Weight Loss: Starch And Trytophan Are What Are Stopping You

[RWilly]

Have you ever eaten only red meat for a short period of time e.g. meat only carnivore diet? Ive never had such a good feeling flat stomach(zero bloat) in my life and supposedly all that iron should be causing bacterial overgrowth and bloating. Yes bacteria need iron to grow but for some reason the iron from red meat doesnt seem to cause the bad effects on the gut that iron is supposed to do. Iron fortified foods do seem to increase bloating and bacterial overgrowth in my experience, but never meat.

I've never tried that, but I did do an Atkins diet many years ago, which was very close to that. I never lost weight on it. It was torchure to follow. All I could think about was having a sip of orange juice. How did you feel health wise, other than having bloat down?

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

@RWilly Interesting that meat causes you issues. Are you certain it is not tryptophan? And which meats? Red meat seems to be the only thing I can tolerate, because it is virtually the only low tryptophan meat (and protein source for that matter) aside from gelatin. It's true minerals tend to compete with each other, but for the most part the body has a pretty good way of normalizing minerals - except when you megadose (aka supplement in pill form) them.

@tankasnowgod I am not interested in another fruitless argument, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time that you want to discuss reasonably this time. Again calories may be a factor but it's very low. Let me try explaining in different terms. If you eat a horrible diet (high pufa, tryptophan, "junk" foods) your probability of gaining weight and getting metabolic disorders is very high, even at "Reasonable" caloric intakes like let's say 3k range, and especially as you start pushing 4k. If you eat a perfect diet, your probability of gaining weight is basically nil, even if you don't count calories and eat upwards of 4k+. Watching pufa, tryptophan, processed foods, all that, lets you eat more and not only be healthier, but more energetic because you can eat more calories (energy) and not get fat, and because your threshold of getting fat as a function of calories is so large, that it is very very hard (or even impossible short of force feeding) to get overtweight, and thus, the calories are no longer important, because if you can eat to satiety and also feel good, with zero deprivation, that's the ideal place to be. The man Ray Peat says this too - Both pufa and starch, he says tend to be more fattenning relative to SFA and sugar, respectively, for example, on a per calorie basis. Therefore, "a calorie is not a calorie" in this sense. I don't understand why you seem so interested in calories, when I know you have read the same ray peat articles I have. You can just eat whatever you want and slash calories and have to count the rest of your life and also deprive yourself, or eat the right foods and not have to deprive yourself at all. So why do we see so many people eating ad libitum and getting fat on these forums? Because people are eating fattening foods like PUFA, dairy, too much tryptophan, not enough carbs, sneaking in junk foods, etc. Sure, in the strictest sense, "they ate too many calories" but more accurately "they ate too many incorrect foods". It's better to put it in terms of "eating poor foods in excess" rather than "eating food in excess". Can you get fat with the "perfect" diet? Possibly, but it'd likely involve eating supra-physical amounts of food and feeding yourself to the point of discomfort, which no normal person would do.

So I say again - The threshold at which a certain caloric intake makes you fat is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY volatile. You could gain weight on high pufa high tryptophan on 2000 calories, and lose weight on low pufa low tryptophan no junk food diet on 4000 calories. Sure that doesn't violate "CICO" in the strictest sense, but how useful is tracking calories if its that volatile? This is the point I'm trying to make. One person would say oh I need to cut calories on <2000, another will say my maintenance calories is 4000. Which is correct? Both. And neither. Therefore it's (almost) a useless metric. Certainly, it shouldn't be the #1 metric we care about. It's no longer the #1 metric I care about for this reason. "Just Cut calories" is the most horrible advice ever. Maybe once you have a perfect diet, but I am convinced that once diet is cleaned up, the weight takes care of itself without getting OCD on calorie counting. People that champion If It Fits your Macros (IIFYM) don't care about food intake at all, many of them even promote eating junk foods, since IIFYM, doesn't matter right? Just track calories. Nah. I used to do that years ago, done doing that. I care about what foods I put in my stomach now. And which ones provide me the MOST benefit.

