In March I did a quick video introducing Seth Roberts, a Berkeley psychologist, and his interesting theory known as the flavor-calorie association theory of body weight set point regulation. I also mentioned Roberts’s pioneering work in 180 Degree Metabolism ? in the lengthy discussion about the going theories on what causes leptin resistance and a rise in set point.
I am still incredibly captivated by this theory, and really struggle to find loopholes and flaws in it. It’s come to the forefront recently as I have experienced a tremendous anorectic (hunger-suppressing) effect from eating a high-starch/low-fat diet, which contains much lower flavor intensity (it’s bland as hell) and much lower calorie density (8 pounds of potatoes contain the same amount of calories as 1 pound of butter, for example) ? both prominent factors in the creation of flavor-calorie associations that increase hunger and lower metabolism. These, of course, are telltale signs of an increase in bodyweight set point. I, on the other hand, have experienced a big decrease in appetite and a rise in metabolism ? down 5 pounds in the first 27 days of July.
For more on increasing metabolism, please read the eBook DIET RECOVERY!!!
Here are the prime factors in the flavor-calorie theory, which explains numerous diets all under one umbrella?
1.) Calorie density ? the more calorie-dense a food is, the more it triggers an activation of reward centers in the brain and a mysterious rise in weight set point.
2.) Absorption rate ? the faster a food is absorbed, the stronger the flavor-calorie association and the larger the rise in the activation of reward centers in the brain and a rise in set point that occurs when these pleasure centers are tickled.
3.) Flavor-intensity ? the more highly-flavored the food is, the more it raises set point
4.) Food familiarity ? the more you eat ditto foods with a strong flavor-calorie association (like, say, Cool Ranch Doritos), the more you start to prefer those foods, the stronger the flavor-calorie association becomes, and the more fattening those foods become.
5.) Liquid vs. Solid ? Liquids, in general, promote stronger flavor-calorie associations and are more fattening than solid foods ? raising the set point.
There is ample evidence supporting all of these arms of the flavor-calorie association hypothesis. Of course, what I just described is the food produced by food companies ? packaged/processed foods, fast food, and other restaurant food. This is something that anyone with personal experience and the eyes to see can observe. Most don’t develop severe weight problems eating homemade, solid, unsweetened, unrefined food with a low calorie density and no added flavor enhancers. Most who do develop weight problems do so by repeatedly eating specific foods that are scientifically-designed to outcompete other foods in activating reward centers in your brain and creating strong flavor-calorie associations that make plain food increasingly unpalatable and undesirable.
Food companies have this down to a science ? serving up food that is designed to be masticated and absorbed more quickly, enhanced with MSG and other flavor enhancers, and washed down with a highly-sweetened beverage in liquid form, sometimes sweetened with Aspartame or other highly-sweetened substance that causes a stronger flavor-calorie association and an increase in bodyweight set point.
The reasons why I find this theory to be so compelling:
1) Humans are the only creatures that have the intelligence to specifically manipulate their food in such a way (combining certain ingredients, cooking, adding spices, chemical flavor enhancers). The only creatures that eat food that comes in such a package are humans and their pets, the only creatures on earth that suffer from obesity (and giant squirrels and chipmunks that are fed this food by humans).
2) In simple laboratory studies, feeding a highly-sweetened substance like Saccharin, an artificial sweetener with no calories, increases food consumption and body weight. According to Roberts’s theory, you would also see artificially-sweetened beverages consumed by themselves as opposed to with a big calorie?load in a mixed meal NOT be fattening or induce greater calorie consumption, which may indeed be true.
3) In simple laboratory studies, feeding more liquid calories and fewer solid food calories increases calorie consumption and body weight. For example, feeding sucrose in granulated form is not fattening. Feeding sucrose as part of a liquid solution is very fattening.
4) High-fructose corn syrup, which is a liquid and is also sweeter than sucrose due to its higher concentration of fructose, is markedly more fattening than white sugar.
5) The strongest association between obesity and food is the association between obesity and soft drinks, highly-sweetened, rapidly-absorbed, liquid food that tastes exactly the same every time you drink it.
6) Lab animals that are fed ?chow,? which, because it is more palatable than fat, carbohydrate, and protein separated into different bowls, causes the lab animals to become fatter and maintain a higher weight set point than controls. When the controls are switched to chow, they do not gain weight, suggesting that flavor-calorie associations that affect bodyweight set point occur in youth to a greater degree than adulthood (perhaps a reason why Granny can eat all kinds of things without getting fat that make YOU blow up like a balloon).
7) Feeding humans less calorie-dense foods, such as a diet high in fiber and water content from fruit, vegetables, and unrefined starches causes a massive decrease in calorie consumption ? up to an instant 40% decrease with no decrease in satiation reported (from Burkitt et. al.’s Western Disease).
8) Diets that are sweetened vs. diets that are unsweetened are much more fattening and promote greater calorie intake.
9) Refined carbohydrates, which are more calorie-dense and more rapidly absorbed tend to increase calorie intake and body fat, whereas unrefined carbohydrate diets have the opposite effect.
10) Low-carbohydrate diets are comprised of foods that are not particularly palatable, and typically decrease appetite and body weight.
11) Low-carb diets that contain artificial sweeteners often negate the hunger-suppression and weight loss effect of a low-carb diet. Even Atkins reported this, and advised those who weren’t losing weight to make sure they excluded aspartame from their diets.
12) Displacing more homecooked food, which generally has low flavor-intensity, natural flavor variability, slow absorption, and less calorie-density with packaged, processed, refined, rapidly-absorbed, chemical flavor-enhanced ditto foods and restaurant foods parallels a huge rise in obesity. It’s reported that calorie intake per capita has increased 20% in the United States since the early 70’s.
13) Obesity was unheard of in all places in which unrefined carbohydrates were ingested as opposed to refined carbohydrates.
14) There are strong associations between obesity and the flavor enhancer MSG.
I could go on for a while here, but that is a good starting point. Ideally we would all be able to raise body temperature without any increase in body weight. Instead, this could be achieved by lowering body weight set point. Of course, lowering the weight set point is easier said than done, and is, as I discussed in my conversation with Sean Croxton last night, perhaps the most important secret yet to be revealed.
But I do find this theory to be solid and applicable. Those attempting to lose weight may find much better success?
– eating almost exclusively homecooked whole foods
-cooking differently each time or with the addition of different spice combinations to reduce flavor-calorie associations
-eating lots of food that is not calorie dense ? like root vegetables and vegetables
-avoiding all liquid calories
-eating foods that require lots of chewing
-keeping fat intake reasonable (which decreases flavor-calorie associations), and being wary about foods with strong flavor-calorie associations where fat and carbohydrate are conjoined and in ditto form ? pizza, ice cream, fast food, chips, cookies, etc.
-keeping sweets to a minimum, especially when combined with a calorie-dense meal. Fruit, which has a very low-calorie density, eaten by itself, does NOT form strong flavor-calorie associations. When consumed with a high-calorie load after a mixed meal, I find fruit to be very fattening, and juices even more so, which would be expected if Roberts’s theory is accurate.
-not seasoning foods too heavily
For more on Seth’s theory, read the Shangri-La Diet or Seth’s free report here:
I tried the Shangri-La diet several years ago, focusing on the oil-chugging instead of the sugar-water chugging. Does Seth still advocate drinking sugar water?
Also, how is this method of appetite suppression any different than the myriads of other tricks people use to put themselves into semi-starvation? I remember reading his book and understanding his set-point theory, but it escapes me now. Maybe are you going towards a Shangri-La style diet, only with potatoes instead of sugar water and/or oil? I seem to remember drinking olive oil for the most part, but when I could locate any, I would chug a shot of vegetable oil. Ugh, I kind of want to vomit now thinking about it.
I meant when I COULDN'T locate any olive oil, not when I could. In other words, mostly olive oil but occasionally veg oil. Gross, how many times do I have to relive drinking veg oil?
Interesting Vlog again Matt.
Self experimentation rules :) lol.
Good to know that natural flavors don't have this negative effect.
How about natural stevia, the green version of it? That seems quite intense in flavor, but it's totally natural.
"No flavors suppressed hunger", I totally believe it.
It's interesting cause I'm currently struggling to overeat now that I only eat bland white rice, (and I'm loosing lots of weight despite eating 4 full meals per day). It's totally negative progress for me but it's where I'm at. But the point is that I'm less into food when my main option is a bland one, so I can't make myself overeat….
And yes, high fructose corn syrup is definitely evil….
Great blog post! Thanks for the radio interview yesterday too, I loved it! So great. Let's spread the word about 180 Degree Health.
My mom used to tell me that I was fat because all my food tasted so good. I thought that was the dumbest thing I had ever heard! Now I think she might have been right;)
Hmmm. Reading this while trying to stuff half a kilo (dry weight) of parboiled rice into myself, makes me wonder about something. Matt, do you think one of the reasons white rice seems to appear benign for a refined carb could be the fact that it tastes rather bland?
@Lisa E. I agree. I thought choosing rice for my refeed day would be a smart idea, but I think it would have been a more fun experience if I chose taters. Not that I'm having too much of a problem stuffing so much food into my mouth, but it's just a bit, well, bland.
Also, you do rack up a compelling list of arguments, Matt. But I still wonder how the spice aspects plays into the whole thing. On the one hand I think that spices are pretty vital for well-being and consuming a wide variety of spices would bring great health benefits. On the other hand one has to wonder how natural a heavy spice consumption really is. Sure the traditional indian cuisine for example is probably pretty spice-heavy, but then again, someone recently brought up the example of some primitive people crying because white rice tasted so good to them.
I guess spices really are like medicine. Healing in the right amounts, but possibly dangerous when consumed in excess.
Interesting! I've been trying to eat more MNP lately, so lots of starchy carbs and not a lot of flavor. Firstly, it's really hard to eat a lot of calories this way. I feel so saitiated and try to keep eating above maintennce which is hard. Second, after I count the calories it's usually not as high compared to fattier mixed type meals I can eat, and eat a whole lot of!
I can pound down 10 eggs with loads of butter and cheese no problem. But to eat the equal calories wise of unrefined carbs is flat out tough for me! MNP is harder then I thought in regards to the overeating part.
Do they still even make Cool Ranch Doritos? Those and Nacho Cheese were an integral part of my nourishment growing up.
Scott
This is no way to live and most people can't stick to it because it is so unenjoyable. I think it is important to enjoy a wide variety of flavors. In Ayurveda and TCM where food is medicine, it is extremely important to include all of the tastes in order to create balance and balance is the most important thing.
That being said, I eat a pretty bland diet myself, lean meats and rice for about 90% of my meals.
madMUHHH – I admire you for eating so many potatoes. Your half kilo is probably only about 400 calories!!!
I tried a mainly potato diet a few weeks ago and lasted about 2 days – didnt want to see another spud (and i'm from Ireland!!!).
Good luck.
…I have experienced a tremendous anorectic (hunger-suppressing) effect from eating a high-starch/low-fat diet, which contains much lower flavor intensity (it’s bland as hell) and much lower calorie density (8 pounds of potatoes contain the same amount of calories as 1 pound of butter, for example) ? both prominent factors in the creation of flavor-calorie associations that increase hunger and lower metabolism.
Matt,
Why would eating more calories (in response to these "flavor-calorie associations") increase hunger and lower metabolism? I thought eating more calories was supposed to do the opposite (i.e., decrease hunger and raise metabolism). Are you only talking about eating more "empty" calories from nutrient-poor processed foods? I would guess you are, yet you note that butter is calorie-dense, and I assume also "flavor-intense," so are you actually implying that eating more butter also increases hunger and lowers metabolism?
I think that it is interesting if food is completely bland, there is very little satisfaction with the consumption of it.
But, that is not to say that after some time less heavily flavored foods begin to taste more intense.
Also, how does the "phenomena" of something too rich tasting or too sweet happen with normal people. Shouldn't that not be the case and the response be hyperphagia instead? Is it merely a desensitization of the taste buds over time?
@DavidL: You actually got something mixed up there. The half kilo I talked about was rice.
Potatoes are a completely different beast, as I usually consume around a kilo of those as a normal meal, which would be closer to 1,000 calories.
Interesting, just thinking about rice with little or no added fat but flavor enhancers like HFCS (the cheaper sushi seasoners use HFCS) and MSG (bottled furikake all have MSG). I don't think the traditional forms of these seasonings were really fattening. I cook Japanese at home I feel great. I eat it in restaurants and feel like crap for a day or two later. All things to bare in mind as I embark on the the Bento Life…
Jenny,
What about soy sauce? I'm using Kikkoman right now. It doesn't say "MSG" of course, but how do I know if it's in there?
I agree with you Matt, that "carb-lipid combos" are particularly problematic from a weight management perspective.
Though I lean strongly in the direction of carbohydrate restricted diets (But not ultra low carb)I also believe that higher carb diets can work well if not also combined with lots of fat.
I see fat and carbs as basically having an inverse relationship with each other. As one goes up, the other must go down.
I also agree with you that a high carb diet that is low in fat can work very well for fat loss. However, studies indicate that blood lipids and inflammation do better on carbohydrate restricted diets.
For example, Clarence Bass of "RIPPED" fame follows a very low-fat "flexitarian diet" – and he is indeed ripped on his diet. However he has fought high triglycerides for some time now, and is currently on statins for piss-poor cholesterol levels.
Apparently he also has borderline high blood-sugar.
And the guy eats an almost "perfect" low fat diet composed of whole foods. High carb whole foods to be exact.
It seems that a whole foods, low fat diet works better than the SAD diet (which isn't saying much), but that a lower carb whole foods diet (But not ultra low) works even better.
Though I'd love to be proven wrong on that, as I actually prefer eating a higher carb whole foods diet.
But if I gotta eat bland food the rest of my life, I think I just assume be put out of my misery.
Jenny-
What are your basics that you keep around the kitchen while cooking Japanese food? I'm interested in cooking more Asian foods, but I really am not sure what to have on hand. What seasonings are you using?
This is a little off-topic but I thought I'd share:
Since discovering this blog a week or so ago, I've cut WAY back on my fat intake– from several (mindless) T's of almond butter a day to not really adding fat but just haivng what's in my eggs or the sauteed veggies, though I've probably increased my calories. I struggle with emotional/compulsive eating issues and thought that increasing my fat intake would also increase satiation and decrease overeating… i was wrong.
Interestingly, my weight may be up a bit but my stomach has actually LOST fat. I don't have much to lose, it's more that I store the little bit of fat I have right on my stomach.
I'm shocked… I was bloated the first few days eating more starch, as I had cut it out for several months, but my body comp seems better just in a matter of a week & I've not been working out to the extent I usually do.
Could it be the PUFAs, fat, or just sheer calories I was getting from the nut butter that I wasn't accounting for? Whatever it is, I'm not looking back.
One more quick thing here…I have long found the reviews of diet books on Amazon.com to be very interesting.
The following is a quote from a 1 star review of Seth's book which debunks the idea that set-point can be manipulated by mere regulation of flavor. The reviewer discusses how people fed via G-Tubes are getting the ultimate "flavorless diet" – as the "food" never passes the patient's taste buds…and yet they will easily gain weight on that flavorless diet.
