Fat loss to remission

[aris]

Our stomachs are lined with stretch receptors which expand when we are full. Eating larger amounts of bulkier, low-calorie density foods can help with the expansion and stretching. The work of Barbara Rolls relating to volumetrics expounds on this idea of eating low-clorie density foods.

This style of eating is naturally where low-fat, high-carb, wholefoods vegans land, as the foods geerally consumed are low enough in calories to allow for a lot of bulk to be consumed. That aspect of satiety is why many find success effortlessly on such a WOE.

I agree - volume eating helps. I practice this too. I eat lots of vegetables with my meals. I'll eat 300g of fine beans or a whole head of steamed broccoli in one sitting for instance. Cabbage is also a great low-GI/carb veg. This is in addition to my protein.

The simple fact is, we all vary by so much, that the "rules" cannot always work. We've all from our own experiences, attained weight loss and reduced Blood sugars, by various different means that worked for US as individuals, often contrary to the perceived wisdom of science. No one way is right or wrong. It is only right if it works for US, it may well fail for others, but nobody can dispute it, as they haven't experienced it.

I'm not arguing on the side of personal choice. I'm arguing on the side of science and against misinformation. My argument is simple - no matter what diet you choose, to lose weight you have to be in a calorie deficit - knowingly or not.

 

[zand]

Not all calories are equal.

I can lose weight having 1500 cals of low carb/keto - so I must be in deficit?

I lost 6 pounds in 5 days eating mostly fat, 2312 cals a day. One pound went back on shortly afterwards, so I'm guessing that was water, but the other 5 stayed off for a few months until life got complicated again, so I assume that was real fat loss. So in deficit again?

When I wrote about the fat fast I mentioned I had done a 1000 calorie mixed foods diet for a month whilst walking 2 miles a day. On checking my records (which I have since found) I had actually done 1000 cals for the month before with no weight loss, followed by the 1000 cals walking 2 miles for a month, still no weight loss. The 3rd month I stuck to 1000 cals but was unable to walk the 2 miles as I was ill. That month I gained 2 pounds. So not in deficit on 1000 cals?

A starvation diet is said to be 1000 calories or less.

When I had flu I had consumed an average of less than 200 cals for 11 days and only lost half a pound. So that would indicate that my daily requirement was as low as 360 cals ? (assuming you need a deficit of 3500 cals to lose a pound. )

I do know how to count calories and how to weigh foods. Please don't pat me on the head and say 'there there, you can't count calories'. I expect I can count calories better than most of you, I have had more practice.

Incidentally I do use Myfitnesspal when I am doing strict keto, but find it needs to be double checked as not all the entries have British values (in USA they include fibre in the carb count, in UK it is netted out.) Also as the input is from users some of them have entered them incorrectly. It's fine, if like me, you have calorie counted for years and know the rough values already, the wrong entries stick out like a sore thumb, but anyone new to calorie counting can be misled. For that reason I prefer the Carbs and Cals book and other websites and books to check what is in Myfitnesspal.

 

[Lupf]

