"Biggest Loser" Contestants Regained Weight. Peat Perspective

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
I stand by what I said. This is a delicate and complicated subject. There are a lot of people, smart included, that are looking for magic pills on this forum and elsewhere. No disrespect to H, but with great influence comes responsibility. It is what it is.

Caffeine absolutely increases FFA in excessive doses. There is zero debate about that. As far as excessive adipose increases FFA is speculative. I posted a study last year that shows the body modulates NEFA independent of adipose mass. I'd look to find it for you, but I just moved and dont have time to get into any thread context conflicts.

Ray Peat recommends T3, he advices people to take small amounts through out the day. But he has also recommended high t3. He had a friend who's liver was destroy from heroin and alcohol and told him to take t3 50 micrograms morning and night. When he went to his doctor a year and a half later and his liver shrunk. He has also told the story of giving a women high dose desiccated thyroid and I think she was obese.

Ray Peat also recommends bromocriptine. He has talked about it in his interviews and articles, he does not think one should take it for an extended period. I think he said something like six weeks because it can cause heart valve fibrosis. I think a member here took bromocriptine for a year and I think her heart is fine. I don't think he recommends cabergoline, but I am not sure.

Caffeine does increase free fatty acids but not to the degree that it causes diabetes or lipid per oxidation. In fact it protects against diabetes and reactive oxygen species.

Long-term consumption of caffeine improves glucose homeostasis by enhancing insulinotropic action through islet insulin/insulin-like growth factor ... - PubMed - NCBI

Caffeine as an antioxidant: inhibition of lipid peroxidation induced by reactive oxygen species

Your anti-caffeine rhetoric doesn't add up.The health benefits of high or low dose caffeine are established.
 

Koveras

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
720
Again, here you are making the assumption that people who are actually obese are actually hypermetabolic. Here is your exact quote.

I am remind of a quote by Ray Peat in one of his articles.

If a person is eating only about 1800 calories per day, and has a steady and normal body weight, any “hyperthyroidism” is strictly metaphysical, or as they say, “clinical.”

Preventing and treating cancer with progesterone.

You are confusing the presence or absence of a high metabolism with the presence or absence of a thyroid- vs a stress/counter-regulatory hormone -based metabolism.

One can have a high metabolic rate that is not "optimal for health".

I am reminded of a quote by Ray Peat in one of his email exchanges

"About your high metabolic rate and high temperature: In my teens and twenties, I needed about 8000 calories per day when I was physically active, about 4000 to 5000 when I was sedentary, but after I took thyroid, I needed only about half as many calories. Thyroid is the basic regulator of blood glucose, and it causes it to be fully oxidized for energy, so that it produces ATP efficiently, on relatively few calories. If blood glucose falls, because it's being used very quickly, the body responds with stress hormones, including glucagon, adrenalin, and cortisol. They cause fat and protein to be burned for energy, while in hypothyroidism, glucose can still be used inefficiently for glycolysis, producing lactic acid, displacing bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. This causes mineral imbalances, with effects including cramps and nerve-muscle tension, which produce heat and waste energy. When you first start taking thyroid again, your tissues will need some extra magnesium, during the time when the dose is increasing, and when the mineral balance is restored your temperature and metabolic rate might decrease a little. Orange juice, milk, and coffee are good for the main minerals, while salting your food to taste.
Supplementing thyroid can sometimes reduce the rate of metabolism, by allowing cells to retain enough magnesium, which stabilizes ATP"

So there you have an example of someone (Ray Peat) who needed to eat half as much food to maintain his weight after taking thyroid.

I wonder what would have happened if he'd continued to eat the same number of calories as before...
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
In my opinion, they gained their weight back because they ate junk again. The idea that once body fat is burned off and then a natural foods diet with no oil and not too much overt fat is consumed that the body is then going to deliberately convert some of that natural food into free triglycerides to be stored as fat is crazy. They ate junk.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
You are confusing the presence or absence of a high metabolism with the presence or absence of a thyroid- vs a stress/counter-regulatory hormone -based metabolism.

One can have a high metabolic rate that is not "optimal for health".

