"Biggest Loser" Contestants Regained Weight. Peat Perspective

Discussion in 'Weight' started by francoislinkus, May 2, 2016.

  1. Koveras

    Koveras Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    466
    Gender:
    Male
    @jag2594 Maybe you have some specific advice for these individuals?
     
  2. managing

    managing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    Messages:
    590
    So, Peat's discussion of low fat (very low fat) that I am aware of involves the study in the 20s where one of the researchers went on a virtually fat free diet for an extended time and lost weight and got healthier in other ways. But, as I understand it, Peat uses that example to show the benefits of eliminating PUFA (as the researcher had been consuming large amounts of PUFA previously). Are there places where he advocates low fat (as opposed to low PUFA) and/or especially where he advocates it specifically in regard to weight loss/gain?

    Is there any demonstrable (ie, not assumption or opinion) relationship between consuming fat (lets assume saturated for the sake of argument) and FFAs?

    The only argument I am aware of against consuming fat (saturated) is that fat in the diet correlates with permeation of lipopolysaccharides through the intestinal walls (ie, it helps transport LPS). That is an indirect way in which reducing fat in the diet is beneficial. But I do not know of anything that suggests that consuming fat (saturated) causes fat gain, or inhibits fat loss (ketosis, not that i am advocating it, is a simple example of exactly the opposite). I know it seems like an easy assumption--eat fat, get fat--but its a fairly mechanistic assumption.
     
  3. whodathunkit

    whodathunkit Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2016
    Messages:
    737
    Gender:
    Female
    I think the association of high blood sugar/diabetes with any kind of fat intake is a fairly demonstrable relationship, since FFAs are a big player in diabetes. YMMV.

    That is not to say saturated fat causes diabetes. I don't know about that. But as a former hyperglycemic who is still not completely normal yet, I know there is a connection between dietary fat intake and blood sugar levels, and also that after hyperglycemia has developed, this relationship is independent of the kind of fat consumed. If you eat fat it's reflected in your blood sugar levels later, until the fat has cleared. If you continue to eat fat, your blood sugar levels stay high.

    In contrast, eating very high carb, especially starchy carbs, and no fat (and therefore FFAs generated), will cause transient glucose spikes after the meal but then a fairly quick normalization of blood sugar levels, especially fasting.

    Edited: I think @HDD answered this below.
     
  4. HDD

    HDD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,779
    @managing
    These quotes are from Peatarian email exchange:

    "I have heard from several people that they think I recommend drinking whole milk, which I don't, because the amount of fat in whole milk is very likely to be fattening when a person is using it to get the needed protein and calcium. When a person wants to lose excess fat, limiting the diet to low fat milk, eggs, orange juice, and a daily carrot or two, will provide the essential nutrients without excess calories."

    "Per calorie, sugar is less fattening than starch, partly because it stimulates less insulin, and, when it's used with a good diet, because it increases the activity of thyroid hormone. There are several convenient indicators of the metabolic rate--the daily temperature cycle and pulse rate (the temperature should rise after breakfast), the amount of water lost by evaporation, and the speed of relaxation of muscles (Achilles reflex relaxation)."

    "The ratio of calcium to phosphate is very important; that's why milk and cheese are so valuable for weight loss, or for preventing weight gain. For people who aren't very active, low fat milk and cheese are better, because the extra fat calories aren't needed."

    "There are different kinds of weight gain. When a person's metabolic rate increases, and stress hormones decrease, for example when adding two quarts of milk to the daily diet, their muscle mass is likely to increase, even while their fat is decreasing. Since muscle burns fat faster than fat does, caloric requirements will gradually increase."

    "People on a standard diet will typically burn 200 or 300 more calories per day when that amount of sugar is added to their diet; but if extra fat is added, too, some of the extra calories are likely to be deposited as fat. It's important to watch the signs of changing heat production as the diet changes."
     
  5. whodathunkit

    whodathunkit Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2016
    Messages:
    737
    Gender:
    Female
    Does anyone know if Peat has anything to say about excess fructose being turned to saturated fat in the liver? I don't understand the process but it's one reason behind the current mainstream hatred of fructose. Does anyone know off the top of their head if this can happen without the presence of PUFA?

