Re: Low-carbing when you don't need to loose weight

[Guest guest]

Kerry,

> I received some test results back yesterday, and it is painfully obvious at

> this point that even though I am very thin, I am still insulin resistant and

> estrogen dominant. This is leading me to believe that I need to go back on

> a low-carb diet as part of resolving the problem.

>

> My issue is that I'm around 120 pounds at 5'6 " , and obviously am not in need

> of loosing weight. Can anyone offer guidance on how to cut the carbs

> without loosing any more weight?

Eat more. Not carbs but fat and protein. Seriously.

I haven't read Colpo's Fat Loss Bible, but I do agree with his

contention, apparently supported by tons of evidence, as has

pointed out, that a isocaloric (equal calorie) low carb diet offers no

" metabolic advantage " over a low fat diet. Even passages from Eades

(Protein Power) and Atkins deal with people who are very low carb and

yet eating a ton of calories who are not losing weight or losing it

very very slowly. The advice: create a caloric deficit, which seems to

undermine their belief in the low carb " metabolic advantage " but oh

well. Eades in particular seems to be trying to explain himself out

from under that one.

Bottom line, you eat what your body needs to maintain its weight,

calorie wise, you won't lose. You eat more than what your body needs,

you will gain. You eat less, you will lose. Heck, you can **bulk**

while following a intermittent fasting protocol along with heavy duty

weight training (which by the way is a great way to deal with insulin

resistance) if you ingest enough calories over a given period of time.

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

[Guest guest]

> I haven't read Colpo's Fat Loss Bible, but I do agree with his

> contention, apparently supported by tons of evidence, as has

> pointed out, that a isocaloric (equal calorie) low carb diet offers no

> " metabolic advantage " over a low fat diet.

Colpo doesn't have " tons of evidence. " He refers to metabolic ward studies with

very few

participants, so all the results must be statistically noisy.

> Bottom line, you eat what your body needs to maintain its weight,

> calorie wise, you won't lose. You eat more than what your body needs,

> you will gain. You eat less, you will lose.

This is not obvious either. Eades recently says there may be an asymmetry, where

to lose

weight you must create a caloric deficit, but you might avoiding gaining weight

if you do

not eat foods (like carbs) that cause insulin to spike, which apparently is

needed for

calories to be stored as body fat. Taubes's claim in his book about insulin and

fat tissue

was more about why Americans gain weight than how to lose weight.

A year ago there was a lean, healthy man who (on the internet) self experimented

by

eating 4000-5000 calories a day of products like heavy whipping cream and lard.

Over

80% of daily calories was in fat. Also, he stopped exercising. He did not gain

weight over

the month, despite the tremendous intake in calories.

Like I am trying to lose body fat and so am following Colpo's book's

advice to create

a caloric deficit. I just started, so no results yet.

[Guest guest]

KerryAnn,

> My issue is that I'm around 120 pounds at 5'6 " , and obviously am not in need

> of loosing weight. Can anyone offer guidance on how to cut the carbs

> without loosing any more weight?

Sure: make sure you eat the same number of calories and don't exercise

more. If you feel like you have a noticeably higher level of energy

or sensation of heat, eat a little bit more food than you usually do.

If you find that you lose weight, increase the amount of food you eat

by a couple hundred calories a day.

If you have trouble eating enough calories, try eating whatever foods

offer you the least satiety but carry the highest calorie count. Rely

on more fats and less vegetables if bulk is satiating for you, for

example. Drink more cream or coconut milk if you find solid foods

more satiating than liquid, etc.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> Colpo doesn't have " tons of evidence. " He refers to metabolic ward studies

> with very few

> participants, so all the results must be statistically noisy.

Thanks for correcting my loose language.

>> Bottom line, you eat what your body needs to maintain its weight,

>> calorie wise, you won't lose. You eat more than what your body needs,

>> you will gain. You eat less, you will lose.

>

> This is not obvious either. Eades recently says there may be an asymmetry,

> where to lose

> weight you must create a caloric deficit, but you might avoiding gaining

> weight if you do

> not eat foods (like carbs) that cause insulin to spike, which apparently is

> needed for

> calories to be stored as body fat. Taubes's claim in his book about insulin

> and fat tissue

> was more about why Americans gain weight than how to lose weight.