I read through this thread just now and see people arguing about laws of physics, calorie-in-calorie-out (CICO) and more. This is an example of disagreement between people using terms differently due to their background, there is also a bit of what I call "violent agreement", where people argue, but actually agree. As I am a scientist, I've decided to add my thoughts.
1) The laws of physics and thermodynamics are universal, and valid also for T2s. Energy is conserved and cannot be made out of nothing nor disappear. Anyone pretending otherwise is trying to sell you snake oil. Our bodies need energy, say about 2000 calories per day (your mileage may vary) where 1 food calorie is defined as the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one litre of water by one degree Celsius and amounts to 1 kcal = 4.184 Joules (1 Joule is the unit of energy).
2) From energy conservation it follows that to lose weight, one has consume fewer calories than one is using.
3) Our bodies expend energy by breathing, I've explained this in the following thread, https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/when-you-lose-weight-where-does-the-fat-go.182000/ after I was surprised to learn that a majority of doctors, dieticians and fitness trainers have this wrong.
4) CICO is not a good model for the human body, because it is much too simplistic. Our bodies are not combustion engines. The body treats calories from protein, fat and carbohydrates differently, our hunger is regulated by hormones, such as insulin. So statements such as fatty food are more satiating or carbs are all converted into glucose and excess is turned into body fat are mostly correct.
5) The body has a metabolic base rate, which is what is the minimum you need before any activity. When you diet by only reducing your calorie intake to say 1500 cals you will lose weight, but at some point your metabolic base rate reduces as well and at after a some time you will stop losing (or event re-start gaining) weight. Importantly you will always feel hungry (recall you are a hormonal machine) and become miserable and eventually stop. Thus in my honest view such diets are almost impossible to sustain. We all know or have been yo-yo dieters, which do this over and over.
6) Reducing carbs, and compensating by more fat (LCHF) has been used successfully by many to lose weight sustainably, as the change in diet and increase for fat reduces feeling hungry.
7) Another dietary approach that seems to work well for many (including yours truly) is intermittent fasting. By restricting (or removing) calories for limited time periods, the metabolic base rate will not reduce and you can lose weight
8) You might have noted that I have not said anything about blood sugar, which is increased in T2 who cannot properly deal with carbs. Many on this forum have reduced their HbA1c into remission by switching to a LCHF diet, and you immediately realise that this makes sense. Fewer carbs leads to less hunger and carb craving and thus lower blood sugar values. People argue about what comes first, the lowering of the HbA1c by LCHF or losing weight. I don't think we should argue about this, it is more important to acknowledge that LCHF will help you in both goals.

 

[MimT]

I've been following this discussion with interest. It prompted me to look up how energy of food is calculated.

kJ (calories) are a very crude (and old) measure of food energy, and different countries measure it slightly differently.

It strikes me that strict adherence to kJ is of best value when the overall composition of your diet stays much the same and you're only changing quantity not type, and keeping the sources and proportions of the major nutrients the same. When you start to change the mix from say, high GI to low GI, or carb heavy to protein/fat heavy, then dietary kJ (cal) isn't quite as useful (though it's arguably still useful for many of us, given it's the only energy intake measure we have). Further, dietary energy content as measured for food labels is metabolisable energy "ME" not net metabolisable energy "NME" or net energy for maintenance "NE" as seen on the chart near the top of the article linked below:

CHAPTER 3: CALCULATION OF THE ENERGY CONTENT OF FOODS - ENERGY CONVERSION FACTORS

There are also differences between foods having different proportions of the various proteins and carbs.

While "energy in less energy out" determines whether we gain, lose or stay the same weight, one must consider what is meant by "energy in" as well as "energy out", and how accurately and precisely either of them can be measured. The labelled energy content of food is usually close enough, but it doesn't take account of everything (energy in or energy out) - not only in the general sense (as above), but in the specific sense. Each person has their own individual metabolism, gut biota, etc and diabetes will have an impact on top of that.

So, like measures of many different things, I regard kJ (cals) as useful rather than accurate and precise.

For a simplified (simplistic?) version of the FAO chapter linked above, here's an article from the Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/proof-is-in-the-eating-all-kilojoules-not-equal-20130220-2ervg.html

Edited for clarification (hopefully).

 

[zand]

@Lupf ... So having a low basal temperature would mean I burn fewer calories than most people?
I once read that walking 5 miles used the same amount of calories as running 5 miles. I guess that isn't true?
When out walking I often keep up with joggers in front of me, sometimes even narrowing the gap between us. Would jogging at my walking speed burn more calories if I was breathing faster? Not keen on wearing out my knees faster though!

 

[Lupf]

@Lupf ... So having a low basal temperature would mean I burn fewer calories than most people?
I once read that walking 5 miles used the same amount of calories as running 5 miles. I guess that isn't true?
When out walking I often keep up with joggers in front of me, sometimes even narrowing the gap between us. Would jogging at my walking speed burn more calories if I was breathing faster? Not keen on wearing out my knees faster though!