Here's the excerpt…
"I've worked in a hospital with, over the years, 100s of G-tube patients (some nasal, but mostly PEG, that is, a tube directly into the stomach through the abdomen.)
They take in nothing but flavorless calories and, if their calorie count is not carefully calibrated (usually weekly) to their activity level (which can change even for the bed-ridden patients due to agitation level) they can gain considerable amounts of weight in a short time.
It's surprisingly mechanical, calories in, calories out. Also, if they had an appetite before they were tubed, they keep it, begging, sneaking, and sometimes even crying for food.
If they had no appetite prior to being tubed (due to their illness or energy used recovering from illness) they often continue to have no appetite once tubed until they recover and get back to normal.
This is true of patients who have been tubed for 10 days to 21 years, in my experience. In the book and someone on the author's website claim to know one person each who lost their appetite while on tube feeding, but I've known hundreds and believe me, if their illness isn't causing a loss of appetite, they are mondo hungry!!"
Jeff,
Some people have long speculated that Bass has taken steroids, and perhaps still is. It is just speculation and nobody knows for sure, but based on the appearance of his skull, as per Rusty Moore's convincing discussion on Fitness Black Book (url: http://fitnessblackbook.com/anabolic-steroids/skull-growth-and-other-nasty-side-effects-of-steroids/) I am inclined to suspect the same thing.
If that is the case –and I reiterate that it is just speculation– blaming Bass' diet on his triglyceride/cholesterol issues is a very dubious practice indeed that borders on being disingenuous. I say this because I have noticed many people who are honest about their steroid use often have triglyceride/cholesterol issues themselves. Many of them have low HDL and high LDL, as which is apparently Bass' issue. There are actually studies that demonstrate that affect, I'll see if I can dig them back up.
Matt,
This theory is very hard for me to buy. Because much like you said you can line up 10 people, and only one of them gains weight eating very "flavorful" foods. Why does it not have the same effect for the other 9?
I would also say you should choose very caloric dense, very tasty foods on your re-feed days because the goal is to get a huge spike in caloric intake. Besides everyone needs a brake from blando world.
Jeff,
What do you mean by "fought high triglycerides"?
At the age of 70+ he should have higher cholesterol than say a 20 year old. Besides what is high?
I am not trying to defend a high carb (ultra) low fat diet, but I don't think Matt is proposing this for life, only as a tool for metabolic healing and body re-composition.
One last thing, what's in the tube?
Off-topic: What are peoples' experiences with gelatin? I notice some of y'all around here include it in yr diets, presumably a peat-ian gesture. Any good, or even bad experiences? Or does it seem rather minute, albeit benign in hindsight?
DML – There is no need to speculate about whether or not Bass has used Anabolics, as he candidly admits to using Testosterone under medical supervision during late 70s, when competing in BB contests. However, I do not believe he has used since that era of his life.
But Bass aside, head-to-head studies comparing low-fat to low-carb diets have consistently shown higher carb diets result in worse HDL to LDL ratio, higher triglycerides, and higher C-Reactive Protein (Biomarker for inflammation)than lower carb diets, overall.
=============================
Nathan – "High" as defined by his own physician.
I do not know exactly what they feed G-Tube patients. However, in a hospital setting the low-fat paradigm would no-doubt rule, so I strongly suspect it would be a high glucose solution with just enough fat and protein.
I don't think it's soy sauce that is causing me to feel ill since I rarely use it. I've never been a huge fan. I use San J organic brewed tamari soy sauce at home.
"What are your basics that you keep around the kitchen while cooking Japanese food? I'm interested in cooking more Asian foods, but I really am not sure what to have on hand. What seasonings are you using?"
A good mirin or cooking wine (look for one that actually contains alcohol This may seem a no brainer but many so called "mirins" are just vinegar and HFCS). Rice Wine vinegar, (unsweetened), sesame seeds both white and black, seaweed (nori style, sheet, kombu which is sort of leathery chunks are the two you can't do without), benito flakes (flaked dried fish), miso paste, are the basic seasoning ingredients. With this kit you can make a wealth of dishes, not just sushi. (Sushi by the way is the rice, not raw fish). There are some great, free online resources: Just Bento, Just Hungry and Cooking Cute are great places to start. I started making sushi at home about 6 years ago using an online tutorial.
Jeff,
I believe that blood lipid levels as well as cholesterol are merely indications of the composition of the diet and not the causation of diseases. If I recall correctly, Kitavans had similar blood levels as the swedes but with no cardiovascular disease.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular-risk-factors-on-kitava_14.html
Slena I've had about ten days of eating high starch low fat due to a stomach virus. My calories dipped really, really low somedays. But I've tried to make up for it when I've been able to eat by over-eating on starch (ate three sweet potatoes at dinner last night). I've found the same thing. I've lost noticable weight from my middle. I was eating a very high fat diet consuming at least a quart of whole milk a day, plus lots of butter and coconut oil. I haven't measured but clothes are fitting better, etc. I don't think I will be able to keep this up indefinitely, because I will crave fat again, I'm sure, but right now, especially in the summer, I'm all like, Rice is nice!
If you do the oil/sugar thing with coconut oil and sucrose, you'd be following a sort of Peat approach. Maybe there's a weight loss connection there?
Still, Robert's idea of sugar water to lose weight is a little boggling.
Riles – That may very well be the case. Kitavans actually had higher triglcerides than Swedes in the study, but no CVD.
So carbs definitely appear to drive elevated triglycerides, which is strongly associated with increased risk of CVD in westernized nations (Much more so than LDL levels) but NOT associated with CVD among Kitavans.
So are triglyceride levels as much a red-herring as total cholesterol levels? I don't know. I don't think anyone does yet. Perhaps the Kitavans have some other factor protecting them from those elevated triglyceride levels.
Or perhaps high triglyceride levels mean absolutely nothing.
But even if that were shown to be a red herring – even for us westernized folks – I am still troubled by the higher C-Reactive protein levels found in higher carb eaters. I certainly would not consider inflammation to be a red-herring.
Good food for thought though Riles.
Matt- What are your thoughts on what Jeff is saying about the trigs and C-Reactive protein levels associated with higher carb diets? Kind of concerned over here :/
Have been getting somewhat confused by the recent blogposts. As per your mnp idea I've attempted to try a higher carb lower fat diet, which involved eating maybe a half to a pound of potatoes with a small amount of milk for breakfast with an egg. Unlike the others, I'm fairly sure i've gained weight around the middle. But the thing that bothers me more is how I felt after the meal. Within an hour of eating i got shakes, dizzyness, it felt like my head was trying to implode out of my skull. I remember something similar happening when I tried a pure fruit diet for a day (barely lasted until lunchtime before heading for some fat) but didn't realise the effect would also extend to high starch. After these high carb meals I also get very irritable and am prone to bursts of anger at those around me. I guess this suggests some sort of underlying adrenal/metabolic/blood sugar issue?
From what I've read of Roberts, the idea is that our ponderstate (set-point) is the total of the flavor intensity of all our foods averaged out basically. The purpose of cihugging the sugar water or oil in a flavorless window, is to lower the average of the rest of the foods you're eating. Each serving of the flavorless stuff theoretically lowers the set point some and makes your body want to be at a lower weight, maybe at the weight you're at now, maybe even lower. So if you continue to pound the stuff and eat the same amount, your metabolism will rev, your body will start burning fat and building muscle (to use more energy to get you closer to that lowered set point). Seems like a great tool, and if you just obey that appetite, you'll theoretically just lean out and lose fat, and not necessarily build muscle. Corresponds with what MNP is all about. Basically, you drop the set point below where you're at and generate this sort of preferred energy partitioning.
The question in my mind about all this is: if the set point is determined early on, and you lower it artifically with a focused starch overfeeding, will it stay lower. If you return to mixed meals, will you reactivate the higher set point and creep back up? I haven't read all of Shang-ri La Diet, and maybe he addresses this- do you get locked in to the sugar water/ veggie oil chug forever? Or in this case, do you get locked in to the low fat high carb deal forever? If we believe we can rev the metabolism by altering the macronutrient ratiios in our diet, do we have any reason to believe it won't return to its diminished state? That we're not somehow mechanically forcing a higher metabolism set point that, once the forcing stops and we eat how we'd like again, won't just go rigth back to where it was, where it felt comfortable? A lower metabolism set point if you will, that the body will defend?
Point well taken yesterday Matt that we know less about curing obesity than cancer. We know how to mechanically induce weight loss, but how can we do it in a way that coaxes rather than forces the body? SEt-point discussion is a good step, I think- focusing on how to let our body do the heavy lifting for us and lose fat, retain muscle, and experience appropriate appetite levels to never have to think about how much we eat in order to maintain our weight. But I like what Gabriel talks about- there are other elements going on here too that have to do with our minds and emotions that need to be addressed too. our bodies know exactly how to do what we want them to do- they'll do it all for us if we can coax them. Something tells me that, for me, anyway, it has less to do with the particular foods I'm eating and what their macronutrient ratios are, and more to do with the other FAT programs being activated, or something like that anyway. I like that book linked here by someone, 'Food Sanity,' by Charles Eisenstein http://www.foodsanity.com/ Something tells me that a comprehensive approach to fat loss will probably have all sorts of these elements- mind/spirit stuff, and hard data nitty gritty calories and nutrient calculating. Mostly, it seems to me that a big element of it is believing that what you're doing will work, and letting it go. Provided there are basic requirements met, I think if it resonates with you at some sort of fundamental level, it will work.
Jeff,
Interesting stuff. I would be curious to know what the make-up of the diet was in these "high carb eaters that were found to have elevated C-Reactive proteins".
I don't put alot of faith in modern medical studies. Too many variables to be overlooked as well as extreme correlations. One just has to search Saturated Fats or Cholesterol to see what I mean.
I wonder where people have been told that C-reactive protein (CRP) levels increase on a low fat diet. Just a quick search on the subject shows the opposite – that a low fat diet decreases CRP, and that in contrast, high fat increases CRP.
Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet Increases C-Reactive Protein during Weight Loss (2007)
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/2/163
Although LC lost more weight (3.8 ? 1.2 kg LC vs. 2.6 ? 1.7 HC, p=0.04), CRP increased 25%; this factor was reduced 43% in HC (p=0.02).
Conclusion: Diet composition of the weight loss diet influenced a key marker of inflammation in that LC increased while HC reduced serum CRP but evidence did not support that this was related to oxidative stress.
Energy Restriction and Weight Loss on Very-Low-Fat Diets Reduce C-Reactive Protein Concentrations in Obese, Healthy Women (2001)
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/short/21/6/968
Subjects were placed on very-low-fat, energy-restricted diets (5700 kJ, 15% fat) for 12 weeks.
CRP was significantly decreased by 26% (P<0.001), and a correlation was observed between weight loss and the change in CRP (r=0.309, P=0.005).
This study confirms recent observations that BMI is associated with CRP, a marker for low-grade systemic inflammation. Furthermore, we observed that CRP was lowered in proportion to weight loss.
It's interesting that there was weight loss in the first study above, for both the high fat and high carb diets, but only the high carb diet showed a decrease in CRP.
A pro low-fat article on CRP from the Pritikin Center:
http://www.pritikin.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1009:which-diet-lowers-c-reactive-protein&catid=58:nutrition&Itemid=67
Someone with rising CRP levels while on a low-fat diet (truly low fat with whole foods, not low-fat junk like soda, or 2% milk, which is actually 33% fat), likely has other health issues. The low fat diet would still give the body the best environment for healing, from my understanding.
Hi Shane – Have just finished scanning through "Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet Increases C-Reactive Protein during Weight Loss (2007"…Interesting study, and has certainly provided me food for thought.
But did you notice this quote from the paper, referencing results in another study showing better lowering of CRP on an LC diet?
"Several clinical trials using obese individuals compared the
effect of LC to HC diets on serum CRP and other inflammatory
indicators. Two studies found no specific effect of diet com-
position of the weight loss diet in that reduction in serum CRP
was associated with magnitude of weight lost but not diet
macronutrient mix [30, 31]. The third study found that both a
LC and a HC diet reduced serum CRP but that the LC diet was
actually superior for reduction in this factor when subjects
began with elevated serum CRP [32]. Interestingly, the subjects
who began the study with low or intermediate serum CRP and
were assigned to the LC diet had an increase in their average
serum CRP."
So perhaps you and I are both right? It appears that perhaps an LC diet lowers CRP if it's already high, but raises it if normal or low.
But ultimately weight loss may have a more profound impact upon CRP than any macronutrient ratio.
Good discussion here guys!
Riles said – "Interesting stuff. I would be curious to know what the make-up of the diet was in these "high carb eaters that were found to have elevated C-Reactive proteins".
==================================
I also wonder about the makeup of just about ANY diet study.
For instance, vegetarians love to cite observational studies (A weak standard of proof) that show better health outcomes for health conscious , as compared to "meat eaters."
But what these weak as circus lemonade studies REALLY show is that being a health conscious vegetarian is healthier than being a meat eating American couch-potato who eats ranch Doritos and swills 45 ounce big gulps all day.
Similarly, I wonder if some LC diet studies are REALLY comparing a healthy version of an LC diet with a "high carb" diet of processed crap.
What we need are studies comparing whole-food versions of both low fat and low carb to get a better idea of what really happens on such diets.
In fact, just today I sent an email to Dr. Chris Gardner of Stanford University (Who's a vegetarian by the way)who did the huge, long-term intervention study comparing Atkins, Zone, Learn and Ornish diets.
Here's what I emailed him…
"Hi Dr. Gardner,
I know you're busy, so I'll keep this brief.
Very much enjoyed your presentation featured on YouTube, regarding your "A to Z" Diet study.I also commend you for letting the data speak for itself, rather than letting your vegetarian views cloud your scientific objectivity.
But I am curious…is it possible that the Ornish Diet was too high in junk carbs? I know in earlier editions of his book, he waxed poetic on the wonders of "fat free" Entenmann's cakes. Just wanted to know if the Ornish dieters in your study were eating mostly whole-foods, or perhaps a lot of junk carbs?"
He has not emailed me back yet, and perhaps never will. But I am very curious what he'll have to say if he does.
I once emailed Walter Willet, and he emailed back a response. A lot of the "big shot" researchers will reply to you if you ask concise, reasonably intelligent questions.
I don't just read studies. I read them, then will often (But not always) email the researchers for more clarification.
Another study that has to be done is to compare a low fructose diet to a low carb diet.
As many of you know, there is a school of thought that the reason LC diets works so well for many is more directly related to low fructose intake on an LC diet, rather than LC itself.
Actually, I'm aware of two studies in the works that are looking into this very issue.
I find myself leaning more and more toward the view that it is indeed fructose, and REFINED carbs that are the problem, rather than whole food sources of carbs.
Jeff,
"But Bass aside, head-to-head studies comparing low-fat to low-carb diets have consistently shown higher carb diets result in worse HDL to LDL ratio, higher triglycerides, and higher C-Reactive Protein (Biomarker for inflammation)than lower carb diets, overall."
"Similarly, I wonder if some LC diet studies are REALLY comparing a healthy version of an LC diet with a "high carb" diet of processed crap."
Exactly! Some of the LC studies I have read that claim to show the superiority of law carb diets over high carb diets have done precisely that.
"DML – There is no need to speculate about whether or not Bass has used Anabolics, as he candidly admits to using Testosterone under medical supervision during late 70s, when competing in BB contests. However, I do not believe he has used since that era of his life."
Thinks for the info –I didn't know Bass himself had admitted that. I was just going by the way his skull looks and a discussion I ran across on bodybuilding.com.
Read the pdf. Interesting idea: get the benefits of extra calories by tricking your body into thinking it's not getting any extra at all? (via tasteless or "new" tasting supplements)
What dieters often do is the opposite: get the benefits of fewer calories by trying to convince the body it's not getting any fewer (adding veggies to salads, using egg whites).
I remain unconvinced on the idea that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
My mom used to tell me that I was fat because all my food tasted so good. I thought that was the dumbest thing I had ever heard! Now I think she might have been right;)
Why did you think that was the dumbest thing you'd ever heard? Not everything is counter-intuitive. If something tastes good you'll want to eat more of it, right? And if you enjoy the meal you'll want to eat it again right?
I guess spices really are like medicine. Healing in the right amounts, but possibly dangerous when consumed in excess.
Its not that they are dangerous – its just that they allow food to have a 'signature' so to speak. An easy way for the brain to associate a flavor with calories and therefore to learn that that food is a rich energy source. Then when you taste that flavor again your set point goes up because you've learned that that flavor means energy. Spices are a pretty strong stimulus and their aromas are very distinct. This allows for stronger flavor-calorie associations to be formed.
Still, Robert's idea of sugar water to lose weight is a little boggling.
The idea is to consume calories, any calories, with little or no flavor. The idea is that your set point is always falling except when your taste buds encounter flavors that your brain already associates with being a source of energy from the past experience of eating it. When the taste buds sense flavors that are associated with energy from past experience the set point rises. Otherwise it is always slowly falling. So if all of the food you eat for a few days is food that you haven't yet 'learned' is a source of energy (unconsciously that is, you always know it consciously) your set point will fall for that period of time. Its all about the set point.
Dee, the anger you describe sounds exactly like what I saw a nutrition professor describe on a YouTube lecture on nutrition and crime. He was talking about hypoglycemia. Matt just posted on reactive hypoglycemia. That's what it sounds like. Here's a link to the YouTube vid : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W-gba0GPwU
Whole foods are blander than processed food?! Tell that to gormand chefs who'll invaribly tell you to cook with fresh ingredients! The problem with porcessed food is its blandness, its predictability, and why people want to eat such flavourless pap, even with flavour inhancers, this stuff has little flavour. I think immigrants who adopt a sad diet don't do so because it tastes better than their traditional diet, but because it is more convenient to working long hours and easier to find and at least appears cheaper. Sweetness probably does have an attraction that links to caloric density. But if this were some sort of rule we would be attracted to grain over meat, as grain is sweet and meat isn't. Mudmuhhh maybe the people were crying because the white rice tasted so bad to them? Whole grains are so much more flavourful than refined grains. The question for me is why people prefer bland foods to flavourful food. I am favoring bland wholefood over stronger flavoured whole foods presently, but I see this as a passing thing related to getting too few calories in the past.
A lot of good stuff here. Keep up the discussion.
@Riles: Before I read your comment, I planned to bring up the wholehealthsource articles as well.
Also, as you guys mentioned, food quality is a huge issue here. That's why I think that most studies that seem to show the downsides of a high-carb diet, might actually only show that a high-carb SAD has downsides. A whole food high-carb diet with saturated fat is the main fat source and without refined carbs and sugars probably is a completely different beat.
@Taylor: I guess "dangerous" wasn't the best word to choose, I would totally agree with you. But then again, try eating a tablespoon of cayenne pepper and then again tell me that's not dangerous.^^
@sydney: No, they were definitely crying because they had never ever eaten something that tasted that good. I think JT might have brought that one up, but I'm not sure on that. Besides, why would you cry if somethign tastes bad? You might get angry or thing that stuff is disgusting, but crying does not seem like an appropriate response to me.
Apart from that, I agree. I recently brought up the point that a more nutrient-dense food item tends to taste much better than the same kind of food that is less nutrient dense. Doesn't matter whether it's milk, meat or veggies. That's probably the same reason why fresh food tastes better, because it hasn't lost all of its ntrients yet.
@Rob A.:
Once again, I agree. The mental component probably is huge. Not just for weight loss, but for most aspects of life in general and I think this gets neglected too often.
"our bodies know exactly how to do what we want them to do- they'll do it all for us if we can coax them"
Funny that you are saying something like that. Have you read Psycho-Cybernetics? Because I'm reading it right now and what you just posted is pretty much the basic message of the book.
Great. Here I was thinking I was being all smart using loads of spices to make this bland healthy food taste awesome.
'calorie intake increase per capita 20% since 70's' 'adventures in Macro-nutrient land' on the WAP site table six, Macronutrient Ratios in American and other nationals 1902 where the diet contained massively more calories but didn't result in overweight, whatever the difference in exercise ratios btw 1909 and now, and there is some evidence people have increased their exercise (or claim so!)since the 70's, the massive difference in calorie intake between the people of 1909, and recommended calorie intake now, makes me question the calorie in,calories out formula. I tend to agree with you that its hard to be fat on a wholefood diet, but its probably possible if you eat sweet food like cakes alot, even if flavoured with natural sweeteners.
@ anonymous, I still don't feel an hour of jogging in 1980 = the active lifestyle of someone in 1902! I lived in Malawi for a year and all we had access to was very scrawny chicken some fish, onions, tomatoes and rice and some bread (truly very little else including few spices as sadly East Africans don't spice up their food like West Africans) WE ALL LOST loads of weight from sheer boredom! living in India, despite regular bouts of diarrhea I didn't lose weight (food was just too good)
Matt I am in pretty much agreement with the 14 points except no 10, I don't feel this is true at all, a big juicy steak and a huge ole garden salad with a good vinaigrette is very yummee IMO :)
Resistant Starch
I've just been reading some interesting articles regarding Resistant Starch (e.g. cold potatoes):
Wikipedia Article
"Substantial research of natural resistant starches from high amylose corn indicates benefits in intestinal/colonic health as well as metabolically important benefits in glycemic management. Studies have shown that different classes of resistant starch are digested and/or fermented differently and thus must be considered individually."
Consumption of resistant starch decreases lipogenesis in adipose tissues but not in muscular tissues of growing pigs.
"This shows the importance of type of dietary starch on lipogenesis as a result of changes in glycemia and insulinemia in adipose but not in muscular tissues of growing pigs."
Resistant starch consumption promotes lipid oxidation
"These data indicate that replacement of 5.4% of total dietary carbohydrate with RS significantly increased post-prandial lipid oxidation and therefore could decrease fat accumulation in the long-term."
Yet more evidence on the importance of the type starch in a hi-carb diet. Well worth investigating I think.
The aim of the Shangri-La diet is to eat less. The result is a slower metabolism. Seth Roberts said in his book that he has lost some weight and his metabolism slowed a lot. He thinks that to be a good thing. His diet is therefore not different to any other diet that results in lower calorie intake (like LC). He talks a lot about lowering the setpoint but in the end the price to pay seems to be a lower metabolism.
@madMUHH- Haven't heart of Psycho-Cybernetics. Maybe I'll check it out. Looks like on Amazon, the book has overwhelmingly positive reviews. Might be worth looking into.
Also, re: spices- there are practical, non-culinary reasons for spices as well. I saw a lecture 6 months ago about the prevalence of spices based on latitude and altitude, and the conclusion was that the hotter the climate and the more likely it is that un-refrigerated food will spoil, the more prevalent spices are, especially the sort with anti-microbial and anti-viral properties (oregano, turmeric, some of these are hoighly protective against spoilage).
Also, I've gotta agree about whole foods tasting better. The best, most complex and nuanced meals I've had in my life have been made of the highest quality nutritious ingredients. Brix meters tell us the mineral and sugar density of food which corresponds to both how flavorful and how healthy and disease resistant the plants are. Eisenstein in his book mentioned above talks about getting past the sort of cloying outer layer of food and appreciating and experiencing it fully. Once you do that, folks very typically find that real food tastes better. There's more too, and it satisfies in a deeper way. The example that comes to mind is soda- when I drank it, if I kept it in my mouth, swirled it around a little bit, realy tried to appreciate the body and flavor of it on different parts of my palate as I might with wine, it would become terrible almost instantly. I couldn't finish the glass or can, or if I did, I had to start chugging again and just get it down. Wine, or water, or homemade herbal teas or kombucha- those don't have the same effect on me. So on one level, yes these processed foods are more palatable, but I think it's worth teasing out palatable from flavorful or tasty, or some other word, because I think we're talking about two different concepts here. One has to do with a shallow activation of reward centers, and another with the capacity it appreciate richness, nuance, subtlety and denseness of flavor.
"Whole foods are blander than processed food?! Tell that to gormand chefs who'll invaribly tell you to cook with fresh ingredients!"
Done a little reading and the food must have either NO flavour or an UNFAMILIAR flavour. The point is to avoid an association between the calories and the flavour, which is a pavlovian association between calories and pleasure. Whole ingredients will naturally vary in flavour. The only point of eating bland food or crazy spicing is to break that association between pleasure and calories.
What happened to… "Eat the Food"???
I've really enjoyed following along in this 180 journey, but it seems like it has been going in a weird direction lately – it seems un-180-like and almost neurotic in all the details and restriction in the latest suggestions/recommendations – like dieting! It seems like we've circled back around to restrictive dieting.
I agree with avoiding processed foods – and I eat mostly whole foods and homecooked. But I don't see why such restriction should be practiced if you're eating nothing but whole foods (at least mostly whole foods). I find it hard to believe that, given the choice, early humans would have chosen carbs over meat and fat OR would have been so meticulous or neurotic about what they ate and how they ate it.
Also, while reading the list of reasons why this theory is compelling, I was thinking that they ALSO apply to the processed foods causing obesity and disease theory (which I agree with). So what is so compelling?
BTW, has anyone else noticed a change (for the worse) in their bowel movements with high carb/mod protein/low fat? Since upping my carb intake (unprocessed/unrefined carbs only) and cutting way back on my fat and protein, my bowel movements have become painful and less frequent – some days I have NO BMs – bordering on constipation at times. Is this just temporary? How long has it been, a couple weeks since Matt first suggested the high carb/low fat approach? Will my BMs get better soon?
When I was eating high everything, my BMs were very good every time and had them every day – some days I would have 2 and some times 3 BMs. BTW, doesn't that show that rather than storing extra calories, my body is using what it needs and 'eliminating' the extra? Which is what I would expect a healthy body to do – and is the reason why I don't see the need for stressing over such meticulous details. Just "EAT THE FOOD" – whole foods (not processed/refined foods) to heal and let your body take care of the rest.
On the other hand – I boiled and mashed sweet potatoes the other day and was surprised to find that I enjoyed them WITHOUT ANYTHING – no added fat, salt, or any other seasoning – they were yummy just plain. So I'm thinking the more you eat your (whole) foods plain the more you develop (or re-develop) a taste for them plain – which is likely how they were originally meant to be eaten.
And my appetite has definitely decreased since switching to high carb/low fat. Yesterday I never really got hungry and didn't eat much at all. Isn't not eating counter-productive (by triggering fat storing)?
@Sven: Very true. I read somewhere that Roberts was (at least at one time) maintaining his weight eating 1,200 calories a day. Feeling totally un-deprived, as he says, but still. A guy maintaining body weight on 1,200 calories a day is just sad.
I think the Shangri-La diet could offer some possible tools for lowering the set point, but it would have to be incorporated with other methods that maintain metabolic health (i.e. whole foods, refeeds, etc.).
A lot of us here are starting to get to the point where the focus is on sustainable fat loss rather than healing our metabolisms, so perhaps some of Roberts' ideas could be used to make leaning out a little less forced. Of course, I'm just speculating. I guess some of us would have to jump in and try his "flavorless windows" to see if it actually contributes to appetite suppression and fat loss.
Ok, so as I mentioned several posts above…I emailed Dr. Christopher Gardner about his "A to Z diet trial comparing Atkins, Zone, Dean Ornish and LEARN diets, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2007.
Unlike most diet studies which are based on weak observational data, are of short duration, or utilize small numbers of people, this study was an intervention study with 311 obese females, that lasted a full year.
And what's really interesting about this study is that it's lead researcher, Dr. Christopher Gardner is a 25 year vegetarian who candidly admits he went into the study expecting the vegetarian Ornish diet to reign supreme in this "battle of the diet books."
You can watch him give a very good lecture on the study here. This is one of the best nutrition lectures I've ever seen by the way. A MUST see!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
Dr. Gardner is to be commended for letting the study's data speak for itself however, because he says the Atkins diet outperformed all three other diets in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY they tested. Not only weight loss, but also blood lipids, etc.
From the study's conclusion…
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone diet, and had experienced comparable or more favorable metabolic effects than those assigned to the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets [corrected] While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.
So here we have a LONG TERM intervention study using LOTS of people, that was done by a committed vegetarian who admits his bias going into the study. And yet…the study shows a carbohydrate restricted diet worked better.
So I emailed the good Dr, to ask if the Dean Ornish vegetarian dieters in his study might have ate too many junk carbs, which could've skewed the results of his study.
Here is his reply to me, which was waiting in my email box when I awoke today.
================================
I can assure you that all of us in our research group are deeply aware of the risks of oversimplifying.
We can design two low fat diets that are extremely different, one much healthier than the other.
And we can design two low carb diets the same way, one much healthier than the other.
What we "TAUGHT" our participants was to choose all the best sources of fats and carbs, regardless of whether intake was expected to be high or low.
In the Ornish low fat group, we promoted the diet as he does in the book….mostly plant-based whole foods. Low-fat goes with high carbs and we made it clear that high carbs was intended to be vegetables, beans, whole grains, etc.
Hope that helps.
Thanx for the kind words.
Warmly,
Christopher
==============================
So the study was NOT flawed by it's high carb dieters eating junk carbs. They were eating "good" carbs.
And just to clarify, what I meant above is that many of us are getting to the point where our metabolic health has improved to the point where a focus on fat loss is safe, not that we're tossing metabolic health out the window just to lose some weight. :D
Ok – I've been with you on most of the weird experiments lately but on this one – I'm calling bullshit.
Jeff,
I never would have thought that researchers would reply to such inquisitions. That is encouraging.
In the mentioned study above, were they also tracking fat loss and not merely weight loss. For me, a low carb diet helped me to lose much fat but at the 1 year mark and with a much leaner body I began to lose lean body mass and deteriorate.
That also brings up another point, and that is that I feel that different levels of being over-weight/obese may be suited better for different types of diets to reduce this weight. It also may depend on what the person was eating in the past too reach this new level. Obviously, a person with 50 lbs to lose may do better on a low carb diet than someone with merely 15 lbs.
Matt, I love your work, and I'm "overfeeding" on it. I'm introducing your RRARF program since I'm diagnosed with hypothryoid and my body temperature is 96 degrees. But day 2 and I feel like crap from no sugar or no caffeine. I hope this is the beginning of my 180 and in a few weeks my temperature will be up and I'll be loosing real body fat. thank you for all your hard work and research.
O.K. Jeff. Now I am totally screwed up again. THANKS! Its o.k. much love here. I just don't know what to do with my fat self.
I have some questions this morning myself. Has anyone come to a conclusion about the preheated thermometer issue? I did this this morning. I put the termometer under my arm and just dozed for about 15 minutes. Hit the swith and got a very fast and lovely reading of 97.9(L), 97.6(R), 97.7(L), 97.8(R). You can imagine I was very happy, but sceptical. I put the thermometer down and waited about 10 minutes. Put it back under my arm for 1 minute, turned it on and got my typical readings of 97.1-96.8. I got up went to the bathroom, let out the dog, and put the thermometer back undr my arm for a 15 minute soak and got another 97.8, 97.0, 97.7, 97.2. So, which is right? I also did my girls this morning, as they had climbed in with me and were wondering why I was taking my temp. They were both also low 96.8 and 97.1 and they are super healthy kids. Great whole food diet, breastfed, awesome sleeping, hardly any PUFAs and HFCS, very happy, and very active with perfect body compositions for children-no excess fat.
My parents also have low body temp and although they are not super health nuts, they are healthy. Both early 60's with 0 health issues, and 0 meds. So, I am wondering if a low body temp is genetic is that bad and if it is genetic then does that mean that my metabolisim is running at a good rate at 97 (which is normal for me throughout life, I have always had a low body temp just like my girls and parents) vs someone who has a genetically higher temp? I hope that made sense. Sorry for going on just wanting a clear answer.
Riles,
That also brings up another point, and that is that I feel that different levels of being over-weight/obese may be suited better for different types of diets to reduce this weight. It also may depend on what the person was eating in the past too reach this new level. Obviously, a person with 50 lbs to lose may do better on a low carb diet than someone with merely 15 lbs.
This is what I am thinking about myself. I think that as long as I am relatively healthy that getting a good chunk of my weight off is probably the most important thing to do. @170, my weight is my biggest health issue. I am leaning toward LC because I know I will not gain more. I just don't know how low I want to go with my carbs. I don't want to shock my system and force it. I want to loose this weight as healthy as possible and not create more problems for myself.
Elizabeth, Matt,
And others that have reached their metabolic goals and are now focusing on weight loss… is this actually occurring and how are you accomplishing it? How long did it take you to be at that point?
Dawn,
I am very confused about thermometer readings as well. I can get readings as varied as yours. At one point a few months ago I was in that high 97 range and kind of had the gag reflex from trying to eat too much. But I don't think my adrenals and insulin sensitivity were in a place to handle weight loss. I've experienced mixed results following reduction in appetite. Belly fat seems to start going down, then I'll get not very good readings on temps and fasting BG. So the fact is I just end up kind of staying in the same place.
Jeff,
Researchers often do respond. I emailed the U of MN about the Seven Countries Study and got a reply from Henry Blackburn. He referred me to the book The Cholesterol Wars by Daniel Steinberg (I now view Steinberg as much a promoter of the lipid hypothesis as Ancel Keys). Unfortunately, Steinberg's atrocious arguments kept me on low-carb that much longer.
And being orthorexic sucks. I wish I were ultra-lean like so many of the other local-foodsy sustag types in my area (Mpls) who don't obsess and just make sure to get lots of good whole foods. I used to be that way until low-carb. Still, I think what's going on on this website is important. Health and nutrition in this country is out of hand. End rant.
I also have another thing about low body temp. People with a low body temp are usually cold. I know lots of people like this who don't go anywhere without a sweater. When they get inside an air conditioned building they freeze. My family, all low temp, are all hot. My girls have both been "hot natured" since infancy. We keep our air at a frigid 73 and our heat at 68. We live in SC. If I am not in an unnaturally cool environment my hands and feet are very warm. My husband often tells me that my hands are hot when I touch him. Not totally convinced I need to be hotter.
I agree with JT and those with similar message, like the anonymous that said… "just EAT THE FOOD" but whole foods, of course! Totally agree!
And btw I too have been having same issues with bowel movements eating higher carb and lower fat diet. Anyone else?
And…
I find it interesting that after Matt said it was "bland as hell" in this post, everyone else is now following suit and admitting that the high carb low fat approach IS bland. Even those of you who who just 1 or 2 posts ago claimed how flavorful high carb low fat can be (and rather than offer help with examples of such claims) ragged on those of us who asked for help on how to eat lots of carbs with little fat and still enjoy food.
I have to say, first it was suggested to take away our fat, now it's being suggested to take away our seasonings and other added (natural) flavorings that you all were suggesting we use to "spice up" the "blandness" of the carbs. Now what? How the hell do we eat a now totally bland diet without feeling deprived and like we are um DIETING?
Don't get me wrong, I really like the 180 blog and believed in the "no dieting" mentality here… but, lately it really does feel like I'm being told to DIET AGAIN!
Now things seem to be focused on calories and the mainstream (misguided) ideas/theories about calories.
OK, I'm off to eat my 2 plain scrambled (with no butter) eggs and tons of rice… mixed together, cause at least the eggs give the rice a little flavor. Ooops should I not do that, mix them to give the rice flavor?
Riles – I agree that one's level of obesity and/or insulin resistance can certainly play a huge role in how one responds to any given dietary protocol.
In fact, if you watch the YouTube video of Dr, Gardner, which I linked to above, he discusses how insulin sensitive people do as well on a high-carb/low-fat diet as they do on a low carb diet. That ONLY those who are insulin resistant do better on low carb. And of course when dealing with obese people, you're dealing with insulin resistant people, almost by definition. Though not in all cases of course.
And I do think that the number of people who are insulin resistant is vastly under appreciated.
Madmuhhh-
Roberts seems to be more keened in on flavor diversity than straight blandness. He recommends using lots of spices to but changing them up to keep from ditto flavor associations. He sees this as being pretty much a non-issue though with homecooked foods, which will always have more flavor diversity than packaged and fast food.
Danyelle-
I am more interested in the theory and the causal, not necessarily Seth's sugar water solution to consuming overly-flavored foods. This is just an appetite-suppressant that clearly doesn't work all that well for a lot of people. Also, any diet that reduces weight will naturally be low in calories, which brings even more importance to nutrient density and overall quality.
Jeff-
You're killing me. First of all, a feeding tube is a totally different scenario. Plus, calories are the main factor. If eating foods that don't form strong flavor-calorie associations decreases hunger without decreasing metabolism (lowering the set point in other words), then that's precisely the beauty of it and why it works.
Secondly, Clarence Bass is just one individual. Ancel Keys was also an individual – one that lived to 100 without atherosclerotic disease like CVD or stroke. That still proves nothing. Then of course we have Jack LaLanne, who primarily eats a plant-based whole foods diet and whose motto is, "if it tastes good, spit it out."
Riles brings up good points about the Kitavans. Another point is what a person's metabolism is. When high, triglycerides are used for fuel. When low, triglycerides tend to interfere with insulin and leptin function.
Also, very low fat intakes are synonymous with very low cholesterol numbers. I'm not convinced that having a stellar HDL to LDL ratio with total serum level of 250 mg/dl is better than a Chinese person with serum level of 85 mg/dl. The 250 is almost always going to be more atherogenic than the 85, regardless of lipoprotein ratios. That doesn't have to mean heart attack or stroke, but it can mean better blood flow, energy, oxygenation, functionality, and vitality.
And in head to head studies of low-carb vs. high-carb, refined and unrefined carbohydrates cannot and should not be equated.
What matters most is what happens to people with metabolic syndrome when they switch to a high-unrefined carb/highly nutritious/whole foods/low-fat diet. Fuhrman, McDougall, etc. show massive declines in trigs, CRP, LDL (much more so than low-carb), rises in HDL, and drops in total cholesterol well into the 150's and lower, which is not a sure thing against heart disease, but the odds are definitely higher.
Clearly CVD risk factors can be improved on such a diet…
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/interviews-features-interview-with-a-nutritarian-anthony.html
Dee-
As I hinted at in the reactive hypoglycemia post, it's tricky. But I think it's more important to think of your reaction to a high-starch meal as a poor reaction to carbohydrate and work to improve it instead of equating carbs with el diablo. Let us know if things get any better for you, and if they do, what did it and how much time did it take?
Almost all of us can relate to the shaky, dizzy, bloated, irritable feeling – as nearly everyone that stayed on a low-carb diet for too long experienced those feelings when eating a bunch of carbs.
Butterfly,
No one here, not even Matt is telling you how or what to eat. Eat the way that makes you feel best.
As far as health is concerned, eat whole natural foods. Simple.
Some of us here are looking to reach a cosmetic goal as metabolically safely and healthfully as possible and sustain it. That is what is being explored at this time. You don't have to travel this avenue if it is of no interest to you.
Jeff, thanks for the great info.
That study by Dr. Gardner has been shown to be flawed, at least as to results to be expected from COMPLIANT followers of the various dieters.
The Ornish diet, like any good low-fat diet (McDougall, Esselstyn, or more extreme, Doug Graham), is MORE DIFFICULT to learn for most people coming from SAD, compared to Atkins. So compliance is not as good.
Also, the Ornish diet is supposed to have a max of 10% calories from fat. That was not so in the Gardner study. People's fat content went from a starting average of 35% to about 30% at the end of the year. This doesn't qualify as a low-fat diet, as Ornish, McDougall, Esselstyn, Pritikin, and Graham all prescribe a max of 10%.
Letters criticizing the Gardner study from Ornish, McDougall, and even Barry Sears (Zone diet) are available here:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/562591
Jeff- Very true about the insulin resistance. My only quip is that there are several strategies to overcome it.
Taylor-
Brilliant discussion of exactly what Roberts is trying to get at, and what I'm discussing here.
Sydney-
Natural flavors can only achieve a certain height of flavor-calorie association. It's refined foods, concentrated sweets, chemical flavor enhancers, and lab-created ditto food like Cheetos that potentially creates the strong enough flavor-calorie association to induce obesity.
Nathan-
The time people are most susceptible to the flavor-calorie programming is in their youth. What happens in the formative years makes the most difference. For example, 2 groups of rats – 1 fed palatable chow and another unpalatable chow (with quinine added) results in the quinine-fed rats developing a much lower weight set point. Switching the chow once they have already developed has no impact.
Hey Matt,
To abbreviate my posts from above- is there any reason to think that if we can induce a heightened metabolism through MNP-style dietary intervention that we will maintain that metabolism after our diet becomes mixed again? How do we know that we don't have a metabolic as well as body fat set point? That is, if we artificially raise it, will it simply return to its lower rate left to its own devices?
Thanks man.
Butterfly and Anonymous "Eat the Food":
Sorry guys, but Riles is right as to why we're exploring these ideas. I too had a strong belief that all would fall into place if whole foods were consumed exclusively. But that hasn't been the solution for many people.
I also hope I didn't misrepresent Seth's theory in making everyone feel that adding "spices" to food to make it taste good has much of anything to do with his theory – which is more about variety and unfamiliarity than blandness. Roberts would state emphatically that the biggest problem in the world today is calorie-dense, rapidly-absorbed, artificially-enhanced ditto foods, which is only achieved with packaged and fast food – not whole foods.
My argument against Seth originally, years ago, was that he was just using an appetite suppressant and undermining his health with low calorie intake and low nutrient intake. His metabolism is no doubt low and he looks horrible. Weak, flaccid, tired.
But hopefully recent posts such as that on re-feeding, my emphasis on body temp, overfeeding for muscle growth, and more can help people to avoid such pitfalls – and achieve healthier, more attractive leanness instead of just being weak, lifeless, and skinny fat.
Jedi-
Perhaps unpalatable was a poor word choice. Monotonous meal after meal after meal is more of an ample description of a very low-carb diet.
High-carb constipation-
I'm very surprised to hear that.
Gardner study-
The subjects were given basic instruction and then turned loose. No one ate the actual Atkins Diet or the Ornish Diet. All groups were gaining weight by the end of the 1-year trial.
Conclusion: None of the diets "worked."
Rob-
Good question. We shall see. There's no question that the heat boost you get from starch overfeeding comes from the body having to dissipate that energy – as it cannot convert it to fat and store it.
When you are no longer starch overfeeding, you wouldn't expect to still get the same amount of thermogenesis.
This is one reason why I haven't rushed to change the RRARF ebook, hastily changing it to favor a low-fat version.
But yes, hopefully we aren't chasing our tails. I do know that in October of last year I had a body weight of 178 and body temp. of 96.2. Right now I'm only 6-7 pounds away from that weight with a body temperature close to 98, and I'm eating less food naturally. So I at least have evidence of permanent improvement, not 2 steps forward and 2 steps back.
Dawn-
Thanks for your input. Broda Barnes didn't go around telling everyone to raise their body temperature. He diagnosed the need to raise body temperature when low body temp. was accompanied by health problems. The two together symbolized the need to intervene.
But I will say that many overweight people are very hot all the time due to the excess weight. They sweat a lot and always feel warm. Yet, body temperature can actually be really low even though they feel hot. It's not as straightforward as saying that high body temp = feeling hot and low body temp. = freezing all the time.
Riles, thank you for that clarification… makes sense now :)
I was beginning to wonder… it seemed like 180, well, did a 180 ;)
Thanks again! I'll stay tuned. You guys and gals rock!!
Matt, I just saw your reply too.
Thanks for clearing that up… great sum up. I understand now.
I can always count on you to have a good explanation. In fact, that's why I post my questions/concerns… hoping (always seem to "know" -maybe it's the female intuition :) that you will clear it right up for me.
Thanks for all you do and keep it up!! You do great work! No other website/blog of this nature has been able to keep my attention this long!
I guess that's why disappointment started to set in when it looked like you did a 180 on us (pun intended :)
Thanks, Matt!
OK, here's what I wonder then. How precise is our energy/flavor association mechanism? I understand that a Dorito is incredibly uniform in flavor, from chip to chip and bag to bag, but has Roberts done any kind of study on homemade whole foods? I ask because I can see how say, 3 different pots of chili (a spiced food) might not form any association. But what about something really simple like boiled, mashed potatoes seasoned only with salt? I know this would be lower on the "index" of fattening foods since potatoes are much less calorie dense than a Dorito, but just from an association standpoint, I wonder.
One of the things I like best about this blog and some of the commenters is the cutting through the BS conclusions of so many different researchers/writers to get the little nuggets of gold. I'm too easily influenced, I guess, because whenever I'm convinced by one argument, I tend to swallow the book whole. Then I end up doing really dumb stuff like chugging olive oil or making pizza crust out of cauliflower.
Oops, nevermind, strike that part about wondering about strong associations with homemade whole foods. I typed that before I read this:
"Roberts would state emphatically that the biggest problem in the world today is calorie-dense, rapidly-absorbed, artificially-enhanced ditto foods, which is only achieved with packaged and fast food – not whole foods."
"Natural flavors can only achieve a certain height of flavor-calorie association. It's refined foods, concentrated sweets, chemical flavor enhancers, and lab-created ditto food like Cheetos that potentially creates the strong enough flavor-calorie association to induce obesity."
