Fat loss to remission

[aris]

This is true - energy is energy, but calories are not a great way to represent it in the context of food and managing weight. It is currently the simplest way to compare one food product with another but I think something better could replace it.

Consider for example if the energy expended during the process of metabolising carbs, protein or dietary fat, and getting that energy stored as body fat, were considered a bit like an 'income tax' on calories-in. Consider a food package labelling system that used net values - calories minus 'tax' - instead of or in addition to calories - the raw energy in the food. Call the net value 'Metabolic Energy Units' or whatever. The result would be numbers on food packages that are much closer to the mark in answering the question that most people actually care about - the likely effect of that product on their weight. It still wouldn't be perfect, but it would perhaps be a step in the right direction.

I'm not sure if I understand your analogy. I do know one thing for a fact: If you consume fewer calories than you expend - you will lose fat.

 

[ajbod]

As long as your blood sugar levels are low enough to allow that. As type 2 diabetics, our problem is Insulin resistance. Our own bodies answer to that is to produce more Insulin, in an attempt to over power the problem, occasionally this will require Sulfonylureas, until such time as our over worked Pancreas MAY start to falter. this would then necessitate insulin being injected.
With higher blood sugars, type 2s have higher levels of circulating Insulin primarily our real problem. This has the effect of blocking the use of body fat, the very reason obesity is a SYMPTOM of type 2 diabetes.

 

[jpscloud]

Calories in - calories out is still valid in a low carb context in my opinion. Yes 30% of protein calories are consumed in digestion, but that is part of the calories out equation. The human body cannot defy the laws of physics.

I think it was Jason Fung (but others too) who said the calories in/calories out equation is based in physics, while the human body is about physiology. I don't have the smarts to explain that but it does seem to make sense given that it really does appear that it is what the human body DOES with the calories (which come from different sources) that counts. CICO, they say, is broadly accurate but can't explain hormonal responses.

 

[AloeSvea]

You had the smarts,@jpscloud, to explain it perfectly well.

 

[AloeSvea]

Hi @aris. I am assuming the calories in calories out theory of weight gain and loss has worked well for you. I am very keen to hear positive experiences of this theory applying to folks with type two well. Hope you can share? (And I promise I would never say any notion you espoused was absurd! Even a little bit.)

 

[jpscloud]

You had the smarts,@jpscloud, to explain it perfectly well.

Thanks @AloeSvea ! But there was a lot of sciency stuff that I didn't quite grasp in the videos too. It's really thanks to Jason Fung for making the information accessible to everyone. I've just been watching another person who is saying that fructose is nature's way of saying winter is on its way - because fruit was available in autumn in cooler climates, and where people with an expression of a certain gene put on more body fat in response to fructose and therefore had a better chance of surviving the winter.

In our current food environment fructose is literally everywhere, but especially in processed and ultra processed foods. Calories from foods high in fructose gets insulin levels going crazy (even though BG stays fairly level with fructose) and our bodies start screaming "Winter is coming!" with even small doses. It raises insulin levels and makes us hungry like the bear.

So back to CICO, calories in with a dose of fructose is fat-gaining AND fat-storing material, and (my personal suspicion having lived through many carb comas) probably makes us want to be more sedentary as well in a survival sense. Calories in from foods that don't raise insulin levels are not the same as those that do, not least because insulin isn't trying to push the energy into fat storage.

 

[jpscloud]

Ok I promise not to go on any more after this... I really want to add that for someone like me, T2D living with obesity, the CICO model works - of course it does - if I eat to calorie deficit I'll lose weight. However, if those are the everyday foods I ate (to excess) as I became T2D and I limit them to create a calorie deficit, I'll be hungry, miserable and lack energy - then I will give in and binge. I've tried it many times.

When I only eat foods that do not raise insulin levels, there is a calorie deficit but if I don't deviate from it (easier said than done, but doable) I am not hungry because those foods are more satisfying, and on the whole I have good levels of energy and - most importantly - my body gradually forgets about the dizzy heights of the sugar days and starts doing what it was meant to do, burn through my body fat stores - it's finally winter!

 

[ianf0ster]

I'm not sure if I understand your analogy. I do know one thing for a fact: If you consume fewer calories than you expend - you will lose fat.

No, it isn't a fact. Often if you consume fewer calories your Resting Metabolic Rate will drop - an adaptation against starvation which 'bomb calorimeters' don't have!

 

[zand]

No, it isn't a fact. Often if you consume fewer calories your Resting Metabolic Rate will drop - an adaptation against starvation which 'bomb calorimeters' don't have!

Yes, this is what happened to me, and the more you restrict calories, the less you need. I dieted so much that I could no longer lose weight on 1000 calories a day. Yet when I stopped dieting I found I lost 7 pounds that year (having previously gained 7 pounds a year at least)

 

[KennyA]

No, it isn't a fact. Often if you consume fewer calories your Resting Metabolic Rate will drop - an adaptation against starvation which 'bomb calorimeters' don't have!