Well I have been reading Eades quite at length, and don't find him

convincing at all, especially since he banks his message on " living

studies " or what look to me to be nice theories. He seems to have been

caught with his hand in the cookie jar so to speak, and now is trying

to backtrack and make it not seem so. I haven't gone through the ward

studies systematically yet, but for the moment I think I will stay

with them.

> A year ago there was a lean, healthy man who (on the internet) self

> experimented by

> eating 4000-5000 calories a day of products like heavy whipping cream and

> lard. Over

> 80% of daily calories was in fat. Also, he stopped exercising. He did not

> gain weight over

> the month, despite the tremendous intake in calories.

And how exactly does this confound the ward studies, or support Eades

metabolic advantage theory, since Eades (not Taubes) is clearly

talking about losing weight? Doesn't seem to be nearly enough info to

tell us anything, especially over a month's period of time.

I used to end basketball season in college by pigging out and doing

nothing for a month. Felt great and didn't gain a lick of weight and

lost very little conditoning as well. My guess is had I continued that

pattern that " advantage " would have changed. In other words, 30 days

doesn't tell you much if a person is already lean, healthy and in good

shape.

> Like I am trying to lose body fat and so am following Colpo's book's

> advice to create

> a caloric deficit. I just started, so no results yet.

Looking back at all the times I have lost body fat, even when very low

carb, it was apparent to me that I had created a caloric deficit, just

not one that involved hunger.

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

[Guest guest]

On 6/23/08, jeremyfox <jeremytfox@...> wrote:

> Colpo doesn't have " tons of evidence. " He refers to metabolic ward studies

> with very few

> participants, so all the results must be statistically noisy.

He refers to and critically analyzes other studies, but he gives the

weight to metabolic ward studies because the energy intake and

expenditure is verified and controlled, which is not true for

free-living studies (many of which show greater loss on high-carb

diets than low-carb anyway). Overall, his book apparently has about

500 references (they are listed by chapter though so some could be

duplicates). The metabolic ward studies number 26, and he includes

some studies that looked at BMR as well as weight loss, as well as

studies on under-reporting and over-reporting on various diets, etc,

so overall the breadth of his evidence covers a large area, and,

although the ward studies might be smaller than some other types of

studies, they are top-notch in quality and there are 26 of them, so I

think " tons of evidence " is probably fairly appropriate.

>> Bottom line, you eat what your body needs to maintain its weight,

>> calorie wise, you won't lose. You eat more than what your body needs,

>> you will gain. You eat less, you will lose.

>

> This is not obvious either. Eades recently says there may be an asymmetry,

> where to lose

> weight you must create a caloric deficit, but you might avoiding gaining

> weight if you do

> not eat foods (like carbs) that cause insulin to spike, which apparently is

> needed for

> calories to be stored as body fat.

But it is not. Insulin promotes the storage of fat in response to

carbs. Fats promote the storage of fat in response to fats.

> Taubes's claim in his book about insulin

> and fat tissue

> was more about why Americans gain weight than how to lose weight.

Americans have other unique things too -- Americans rely on external

cues of when to stop eating, like when they finish the serving or when

they run out of drink, whereas people in France rely on internal cues,

like when they feel hungry and when they feel full.

Taubes reports that exogenous sugar is necessary for the glycerol

backbone of triglycerides in fat cells. This is false -- adpiose

tissue can manufacture it's own backbone through the gluconeogenesis

pathway.

> A year ago there was a lean, healthy man who (on the internet) self

> experimented by

> eating 4000-5000 calories a day of products like heavy whipping cream and

> lard. Over

> 80% of daily calories was in fat. Also, he stopped exercising. He did not

> gain weight over

> the month, despite the tremendous intake in calories.

He may have overestimated his calories and he may have malabsorbed his

fat. Or, maybe he responds more like the rodents in whom ketogenic

diets result in increased BMR and less like the humans who, in the

available evidence, do not. So maybe this would work for some people

but not everyone.

> Like I am trying to lose body fat and so am following Colpo's book's

> advice to create

> a caloric deficit. I just started, so no results yet.