I agree. Before I found out that carbs, and especially sugar, are very healthy, I used to think that one would either restrict carbs and be lean or eat carbs and be fat. At this time I was underweight, but I didn't feel good, even before I got underweight, since I didn't know what exactly was wrong with what I was eating. Since I started ingesting much more sugar and protein, I gained a ton of muscle very quickly( over a period of about 5 months) without really doing much exercise( quite the opposite, I discovered that if I exercised when I wanted, I felt much more relaxed, since now I knew that I wasn't going to turn diabetic if didn't swim for hours or if I didn't' run everyday). I did gain some fat initially, but I also gained a lot of muscle, organ weight, and also bone weight. The total amount of weight that I gained was around 25 pounds( I went from 46 kg to 56kg) and started feeling good all the time pretty much. These kilos that I gained were very needed, but I think that it would work similarly to someone who is overweight. As long as they eat to satiation and keep PUFA and starch and trypt. down, while eating lots of minerals and vitamins, then the weight should come down without much problem. Of course, if you can tolerate a very small caloric deficit( 100 calories or 200 calories less per day), then by all means do it. I thought that my weight would keep increasing and I was a little worried, but I decided "hey, this is the best I've ever felt, so if I gain much more weight than I think I will, then I'll do something about it after it happens". It turns out that my weight didn't increase anymore. A month or two later, I stepped on a scale and my weight was still very close to 56kg. I was eating to satiation and even trying to eat a little bit more if I could, since I do have a history of malnutrition, but even though I was hitting 3000calories + everyday( from safe, low PUFA foods), I could feel that my metabolism was in much better shape. This is when I found out that the key for being lean isn't low carb, it's mainly very low PUFA. Sugar( sucrose and simple sugars), in my experience, also enables you to have a lot of muscle while being quite lean, and it's much superior to starch. There was a study showing that fructose is the main sugar responsible for healthy weight maintainance( in babies), that is, muscle mass and bone mass, as well as fat mass( which is also important, as being underweight also isn't good). Indeed, lots of things affect the calories out part of the equation, and PUFA and fructose are big ones which act in opposite ways. Moving towards fructose will dramatically increase metabolism. In addition, although being overweight is probably not healthy, I believe that if your fat stores are not very polyunsaturated, then the activity of the aromatase enzyme shouldn't be much higher. I'm not sure on this, but as far as I know, MUFA and SFA don't stimulate this enzyme, neither does mead acid, so getting fat with butter is much better than getting fat with soybean oil. Btw, when you mentioned overfeeding on safe foods and getting fat, I do agree that it is possible( it's much harder though), but the the way the fat will be placed on the body will be different. Eating the correct foods will cause a huge increase in beneficial hormones, which will cause you to accumulate excess fat in your legs and arms, and much less on your belly or chest or face. Kinda like the opposte of the fat disposition that people with Cushing syndrome display. I noticed this on myself: most of the fat that I gained( which isn't that much) is indeed in my legs and arms. Very little on the belly.

 

[RWilly]

@RWilly Interesting that meat causes you issues. Are you certain it is not tryptophan? And which meats? Red meat seems to be the only thing I can tolerate, because it is virtually the only low tryptophan meat (and protein source for that matter) aside from gelatin. It's true minerals tend to compete with each other, but for the most part the body has a pretty good way of normalizing minerals - except when you megadose (aka supplement in pill form) them.

I think it may be specifically red meat. If I eat red meat, I gain 5 pounds within a day, and it takes me an entire week to get back to normal. I used to eat a lot of red meat. I don't think I have the same reaction with chicken - I'm still experimenting.

 

[Cirion]

56k is what like 130 lb? Dang bro. What is your height? That still seems really low! Yeah with that low weight I am sure your body put on weight because you needed it. And definitely impressive Caloric intake to body weight ratio (23) and still maintain. Just to give people an idea, that kind of ratio for let's say a 200 lb man would be 4,600 calories and still maintain. How old are you also?

