Re: Effect of Incremental (or Decremental) Changes in Caloric Intake

December 2, 2005

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose a

> person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and weighs

> (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What would

> happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or dropped it

> to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example) remained

> unchanged?

I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

December 2, 2005

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose a

> person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and weighs

> (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What would

> happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or dropped it

> to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example) remained

> unchanged?

I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

December 2, 2005

I agree that lowering calories too quickly can cause such a lowering

of MBR that little weight change occurs.

I once reduced my caloric input by 50%! I went from 2400 calories a

day to 1200. I also increased the length of my daily workouts

significantly, spending an hour on a treadmill and an hour lifting

weights. I still had plenty of fat to lose.

After four weeks I was amazed. I hadn't lost much of anything at all.

I weighed 220, I was 6'1 " and only lost about two pounds. I was also

hydrostaticaly weighing myself and was not gaining muscle either. I

finally quit this and started eating more like 2000 caloris and my

weight dropped to 200 lbs fairly quickly.

Overtraining and too sudden reduction in caloric intake can cause the

body to assume that it needs to conserve fat rather than lose it.

The body has a set-point mechanism for maintaining a certain weight.

I am interested in getting my caloric intake down to no more than 1200

calories a day and possibly lower, but I am doing it slowly and doing

tons of nutritional research.

Bob S.

> > More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose a

> > person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and weighs

> > (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What would

> > happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or dropped it

> > to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example) remained

> > unchanged?

>

> I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

> mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

> be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

> i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

> outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

> primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

> outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

> predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

> though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

> weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

>

December 2, 2005

I agree that lowering calories too quickly can cause such a lowering

of MBR that little weight change occurs.

I once reduced my caloric input by 50%! I went from 2400 calories a

day to 1200. I also increased the length of my daily workouts

significantly, spending an hour on a treadmill and an hour lifting

weights. I still had plenty of fat to lose.

After four weeks I was amazed. I hadn't lost much of anything at all.

I weighed 220, I was 6'1 " and only lost about two pounds. I was also

hydrostaticaly weighing myself and was not gaining muscle either. I

finally quit this and started eating more like 2000 caloris and my

weight dropped to 200 lbs fairly quickly.

Overtraining and too sudden reduction in caloric intake can cause the

body to assume that it needs to conserve fat rather than lose it.

The body has a set-point mechanism for maintaining a certain weight.

I am interested in getting my caloric intake down to no more than 1200

calories a day and possibly lower, but I am doing it slowly and doing

tons of nutritional research.

Bob S.

> > More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose a

> > person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and weighs

> > (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What would

> > happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or dropped it

> > to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example) remained

> > unchanged?

>

> I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

> mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

> be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

> i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

> outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

> primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

> outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

> predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

> though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

> weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

>

December 2, 2005

nosirreeb wrote:

>

>> More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose a

>> person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and weighs

>> (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What would

>> happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or dropped it

>> to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example) remained

>> unchanged?

>

> I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

> mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

> be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

> i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

> outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

> primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

> outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

> predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

> though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

> weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

>

Agreed.... intake vs weight is a complex relationship.. While

true in gross effect, at the margin difficult to quantify.

I don't like the school of thought that suggests you can

completely decouple from total energy content by manipulating

macronutrient ratios or chewing on willow bark before meals

(just kidding- about the bark). While it ultimately should

be determinate, there are too many variables beyond our easy

observation that make it difficult to quantify.

JR

December 2, 2005

nosirreeb wrote:

>

>> More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose a

>> person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and weighs

>> (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What would

>> happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or dropped it

>> to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example) remained

>> unchanged?

>

> I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

> mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

> be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

> i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

> outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

> primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

> outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

> predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

> though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

> weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

>

Agreed.... intake vs weight is a complex relationship.. While

true in gross effect, at the margin difficult to quantify.

I don't like the school of thought that suggests you can

completely decouple from total energy content by manipulating

macronutrient ratios or chewing on willow bark before meals

(just kidding- about the bark). While it ultimately should

be determinate, there are too many variables beyond our easy

observation that make it difficult to quantify.

JR

December 2, 2005

I did some calculations using the Mifflin-St Jeor equations for weight

vs BMR. Since the equations are linear, the number of calories per

pound is 4.4 at age 35 and 4.6 at age 65.

This means that if you go from 200 to 150 pounds, you will need

approximately 50*4.5 = 225 calories less to maintain the same level of

activity.

Every pound of weight gain requires the equivalent of 1/3 teaspoon of

sugar for maintenance!

Tony

> >> More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose a

> >> person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and weighs

> >> (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What

would

> >> happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or

dropped it

> >> to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example) remained

> >> unchanged?

