Low-Fat Diet, Hypocaloric Diet, Weight Loss, Metabolism

[superhuman]

@tyw thats cool. How many calories do you eat a day on everage?

switching out eggs and chicken for skimmed milk should increase metabolic rate and everything more because of the protein, calcium and alot of nutrition. You dont need that many eggs you can also include some liver instead of eggs and chicken if you want.

 

[tyw]

@tyw thats cool. How many calories do you eat a day on everage?

switching out eggs and chicken for skimmed milk should increase metabolic rate and everything more because of the protein, calcium and alot of nutrition. You dont need that many eggs you can also include some liver instead of eggs and chicken if you want.

Tried both milk and cheese over the years in many different situations. They don't agree with me (massive gut issues. I am Asian, so there are possible genetic reasons for that intolerance). Whey seems fine, but again, I'm aware of the sub-optimal nature of the amino acid composition, so I didn't include it here.

I haven't bothered with the organ meats just because I've been too lazy to source them :p (I could, but just didn't bother).

I'd say an average of 2,500kcal a day (the equivalent of 400-500g of rice (weighed raw) and 1.5L of fruit juice, plus a little bit of protein)

Protein requirements seem pretty low for me .... on the order of 50g a day. Hasn't seemed to have affected muscle mass at all, and strength has been maintained despite losing a lot of weight.

....

 

[m_arch]

Nice seeing you here Mr. Tan!
A lot of people have said liver helps with acne, and it's helped with mine. Weirdly accutaine (acne drug that works) is mostly vitamin a like liver.. Except it has bad side effects

 

[superhuman]

@tyw thats really cool and impressive. Loosing weight on 2500 kcal daily for a girl is really good. How tall are you? are you very active?

 

[tyw]

@tyw thats really cool and impressive. Loosing weight on 2500 kcal daily for a girl is really good. How tall are you? are you very active?

I have met @m_arch in person, and he can confirm that I am a man who stands at height 190cm / 6'3''

Activity levels during this period were low .... writing code for 12 hours a day, with activity limited to miscellaneous stretching breaks and short walks on the beach, and the routine taking my bike out to get groceries. I am surprised by the results. Before this, I would maintain my (higher 75kg) weight on anywhere from 2,200-2,500kcal a day.

.....

 

[superhuman]

@tyw awesome

 

[InChristAlone]

Tried both milk and cheese over the years in many different situations. They don't agree with me (massive gut issues. I am Asian, so there are possible genetic reasons for that intolerance). Whey seems fine, but again, I'm aware of the sub-optimal nature of the amino acid composition, so I didn't include it here.

I haven't bothered with the organ meats just because I've been too lazy to source them :p (I could, but just didn't bother).

I'd say an average of 2,500kcal a day (the equivalent of 400-500g of rice (weighed raw) and 1.5L of fruit juice, plus a little bit of protein)

Protein requirements seem pretty low for me .... on the order of 50g a day. Hasn't seemed to have affected muscle mass at all, and strength has been maintained despite losing a lot of weight.

....

Awesome to see you here doing high carb!!! Woo woo.

 

[Elephanto]

Unless you're a Polynesian or Kitavan, or even South American, there's no reason to eat starches. Maybe if you're Asian you can get away with rice.

That's interesting. I was thinking about this earlier, how can they have the highest average IQ but eat a ton of starch. I guess it helps that white rice has no fiber but still. Their stomaches are similar to ours, small, so unoptimal for starches. But the fact that their diet is very high carb is probably the reason why they are so intelligent, and that might compensate for the endotoxin problem in some.

 

[tyw]

Awesome to see you here doing high carb!!! Woo woo.

Getting pretty damn lean doing this, which is good for satisfying my vanity

That's interesting. I was thinking about this earlier, how can they have the highest average IQ but eat a ton of starch. I guess it helps that white rice has no fiber but still. Their stomaches are similar to ours, small, so unoptimal for starches. But the fact that their diet is very high carb is probably the reason why they are so intelligent, and that might compensate for the endotoxin problem in some.

A couple of separate concerns need to be isolated and addressed independently (as per my signature, De-complect all the things )

Firstly on the topic of starches, like I wrote here -- Fructose Alters Brain Genes Negatively. How To Counter This From Peat Perspective? , "Starch" needs to be defined properly, and different "starches" will have different impacts on health.

I prefer discriminate along the lines of specific foods, and not refer to all glucose-polymer-containing food items as "starch" or "suboptimal"

Second, on the topic of IQ, there are a whole host of driving factors. Some good research references would be the work of Dr Richard Lynn and Dr Helmuth Nyborg:

- Richard Lynn - Publications
- Professor Emeritus Dr. Phil. Helmuth Sørensen Nyborg - Aarhus Denmark - Homepage
- The Scientific Study of General Intelligence - ScienceDirect

One theory is that geographical constraints that put selection pressure on increasing IQ, led to the development of higher IQs. That could explain the "higher latitude => higher IQ" correlation (have to plan for seasonal food scarcity, and organise social networks to deal with these constraints).

