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

[tara]

Yeah and fasting cleans the cells doesn't it

Yip, fast for long enough, and it cleans them right out.

 

[tara]

if you want to loose fat you cant eat as many calories as you burn so that comment is crap

How polite of you to say things like that.

There's a difference between a deficit of 100kcal and 500kcal and more. Aspirin and caffeine will make you burn more calories. If you add a calorie deficit to that, the deficit will become big and it's going to be bad. period.

If the metabolism is kept up under severe energy deficit conditions, I would think the bad is a risk of losing more lean tissue. Which would result in a subsequent lower 'maintenance' calorie level (as well as some loss of function in whichever organs are catabolised).

I'm not saying it can't be done under some conditions and for some people - TBP seems to have made it work for her. I expect it depends on an individuals state and history and exactly how they approach it.
But for the majority of people who attempt weight loss by reducing calorie intake, the results are medium to long term weight gain.
Even when their restrictive diet is strictly monitored and continuing, eventually weight loss bottoms out and they start gaining fat again, even on the same calories that initially resulted in weight loss.

Peat has referred to people who gained weight on less than 1000 cals a day. That's not a race I'd want to be in.

You don't have to be anorexic or a body builder to suffer from chronic dieting (though fortunately most people's hunger prevents them from getting to the more serious levels of starvation if they have food available).

 

[thebigpeatowski]

From RP's Natural Estrogens article (bold is my emphasis):

Our bodies produce estrogen in a great variety of tissues, not just in the ovaries. Fat cells are a major source of it.

From Fats functions and Malfunctions: When we eat more protein or carbohydrate than we need, the excess can be converted to fats, to be stored (as triglycerides), but even on a maintenance diet we synthesize some fats that are essential parts of all of our cells, including a great variety of phospholipids.


In normal aging, most processes are slowed, including nerve conduction velocity, and conduction velocity in the heart (Dhein and Hammerath, 2001). A similar "dampening" or desensitization is seen in sensory, endocrine, and immune systems, as well as in energy metabolism. Calorie restriction, by decreasing the age-related accumulation of PUFA (20:4, 22:4, and 22:5), can prevent the decrease of sensitivity, for example in lymphoid cells (Laganier and Fernandes, 1991).

 

[tara]

I also agree that people on this forum saying being fat is healthy are a bit frustrating.

I also think being heart is good (and healthy). And being skin, and intestinal villi, and bone, and muscle, and toenail, and neurons, and thymus, and ....

 

[nikotrope]

I also agree that people on this forum saying being fat is healthy are a bit frustrating. But I have yet to see a testimonial here of someone losing weight with a big calorie deficit. thebigpeatowsky is the only member who's got results and it was a 100kcal deficit if I remember correctly.

I never said I was in 100 calorie deficit....it was a waaay bigger deficit than that. I took the quick and dirty route.

This is my interpretation from your post here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5877&p=70183&hilit=1800#p70183

Of course eating only 1500kcal is a big calorie deficit for someone with a good metabolism, but a small deficit for someone with a slow metabolism. But my interpretation is maybe wrong?

 

[nikotrope]

I also agree that people on this forum saying being fat is healthy are a bit frustrating.

I also think being heart is good (and healthy). And being skin, and intestinal villi, and bone, and muscle, and toenail, and neurons, and thymus, and ....

Yes, I probably have 20kg of extra intestinal villi in my abdomen

 

[Dean]

Man, oh man. I really am confused with this discussion. I just listened to a radio show Dr. Peat did a few years back on weight loss and he told someone who called in to watch the calories even in grape juice if you are trying to lose weight. He seemed to be saying throughout to not be eating above your metabolic rate if you don't want to gain weight. He mentioned people gaining weight on a 1000 calories. So, why not a super low calorie, but nutrient dense diet with supplements to fill out needs, and letting your appetite and weight loss dictate when you can start upping calories?

