Controlling bodyweight 2

[casual_cyclist]

I wonder if there is a difference between people with a normal response to glucose and those with metabolic syndrome with regard to carbohydrate intake. Conventional wisdom from the paleo world (low carb) is that perhaps all carbs are bad. I wonder if this advice applies to people with a normal response to glucose?

Over the weekend I ate porridge with nuts, dried fruit, a tablespoon of honey and a cup of milk for breakfast each day. On day 1 I ate 4 hours afterwards and felt significantly less hungry than I usually would and consequently ate less than I usually would for my second meal. Because I slept in I only had 2 meals on day 1 with less snacking than I usually would on the weekend because I didn't feel hungry. On day 2 it was about 6 hours to my second meal (final meal of the day) and I was more hungry than day 1 but still less hungry than usual. Overall, I ate less than I usually would and didn't experience the perceived "highs and lows" that I would get when eating cakes or muffins or the like.

Now, I would not recommend a breakfast like that for someone with metabolic syndrome because of the way they process carbs, but I wonder if there is anything wrong with low GI carbs for people with a normal response to glucose. Eating a moderate amount of lower GI carbs (oats, legumes, sweet potato etc) I have lost about 3.5kg so far. I put that down to mainly cutting back on junk like muffins, cakes and desserts.

I wouldn't recommend refined carbs (sugar, white flour, fruit juice etc) to anyone but would say that low GI carbs are ok for people with a normal response to glucose and not ok for people with metabolic syndrome (should only eat a limited amount).

[David_G]

I'm a type 2 diabetic and when I was diagnosed I weighed about 95kg and about 170cm tall. I went to a course that dealt with all the new things I had to adapt to. A major part of it was managing my diet. i had to cut out all the refined sugar and learnt about the food pyramid.
To cut a long story shortish, I went down to 71kg, I couldn't quite get to 70. It's 20 years later now and my weight has gone up as high as 82kg, and is currently around 77 and I'm still 177cm tall.
During this entire time I have tried to keep my exercise levels regular and concentrate on cardio endurance training. I got back into cycling last year after a long break and it is doing the job for me, Ive gone down from 79.
One thing that does happen is that your weight loss will plateau but your size will continue to shrink. This is because you are converting fat, which is bulky to muscle, which is heavier and more concentrated.
One of the great tips I got from a dietitian was that the reason we gain weight so easily is that we have a metabolism deigned to store energy (fat) for the bad/famine times, not a metabolism for 3 square meals a day 7 days a week.
She compared our body to a car. When the car tank is full the fuel spills out all over the ground (or your shoe) but when our body's nutrient level is met we continue to consume so our body stores it.
Some other tips she gave me were that your diet consists of 84 meals per month, so if you break all the rules and pig out, that is only once out of 84 hopefully, so don't throw your hands up and give up.
Another one was that you put the weight on a gram at a time and that's the best way to lose it, slowly slowly.

I would advise anyone who is serious about losing weight to seek the advice of a qualified dietitian. I wouldn't let an unqualified person fix my car, so I'm certainly not going to follow tips from someone who has sold a few books.
As for the high protein, low carb diet, that would have killed me in the first few months of my new diet, now 20 years on.

[casual_cyclist]

I would advise anyone who is serious about losing weight to seek the advice of a qualified dietitian.

Really? I don't think that is necessary for everyone, depending on:
a) what a person's health issues are (i.e. morbidly obese, diabetic, insulin resistant)
b) how overweight a person is
c) the reason they became overweight

I weighed between 110kg and 115kg a couple of years ago and am now 91.5kg without needing advice from a dietitian (at 187cm tall, I should probably be 85kg). Previously I have lost 25kg but didn't change what I ate and put it all back on However, I don't have any underlying health issues and wasn't morbidly obese.

EDIT: oops! Forgot to mention that my recent weight loss has been without dieting. I have made permanent changes to what I choose to eat: e.g. I have made a commitment to cut down the amount of junk food I eat (e.g. muffins, cakes, biscuits etc) to basically nil. I have made a permanent change to my portion sizes so I no longer eat until I feel over full. I have made a commitment to eat fruit and nuts every day. There have been three impacts from these permanent changes: 1) I continue to lose weight slowly, 2) I am eating a greater volume and variety of food, 3) I rarely feel hungry. The downside is that by the end of some days I am sick of eating because I feel like I am constantly eating. My last snack before bed is sometimes a chore. Also, I used to bolt down dinner in a panic because I was so hungry. But now because I am not very hungry I almost pick at it and sometimes have to remind myself to finish my food. Big difference.
/EDIT

For people who are morbidly obese, have underlying health issues or have trouble losing weight, I would suggest they see a qualified dietitian. Apart from that I don't really see any need to.

P.S. congrats on your weight loss. That is a mighty fine effort!

[casual_cyclist]

Ouch! Weighed in tonight after work... 91kg. The weight is disappearing too fast!

I found a fun way to boost my calories at the end of the day. I grated a medium apple (skin on), added 1/2 punnet of fresh blueberries, a couple of spoons of unsweetened Greek Yogurt and a couple of spoons of home made crumble topping... yum!

FYI, I don't want to drop weight too fast because I don't want to mess up my metabolism. My goal is 1/2 a kilogram a week but I think I am way above that this week.

[Comedian]

Ouch! Weighed in tonight after work... 91kg. The weight is disappearing too fast!

I found a fun way to boost my calories at the end of the day. I grated a medium apple (skin on), added 1/2 punnet of fresh blueberries, a couple of spoons of unsweetened Greek Yogurt and a couple of spoons of home made crumble topping... yum!

FYI, I don't want to drop weight too fast because I don't want to mess up my metabolism. My goal is 1/2 a kilogram a week but I think I am way above that this week.

Hmm... well I've lost 1.2kg so far this week too. Never mind... I know an even more fun was to get some calories... I'm going to the pub for lunch today with the workmates

[Zynster]

Update I'm up to 5 weeks low carb now and my energy is starting to pick up. It's quite different to before though. It's like the difference between a petrol and a diesel engine. I'm not feeling much power, and it takes quite a bit of will power to get out on the bike. However, this morning I did 3 laps of Coot-tha. I wasn't breaking any speed records, but was getting to the top without the near coronary I got last time I tried this. Bloody sore now though.

As for the high protein, low carb diet, that would have killed me in the first few months of my new diet, now 20 years on.

No one I know advocates a high protein diet. That would be be bad for anyone. In low carb diets, carbs are replaced with dietary fats, not extra protein.

Conventional wisdom from the paleo world (low carb) is that perhaps all carbs are bad. I wonder if this advice applies to people with a normal response to glucose?

That's not entirely true. Vegetables have carbs. They're just very low GI. I do agree that an individual's response to various foods differ quite a lot. The only way to know for sure whether a particular food is elevating your blood sugars is to use a Glucose meter. Dr Harris on his PaNu blog advocates eating rice and potatoes if you are very active and don't need to lose weight and don't get a reaction from them. Almost everyone in the Paleo world condemns wheat though.

[David_G]

I may have confused some people when I said "my new diet" What I meant was new and permanent way of eating. low fat high fibre is a brief summary, combined with increased exercise.
The result is less calories consumed and more burnt off.
I hold with my suggestion that professional advice is important or even vital.
I don't get dietary advice from my local bike shop and I don't get my bike fixed at the dietitian!

[Zynster]

I hold with my suggestion that professional advice is important or even vital.
I don't get dietary advice from my local bike shop and I don't get my bike fixed at the dietitian!

David there is no real need for you to restate what is already there on orange at the top of this page. I understand that in your case what you eat is of much higher importance than the rest of us. Personally I don't trust the so called "experts" any more than I'd trust certain bike shops with my bike. I've been doing my own research, and I'd advise others to do so as well. My findings so far have cast serious doubt on the modern western diet. Not just the junk food diet, but the supposedly healthy low fat high carb diet the "experts" are recommending. So I'm embarking on a "new diet" of my own. I accept the risks. I'm not saying everyone should go low carb. I'm just sharing my experiences and people can make up their own minds.

[Apple]

David there is no real need for you to restate what is already there on orange at the top of this page. I understand that in your case what you eat is of much higher importance than the rest of us. Personally I don't trust the so called "experts" any more than I'd trust certain bike shops with my bike. I've been doing my own research, and I'd advise others to do so as well. My findings so far have cast serious doubt on the modern western diet. Not just the junk food diet, but the supposedly healthy low fat high carb diet the "experts" are recommending. So I'm embarking on a "new diet" of my own. I accept the risks. I'm not saying everyone should go low carb. I'm just sharing my experiences and people can make up their own minds.

Good post Zynster. I did the same as you, researched what works for me. Some foods are better for me then others. I love white bread rolls but I know it is best to keep clear of them as there are other foods I can eat that make me feel good and reduce my calorie intake.

[sogood]

I think that David_G is in a slightly different situation given his Type II diabetes where dietician guidance is warranted. But this does not translate to a necessary need for the great majority who don't have the same level of complexity.

[Apple]

I think that David_G is in a slightly different situation given his Type II diabetes

Oh Type II diabetic, well that’s a whole different story. But for the normal overweight person, they should learn to eat what suits them and IMO, calories in V calories out is the only answer, ( done with a healthy choices of foods) that is in My opinion.

[casual_cyclist]

I've been doing my own research, and I'd advise others to do so as well. My findings so far have cast serious doubt on the modern western diet. Not just the junk food diet, but the supposedly healthy low fat high carb diet the "experts" are recommending.

The proof of the "serious doubt on the modern western diet" is spiraling obesity rates across the western world. Also, take the "modern western diet" to countries with traditionally low obesity rates such as Japan and China and obesity rates rise. It pretty safe to conclude that there is definitely something wrong with the "modern western diet". Personally I found my diet was high in calories but low in nutrition.

On low fat, high carb... there are problems and risks with this approach. Fat (because it is high in calories) has traditionally been seen as "bad". However, much of our health relies on fats. For example, you can get fat soluble vitamin deficiencies if you don't eat fat. Low fat dieters complain of dry and brittle hair and fingernails, which is alarming in itself. Then there is a drive to overeat created by blood sugar and insulin spikes and lows. Eat a sugary snack and your blood sugar spikes, causing an insulin spike. After your blood sugar crashes (but your insulin is still high?) you crave sugar. Eat sugar and the cycle starts again. I don't understand it completely but I was on the sugar cycle eating 5 or 6 sugary snacks/meals per day. I know that I craved sugar a lot and felt hungry most of the time. It really is not a nice way to live. I haven't seen any evidence that low fat high carb help stabilise hunger levels and I certainly don't see it as a viable long term way of eating.

[casual_cyclist]

I think that David_G is in a slightly different situation given his Type II diabetes where dietitian guidance is warranted. But this does not translate to a necessary need for the great majority who don't have the same level of complexity.

Agreed.

[casual_cyclist]

I think that David_G is in a slightly different situation given his Type II diabetes

Oh Type II diabetic, well that’s a whole different story. But for the normal overweight person, they should learn to eat what suits them and IMO, calories in V calories out is the only answer, ( done with a healthy choices of foods) that is in My opinion.

Calories in vs calories out seems to work for people who don't have a thyriod/hormonal problem, don't have diabetes and don't have metabolic syndrome (i.e. a normal response to glucose). I fit in the latter category and gain weight when I eat too much and lose weight when I eat less (calories). In terms of volume of food, I am eating far more volume now than a couple of weeks ago. In fact, I am finding it hard to chew through that volume of food and get tired of eating on some days. I have been aiming for 0.5kg per week weight loss but seem to be at around 1.5kg for the last week. If I eat more, I should lose weight more slowly (calories in vs calories out).

[Zynster]

Calories in vs calories out works for most people. It's called starving yourself. Generally people on a calorie restriction diet also cut out refined sugars (cause we all know they're bad). This improves chances. But if they're eating grains, they're still raising blood sugars to varying degrees. The hard part about calorie restriction is being hungry all the time. Hard to sustain.

[Apple]

Calories in vs calories out works for most people. It's called starving yourself. Generally people on a calorie restriction diet also cut out refined sugars (cause we all know they're bad). This improves chances. But if they're eating grains, they're still raising blood sugars to varying degrees. The hard part about calorie restriction is being hungry all the time. Hard to sustain.

I don't agree with that, I think the stomach shrinks once you reduce the amount of food. Sure you are hungry for the first 3 days but then it adapts to smaller portions of food, reduced calories and there for no hunger pain due to signals to the brain that your stomach is satisfied.

[casual_cyclist]

Calories in vs calories out works for most people. It's called starving yourself. Generally people on a calorie restriction diet also cut out refined sugars (cause we all know they're bad). This improves chances. But if they're eating grains, they're still raising blood sugars to varying degrees. The hard part about calorie restriction is being hungry all the time. Hard to sustain.

I am barely hungry at all now that I have cut calories. Here is a typical day before I switched:

Skip breakfast->hungry by morning tea->starving by lunch->hungry in the afternoon->starving when I got home from work->hungry at dinner->hungry after dinner

I would crave sugar in the afternoon, when I got home from work and after dinner. All I did was eat more calories but I didn't get any less hungry.

I am on calorie restriction now. Here is a typical day:

Small breakfast->kind of hungry by morning tea->not hungry at lunch->mild hunger by mid afternoon->not hungry when I get home from work->mild appetite by dinner->not hungry after dinner

Because I have a set amount of food to eat each day I sometimes have to make myself finish it because I have no appetite to eat it. I don't at all agree that calorie restriction means being hungry all the time. I think hunger levels are way more controlled by what you eat.

There's nothing wrong with grains depending on how much you eat and how much you eat them. I ate porridge on the weekend and it definitely didn't spike my blood sugar.

[justD]

...The hard part about calorie restriction is being hungry all the time. Hard to sustain.

I am barely hungry at all now that I have cut calories...

I'm so keen to comment on this, but suspect nobody will take me seriously as I haven't succeeded in the long term yet. However, when I stick to my diet and steer away from the take aways, I lose weight faster than what is considered healthy and I never feel hungry. I'm actually planning on adding a shake with a good portion of full cream milk to my day to slow down my weight loss.

On the 4th of Jan I weighed 140.5kgs.
On the 8th of Feb I was down to 132.2kgs (with some bingeing/cheating over weekends).
This past Sunday I was back up to 136kgs.
This morning I'm down to 131.8kgs.

I mention the other weights because "easy come, easy go" must have a lot to do with it for this week but of interest is that I've lost 4.2kgs in the past 6 days and I never felt hungry. Same thing dropping from 140.5 to 132.2 in 1 month, I never felt hungry once.

An average day for me would be:

Tuna in brine - 425g = 442 Cal
Mayonaise - 50g = 367 Cal
Potatoes - 3 medium sized = 300 Cal
Apples - 2 = 110 Cal
Orange - 1 = 126 Cal
Can of oysters = 124 Cal
Sugar = 153 Cal
Milk = 67 Cal

Total = 1689 Calories per day

I'm a big guy with a pretty big appetite and yet 425g of tuna and 3 potatoes seriously fills me for the day, the rest are snacks/variety.

FYI, I steam my potatoes at night and leave them in the fridge overnight - which is said to change them from high GI to low GI, in case you care about GI.

Also, I alternate the tuna, mayo and potatoes with rice, mince and frozen veggies 2-3 days per week.

[casual_cyclist]

...The hard part about calorie restriction is being hungry all the time. Hard to sustain.

I am barely hungry at all now that I have cut calories...

I'm so keen to comment on this, but suspect nobody will take me seriously as I haven't succeeded in the long term yet. However, when I stick to my diet and steer away from the take aways, I lose weight faster than what is considered healthy and I never feel hungry. I'm actually planning on adding a shake with a good portion of full cream milk to my day to slow down my weight loss.

I take you seriously! I have found that losing weight too fast and appetite are not related and I am eating more to slow down my weight loss as week.

The reason you shouldn't lose weight too fast is that a) it messes up your metabolism and b) messes up your leptin balance. Leptin is what makes you feel full so losing weight too fast might make you feel so hungry at some point that you want to binge.

[casual_cyclist]

I tried something different today with my porridge because last week I found the serve was too big to eat. Today:
1/3 cup of oats
40g mixed fruit/nuts (620kj according to the pack)
1/2 tablespoon honey
2/3 cup of milk

An hour later I feel like I have low blood sugar, which I doubt, but I am drinking a big glass of water to see if I am just dehydrated.

I will let you know how many hours until I am hungry again.

EDIT: 5 hours. Then I struggled to finish my normal sized dinner because I wasn't as hungry as usual.

[casual_cyclist]

For dessert I used to have a big serve of sweet stewed apple with a load of very sweet crumble topping, drowned in sweetened custard.

Tonight I had a small serve of unsweetened stewed apple with unsweetened full fat Greek yogurt and home made crumble topping (very low in sugar). It's not no carb but it is low in refined carbs. On a hot night it is more refreshing than my previous sugar laden dessert. Yummy!

[casual_cyclist]

A study to not take seriously: http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/gu ... pdate.html

I'm putting together some material which I hope will make an interesting post and stumbled across the study above that do not believe. Here is what I have a problem with:

The weight loss results were no surprise. The healthiest body mass was seen in the vegetarian group. A direct, proportional relationship was seen with a rise in the percentage of calories derived from fat and BMI. As the percentage of fat calories increased so did those subject’s BMI.

I would like to know what these "healthy" vegetarian dieters were eating because I have been obese three times and have been vegetarian all my life.

Hang on, just found the actual study. Ok, it was only the abstract, so I don't know. Anyway, I lost a certain amount of weight just restricting calories with a high level of compliance but I had a lot of trouble with wildly fluctuating hunger levels. It was not until I restricted refined carbs that I got my appetite under control and got my weight loss back on track. My diet was rich in calories and poor in nutrition. I am now focusing on nutritious food rather than calorie dense food that is devoid of nutrition.

[casual_cyclist]

Alright, now a good article: http://www.gyorgyscrinis.com/GS-Nutriti ... nomica.pdf. It's a bit academic in its language but an interesting read. Bottom line is that the food industry has hijacked peoples concerns about healthy eating to market their products with an emphasis on selling processed foods.

[casual_cyclist]

Buried in this report is the results of a study that demonstrates a traditional "low fat" diet is not good for people with metabolic syndrome: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/co ... 8/932.full. Under the heading "Diet" the report states:

Recently, Esposito et al103 randomized 180 patients with the metabolic syndrome to the Mediterranean diet or a traditional heart-healthy low-fat diet. After 2 years, greater reductions in both insulin resistance and proinflammatory cytokines were observed in the Mediterranean diet group—56% of patients in the Mediterranean diet group had the metabolic syndrome at the end of the study vs 87% of those in the low-fat group (P<.001).

It is noted that the Mediterranean diet is rich in omega-3 fatty acids and relatively high in fat overall.