I am reminded of a quote by Ray Peat in one of his email exchanges

"About your high metabolic rate and high temperature: In my teens and twenties, I needed about 8000 calories per day when I was physically active, about 4000 to 5000 when I was sedentary, but after I took thyroid, I needed only about half as many calories. Thyroid is the basic regulator of blood glucose, and it causes it to be fully oxidized for energy, so that it produces ATP efficiently, on relatively few calories. If blood glucose falls, because it's being used very quickly, the body responds with stress hormones, including glucagon, adrenalin, and cortisol. They cause fat and protein to be burned for energy, while in hypothyroidism, glucose can still be used inefficiently for glycolysis, producing lactic acid, displacing bicarbonate and carbon dioxide. This causes mineral imbalances, with effects including cramps and nerve-muscle tension, which produce heat and waste energy. When you first start taking thyroid again, your tissues will need some extra magnesium, during the time when the dose is increasing, and when the mineral balance is restored your temperature and metabolic rate might decrease a little. Orange juice, milk, and coffee are good for the main minerals, while salting your food to taste.
Supplementing thyroid can sometimes reduce the rate of metabolism, by allowing cells to retain enough magnesium, which stabilizes ATP"

So there you have an example of someone (Ray Peat) who needed to eat half as much food to maintain his weight after taking thyroid.

I wonder what would have happened if he'd continued to eat the same number of calories as before...


But that doesn't prove that those obese individuals have a higher metabolic rate. Sure, when Ray Peat was young he had a hypermetabolic metabolism, But was he obese ? Hunger is a good indicator of how many calories one needs, so it is obvious that when Ray Peat took thyroid and normalize his metabolism he probably didn't need to eat that much.


But you still didn't answer my question. How was the metabolic rate of the obese individuals measure ? You assume that those specific obese individuals are some how "hyper metabolic" but I have yet seen any evidence for it.
 

skycop00

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
428
Location
Florida
Is the term Metabolic Set Point factual? I have heard it for years but not seen any studies. If there is scientific backing, can it be changed....maybe with DNP?
 

Koveras

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
720
But you still didn't answer my question. How was the metabolic rate of the obese individuals measure ? You assume that those specific obese individuals are some how "hyper metabolic" but I have yet seen any evidence for it.

http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.full

"Body composition and energy expenditure

Body composition was measured by using hydrodensitometry (33). Total EE for 24 h (TEE) was assessed on the basis of precise titration of fed calories of a liquid formula diet necessary to maintain body weight with a variance of <10 g/d over ≥14 d (3). The constancy of body composition, as well as weight stability, was confirmed by showing that the respiratory quotient (RQ) for subjects at rest in the postabsorptive state did not differ significantly from the formula quotient of the liquid formula diet—0.85 (3). Because weight and body composition were constant over the weeks before testing, the energy ingested as liquid formula must equal the TEE. Ongoing net increases or decreases in fat mass while at stable total weight would be reflected in respective increases or decreases in the RQ relative to the formula quotient (3). Our group previously showed that TEE measured by such caloric titration is highly correlated with TEE directly measured by the doubly labeled water method (R2 = 0.88) (6).

Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect (hood) calorimetry sampling every 30 s for a period of ≥30 min at 0900 while subjects were in bed and in a postabsorptive state (6). Subjects underwent multiple measures of REE throughout the study so that they were well accommodated to the procedure during testing periods. The RQ for each subject remained between 0.83 and 0.86 during all tests that were performed during the weight-stability period, designated as such on the basis of the lack of day-to-day variation in body weight (P < 0.0001). The stability of the RQ at values predicted by the formula quotient, coupled with the low within-subject variation in REE measured independently and as part of the determination of the thermic effect of food (TEF), indicates the reproducibility of this measure.

TEF was calculated as calories expended above REE after ingestion of liquid formula calories equivalent to 60% of REE measured on the day of testing as described below. Briefly, following the measurement of REE on the day that TEF was measured, subjects ingested dietary formula with a caloric content equal to 60% of the measured REE. Oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production were measured by hood calorimetry for 30 min at 2 and 4 h after the feeding. The area of the polygon whose base is the prefeeding measured REE, and whose other vertexes are REE measured at 0900, 1100, and 1300, quantifies the increase in EE during the 4 h after ingestion of food. The fraction of ingested calories accounted for by the area of this polygon was multiplied by the weight-maintaining 24-h caloric intake to estimate TEF (6).
NREE, defined as energy expended above resting and TEF in physical activity, was calculated by using the following equation: NREE = TEE - (REE+TEF)"

Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition - Fothergill - 2016 - Obesity - Wiley Online Library

-See attached

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 9.29.59 AM.png
 

skycop00

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
428
Location
Florida
AJCN | Mobile