I agree. The issue with reducing calories is that it provokes hunger, sends the body into starvation mode, and reduces metabolic rates. Calorie reduction as a means to weight loss is not all that effective in the real world.

The human body is a bit more complex than the internal combustion engine, but even with the engine the type of fuel (as opposed to its calorific value) is relevant - don't try putting diesel in your petrol engine.

 

[aris]

No, it isn't a fact. Often if you consume fewer calories your Resting Metabolic Rate will drop - an adaptation against starvation which 'bomb calorimeters' don't have!

Yes and no. As you lose weight, yes - the number of calories you need (RMR) will decrease - slightly. This is mainly because you are getting smaller and your body needs fewer calories to survive. You could mitigate this a bit with strength training.

As for "starvation mode" - this is pretty much a myth. Unless *maybe* you are actually starving - like zero calories eaten. But then you have bigger problems. Read up on the Minnesota starvation experiment.

 

[zand]

Yes and no. As you lose weight, yes - the number of calories you need (RMR) will decrease - slightly. This is mainly because you are getting smaller and your body needs fewer calories to survive. You could mitigate this a bit with strength training.

As for "starvation mode" - this is pretty much a myth. Unless *maybe* you are actually starving - like zero calories eaten. But then you have bigger problems. Read up on the Minnesota starvation experiment.

No! Starvation mode is not a myth. You have simply been lucky not to suffer from it.

Back in 2007 my son and I had flu. We could eat nothing for several days and after that we managed around 200 cals for a couple of days and then around 400 -600 for a few days. The worst of the illness was over after 11 days. So ww consumed an average of 180 calories a day over the 11 days.

My son lost 11 1/2 pounds in 11 days. I lost just half a pound. That is starvation mode, brought on by many years of cutting calories and in doing so wrecking my metabolism. So don't tell me that some study or other has proved it doesn't exist. This is my lived experience and if it doesn't agree with the science, then the 'science' is wrong. It was after that bout of flu that I realised that there was no way that calorie counting would help me lose weight.

 

[zand]

I've just read a little about the Minnesota starvation experiment. 6 months on around 1500 calories to start with. Wow ! I wouldn't call that semi starvation, I used to put weight on consuming that many. And the experiment was for only a year? In 2007 I had been trying to lose weight by reducing calories for over 25 years. Madness

 

[jpscloud]

I know I said I wouldn't go on... but I can't stop! Metabolism does slow down with prolonged calorie restriction, that's a survival tactic. Equally, fat is a survival tactic and if you induce nutritional ketosis your body happily switches to fat burning rather than starving and slowing down metabolism. You have to have a bit of body fat you want to get rid of for this though.

Low carb gets your body switching over to fat burning, with no metabolism slow down (I believe it actually speeds up) higher carb intake will mean you're just calorie restricting and your metabolism will slow down.

I have also done calorie restriction without adjusting carbs in the past and for a food-addicted binge-eater, that was a huge mistake.

 

[aris]

No! Starvation mode is not a myth. You have simply been lucky not to suffer from it.

Back in 2007 my son and I had flu. We could eat nothing for several days and after that we managed around 200 cals for a couple of days and then around 400 -600 for a few days. The worst of the illness was over after 11 days. So ww consumed an average of 180 calories a day over the 11 days.

My son lost 11 1/2 pounds in 11 days. I lost just half a pound. That is starvation mode, brought on by many years of cutting calories and in doing so wrecking my metabolism. So don't tell me that some study or other has proved it doesn't exist. This is my lived experience and if it doesn't agree with the science, then the 'science' is wrong. It was after that bout of flu that I realised that there was no way that calorie counting would help me lose weight.

Fair enough, if you don't want to believe in science, there is no point debating.

I've just read a little about the Minnesota starvation experiment. 6 months on around 1500 calories to start with. Wow ! I wouldn't call that semi starvation, I used to put weight on consuming that many. And the experiment was for only a year? In 2007 I had been trying to lose weight by reducing calories for over 25 years. Madness

You missed the bit about the gruelling exercise they had to do.

 

[ajbod]

Your metabolic rate does reduce as weight comes off, but it also reduces far more to balance the intake of fuel. This is the reason that anyone on a calorie controlled diet plateaus. The body switches into an energy saving mode, it doesn't waste calories, it cuts out the less necessary functions, why do so many dieters feel the cold more, simply because the body saves heating energy by concentrating on heating the core and brain. lethargy is the bodies way of stopping wasting energy by moving unless needed.
The only way to avoid this is by varying calorie intake whilst dieting, to stop the energy saving mode.

 

[HairySmurf]

Your metabolic rate does reduce as weight comes off, but it also reduces far more to balance the intake of fuel. This is the reason that anyone on a calorie controlled diet plateaus. The body switches into an energy saving mode, it doesn't waste calories, it cuts out the less necessary functions, why do so many dieters feel the cold more, simply because the body saves heating energy by concentrating on heating the core and brain. lethargy is the bodies way of stopping wasting energy by moving unless needed.
The only way to avoid this is by varying calorie intake whilst dieting, to stop the energy saving mode.

