Insulin Resistance is not the culprit. overeating is.

[zand]

lol @waleed you are so condescending. I log what I eat on myfitness pal and I double check the carb/cal content in my carbs and cals book as I have noticed that very occasionally myfitness pal gets it wrong. I have realised this through over 30 years of watching what I eat.

When I am in the right frame of mind I will do another 5 day fat fast to lose 5 pounds. I will increase my calories my to double my normal intake to do this.

What you are not seeing with your 'solid scientific law in thermodynamics" is that calorie count was established by burning the foods in a furnace. I have a human body not a furnace. It is flawed science to compare the two! Also the human body burns fat as fuel far better than it burns carbs or protein. As I said not all calories are equal.

*edited by a moderator due to rudeness towards another poster*

 

[waleed]

For goodness sakes Waleed, I don't want to be rude, but basically you are calling us liars. Please go do some research on why women don't lose weight like men. And there is no one size fits all. Like I said if it were that easy none of us would be diabetic. I'm 2 stone overweight and it isn't as easy as cutting calories

*edited by a moderator for rudeness towards another poster*

My apologies. Didn't mean to offend anybody. Only wanted to help.

 

[Indy51]

Except that I can't be bothered, I could find numerous articles out there debating whether CICO has any bearing whatsoever on human metabolism. You should be able to do your own research. Next you'll be telling us to exercise more, when that has been disproven as a weight loss method as well.








Edited to remove rudeness towards another poster.

 

[dawnmc]

I know you wanted to help, but it sounds more dictatorial unfortunately. I'm glad it worked for you I really am.

 

[Brunneria]

When you cut your calories intake and still not lose weight, then you are not counting calories correctly.
.

Nonsense.
This is the kind of ignorant, bigoted attitude that I have faced most of my life.
Doc after doc has patronised me with this arrogance (and ignorance).

Finally, a couple of years ago, I encountered an endocrinologist who looked me in the eye and said that with my particular hormonal issues she was impressed that I hadn't gained weight (and had actually lost some) in the last 12 months.

At last, an enducated expert!

I find the 'you are not doing it properly' attitude particularly offensive when it comes from men (who rarely have the hormonal issues that affect women), and who do not have a life long history of dieting. They think that because they stumbled on a simplistic regime (severe calorie restriction) that works for them, at the moment, they have the right to patronise and pontificate with statements like the one above.

Yes, this is a rant.

 

[waleed]

Except that I can't be bothered, I could find numerous articles out there debating whether CICO has any bearing whatsoever on human metabolism. You should be able to do your own research. Next you'll be telling us to exercise more, when that has been disproven as a weight loss method as well.








Edited to remove rudeness towards another poster.

I was just having a conversation with you. I am not a Doctor. I am not telling you to do anything.

 

[catherinecherub]

@dawnmc, as you seem to be at a standstill with your weight loss have you considered zig zagging your calorie intake.

If your calorie intake for the day is say 1000 calories then over 7 days that is 7000 calories. Rather than eat the same amount each day you could eat less or more each day as long as the total for the week is still 7000.
1200 one day, 800 another day and so on. Might be worth a try as it does work for a lot of people and gets the weight loss moving again. You are not eating any more per week but just staggering your daily intake.
You may also find that if this starts the weight moving then you could up your calories but still zig zag them.
It must be so frustrating if you do not see any results.

 

[dawnmc]

So how do you explain my weight gain? I was 8 st for years, had 4 children and retained 1/2 a stone with each child. I then had a hysterectomy at 44 and gained the extra 2 st, without eating any more and walking as much (kids to school etc). It would be lovely to think I gained this as overeating, I could blame myself then. But for 3 years I have logged my food with fitnesspal. Maybe fitness pal is wrong.

 

[Mike d]

My apologies. Didn't mean to offend anybody. Only wanted to help.

You may not have, but please read the number of posts these people have. Thousands. That level of experienced tells me a lot. To listen.

 

[dawnmc]

@dawnmc, as you seem to be at a standstill with your weight loss have you considered zig zagging your calorie intake.

If your calorie intake for the day is say 1000 calories then over 7 days that is 7000 calories. Rather than eat the same amount each day you could eat less or more each day as long as the total for the week is still 7000.
1200 one day, 800 another day and so on. Might be worth a try as it does work for a lot of people and gets the weight loss moving again. You are not eating any more per week but just staggering your daily intake.
You may also find that if this starts the weight moving then you could up your calories but still zig zag them.
It must be so frustrating if you do not see any results.