 

[Cirion]

I think it may be specifically red meat. If I eat red meat, I gain 5 pounds within a day, and it takes me an entire week to get back to normal. I used to eat a lot of red meat. I don't think I have the same reaction with chicken - I'm still experimenting.

Weird. Complete opposite experience as me. Do you have hemochromatosis maybe? Chicken should actually bloat you, as it's full of anti-metabolic properties... So, hemochromatosis / some kind of mineral problem is the only thing I can figure. 5 lbs definitely means something is horribly wrong though for sure that may warrant further investigation.

 

[LuMonty]

I'm with Cirion on this. I think people are playing with fire when it comes to supplement use ... unless the supplement is a dehydrated food or herb. No nutrient in my opinion should be taken in isolation. That's just asking for trouble down the line. One has to work with nature.

I essentially lived the starvation experiment as my body broke down over the years, except my lean weight started higher. The last 3 years of being a manual cart pusher was just the icing on the gravy.

My question would be: if it was legal to buy thyroid meat would it be "playing with fire"? Or not because Nature? Or NDT as a supplement? If they are okay, why not try it?

I look forward to your answer so I can better understand your methods.

 

[RWilly]

Weird. Complete opposite experience as me. Do you have hemochromatosis maybe? Chicken should actually bloat you, as it's full of anti-metabolic properties... So, hemochromatosis / some kind of mineral problem is the only thing I can figure. 5 lbs definitely means something is horribly wrong though for sure that may warrant further investigation.

I don't have high serum iron (although I'm guessing I have high hepatic iron), and yes, I have the hemochromatosis gene.

 

[Cirion]

I don't have high serum iron (although I'm sure I have high hepatic iron), and yes, I have the hemochromatosis gene.

Ahhh... that's probably why then. Bummer. I wonder if that's what my brother has too. He has intolerance to red meats. Do you donate blood?

 

[RWilly]

My question would be: if it was legal to buy thyroid meat would it be "playing with fire"? Or not because Nature? Or NDT as a supplement? If they are okay, why not try it?

In my opinion, that would qualify as nature and not isolated nutrient.

 

[RWilly]

Ahhh... that's probably why then. Bummer. I wonder if that's what my brother has too. He has intolerance to red meats. Do you donate blood?

Yes. About every 3 months.

 

[LuMonty]

In my opinion, that would qualify as nature and not an isolated nutrient.

Fair enough. I take it you aren't familiar with the Naturalistic Fallacy?

 

[redsun]

I've never tried that, but I did do an Atkins diet many years ago, which was very close to that. I never lost weight on it. It was torchure to follow. All I could think about was having a sip of orange juice. How did you feel health wise, other than having bloat down?

From what I understand atkins is not close it all. Carnivore is only natural animal foods, no inclusion of plant foods at all. I was in pretty good health doing carnivore but thats likely the increased animal products because I did have less stamina and endurance due to lack of carbs.

I did actually have sugar in coffee in the morning, milk(idk if I added honey) often and sometime drank soda which helped provide me sugar when I felt down(lack of energy). I dont recommend it because in the end your stamina is important and even when I got carbs from honey, milk, soda it wasnt enough.

A carb fed body performs better as long as nutrients are always accounted for. I still believe firmly that one's diet should be heavy on animal products, at least meat. I dont really abide by the common principle on this forum of using dairy and eggs primarily for protein. Maybe it would work if I didnt do heavy lifting to build muscle but I need meat to function optimally and a good amount of it.

 

[RWilly]

Fair enough. I take it you aren't familiar with the Naturalistic Fallacy?

I'm not... but I can imagine what it is.

 

[LuMonty]

I'm not... but I can imagine what it is.

Just something to think about.