 

[thebigpeatowski]

This is my interpretation from your post here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5877&p=70183&hilit=1800#p70183

Of course eating only 1500kcal is a big calorie deficit for someone with a good metabolism, but a small deficit for someone with a slow metabolism. But my interpretation is maybe wrong?

Hi nikotrope...I prefaced my comment with the need for EACH PERSON to find their own personal break even point in order to figure out what their deficit would be....everyone is different. We all have varying degrees of liver health and thyroid health, those factors will affect one's metabolism. I tracked my food intake last year before I began and found out that I gain on 1800 calories and I could lose on 1500....so yes, some days I ate 1500 calories and many days even less, but never at the expense of my nutrition.

I AM NOT RECOMMENDING MY NUMBERS TO ANYONE, those are simply MY numbers... I was a sedentary, severely hypothyroid (at the time), diabetic, hypertensive (170/100) middle-aged woman with chronic liver pain. Yes, I had a very very slow metabolism and was DROWNING in estrogen, that's precisely WHY I did what I did.

I am no longer obese, hypertensive, diabetic, hypothyroid nor do I have liver pain...do you think MAYBE four months of discomfort was worth it to me???

I am amazed that I get so much sh*t for this...truly mind boggling. I feel like I have a new lease on life and have discovered a permanent way out of the metabolic syndrome that plagues so many people (Americans especially). Not to mention the fact that I can FINALLY eat like a normal person (CARBS) and not gain a zillion pounds. I guess I never should have said anything.

Me and my BIG MOUTH.....

https://youtu.be/-uZzBJMTnFQ

 

[Sea]

I think that if you restrict calories you will slow your metabolism to that level of caloric intake. I think that most of the weight loss people experience with caloric restriction is muscle loss and bone density loss which only serves to further lower their metabolic rates and make them more hypothyroid.

I think that if you want to lose fat, you should eat a diet high in carbohydrates and protein, while minimizing dietary fat. This supports the creation, instead of depletion, of muscle mass and allows the body to increase its metabolic rate. My experience is that it is virtually impossible to gain noticeable body fat by over eating Peat sources of carbohydrates.

 

[Zachs]

Man, oh man. I really am confused with this discussion. I just listened to a radio show Dr. Peat did a few years back on weight loss and he told someone who called in to watch the calories even in grape juice if you are trying to lose weight. He seemed to be saying throughout to not be eating above your metabolic rate if you don't want to gain weight. He mentioned people gaining weight on a 1000 calories. So, why not a super low calorie, but nutrient dense diet with supplements to fill out needs, and letting your appetite and weight loss dictate when you can start upping calories?

Because the number one nutrient your body needs are calories. Low calorie diets fail 99.9% of the time because they only succeed in losing muscle mass and lowering metabolism. Once you begin eating normally again which your body will force you to do eventually, you will gain back the fat and now be the same weight or higher with a lowered metabolism and less lbm.

 

[thebigpeatowski]

Man, oh man. I really am confused with this discussion. I just listened to a radio show Dr. Peat did a few years back on weight loss and he told someone who called in to watch the calories even in grape juice if you are trying to lose weight. He seemed to be saying throughout to not be eating above your metabolic rate if you don't want to gain weight. He mentioned people gaining weight on a 1000 calories. So, why not a super low calorie, but nutrient dense diet with supplements to fill out needs, and letting your appetite and weight loss dictate when you can start upping calories?

What exactly is confusing to you Dean? These people are convinced that dieting in a PUFA restricted manner is going to permanently damage their good metabolism....my question is, if your metabolism is so great why are you wanting to lose 35 or 50 pounds? It should be easy for those with such a stellar metabolic rate. That's why I said younger people, men especially, have an easier time.

What I did is for people who are TRULY stuck and getting NOWHERE. It was low calorie, but nutrient dense and all Peat "approved" foods...Peat talks endlessly about how damaging long term estrogen imbalance is to the body. Doing this diet breaks the cycle, is that really too difficult to grasp?....*shrugs*

 

[nikotrope]

Sorry if I offended you thebigpeatowski, but I don't really understand your reaction.

