Man Makes Himself Insulin Resistant/type Two Diabetic By Drinking Olive Oil

OP
Westside PUFAs
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
1,972
I could possibly see Ray and Penn being an exemption, through the use of cold thermogenisis and mechanisms like brown fat, but slowed BMRs are the rule when it comes to weight loss, not the exception. It will absolutely apply to the people that had bariatric surgery. It's simple physics. All mass, even white fat, burns some calories at rest. Mass goes down, BMR goes down. It also applies to activity, as it takes more energy to move say, 250 pounds than it does 200. If Ray and Penn have indirect calorimity readings that show that BMR goes up (or holds steady) as weight goes down, that is amazingly impressive.

The issue with the Biggest Loser phenomenon is the matter of degree. Instead of BMRs going down as would be predicted, they absolutely crash. So an expected drop from say, 1900 to 1700 calories a day goes more like from 1900 to 1000.

But there could be a number of factors to this. The Biggest Loser diet is probably the most radical diet ever designed. Daily caloric deficits of 4,000-7,000 calories are common. Bariatric surgery patients are in bad shape, but contestants on The Biggest Loser are in far worse shape at baseline than the average bariatric patient, at baseline or even after 12 months of forced caloric restriction. BL contestants also lose more weight in a period of 7 months than bariatic patients do over the course of their first year. The massively out of shape people go from completely sedentary to working out 4-6 hours a day in less than a week. On top of that, some use water manipulation techniques for big weekly weight losses, and stimulants like Adderall are used by some contestants.

Here is the study comparing the two -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25236175

Jillette didn't use cold thermogenesis nor do people who've had bariatric surgery. Haidut is claiming that "dieting" will slow BMR leading specifically to adipose tissue enlargement aka getting fat again. It's not true. It depends on what said person eats. The liver doesn't just magically convert carbohydrate, protein, and fiber into enough amounts of fat to be stored simply because one dieted.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Where are the controlled clinical trials proving this with extensive blood markers and extensive daily food logs?

Did you see the two studies I posted before the WP article? There are more, but both of these are human and relatively recent. I don't think there have been large scale, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials for this as it would be insanely expensive and the goal would be nebulous and not tied to selling any drug. So, the only thing we are likely to see on this topic are some human trials, usually financed by the government and done by NIH or some university.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Jillette didn't use cold thermogenesis nor do people who've had bariatric surgery. Haidut is claiming that "dieting" will slow BMR leading specifically to adipose tissue enlargement aka getting fat again. It's not true. It depends on what said person eats. The liver doesn't just magically convert carbohydrate, protein, and fiber into enough amounts of fat to be stored simply because one dieted.

I am claiming that for most people, dieting will shed more muscle than fat. So, as a damage control mechanism a person better lose most of their fat if they start dieting given that they will be losing most of their muscle in the process as well. If they stop mid-way because they thought their new weight is now good they will find themselves in a very bad situation - lower BMR, a lot less muscle and a little less fat. So, if they stop dieting they have to either learn to live on a lot less calories or keep running themselves to death like hamsters on wheels they will pack on the pounds again. Dieting does not improve health in the long run, obesity is an endocrine problem and has to be solved by restoring proper hormone environment and not by dieting or running to exhaustion every day. That much we know.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
@haidut very cool to see you follow the latest in regards to fitness/exercise and fat loss as well. These last 1-2 years there has been allot of researched done from many credible PHD people in the bodybuilding/weight lifting industry and it really seems to be that RMR does not get effected at all when dieting, even very hard. Exept if you loose muscle during that time with like eating little protein and not moving or doing any resistance training.

But like haidut mentions the results show that the harder you diet and longer the NEAT/BMR plummet like crazy. I can attest to this myself since i have dieted down to very low bodyfat levels and when your in that state and restricting calories you avoid anything that spontaneous or require energy unless you force yourself to do it. Just walking around something vs walking straight ahead annoys you because it costs energy and will to go around something.

It also just comes to general NEAT, fidgeting etc just allot of small things that adds up to allot of calories each day.