Worth a try.

 

[mfactor]

So how do you explain my weight gain? I was 8 st for years, had 4 children and retained 1/2 a stone with each child. I then had a hysterectomy at 44 and gained the extra 2 st, without eating any more and walking as much (kids to school etc). It would be lovely to think I gained this as overeating, I could blame myself then. But for 3 years I have logged my food with fitnesspal. Maybe fitness pal is wrong.

Not an expert but I think the body stores fat easier as we get older, maybe that's why........??

 

[Pipp]

I have had the statement that is the title of this thread said to me so many times by HCPs. Even been suggested that I have bariatric surgery. This despite at least 5 hours of intensive exercise a week, and a calorie intake averaging 1200 a day. I am sick and tired of people assuming that because I am still fat I am overeating, and overeating junk food as well.

There are people, apparently more females, that do not fit the narrow minded thinking of some of these HCPs and the OP of this thread.

 

[dawnmc]

Not an expert but I think the body stores fat easier as we get older, maybe that's why........??

I agree, but still I must be overeating junk food (sorry I couldn't resist)

 

[TorqPenderloin]

I don't think waleed is suggesting that's it's only as simple as cutting calories. However, that is half of the equation.

Calories are a measurement of energy. Hopefully we all agree. Conservation of energy laws tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So we know that what goes in has to come out one way or another.

There are a lot of variables but it truly is as simple as calories in/calories out.

Fiber is a great example of why it's important to understand the types of calories we consume. Fiber is considered a carbohydrate and it has energy (roughly 4 calories per 1g). However, our bodies cannot digest fiber and it essentially passes through us.....that's why fiber is health....it fills you up and cleans you out. Sounds a little funny but it's true.

Sucrose and carbs high on the glycemic index are rapidly digested. That's why we see a quick blood sugar spike. However, that energy either needs to be used through physical exertion or it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, our bodies often store this extra unused energy from carbohydrates as body fat. It's our body's way of defending itself against starvation.

This is where things start to get a bit fuzzy for me, but it's my understanding that protein can be converted into glucose through the process of glycogenesis, but it's a slower and more difficult process.

Dietary fats cannot be directly converted into glucose. However, it's my understanding that they are made up of glycerol and fatty acids. When glycerol binds three fatty acids together it creates a triglyceride which is the molecule that causes fat storage.

The idea behind a LCHF diet: with an ultra low carb diet your body begins to burn ketones as a source of energy. Without carbs and with a moderate protein intake your body has limited glucose production. Less glucose means less glycerol which means less triglycerides. The end result is that dietary fats have very little chance of converting into body fat and unused energy passes through undigested rather than being stored as body fat.

Disclaimer: I expect my understanding isn't 100% perfect and I welcome anyone to critique anything I didn't understand properly.

Bottom line: on a 600 calorie diet, your body may slow its metabolism and enter a "starvation mode." The result is that you're eating less calories, but also burning less. If that diet contains carbs they may be converted into glucose and store in fat cells which hinders weight loss.

On that 2000 calories low carb/high fat diet your body has more than enough useable energy between dietary fat and energy in your fat cells. In the absence of glucose, your body begins burning ketones and unused energy is very difficult to store in fat cells (triglycerides).

So with a ketogensis diet you're not necessarily burning more calories but more calories are passing through your body which supports the calories in/out concept.

 

[Brunneria]

@waleed

At the moment, i see your posts as buoyed up by success at short term weight loss. You have discovered that if you starve yourself, weight loss happens.

You are right in one thing. This happens to most people.

Unfortunately, if often sends them into some Born Again Dieting Mode where they feel they can preach to anyone. We see this occasionally on the forum.

What you have not factored in, presumably because you have not yet experienced it, is what happens next. Many of us are knowledgable through first hand experience of the next phases, and we are speaking from that experience about what works for us.

For me, calorie restriction results in some weight loss, followed by a stall or plateau, requiring further miserable calorie reduction. Eventually, my body demands more, and I attempt to return to adequate food intake. Then I follow the path listed below, like clockwork.

