Controlling bodyweight 2

[Zynster]

Some good results but I would be concerned about the loss of lean muscle. A loss of more than 2.5kg of muscle in 4 weeks is quite alarming! I don't really understand it.

Don't take this the wrong way because I am not trying to discourage you from this diet plan, just raising the possibility of the loss of muscle, which I don't understand. I would not tell you to return to eating refined carbs because I really don't see the contribution they make to health. I wonder if the muscle "loss" was merely a depletion of glycogen from his muscles which would make them weigh less without them physically reducing of if it was actual muscle catabolism (breakdown of muscle tissue) for something missing in his diet?

It's quite likely that he was calorie deficient, which is why the muscle loss. Going on a low-carb low-fat diet is bad. It would be very hard to get enough calories, and too much protein is not so good. You are supposed to replace carbs with fat, not protein. Fat has double the calories of either protein or carbs. It seems that the human body is ideally evolved to use fat as a primary source of fuel. Also, there are a lot of claims that the GI index is flawed and that there are no "good" carbs. The suggestion is if you have to eat grains, then sprout them.

But then everyone's dietary needs are going to be different. A vegetarian would have a hard time doing a paleo diet. As previously discussed, endurance cyclists have to bend some rules to get enough calories. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is cutting out refined carbs is good.

[toolonglegs]

I am expecting a lot of muscle loss...1250-1500Kcals a day...bye bye muscles ...especially in another month .

[Apple]

I am expecting a lot of muscle loss...1250-1500Kcals a day...bye bye muscles ...especially in another month .

muscles don't forget, they will be back, I was out for over 12 months and lost all my cycling muscles, it didn't take long to come back.

[casual_cyclist]

Some good results but I would be concerned about the loss of lean muscle. A loss of more than 2.5kg of muscle in 4 weeks is quite alarming! I don't really understand it.

Don't take this the wrong way because I am not trying to discourage you from this diet plan, just raising the possibility of the loss of muscle, which I don't understand. I would not tell you to return to eating refined carbs because I really don't see the contribution they make to health. I wonder if the muscle "loss" was merely a depletion of glycogen from his muscles which would make them weigh less without them physically reducing of if it was actual muscle catabolism (breakdown of muscle tissue) for something missing in his diet?

It's quite likely that he was calorie deficient, which is why the muscle loss. Going on a low-carb low-fat diet is bad. It would be very hard to get enough calories, and too much protein is not so good. You are supposed to replace carbs with fat, not protein. Fat has double the calories of either protein or carbs. It seems that the human body is ideally evolved to use fat as a primary source of fuel.

This was supposed to be a paleo diet so it should not have been low fat. The web site says he was eating: meat, chicken and fish, eggs, fruit, vegetables (except potatoes or sweet potatoes), nuts (walnuts and almonds but not peanuts and cashews). What he was supposed to be eating and what he was actually eating could have been 2 different things. They didn't provide a food diary. I don't see anything particularly wrong with what he was supposed to be eating so it's a bit strange.two

Also, there are a lot of claims that the GI index is flawed and that there are no "good" carbs. The suggestion is if you have to eat grains, then sprout them. [and as previously mentioned] It seems that the human body is ideally evolved to use fat as a primary source of fuel.

I wonder about this. The reason is that I don't respond badly to non-refined carbs. I am not insulin resistant though (I have been tested for that), so I bet that makes a difference. I do respond badly to fat though and have to moderate the amount of fat I eat in one meal. If I have a fatty meal it gives me excruciating heartburn, just like my mum and aunty (by blood, not marriage), so it's probably something genetic. It's a bit tragic really because it means I can't eat much of delicious food like pesto

It makes me wonder if some people are carbohydrate intolerant (they respond badly to carbohydrates) and develop insulin resistance and some people are fat intolerant (respond badly to fat). Maybe the fat intolerant people can eat non-refined carbohydrates. I don't seem to be sensitive to non-refined carbs. Interestingly, although I am overweight and eat carbs, my total cholesterol and LDL are low, which is not typical of someone who is sensitive to carbs. I certainly am sensitive to refined carbs. I think that refined carbs are bad for everyone!