Right, like you said "except if you lose muscle". That is the crux of the issue. Dieting shed your muscles more than anything else because the brain and liver do not like to be without glucose. If there was a way to block muscle loss while dieting then I would be a lot more open to it. Or at least ensure more fat than muscle is lost in the process. The bodybuilders you mention are probably not good examples. They shoot up all kinds of stuff to keep their muscles while dieting and it is not something an average person can do. The larger studies with regular people not taking any drugs or steroids showed that BMR does decline as a result of dieting, in the people who lost more muscle than fat. That happens to be the majority of people with the exception of some exceptionally resilient individuals who have massive androgen and pregnenolone reserves and can withstand a starvation with greatly reduced muscle loss. Or have access to drugs/steroids, which explains why the results you mention are only reported by people in the fitness industry.
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
Yes, there is a lot of evidence going back at least 50 years but the topic is not very popular with the medical crowd as it suggests dieting and exercise are bad in the long run as downregulations of the metabolic rate are well known to be causally related to quite a few diseases, including diabetes. Actually, it is not the BMR that matters so much for health as the Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT) - i.e. how much heat you generate without forcing yourself. NEAT is of course strongly tied to thyroid function and proper hormone balance.
Metabolic and behavioral compensations in response to caloric restriction: implications for the maintenance of weight loss. - PubMed - NCBI
Study shows metabolic adaptation in calorie restriction
"...Researchers at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA, have shown that when people significantly reduce their calorie intake, they undergo a metabolic adaptation that results in a slower metabolic rate. The slower metabolic rate results in a behavioral adaptation in which individuals become less physically active. The researchers examined data from 48 overweight people who followed 1 of 4 diet regimens for 6 months: a 25-percent calorie restriction (CR) diet, a low-calorie diet, a 12.5-percent CR diet plus 12.5-percent aerobic exercise program, or a normal diet. While the first three groups lost weight, after 6 months, the CR and low-calorie diet groups showed a reduction in their basal metabolic rate, accompanied by reduced physical activity. The CR plus physical activity group also lost weight but did not undergo a metabolic adaptation. This is the first study to measure metabolic rate and energy expenditure precisely through the use of doubly labeled water and indirect calorimetry. The study also shows that long-term calorie reduction without increased exercise can result in a lower metabolic rate. The researchers note that the data “suggest potential mechanisms by which CR causes large inter-individual variability in the rates of weight loss and how exercise may influence weight loss and weight loss maintenance.”

Another study with the same message.
Impact of energy intake and exercise on resting metabolic rate. - PubMed - NCBI
"...Resting metabolic rate is modulated by the amount of calories consumed in the diet relative to energy expenditure. Excessive consumption of energy appears to increase resting metabolic rate while fasting and very low calorie dieting causes resting metabolic rate to decrease. Since the metabolic rate at rest is the primary component of daily energy expenditure, its reduction with caloric restriction makes it difficult for obese individuals to lose weight and to maintain weight that is lost. Whether exercise has a carry-over effect on resting metabolic rate remains controversial, even though this question has been studied extensively during the last 90 years. Reasons for contradictory results include variations in control of prior diet and exercise patterns, inadequate exercise frequency, intensity and duration, and the possibility of response to exercise varying between individuals. Several lines of evidence suggest exercise may modulate resting metabolic rate. Bed rest in sedentary individuals leads to a reduction in resting metabolic rate. Similarly, in highly trained runners, cessation of daily exercise training lowers resting metabolic rate by about 7 to 10%. Resting metabolic rate is depressed in previously sedentary obese individuals on a very low calorie diet, but it quickly returns to the predieting level when exercise of sufficient frequency, intensity and duration is undertaken while dieting. These findings suggest caloric intake and daily exercise can modulate resting metabolic rate. Exercise of adequate intensity and duration may also enhance resting metabolic rate."

I hate to quote WP, but it is decent article and sums it up rather well.
Basal metabolic rate changes as you age
"...Going on a crash diet to shed the pounds fast? Think again. Although the pounds will dwindle, so will your metabolic rate and most likely your lean body mass — which in the end is exactly what you don’t want. “If you go on, say, a 900-calorie-a-day diet, you will have a hard time getting the nutrients you need,” says Rebecca Mohning, a D.C. nutritionist. “Without the daily requirement of protein, you will break down your lean muscle mass.” “Basically, the body will make sure it gets what it needs to function — and if it doesn’t get what it needs from food, it will take what it needs from the muscles,” says Fairfax-based nutritionist Danielle Omar, who owns Foodconfidence.com. “It’s not that smart when you consider that you are in essence eating away at your own muscle mass.” And less lean muscle mass means you burn fewer calories — probably not what you were going for. You will also lower the body’s basal metabolic rate (BMR) — the minimum amount of energy you need to keep the basic functions going (such as liver and brain function and breathing; breaking down food requires about 10 percent of the total BMR). "