Of course, the role of having good metabolism to fuel and fulfil whatever mental capacity you have must also be taken into account, but IQ seems to be a largely heritable trait, and selection pressures occur across generations. (Although I think I read somewhere that we're not talking 10's or 100's of generations for IQ to improve -- ie: your children will likely be smarter than you). Well, all more important to ensure proper nutrition and stress-reduction during pregnancy and formative childhood years.

On a related note, not all Asians share the same IQ trends. Again, we see the higher average IQs in places like Japan, Northern China, Korea, etc .... and less so in lower latitude regions like Indonesia. Again, it's probably some complex interactions of selection pressures over time (latitude and climatic conditions are only one factor).

NOTE: And of course, my comments regarding IQ don't reflect any moral or political judgment. This is purely looking at scientific data.​

FINAL SIDENOTE: regarding the topic of starch, there is this Myth of "long Japanese Intestines" floating around, I have no opinion on whether it's true or false, but .... longer intestine => better starch metabolism??????? )​

....

 

[Elephanto]

Getting pretty damn lean doing this, which is good for satisfying my vanity



A couple of separate concerns need to be isolated and addressed independently (as per my signature, De-complect all the things )

Firstly on the topic of starches, like I wrote here -- Fructose Alters Brain Genes Negatively. How To Counter This From Peat Perspective? , "Starch" needs to be defined properly, and different "starches" will have different impacts on health.

I prefer discriminate along the lines of specific foods, and not refer to all glucose-polymer-containing food items as "starch" or "suboptimal"

Second, on the topic of IQ, there are a whole host of driving factors. Some good research references would be the work of Dr Richard Lynn and Dr Helmuth Nyborg:

- Richard Lynn - Publications
- Professor Emeritus Dr. Phil. Helmuth Sørensen Nyborg - Aarhus Denmark - Homepage
- The Scientific Study of General Intelligence - ScienceDirect

One theory is that geographical constraints that put selection pressure on increasing IQ, led to the development of higher IQs. That could explain the "higher latitude => higher IQ" correlation (have to plan for seasonal food scarcity, and organise social networks to deal with these constraints).

Of course, the role of having good metabolism to fuel and fulfil whatever mental capacity you have must also be taken into account, but IQ seems to be a largely heritable trait, and selection pressures occur across generations. (Although I think I read somewhere that we're not talking 10's or 100's of generations for IQ to improve -- ie: your children will likely be smarter than you). Well, all more important to ensure proper nutrition and stress-reduction during pregnancy and formative childhood years.

On a related note, not all Asians share the same IQ trends. Again, we see the higher average IQs in places like Japan, Northern China, Korea, etc .... and less so in lower latitude regions like Indonesia. Again, it's probably some complex interactions of selection pressures over time (latitude and climatic conditions are only one factor).

NOTE: And of course, my comments regarding IQ don't reflect any moral or political judgment. This is purely looking at scientific data.​

FINAL SIDENOTE: regarding the topic of starch, there is this Myth of "long Japanese Intestines" floating around, I have no opinion on whether it's true or false, but .... longer intestine => better starch metabolism??????? )​

....

I don't think IQ is fixed or largely heritable. A person could get different scores on different days, depending on diet, state of mind, health status, education/knowledge, etc.

Interesting views tho.

 

[tyw]

I don't think IQ is fixed or largely heritable. A person could get different scores on different days, depending on diet, state of mind, health status, education/knowledge, etc.

Interesting views tho.

I actually like how the research over the years have tried to control for all of these factors (twin studies, adoption studies, etc ...), and still seem to observe a predetermined ceiling on IQ

Again, this is pure observation. I do not make any claim to certainty for causal factors for this to occur.

Also, regardless of a supposed "IQ max potential" for a given person, it is still up to the person to do what needs to get done to reach that potential . A bad environment / state of health will suppress any existing potential, an oppressive cultural environment will prevent that potential from being showcased, etc ...

One of my favourite quips: You have no control over the things that befall upon you , but the only way for is to take full responsibility for how you respond to these challenges. Or in Jocko Willinck style: The only way to live life is to take EXTREEEEME OWNERSHIP of the things you can't control

The opposite of that is learned helplessness, and we all know the metabolic drivers from the discussions on this forum

....

 

[heartnhands]

I'm sure there is much research done already but if you wait for a study to prove you something before you can believe it, you'll be waiting a long time. 99% of studies are flawed in some way anyway, I'll talk collective experiences over uncredible studies any day.

I ate zero fat for over 3 months, so only whatever I got from food I ate, non fat dairy, fruit, starch. it cronometreed out to maybe 10g a day or less. I ate at least 3k calories, mostly from carbs. Some days much more, 4k+. I was consistent, didn't drink much, never had a cheat meal except eating occasional eggs and oysters. Supplemented with some fat soluble vits, a b complex, zinc, mag, selenium, boron, glycine, aspirin, tourine, a tiny bit of t3.

I went from close to 200lbs, 23% bf to 166, under 10%. Currently at last doctor visit I was 163 with clothes on.

As a side note, I went from 173 to a high of 221 when eating only 2000 calories a day or less of meat, eggs, cheese, nuts, veggies and oils. This was several years ago but illustrates nicely how CICO is bullcrap.

I'm not opposed to believing I was in an energy deficit but the way the fat would drop of seemingly overnight and the pronounced boost in metabolism and overall health tells me that there was much more going on than just fat loss through an energy deficit.

Please explain what CICO means. Something about calorie???

 

[Blossom]

Please explain what CICO means. Something about calorie???

Calories In Calories Out

 

[heartnhands]

Calories In Calories Out

Thanks.

 

[narouz]

Firstly on the topic of starches, like I wrote here -- Fructose Alters Brain Genes Negatively. How To Counter This From Peat Perspective? , "Starch" needs to be defined properly, and different "starches" will have different impacts on health.
...

Yes.
I've noticed over the years of thinking about Peat's ideas
and therefore thinking about things like "starches"...
...there are a lot of different kinds of starches!

Maybe not all starches are created equal.

Anyhow...I'd love it, tyw, if you'd lay out some starting pts.

 

[tyw]

Yes.
I've noticed over the years of thinking about Peat's ideas
and therefore thinking about things like "starches"...
...there are a lot of different kinds of starches!

Maybe not all starches are created equal.

Anyhow...I'd love it, tyw, if you'd lay out some starting pts.

First, I kinda agree with @Westside PUFAs that "Glucose is just glucose" -- a fairly neutral and "clean-burning" substrate (assuming none of your glucose-handling enzymes are screwed up).

"Clean burning" at least relative to fatty acid use, which has complications at many steps (digestion, liver handling, transport, storage, competition with glucose use, complications at perixomes, complications at mitochondrial ECT entry, etc ....).

Not to say that fatty acid use is "bad", but it is certainly more complicated, with more variations in substrate (carbon-unsaturation count -- every unsaturated is different, chain length -- this affects where and when a fat is used, etc ...) compared to carbohydrate, whereby only Fructose is truly given "special handling".

The difference in "starches" I feel is at the level of digestion. After that, we're just dealing with a polysaccharide which usually isn't difficult to break down.

So the simple rule of thumb which has been espoused by haidut before: Anything that Digests Quickly. And the flipside -- any starch that makes you "feel bloated" for a few hours is probably not digesting quickly. Huge boluses of starch probably don't digest quickly. Fat + certain starches (pasta!) probably don't digest quickly. etc ....

For me, I'm basically down to short-grain rice (amylopectin) and certain kinds of sweet potatoes which I consider "safe" (I usually get the yellow or purple varieties that grow locally where I'm at). It's mostly been rice though ....

Because we are dealing with digestion, anything that is annoying to your particular GI tract is probably not a good idea. Again, this comes down to knowing certain rules of thumb, and then testing yourself. So yeah, it's good to know that "gluten in wheat leads to intestinal tight junction leakiness", or "proalamines in corn can inflame the gut", or "lectins in potatoes are bad", or "FODMAPS in barley lead to endotoxin". Avoid those if needed, and test to see if there are truly issues with your gut (if you really want to / have to eat these foods).

...

 

[superhuman]

@tyw great. Have you made rice pudding from short grain rice and skimmed milk or rice,water and skimmed milk and some salt. Then when its done and settled sprinkle with sugar and cinnamon ?

 

[tyw]

@tyw great. Have you made rice pudding from short grain rice and skimmed milk or rice,water and skimmed milk and some salt. Then when its done and settled sprinkle with sugar and cinnamon ?

Nah, milk is one of those things which really doesn't agree with me (must be the Asian genes that are not happy ). I've tested all the different compounds in milk, and it's basically the the usual suspects -- casein and lactose -- which give me issues.

This is where I'll have to obey the basic rule of thumb -- If it's harmful to you right now, don't eat it.

I have managed to tolerate milk when un-stressed, but really lose tolerance when I have to work "startup hours" like I'm doing now

....

 

[heartnhands]

I actually like how the research over the years have tried to control for all of these factors (twin studies, adoption studies, etc ...), and still seem to observe a predetermined ceiling on IQ

Again, this is pure observation. I do not make any claim to certainty for causal factors for this to occur.

Also, regardless of a supposed "IQ max potential" for a given person, it is still up to the person to do what needs to get done to reach that potential . A bad environment / state of health will suppress any existing potential, an oppressive cultural environment will prevent that potential from being showcased, etc ...

One of my favourite quips: You have no control over the things that befall upon you , but the only way for is to take full responsibility for how you respond to these challenges. Or in Jocko Willinck style: The only way to live life is to take EXTREEEEME OWNERSHIP of the things you can't control

The opposite of that is learned helplessness, and we all know the metabolic drivers from the discussions on this forum

....

Extreme ownership is my choice too.

 

[narouz]

Extreme ownership is my choice too.

Just a semantic thing but...
I don't really like the formulation that one should take
"extreme ownership of things you can't control."
That makes it sound like you'd necessarily have to blame yourself for unfortunate sheet that just happened to you.

I like the other way of putting it better--
that it's all about how one responds to unfortunate crap falling upon you:
don't dwell on it, focus on the positive, keep chopping wood, don't blame yourself, etc....