It appears that you mistyped: "basal temperature" is used to monitor if a woman ovulates.
Assuming you meant to say "having a low metabolic base rate" then correct you burn fewer calories.
You can read a lot, which is not true, jogging = walking is one of these.
When we do sports we say we burn more calories, but what actually happens is as that when you are breathing in more air and your lungs convert more oxygen atoms from the air and more carbon atoms from the fat (trygliceride) into carbon dioxide and water.
As I've said before sports has many benefits, in particular for your heart, but it is not very effective for losing weight as you easily compensate the burnt calories with eating more, e.g. a chocolate bar can be up 500 calories, which is very hard to lose unless you run strenously for several hours.

 

[aris]

Basically what i've said all along - thank you. I think the confusion comes in with some very respected and eminent professors writing books with click-bait titles like (paraphrasing) "The calorie myth" - or "A calorie isn't a calorie" or "calories don't count" - clearly such titles sell better. Also "influencers" convincing people that the laws of thermodynamics don't count in biological systems. They do - but you need to understand what's going on under the covers of metabolising food - such as the thermic effect where for instance 30% of the energy in protein is used to digest and metabolised that protein. So if you eat 100 calories of pure protein, you are really only left with 70 once it has been metabolised. This still counts in the calories in/calories out equation, but not counted in a calorie table. This is another reason why low-carb diets help people lose weight - you are at an automatic calorie advantage by eating protein. It also takes much longer to digest, thus keeping you feel fuller faster, and for longer - meaning you eat less.


To clarify on the definition of a calorie. A "calorie" is the amount of energy it takes to raise 1ml of water by 1C. A "Calorie" (with a capital C) is also known as a kilocalorie/kcal/large calorie/food calorie - is 1000 calories. It is the amount of energy it takes to raise 1l of water 1C. Think about it - a large egg has about 85 calories. It has enough energy in it to bring 1l of water from room temperature to boiling. The body requires masses of energy to work - it is an incredible and amazing machine!


If you look at the video I posted earlier - it gives a fantastic description on how energy is metabolised and then breathed out.


I do agree that your RMR may lower when you diet, but I'm sceptical if it will go down 500 calories. If it did, I think it would be very noticeable. But even if it is say 250 calories - it makes it that much harder to lose weight.


Intermittent fasting may also help with insulin resistance - I posted something about this last week comparing early and mid intermittent fasting and it seems that an early feeding window may be noticeably beneficial for improving insulin sensitivity. https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/interesting-study-on-time-restricted-feeding.202494/


Low carb diets are a double win for T2 diabetes. One, you control blood sugar. Two, it makes it easier (for some) to lose weight. Losing fat - in particular visceral fat - will improve your insulin sensitivity. Great video here on visceral fat and diabetes. Some some way to explain why some obese people get T2 and others do not.

 

[zand]

It appears that you mistyped: "basal temperature" is used to monitor if a woman ovulates.
Assuming you meant to say "having a low metabolic base rate" then correct you burn fewer calories.
You can read a lot, which is not true, jogging = walking is one of these.
When we do sports we say we burn more calories, but what actually happens is as that when you are breathing in more air and your lungs convert more oxygen atoms from the air and more carbon atoms from the fat (trygliceride) into carbon dioxide and water.
As I've said before sports has many benefits, in particular for your heart, but it is not very effective for losing weight as you easily compensate the burnt calories with eating more, e.g. a chocolate bar can be up 500 calories, which is very hard to lose unless you run strenously for several hours.

Basal body temperature is simply your body's temperature at rest in the morning before you get up. I am well aware that it is normally used to check for ovulation, that doesn't mean it can't be checked for other reasons.

I was told to check mine by a naturopath who was helping me to find out why I couldn't lose weight so it was nothing to do with ovulation. So no, I didn't mistype. Mine was (and still is) around 34.8. So I am assuming that having a low body temperature would possibly translate to having a low metabolic rate.

I don't tend to compensate after exercise, I have calorie counted for too many years to fall into that trap. I normally just drink water if I think I am hungry after exercise. Swimming is the exception to this, but I don't like swimming, so it's not usually a problem.

 

[aris]

Basal body temperature is simply your body's temperature at rest in the morning before you get up. I am well aware that it is normally used to check for ovulation, that doesn't mean it can't be checked for other reasons.