So, bottom line is this - if you diet you will most likely end up lowering your BMR. This is due to both general thyroid function adaptations (inhbition) and also loss of muscle mass (which is the primary fat-burning tissue). So, once you lose your fat (and muscle) the only way to keep BMR going is through exercise (stress). That is an arguably worse state than being sedentary with higher BMR (and BMI) as studies have shown that health is possitively correlated with resting BMR and negatively correlated with "forced" BMR (i.e. through exercise). Basically, you have to keep exercising to cover the reduction in BMR and even if you manage to keep the BMR higher it is through stress (adrenaline/cortisol/prolactin/etc). Exercise is the replacement for the lost thyroid function but it is a self-defeating strategy - not only you have to keep doing it indefinitely but it also ends up lowering your BMR in the long run.
"Basically, you have to keep exercising to cover the reduction in BMR and even if you manage to keep the BMR higher it is through stress (adrenaline/cortisol/prolactin/etc). Exercise is the replacement for the lost thyroid function but it is a self-defeating strategy..."
Word! Been there. Thank you.
 

zztr

Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
295
Dieting shed your muscles more than anything else because the brain and liver do not like to be without glucose.

Running at a slight caloric deficit to lose fat doesn't break down muscle to a meaningful extent. A lot of really fat guys also have a lot of muscle mass; thick calves and big upper backs. If they were to diet to a leaner state they would also have less muscle, but so what. They'd be closer to a normal, healthy build. If you stuff your face all day long you'll also put on some muscle while you get fatter and fatter.

When people give evidence that "Dieting doesn't work!" What I really take away is the weight loss has to be slow to avoid complications. People seem to want to only allude to crash diets. Well, don't do that.
 

SAFarmer

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
182
"Lots of quick study cut and paste "
.
.
.

So, bottom line is this - if you diet you will most likely end up lowering your BMR.

Yes, no one is disputing that your metabolic rate goes down by losing that much weight. It is expected. And, yes, your RMR will go down more if you lose more muscle proportionally than fat. This is not revolutionary.

I don't see where you have stated evidence that those people that dieted, and lost weight, have a lower RMR/BMR than what could be expected of people of the same weight, age, lean mass %, height and gender that did not diet, ie have a "damaged" metabolic rate because of dieting.

... and I really am genuinely interested if you do have evidence to back up your claim, because that is what I used to believe too, before I looked at the data and Evelyn's article.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
this is why I am very reluctant to go on a low calorie diet.

Losing lean mass and increasing free fatty acids in the blood doesn't seem appealing.

I think there is some magic here for some, to drive up metabolic rate just a bit...rather than depress it...and thereby lose weight.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
What do you think about this take on persorption?:

Starch persorption seems to be related to bacteria and bacterial products, unlike charcoal and most of these other things. It's too bad the whole subject has been labeled quackery so research is spotty on it. It's true that large amounts of starch were used to get measurable amounts in the blood stream, but is it clear how a mixed meal affects it? A whole pizza too is probably around 100 grams of starch, although that's just a guess.

Do you think most people have impaired digestion?

I think people with metabolic syndrome do, in the the gut dysbiosis/endotoxin sense. I was just reading an article recently showing diabetics had much higher post-prandial endotoxemia than healthy subjects in a clinical experiment.
 
J

James IV

Guest
Intermittent fasting is not the same as prolonged fasting. If you
can't store enough liver glycogen to go 12-16 hours without food, then that's a problem.
As far as maintaining muscle during dieting. All you have to do is continue to resistance train, and you will hold onto most of your muscle. There was a study recently that showed it only took about 800 calories a day to maintain muscle mass in trained men, if they continued consistent weight training. The group that dieted and did not train, lost more weight, but a lot more came from structural tissue. I don't think that's a good idea to diet that hard, but it shows resistance training is more important than calories when it comes to tissue loss during dieting.
You have to consume less energy or expend more to lose body fat. Even Dr Peat has stated this, when he mentions a nutrient dense, low calorie diet for those that need to lose excess fat.
Weight loss that is done through forced exercise, will definitely be harder on the body, than relaxed fasting. Most modern people do not need to eat a farmers breakfast (which was usually eaten after spending the morning working the farm) and then go sit in their cubicle.
Excess glucose in the blood may or may not be damaging. But I would be willing to bet excess everything else from constant over feeding of even the best choices in modern food supply, is damaging. Eating just about anything is mildly, to majorly inflammatory. I think it's better to have big, nutrient dense meals to refill all your tanks, and then let your body regulate everything. Rather than trying to regulate by eating perfect meals throughout the day.
I've tried both, with a glucometer. 2 large meals spaced at least 6 hours apart, kept my blood sugar far more stable overall than multiple small meals through the day. It should be noted that taking my fat too low actually made things worse (read hypoglycemia).