    @HDD, thanks for that useful post!
     
  6. HDD

    HDD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Messages:
    1,779
    @whodathunkit
    "When you feed people or animals a very high sugar diet, you can feed them so much that they greatly increase their own [fat] synthesis; but these fats are saturated, or monounsaturated fats. Even if you feed so much that you cause a great increase in triglycerides (circulating fat), and even cause increased deposition of fat (in the liver, for example), it's lowering the toxic effect of free radicals, protecting the tissues. And it actually helps to lower the blood glucose. It has an anti-diabetic effect to feed a high sugar diet. Contrasting that with starch, the complex carbohydrate that dietitians have been recommending now for 40 years; the starches have the opposite effect; they increase your insulin resistance very quickly (just as if you were eating fat), because the starches don't support our own production of saturated fat."
    Cholesterol Is An Important Molecule, KMUD, 2008
     
  7. managing

    managing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    Messages:
    590
    Thanks, that is exactly the sort of direct attribution I was looking for. That is a great start for "how to lose fat" via Peat.

    Now, two follow up questions:

    1. Has anybody tried this? Somebody on the previous page alluded to gaining weight on this regimen, but?

    2. What additional things can one do (or not do) to lose fat?
     
  8. managing

    managing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    Messages:
    590
    One more thought. Elsewhere he has said something to the effect of limiting oneself to 2 eggs per day. And eggs are high in fat. So low fat milk, but eggs? Obviously the eggs for protein, but there are lower fat sources of protein. Or maybe low fat milk + eggs simply is an acceptable amount of fat, where whole milk+ eggs would be too much?

    Finally, are we talking "low-fat" milk, which usually means 1%, or are we talking skim milk?

    And is there an amount of carrot that becomes "too much". I suppose the only concern would be too much carotene, but I believe you get very little out of raw carrots anyway?
     
  9. tara

    tara Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    8,563
    Gender:
    Female
    I think that probably depends on your starting point. For those of us whose metabolisms are not reliably up to basic day-to-day functioning, it may not always the case.

    I think the Randle 'cycle' has been demonstrated. Long-chain fats, saturated or not, hinder glucose oxidation to various degrees in different tissues.
    High fat/low carb tends to produce less CO2 per oxygen, IIUC, so there's that too.
     
  10. thebigpeatowski

    thebigpeatowski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,726
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes, I have done this (two years ago) and lost 38 pounds of body fat, gained back only 3 pounds since:

    ZERO starch, high fructose, very low fat, high protein in a caloric deficit for six weeks at a time....cheat meals when cravings get unbearable and a two week break between rounds....took me two rounds to lose the 38 pounds.

    Additional things to do: take thyroid medication and lots of caffeine, keep liver very clean, gut irritation to a minimum, stress to an absolute minimum, lots of sunshine and gentle walking....I'm sure I'm forgetting something.
     
  11. thebigpeatowski

    thebigpeatowski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,726
    Gender:
    Female
    Btw...my metabolism did not suffer at all for the short-term caloric deficit, refeeds help tremendously. On the contrary, I eat waaaay more calories now than I could (without gaining) when I did this fat loss diet. Yesterday I ate 2624 calories, I'm 49 years old. NONE of my girlfriends can eat like me and I do no exercise beyond walking.

    I also take a fraction of the thyroid dose that I was on two years ago. Strict PUFA avoidance is crucial. Might want to also address any major life stressors/emotional issues (if any exist), so regain afterwards won't be an issue.

    I'm seriously considering doing another round soon because I still need to lose the ten pounds (fifteen would be better)....I've been stuck at 135 lbs for a year and half.

    So, despite the Miracle of My Improved Metabolism, it hasn't magically melted off the last ten pounds. It's NOT an EASY diet, but it was very effective if you have 40 or 50 pounds to lose.

    I'm not sure what would happen of you only had 10 or 15 to lose....might be way more stressful???
     
  12. tara

    tara Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    8,563
    Gender:
    Female
    Maybe it depends on whether that last 10-15 pounds is above or below your optimal healthy weight set point?
     