This is avery common pattern:
Instant small weight regain.
Huge hunger
Constant battle with appetite, food cravings and even food obsession.
Much of the weight loss has been muscle mass, so the body tries to rebuild, but it is much easier to rebuild fat than muscle, so extra effort will have to be made, including careful, quality protein intake, resistence exercise and portion control.
Over time, the urge to allow carb creep and extra portions wears you down.
Highly likely that you have 'switched on your thrifty gene' and your body will never allow you eat 'normal' calorie intake without weight gain, ever again.
All of this will almost inevitably result in slow regain.
with most people, the end result (after between 2 and 5 years) is that they end up heavier and with less muscle and more fat, more visceral fat, than before they started the diet.
Age and inevitable reduction in activity due to injury or degenerative disease accelerates this.

I really hope this doesn't happen to you, but it will take a daily vigilance and self discipline that very few of us have.
Good luck.

But in my opinion no one gets to tell other people how to lose weight until they have dieted successfully and kept the weight off for 5 years. And even then, they only get to say what worked for them. They never get to tell me that their method will apply to me - because the odds are I have already tried it, and suffered the consequences.

My story? 20 years of yo yo dieting, as described above, then 15 years ago, lost about 5 stone and have kept it off for 15 years.
- which has taken daily appetite resistance and self discipline.
Then this last 2 years, on very low carb high fat, I have lost a further 2 stone and kept it off and kept weight stable or gently reducing.

So, lucky me, I get to say what works for me.

This is my last post in this thread, because I don't feel like wasting any more words.

 

[Celeriac]

Gary Taubes and Dr Robert Lustig MD both agree with the law of thermodynamics. Dr Lustig uses a seesaw diagram I can't replicate here. Gary Taubes uses an analogy, which I can.

Think of the calories as passengers and the body as an airport. The thermodynamics law says that if more calories are eaten than expended, we put on fat. Very basic. Doesn't explain why, or why some foods are worse than others.

If more people enter an airport than leave, it gets congested. It might be congested because it peak vacation time, because there's a Buy One Get One Free seat offer on flights to Iceland, because there's bad weather, because an armed passenger started a fight and the police have shut the airport until they find him, British Airways is filming a commercial etc etc.

So there are many reasons why the body store fat and we may not even know all of them yet. Certainly unused carbs are stored as fat and excess protein. We also know that women have more body fat and that hormonal changes can make us more likely to put on weight. There are drugs which cause weight gain too e.g. steroids.

Switching from HCLF to LCHF is quite a disruption for the body. It usually results in considerable weight loss at first.

However, in order to maintain weight loss at a steady rate, it is usually necessary to cut the daily carb intake further. Atkins Induction is 20g a day. Some low carb diets don't give an actual figure, just suggest other things to cut down on.

One of the principles of low carbing, is to get into ketosis, to burn body fat instead of carbs. Eating fat encourages the body to do this, but if you're eating too much fat, the body burns that, because it's easier. There are probably very many people, who are eating too many carbs to be in ketosis. They might believe that they are low carbing, but are really just cutting down on calories from carbs. That's not the same.

Exercise doesn't make you lose much weight. It burns energy which would otherwise be laid down as fat. It stimulates appetite so you replenish the lost minerals, water etc and take in protein to repair and build muscles.

If you have insulin resistance, exercise can make BG go up. But later, it should go down, as the muscles replace the glycogen they've used during exercise. Diabetes is not just high BG, that's a symptom. Diabetes is part of a faulty metabolism ie Metabolic Syndrome. I'm not sure that anyone even knows all of the causes and effects yet.

So the best that we can do, is listen to what our body is telling us and experiment.

 

[waleed]

I don't think waleed is suggesting that's it's only as simple as cutting calories. However, that is half of the equation.

Calories are a measurement of energy. Hopefully we all agree. Conservation of energy laws tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So we know that what goes in has to come out one way or another.

There are a lot of variables but it truly is as simple as calories in/calories out.

Fiber is a great example of why it's important to understand the types of calories we consume. Fiber is considered a carbohydrate and it has energy (roughly 4 calories per 1g). However, our bodies cannot digest fiber and it essentially passes through us.....that's why fiber is health....it fills you up and cleans you out. Sounds a little funny but it's true.

Sucrose and carbs high on the glycemic index are rapidly digested. That's why we see a quick blood sugar spike. However, that energy either needs to be used through physical exertion or it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, our bodies often store this extra unused energy from carbohydrates as body fat. It's our body's way of defending itself against starvation.

This is where things start to get a bit fuzzy for me, but it's my understanding that protein can be converted into glucose through the process of glycogenesis, but it's a slower and more difficult process.