Also. I read as much of Dr Peats stuff as I can. And I do believe he is right about most things. I think it's mostly people's
Interpretations, lack of recognition of physiological individualtliy, and nuance, that is problematic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
I've tried both, with a glucometer. 2 large meals spaced at least 6 hours apart, kept my blood sugar far more stable overall than multiple small meals through the day. It should be noted that taking my fat too low actually made things worse (read hypoglycemia).

That is also my experience and intuitively makes sense to me. It has a been key to my recovery, so it's interesting to notice it is actually the opposite in spirit to what many do on this forum and a lot of Peat's advice. I used to think "too lightheaded => too hypoglycemic => not enough sugar".
 
Last edited:
J

James IV

Guest
That is also my experience and intuitively makes sense to me. It has a been key to my recovery, so it's interesting to notice it is actually the opposite in spirit to what many do on this forum and a lot of Peat's advice.

Mine as well. However, I don't necessarily think it's opposite to peats advice. I have heard dr peat reccomend smaller frequent meals for many situations. But he has also said people with good liver function can go much longer between meals.
 

nikolabeacon

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
326
Intermittent fasting is not the same as prolonged fasting. If you
can't store enough liver glycogen to go 12-16 hours without food, then that's a problem.
As far as maintaining muscle during dieting. All you have to do is continue to resistance train, and you will hold onto most of your muscle. There was a study recently that showed it only took about 800 calories a day to maintain muscle mass in trained men, if they continued consistent weight training. The group that dieted and did not train, lost more weight, but a lot more came from structural tissue. I don't think that's a good idea to diet that hard, but it shows resistance training is more important than calories when it comes to tissue loss during dieting.
You have to consume less energy or expend more to lose body fat. Even Dr Peat has stated this, when he mentions a nutrient dense, low calorie diet for those that need to lose excess fat.
Weight loss that is done through forced exercise, will definitely be harder on the body, than relaxed fasting. Most modern people do not need to eat a farmers breakfast (which was usually eaten after spending the morning working the farm) and then go sit in their cubicle.
Excess glucose in the blood may or may not be damaging. But I would be willing to bet excess everything else from constant over feeding of even the best choices in modern food supply, is damaging. Eating just about anything is mildly, to majorly inflammatory. I think it's better to have big, nutrient dense meals to refill all your tanks, and then let your body regulate everything. Rather than trying to regulate by eating perfect meals throughout the day.
I've tried both, with a glucometer. 2 large meals spaced at least 6 hours apart, kept my blood sugar far more stable overall than multiple small meals through the day. It should be noted that taking my fat too low actually made things worse (read hypoglycemia).

Also. I read as much of Dr Peats stuff as I can. And I do believe he is right about most things. I think it's mostly people's
Interpretations, lack of recognition of physiological individualtliy, and nuance, that is problematic.
True.About farmers breakfast i will tell you the same experience from my countryside and in all other countryside families i my country. In my coutryside in mountajns and in Montenegro mountains People eat 2 meals a day and it Is very long tradition . They eat milk products, potatoes, and meat. almost no fruits And are tall and very long lived. And it Is practical. Ray also eat 2 meals a day because of convinience. I also eat 2 meals ...first is half an hour upon waking and second around 16 h. I have sometimes fruit and coffee beetwen the meals. And coffee with sweetened fruits beetwen the meals Is also a practice in countryside. I dont get it how someone can ALWAYS think about food and to be able to be outdoors a lot, read, work, play an instrument and do other things. It Is insane and not good. And also I dont understsnd this drinking of oil. this Is supposed to be some experiment.??? Intrnet and youtube are full of dumbness. I resonate also with all his ideas about life style except the full practical approach to hormone supplementation. They should be produced in real life situations. I mean you need to be educated as him in this fields in order to take some hormone... otherwise you will make a terrible mess in your life.... or in suicidal situation..everythjng Is so interconnected. Secret to Life Is in methaphysial energies And parapsyhology. If someone think that this Is broscience than he dont understand Ray peat message. and he will have terrible problems with his stimulation and meaning in life. And will ALWAYS seek for powders.And for your last statement...,......... Especialy When people listen interpretation of parasite and stupid guys who are trying to profit from trying so hard to copy someones work and life style in the best way and take money from people which are in health problems...for me for basic things and knowledge for life one shouldnt ASK for money...truth must be free... luxurious things should have price..as long as it Is otherwise we will have problems . Ray Is giving his practical Articles to people for free.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
There is a need to recover metabolic and liver function before intermittent fasting. Don't you think? For those with fatty livers and high stress hormones?
 