> >

> > I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

> > mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

> > be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

> > i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

> > outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

> > primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

> > outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

> > predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

> > though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

> > weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

> >

>

> Agreed.... intake vs weight is a complex relationship.. While

> true in gross effect, at the margin difficult to quantify.

>

> I don't like the school of thought that suggests you can

> completely decouple from total energy content by manipulating

> macronutrient ratios or chewing on willow bark before meals

> (just kidding- about the bark). While it ultimately should

> be determinate, there are too many variables beyond our easy

> observation that make it difficult to quantify.

>

> JR

>

December 2, 2005

I did some calculations using the Mifflin-St Jeor equations for weight

vs BMR. Since the equations are linear, the number of calories per

pound is 4.4 at age 35 and 4.6 at age 65.

This means that if you go from 200 to 150 pounds, you will need

approximately 50*4.5 = 225 calories less to maintain the same level of

activity.

Every pound of weight gain requires the equivalent of 1/3 teaspoon of

sugar for maintenance!

Tony

> >> More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose a

> >> person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and weighs

> >> (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What

would

> >> happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or

dropped it

> >> to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example) remained

> >> unchanged?

> >

> > I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

> > mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

> > be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

> > i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

> > outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

> > primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

> > outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

> > predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

> > though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

> > weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

> >

>

> Agreed.... intake vs weight is a complex relationship.. While

> true in gross effect, at the margin difficult to quantify.

>

> I don't like the school of thought that suggests you can

> completely decouple from total energy content by manipulating

> macronutrient ratios or chewing on willow bark before meals

> (just kidding- about the bark). While it ultimately should

> be determinate, there are too many variables beyond our easy

> observation that make it difficult to quantify.

>

> JR

>

December 2, 2005

Hi Tony:

Aha! So your calculations are showing 22.2 pounds per hundred

calories then. I also used Mifflin/St Jeor equations (thanks for

posting them here some time ago).

In any event, our conclusions are broadly similar ........... that

a cut of one hundred calories in average daily intake results in a

sizeably lower equilibrium body weight. This is another reason to

not go overboard in cutting calories, but take it gradually, one

hundred at a time.

Some time, perhaps on the weekend, I will show more of the data I

calculated.

Rodney.

> > >> More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose

a

> > >> person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and

weighs

> > >> (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What

> would

> > >> happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or

> dropped it

> > >> to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example)

remained

> > >> unchanged?

> > >

> > > I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

> > > mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

> > > be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

> > > i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

> > > outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

> > > primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

> > > outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

> > > predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

> > > though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

> > > weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

> > >

> >

> > Agreed.... intake vs weight is a complex relationship.. While

> > true in gross effect, at the margin difficult to quantify.

> >

> > I don't like the school of thought that suggests you can

> > completely decouple from total energy content by manipulating

> > macronutrient ratios or chewing on willow bark before meals

> > (just kidding- about the bark). While it ultimately should

> > be determinate, there are too many variables beyond our easy

> > observation that make it difficult to quantify.

> >

> > JR

> >

>

December 2, 2005

Hi Tony:

Aha! So your calculations are showing 22.2 pounds per hundred

calories then. I also used Mifflin/St Jeor equations (thanks for

posting them here some time ago).

In any event, our conclusions are broadly similar ........... that

a cut of one hundred calories in average daily intake results in a

sizeably lower equilibrium body weight. This is another reason to

not go overboard in cutting calories, but take it gradually, one

hundred at a time.

Some time, perhaps on the weekend, I will show more of the data I

calculated.

Rodney.

> > >> More specifically here is an example of what I mean: Suppose

a

> > >> person has been eating 2500 calories a day for years and

weighs

> > >> (equilibrium weight for that level of intake) 200 pounds. What

> would

> > >> happen to his/her weight if s/he raised intake to 2600, or

> dropped it

> > >> to 2400, while all else (exercise activity for example)

remained

> > >> unchanged?

> > >

> > > I don't think weight loss/gain can be reduced to exact

> > > mathematical formulas, no matter how appealing they may

> > > be to the analytical mind. To the question you posed,

> > > i.e a 100+/- calories change, I think the most likely

> > > outcome is ... no significant long-term weight change,

> > > primarily due to changes in BMR. The next most likely

> > > outcome is a much smaller weight change than would be

> > > predicted by " normal " formulas. It's even possible,

> > > though certainly not likely, that a person might gain/lose

> > > weight in the opposite direction of the calorie change.

> > >

> >

> > Agreed.... intake vs weight is a complex relationship.. While

> > true in gross effect, at the margin difficult to quantify.