[norbs]

I was always of the opinion that dieting was the worst way to lose weight. If you are overweight, and who isn't these days , you need to change your lifestyle.

I have tried different diets, and seen many friends and family try them, and they might work for a while, but when they stop the diet, on goes the weight.

I have managed to lose about 14kgs (105 to 91kg) in the past 18 months by changing my lifestyle. I eat less and exercise more.

These days my weight fluctuates a bit, but it is the longest I have managed to stay near 90kgs for 15 years.

[sogood]

I am expecting a lot of muscle loss...1250-1500Kcals a day...bye bye muscles ...especially in another month .

Without a need to move all those fat blobs, muscles are smart enough to also trim themselves. Do a bit more exercise, they'll be back.

[Zynster]

This was supposed to be a paleo diet so it should not have been low fat. The web site says he was eating: meat, chicken and fish, eggs, fruit, vegetables (except potatoes or sweet potatoes), nuts (walnuts and almonds but not peanuts and cashews). What he was supposed to be eating and what he was actually eating could have been 2 different things. They didn't provide a food diary. I don't see anything particularly wrong with what he was supposed to be eating so it's a bit strange.

It's quite possible to eat that combination of foods, but still keep it low fat. Like concentrating on fruit and veges and lean cuts of meat. This seems to be a common mistake with paleo diets. But as you say, without more detail it's hard to tell.

I do respond badly to fat though and have to moderate the amount of fat I eat in one meal. If I have a fatty meal it gives me excruciating heartburn, just like my mum and aunty (by blood, not marriage), so it's probably something genetic. It's a bit tragic really because it means I can't eat much of delicious food like pesto

That's a bummer. Do you still get heartburn if you eat fats without carbs? It's pretty common to mix fats and carbs (IE. pesto pasta), and the body digests the carbs first, leaving the fat to sit in the stomach.


BTW, I'm on week 3 now of my diet. Lost 3kg, but still fatigued and foggy headed in the mornings. I'm commuting, but my training has dropped off. Not sure what I'll do when the month is up.

[BruceGray]

Although I think the Paleo diet is healthier than what most westerners eat, I still think there's fuzziness with what it actually represents, and associated guidelines. i.e. most wild animals in the tropics and sub tropics have very low fat content in their muscle tissue (kangaroo averages 1% and is marketed as <2%).

To get the requisite % Calories from animal fat on the Paleo diet (20-35%), one would have to do as hunter/gatherers did (and our more recent ancestors), and eat the brains and entrails, and boil the bones.

From my reading, there's also confusion whether root vegetables are included or not. Yams and sweet potato were eaten by hunter gatherers, but some Paleo Diet guidelines appear to exclude these.

I wonder how much clarity can be added by considering the diet (and genome) of paleo man.
Their genome shared much in common with Australopithecus, which ate primarily fruits and tubers, and a very small amount of animal matter.
Human DNA is 98.4% identical to chimpanzees, which remain primarily vegetarian.
The Orangutan has a diet up to 90% fruit.
It is illogical to presume a paleo diet proffers some longevity related health advantage, when longevity was not a trait of paleos, no matter the reason.

I take more note of healthy longevity amongst Homo Sapien Sapiens....The National Geographic has categorized outstanding examples as Blue Zones. Shared traits are:

* Family - Family is put ahead of other concerns.
* No Smoking - Centenarians do not typically smoke.
* Plant-based diet - The majority of food consumed is derived from plants.
* Constant moderate physical activity - Moderate physical activity is an inseparable part of life.
* Social engagement - People of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities.
* Legumes - Legumes are commonly consumed.

A Venn diagram of the most shared traits:


Loma Linda are Seventh Day Adventists who tend towards vegetarianism.

I suppose what diet you gravitate to depends on what is most important to you. Mine is to remain functionally independent for as long as possible.

[Zynster]

Although I think the Paleo diet is healthier than what most westerners eat, I still think there's fuzziness with what it actually represents, and associated guidelines. i.e. most wild animals in the tropics and sub tropics have very low fat content in their muscle tissue (kangaroo averages 1% and is marketed as <2%).

Yes, kangaroo is a mixed bag. It's grass fed, which Paleo dieters prefer, but low fat, which they don't.

To get the requisite % Calories from animal fat on the Paleo diet (20-35%), one would have to do as hunter/gatherers did (and our more recent ancestors), and eat the brains and entrails, and boil the bones.

Lard.

Honestly some of the paleo people get a bit extreme. Raw meat, caveman exercises, etc. I don't agree with the purists that we should ONLY eat was cavemen did. I'm including dairy which isn't paleo. For the ultimate scientific approach, get a blood sugar meter and eat whatever doesn't give you a spike.

From my reading, there's also confusion whether root vegetables are included or not. Yams and sweet potato were eaten by hunter gatherers, but some Paleo Diet guidelines appear to exclude these.

Depends on the diet. For people trying to loose weight, they recommend staying away from root veges and fruit.

It is illogical to presume a paleo diet proffers some longevity related health advantage, when longevity was not a trait of paleos, no matter the reason.

This is true. Most of the studies into paleo diets have been in the 1-12 month range. There are no long term Paleos as the movement is new, and Palaeolithic humans did not have our medical system. It would also be illogical to presume that it doesn't.

I suppose what diet you gravitate to depends on what is most important to you. Mine is to remain functionally independent for as long as possible.

Amen to that.

[casual_cyclist]

I do respond badly to fat though and have to moderate the amount of fat I eat in one meal. If I have a fatty meal it gives me excruciating heartburn, just like my mum and aunty (by blood, not marriage), so it's probably something genetic. It's a bit tragic really because it means I can't eat much of delicious food like pesto

That's a bummer. Do you still get heartburn if you eat fats without carbs? It's pretty common to mix fats and carbs (IE. pesto pasta), and the body digests the carbs first, leaving the fat to sit in the stomach.

Being vegetarian, I always eat protein, fat and carbs for each meal, it's just the ratio that varies. That said, more recently I have pretty much cut out all refined carbs. I don't do low fat though because I think that is bad. All my products are full fat (cheese, milk, yogurt etc). As long as I don't go overboard, I can eat full fat products as part of a meal and it doesn't worry me. A dressing of olive oil or grapeseed oil and balsamic vinegar on a salad is fine. It's only if the fat content starts to get really high that it upsets my stomach. It has been years since that happened though.

BTW, I'm on week 3 now of my diet. Lost 3kg, but still fatigued and foggy headed in the mornings. I'm commuting, but my training has dropped off. Not sure what I'll do when the month is up.

Fatigued and foggy headed doesn't sound great. Are you drinking enough water? Apart from that I am not sure. I don't see how eating more carbs would make you feel less "foggy headed" in the morning

[casual_cyclist]

Although I think the Paleo diet is healthier than what most westerners eat, I still think there's fuzziness with what it actually represents, and associated guidelines. i.e. most wild animals in the tropics and sub tropics have very low fat content in their muscle tissue (kangaroo averages 1% and is marketed as <2%).

Yes, kangaroo is a mixed bag. It's grass fed, which Paleo dieters prefer, but low fat, which they don't.

Tell that to the Australian Aboriginals

Interesting fact is that they prefer (prize) kangaroo tail which is the fattiest part of the kangaroo.

[mikedufty]

One of the interesting bits in Ayre's diary of the first nullarbor crossing was that his Aboriginal companion (forgotten the name) really rated the skin of the horses as food when the horses died. I'd guess that is a fatty bit, although maybe not so much on expedition horses, though it may have died of thirst rather than starvation. The aboriginal also thought a dead penguin washed up on the beach was tops.

There are some really good mp3 interviews with Robert Lustig (of sugar, the bitter truth) fame online. He goes into why he thinks low carb isn't necessary for everyone.

He also says elite athletes are about the only people that can get away with consuming large quantities of fructose, as long as it is used up immediately for energy/rebuilding glycogen stores it doesn't do much harm. Really interesting stuff - he is a researcher and doesn't do much in the way of publicisation, even the bitter truth video was only supposed to be for an audience of 200.

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/%E2% ... -diet/8474
http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/show ... isode-429/

The general consensus seems to be that tolerance of carbs and refined carbs varies between individuals. Obviously if you have developed insulin resistance your tolerance is very low. Personally just a little bit of bread seems to have a big effect for me. I'm thinking of having a play with a glucose meter.

Another interesting read here - a study of ketogenic diet effect on performance for elite cyclists. Not good for your sprints but otherwise OK.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524027/

[BruceGray]

Interesting fact is that they prefer (prize) kangaroo tail which is the fattiest part of the kangaroo.

Still, tail fat is subcutaneous (under the skin), not within the muscle. And like all of us, Aboriginals probably enjoy eating fat because it can be stored as fat in humans, and get us through lean times. Whereas the 22% protein content of raw kangaroo meat (rest is 1g fat, 1g carb, 76g water) when eaten to excess, cannot be stored in our bodies for lean times. It has to be actively excreted by the kidneys.

Interestingly, I'd presume any energy reserves kangaroos have are best stored in the tail as fat.
- fat has highest energy:wt ratio
- lower centre of gravity for sharper turning at speed.
- better counterbalance to upper body for sharper turns
- cushioning of tail bones for multiple ground strikes.

[BruceGray]

It would also be illogical to presume that it doesn't.

I disagree. Many extant hunter gatherer tribes have been observed methodically, sans Western influence - Kalahari !kung, Andamans, Australian Aborigines, African Bushmen, African Dogon, Malaysian Batek. None have the longevity advantage of the National Geographic's Blue Zone societies, even when violence and accidents are accounted for.

Further, the health advantages that hunter gatherer societies do display before 70, are at least due in part to a less chronically stressful life - less manhours and energy devoted to survival, more to social and recreational events, less social conflict, less complex changing world.

And the Blue Zone advantage cannot be attributed to modern health systems, which confer most advantage AFTER disease manifests. It is illogical to presume a diet that is the antithesis of Blue Zones, offers the same or superior advantage at least to my mind. But to each their own.

[BruceGray]

He also says elite athletes are about the only people that can get away with consuming large quantities of fructose, as long as it is used up immediately for energy/rebuilding glycogen stores it doesn't do much harm.

I concur in principle.
Fat reserves suffice for rest and lighter activity, even when sustained for hours.
Sustained moderate to intense activity will draw on higher levels of dietary sugar.

The wheels seem to fall off when you sit at a computer, with the brain in overdrive, and use coke and pizza for fuel. Many obese diabetic programmers have tried.

[sogood]

I disagree. Many extant hunter gatherer tribes have been observed methodically, sans Western influence - Kalahari !kung, Andamans, Australian Aborigines, African Bushmen, African Dogon, Malaysian Batek. None have the longevity advantage of the National Geographic's Blue Zone societies, even when violence and accidents are accounted for.
...
And the Blue Zone advantage cannot be attributed to modern health systems, which confer most advantage AFTER disease manifests. It is illogical to presume a diet that is the antithesis of Blue Zones, offers the same or superior advantage at least to my mind. But to each their own.

Complete loss of perspective here to reference tribal communities.

The biggest contributor of health/life expectancy in human development is in public health ie. Sanitary improvements, prevention and treatment of infections, management of diseases and complications associated with child bearing. Diet doesn't even come into the major equation when it comes to comparisons b/n tribal communities in the wild and communities in developed societies. Life expectation in the 18th century was barely 35. By early 20th century, it was still 30-45. Present day world average sits around 67. It's not diet, it's public health that caused that major jump.

[edits: Spelling]

[Zynster]

It's not diet, it's public health that caused that major jump.

And that's WITH the awful western diet. I'd say either approach is going to provide a significant life extension over the coke and pizza diet. It's splitting chips to say which is better. We all agree that refined carbs are the baddies.

Tell ya what Bruce. Lets compare notes again in 2061.

[Redbull]

I disagree. Many extant hunter gatherer tribes have been observed methodically, sans Western influence - Kalahari !kung, Andamans, Australian Aborigines, African Bushmen, African Dogon, Malaysian Batek. None have the longevity advantage of the National Geographic's Blue Zone societies, even when violence and accidents are accounted for.
...
And the Blue Zone advantage cannot be attributed to modern health systems, which confer most advantage AFTER disease manifests. It is illogical to presume a diet that is the antithesis of Blue Zones, offers the same or superior advantage at least to my mind. But to each their own.

Complete loss of perspective here to reference tribal communities.

The biggest contributor of health/life expectancy in human development is in public health ie. Sanitary improvements, prevention and treatment of infections, management of diseases and complications associated with child bearing. Diet doesn't even come into the major equation when it comes to comparisons b/n tribal communities in the wild and communities in developed societies. Life expectation in the 18th century was barely 35. By early 20th century, it was still 30-45. Present day world average sits around 67. It's not diet, it's public health that caused that major jump.

[edits: Spelling]

To true. Separating the drink water from the sewage has increased longevity greater than anything else.

[BruceGray]

Complete loss of perspective here to reference tribal communities.

Complete absence of familiarity with the study and methodologies of evolutionary biology, senescence, and comparative studies of diet and lifestyle; which account for the straw man attack.....and then some.

Tell ya what Bruce. Lets compare notes again in 2061.

It's ok Zyn. Let's all eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we ride at dawn.

Meanwhile, I'll be keeping an eye out for a Paleo Diet pro cycling team.

[Zynster]

Meanwhile, I'll be keeping an eye out for a Paleo Diet pro cycling team.

They might do really well if carbs were classified as a performing enhancing drug.

[sogood]

Complete loss of perspective here to reference tribal communities.

Complete absence of familiarity with the study and methodologies of evolutionary biology, senescence, and comparative studies of diet and lifestyle; which account for the straw man attack.....and then some.

No amount of big word -ology helps when the justification is inappropriately applied under the current context. Longevity difference b/n human in developed countries and tribal communities in the wild can't be primarily be explained on the basis of diet.

[BruceGray]

No amount of big word -ology helps when the justification is inappropriately applied under the current context. Longevity difference b/n human in developed countries and tribal communities in the wild can't be primarily be explained on the basis of diet.

It depends what you've read in the field....which is what? Scientists in the field aren't dills, and account for the confounding variables you've thought of, and the majority which you haven't.

Public health initiatives became more critical due to "human development" - rapid population growth, overcrowding due to mass migration into urban areas in response to unequal land and resource allocation, resource scarcity due to large scale wars, more mobile populations due to transport dev't and displacement.

Sanitation and infectious disease has rarely been an issue in stable hunter gatherer communities, not exposed to outsiders.

To dispel your straw man, my reference to modern health was not a reference to sanitation and clean water initiatives, which civilizations have known about for over 5000 years, and hunter gatherers presumably much longer. I was referring to the health care delivered in clinics and hospitals today....you know, the stuff that costs ~10% of GDP; and the medical community petition hard against to have funds diverted from towards preventative health.

[casual_cyclist]

Hey! Play nice or you will get the thread locked again.

[casual_cyclist]

Ok, so I am having a look at the comments on Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-Bo ... 0307272702

...we get fat because our fat cells have become disregulated and are taking nutrients that should be available to other tissues. Like a tumor, the cells live for themselves rather than in balance with the rest of the body. And since those nutrients aren't available, we become hungry and tired. Therefore we eat more, and move less.

I don't agree with this point for me. I got fat by eating a lot of food. I didn't eat because I was hungry, I ate out of habit. The serving size of my dinner got bigger and bigger until I was eating a meal that would now make me feel sick. I just got used to eating that amount and so if I ate less I didn't feel satisfied. I was occasionally doing stupid things like eating a whole packet of tim-tams in one day using the excuse that I felt "stressed" and "needed" them. In general though, I didn't feel hungry all the time or driven to eat and I didn't get cravings for particular foods. That said, if I skipped meals and got extremely hungry I used to gravitate towards high energy foods to get a quick fix to my hunger. Of course high sugar foods just boost energy in the short term and left me feeling weak and shaky after the sugar crash.

The hormone in charge of fat storage is insulin; it works to make us fatter, building fat tissue. If you've got too much fat, you must have too much insulin action. And what drives insulin secretion from your pancreas? Dietary carbohydrates, especially refined carbs such as sugars, flour, cereal grains, starchy vegetables (e.g., corn, beans, rice, potatoes), liquid carbs. These are the "fattening carbs." Dozens of enzymes and hormones are at play either depositing fat into tissue, or mobilizing the fat to be used as energy. Any regulatory derangement that favors fat accumulation will CAUSE gluttony (overeating) or sloth (inactivity).

While I was gaining weight I didn't exercise but I did eat a lot. What I find is that it is easy to consume a lot of energy very quickly when eating refined carbs such as the sugar/white flour killer combo. I can easily eat a 500 calorie muffin and feel hungry a short time later.

To lose weight, I started exercising a lot and eating less overall. I still ate refined carbs, just less of them and less food overall. As a proportion of my diet, refined carbs probably went up but I should add that I didn't go "low fat". I ate a pretty balance carbs/protein/fat diet but cut the amount I was eating. The result is that I lost 25kg in just under 6 months. This runs contra to what I gather the author is arguing that if you eat carbs and exercise you won't lose weight. However, the difference for me is that I am not sensitive to carbs or insulin resistant (I have been tested).

I can see that for someone who is sensitive to carbs and/or insulin resistant would need to eat practically no refined carbs and really restrict carbs overall.

Overall, I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate a causal link between refined carbs and obesity. Have a look at traditional diets of people who don't suffer obesity and they have practically no refined carbs. These diets range in extremes from Eskimos who ate mostly meat, fish, berries and a limited selection of greens and vegetables where obesity and diabetes was virtually unknown to the Hunza people who ate mostly plants, eaten raw and are some of the longest living people on the planet. The Japanese had virtually no obesity or diabetes before the introduction of refined carbs and were eating rice, fish, vegetables and fruit. However, obesity and diabetes are on the rise since the introduction of western foods full of refined carbs. Since rice was their staple before, I don't think you can conclude that carbs cause obesity. I think it is pretty safe to say the refined carbs do though.

Interesting book and I can see how it would apply to some people. Personally though, I put on weight when I eat too much and don't exercise. I do lose weight when I eat less overall and increase my exercise. Losing weight for me does not mean that I feel hungry all the time. In fact, my hunger levels have stabilised since I cut refined carbs.

[casual_cyclist]

On another topic, I have been reading up a bit about Leptin and it's roll in obesity and overeating. One of the supplements which supposedly helps is African Mango (Irvingia gabonensis) which has been made into a "magic weight loss pill" recently featured on current affairs type programs.

There is a really great write up of it here: http://youarenotafitperson.com/2010/09/ ... om-africa/

I don't have time for a full comment now but the article is a great place to start...