 

[RWilly]

From what I understand atkins is not close it all. Carnivore is only natural animal foods, no inclusion of plant foods at all. I was in pretty good health doing carnivore but thats likely the increased animal products because I did have less stamina and endurance due to lack of carbs.

I did actually have sugar in coffee in the morning, milk(idk if I added honey) often and sometime drank soda which helped provide me sugar when I felt down(lack of energy). I dont recommend it because in the end your stamina is important and even when I got carbs from honey, milk, soda it wasnt enough.

A carb fed body performs better as long as nutrients are always accounted for. I still believe firmly that one's diet should be heavy on animal products, at least meat. I dont really abide by the common principle of using dairy and eggs primarily for protein. Maybe it would work if I didnt do heavy lifting to build muscle but I need meat to function optimally and a good amount of it.

Interesting experience. Wonder why sugar is not considered a plant food in the diet.

I wonder if one of the reasons you did well on the diet was because of reduced inflammation from oxalates.

 

[redsun]

Interesting experience. Wonder why sugar is not considered a plant food in the diet.

I wonder if one of the reasons you did well on the diet was because of reduced inflammation from oxalates.

It isnt, that was me veering off the diet because i craved sugar. Honey is allowed though

I never consumed oxalates, as in never ate any leafy green vegetables, or vegetables at all in my life except on rare occasion. Likely the removal of all the junk food I used to eat played a part.

You can considered it a modified carnivore diet, just added sugars. No fiber though.

 

[tankasnowgod]

@tankasnowgod I am not interested in another fruitless argument, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time that you want to discuss reasonably this time. Again calories may be a factor but it's very low. Let me try explaining in different terms. If you eat a horrible diet (high pufa, tryptophan, "junk" foods) your probability of gaining weight and getting metabolic disorders is very high, even at "Reasonable" caloric intakes like let's say 3k range, and especially as you start pushing 4k. If you eat a perfect diet, your probability of gaining weight is basically nil, even if you don't count calories and eat upwards of 4k+. Watching pufa, tryptophan, processed foods, all that, lets you eat more and not only be healthier, but more energetic because you can eat more calories (energy) and not get fat, and because your threshold of getting fat as a function of calories is so large, that it is very very hard (or even impossible short of force feeding) to get overtweight, and thus, the calories are no longer important, because if you can eat to satiety and also feel good, with zero deprivation, that's the ideal place to be. The man Ray Peat says this too - Both pufa and starch, he says tend to be more fattenning relative to SFA and sugar, respectively, for example, on a per calorie basis. Therefore, "a calorie is not a calorie" in this sense. I don't understand why you seem so interested in calories, when I know you have read the same ray peat articles I have. You can just eat whatever you want and slash calories and have to count the rest of your life and also deprive yourself, or eat the right foods and not have to deprive yourself at all. So why do we see so many people eating ad libitum and getting fat on these forums? Because people are eating fattening foods like PUFA, dairy, too much tryptophan, not enough carbs, sneaking in junk foods, etc. Sure, in the strictest sense, "they ate too many calories" but more accurately "they ate too many incorrect foods". It's better to put it in terms of "eating poor foods in excess" rather than "eating food in excess". Can you get fat with the "perfect" diet? Possibly, but it'd likely involve eating supra-physical amounts of food and feeding yourself to the point of discomfort, which no normal person would do. So, with that we should be telling people not to cut calories, but to cut anti-metabolic foods from their diets. This is just as effective (if not more so) than keeping a sub-optimal diet but cutting calories.

So I say again - The threshold at which a certain caloric intake makes you fat is EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY volatile. You could gain weight on high pufa high tryptophan on 2000 calories, and lose weight on low pufa low tryptophan no junk food diet on 4000 calories. Sure that doesn't violate "CICO" in the strictest sense, but how useful is tracking calories if its that volatile? This is the point I'm trying to make. One person would say oh I need to cut calories on <2000, another will say my maintenance calories is 4000. Which is correct? Both. And neither. Therefore it's (almost) a useless metric. Certainly, it shouldn't be the #1 metric we care about. It's no longer the #1 metric I care about for this reason. "Just Cut calories" is the most horrible advice ever. Maybe once you have a perfect diet, but I am convinced that once diet is cleaned up, the weight takes care of itself without getting OCD on calorie counting. People that champion If It Fits your Macros (IIFYM) don't care about food intake at all, many of them even promote eating junk foods, since IIFYM, doesn't matter right? Just track calories. Nah. I used to do that years ago, done doing that. I care about what foods I put in my stomach now. And which ones provide me the MOST benefit.

ALL THAT SAID. There is a plot you can generate that could be semi-interesting, I suppose. And that is - Caloric threshold to get fat as a function of specific diet plan followed. And this would show that the worst diet imaginable would make you fat let's say at 1000-2000 calories and the best wouldn't crossover till maybe let's say 4000-5000 (or even more, just making up numbers). Clearly, it's 100x easier to get fat if it only takes 1000 calories as compared to 5000 though.

The thing is that I now believe hormones are the #1 driver for weight gain or loss above EVERYTHING ELSE - yes even the factors I am mentioning like SFA/PUFA, tryptophan, and calories also. In fact, it was this realization that led me to Ray Peat. It's virtually impossible to get fat if your androgens are high and estrogens are low. Diet manipulation is just one way to manipulate the hormones in your favor. Lyle mcdonald briefly touches on hormones in his CICO article, true, but he doesn't give it the respect it deserves when it's literally THE factor in weight gain or loss.

Measuring "metabolic rate" and "CICO" is only good for telling you at what point you gain or lose weight with your current specific diet. And tells you nothing about how to make your diet better so you can maximize the metabolic rate. Joe smoe can use his cute little fitbit and find he gains weight on 3200 calories. But all that tells him is he gains on 3200 calories with his current diet, lifestyle, and environment and usually all 3 are in our power to improve in our favor, or at least 1-2 of the three.

I don't understand why you say you "don't want another fruitless argument with me" when I wasn't even addressing you. Nor do you seem understand what I have written. I don't think people should just randomly slash calories, nor do I think that "a calorie is just a calorie." You are defeating strawman arguments that I never made.

I do think calories are absolutely an important factor in weight loss, and from most of the metabolic ward studies I have seen, the most important. Anthony Colpo cited 28 metabolic ward studies in the Fat Loss Bible where they varied macros, but found weight loss to be consistent with calories. You say you "believe" that hormones are the number one driver of weight gain or loss above everyone else. Well, okay, but what evidence do you have to back that up? Or, how are you going to prove this through experimentation? From your own posts over the past few months, whatever you are doing in your own life is causing serious weight gain. So, whatever you are attempting to do for weight loss, it certainly isn't working.

I also don't understand why you are so opposed to tracking (not even cutting, mind you) calories. You tracking all sorts of other things, so why not add calories to the list?

 

[RWilly]

I never consumed oxalates, as in never ate any leafy green vegetables, or vegetables at all in my life except on rare occasion. Likely the removal of all the junk food I used to eat played a part.

Wow! What a unique background! Just for science sake, what is your take-away from never have eaten vegetables in your life?

 

[tankasnowgod]

I don't have high serum iron (although I'm guessing I have high hepatic iron), and yes, I have the hemochromatosis gene.

Serum iron isn't the best metric of overall body iron stores. Ferritin is, and TSAT is also a good marker.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I essentially lived the starvation experiment as my body broke down over the years, except my lean weight started higher. The last 3 years of being a manual cart pusher was just the icing on the gravy.

My question would be: if it was legal to buy thyroid meat would it be "playing with fire"? Or not because Nature? Or NDT as a supplement? If they are okay, why not try it?

I look forward to your answer so I can better understand your methods.

Are you in the USA? If so, thyroid is legal to buy. You do likely need a prescription at most pharmacies, but some companies (including idealabs) sell it without a prescription. It's not listed as a controlled substance.