See attached - graph of my resting heart rate over the Christmas period - pulled from my Fitbit. I went off my diet on December 18th, back on it for a few days between Christmas and New Year's, and back on it from Jan 2nd. The graph represents my body's efforts to reduce energy expenditure as you're describing - reducing my heart rate at rest to conserve energy when I'm eating less. I've lost 7.5Kg since then on a calorie controlled diet with exercise and my RHR averages around 63 BPM. No plateau, because there's only so much adapting a body can do to conserve energy. Just eat less and/or exercise more using weekly weight loss rate to guide changes and you'll pass the point at which a plateau would occur if your calories and exercise were fixed from the beginning. I do experience cold hands and feet sometimes and am often lethargic, particularly after exercise. I'm eating 150g to 160g of carbs per day.

I'm not saying calorie restriction works for everyone. How would I know that one way or the other, and accounts of people trying very hard and it not working for them are many. Counting calories is the only method I've ever tried and it has worked for me to the tune of 1Kg per week on average and 16.7Kg (2.6 stone) in 17 weeks. For me at least, the maths work fine.

 

[zand]

Fair enough, if you don't want to believe in science, there is no point debating.


You missed the bit about the gruelling exercise they had to do.

How can I possibly believe the science when my own experience says otherwise?! My body doesn't react in that way. It did for the first 6 years or so of trying to diet and it was after that that I had to reduce calories more and more while getting ever fatter.
The Minnesota Experiment was conducted on men. It has no relevance to me as a woman. Our hormones are different.
Please do not dismiss posters' real life experiences as rubbish. How can you possibly know what I have been through during the last 40+ years?

I don't rate Ancel Keys as a top scientist. He cherry picked countries in his 7 nations study. It was his theories that turned us away from saturated fats and cooked breakfasts in the 70s. It was after this that the nation got fat. Fat satiates us and is therefore helpful in controlling weight. Newer science has proved him to be wrong. My cholesterol is lower on a high fat diet than it was on a low calorie, low fat diet.

 

[jjraak]

A very interesting thread.
Cheers all.

Another fan of Dr Fung here.

My take goes like this.

We eat, we get DX, we change diet.

What we ate before gave us peaks & troughs (rough seas)
And made us eat more often .

We (I did ) go lchf, and gradually the peaks & troughs flatten (a calmer sea)

The added bonus, is due to being satiated, that pre DX hunger diminishes.

I rarely feel hungry these days.

I'm not in ketosis by a very long way, and I don't calorie count or weigh food.

But due to the better quality of food OR the fact I'm no longer imbibing as much of the food I'm intolerant too, I'm fuller for longer.

So I most likely have lowered my calories in, now I give it some thought.

The point however being, I very much doubt just calorie counting the foods I ate pre DX, post DX ..would have offered or allowed me to lose 3 stone over several months .

Due to that very intolerance.

Doing an unintentional lower calorie diet, while using the lchf food intake...Did.

Could that be why we have this discussion of cico v lchf ?

One works for people without T2D & the others works for those WITH T2D.

The lchf flattens the waves that cico alone can't, then lchf naturally leads to a more cico diet, almost without thinking about it.?

Either way, for those T2D, who eat lchf & find it a positive for them ...keep on.

It worked for me, and that's all I need to know.

The quotes about religion, but maybe it's appropriate here .

"For those who believe, no proof required.
For those who don't believe, no proof would ever be enough"

Live long & prosper, people.

 

[aris]

How can I possibly believe the science when my own experience says otherwise?! My body doesn't react in that way. It did for the first 6 years or so of trying to diet and it was after that that I had to reduce calories more and more while getting ever fatter.
The Minnesota Experiment was conducted on men. It has no relevance to me as a woman. Our hormones are different.
Please do not dismiss posters' real life experiences as rubbish. How can you possibly know what I have been through during the last 40+ years?

I don't rate Ancel Keys as a top scientist. He cherry picked countries in his 7 nations study. It was his theories that turned us away from saturated fats and cooked breakfasts in the 70s. It was after this that the nation got fat. Fat satiates us and is therefore helpful in controlling weight. Newer science has proved him to be wrong. My cholesterol is lower on a high fat diet than it was on a low calorie, low fat diet.

At no point did I dismiss anyone's experience as "rubbish". All I said was that all weight loss ultimately works on a calorie deficit. Even a low carb high fat one. I don't rubbish anyones diet, and in fact follow a lower carb/GI diet myself.

Along with calories in/out, diet success also relies on adherence - and this is another area where low carb diets excel as it keeps hunger at bay. Not because of the number of calories, but because of an decrease in ghrelin and the feeling of satiety protein affords.