J

James IV

Guest
There is a need to recover metabolic and liver function before intermittent fasting. Don't you think? For those with fatty livers and high stress hormones?

Yes. But I also think some people diagnose themselves with these maladies when they may not have them at all. Frequent eating can actually raise stress hormones. When blood sugar is constantly disregulated, your "stress" hormones, which are really energy regulation hormones, will be at constant work.
Best advice I can give is get a glucometer, and test test test. Getting a clear view of what your blood sugars are doing will help you figure out what your cortisol, adrenaline, etc, are doing as well.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Yes. But I also think some people diagnose themselves with these maladies when they may not have them at all. Frequent eating can actually raise stress hormones. When blood sugar is constantly disregulated, your "stress" hormones, which are really energy regulation hormones, will be at constant work.
Best advice I can give is get a glucometer, and test test test. Getting a clear view of what your blood sugars are doing will help you figure out what your cortisol, adrenaline, etc, are doing as well.
So would you say overfeeding on sugar causes adrenaline? There is a study that compared sucrose to starch and in the sucrose group their adrenaline was much higher throughout the day. I could never reconcile this. I have had issues with adrenaline for over 2 yrs. I don't overeat calories but I do eat lots of sugary food.
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Yes, no one is disputing that your metabolic rate goes down by losing that much weight. It is expected. And, yes, your RMR will go down more if you lose more muscle proportionally than fat. This is not revolutionary.

I don't see where you have stated evidence that those people that dieted, and lost weight, have a lower RMR/BMR than what could be expected of people of the same weight, age, lean mass %, height and gender that did not diet, ie have a "damaged" metabolic rate because of dieting.

... and I really am genuinely interested if you do have evidence to back up your claim, because that is what I used to believe too, before I looked at the data and Evelyn's article.

Yes, there is evidence. It's in the first study I posted. The TDEE dropped in the caloric restricted groups compared to the healthy control group, which had lower baseline weight (see Figure 2 from the same study).
"...In brief, participants were randomized into one of four groups for 24 weeks: control = healthy weight maintenance based on an American Heart Association (AHA) Step 1 diet, CR = 25% caloric restriction from baseline energy requirements, CR+EX = 12.5% caloric restriction and 12.5% increase in energy expenditure through structured aerobic exercise and LCD = low calorie diet (890 kcal/d) to achieve a 15% reduction in body mass followed by weight maintenance (Figure 2). The group assignment was stratified to ensure equal distributions of sex and BMI in the four groups. All physiological and psychological testing was conducted at baseline and at the end of weeks 12 (M3) and 24 (M6) over a 5-day stay in the institutional inpatient unit. Where possible study personnel were blinded to the treatment assignment of the subjects."

"...TDEE was not significantly changed in control subjects or in subjects assigned to CR+EX at M3 and M6 (Table 2). TDEE was lower during weight loss (Table 2) with 25%CR and during both the active weight loss phase (M3) and tended to be lower at weight loss maintenance (M6) in the LCD group (p = 0.07). For CR and LCD, TDEE at M6 (CR: −316±118; LCD: −389±124, kcal/d) was increased from M3 but still significantly lower than the baseline values and different from the control group. There was no difference in the change in TDEE from baseline at M3 and M6 in either CR or LCD."

"...To determine if there was a metabolic adaptation to the CR intervention at M3 and M6 we compared the actual TDEE measured by DLW at each time point with the TDEE predicted from FFM and FM derived from the prediction equations generated at baseline and presented above. After adjustment for body composition (FFM and FM, Table 2) no metabolic adaptation was observed in control or CR+EX. With caloric restriction (CR/LCD combined), measured TDEE was significantly lower than TDEE predicted from body composition at M3 and M6. Furthermore, these “residuals” representing a metabolic adaptation were significantly lower than those in the control and CR+EX groups at both time points."
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
Yes. But I also think some people diagnose themselves with these maladies when they may not have them at all. Frequent eating can actually raise stress hormones. When blood sugar is constantly disregulated, your "stress" hormones, which are really energy regulation hormones, will be at constant work.
Best advice I can give is get a glucometer, and test test test. Getting a clear view of what your blood sugars are doing will help you figure out what your cortisol, adrenaline, etc, are doing as well.

Before you even buy a glucometer, some symptoms can be quite obvious. Lightheadedness, hunger (stressful hunger), moody, inability to focus the brain, etc.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom