[QUOTE=otzi;917549]Interesting and timely article published today...
[url=http://www.dovepress.com/comparison-with-ancestral-diets-suggests-dense-acellular-carbohydrates-peer-reviewed-article-DMSO]Comparison with ancestral diets suggests dense acellular carbohydrates[/url]
A novel hypothesis of obesity is suggested by consideration of diet-related inflammation and evolutionary medicine. The obese homeostatically guard their elevated weight. In rodent models of high-fat diet-induced obesity, leptin resistance is seen initially at vagal afferents, blunting the actions of satiety mediators, then centrally, with gastrointestinal bacterial-triggered SOCS3 signaling implicated. In humans, dietary fat and fructose elevate systemic lipopolysaccharide, while dietary glucose also strongly activates SOCS3 signaling. Crucially however, in humans, low-carbohydrate diets spontaneously decrease weight in a way that low-fat diets do not. Furthermore, nutrition transition patterns and the health of those still eating diverse ancestral diets with abundant food suggest that neither glycemic index, altered fat, nor carbohydrate intake can be intrinsic causes of obesity, and that human energy homeostasis functions well without Westernized foods containing flours, sugar, and refined fats. Due to being made up of cells, virtually all "ancestral foods" have markedly lower carbohydrate densities than flour- and sugar-containing foods, a property quite independent of glycemic index. Thus the "forgotten organ" of the gastrointestinal microbiota is a prime candidate to be influenced by evolutionarily unprecedented postprandial luminal carbohydrate concentrations. The present hypothesis suggests that in parallel with the bacterial effects of sugars on dental and periodontal health, acellular flours, sugars, and processed foods produce an inflammatory microbiota via the upper gastrointestinal tract, with fat able to effect a "double hit" by increasing systemic absorption of lipopolysaccharide. This model is consistent with a broad spectrum of reported dietary phenomena. A diet of grain-free whole foods with carbohydrate from cellular tubers, leaves, and fruits may produce a gastrointestinal microbiota consistent with our evolutionary condition, potentially explaining the exceptional macronutrient-independent metabolic health of non-Westernized populations, and the apparent efficacy of the modern "Paleolithic" diet on satiety and metabolism[/QUOTE]
This seems to help make my friends' experience make a lot of sense. The ONLY things they have given up are flour and sugar. They also probably don't use much of the fake oils since they are gourmet cooks, but their focus has been solely on flour and sugar. They still will eat wheat and other grains, so long as it's not flour. They've had the weight loss, the health improvements, the curing of metabolic syndrome symptoms and the mental health improvements everybody talks about here.
[QUOTE=xlanochka;917717]Actually, many people died in famines--even entire cultures wiped out because of famine. Starvation is very stressful and taxing on the body, whether you're a "sugar burner" or a "fat burner". Just because you've transitioned into a "fat burning beast" does not mean that the negative attributes that come with severe calorie restriction automatically don't apply anymore. It's naive to think that these things only apply to "sugar burners" and CW dieters and that paleolithic people or fat burners are somehow immune to metabolic deregulation and adaptation.
[B]If you are a fat burner, you are efficiently metabolizing fat providing the body with needed energy to go hunt for food. If you are a sugar burner you are sitting there in a hypoglycemic daze after three hours without food and would not have survived to reproduce. I never said severe caloric restriction was not stressful on everybody, just that fat burners handle the stress better.[/B]
The body conserves energy when it perceives a famine...or whenever you simply eat less. This is fact. It slows down the metabolism. When our paleo ancestors experienced prolonged shortages of food (and I'm not talking about going a few days or a week without food... IF has its place). I'm talking about chronic calorie restriction. To assume that their bodies were not impacted in a negative way by that is pure [B]skepticism[/B] and not scientifically backed. I'm pretty sure the paleopeople weren't concerned with their weight when famine passed and they began eating a surplus of food again, which would result in weight gain but. It makes sense that those who were able to remain the fattest, survived. Not because they were fatter to begin with, but because their body found a way to better conserve energy (decrease metabolic rate more than the average Joe who died), and whose body was most efficient at promoting body fat storage during minimal caloric refeed (which of course was passed down through the generations).
To say that a "fat burning beast" is not effected or damaged by calorie restriction simply has no backing, and the current scientific data that has been published concludes otherwise.
[B]:confused: I think the word you were looking for there was "speculation".[/B]
Since the goal is in fact weight loss, let's pretend that a paleoperson "fat burner" wasn't affected as much by famine. It would still be impossible to make the assumption that they didn't gain weight immediately after the famine was over and a surplus of food was available to which they could eat until satiety. So again, it makes no sense to say that a "fat burning beast" is somehow immune to the ill effects of severe chronic calorie restriction.
[B]I never said they didn't gain weight. I would gain the weight back if I went back to eating at my old level.[/B]
I wish more people realized they should probably heal their metabolism before assuming theirs is simply "slow" after a prolonged period of damage. There are several other factors influencing a decreased metabolic rate. And weight loss doesn't always translate to "eat less calories". Sometimes it's not the CI that needs to be adjusted, but rather the CO side of the equation should be balanced first.
[B]In my calorie counting thread, I repeatedly made the point of, "Healing and health first, then calorie restriction if you still need it."[/B]
This MDA post has some interesting information on the topic.
[QUOTE=xlanochka;917730]I think a huge problem that people have is that they expect to see the same rapid results they saw when they lost the majority of their initial weight. When you're closer to a healthy weight and are approaching a low BF% (whatever is beyond your biological setpoint), you can't expect to lose that 1lb-2lbs a week. Weight loss will need to be slow. If this means taking a month or two to lose 1lb of body fat, then that's what it take. Further restricting calories in order to continue losing at the same rate or nudge weight loss along is only screwing yourself over in the long run. Another problem is expecting all the results to come from diet and not attempt to switch up the CO variables. In order to produce different results (ie: continued weight loss after stalling), you need to DO something different. Which could include upping the pounds on the weights, upping the intensity, training a completely different set of muscle groups, taking up a new exercise, exercising more (if you're the stroll around the block 3x a week type of "exerciser"). People do the same old thing and expect results. Or only do it for a short period of time (a couple of weeks) and then give up because they're not getting the results they've hyped up in their mind. Not going to happen. Further calorie reduction is not always the solution.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree that weight loss will be slower the closer you get to your goal and that it is not a good idea to get impatient and try to push for that initial "pounds melting off" feeling.
While Mark says that it is 80% diet and 20% exercise in the fitness equation, as you near your goal, yes, the role of exercise becomes larger.
[url=http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-fat-adapted/#axzz22GCuLuBg]What Does it Mean to Be Fat-Adapted? | Mark's Daily Apple[/url]
I added this link but now that's upthread.
Anyway, Mark makes a really good point that being fat adapted gives you more options for fuel sources. It doesn't mean you can't burn sugar. You can do both. Having more than one option makes weathering a shortage easier while still having the energy to go out and get some food.
In fact I doubt any "Groks" would have been anything other than fat adapted.
Interesting study, though I couldn't access the full text...
Basically it examined the difference in CI vs CO and found:
"One group was the control, and stayed exactly the same during the six-month study. A second group cut their calorie intake by 25 percent, while the third group cut calories by 12.5 percent and increased calories burned through physical activity by 12.5 percent.
As expected, the two intervention group lost exactly the same amount of weight (about 10 percent of their total), and they both shed roughly the same amounts of total fat and visceral fat. This makes sense, because they were both operating under identical calories deficits. Here’s the rub, though: only the exercise group had significant improvements in insulin sensitivity, LDL cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure."
[url=http://sweatscience.com/exercise-vs-calorie-restriction-head-to-head-match-up/]Sweat Science » Exercise vs. calorie restriction: head-to-head match-up[/url]
So, exercise was equated with fitness, and better measurable numbers, but the body reacted exactly the same way to a deficit of 25% caloric reduction verses 12.5% caloric reduction and 12.5% increased caloric burn via exercise.
Regardless which route was taken the body was running at the same deficit, and resulted in the same weight loss.
The body is registering the deficit no matter how the deficit is created and accommodating it by burning stored tissues as fuel.
Exercise is great... Caloric deficit causes weight loss.
But in the end everyone's caloric needs are different.
It would be great to think that simply eating more would cause a rise in caloric needs. That's not how it works, exercise, particularly exercise that adds muscle is what increases caloric needs.
That's why when a person does the same set exercise routine for a long time at the same caloric intake, they hit a stall and will have to either up the exercise or lower the calories, or both.
Most people can take advantage of that fact, but some people due to age, hormones, etc won't have as much increase to play with even if they work very hard.
Others may have medial issues that cause problems in this area.
Talking up the CO portion does not negate the CI portion, or really trick the body... the body recognizes the deficit no matter how it is created, and will respond accordingly if the deficit is maintained long term.
[QUOTE=xlanochka;917717]The body conserves energy when it perceives a famine...or whenever you simply eat less. This is fact. It slows down the metabolism. When our paleo ancestors experienced prolonged shortages of food (and I'm not talking about going a few days or a week without food... IF has its place). I'm talking about chronic calorie restriction.
I wish more people realized they should probably heal their metabolism before assuming theirs is simply "slow" after a prolonged period of damage. There are several other factors influencing a decreased metabolic rate. [/QUOTE]
What would be classified as Chronic Restriction? I IF daily, usually 18 or 19 hours, this week 24. On the 24s, I only get in about 700-900 calories. I supplement though. Does that make up for anything, make the body think it isnt lacking even though calories are low? But there are those days of 1200 - 1500 thrown in here and there, but if I settle into a 24 lifestyle, those will become fewer and fewer
I am sure this is spelled out somewhere, but how do you know you are broken and if you are, how do you heal and how do you know when your metabolism is healed?
gopintos, do not worry, chronic caloric restriction is when you go under 1000 calories for 3+ days in a row. As long as you cycle, and from time to time feast above your maintenance, you are not chronically restricting. Hats off on your IF and being able to exist on 700-900 cals a day.
[QUOTE=StackingPlates;917320]AKA one of the few who chooses not to arbitrarily restrict food choices for no reason other than to subscribe to fancy cavemen marketing gimmicks :)[/QUOTE]
Come on...you know damn well there are plenty of great reasons to restrict food choices. I have absolutely zero affiliation with the word "paleo." I avoid grain because I know it's terrible for me. That doesn't mean I won't eat grandma's homemade ravioli's once a year because of some dogmatic, pseudo-religious membership to the divine Church of Paleo. Look at Anthony Colpo - the last thing he'd EVER call himself is "paleo" (ok, the last thing he'd ever call himself is vegan or vegetarian, but the third-to-last is paleo) but he avoids grains in general because he knows how bad they are for you.
And I'll reiterate, if you truly DO feel better eating grains than not eating grains, I submit that it's solely because you react better to high GI/low fiber carbohydrates. I'm willing to bet that if you remove all grain and go solely white rice and white potato, you'll feel even better and you'll bloat even less. Hell, make bread out of white rice and tapioca flour. Whatever. That stuff is cheap and readily available. You just may not find it palatable. But that's where milk and sugar come in - make ice cream. I find I feel great eating frozen yogurt after a workout. Grain and PUFA oil free, of course.
I hate to do this to you, but you should read this link:
[url=http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html]The truth about alcohol, fat loss and muscle growth | Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health[/url]
Alcohol doesn't really fit into the paradigm because the body lacks an efficient metabolic pathway to store acetates as fat, according to Martin Berkhan anyway. So, essentially, if you're drinking pure alcohol (say 100% agave tequila and club soda), you're only drinking alcohol calories. The theory is that if you've only eaten protein throughout the day in a quantity that will not exceed your body's ability to outpace muscle tissue synthesis (~2g/lbm for heavy lifters and ~1g/lbm for sedentary people) and you don't consume more carbohydrate than would exhaust your glycogen storage, you wouldn't store fat. However, if you eclipse glycogen storage from carbs or eat ANY dietary fat alongside the alcohol, you're not going to get fat drinking. So basically...
If you're fairly glycogen depleted and you're hammering vodka and cranberries, you won't store any fat as the cranberry juice is being partitioned to empty glycogen stores and the alcohol can't really be converted into fat efficiently. If you're eating a burger with alcohol, then you're storing all that fat and your fat metabolism is put on hold until you burn the acetates in the alcohol. Similarly, if you're glycogen replete and eating bread or drinking sugary mixers, you'll convert those excess carbs into fat as well. If you absolutely "need" to eat while you're drinking (and c'mon we've all had the drunk munchies before), stick to a high protein meal that's low to moderate in carbs and very, very low fat. I'm not sure that's feasible, but something like chicken breast, white rice and veggies would be ideal.
Yea, you're getting wings and ice cream I know. But it's interesting to know that if you're pretty well fasted all day and you consume zero calories from protein/carbs/fats along with the alcohol, you can pretty much session drink without "getting fat." You'll just completely shut down your fat metabolism and stall.[/QUOTE]
I hit a set point and stayed there for half a year. I could eat as much as I wanted and not gain. I could eat less and not lose. I think set points throw a wrench into any neat and tidy theories about calories in or out.