> >

> > I don't like the school of thought that suggests you can

> > completely decouple from total energy content by manipulating

> > macronutrient ratios or chewing on willow bark before meals

> > (just kidding- about the bark). While it ultimately should

> > be determinate, there are too many variables beyond our easy

> > observation that make it difficult to quantify.

> >

> > JR

> >

>

December 2, 2005

Rodney,

Although the calculated equilibrium body weight may be 22.2 pounds

lower for every hundred calorie deficit in the diet, we have to take

into consideration that BMR is reduced during dieting, therby

resisting weight loss.

The biospherians had approximately 6% lower BMR than controls. Also,

three weeks of a 40% CR reduced BMR by 12% (PMID: 15870104), and Keys

starvation studies showed a 16% BMR decrease in lean tissue.

So, given the energy equation:

Food_Energy = BMR + Exercise + Waste + Weight_Change

The weight change may really be:

Weight_Change = Food_Energy - Waste - Exercise - BMR*FudgeFactor

Where the FudgeFactor corresponds to the reduction of BMR induced by

the lower caloric intake (e.g., 0.94 for 6% lower BMR).

I have wondered how is it possible to be calorically restricted if the

body weight is always reduced to correspond to the energy ingested. I

speculate on this subject in the bottom section (technical analysis)

of my CR web page:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/crondiet.html

I found it interesting that the Mifflin-St Jeor equations predict that

a 40% CR diet will only sustain a human of half the normal weight,

which corresponds exactly with what is found experimentally for mice

and rats [Mattson, Masoro].

Tony

> >

> > I did some calculations using the Mifflin-St Jeor equations for

> weight

> > vs BMR. Since the equations are linear, the number of calories per

> > pound is 4.4 at age 35 and 4.6 at age 65.

> >

> > This means that if you go from 200 to 150 pounds, you will need

> > approximately 50*4.5 = 225 calories less to maintain the same level

> of

> > activity.

> >

> > Every pound of weight gain requires the equivalent of 1/3 teaspoon

> of

> > sugar for maintenance!

> >

> > Tony

> >

December 2, 2005

Rodney,

Although the calculated equilibrium body weight may be 22.2 pounds

lower for every hundred calorie deficit in the diet, we have to take

into consideration that BMR is reduced during dieting, therby

resisting weight loss.

The biospherians had approximately 6% lower BMR than controls. Also,

three weeks of a 40% CR reduced BMR by 12% (PMID: 15870104), and Keys

starvation studies showed a 16% BMR decrease in lean tissue.

So, given the energy equation:

Food_Energy = BMR + Exercise + Waste + Weight_Change

The weight change may really be:

Weight_Change = Food_Energy - Waste - Exercise - BMR*FudgeFactor

Where the FudgeFactor corresponds to the reduction of BMR induced by

the lower caloric intake (e.g., 0.94 for 6% lower BMR).

I have wondered how is it possible to be calorically restricted if the

body weight is always reduced to correspond to the energy ingested. I

speculate on this subject in the bottom section (technical analysis)

of my CR web page:

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/crondiet.html

I found it interesting that the Mifflin-St Jeor equations predict that

a 40% CR diet will only sustain a human of half the normal weight,

which corresponds exactly with what is found experimentally for mice

and rats [Mattson, Masoro].

Tony

> >

> > I did some calculations using the Mifflin-St Jeor equations for

> weight

> > vs BMR. Since the equations are linear, the number of calories per

> > pound is 4.4 at age 35 and 4.6 at age 65.

> >

> > This means that if you go from 200 to 150 pounds, you will need

> > approximately 50*4.5 = 225 calories less to maintain the same level

> of

> > activity.

> >

> > Every pound of weight gain requires the equivalent of 1/3 teaspoon

> of

> > sugar for maintenance!

> >

> > Tony

> >

December 2, 2005

Hi Tony:

But isn't Mifflin/St Jeor all about **calculating** the variation in

BMR in response to variations in gender, weight, height, and age?

And for a given individual at a given time in his/her life weight is

the only item among those that varies.

On the weekend I try to get to showing you how I arrived at the

fifteen pound number.

By the way my oxidizing sample of safflower oil remains completely

colorless, and it now has a completely transparent solid layer about

one-tenth of an inch thick on the surface.

Rodney.

>

> Rodney,

>

> Although the calculated equilibrium body weight may be 22.2 pounds

> lower for every hundred calorie deficit in the diet, we have to take

> into consideration that BMR is reduced during dieting, therby

> resisting weight loss.

>

> The biospherians had approximately 6% lower BMR than controls.

Also,

> three weeks of a 40% CR reduced BMR by 12% (PMID: 15870104), and

Keys

> starvation studies showed a 16% BMR decrease in lean tissue.