  13. thebigpeatowski

    thebigpeatowski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,726
    Gender:
    Female
    I have NO idea what a "healthy weight set point is" as I'm not familiar with the term. But I can tell you from personal experience that if I were to gain 10-15 pounds on top of what I have right now I would be swimming in Fat-Induced Estrogen Madness...it gets real ugly real quick at my stature.

    I'm 5'2", so VERY short...I always weighed under 110 lbs. in high school and crept up to 115 lbs in college while drinking LOTS of beer and living on Dominos pizza.

    I never had a weight issue until I got pregnant (gained 90 pounds!!!) at 25 years old. I spent the next 20 years morbidly obese, it SUCKED.

    Can someone please tell me what a healthy weight set point is for a middle aged gal of 5'2" should be....I do have lots of good muscles (under all this flab), I swear.
     
  14. tara

    tara Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    8,563
    Gender:
    Female
    There is lots of controversy, and a lot of assumptions in this area.
    My understanding is that it's the weight your body wants you to maintain to be healthy. If it gets pushed below that weight, the body perceives it as energy deficit, and takes steps to recoup and prevent further losses, eg by reducing metabolism/temperature, reducing NEAT, increasing appetite, slowing gut, etc. If you go above this set point, the body tends to decrease appetite, increase NEAT, temperature, etc. Most people, eating to appetite, reach and maintain a fairly stable body weight, determined by their set point. Other factors can probably interfere with this process, like excessive estrogens (including xeno-), PUFAS or other poisons and stresses. There is some evidence that severe restrictive dieting may sometimes increase the weight set point.

    AFAIK, the ideal weight set point varies from person to person, much as height does. I don't think there is such a thing as a fixed number that applies to everyone of a certain height.
    It's generally higher for an adult woman than for a school girl - a healthy mature woman has generally grown broader of skeleton etc up till about 25 yrs. It usually tends to increase a little gradually till early old-age, then gradually reduces again during old-age. For most people, their healthy set-point is probably somewhere in the so-called 'normal/ideal' or 'overweight' BMI categories, but a few people may have set points higher than that.

    Your current BMI (5'2" 135lb) is around 24-25, which is in the top end of the popularly termed 'normal/ideal' category. But that's statistical, and doesn't say what is ideal for you.

    The BMI statistically associated with the lowest mortality is 27, which is in the popularly-termed 'overweight' category. Some people say (there is discussion on other threads), that the 27 is misleading for statistical reasons, and if you take out all the skinny-cause-sick people, the statistically lowest mortality number would be a little lower (somewhere in the top half of 'ideal').
    I think that is just more evidence of the meaninglessness of the popular categories, and that there is no point in treating descriptive ranges like these as though they were prescriptive principles to squeeze individuals into.

    If you fairly easily lost the weight/fat down to where you are now, and the last 10-15 pounds don't want to go, maybe that's because you are at or near your personal optimal weight now?
     
  15. managing

    managing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2014
    Messages:
    590
    Just out of curiosity, how long did that take?

    What would you say if it is only 20-25 lbs?
     
  16. thebigpeatowski

    thebigpeatowski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,726
    Gender:
    Female
    Hmmm, well I certainly love a good controversy and I always make assumptions (often wrongly)......are you telling me that this is the weight I'm supposed to be at? That I'm freaking out over nothing?:lol:


    Yes, I can definitely see that pattern in me. Some days I eat a TON because I'm freakin hungry, the next day I naturally don't eat as much...it's very self regulating, for sure. I've only tried to reduce calories a few times recently and every single time I get a HUGE stress response, much more so now than I ever recall when dieting two years ago.

    But maybe I am misremembering? Maybe dieting is like child birth...EXCRUCIATINGLY DIFFICULT, but so worth it in the end. And then you kinda forget how painful it was.:roll:

    Seems reasonable...tara, always The Voice of Reason.


    I was hoping to hear something like: a healthy weight set point is the weight you were at certain age of adulthood, like age 21, or when a person stops growing...er something.

    Yeah, I don't feel "ideal"....I feel ideal at 125. Just not sure how to get there without a major stress response.

    Statistics can be misleading for sure...and I don't much care for fitting in to someone else's numbers anyways. I generally go by how I feel, follow my instinct or intuition or whatever.