I was told to check mine by a naturopath who was helping me to find out why I couldn't lose weight so it was nothing to do with ovulation. So no, I didn't mistype. Mine was (and still is) around 34.8. So I am assuming that having a low body temperature would possibly translate to having a low metabolic rate.

I don't tend to compensate after exercise, I have calorie counted for too many years to fall into that trap. I normally just drink water if I think I am hungry after exercise. Swimming is the exception to this, but I don't like swimming, so it's not usually a problem.

Below 35C is technically hypothermia. Perhaps you need a new thermometer - or see a doctor. Maybe you have an underactive thyroid.

 

[zand]

Below 35C is technically hypothermia. Perhaps you need a new thermometer - or see a doctor. Maybe you have an underactive thyroid.

Yes it is. I've used several thermometers and they all say the same. During Covid my chiropractor's thermometer read my temperature at 35C and this was in the middle of the day.

Yes I had a bad whiplash accident in 1989. I put on 2 stones in 10 weeks. My GP said I had moved less because of my injury. I had an active 2 year old son at the time and hadn't been able to move less! I also hadn't eaten more.

Years later a nutritionist and later a naturopath told me my thyroid could have been damaged in the accident. It makes sense. However my thyroid tests are 'within range' and my GPs have all dismissed the idea. I certainly needed to consume less calories to maintain my weight since then.

 

[zand]

Thanks to this thread I think I may have found an important key to my own weight problem. I am recovering from flu at the moment and not able to test it out until I am better, and I will need to give it a few months to test it properly. If I manage to carry out my plan I will start a thread in the Summer

 

[Lupf]

Basal body temperature is simply your body's temperature at rest in the morning before you get up. I am well aware that it is normally used to check for ovulation, that doesn't mean it can't be checked for other reasons.

I was told to check mine by a naturopath who was helping me to find out why I couldn't lose weight so it was nothing to do with ovulation. So no, I didn't mistype. Mine was (and still is) around 34.8. So I am assuming that having a low body temperature would possibly translate to having a low metabolic rate.

I don't tend to compensate after exercise, I have calorie counted for too many years to fall into that trap. I normally just drink water if I think I am hungry after exercise. Swimming is the exception to this, but I don't like swimming, so it's not usually a problem.

Apologies, I stand corrected and I learned something. I hadn't thought about a possible connection between basal body temperature and metabolic base rate. Thus I can't make a scientific comment on this.
I recall a very tragic accident where seven people died in an avalanche. One was a friend of mine. His partner survived, she was buried in the avalanche for a considerable time and when they dug her out her temperature had lowered to about 27 degrees. We were wondering if the fact that she was very skinny (extremely fit) and thus had very little body fat made her survival more probable.

 

[zand]

Apologies, I stand corrected and I learned something. I hadn't thought about a possible connection between basal body temperature and metabolic base rate. Thus I can't make a scientific comment on this.
I recall a very tragic accident where seven people died in an avalanche. One was a friend of mine. His partner survived, she was buried in the avalanche for a considerable time and when they dug her out her temperature had lowered to about 27 degrees. We were wondering if the fact that she was very skinny (extremely fit) and thus had very little body fat made her survival more probable.

Oh so sorry to read this. That was indeed tragic. And yes that does sound like a possible reason for the lady's survival.

 

[aris]

Yes it is. I've used several thermometers and they all say the same. During Covid my chiropractor's thermometer read my temperature at 35C and this was in the middle of the day.

Yes I had a bad whiplash accident in 1989. I put on 2 stones in 10 weeks. My GP said I had moved less because of my injury. I had an active 2 year old son at the time and hadn't been able to move less! I also hadn't eaten more.

Years later a nutritionist and later a naturopath told me my thyroid could have been damaged in the accident. It makes sense. However my thyroid tests are 'within range' and my GPs have all dismissed the idea. I certainly needed to consume less calories to maintain my weight since then.

I think you need a second opinion. Do some research yourself, look at your own test results too.

Thyroid function tests

Learn about how thyroid testing is used to diagnose and manage thyroid disorders

www.btf-thyroid.org

Unfortunately one often has to push hard to make your case with overworked GP's for anything out of the ordinary. If you have body temperature logged over time - take that. If it is indeed below 35C - they may take notice. Keep pushing though (politely).

If you have the NHS app on your phone - you can request for all your past test results to be available via the app. It is something you have to ask the GP specifically to enable. It gives you a historical view of all tests, and you can see results as soon as they are done by the lab (usually day or two, A1C takes a little longer). It also shows you what the acceptable ranges are for each result with the historical readings. Very handy.

 

[AndBreathe]

No, I took the bulls by the horn and decided to find out what was going on both in the calories OUT situation (testing my RMR), and the calories IN (doubling down on the logging).

I assumed the calories in was OK - but it wasn't. In a way I was pleased my RMR was where it should be - it would suck if it had gone down. Note that there can be huge variations in published calories, particularly of fresh food. Can be like 10-20% different.



How is that possible - where did your body get the energy from to create more mass while feeding it less? Are you even sure that the weight you were gaining was fat? Could it have been water retention? Not saying it was - but possible. I mean, if you were a plant, you could create mass from the sun, water and CO2. But you aren't (unless your name isn't Robert by any chance?)




OK! We're getting somewhere.


I'd say the calories are important from a blood glucose POV - but to lose weight - technically it is less important. I say less because protein takes 30% of the input calories just to digest - but I put that in the calories-out column. Even on a CICO diet, it is recommended to eat plenty of protein for this reason and satiety.

Again - I can't see how someone can actually gain weight when they are in an energy deficit.

May I ask how you tested your RMR?

 

[Outlier]

Thanks to this thread I think I may have found an important key to my own weight problem. I am recovering from flu at the moment and not able to test it out until I am better, and I will need to give it a few months to test it properly. If I manage to carry out my plan I will start a thread in the Summer

I will be very interested in your findings when you post them.

Going back a few posts to underline the "we are all different" once more - the assumption that we can add low-calorie/low carb bulk to get rid of hunger pangs e.g. by eating lots of cabbage. I was told to do this years ago when still doing low calorie, and for me it certainly didn't work. However, now on low carb/keto, I can eat cabbage with butter and/or olive oil - much higher in calories - and hunger is satiated.

 

[aris]

May I ask how you tested your RMR?

Sure,

I went to a place in London that was offering that. They also did VO2 Max for athletes - the process is similar. The place I went to seems to have been a victim of lockdown, but if you search for places that do VO2 Max - they may do RMR too. Quick google found this: https://www.boxnutrition.co.uk/metabolic-testing

Basically you go in a fasted and rested state, so I got there early and fasted, had some time to settle down and relax, then they put you on a bed, where they hook a mask on your face which measures all the CO2 you exhale. They do this over the period of 45 -60 mins, but from what the guy doing the test told me, they only use a small proportion of the data over that hour.

Hope this helps.

 

[AndBreathe]

Sure,

I went to a place in London that was offering that. They also did VO2 Max for athletes - the process is similar. The place I went to seems to have been a victim of lockdown, but if you search for places that do VO2 Max - they may do RMR too. Quick google found this: https://www.boxnutrition.co.uk/metabolic-testing

Basically you go in a fasted and rested state, so I got there early and fasted, had some time to settle down and relax, then they put you on a bed, where they hook a mask on your face which measures all the CO2 you exhale. They do this over the period of 45 -60 mins, but from what the guy doing the test told me, they only use a small proportion of the data over that hour.

Hope this helps.

Interesting, thanks.

 

[aris]

Had a look at my report again - it also reported my RQ - Respiratory Quotient. I'm not sure what to make of this. At the time I was not doing low-carb, and was not T2D. I'm not sure if my diet affected this.

 

[ajbod]

RQ very amply demonstrates how we are all different, and why we get such diverse results with our own particular diets. I have no idea what my own RQ is, but from my own individual experiments with diet, and how effective low carb is for me personally, i can only assume i must fall into the low category. This then begs the question, is it possible to alter ones RQ by prolonged changes in diet. As being type 2, and a high RQ, could make dietary control rather difficult.