I gave your example as you are the only one who reported on this forum your good results on a calorie deficit. I also said it was different for each person. Basically I agree with you and find you inspiring. I am clearly not someone giving you sh*t for your testimony.

On the contrary I disagree with people giving blank statements like "do a calorie deficit" or "eat at least 3000kcal" and push for people to find their individual problems and solutions like you do.

 

[Dean]

Sea, thanks for your input and sharing your experience.

But is it the caloric restriction, in and of itself, that creates the muscle and bone loss or the lack of nutrition? I mean, a 100 g of quality dairy protein, a liter of oj, a bite of liver or an oyster is less than 1000 calories. I seriously doubt people who have been measured or observed in severe calorie restriction/ semi-starvation were getting that kind of nutrient density and had a positive calcium to phosphorus ratio.

I don't doubt your experience of being able to eat unlimited Peat-quality carbs without weight gain, but that doesn't seem to line up with Peat's recommendations. Maybe he's wrong (I don't discount that, he's human after all) or maybe your metabolic condition is better than another's might be and your appetite never allowed you to go over what your metabolism could handle--largely because your calorie intake was so nutrient dense.

 

[thebigpeatowski]

I think that if you restrict calories you will slow your metabolism to that level of caloric intake. I think that most of the weight loss people experience with caloric restriction is muscle loss and bone density loss which only serves to further lower their metabolic rates and make them more hypothyroid.

I lost no muscle and emerged with a HIGHER metabolic rate....I'm speaking English here, what part don't you understand?

I think that if you want to lose fat, you should eat a diet high in carbohydrates and protein, while minimizing dietary fat.

That's exactly what I did....but I cut starch too, due to gut issues and blood sugar. Used only fructose powder, fruit and OJ as carbs and kept protein very high.

My experience is that it is virtually impossible to gain noticeable body fat by over eating Peat sources of carbohydrates.

I'm thrilled that it is virtually impossible for you to gain weight....Why are you "weighing" in on this discussion? It clearly does not apply to you . You already have a superb metabolism and you aren't an obese, hypothyroid, diabetic middle aged woman with an impaired liver. AWESOME!!!

 

[nikotrope]

Sorry if I offended you thebigpeatowski, but I don't really understand your reaction.

I gave your example as you are the only one who reported on this forum your good results on a calorie deficit. I also said it was different for each person. Basically I agree with you and find you inspiring. I am clearly not someone giving you sh*t for your testimony.

On the contrary I disagree with people giving blank statements like "do a calorie deficit" or "eat at least 3000kcal" and push for people to find their individual problems and solutions like you do.

I have not been very clear on that on my previous posts though, I understand now. I made blank statements myself because I was a bit frustrated to see RPDiciple making blank statements.

Sorry again thebigpeatowski.

 

[thebigpeatowski]

Sorry if I offended you thebigpeatowski, but I don't really understand your reaction.

I gave your example as you are the only one who reported on this forum your good results on a calorie deficit. I also said it was different for each person. Basically I agree with you and find you inspiring. I am clearly not someone giving you sh*t for your testimony.

On the contrary I disagree with people giving blank statements like "do a calorie deficit" or "eat at least 3000kcal" and push for people to find their individual problems and solutions like you do.

No no no...I'm not offended at all. How could I be? This simply worked so well and so quickly that I was eager to share in case there were other people who are are really bad shape. THIS is the way out of the tailspin....it's EXACTLY how you pull out of the downward spiral and actually improve one's own metabolism.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for me to communicate the shift, it's utterly fantastic...I used all Peat foods and methods for stress reduction (cuz there certainly were uncomfortable moments) and it worked perfectly.

I guess I'm the only one that was in really poor health and couldn't wait around for four years to deplete PUFA, cuz THAT is the key...Perhaps there were others and they gave up and left the forum? At any rate, I'm aware that I'm wasting thread space so I'm done talking about it.