Cool. I need to get a scale or something, so no results yet. lol.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> He refers to and critically analyzes other studies, but he gives the

> weight to metabolic ward studies because the energy intake and

> expenditure is verified and controlled, which is not true for

> free-living studies (many of which show greater loss on high-carb

> diets than low-carb anyway). Overall, his book apparently has about

> 500 references (they are listed by chapter though so some could be

> duplicates). The metabolic ward studies number 26, and he includes

> some studies that looked at BMR as well as weight loss, as well as

> studies on under-reporting and over-reporting on various diets, etc,

> so overall the breadth of his evidence covers a large area, and,

> although the ward studies might be smaller than some other types of

> studies, they are top-notch in quality and there are 26 of them, so I

> think " tons of evidence " is probably fairly appropriate.

Okay, so I stand corrected again, LOL!

Maybe my language was appropriate. I am at a disadvantage here because

I haven't read Colpo's book and don't really want to cough up the

money at the moment.

>> This is not obvious either. Eades recently says there may be an asymmetry,

>> where to lose

>> weight you must create a caloric deficit, but you might avoiding gaining

>> weight if you do

>> not eat foods (like carbs) that cause insulin to spike, which apparently

>> is

>> needed for

>> calories to be stored as body fat.

>

> But it is not. Insulin promotes the storage of fat in response to

> carbs. Fats promote the storage of fat in response to fats.

Head bang - how did I miss this??

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Masterjohn "

<chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

> although the ward studies might be smaller than some other types of

> studies, they are top-notch in quality and there are 26 of them, so I

> think " tons of evidence " is probably fairly appropriate.

My concern is that a failure to find a statistically reject the null hypothesis

that only

calories matter is interpreted as evidence in favor of theory that only calories

matter. This

is wrong: the failure of to reject could come because of a small number of

participants.

Having many studies with only a handful of participants does not address this

problem. In

some of these studies, there were only five or so participants.

> But it is not. Insulin promotes the storage of fat in response to

> carbs. Fats promote the storage of fat in response to fats.

Interesting comment. Do you have any references to this process? I am so focused

on the

Taubes way of thinking, I have not heard of the alternative.

> Taubes reports that exogenous sugar is necessary for the glycerol

> backbone of triglycerides in fat cells. This is false -- adpiose

> tissue can manufacture it's own backbone through the gluconeogenesis

> pathway.

Again, I don't remember this part of the discussion of triglycerides, but what

you say

makes sense.

On the Colpo plan thing, how to you get your 60-100 carbs a day? Fruit? I am not

sure I

am going to eat that many, but I am interested in how others do it. The 300

grams of

pumpkin he suggests seems a little wacky from a culinary perspective.

[Guest guest]

Aidan,

> I like Dr Berardi's hypothetical about the two twins who ate the

> same number of calories each day, but one ate nothing but carbohydrate

> and the other included protein and fats. Both did the same amount of

> exercise, same sleep etc - which one ended up with more muscle and less

> fat at the end of the year?

Leaving aside the logical fallacy inherent in the above analogy by

Berardi, we are talking about weight, not body composition, which I

would agree is not (body composition) primarily a function of

calories.

--

" How do they become one flesh? " As if she were gold receiving purest

gold, the woman receives the man's seed with rich pleasure, and within

her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her

own substance and she then returns it as a child! "

St. Chrysostom

[Guest guest]

> Like I am trying to lose body fat and so am following Colpo's

book's advice to create

> a caloric deficit. I just started, so no results yet.

>

>

If you want the calorie deficit route, Venuto's " Burn the Fat, Feed the

Muscle " has a really high success track record. It's been out there

quite a while.

I highly recommend it for your library. He has the best practical

advice for different body types I have seen in that school of thought.

Connie

>

[Guest guest]

,

This sounds fascinating. Can you give me an exmaple of what that migt look

like? As a slightly underweight chemo patient who has to take steroids more

often than she would like, I am interested in eating in such a way

periodically as needed. The steroids tend to cause insulin resistance and

muscle wasting, a tough combo to treat. If I could diet post-steroids so as

to bulk and heal the temporary insulin resistance (which may not remain so

temrporary) I would do my treatment a gresat service i think.

Please email me offline if you feel you'd rather, but either way, Id

appreciate a good description.

Jane

" " Bottom line, you eat what your body needs to maintain its weight,

calorie wise, you won't lose. You eat more than what your body needs,

you will gain. You eat less, you will lose. Heck, you can **bulk**

while following a intermittent fasting protocol along with heavy duty

weight training (which by the way is a great way to deal with insulin

resistance) if you ingest enough calories over a given period of time.