>

> So, given the energy equation:

>

> Food_Energy = BMR + Exercise + Waste + Weight_Change

>

> The weight change may really be:

>

> Weight_Change = Food_Energy - Waste - Exercise - BMR*FudgeFactor

>

> Where the FudgeFactor corresponds to the reduction of BMR induced by

> the lower caloric intake (e.g., 0.94 for 6% lower BMR).

>

> I have wondered how is it possible to be calorically restricted if

the

> body weight is always reduced to correspond to the energy

ingested. I

> speculate on this subject in the bottom section (technical analysis)

> of my CR web page:

> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/crondiet.html

>

> I found it interesting that the Mifflin-St Jeor equations predict

that

> a 40% CR diet will only sustain a human of half the normal weight,

> which corresponds exactly with what is found experimentally for mice

> and rats [Mattson, Masoro].

>

> Tony

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi Tony:

> >

> > Aha! So your calculations are showing 22.2 pounds per hundred

> > calories then. I also used Mifflin/St Jeor equations (thanks for

> > posting them here some time ago).

> >

> > In any event, our conclusions are broadly similar ...........

that

> > a cut of one hundred calories in average daily intake results in

a

> > sizeably lower equilibrium body weight. This is another reason

to

> > not go overboard in cutting calories, but take it gradually, one

> > hundred at a time.

> >

> > Some time, perhaps on the weekend, I will show more of the data I

> > calculated.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> > --- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > I did some calculations using the Mifflin-St Jeor equations for

> > weight

> > > vs BMR. Since the equations are linear, the number of calories

per

> > > pound is 4.4 at age 35 and 4.6 at age 65.

> > >

> > > This means that if you go from 200 to 150 pounds, you will need

> > > approximately 50*4.5 = 225 calories less to maintain the same

level

> > of

> > > activity.

> > >

> > > Every pound of weight gain requires the equivalent of 1/3

teaspoon

> > of

> > > sugar for maintenance!

> > >

> > > Tony

> > >

>

December 2, 2005

Hi Tony:

But isn't Mifflin/St Jeor all about **calculating** the variation in

BMR in response to variations in gender, weight, height, and age?

And for a given individual at a given time in his/her life weight is

the only item among those that varies.

On the weekend I try to get to showing you how I arrived at the

fifteen pound number.

By the way my oxidizing sample of safflower oil remains completely

colorless, and it now has a completely transparent solid layer about

one-tenth of an inch thick on the surface.

Rodney.

>

> Rodney,

>

> Although the calculated equilibrium body weight may be 22.2 pounds

> lower for every hundred calorie deficit in the diet, we have to take

> into consideration that BMR is reduced during dieting, therby

> resisting weight loss.

>

> The biospherians had approximately 6% lower BMR than controls.

Also,

> three weeks of a 40% CR reduced BMR by 12% (PMID: 15870104), and

Keys

> starvation studies showed a 16% BMR decrease in lean tissue.

>

> So, given the energy equation:

>

> Food_Energy = BMR + Exercise + Waste + Weight_Change

>

> The weight change may really be:

>

> Weight_Change = Food_Energy - Waste - Exercise - BMR*FudgeFactor

>

> Where the FudgeFactor corresponds to the reduction of BMR induced by

> the lower caloric intake (e.g., 0.94 for 6% lower BMR).

>

> I have wondered how is it possible to be calorically restricted if

the

> body weight is always reduced to correspond to the energy

ingested. I

> speculate on this subject in the bottom section (technical analysis)

> of my CR web page:

> http://www.scientificpsychic.com/health/crondiet.html

>

> I found it interesting that the Mifflin-St Jeor equations predict

that

> a 40% CR diet will only sustain a human of half the normal weight,

> which corresponds exactly with what is found experimentally for mice

> and rats [Mattson, Masoro].

>

> Tony

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi Tony:

> >

> > Aha! So your calculations are showing 22.2 pounds per hundred

> > calories then. I also used Mifflin/St Jeor equations (thanks for

> > posting them here some time ago).

> >

> > In any event, our conclusions are broadly similar ...........

that

> > a cut of one hundred calories in average daily intake results in

a

> > sizeably lower equilibrium body weight. This is another reason

to

> > not go overboard in cutting calories, but take it gradually, one

> > hundred at a time.

> >

> > Some time, perhaps on the weekend, I will show more of the data I

> > calculated.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> > --- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > I did some calculations using the Mifflin-St Jeor equations for

> > weight

> > > vs BMR. Since the equations are linear, the number of calories

per

> > > pound is 4.4 at age 35 and 4.6 at age 65.