 

[Dean]

What exactly is confusing to you Dean? These people are convinced that dieting in a PUFA restricted manner is going to permanently damage their good metabolism....my question is, if your metabolism is so great why are you wanting to lose 35 or 50 pounds? It should be easy for those with such a stellar metabolic rate. That's why I said younger people, men especially, have an easier time.

What I did is for people who are TRULY stuck and getting NOWHERE. It was low calorie, but nutrient dense and all Peat "approved" foods...Peat talks endlessly about how damaging long term estrogen imbalance is to the body. Doing this diet breaks the cycle, is that really too difficult to grasp?....*shrugs*

I guess I got my wires crossed. When I made my initial post about eating 1500 calories, I thought you and tara were in agreement that it could be dismissed out of hand as way too low. I guess that presumption contributed to my confusion in following the discussion from there. I'm happy for your success and will go back to planning to proceed along those same lines.

 

[tara]

References to deficit often seem to refer to the difference from staying at the same weight and metabolic rate as before the reduction. But It probably also make sense to consider the deficit between a proposed restrictive diet and what the energy the body actually needs to run a strong metabolism an a healthy body.

Someone may be maintaining weight at 1600 cals, even though what their body would need to be healthy might be 1000 more than that. So it can get ambiguous - what is an apparent deficit of 100 cals from one PoV might really be deepening an energy deficit from ~1000 cals to ~1100 cals from another PoV. And I guess there is a third common interpretation - the deficit compared to what some automatic calculation (eg cronometer's) says about a person's probable maintenance calories.

I guess one way to avoid confusion about this would be to be explicit about which kind of deficit we are taking about.

 

[Zachs]

References to deficit often seem to refer to the difference from staying at the same weight and metabolic rate as before the reduction. But It probably also make sense to consider the deficit between a proposed restrictive diet and what the energy the body actually needs to run a strong metabolism an a healthy body.

Someone may be maintaining weight at 1600 cals, even though what their body would need to be healthy might be 1000 more than that. So it can get ambiguous - what is an apparent deficit of 100 cals from one PoV might really be deepening an energy deficit from ~1000 cals to ~1100 cals from another PoV. And I guess there is a third common interpretation - the deficit compared to what some automatic calculation (eg cronometer's) says about a person's probable maintenance calories.

I guess one way to avoid confusion about this would be to be explicit about which kind of deficit we are taking about.

Great point, and it covers on what Dean asked earlier about nutrient dense vs just low calorie. The CICO rule is simply.wrong on so many levels because we are not machines. The body can survive on almost anything. Given the right amount of stimuli and stress, it can seem to thrive on a very low calorie or low nutrient density diet or it can completely fail even with optimal nutrition. There are many degrees of metabolism and probably none of us have actually experienced a truly optimal metabolism but some are closer than others.

From what I have read and witnessed, the number one nutrient for optimal health is the calorie. It is imparative to get enough energy for optimum functioning of all the systems, which are linked together. You cannot fix the gut without fixing the thyroid without fixing the liver, etc.

I

 

[thebigpeatowski]

I guess I got my wires crossed. When I made my initial post about eating 1500 calories, I thought you and tara were in agreement that it could be dismissed out of hand as way too low. I guess that presumption contributed to my confusion in following the discussion from there. I'm happy for your success and will go back to planning to proceed along those same lines.

I do believe that tara thinks 1500 is too low. I simply stated that I have no way of knowing what is too low for you.

My metabolism was already in shambles. I was already on a hefty dose of thyroid medication, had been for 15 years, I was resigned to the fact that I would be for life.

I have no way of knowing where your metabolism is right now. If you AREN'T on thyroid medication AND your metabolic rate is currently very low, this diet could be absolutely disastrous for you. Peat discusses the benefits of thyroid all over the place. There's no way I could have done it without thyroid meds.

What have you been eating lately? Peat foods? PUFA? Are you currently working? I took time off to do the diet, there's no way I could have worked, I was debilitated by my health issues anyways. Temps? Pulse? Have you had a thyroid panel done? Do you know your cholesterol level?

I'm gonna feel REALLY BAD if you harm yourself because of my BIG MOUTH...