    Yeah, I don't remember ever feeling this hungry back then. Maybe I've concentrated all my residual PUFA into these last 10-15 and my body is saying "NO WAY are we burning through that poison!!!" What??? I can make stuff up.....I'm impatient. I don't wish to wait another 1.5 years to be Fully Depleted.

    Who's Fully Depleted here? Anyone? Is it Magical?
     
  17. tara

    tara Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    8,563
    Gender:
    Female
    Me too :)

    Don't we all - it's such fun uncovering them, isn't it?

    I'm not saying anything with any certainty, but I'd say it's at least a possibility. :)

    Remember that the normal consequence of restrictive dieting (for ~95% of people studied) is to gain weight again, often more than originally lost. This can happen even when people stick to their low-calorie diet - lose weight - plateau - gain weight - on the same calorie level. So for most people it's not worth it in the end.

    I'd like to know that too.
     
  18. whodathunkit

    whodathunkit Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2016
    Messages:
    737
    Gender:
    Female
    Agreed. Should have made that clear. If you're suffering from acute, chronic, energy deficit, anything that tanks the metabolism probably isn't a good idea.

    However, I do have a friend who has quite bad energy problems and has managed to lose quite a bit of weight. Seems like it's been more inspiring for her to actually be able to lose some weight via calorie deficit than the extra ramping down of her metabolism has been a drawback for her. If that makes sense.

    Peatowski, this is really inspiring! Thank you! :thumbsup:

    BTW, I'd hazard that 120lbs would be an "ideal" set point for you. :)

    My personal, experiential theory on set point is that after set point has been deranged upward for a long time, the body has no idea what ideal is. It wants to stay bigger than it has to be or should be. So we have to live with certain plateaus for a while as we step down, and retrain ourselves to get where we want. I also think if we manage to get too thin, we'll figure that out in short order. Unlikely for people who like to eat, in any event.

    I'm at an annoying plateau right now, myself. We're in the same age bracket.

    Do you visualize how you want to feel and look at your ideal weight? IMO mental gymnastics like that have some value in situations like this. I've had some success with visualizing weight loss in the past, although it's to the point , now where I have no idea exactly how I will look if I get to my goal, simply because I've lost so much already. My mental image hasn't quite caught up to reality, mainly because while the reality is pleasing, it's not my "mental ideal" that I've been visualizing. So I'm having a hard time with it ATM. But I've had some success with visualization up until pretty recently.
     
  19. thebigpeatowski

    thebigpeatowski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,726
    Gender:
    Female
    Gawd I wish!!! I haven't been 120lbs since I was in my early 20's.

    Well, this does not bode well for me...I've been overweight for 25 years. The lowest I've been is 128lbs and that was low-carbing in 2011-2013. I felt great and then ALL HELL broke loose.

    I haven't really been doing anything to try and lose, mostly I've been pushing the caloric limit to see exactly where The Limit is. I want to know exactly how many calories I can eat without gaining. I did this before my fat loss in 2014 and my limit was around 1700 calories, if I ate more than than that for too long and I'd start packing it on. My limit is nearly a thousand calories higher now, it's hard to pinpoint though because I'm not sure how accurate Cron-O is on calories burned for activity like yard work etc....they're certainly waaay off when setting my caloric intake for fat loss. I dunno.

    When you say you're at a plateau, does that mean that you're actively trying to lose weight and can't? Or does that mean you're between attempts? Like taking a break? If so, how long will you break for?

    I might like to make another attempt...might make it Public even...you know, so you all can suffer and laugh at me. Who's in?

    I recall doing the visualization thing when I was actively making an attempt to lose, but no, not lately. It would certainly take some mental mustering. I'm pretty good at that. (Stubborn & Stupid for the Win).

    My highest weight ever was just over 200lbs, I quit looking at the scale so I don't know the exact number. You can imagine at my height I was wider than I am tall and I got the stretch marks to prove it.
     
  20. Tarmander

    Tarmander Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,520
    I will throw this out there...a lot of people get in trouble trying to lose that last 10-15 pounds...the whole sacrificing the good for the perfect thing...if they just got comfortable instead of trying to be skinny they probably wouldn't rebound as hard.

    Edit: I will also say I totally disagree with the whole trying to lose weight thing, I think it is insane, but it matters in our society so I understand it.
     
Loading...