"Body composition and energy expenditure

Body composition was measured by using hydrodensitometry (33). Total EE for 24 h (TEE) was assessed on the basis of precise titration of fed calories of a liquid formula diet necessary to maintain body weight with a variance of <10 g/d over ≥14 d (3). The constancy of body composition, as well as weight stability, was confirmed by showing that the respiratory quotient (RQ) for subjects at rest in the postabsorptive state did not differ significantly from the formula quotient of the liquid formula diet—0.85 (3). Because weight and body composition were constant over the weeks before testing, the energy ingested as liquid formula must equal the TEE. Ongoing net increases or decreases in fat mass while at stable total weight would be reflected in respective increases or decreases in the RQ relative to the formula quotient (3). Our group previously showed that TEE measured by such caloric titration is highly correlated with TEE directly measured by the doubly labeled water method (R2 = 0.88) (6).

Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect (hood) calorimetry sampling every 30 s for a period of ≥30 min at 0900 while subjects were in bed and in a postabsorptive state (6). Subjects underwent multiple measures of REE throughout the study so that they were well accommodated to the procedure during testing periods. The RQ for each subject remained between 0.83 and 0.86 during all tests that were performed during the weight-stability period, designated as such on the basis of the lack of day-to-day variation in body weight (P < 0.0001). The stability of the RQ at values predicted by the formula quotient, coupled with the low within-subject variation in REE measured independently and as part of the determination of the thermic effect of food (TEF), indicates the reproducibility of this measure.

TEF was calculated as calories expended above REE after ingestion of liquid formula calories equivalent to 60% of REE measured on the day of testing as described below. Briefly, following the measurement of REE on the day that TEF was measured, subjects ingested dietary formula with a caloric content equal to 60% of the measured REE. Oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production were measured by hood calorimetry for 30 min at 2 and 4 h after the feeding. The area of the polygon whose base is the prefeeding measured REE, and whose other vertexes are REE measured at 0900, 1100, and 1300, quantifies the increase in EE during the 4 h after ingestion of food. The fraction of ingested calories accounted for by the area of this polygon was multiplied by the weight-maintaining 24-h caloric intake to estimate TEF (6).
NREE, defined as energy expended above resting and TEF in physical activity, was calculated by using the following equation: NREE = TEE - (REE+TEF)"

Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition - Fothergill - 2016 - Obesity - Wiley Online Library

-See attached

View attachment 2694
Seems like these people were doomed before they started.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,795
Location
USA / Europe
I stand by what I said. This is a delicate and complicated subject. There are a lot of people, smart included, that are looking for magic pills on this forum and elsewhere. No disrespect to H, but with great influence comes responsibility. It is what it is.

Caffeine absolutely increases FFA in excessive doses. There is zero debate about that. As far as excessive adipose increases FFA is speculative. I posted a study last year that shows the body modulates NEFA independent of adipose mass. I'd look to find it for you, but I just moved and dont have time to get into any thread context conflicts.

When I said "smart", I meant people who know very well (probably first-hand) what dieting does to metabolism. The chemical "dieting" with DNP, cabergoline, and diuretics is usually done by people who have to lose weight for some type of competition and they know that cutting calories will not...cut it (no pun intended). Come to think of it, I have never heard of a competitive athlete doing a drastic diet to lose weight or running themselves to exhaustion for the same reason. They do other dangerous things like take so much diuretics that they die from dehydration, but classic dieting like the one practiced by the Biggest Loser is not on their list. Most endocrinologists, if a person even gets referred to one, will first do some blood work before recommending drastic cutting of daily calories. They also know that accumulating weight on say less than 150% of the caloric RDA for a given person usually means there is a hormonal issue and not just gluttony involved.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
AJCN | Mobile

"Body composition and energy expenditure

Body composition was measured by using hydrodensitometry (33). Total EE for 24 h (TEE) was assessed on the basis of precise titration of fed calories of a liquid formula diet necessary to maintain body weight with a variance of <10 g/d over ≥14 d (3). The constancy of body composition, as well as weight stability, was confirmed by showing that the respiratory quotient (RQ) for subjects at rest in the postabsorptive state did not differ significantly from the formula quotient of the liquid formula diet—0.85 (3). Because weight and body composition were constant over the weeks before testing, the energy ingested as liquid formula must equal the TEE. Ongoing net increases or decreases in fat mass while at stable total weight would be reflected in respective increases or decreases in the RQ relative to the formula quotient (3). Our group previously showed that TEE measured by such caloric titration is highly correlated with TEE directly measured by the doubly labeled water method (R2 = 0.88) (6).

Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect (hood) calorimetry sampling every 30 s for a period of ≥30 min at 0900 while subjects were in bed and in a postabsorptive state (6). Subjects underwent multiple measures of REE throughout the study so that they were well accommodated to the procedure during testing periods. The RQ for each subject remained between 0.83 and 0.86 during all tests that were performed during the weight-stability period, designated as such on the basis of the lack of day-to-day variation in body weight (P < 0.0001). The stability of the RQ at values predicted by the formula quotient, coupled with the low within-subject variation in REE measured independently and as part of the determination of the thermic effect of food (TEF), indicates the reproducibility of this measure.

TEF was calculated as calories expended above REE after ingestion of liquid formula calories equivalent to 60% of REE measured on the day of testing as described below. Briefly, following the measurement of REE on the day that TEF was measured, subjects ingested dietary formula with a caloric content equal to 60% of the measured REE. Oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production were measured by hood calorimetry for 30 min at 2 and 4 h after the feeding. The area of the polygon whose base is the prefeeding measured REE, and whose other vertexes are REE measured at 0900, 1100, and 1300, quantifies the increase in EE during the 4 h after ingestion of food. The fraction of ingested calories accounted for by the area of this polygon was multiplied by the weight-maintaining 24-h caloric intake to estimate TEF (6).
NREE, defined as energy expended above resting and TEF in physical activity, was calculated by using the following equation: NREE = TEE - (REE+TEF)"

Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition - Fothergill - 2016 - Obesity - Wiley Online Library

-See attached

View attachment 2694



According to table 1. The Respiratory quotient at the baseline was 0.77. After the thirty weeks it drop down to 0.75. According to Ray Peat, a few points up .7 is a good indicator of burning fat instead of glucose which could mean being a diabetic.

The effect of diabetes is to keep the respiratory quotient low, since a respiratory quotient of one corresponds to the oxidation of pure carbohydrate, and extreme diabetics oxidize fat in preference to carbohydrate, and may have a quotient just a little above 0.7. The results of Brown's and Burr's experiments could be interpreted to mean that the polyunsaturated fats not only lower the metabolic rate, but especially interfere with the metabolism of sugars. In other words, they suggest that the normal diet is diabetogenic.

Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.


And here is another quote referencing a RQ of a high metabolism

After three months on the sugar and milk diet, his weight leveled off at 138 pounds. After being on the diet, when he ate 2000 calories of sugar and milk within two hours, his respiratory quotient would exceed 1.0, but on his normal diet his maximum respiratory quotient following those foods was less than 1.0.

Glucose and sucrose for diabetes.


If I am correct in assuming that the baseline is the metabolic panel at the beginning of the contest. Then there is a good chance the RQ represents diabetes or insulin resistance.

The other studied uses the resting energy expenditure. Which isn't the same as basal metabolic rate. REE measures how many calories ones need while BMR measure respiratory oxygen consumption. For example Aerobic exercise increases REE but doesn't change or lowers BMR.

[Energy substrate metabolism during stress]. - PubMed - NCBI
 

NathanK

Member
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
684
Location
Austin, TX
When I said "smart", I meant people who know very well (probably first-hand) what dieting does to metabolism. The chemical "dieting" with DNP, cabergoline, and diuretics is usually done by people who have to lose weight for some type of competition and they know that cutting calories will not...cut it (no pun intended). Come to think of it, I have never heard of a competitive athlete doing a drastic diet to lose weight or running themselves to exhaustion for the same reason. They do other dangerous things like take so much diuretics that they die from dehydration, but classic dieting like the one practiced by the Biggest Loser is not on their list. Most endocrinologists, if a person even gets referred to one, will first do some blood work before recommending drastic cutting of daily calories. They also know that accumulating weight on say less than 150% of the caloric RDA for a given person usually means there is a hormonal issue and not just gluttony involved.
Thank you for the clarification. Personally, that's how I took it because Ive read your posts for a couple years (including the ones with caution).

@jag2594 If i recall, Ray has mentioned bromo for particular situations (not in the weight "cutting" context) and his rec was for 5 days, not 6 weeks (that sounds more like his cypro rec). Anecdotal evidence (or abnormal physiology cases) is not very comforting if you are the one person that develops heart fibrosis. I have no doubt these "smart" discussions will cause people desperate to look good in a bathing suit to try anything without any medical supervision, proper understanding of their body, or of the pharmaceutical. I am no one's parent, but lets try to keep the discussions balanced and responsible.