> > >

> > > This means that if you go from 200 to 150 pounds, you will need

> > > approximately 50*4.5 = 225 calories less to maintain the same

level

> > of

> > > activity.

> > >

> > > Every pound of weight gain requires the equivalent of 1/3

teaspoon

> > of

> > > sugar for maintenance!

> > >

> > > Tony

> > >

>

December 3, 2005

If you've read Walford, and if you've read our files (must reads for everyone who posts here), then you should know that quick weight losses are not recommended. They are detrimental to health.

By no means should you go under 1000 cal a day. As noted by Walford. You will not be able to get enough nutrients for good health.

on 12/2/2005 8:08 AM, rjmsus at rjmsus@... wrote:

After four weeks I was amazed. I hadn't lost much of anything at all.

I weighed 220, I was 6'1 " and only lost about two pounds. I was also

hydrostaticaly weighing myself and was not gaining muscle either. I

finally quit this and started eating more like 2000 caloris and my

weight dropped to 200 lbs fairly quickly.

I am interested in getting my caloric intake down to no more than 1200

calories a day and possibly lower, but I am doing it slowly and doing

tons of nutritional research.

Bob S.

-

December 3, 2005

If you've read Walford, and if you've read our files (must reads for everyone who posts here), then you should know that quick weight losses are not recommended. They are detrimental to health.

By no means should you go under 1000 cal a day. As noted by Walford. You will not be able to get enough nutrients for good health.

on 12/2/2005 8:08 AM, rjmsus at rjmsus@... wrote:

After four weeks I was amazed. I hadn't lost much of anything at all.

I weighed 220, I was 6'1 " and only lost about two pounds. I was also

hydrostaticaly weighing myself and was not gaining muscle either. I

finally quit this and started eating more like 2000 caloris and my

weight dropped to 200 lbs fairly quickly.

I am interested in getting my caloric intake down to no more than 1200

calories a day and possibly lower, but I am doing it slowly and doing

tons of nutritional research.

Bob S.

-

December 3, 2005

Hi folks:

FWIW my current view on this (subject as always to change in the

light of new information) is that from whatever equilibrium

weight/caloric intake you are starting from, the most appropriate

course is to reduce intake by 100 calories, and wait for weight to

drop. Then, after the first occurring of A) Ten pounds weight loss,

or Three months passes, drop intake by another 100

calories ....... then return to A) and repeat until you have

reached your ideal body measure - BMI? BF%? WC/H? Waist-to-

hip? ...... . Perhaps it is best to use a combination of all

these different measures.

The point is that a 100 reduction in calories from your previous

equilibrium intake will induce appreciable weight loss. People whose

body measurements indicate they are grossly obese could probably

initially go for larger reductions.

Just my take.

Rodney.

>

> After four weeks I was amazed. I hadn't lost much of anything at

all.

> I weighed 220, I was 6'1 " and only lost about two pounds. I was also

> hydrostaticaly weighing myself and was not gaining muscle either. I

> finally quit this and started eating more like 2000 caloris and my

> weight dropped to 200 lbs fairly quickly.

>

> I am interested in getting my caloric intake down to no more than

1200

> calories a day and possibly lower, but I am doing it slowly and

doing

> tons of nutritional research.

>

> Bob S.

>

> -

>

December 3, 2005

Hi folks:

FWIW my current view on this (subject as always to change in the

light of new information) is that from whatever equilibrium

weight/caloric intake you are starting from, the most appropriate

course is to reduce intake by 100 calories, and wait for weight to

drop. Then, after the first occurring of A) Ten pounds weight loss,

or Three months passes, drop intake by another 100

calories ....... then return to A) and repeat until you have

reached your ideal body measure - BMI? BF%? WC/H? Waist-to-

hip? ...... . Perhaps it is best to use a combination of all

these different measures.

The point is that a 100 reduction in calories from your previous

equilibrium intake will induce appreciable weight loss. People whose

body measurements indicate they are grossly obese could probably

initially go for larger reductions.

Just my take.

Rodney.

>

> After four weeks I was amazed. I hadn't lost much of anything at

all.

> I weighed 220, I was 6'1 " and only lost about two pounds. I was also

> hydrostaticaly weighing myself and was not gaining muscle either. I

> finally quit this and started eating more like 2000 caloris and my

> weight dropped to 200 lbs fairly quickly.

>

> I am interested in getting my caloric intake down to no more than

1200

> calories a day and possibly lower, but I am doing it slowly and

doing

> tons of nutritional research.

>

> Bob S.

>

> -

>

December 3, 2005

>>It's important not to drink a lot at once as it will cause a glycemic

reaction that makes one very hungry.

Congrats on your weight loss. But, dont be fooled by nonsense like the glycemic

index

Hi vs Lo glycemic diets have been tested against each other with equal calories

for weight loss and there is no difference. Glycemic index, when understood

and evaluated for what it may be more of a " marker " for than what it actually

may or may not (!) do, reveals a consistent pattern (as evidenced below)....

unrefined unprocessed carbohydrates that are high in fiber and low in calorie

density, and high in nutrient density are some of the best foods for weight

loss. And, they are also the foods that have been tested out and proven to be

the highest in satiety in real life settings

Its not the GI or even the GL.

It only appears that way to some.

Correlation, not causeation

Again, congrats

Jeff

Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate and Fiber Intake, and

Measures of Insulin Sensitivity, Secretion, and Adiposity in the Insulin

Resistance Atherosclerosis Study

D. Liese, PHD, MPH1, Mandy Schulz, MSC, MSPH1,2, Fang Fang, MSC1,

M.S. Wolever, MD, PHD3, Ralph B. D'Agostino, Jr, PHD4, C.

Sparks, MSPH1 and J. Mayer-, PHD1,5

OBJECTIVE-We studied the association of digestible carbohydrates, fiber

intake, glycemic index, and glycemic load with insulin sensitivity (SI),

fasting insulin, acute insulin response (AIR), disposition index, BMI, and

waist circumference.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-Data on 979 adults with normal (67%) and

impaired (33%) glucose tolerance from the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis

Study (1992-1994) were analyzed. Usual dietary intake was assessed via a

114-item interviewer-administered food frequency questionnaire from which

nutrient intakes were estimated. Published glycemic index values were

assigned to food items and average dietary glycemic index and glycemic load

calculated per subject. SI and AIR were determined by frequently sampled

intravenous glucose tolerance test. Disposition index was calculated by

multiplying SI with AIR. Multiple linear regression modeling was employed.

RESULTS-No association was observed between glycemic index and SI, fasting

insulin, AIR, disposition index, BMI, or waist circumference after

adjustment for demographic characteristics or family history of diabetes,

energy expenditure, and smoking. Associations observed for digestible

carbohydrates and glycemic load, respectively, with SI, insulin secretion,

and adiposity (adjusted for demographics and main confounders) were entirely

explained by energy intake. In contrast, fiber was associated positively

with SI and disposition index and inversely with fasting insulin, BMI, and

waist circumference but not with AIR.

CONCLUSION-Carbohydrates as reflected in glycemic index and glycemic load

may not be related to measures of insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion,

and adiposity. Fiber intake may not only have beneficial effects on insulin

sensitivity and adiposity, but also on pancreatic functionality.

Diabetes Care 28:2978-2979, 2005

Diabetes Association, Inc.

_____

Editorials

Do Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, and Fiber Play a Role in Insulin

Sensitivity, Disposition Index, and Type 2 Diabetes?

Xavier Pi-Sunyer, MD

From the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Nutrition, St.

Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, Columbia University, New York, New York

Address correspondence to Dr. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, Division of Endocrinology,

Diabetes, and Nutrition, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, 1111

Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY. E-mail: <mailto:fxp1@...>

fxp1@...

In this issue of Diabetes Care, Liese et al. (1

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R1#R1> )

report on the relation of dietary glycemic index, glycemic load,

carbohydrate, and fiber intake to measures of insulin sensitivity, insulin

secretion, and adiposity in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study

(IRAS). The evaluation was confined to those with normal or impaired glucose

tolerance and did not include diabetic individuals. As the authors state,

there has been no previous large epidemiologic study relating glycemic index

and glycemic load to direct measures of insulin sensitivity and insulin

secretion, whose dysfunction are the two hallmarks leading to type 2

diabetes.

There are some caveats to this study that must be pointed out. First, it is

a cross-sectional study looking at one point in time. Longitudinal studies

are certainly preferable. Second, it is an observational study and

interventional studies are more valuable, though much more difficult and

expensive to carry out. Third, the food frequency questionnaire used in this

study was not specifically designed to test for glycemic index and glycemic

load. While it has been validated as an overall instrument, it has not been

validated for reproducibility and reliability as an appropriate glycemic

index instrument, and this needs to be done by the IRAS group. This field

has been dogged by the inaccuracy of dietary records and the difficulty in

calculating dietary glycemic index and glycemic load levels of individuals

from their reported intake of foods. Validation of experimental instruments

is crucial. Fourth, the minimal model was instituted using 30 plasma samples

to calculate insulin sensitivity (2

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R2#R2> ). This

study used 12. While this seems reasonable in a large epidemiological study,

the reliability is likely to not be as high as using the originally

described method.

Having said the above, the study reports very interesting results. IRAS

showed a lack of association of glycemic index, glycemic load, and

carbohydrate intake with measures of insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion,

and adiposity, adjusting for energy intake. It also showed fiber to have a

positive association with insulin sensitivity and an inverse association

with adiposity and disposition index.

Insulin sensitivity is a very important component of carbohydrate

homeostasis. Individuals with insulin resistance are more likely to

eventually develop type 2 diabetes. The potential effect of diet on this

physiological state is thus important in gauging risk. In short-term

interventional metabolic studies in small numbers of people, the best trial

to date, e.g., the longest and most comprehensive, has shown an improvement

in insulin sensitivity with a high-as opposed to a low-glycemic index diet

(3 <http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R3#R3> ).

Other less rigorous studies have shown mixed results.

Let me deal with fiber first. The benefit of fiber in the diet on a number

of chronic diseases has been documented repeatedly in epidemiological

studies. An increased consumption has been associated with lower incidence

of diabetes, coronary artery disease, and obesity in observational studies.

With regard to diabetes, most studies have singled out cereal fiber as the

important component, with other types of fiber giving much lower or no

association. However, as stated in a report of the National Academy of

Sciences " there is no conclusive evidence that it is dietary fiber rather

than the other components of vegetables, fruits, and cereal products that

reduces the risk of those diseases " (4

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R4#R4> ). The

present study breaks no new ground here, it just bolsters previous data

impressively, suggesting that the effect on lowering risk of type 2 diabetes

may work through enhancing insulin sensitivity. It supports the

recommendation in the 2005 dietary guidelines for Americans (5

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R5#R5> ) to

increase their fiber intake. The present U.S. fiber intake is very low and

an increase undoubtedly would improve health.

The question of glycemic index and glycemic load is more contentious. As the

authors state, high-glycemic index diets have been linked to an elevated

risk of developing diabetes. There are two reports, one of the Nurses'

Health Study (6

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R6#R6> ) and

the other of the Health Professionals' Study (7

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R7#R7> ).

However, reading these reports carefully, neither is significant for a

glycemic load effect and only one for glycemic index effect at P < 0.04.

Other epidemiological, observational, longitudinal studies have shown no

significant effect. These include the Iowa Women's study (8

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R8#R8> ), the

San Valley Study (9

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R9#R9> ), and

the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (10

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R10#R10> ).

The present IRAS report bolsters the negative data. A final study, the

Nurses Study II, showed a significant effect of glycemic index, but both

glycemic load and total carbohydrates were inversely associated with

diabetes risk (11

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R11#R11> ).

These studies tried to relate glycemic index and glycemic load to risk of

diabetes, they did not measure insulin sensitivity. Insulin sensitivity

generally has been measured in metabolic ward studies with interventional

trials of short duration, such as the Kiens and Richter (3

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R3#R3> ) study

mentioned earlier.

The Liese et al. study is the first to try to document the impact of a

higher-versus a lower-glycemic index and/or glycemic load diet on insulin

sensitivity in a large epidemiological study. They were unable to document a

relationship between either glycemic index or glycemic load and insulin

sensitivity. A larger observational study in Denmark (12

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R12#R12> )

also could not document an association of glycemic index with insulin

resistance using a homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and

found an inverse association between glycemic load and insulin resistance.

The IRAS investigators were also unable to find an association of glycemic

index and glycemic load with disposition index. The disposition index

measures the ability of the pancreas to respond to an increase in insulin

resistance with an increased secretion of insulin, thereby maintaining

normal blood glucose. An abnormal disposition index suggests ß-cell strain

and can lead to eventual ß-cell failure. Thus, the inability to observe an

inappropriately low pancreatic response associated with higher glycemic

index and glycemic load suggests normal pancreatic functioning on such

diets.

In the last few years, there has been a very strong push by some

investigators to declare a high-glycemic index and a high-glycemic load diet

detrimental to health, particularly in relation to the development of

obesity and type 2 diabetes. They have pressured public health authorities

to recommend that such diets should be restricted for the population at

large. But it must be remembered that the concept of the glycemic index was

first proposed as a tool to try to improve glucose control in diabetic

patients, where it may be of some help to patients with poor postprandial

glucose control. But there is a great deal of confusion in interpreting the

database available on glycemic index because data from studies in diabetic

patients are often quoted to bolster policy suggestions for normal

populations. This confusion is not conducive to a clear analysis of the

issue. A pro and con discussion of the use of the glycemic index in normal

population groups that is relevant in this context was published recently

(13 <http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R13#R13>

,14 <http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/12/2978#R14#R14>

).