Dietary fats cannot be directly converted into glucose. However, it's my understanding that they are made up of glycerol and fatty acids. When glycerol binds three fatty acids together it creates a triglyceride which is the molecule that causes fat storage.

The idea behind a LCHF diet: with an ultra low carb diet your body begins to burn ketones as a source of energy. Without carbs and with a moderate protein intake your body has limited glucose production. Less glucose means less glycerol which means less triglycerides. The end result is that dietary fats have very little chance of converting into body fat and unused energy passes through undigested rather than being stored as body fat.

Disclaimer: I expect my understanding isn't 100% perfect and I welcome anyone to critique anything I didn't understand properly.

Bottom line: on a 600 calorie diet, your body may slow its metabolism and enter a "starvation mode." The result is that you're eating less calories, but also burning less. If that diet contains carbs they may be converted into glucose and store in fat cells which hinders weight loss.

On that 2000 calories low carb/high fat diet your body has more than enough useable energy between dietary fat and energy in your fat cells. In the absence of glucose, your body begins burning ketones and unused energy is very difficult to store in fat cells (triglycerides).

So with a ketogensis diet you're not necessarily burning more calories but more calories are passing through your body which supports the calories in/out concept.

On a ketogenic diet, liver and muscle glycogen gets depleted directing the body to resort to its fat reserves, except the brain. The liver produces ketones as a byproduct of incomplete fat oxidation. The brain so far relies on both the glycerol and gluconeogenesis for its glucose requirements. The ketones are mainly used at this stage by muscles together with fat. But when ketones become abundant, the muscles start to rely on fat alone sparing the ketones for the brain in order to conserve the protein that is being broken in the gluconeogenesis. This stage happens in about 3 weeks and is called full adaptation to ketosis.

 

[SunnyExpat]

It's not how many calories you consume, it's what they are from. It's the carbs that cause the problem and the advice to eat wholemeal grains. My weight stays the same at around 1250 cals a day (low carb). When I did a fat fast and increased calories to around 2300 a day for 5 days I lost weight ( 6 pounds). The low fat high carb diets that many of us were told to follow have helped to cause our obesity.

What you have said makes sense, but in the real world many of us, particularly women have other hormonal problems thrown into the mix. The reality is much more complicated.

Then there's the effect of leptin resistance which can cause over eating because the person feels so hungry all the time.

There have been interesting comments in this thread.
Personally, I put on weight if I eat two many calories, but then again, I don't appear to have a 'thrifty gene'.

Possibly, your great succe may be because your body needs to adjust to eating more fat, (on a fat fast), hence for the first few days, you see a weight loss as you aren't processing your food efficiently,, then you switch back to your usual diet, and catch your body on the hop again. Double bonus. (A reason why shaking up diets work for some people, when weight loss stalls)

As to a 'thrifty gene', I wonder how that functions, as it would suggest that anyone who has an enforced diet becomes able to process calories much more 'efficiently' afterwards, which does seem to defy how I seem to function, as I can fast, and do not seem not to be different later. (Possibly lighter )
Prof Taylor seems to have seem no evidence, or at least not reported the 'thrifty gene' after his Newcastle Diet trials.

 

[Cl1ve]

For goodness sakes Waleed, I don't want to be rude, but basically you are calling us liars. Please go do some research on why women don't lose weight like men. And there is no one size fits all. Like I said if it were that easy none of us would be diabetic. I'm 2 stone overweight and it isn't as easy as cutting calories

*edited by a moderator for rudeness towards another poster*

Hi I have to say I agree with your comments above . There are hormone and genetics at play . I have seen some research that has found in a control group of people that where given a strict exercise regime and the same diet . Some of them lost 12 pounds some lost a few pounds . And 2 of the group put on some weight . It was only a small group of 20 . But it dose show the all people are different . And what works for some will not work for others . So I think that if anyone thinks they have the answer then they need to think again

Clive

 

[SunnyExpat]

Hi I have to say I agree with your comments above . There are hormone and genetics at play . I have seen some research that has found in a control group of people that where given a strict exercise regime and the same diet . Some of them lost 12 pounds some lost a few pounds . And 2 of the group put on some weight . It was only a small group of 20 . But it dose show the all people are different . And what works for some will not work for others . So I think that if anyone thinks they have the answer then they need to think again

Clive

A bit of a double edged sword here.

For me, it was as easy as cutting calories.
Cutting a lot of calories, but, at the time, very low fat, (very low carb, very low protein, very green leaves, very, very, boring)