I did not say caffeine was bad. Caffeine has already been thoroughly debated on this forum and have no desire to rehash the same old arguments. The context of what I said was clear in that cutting your normal day cals by 50% one day a week is no worse than taking high dose caffeine if we are considering the basic premise that FFA are the root of many physiologic evils. Experiment at your own risk, but I threw this out there as a potentially safer alternative to all day fasting EOD that was proposed and to taking pharmaceuticals.
 

jaguar43

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
1,310
Thank you for the clarification. Personally, that's how I took it because Ive read your posts for a couple years (including the ones with caution).

@jag2594 If i recall, Ray has mentioned bromo for particular situations (not in the weight "cutting" context) and his rec was for 5 days, not 6 weeks (that sounds more like his cypro rec). Anecdotal evidence (or abnormal physiology cases) is not very comforting if you are the one person that develops heart fibrosis. I have no doubt these "smart" discussions will cause people desperate to look good in a bathing suit to try anything without any medical supervision, proper understanding of their body, or of the pharmaceutical. I am no one's parent, but lets try to keep the discussions balanced and responsible.

I did not say caffeine was bad. Caffeine has already been thoroughly debated on this forum and have no desire to rehash the same old arguments. The context of what I said was clear in that cutting your normal day cals by 50% one day a week is no worse than taking high dose caffeine if we are considering the basic premise that FFA are the root of many physiologic evils. Experiment at your own risk, but I threw this out there as a potentially safer alternative to all day fasting EOD that was proposed and to taking pharmaceuticals.

In an animal study, bromocriptine, which shifts the balance away from serotonin, reduced obesity and insulin and free fatty acids, and improved glucose tolerance. - Ray Peat

Serotonin, depression, and aggression - The problem of brain energy.


I think people here are intelligent and responsible enough to look up side effects or problems regarding certain substances and chemicals. I personally don't think getting "medical supervision" is going to protect me from the the dangers associate with pharmaceutical drugs. If a drug is dangerous I am more capable of controlling the outcome than any doctor. Because I am not condition by certain ideological garbage. If a doctor prescribes a drug, you are more likely to face resistance and goading to continue to take that drug; or straight up being threaten. If I choose to take a drug, then I can stop whenever I want without "medical supervision" while listening to feedback.

Hospital accidents kill more people than highway accidents. But when people die while they are receiving standard, but irrational and antiscientific treatments and “support,” the deaths aren’t counted as accidents. The numbers are large.
Medical training and medical textbooks bear great responsibility for those unnecessary deaths. Most medical research is done under the influence of mistaken assumptions, and so fails to correct the myths of medical training. If the “consumers” or victims of medicine are willing to demand concrete justifications before accepting “standard procedures,” they will create an atmosphere in which medical mythology will be a little harder to sustain.


Physiology texts and the real world

Ray Peat has also said your more likely to do the right thing if you assume everything the medical field does is wrong. I tend to agree due to person experience with doctors and hospitals in general. People need to be responsible, and giving enough time reviewing the literature and research I think they can make their own decisions.


I think taking caffeine is very different than cutting one's calories 50 % one day a week. Caffeine has other benefits as well.

Caffeine promotes survival of cultured sympathetic neurons deprived of nerve growth factor through a cAMP-dependent mechanism. - PubMed - NCBI

Association of Coffee and Caffeine Intake With the Risk of Parkinson Disease

Dietary caffeine intake and bone status of postmenopausal women.

Caffeine inhibits development of benign mammary gland tumors in carcinogen-treated female Sprague-Dawley rats. - PubMed - NCBI

Caffeine-Induced Increases in the Brain and Plasma Concentrations of Neuroactive Steroids in the Rat
 
Last edited by a moderator:

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
So, if one of these contestants came to you and asked how to get healthy, what would you tell them?

I see a lot of "well of course they regained the weight because xyz" but not much, "what they should have done is . . ."
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,795
Location
USA / Europe
So, if one of these contestants came to you and asked how to get healthy, what would you tell them?

I see a lot of "well of course they regained the weight because xyz" but not much, "what they should have done is . . ."

While there are many things that could be done, I would personally try to lower stress with pregnenolone and take emodin/cascara to inhibit cortisol synthesis directly. Taking a little bit of niacinamide should be able to limit the conversion of food into new fat as well.
Emodin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
1,750
I see a lot of "well of course they regained the weight because xyz" but not much, "what they should have done is . . ."

The are waaaaaay too many reasons for weight gain, so it's hard to be specific in telling someone what to do:

Their issues could have to do with a lowered metabolism from long term starvation and/or hormonal dysregulation from too much exercise, it's very stressful.

Maybe they never learned how to eat right for their own bodies, eating too much PUFA or processed junk food?

Perhaps there are emotional issues that they have not dealt with? Or they have not addressed other life stressors? Binge eating could be a sign of that.
 

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
My main motivation is that I've never really seen a good discussion of weight loss here. I'll admit i've been away for awhile. But what I am accustomed to is admonitions that RP is not a "program", its not about weight loss, you shouldn't try to lose weight, don't overexercise, don't starve yourself, paranoia about FFAs etc.

But I've never seen a "this is the best way to lose weight" from a Peat perspective. Let's say you take it for granted that somebody is doing things like avoiding PUFA and getting adequate calories from carbohydrates and not overexercising, and not subject to undue stress. And they need to lose weight. Because excess fat is estrogenic, etc.

IOW, living la vida Peato, and needing to lose weight. How? And don't just say "do what Peat says and the fat will eventually disappear." Demonstrably untrue and a total cop out.
 

HDD

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
2,075
RP: Orange juice is the ideal way to get your sucrose. But you can increase your metabolic rate, [shown] from the animal experiments successes, to 50%. So you would go from getting fat on 1,500 calories a day to getting lean on over 2000 calories a day.

HD2: Just by cutting out on your starches, increasing your protein and replacing the starches with lots of fruit?

RP:
Yes.

Cholesterol Is An Important Molecule, KMUD, 2008

@managing have you tried Peat's quick therapy diet? It is in this interview transcript; a little past the above questions. I have not tried it myself, but I lost weight increasing sugar, getting adequate protein, and cutting fat, over a year ago. I had gained over 20 lbs. I was up to 142 lbs from 120 and dropped to 125 lbs going lower fat/ higher carb. I'm at 128 lbs now. Increasing sugar and lowering fat increased my metabolism and appetite. I didn't stop eating starch but I cut back on my portions of starch and meats. I replaced my snacking on fatty cheeses with lower fat cheese and more fruit/sugar. I consume quite a bit of sugar.
 

800mRepeats

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
158
@HDD - could you quantify what "quite a bit of sugar" means to you?

I see terms such as "enough sugar" and "lots of sugar" used quite a bit around here and have no idea how much is enough.
(BTW - I gained fat on the "quick therapy" diet, on top of the fat I'd already gained over the past year switching to a more Peaty diet [bare min PUFA, carbs from sugar instead of starch] and running about 10% total fat macro.)
 

skycop00

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2015
Messages
428
Location
Florida
@HDD - could you quantify what "quite a bit of sugar" means to you?

I see terms such as "enough sugar" and "lots of sugar" used quite a bit around here and have no idea how much is enough.
(BTW - I gained fat on the "quick therapy" diet, on top of the fat I'd already gained over the past year switching to a more Peaty diet [bare min PUFA, carbs from sugar instead of starch] and running about 10% total fat macro.)
You and many others it seems
 

HDD

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
2,075
I drink about 20 oz or more of orange juice, two Pepsi's or Mexican cokes, 1 Tbsp. of sugar in each cup of coffee ( 2 cups in the morning and sometimes a cup in the afternoon), a handful or more of gummy bears in the evening, occasional chocolate, various fresh fruits-watermelon, papaya, mango, oranges (this isn't daily but after grocery shopping until gone), if I make a smoothie with Greek yogurt I use oj, frozen fruit and sugar, occasional milk with sugar. This seems like quite a bit to me but I haven't used cronometer in quite a while. I have found that I feel good drinking the Pepsi or Coke daily.

Edit: I used to eat pieces of cheese every time I was hungry so when I changed to low fat cheese I had to increase sugars to fill the void.
 
Last edited:

800mRepeats

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
158
Thank you, that's helpful. (And it doesn't sound like "a lot" to me when I imagine what others here may be consuming.)

I'm currently running about 32 oz of OJ, 8 oz Pepsi, 2-3 tsp sugar in milk coffee (1-3 cups a day), plus fruit and occasional candy.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom