consumption much in percentage terms. As I say, this is a problem in all attempts to reduce fat via exerc ise rather than by diet restriction.

In theory I think it will work, but it will be slow going and quite hard, compared to doing the restricted calorie diet.

Re 1, it is not necessarily body fat and body muscle you will start to metabolise. This could equally be dietary fat and protein recently digested into the bloodstream, and I believe that would be used preferentially over structural protein. Though a lot depends on your blood insulin level.

One thing I have not seen discussed is, how does the Newcastle diet differ if you do 800kcal of low carb, rather than 800kcal of mostly carbs. Any ideas or research or opinions on that? I guess my instinct is it would be easier for diet compliance, and also more ketogenic, leading to faster loss of hepatic fat. But who knows. I'm just speculating.

Two issues come to mind;

First, my understanding when you are on a starvation diet - and 600 to 800 calories is considered starvation diet - that of course you deplete your glycogen stores, but your body begins digesting protein first before it starts on the fat - not implying that it is linear but fat is preserved over muscle. Is this information out of date?

Second at 600 to 800 calories a day, I will bet that the type of nutrients ingested is of little impact - say you ate 800c of sugar you would have eaten only 207g of carbs. Brain uses about 130g

My personal experience of doing LSD running for over 45 to 60 miles a week - you need a lot of nutrients especially protein to rebuild your muscles - sounds more like the Batan Death march to me.

Why not ratchet up a little and lose just 2-lbs of weight a week and focus on a diet and exercise that is maintainable for life.

Question: what percent of body weight did these people lose over the 3-months? Do they believe it was the shock to the system that causes the remissions? Do they believe that if someone lost the weight over a longer period of time and was down to the low side of the bmi they too would be in remission?

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[phoenix]

3, 500 cal deficit does not equate to a pound of fat. That is the deficit needed to lose a pound of body weight and will include water, lean tissue and in some cases even bone loss.
Bente Merete Stallknecht http://bmi.ku.dk/english/Staff/Staff_De./?id=163823, gave a lecture on exercise and weight loss in the online course I am doing at the moment . This is what she said.

'For example, It takes approximately one hour of biking or gymnastics to combust 500 kilo calories. Assuming that one kilo of fat contains approximately 9,400 kilocalories, one would need to bike or do gymnastics for approximately 19 hours to loose one kilo'
Also as people lose weight then their basal needs also alter so this has to be taken into account (this paper explains all the variables but it is very difficult) In a panel at the end of the paper they discuss whether the macronutrient content of a diet actually influences weight loss.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880593/

The research presented by Prof Stallneckt might be worth thinking about.
They compared weight loss between 2 groups of exercisers (one moderate dose at 30 min a day, one high dose at 60 min a day) they found that for weight and body fat loss, the mod dose exercisers did as well as those who exercised twice as much. They measured calorie expenditure during exercise and body composition using a dexa scan.
Both groups lost about the same amount of weight , 4% in the moderate dose 3% in the high dose. They lost the same amount of body fat : 14% in the moderate dose training group and 13% in the high dose training group. However, fat free mass, probably skeletal muscle, increased significantly in the high dose training group.

So the mod dose exercisers had an 85% greater weight loss than expected, the high dose exercisers had a 20% lower weight loss.

The researchers found that the low dose exercisers increased their daily activity outside of the exercise session by 37% (though this actually wasn't significant.) They believe, but can't be certain that these people had a 'bonus' because they became more energised.
They also suggest that the higher dose exercisers may have compensated with more energy ie food taken in (but the trial didn't actually detect it , ie they found no difference, they say that higher numbers in the trial would have been needed to detect this (and probably food intake would have had to be more tightly monitored )
The paper is here:http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/ajpregu/303/6/R571.full.pdf

 

[Spiker]

Question: what percent of body weight did these people lose over the 3-months? Do they believe it was the shock to the system that causes the remissions? Do they believe that if someone lost the weight over a longer period of time and was down to the low side of the bmi they too would be in remission?

As the OP quoted, Prof Taylor does not believe rapid weight loss is critical. It should work just as well with a less severe restriction over a longer period of time.

 

[borofergie]

I have read elsewhere that if I cycle continuously for more than 2 hours I will burn all the glucose stores from my liver/pancreas and then will have to start burning body fat (or muscle). This sounds a good reason to cycle for more than 2 hours. However will this preferentially burn fat from my liver and pancreas?

If you want to exhaust your glycogen supplies, then shorter bouts of intense exercise will do that much quicker (interval training, something like Sprint 8).

If you are cycling for more than two hours, then you'll be somewhere well below your aerobic threshold and burning mostly fat.

If you're on a 600kcal a day diet, you'll also probably be in ketosis, which will bias your metabolism more towards fat burning.

I have read about 'bonk training' which isn't as much fun as it first sounds. As I understand it the premise is that after a period of continuous exercise however much food you take on during the exercise you hit a point where you run out of glucose in your muscles because you can't take it in from the blood as fast as you burn it. So you have to switch over to burning other energy stores such as fat. This can lead you to 'hitting the wall' even though you are hydrating and taking calories on board. The idea seems to be that you exercise with depleted glucose/glycogen stores right from the start to get to this alternative energy process early on in the exercise session and work on training your body to run on non-glucose/glycogen energy so that you don't have a sudden switch well into an endurance run or ride. Sounds good again for burning fat, but how does this relate to (1) and (2)?

I don't eat any carbs (<<25g a day) and only a moderate amount of protein. I always run in a fasted state. If you train like this for long enough, then your metabolism will become more reliant on fat, even at relatively higher intensities (but not for anaerobic exercise). I'm marathon training, so I always run well below my aerobic threshold.

I think you need to be in ketosis though. Hitting the wall is really just exercise induced hypoglycemia. If you are in ketosis, your brain is running mainly on ketones and you shouldn't "hit the wall".

What you need to be careful of is eating enough carbs to knock you out of ketosis, but not enough to fuel your exercise. I knocked myself out in a race by doing that.

 

[LittleGreyCat]

If you want to exhaust your glycogen supplies, then shorter bouts of intense exercise will do that much quicker (interval training, something like Sprint 8).

If you are cycling for more than two hours, then you'll be somewhere well below your aerobic threshold and burning mostly fat..

I think I am probably doing interval training as part of my ride.
Geologically I live on a glacial plain which has been eroded by small water courses over time.
This gives a few miles of more or less flat riding then an overblown steep sided ditch.
By the time I've climbed out the other side I have incurred a massive oxygen debt and it takes another mile to get my breathing back down to 'normal' for cycling.
This doesn't make me an ace hill climber because they are only short hills, but it feels like interval training.

If you're on a 600kcal a day diet, you'll also probably be in ketosis, which will bias your metabolism more towards fat burning..

Not on the 600 kcal diet yet although my low carb reasonable fat diet is enough to take my weight down.
Just realised I have lost 2 lbs in 6 days which must be a statistical freak.
I don't think I am in ketosis, or at least wasn't when I had my bloods done about 3 weeks ago.

I think you need to be in ketosis though. Hitting the wall is really just exercise induced hypoglycemia. If you are in ketosis, your brain is running mainly on ketones and you shouldn't "hit the wall".

What you need to be careful of is eating enough carbs to knock you out of ketosis, but not enough to fuel your exercise. I knocked myself out in a race by doing that.

I suspect that I am probably dipping into ketosis part way through my ride but it is difficult to tell.
Certainly my last post ride result of 4.3 suggests that I had used up all freely available glucose - but I was still cycling along albeit without my initial verve so the energy must have been coming from somewhere.

All very confusing, but the good news is that my weight is coming down even before I try out the 800 kcal/day diet.

Cheers

LGC.

 

[Bebo321]

Two issues come to mind;

First, my understanding when you are on a starvation diet - and 600 to 800 calories is considered starvation diet - that of course you deplete your glycogen stores, but your body begins digesting protein first before it starts on the fat - not implying that it is linear but fat is preserved over muscle. Is this information out of date?

Second at 600 to 800 calories a day, I will bet that the type of nutrients ingested is of little impact - say you ate 800c of sugar you would have eaten only 207g of carbs. Brain uses about 130g

My personal experience of doing LSD running for over 45 to 60 miles a week - you need a lot of nutrients especially protein to rebuild your muscles - sounds more like the Batan Death march to me.

Why not ratchet up a little and lose just 2-lbs of weight a week and focus on a diet and exercise that is maintainable for life.

Question: what percent of body weight did these people lose over the 3-months? Do they believe it was the shock to the system that causes the remissions? Do they believe that if someone lost the weight over a longer period of time and was down to the low side of the bmi they too would be in remission?

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

Hi there,
With regard to exercise and the body's preferred fuel, I thought that protein (that is muscle protein) was a last resort. Anyone able to clarify on this point?
Many thanks. Bx