It is important to note that the window of glycemic index variability in a

free-living population is quite narrow. This can be seen by the small SD of

4.0 around a mean of 58 in the Liese et al. study. It can also be seen that

the glycemic index is actually already quite low. With such a low level of

glycemic index and such a small variation around it, what determines the

level of the glycemic load is the total amount of carbohydrate that an

individual eats. Thus, with a small glycemic index window, the glycemic load

primarily reflects the carbohydrate intake. And we know from repeated

studies (in fact, all the epidemiological studies mentioned above plus the

present IRAS study, plus many others) that no one to date has found that the

amount of carbohydrate eaten per day is significantly associated with the

development of type 2 diabetes. This then, greatly diminishes the importance

of high glycemic load as an important risk.

My suggestion then, looking at the present study and others, is that until

further evidence is available, we should concentrate on educating the public

to opt for higher-fiber foods (especially cereal fiber) and downplay the

glycemic index and glycemic load. There is excellent evidence that the

higher-fiber foods, made up of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, will do

people good.

Footnotes

(SEE LIESE ET AL., P. 2832

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/lookup?lookupType=volpage & vol=28 & fp=28

32 & view=short> )

References

1. Liese AD, Schulz M, Fang F, Wolever TMS, D'Agostino RB Jr, Sparks

KC, Mayer- EJ: Dietary glycemic index and glycemic load, carbohydrate

and fiber intake, and measures of insulin sensitivity, secretion, and

adiposity in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study. Diabetes Care28

:2832 -2838,2005

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=diaca

re & resid=28/12/2832> [Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Steil GM, Volund A, Kahn SE, Bergman RN: Reduced sample number for

calculation of insulin sensitivity and glucose effectiveness from the

minimal model: suitability for use in population studies. Diabetes42 :250

-256,1993

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=diabe

tes & resid=42/2/250> [Abstract]

3. Kiens B, Richter EA: Types of carbohydrate in an ordinary diet

affect insulin action and muscle substrates in humans. Am J Clin Nutr63 :47

-53,1996

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=ajcn &

resid=63/1/47> [Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. National Research Council: Diet and Health: Implications for

Lowering Chronic Disease Risk. Washington, DC, National Academy Press,1989

5. USDA dietary guidelines [article online],2005 . Available at

http://www.healthierus.gov/dietaryguidelines. Accessed 3 September 2005

6. Salmerón J, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Wing AL, Willett WC:

Dietary fiber, glycemic load, and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes

mellitus in women. JAMA277 :472 -477,1997

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=jama &

resid=277/6/472> [Abstract]

7. Salmerón J, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Spiegelman D,

DJ, Stampfer MJ, Wing AL, Willett WC: Dietary fiber, glucemic load, and risk

of NIDDM in men. Diabetes Care20 :545 -550,1997

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=diaca

re & resid=20/4/545> [Abstract]

8. Meyer KA, Kushi LH, s DR, Slavin J, Sellers TA, Folsom AR:

Carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and incident type 2 diabetes in older women.

Am J Clin Nutr71 :921 -930,2000

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=ajcn &

resid=71/4/921> [Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. Marshall J, Bessessen D, Hamman R: High saturated fat and low starch

and fiber are associated with hyperinsulinemia in a non-diabetic population:

the San Valley Diabetes Study. Diabetologia40 :430 -438,1997

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/external_ref?access_num=9112020 & link_t

ype=MED> [Medline]

10. s J, Ahn K, Juhaeri, Houston D, Steffan L, Couper D: Dietary

fiber intake and glycemic index and incidence of diabetes in

African-American and white adults: the ARIC study. Diabetes Care25 :1715

-1721,2002

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=diaca

re & resid=25/10/1715> [Abstract/Free Full Text]

11. Schulze MB, Liu S, Rimm EB, Manson JE, Willett WS, Hu FG: Glycemic

index, glycemic load, and dietary fiber intake and incidence of type 2

diabetes in younger and middle-aged women. Am J Clin Nutr80 :348 -356,2004

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=ajcn &

resid=80/2/348> [Abstract/Free Full Text]

12. Lau C, Faerch K, Glumer C, Tetens I, Pedersen O, Carstensen B,

nsen T, Borch-sen K: Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, fiber,

simple sugars, and insulin resistance: the Inter99 Study. Diabetes Care28

:1397 -1403,2005

<http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST & journalCode=diaca

re & resid=28/6/1397> [Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. Pi-Sunyer FX: Glycemic index and disease (Review). Am J Clin Nutr76

(Suppl.) :290S -298S, 2002

14. Willett W, Manson J, Liu S: Glycemic index, glycemic load, and risk

of type 2 diabetes. Am J Clin Nutr76 (Suppl.) :274S -280S

December 3, 2005