Thanks Matt. That makes sense. I would say that is probably true of me, fat = hot, but not of my children or my mother who also has a great body comp, healthy, and is low temp. I also realize that you were not trying to generalize temp to an A+B=C model. I understand it is more complicated than that. The point I am trying to get at is if genetic low temp is the same as metabolic low temp. Is it a mute point or can you have a good metabo with a lower body temp because you are just designed that way? I am sorry if this is an irritating question. I feel somehow it is, but I am so out of my depth and honestly overwhelmed from so much information. Everyone here seems to have so many things figured out that I have never even heard of. I don't know the first thing about macro nutrients or calorie density. I only know what foods are nutritious and what are not, at least whithin reason. I do know that Matt is right when he says that eating wholesome food does not fix you if you are overweight. I am here to find out what does, if that is even possible. Does anyone here believe that getting the weight off is a priority or do I just keep gaining in hopes that my body temp will rise a degree?
Anonymous Said – "Jeff, thanks for the great info.
That study by Dr. Gardner has been shown to be flawed, at least as to results to be expected from COMPLIANT followers of the various dieters.
The Ornish diet, like any good low-fat diet (McDougall, Esselstyn, or more extreme, Doug Graham), is MORE DIFFICULT to learn for most people coming from SAD, compared to Atkins. So compliance is not as good.
Also, the Ornish diet is supposed to have a max of 10% calories from fat. That was not so in the Gardner study. People's fat content went from a starting average of 35% to about 30% at the end of the year. This doesn't qualify as a low-fat diet, as Ornish, McDougall, Esselstyn, Pritikin, and Graham all prescribe a max of 10%."
Yes I'm aware of those rebuttals already. In fact, if you watch the whole video of Dr. Gardner, he says that Ornish is not happy with him, and they they had a personal discussion about the conclusions of the study.
It's true that the vegetarian diet group ate about 20% fat, rather than 10%. But what they were trying to see in this study is what happens in the REAL WORLD when people read a diet book and try to follow it.
So even with quite a bit of help and instruction in the first few weeks of the study from a dietitian in implementing the Ornish diet, it was still too hard for these people to get their fat intake that low. Even after they got a heck of a lot more help in following that diet than most people who simply buy the book at a bookstore.
Ornish and Sears rebuttals are full of crap. Because, ALL the diet groups had poor compliance. Even the Atkins diet group! The Atkins dieters were eating closer to 25% to 30% carbs.
So this study shows that pretty much all diets are hard to follow for obese people. The Atkins dieters were every bit as non-compliant as the Zone and Ornish groups. And thus, I maintain that we had fairly even playing field in this study.
I'm not saying a plant based diet can't work wonders. I have hung out on vegan forums for years, and seen some dramatic results with my own eyes.
But I tend to see better results with a cyclic low carb diet. And cycling the carbs and calories up and down also pretty much circumvents the problems that can occur on monophasic ultra low carb diets.
I used to be a staunch advocate of a low-fat/Good carb diet. I ate that way as a bodybuilder many years ago, and used to recommend it to all my personal training clients.
But I have seen better results with a lower carb diet that cycles carbs up and down.
Now having said all this….
I happen to agree with a lot of Matt's stuff. I don't hang out on blogs to troll. I only hang out on blogs I find some common ground with.
I do think the Gardner study might be flawed because he used 311 OBESE people, who were almost by definition, insulin resistant.
And so I'm not surprised to see the low carb dieters fare better in the study.
I also agree with Matt that we should all strive to heal our glucose handling ability to the point that a high carb, whole foods will work as well as a low carb diet.
danyelle, I was wondering the same thing… about why whole foods are excluded from this theory.
Matt, reading it again, I don't quite understand this statement:
"I also hope I didn't misrepresent Seth's theory in making everyone feel that adding "spices" to food to make it taste good has much of anything to do with his theory – which is more about variety and unfamiliarity than blandness. Roberts would state emphatically that the biggest problem in the world today is calorie-dense, rapidly-absorbed, artificially-enhanced ditto foods, which is only achieved with packaged and fast food – not whole foods."
Why NOT whole foods? Wouldn't we become familiar with and form associations from eating whole foods too? Kinda like what danyelle was pointing out with potatoes. And wouldn't we do the same with spices, seasoning and other flavorings (all natural) do the same? Especially if we seasoned foods the same way each time we ate them? All foods being whole and all seasonings being natural.
Matt, what am I missing?
"Roberts would state emphatically that the biggest problem in the world today is calorie-dense, rapidly-absorbed, artificially-enhanced ditto foods, which is only achieved with packaged and fast food – not whole foods."
Why?
"Natural flavors can only achieve a certain height of flavor-calorie association…"
Is this just speculation? Again, why do whole foods NOT do what non-whole foods do as stated here…
"…It's refined foods, concentrated sweets, chemical flavor enhancers, and lab-created ditto food like Cheetos that potentially creates the strong enough flavor-calorie association to induce obesity."
Please set me straight… again :)
Thanks!
Danyelle-
Whole foods have a natural flavor variation. Also, homecooked foods will always have far more flavor variation as compared to something created by a machine.
It's also naturally to have some kind of flavor-calorie association. But the point of this post I guess was that if you are trying to lose body fat without hunger and cravings, you'll find it helpful to:
1) Eat whole foods
2) Eat homecooked foods
3) Eat foods with a low calorie density, such as starches, vegetables, and leaner meats
4) Avoid overly sweetened foods
5) Avoid liquid calories
6) Avoid refined carbohydrates
7) Avoid adding a ton of concentrated fat to your meals which increases calorie-density
…and so on.
The main thing being that you get the set point lowering effect, if that's truly what we are talking about here, when you lean towards low flavor-calorie association foods in favor of high Flavor-calorie association foods.
Jeff-
Thanks for your input on carb cycling. As you may or may not know, that is a primary area of exploration here right now.
I don't find this at all. So long as my carbohydrate consumption is not low, I find I do not get food cravings, regardless of flavor intensity.
When I am hungry, I usually crave carbohydrates. Sometimes if I have been eating mostly or all carbs, I crave meat.
Since increasing carb intake, numerous symptoms have cleared up. I believe my kidneys are functioning better. I get up less often at night to urinate. Problem areas on my skin have improved. And I have lost weight.
That said i like simple foods. Not too much flavor. Salt and pepper are enough seasonings for me.
However I love Thai food which is highly spicy and flavored, and when I go eat Thai, I do not start to crave to eat more food immediately. As long as I have generous helpings of Jasmine rice with the meal, I am full.
Someone who is largely inactive might not be like me, but I am so active that I need a lot of carbs to keep going.
Taylor,
Why did you think that was the dumbest thing you'd ever heard? Not everything is counter-intuitive. If something tastes good you'll want to eat more of it, right? And if you enjoy the meal you'll want to eat it again right?
I just read this comment. Missed it somehow earlier.
I thought it was dumb because it seemed to me that good or bad flavor could not possibly make you fat. It is the actual food. What the food is and how much you eat. At least that is what common sense says. How can a more seasoned potato make you fatter than a lesser seasoned potato? I don't think it is relative unless we are talking about overeating vs aversion (my mom tends toward aversion). Common sense also dictates that packaged food is enhanced to make you addicted and want to eat more. I think this is honestly the real premise at work here. How the body becomes addicted to certain foods because of these highly addictive chemical additives which you can not reproduce at home.
The more seasoned potato isn't more fattening than the less seasoned potato in and of itself. Its more fattening in the long run to eat seasoned potatoes because you'll eat more of them. So yes, if you took it to mean that good tasting food was more fattening simply because it tastes good it would seem silly. But since it gives you a more intense experience, and your mind then links the incoming energy to that flavor experience, it results in you eating more in the long run.
OK so now we are talking about over eating. So how can that relate to over feeding on anyfood. If it is indeed the overfeeding then all overfeeding would be bad. Matt is not finding it bad as are many others. They are actually loosing! This is all very confusing. I also realize that I am over simplifying. Back to the point that processed food enhancement addicts you to foods that also crash your metabolisim. I really feel that this is what is important to understand, which I think you do. Getting into trying to trick your body by avoiding seasoning seams overcomplicated. Especially if you are trying to limit fat. I also think that if you cook from scratch without having to consult a cookbook for every teaspoon of flavor and eat a variety of foods that it is unlikely to cause a flavor-calorie association problem.
Just wanting the email follow up.
Hey Matt – I had noticed you seem to be open minded to the idea of carb cycling lately, which I think is great.
The late Vince Gironda, famous "trainer to the stars" and trainer of the first Mr. Olympia, Larry Scott, used and recommended a cyclic approach to low carb diets way back in the 50s.
Of course he didn't have that much science to draw from back then, but just kinda found that worked real well through trail and error.
In fact, it worked so well that when he competed in ripped condition back in the early 50s, they didn't know what to make of him. The BB judges were used to a smoother and bulkier look, so Vince never won a major BB title because his look was just too far ahead of it's time.
Vince recommended carbing up every three days by the way, while following an LC diet.
So I have to kinda laugh when I see guys like Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale, touting his cyclic low carb anabolic and metabolic diets as something new and improved, when ole Vince was doing it way before him.
There's not much new under the sun as they say.
Now I am intrigued by the idea of healing one's piss-poor glucose handling ability to the point that a high carb diet would work just as well. And one thing I believe is very important in that regard is to ensure proper intake of nutrients involved with glucose metabolism.
For instance, magnesium and D3 deficiency are virtually epidemic these days, and both are very, very important for being able to handle carbs. Not to mention vandium, chromium (Sometimes referred to as Glucose Tolerance factor) potassium and others.
I strongly believe that deficiencies of such nutrients are a HUGE part of why so many people cannot eat normal amounts of carbohydrate. I think this fact is very under appreciated by most.
I am reading TL Cleave's, The Saccarine Disease for the third time, and have to agree with his conclusion that mankind should be able to eat plenty of NATURAL carbs. We secrete several enzymes involved in breaking down starch, which is a dead giveaway that we are genetically adapted to starch.
We also produce far less hydrochloric acid than pure carnivores which disproves the paleo notion that mankind is basically meant to be an almost pure carnivore.
OK Matt, I think I understand your point(s) but as hard as the low fat approach is to follow, I find combining this new theory/suggestion with low fat/high carb even harder to follow.
But I will press on and see where it takes us.
The BM thing baffles me though. But maybe what I said before is key:
"And my appetite has definitely decreased since switching to high carb/low fat. Yesterday I never really got hungry and didn't eat much at all. Isn't not eating [enough] counter-productive (by triggering fat storing)?"
Maybe it's the eating less (not eating enough) that's causing my BMs to become unpleasant as opposed to when I was eating a mixed diet AND had a good appetite?? What do you think?
But that is my concern now – it's really hard to force myself to eat enough now – cause high carb/low fat is so unappealing – that I'm worried I won't eat enough and my body will start storing fat because of it.
– Anonymous "Eat the Food"
P.S. I am not author of any of the other anonymous comments – only "eat the food" one – I should use that as a sig lol.
P.S.S. I want to say thanks for all your great work too, Matt. Hope you know how much we love ya. I have a great deal of respect for you.
By "mixed diet" I mean high everything – of mostly whole foods.
– Anonymous "Eat the Food"
Hi Matt
what do you think of Jasmuheen?
If the flavor-calorie theory is correct, its interesting to think of what evolutionary advantage such a mechanism would confer. It's not hard to understand what advantage there would have been in gorging on energy-dense food when it was available. Food was scarce at times and the bodyfat stored by gorging would have protected against starvation in lean times.
But the theory not only implies that we evolved to eat a large amount when we encountered such food, but that the act of eating a large amount of familar food would increase our appetite and make us more inclined to do it again in the very near future. Its as though the mechanism exists to tell us that we are in an environment that has a lot of energy dense food and we should take advantage of it while it lasts. This would imply a positive feedback loop, where consuming lots of calories causes us to want to consume even more calories.
If this mechanism is correct (note I said IF because I'm not completely convinced) and leptin is involved, it implies that high calorie eating on foods with which we have a pre-formed flavor-calorie association, will cause temporary leptin resistance, which will subside gradually as we stop consuming high calories of familiar tasting foods.
I'm having so many thoughts about this I'm having trouble organizing them but I'll just spit out a few :
1) Whether weight gain is a positive feedback loop or a negative feedback loop isn't an either or proposition. It may be a positive feedback loop for certain individuals in certain situations and a negative feedback loop for those same individuals in other situations. It may be a positive feedback loop for certain people and a negative feedback loop for others. The well known tendency for overfeeding to cause a loss of appetite doesn't necessarily disprove this theory.
2) What about metabolism? This theory implies that our metabolism will slow down after over-feeding because the set point is now higher and the body is trying to take advantage of the availability of energy dense foods by packing on fat, a goal which would be furthered by not only eating more but also by using less energy. So we should become lazier also. The theory also predicts that when people stop consuming familiar energy dense foods and the set point falls below their current body fat level, they will become more energetic and lose their appetite. Well they do lose their appetite but they don't become more energetic and their resting metabolism also falls.
3) What's the evolutionary rationale for a falling set point? If food was always so scarce in our ancestral environment why doesn't everyone just have a very high set point? Obviously this is not the case. This really implies that we aren't genetically disposed to just pack on as much fat as we can. As Jon Gabriel has pointed out, it was to our advantage to be fast. We weren't living in houses – there were predators, so being fat and as a result slow, would have been a threat to our survival.
4) What about food seeking behavior? Food seeking requires the expenditure of energy. If you are expending more energy in seeking food than you getting from the food you obtain as a result, you are starving. If this continues, you will die. It seems we should have a mechanism which makes us lethargic and sedentary when we aren't eating enough calories so that we can survive until a time when food becomes more available. The flavor-calorie theory predicts this. But this is also a contradiction of the idea that we become more active when our set point falls below our actual weight.
Some of these thoughts are a little jumbled but it gets confusing. What I think is that the flavor-calorie theory is absolutely correct. I believe that the mechanism exists. But I also believe that other mechanisms that effect appetite, energy levels and metabolism also exist right alongside it and the flavor-calorie mechanism is just one competing mechanism. Have someone chase you with a knife and see if you're lethargic, even if you haven't been eating enough. There are other mechanisms at work. That's what I believe. But I'm pretty well convinced that the flavor-calorie mechanism is at work because there's so much evidence that is consistent with it and my intuition tells me its true also.
Dawn, I was busy writing my magnum opus comment so I didn't see your post. Yes there are contradictions to this theory so that's why I don't think its the only mechanism regulating appetite and energy expenditure. It gets complicated and its very speculative but there are explanations for the loss of appetite on overfeeding that don't contradict the flavor-calorie theory. The most obvious is that your body fat level is rising faster than your set point so your still above it and you lose your appetite. The food you're overfeeding on may not have intense enough flavors so the flavor-calorie associations are not strong enough to raise your set point above your current bodyfat level. Also carbs without fat isn't that dense in calories so again the association may not be strong enough to raise your set point above your body fat level. Or maybe the whole theory is wrong. Like I said I doubt that because there's a lot of evidence to support it.
I am not sure it is wrong. Not even smart enough to know honestly!;D I am pretty sure that if you are eating with any common sense you probably don't need to worry about this too much. Sometimes I think we are making it too hard. I am not nieve enough to believe it doesen't matter at all but I think for most of us out here this is not a realistic way to view food as it is way to complex. I think the basics that Matt outlined are probably more in line with real life. Eating real, nutritious food, with variety should work for most people.
I dont want any of you brainiacks to think I don't love you or your rants it is just a little mind blowing for us simple folk. Love ya tons xoxo
In case there is interest, I got some bloodwork back today. This is after 10months of RRARF/HED, overeating beyond appetite on unrefined carbs. The last month has been the more lower fat approach, first 9 months were high Sat Fat.
Fasting BG: 88 mg/dl
HA1C: 5.6
TG: 47mg/dl
LDL: 136mg/dl
HDL: 73mg/dl
Vitamin D: 131 (25 – 250 nmol/L)
I think the numbers look pretty good, I will be backing off on the sunshine a bit though, wasn't expected 131 on the VitD!
Morning underarm basal is still stuck at 97.2 and weight is now 190, down from 196 peak at 3months on overeating. Walking is still my only form of exercise. Body comp has more lean mass built up. I think I am still dealing with some sort of adrenal fatigue from the LC days and pre-SAD lifestyle, due to morning fatigue after 8hrs sleep and dam acne that still pesters.
See what the next 10months brings!
AaronF said: "Elizabeth, Matt,
And others that have reached their metabolic goals and are now focusing on weight loss… is this actually occurring and how are you accomplishing it? How long did it take you to be at that point?"
I seem to be losing fat, though it's happening slowly as I'm working on finding something that is both effective and sustainable for me. So far I've lost 5 lbs in the last few weeks (from my peak weight that I reached a couple months ago). My husband has even made a couple comments recently about me looking thinner, so I figure I must be doing something right!
I've been working on healing my metabolism for about two years now. My thinking is that most people shouldn't have to wait this long. My road to healing was filled with potholes and bad directions, you could say, which is why I feel it took longer than it should have. The weight gain really threw me off in the beginning, so I set myself back a few times exercising way too much and trying stupid things like low-carb dieting for the first time, plus I had surgery earlier this year so I had to take some time to recover from that as well.
So it's my hope that most people can reach a healthy metabolic state in closer to 6-12 months, though for many this is still too long to be worthwhile.
Still looking for feedback on the "pre-heated" thermometer issue.
Taylor-
Thanks for geeking out on this so hard with me. I kind of brushed off Seth for a long while, but some aspects just can't be ignored.
It makes sense why we have these flavor-calorie associations. I think they naturally stimulate reward centers in the brain that guide us to food with some calories in it. Otherwise, we might accidentally starve to death eating nothing but lettuce instead of the butter and honey sitting right next to us.
But I don't think foods, back in the day, were able to create such a strong flavor-calorie association that it launched the positive feedback mechanism. But the current era is different, as all the food on the market is designed to be overly pleasurable and stimulating.
We build flavor-calorie associations with Oreos, MSG chicken Nuggets, Nestle Quik, etc. and it sort of short-circuits the energy regulation system in a lot of people. It also makes natural foods less desirable and enjoyable.
But the point is that it raises the set point, which keeps people hungry and their metabolism low even as they continue to store more fat than they burn.
To get someone to eat too much food everyday for months requires eating exclusively addictive foods with the very highest flavor-calorie associations possible. Even Ethan Sims's inmate subjects complained of hunger at the end of the day, but if they would have switched them to meat, potatoes, and salad they would have had a huge drop in appetite.
That's what I'm getting at here. I don't want people to be afraid to eat food that tastes good. That's not the point. What I am saying is that if you want to lose weight without your body fighting against the weight loss, eating foods that are not too strongly flavored and not very calorie dense is a surefire way to do it.
If you want to cut back your calorie intake but be ravenous and have bigger rebound hunger, eat small portions of ice cream, candy, pepperoni pizza, and Coca Cola instead of plain rice, potatoes, lean meats, and vegetables.
Undertow-
Thanks for the stats. I'm surpised, knowing your fasting and PP blood glucose levels that your A1C is that high. I would have pegged you for slightly under 5.0.
Taylor-
Another interesting thing I'll bring up which adds a twist is that in Robert Pool's book he discusses an experiment where obese and lean people's response to highly palatable and unpalatable food was discussed.
In the experiment, when presented with a really tasty food, like brownies, the obese subjects ate far more than the lean subjects – like double or more.
Then they repeated the experiment adding quinine, with a slightly-off flavor to the food. The off flavor didn't affect the lean subjects, who ate about the same amount. The obese people, however, hardly touched the food, and ate WAY less than the lean subjects.
This sounds like stronger flavor-calorie association to me, which makes good food taste better and more bland food taste worse.
It could be that obese people generally have more overactivated pleasure centers in the brain – or they are more susceptible to those cues.
It's another interesting thought at least.
Dawn-
As for the overfeeding/underfeeding thing, calorie intake isn't necessarily what it's all about. What it's about is the body temperature and metabolic health of a person. For a great many people, being below or above the set point is what counts. That's why I don't recommend anyone count calories on RRARF, but just eat at least to the point of full satiation and perhaps slightly beyond.
For some, this makes them gain weight while weight set point remains relatively stable, resulting in appetite and craving reduction and a hypermetabolism/improved insulin sensitivity/etc.
For others it makes the weight set point fall, but again, I've only noticed this in people coming off of a high-sugar SAD.
This is more evidence for the flavor-calorie theory, as those coming off of a restricted diet see an increase in the palatability of food and gain fat, while those coming off of a high-everything junk food diet see a huge decrease in the palatability of the food.
By palatability, I mean how it ranks on the flavor-calorie chart.
And personally, the only fat I gained when doing RRARF was during 2 short trips in which I consumed foods that are MUCH higher on the flavor-calorie scale. Refined sugar, fruit with mixed meals, lots of refined carbohydrate mixed with fat including veggie oil, pancakes, and beer.
Alcohol, because of its impact on the pleasure centers is also known to be more fattening, and might also needed to be part of what could be called….
The Pleasure Center Activation Theory
O.K. What you are saying makes sense. So, I have already been doing HED. I have not been over feeding. So the question I have is do I just need to increase my portions (I have no idea what my caloric intake is) and eat mostly starch to get my temp up and possibly loose some weight or at least not gain more. I am still not completely convinced about needing to or if I will even be able to raise my temp. It is honestly disconcerting when I hear about others who have been trying for years without success. Is it possible to have a genteicly lower temp and still have a good metabolisim? I am sorry if you want to shoot me! I am really not trying to be stupid, I am just unsure and really afraid to shoot myself in the foot.
Yes, I don't think natural foods can create the flavor calorie associations (in most people) to make them obese. Also I don't think this is the only cause of obesity. Remember that when they gave leptin to obese patients in the hopes that it would make them thin, it actually worked in a small percentage of people. But back to what you said about the natural/unnatural. The problem is people can very easily get their hands on this food every day, its exactly the same flavor, its cheap, easy to eat, easily digested and accompanied by soda. Its a perfect flavor/calorie storm.
That quinine study is interesting. You'd think if someone was bothered by hunger they wouldn't mind a little quinine. But maybe if they're driven by an opportunity to take advantage of available calorie dense food, they'll pass it up if it doesn't register in their flavor/calorie database (meaning it doesn't taste good). Then again I heard you say that the obese are always hungry. Maybe they're not hungry in the same way as the non-obese. Maybe they just have a stronger pull to take advantage of calorie dense food when they know its readily available and that is a different type of hunger. I'm not obese and I'm only mildly overweight but I eat more like an obese person. I don't like to eat anything that doesn't taste good, especially when really good food is right there. I only keep natural whole food around the house, but when I go out I can barely force myself to order it if there's pizza on the menu. I don't know, its confusing. I think I'd have to be pretty hungry before eating quinine flavored food so I'm sure I'd react to it much more like the obese and eat a lot less. I hate quinine water (tonic water).
I wondered why many people here are eating refined rice. If potatoes are bland, then try beets, parsnips or swedes, they all have intense flavour. Also a bit of butter on the root vegetables is surely ok, this is lowish fat, not no fat, right? I am focussing on graineating and am getting violent sensations in my gut. I would appreciate any insight on that. Thanks.
@Sydney & madMUHH, that was me that posted about the tribal guy that cried after eating rice for the first time because it tasted so good. That was written by travel writer Tim Cahill.
As far as Clarence Bass and his triglycerides are concerned, I read an article by him recently where he added a small amount of fat to his diet, like a tablespoon of olive oil or something, and he experienced a significant drop in triglycerides. Maybe he was fat starved or something.
Looking at anecdotal evidence, the low meat/higher carb recommenders like Jack LaLanne, Bob Delmontique, Don Wildman, Art Linkletter (just passed away at 99yo) seem to be faring quite well. The high fat folks such as "The Bear" and Mary Enig seem to be riddled with health problems. Again, just an observational anecdote…doesn't prove anything.
OMG- comments are tl;dr
I just have to say, I think this is a great theory, worthy of posting about, but I don't think it's what's really happening. People are supposed to follow their senses. If people want flavorful, quickly digestible food, this probably tells us more about what our ancestors really ate than scientists' speculations. The idea that nature WANTS us to lower our metabolism and get fat is as bad as the "thrifty gene" idea.
There are other ways that MSG and aspartame could lower metabolism, I'm sure. Those free amino acids are like messengers in the body. My guess is that these fake flavors are like tricks, tricking the body into thinking it's getting calories and nutrients that it's really not. Maybe that screws things up somehow.
Myself, I've found that I can't really eat enough unless there's some kind of sugar involved. It probably has to do with my specific biochemistry, but sometimes I'm just not that attracted to food otherwise. (And I don't mean every meal, I like good home cooking too.) I quit sugar completely for about a year by the way, even fruit for the last 3 months of that. So I know my attraction is an actual biochemical need rather than a habit. I've never had a weight problem, so we'll see how that goes for me.
…this probably tells us more about what our ancestors really ate than scientists' speculations
(For example, I believe that people probably stored large harvests of fruit as jam, which maybe lasted almost all year. There's a concentrated source of fructose that people usually don't figure in.)
But the problem with flavorless eating is that you loose benefits of natural spices. For example turmeric + black pepper is anti-cancer, while cinnamon lowers blood glucose.
http://www.anticancerbook.com/post/Turmeric-and-black-pepper-fight-cancer-stem-cells.html
http://diabetes.about.com/od/whatsonthehorizon/qt/cinnamon.htm
Of course processed food with spices like MSG or some factory-created aromas doesn't have these benefits anyway, so one will behave less stupid eating it bland than artificially enhanced.
Michal P.-
Everyone seems to be missing the point about natural spices – as long as they are varied, they are more beneficial to blunting flavor-calorie associations than if you eat food without them.
Actually, from a purely flavor standpoint, I shouldn't have stated that my diet was bland, because it is not. I drown most of my food in salsa instead of fat, which has MORE flavor but is less satisfying because the lack of calorie-density trumps the flavor intensity if you ask me.
Jared-
If you'll notice in the post Saccharin is used as an example of a calorie-free substance that induces overeating and weight gain. The same is true for aspartame, and I certainly believe it's true of Stevia and Sucralose. In fact, someone once told me that without stevia in her diet she just didn't feel like eating anything – kind of like how you feel when there is nothing sweet in your diet. That is precisely the point and why, no matter how I wrap my head around it, the flavor-calorie theory is as close as it gets to being bombproof.
And it's not that it's just another "thrifty gene hypothesis," rather, it is an attempt to explain why food processing, carbohydrate refining, chemical flavor enhancers, ditto foods, and liquid calories – the hallmarks of modern food vs. "primitive" food, induces obesity in susceptible individuals.
I do believe that it stems from the exploitation of the human pleasure centers.
It could also provide an explanation for why races of people like the Pima, Africans, South Americans, Native Americans, Polynesians, etc. are more prone to obesity (and often alcoholism which is related) than those with ancestry in which the diet was not a bland, low-fat, starch-based diet. Or, in the case of the Eskimo or Aborigine, a bland, high-fat, very low-carb diet.
I guess what I'm saying is that, in areas in which food is sparse, with low flavor-calorie association (low-fat or low-carb), brain opiates would tend to be more upregulated and fine-tuned to find the foods that offered the most bang per buck.
And like I said, this also explains why someone coming off of a pizza, Diet Coke, Extra Value Meal, and Doritos diet will lose weight eating to appetite of a whole foods high-everything diet vs. someone coming off of a highly restricted diet. Like I've said, fruitarians and uber low-carbers are typically the ones that gain the most weight eating to appetite of a mixed diet.
Dawn-
If you read RRARF carefully, I say the first step is to take your body temperature and take an overall health assessment. If you feel that there is room for improvement, you are plagued with numerous "issues," and have a low body temperature – it might be worth trying to bring it up through diet and lifestyle measures.
Not everyone has had amazing results in bringing body temperature up, but the vast majority have. And yes, I feel like RRARF is just as effective for those with a hereditary low body temperature as it is for those with a diet-induced low body temperature.
I do remember that. Sorry, I am not trying to force your hand. I have really learned a lot from all of this and have already made changes like getting off caffine and no more glass of wine while I cook dinner. I also think I consume my largest portion of calories at the end of my day. Not always, but often. I dont feel that I have major repair work to do and I have been eating really well for a couple of years now. I am really interested in the over/re feeding of starch to raise my metabolisim and hopefully prime myself to loose this weight.
I am going to do 30 days and see what
happens. I do need some help though. I don't remember what the starch intake percentage should be. I thought I saw a ratio once that was like 70% of calories but that seems really high. I also don't know the first thing about counting calories as I have never done that in my life. Can someone direct me to a great chart that I can use to figure out how many I need and also to one with a good food list so I make sure I get enough.
I also wanted to know if adding a scrambels egg or black beans to my rice is too much protein? I added 2Tbl of milk to 1 cup or rice this morning just to give it a better texture. How do I figure out how much protein I am eating? I think I need a crash course in nutrition!;P
Starting at 166lbs and a bbt of 97.2 today. I will give everyone an update on this in a week. I also have a physical this week. My first full physical in 12 years. I will give you all the numbers once I have them. I am excited to see if my lifestyle of whole food eating has been good to me.
My total cholesterol 12 years ago was 81 and I weighed somewhere in the 130's with low blood pressure (normal for me) and normal blood sugar.
Wish me luck! I am so grateful for everyones help and support.
The Real Will Said: "As far as Clarence Bass and his triglycerides are concerned, I read an article by him recently where he added a small amount of fat to his diet, like a tablespoon of olive oil or something, and he experienced a significant drop in triglycerides. Maybe he was fat starved or something.
Looking at anecdotal evidence, the low meat/higher carb recommenders like Jack LaLanne, Bob Delmontique, Don Wildman, Art Linkletter (just passed away at 99yo) seem to be faring quite well. The high fat folks such as "The Bear" and Mary Enig seem to be riddled with health problems. Again, just an observational anecdote…doesn't prove anything."
=================================
Bass did experience a bit of drop in trigs after adding some fish oil to his diet, but still ended up on statins.
=================================
Bob Delmonteque describes his diet as thus, in an interview in The Journal of Longevity….
"I eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, and also wholesome animal products – as close to nature as possible.
I try to cut out the carbohydrates that comprise bread, pasta, rice and potatoes. Good quality proteins – most often from fish, chicken, turkey and fish usually make up about 30% of my caloric intake.
About 205 of my intake comes form healthy fats…
I generally eat between 1,800 and 2,200 calories per day."
================================
What health issues have The Bear and Enig had?
I know The Bear had throat cancer at one point, which he attributes to hanging out with heavy smokers for many years.
Dawn,
I just figured out, based on 1g protein per lb body weight (or it might be per lb lean mass, I don't remember, but for me it's close enough), that you need a lot more protein than you think. Unless I did it wrong. 1oz of steak, chicken, etc, has 7g of protein, so I ended up figuring I need about 12oz of meat a day, presuming that I'm getting some protein from starches. Unless I figured it wrong, which is entirely possible. But – this means I need more protein than I thought, which is good, because it explains why I was craving meat!
Appreciate the help Lorelei. Based on the math you just gave me 1g/lb = 166g of protein, divided by 7g per ounce = almost 24oz of meat. That seems like a lot!! Of course all my protein won't come from meat, but still that seems somehow wrong. Maybe my math is wrong or I just don't understand. Of course by your amount it makes you 84lbs so something is wrong. If it is by lean mass maybe that is the problem. How do I figure out what my lean body mass is?
I already figured out my caloric need which is about 1900cals to maintain my weight.
I have to say that this has been the most terriable food day of my life! Eating so much starch just sucks. With no fat, starch is just blah no matter how much seasoning you put on it. The constant calculating to keep up my calories and figure out what is in every bite sucks even worse then the starch. This is why I have never dieted. I am just trying to believe that it will get better as I go along. What happened to just eat the food? O.K. enough of my pity party. Back to the greater good of an efficient metabolisim!
@Dawn:
As long as you are eating a high-starch/high-calorie diet, you really do not need that much protein. I personally shoot for a bit more than 1g of protein per kg of body mass, even though I am actively trying to gain muscle and so far it seems to work out rather well. Especially if you are consuming starches with a decent amoung of high quality protein in it, like rice or potatoes, that really does not add up to much animal protein at all.
Also, I personally think there is no reason not to add some fat to your food. Of course you can't add too much if you want to eat low fat, but adding no fat, as long as your protein source isn't too fatty by itself, sounds unneccessarily extreme to me.
I JUST WANT TO EAT THE FOOD! and hope the weight falls where it should?
i have also been experiencing some constipation and gas this week on this high starch low fat diet. maybe my enzyme production is not up to par?
i have been eating low fat for a good 3 weeks and i have lost 4 pounds!
here are some things i've been eating, since people are asking what low-fat looks like:
baked potatoes with whole sour cream instead of butter (delicious). i find yellow/yukon gold potatoes to be the creamiest and tastiest. my favorite non-organic brand of sour cream is Daisy because cream is the only ingredient. i bake 5 or more at a time in the toaster oven and they are very convenient to have on hand.
i'm loving the parboiled rice. it has fantastic flavor. i think this is the kind i ate as a kid, i've wondered for a while why i could never get white rice right. FYI the only brand i could find around here is Carolina Gold. i just make it plain. i've always been drawn to the simplicity of rice and beans, so i've been doing that a lot. some salsa is good with it, or hot sauce. i also like it sushi style: with a bit of rice vinegar and sugar folded in after it's cooked.
i've been eating oatmeal for breakfast frequently. instead of baking it with milk and gobs of butter, i've been boiling it in water and adding a tiny bit of butter and milk at the table.
and then sweet potatoes. i do those in the toaster oven as well.
so those are my 4 carb/starch staples right now. i've also been eating yummy fresh sweet corn with no butter needed.
i keep extra potatoes and rice in the fridge so i can reheat pretty quickly in the toaster oven. the potatoes or rice plus beans work great in a tortilla for a quick taco
i've been purposely adding veggies to every meal, even if it's some frozen green beans. i've been trying to eat a raw veggie at ever meal, whether it's a carrot, shredded beet, or some sliced onion.
i've cut my protein consumption way back, i don't eat meat every day, and when i do eat it, it's maybe 10 small bites instead of a thick slice of prime rib (our family favorite) i've been eating leaner meats and only one egg instead of two.
so i'm eating a lot of pretty bland food as it stands. and i'm finding it pretty easy to do without many cravings. the first few days i really wanted some fatty meat, but that desire is mostly gone. last night we went to a barbecue place and i decided to eat freely: i had a pulled pork sandwich with cole slaw and fresh cornbread and potato salad. it was a straight up feast and i find today that i have little to no inclination to eat that much fat/meat any time soon.
i bought several kind of all-fruit popsicles and fruit leather/fruit snacks to snack on. they are not appetizing to me and i don't think they've been good for my skin. i was thinking the pectin and gelatin would do me good but i'm not so sure the concentrated fruit juice has.
i don't really desire Anything sweet right now. i also don't really have the desire for snacking. it seems like 4 meals are working best for me.
i am liking this right now. this blog post is fascinating and providing lots of food for thought. i sprinkled some curry on my breakfast baked potatoes today for a change and the flavor definitely threw me for a loop — i couldn't finish it all and felt completely satisfied. i will experiment with this some more now!
YAY 4 pounds, right?!
I have been eating low fat, high starch for a couple of weeks now. I have gained 5 pounds on the scale, but my clothes are fitting loser, so that's a good sign.
I am nursing a 4 month old which makes me very hungry, and I can eat 3000 calories a day and still be hungry. But I just ate a meal, and i actually feel full, satisfied, and not still hungry. I can't remember the last time that happened. I ate a cup of dry brown rice topped with homemade marinara sauce and chopped tomatoes. It was yummy, low fat, and I am satisfied!
I posted about resistant starch further up in these comments but no-one seemed to pick up on it. It would be great if anyone eating high starch could have a quick google and give me their views.
It seems that a portion of the starch we eat (the resistant bit) passes through to the large intestine (like fibre) where it "ferments" to create butyrate (a short chain fatty acid) which has many benefits and is one of the reasons that starch is a much better source of carbs than sugars.
Beans, unripe bananas, potatoes etc are all good sources but letting foods go cold before eating nearly doubles the amount of resistant starch – does anyone know if potatoes, rice etc is eaten cold in other countries?
Appologies if it was poor etiquette to re-post this.
DavidL,
I read at a site that sells herbs, Amalux Herbal, an article about candida yeast, and it says that the undigested part of food that ferments in the gut are what the candida yeast grow on.
Maybe my violent gut sensations are from the fermentation. You'd think fermentation would produce gas which I haven't particularly noticed.
Dawn,
If you consider yourself fat, then you are probably at 30% bodyfat, because normal females are in the 20% range. So your lean body mass is probably no more than 115 pounds.
Madmuhh,
Why do you think it is a good idea to add extra fat to the meals if someone is eating a high carb diet and wanting to get lean? If you want to add lots of extra fat then you should not eat a high carb diet.
DavidL,
Don't spend you time worrying about things like resistant starch. It will not make a difference one way or the other and you wont get any benefits from eating your food cold.
Jeff,
I am a fan of Gironda as well, but too many of his fans think that he was an infallible guru. His meat and water diet that he recommends to get people lean would be disastrous for the majority of people who tried to follow it and probably create some real metabolic damage. Just like all of the fitness competitors who go on the same diet and destroy their metabolism. This is how I messed up my metabolism as well.
Don't forget that Vince was famous for being extremely impatient, irritable, and abrasive which is common for people on low carb diets. An old coworker of mind lost her job due to the mental problems that occurred on her low carb diet. Vince pounded tons of coffee every day which is also very common or people on low carbs diet so that they can function.
Regarding carb cycling, it is not good for the average person because it is too complicated. You are better off finding the carb range that you feel and function best on and stick with it so that your body can adapt. If you need to lose fat then reduce calories and then have calorie spikes instead of just carbs to keep the metabolism going.
Sydney,
What kind of grains were you eating? What type of diet have you been eating?
The reason people are eating white rice is because it is probably one of the most hypo-allergenic, easily digested foods in existence. It is also one of the cheapest foods and most of the world lives on it and remains healthy.
I've been reading about this and I'm confused… which means I'm making progress, I suppose. :)
The idea seems to be this:
If your weight is above your average "set point", your body will shed fat because you don't need it and it has a metabolic cost. Your body doesn't want to spend more energy maintaining tissue than necessary. You will not want to eat (as much).
If your weight is around your set point, you will eat normally and not gain or lose weight.
If your weight is below your set point, you will feel hungry in an attempt to get fatter.
The set point is continually falling. Feeding raises the set point, but then it starts to fall again. Certain foods raise the set point more than others. (Aside: these seem to be foods that are both very uniform and highly flavoured, are these "supra-evolutionary stimuli" which have an exaggerated effect?) [Matt, you seem to have misquoted the study above: IIRC the quinine-chow-fed rats got fat. It doesn't have to taste GOOD, it just has to have a strong flavour. This makes sense from a Pavlovian perspective.]
It seems to be the AVERAGE set point that matters. So you can do a re-feed Jon Benson style to manipulate your leptin while restricting calories the rest of the time (if you are looking to shed fat).
Crazy Mother you give me hope! I also like the sound of the way you are eating. I would have never even considered sour cream. With the ratio I am trying to go by I only have 40 fat calories per day and that is easy to use up just in a little meat and 1 egg and the marginal amount of coconut oil I am sparingly useing to lubricate a pan before I cook. I also am having a hard time eating all my calories. I only made it to about 1600 today and I should be at 1900. I just could not cram anymore starch in. 1140 calories is a lot of frickin starch!! I am going to have some popcorn with yeast before bed which will give me a little more but not enough for today. Where are you people packing all this food?!
By the way, my intestines were feeling strange today too. Not gas, just painful for awhile after I eat. Normal BM today too. Don't know what that is about.
J.T.
Are you trying to say that I am FAT!!!Just kidding, I know you diden't say that, I did!;P
In regard to your comment about rice. Are you saying the digestive upset is from the whole grain. I ate a lot of brown rice today. Not sure if that was your point. Can you clarify that. Thanks.
um, since there are about six hundred comments I will cut to the chase here.
Matt:
I am committing to eight weeks on the Rachel Cosgrove program with a few tweaks. Here is the dealio and i would like any further tweaks you have to offer.
Exercise: heavy weights for about an hour M,W and F
Metabolic body weight only drills 45 min to an hour T&TH
Saturdays: one hour 1/2 sprint/rest/hills bike ride, one hour run (with BFF,more for gabbing),
Rest Sunday..
weekly a few one hour walks for relaxing and some stretching sessions, yoga
Food: trying to eat every 3 hrs.
Fish (wild caught only), pastured eggs, some turkey
Coconut oil moderate amounts, coconut water
lots of veggies, raw and cooked
moderate fruits, lots of water, green tea, no sweeteners, 3 x week whole milk yogurt (1/2 cup ea), some raw nuts, some hemp protein, almond butter, no juices, no milk, no cheese, olive oil on salads only
lots of sleep 8-10 hrs a day
I am choosing Saturday as my "pig out" day where I will indulge in some dark chocolate and eat a bit more than usual (mostly Thrive by Brendan Brazier exercise snacks and drinks ) to get that Leptin going.
Please tell me what you think,
with gratitude
deb xo
PS I will have done this for one week on Monday. so far, feeling great and am pretty darn sore in some unusual spots. Which is a good sign. That metabolic stuff kicks my ass :)
@JT:
You know, there is still a difference between a low-fat and a no-fat diet. Dawn's comment made it seem to be like she was consuming no fat at all with her starches:
"With no fat, starch is just blah no matter how much seasoning you put on it."
Of course, depending on the way she cooked her protein sources and how fatty those were there probably wouldn't be much room, if any, to add some additional fat, but the way she put it made it seem to me that she was consuming no fat at all.
You don't do this either, do you? I think you once mentioned consuming about 1 tablespoon of ghee a day or so.
That basically was my point, even if you wanna lean out, you will have room for some fat. You will probably lose more, the less fat you consume, but there's probably no need to push things to an extreme level for people who just wanna lose some weight.
madMUHHH: I have to agree, people are getting a bit too caught up on low fat at the moment. A few posts ago I asked Matt what exactly defines low fat and his answer was along the lines of anything from 5-30 grams per meal depending on the size.
I don't measure how much fat I add to meals but just use it for taste and variety, without going crazy on it. Anyhow this ends up being pretty low-fat. For instance if I boil 1LBS of taters I will add a small chunk of butter (maybe 10 grams) and sea salt/pepper and toss them around. This is plenty of fat for me and anymore would become OTT in terms of taste. couple it with some fairly lean meat and a salad dressed with lemon juice, and a touch of olive oil and that makes up the majority of my meals. I am also loving the salsa as Matt says the volume trumps fat every time…..
I have also started throwing in Sushi post workout as a snack as I need something on the go, it is naturally low fat and pretty replenishing…..
I will occasionally throw in a high fat mixed meal like a pizza or pasta with a rich sauce when I am eating out or socializing and find this to boost my metabolism significantly. Energy is boosted and I get noticeably hotter for a few hours after the meal.
This has allowed me to lean out while remaining around the same weight, my pants are getting looser and I am noticeably more muscular (doing 2x a week full body workouts). Plus I feel satisfied and hunger is balanced out….
In fact I just got back from holiday where I ate a boat load of crap (pizza, cakes, PUFA's in restaurant cooking) plus wine pretty much every night. Plus loads of fructose, I was eating watermelon like it was going out of style….. Lost more weight on holiday with very little activity a part from a few swims in the sea and some push ups some mornings. I am sure the heat and vitamin D from the sun make the body more forgiving when it comes to diet……
I am still suffering from some adrenal related hypoglycemia though, this was induced by 2 years of low carb/paleo eating. I am hoping this solves itself with time, but any more tips from fellow 180ers would be appreciated, as it seems pretty stubborn……
About HbA1C – it seems to often not relate to blood glucose levels. Like my friend, who was recently diagnosed with gestational diabetes, has PP BG often above 130 and fasting BG also rather high, however, her HbA1C is 5.0. Whereas before pregnancy, she had a much higher HbA1C of 5.7 – not sure what her BG levels were then but we're kind of assuming they were lower.
And as I remember, Stephan of wholehealthsource also reported such issues, but can't find the post right now…
"Beans, unripe bananas, potatoes etc are all good sources but letting foods go cold before eating nearly doubles the amount of resistant starch – does anyone know if potatoes, rice etc is eaten cold in other countries?"
Interesting. Maybe I'm the only person, but I personally think that potatoeys that have had some time to cool down are very delicious, actually more delicious than warm potatoes. One has to wonder whether this just is a random preference of mine or whether my body actually realizes that cooled potatoes might have some benefits. Hmmm.
dawn: i forgot to mention, you can cook eggs in a TBSP or 2 of water on the frying pan instead of fat. it's pretty simple but you will probably need to experiment with a few eggs to get a feel for it.
this is something i do on and off for variety well before i was trying to go lower fat. i like it because it allows that super fresh poached egg taste. i have a few free range chickens and the eggs they give me often don't need anything but a tiny bit of salt.
and also Dawn, i'm not really counting protein or fat like you are. that sounds stressful. i've just reduced both greatly compared to how i used to eat, and making sure to fill up on the starch.
Matt, i'm not sure that you've made this clear: do you think people who have recently done HED should also do a month over-feed on high starch low fat? i have been eating fairly large amounts to appetite but haven't been specifically over-feeding. i have experienced a loss of appetite for snacks, but not for meals. what do you say?
Do I need to do a cheat day on this starch plan?
JT said:
"Don't forget that Vince was famous for being extremely impatient, irritable, and abrasive which is common for people on low carb diets."
Ha ha. That was so me on low-carb.
@Dawn: Why only 40 fat calories? Do you mean only 4-5 grams of fat per day? If so, that seems unnecessarily low to me.
@Chris and madMUHHH: I tend to feel the same way about low fat. It's not *no* fat, it's low fat. Having 20-70 grams a day easily qualifies in my view, and that's also quite doable for most people. I've managed that while still eating whole milk, whole eggs, cheese, sour cream and butter. Just not loads of it.
Hi Jeff,
Perhaps "low meat/higher carb recommenders" wasn't the best term to use. These guys are not fans of low carb and the Bob Delmontique example you gave shows him eating 50% carbs and he is probably the lowest carb of the group that I mentioned.
The Bear has also had a heart attack in addition to his throat cancer. He actually blamed his mother for making him eat broccoli as a kid for his health woes…
http://musicandculture.blogspot.com/2008/11/2007-interview-of-sound-engineerdrug.html
I know a woman from another forum who had emailed The Bear asking some questions about his diet and he was EXTREMELY rude and ignorant to her. He told her that she was obsessed with diet and just follow the rules from his website. So, she was obsessed with diet but he has his own diet rules and website about diet!
I believe Mary Enig has cancer. I read that on another forum but I couldn't find it anywhere else.
Again, it's all just anecdotal.
Elizabeth, exactly! Clarence Bass was extremely low fat but found that he got leaner and his triglycerides droppped after adding a small amount of fat back into his diet.
http://www.cbass.com/TRIGLYCE.HTM
Elizabeth,
I am not exactly sure if I am doing it right, but I never got an answer on my ration question so I am just winging it. I am using a 60/30/20 percent ration for my calories. 1900 calories per day is 1140 starch/carb, 570 calories protein, 190 calories fat. I did not mean 40 calories, sorry if that is what I said. Still 190 is pretty low, 1Tbl of coconut oil (staple for us whole foodies) has 120 calories! If you start looking at the fat calories in grains and meat it goes up really fast. If I eat a cup of oatmeal that is 50 fat calories. Choosing potatoes or rice is a fat free option so maybe I can add some fat there, but I can only eat so much of that every day. I have never added gobs of fat to my food. A tablespoon of butter to the family bowl of broccoli, or cocnut oil to cook in, or olive oil in dressing, a dollop of sour cream on a potato. Real whole food has plenty of fat, but it is not the same as adding fat. Cheese obviously tastes better than potatoes but it is calorie dense. I have inferred that I should try to avoid these types of calorie dense foods. Maybe I don't understand what low fat means. Does it mean to try and add less fat to all the food I already eat, or does it mean to try to reduce all fat sources from my diet. It is a little unnerving to me honestly. My husband is watching me eat 3 dry potatoes and is sying, "How can that be healthy? Who are these people you are talking too?"
@Dawn: Okay, that sounds more normal. Thought you were going to major extremes there. :)
I personally don't choose to go too far into low-fat. It doesn't feel right to me. I probably tend to sit at 30% fat on a normal day because that is what is enjoyable to me. Of course, some days I eat less and some days I eat more. It all depends. For instance, I can eat my rice with very little fat and still enjoy it, so I do. However, baked potatoes taste better with some added fat so I eat more fat on my taters. Or I cook them in a way that needs less fat (on the skillet or mashed).
I haven't been eating fattier cuts of meat lately because I prefer to save my fat for my raw milk and whole eggs. Plus I've never been a huge fan of fatty meat to begin with (sorry WAPF).
In the end you have to do what works for you. And "works" means not being totally miserable, because that is no way to live plus it makes sticking with anything very difficult.
@Dawn: 20% fat of 1900 calories would be 380. Furthermore, 30% protein seems sort of high. I'd think you might do better with reversing ratios to 30% fat/20% protein.
But then, what do I know? What do *any* of us know? :)
I honestly don't think that this is very healthy. The only reason i am eating like this is to get up my body temperature. Wholesome food, HED style has not accomplished this for me. I feel that I am pretty healthy, except my weight. Of course, we will see what my blood work says after this next week. I don't suffer from food intolerance or dieting damage. Even before I was aware of eating like I do now I still never ate horribly. I always cooked my own food and ate a healthy balance. Just too many PUFA's. I do not believe that my metabolisim is wrecked, especially not now. Slow, maybe, but not wrecked. Honestly, I believed and understood everything that 180 was about until we got to this high starch/low fat business. This is why I asked so many questions about bbt. It really goes against what I believe about healthy lifestyle. I guess I just believe a lie if I am not confused. Right now I am just going on faith.
Anonymous,
You are right, it is only 10%. The ratio with 20% would be 110%! It is 60/30/10. I crunched so many numbers yesterday I am surprised I can even see straight today. Sorry for the misrepresentation. Also I made the protein higher because it is actually more satisfying to me than fat and I am trying to get my fat low so I can not store any and it will create thermogenisis. That is the whole point of this.
Elizabeth,
30 days is all this low fat plan gets. It will suck for 30 days but I can do it. That is also why I am using a strict ratio. I don't want to short change the effect by not actually doing it.
@Anonymous: I think she meant 10% of fat calories as 60+30+20 would add up to 110 and 190cals does fit the 10% perfectly. Apart from that I agree that 30% protein might a bit high.
Also I think that 1900 cals is way too low. The most crucial factor for raising the metabolism probably is to create a calorie surplus and even for a woman 1900 calories seems more like a slight calorie deficit to me. I probably consume twice as much calories and I'm a rather small guy.
Anyway, that's just my take on it. Other people might think otherwise.
Oh and down, if you wanna keep your fat low and create thermogenesis, replacing some of your protein with carbohydrate probably would be a better idea.
That's dawn, btw. And sorry for the triple comment.
@Dawn, well 30 days is doable if you just want to see if something works for you. Just don't force it beyond that if it feels unnatural.
But I do agree with madMUHHH that 1900 calories is rather low. My maintenance is around 2100 calories and I weigh 140. From what I understand, one point of going high starch is to be able to go above maintenance without gaining (therefore stimulating the metabolism without fat gain).
Hey matt,
from personal experience, i can say that a low-carb diet can indeed lead to a slow metabolism, i tried low-carb for 3 months and i had an insane energy bill (heating) during these months, and i was constantly cold. Not a good thing.
I tried low-carb to try to get rid of acne (fronthead, chest and back) thats plaguing me since 13 (i'm 25 at the moment), it was unsuccessfull as you might have geussed.
What would you recommend for a long time moderate acne sufferer? You'll be my personal hero if you can give me advice that works.
Greets,
David
PS: i didn't know where to put this question, so i just put it in this discussion, sorry for the off-topic.
I used some calorie calculator where you times your weight, height, and age by 4.7 and add it to 655 and then take away one part. Ahhhh! Anyway, that was the number it came up with. I also don't know how I am going to eat more starch calories?! I barely made it yesterday. Keeping my fat LOW and protein low and starch HIGH is HARD! I honestly can't eat it all. I am litterly force feeding myself these starches. I was actually going to do a 70% starch ratio but there is no way. I also have no idea what my caloric intake was before? I could have been eating 3000 calories or 1900. I do know that I was not gaining or loosing so it must have been at least close to a maintenance amount. I could try switching the fat and protein amount but I am fearful it will be self defeating.
Dawn, Madmuhh, Elizabeth,
If you want to to lose weight, then it is all about calories, it does not have to be low fat. Figuring you calorie requirements is not hard, 10-12 calories per pound is what all real experts recommend if your goal is fat loss.
As a 200 pound male exercising 3 hours a day I consumed 1500 calories a day for months when I was in a fat loss phase and my metabolism got better. This is even lower than 10 X bodyweight.
If you want the benefits of low fat that the low fat gurus recommend, then you will have to keep it around 10% This is not necessary if your only goal is weight loss, you can lose weight on any type of diet as long as you burn more calories than you consume.
Dawn,
If you can only stick to this diet for 30 days then there is no real point in doing it. You will just rebound and probably gain more fat when you go off of it.
Instead, choose a diet with a macro-nutrient range that you can adapt as a lifestyle and that you feel good on. Once you find it stick to it and adjust the calories like I mentioned above.
Eat clean 90% of the time, and instead of actively trying to refeed just give yourself a free MEAL a couple times a week to eat whatever you want. It will provide a calorie spike to help prevent metabolic slow down, and help you maintain an active social life.
@JT: I am cutting calories several days a week, which is why I chose to cut back on fat a little. I wanted to make sure I was getting enough protein and carbs on my low-calorie days, so I scaled back the fat to reach those goals.
Trust me, I've been balking at your "calories-count" message for the last few months. But finally I let it sink in… and it's working. So if you want to say "I told you so," I totally understand. ;)
J.T.
I get all that about calories. Honestly that is just good common sense. What I am trying to achive is getting my body temp up without gaining weight. Loosing weight comes next. This diet is Matt's Rx for accomplishing that. Restrictive, mono food group dieting is not something that I do or intend to live by. I am trying this to see if it will work. I am actually still unclear as to how I will maintain this temperature spike once it is accomplished, if it is accomplished. Does it magically stay like that if you don't damage your metabolisim with crap food? That is what I am hearing, but not really understanding. Somehow that makes no sense to me. I would like to know, because if I will have to return to this regularly I will go back to eating balanced and find another way. Forget raising the temperature. No offence Matt.
As a side note I am now constipated like several others trying this. So fun this diet!
Elizabeth,
I don't want to give the wrong message. Even though calories matter, I think most people will be better off focusing on whole unprocessed food instead of just counting calories.
Dawn,
If you increase your body temperature from overfeeding for 30 day, it will just go back down when you cut calories again to lose the fat. This is why some people prefer a high carb low fat diet. They think they can keep the metabolism going and minimize fat storage if they keep fat low enough. I don't know if this is true, but you will be able to eat a lot more food if it is low fat and your carbs are unprocessed, so you will probably be satisfied on less calories.
This does not need to be a bland mono diet. I eat a high carb low fat diet, and my food tastes great, even other people comment on how good it is. I recommend you learn how to cook this type of food. Check out Japanese and other Asian cookbooks.
@JT: I get where you're coming from. That's part of the reason I've had such an aversion to calorie counting during the last couple years. If used the wrong way, I feel it can really backfire. However, I'm beginning to realize it can be used as one tool that can enhance the benefits of a good diet if you're looking to change your body composition, especially if refeeds are incorporated.
Hello everyone I have success to report as I have hit the magic number of 37 degrees! I even made a little graph(sad) and my temp is definately up. I also have been able to sleep for a full 8 hours the last two nights- a few weeks back I couldn't manage more than 3 or 4. I have lost that buzzy energy. Feel calmer and more relaxed. I haven't gained`any weight but am podgier around the middle but expect that will disappear of its own in time. JT my diet is store-bought sourdough 'craft' bread, and soaked grains, some flakes. some whole. I have been drinking kefir- a pint a day if raw(mega expensive) and up to 3 pints per day from organic pasturised. Theres been problems with my raw delivery, hopefully I won't have problems from now on. I eat some cream with my grains. Have a little raw butter and honey on my bread(sometimes don't have honey, depends how I feel). I sometimes have an evening meal which would be something like meat broth with root veg or maybe a little bit of liver or an egg. But I can't always face an evening 'meal' and just have bread or grains and kefir. The biggest result for me is being able to eat more regularly. This is a big step forward and was/is hard for me. I think I said before I went for grains because of their blandness which means I am able to eat them where I couldn't face stronger flavoured food. I almost got sucked into the paleo anti-grain thing and want to prove to myself I can eat grains. I don't have any food allergies or digestive problems. The gut disruption I'm not too surprised about-going from no grains to much grain must be quite a shock for the body.I don't count calories, I would think my diet is medium fat, high carb, low protein. I'm not trying to control weight so fats not a problem. I use it to help me eat grain. I come from a high fat wap type diet. Thanks for the answer about white rice.
@Dawn:
I don't wanna be rude or anything, but I think you are approaching this the wrong way. If I remember it correctly, you don't have any pressing health issues and it seems like you still have a lot of questions.
So, what I personally would do, is to put that entire thing on hold, perhaps read up about it once more, shoot Matt a mail so that he maybe can make some personal recommendations and after that, throw yourself behind that thing with full enthusiasm. If you think that it will be a rather stressing time period and it's not worth it, than it probably won't be worth it.
And once again, that's just my take on things.
Dawn-
You have the wrong idea completely. Never once do I recommend counting calories on RRARF. I only recommend counting calories if you are intentionally trying to gain muscle mass on a starch-based diet, as you will fail if you cannot eat above maintenance calories.
My experience eating to appetite of a primarily starch-based diet is reduced calorie intake, fat loss, and increase in body temperature.
Overfeeding really isn't an appropriate term, as many dramatically reduce their calorie intake when force-feeding themselves more starch-based whole foods than they care to eat.
DavidL-
I am very aware of resistant starch – all over it in fact. The new 180 Kitchen has a section specific to resistant starch and a special recipe for RS3 – starches that have been cooked then cooled. In fact, resistant starch has more potential to raise the metabolism to appetite ratio of any substance I've come across.
Acne David-
Seems everyone's acne story is different, but keeping PUFA low seems to help many. That's a good next step.
JT-
You are right about calories, but too much credit is given to consious control of calorie intake, which the body generally resists. As you know, the focus here is automatic, spontaneous calorie-restriction that involves no hunger. Great insights on carb cycling and Gironda. I am borderline psychotic on a low-carb diet.
Matt, you said: "There's no question that the heat boost you get from starch overfeeding comes from the body having to dissipate that energy – as it cannot convert it to fat and store it." I had the impression that carbohydrate was easily converted to fat, specially since it's intake is associated with high triglycerides. ???
I reference to various postings about nutritional advisers age and cause of death- my personal guru Adele Davis died at age 70 of bone cancer. This she attributed to 'heavy use' of concentrated milk powder. I wonder how many of the other people who position themselves as advisers would even consider that they might have to answer for their disease to their loyal followers.
JT I see you asked what grains I am eating. Oat flakes mostly, rye flakes, brown rice, barley flakes, and buckwheat(whole). I have eaten whole wheatberries in the past but not lately as they remain intact after cooking so are a bit heavy. But I've just thought maybe they need longer soaking or cooking time to become lighter, might try it. I have some red camargue rice I will be trying. My only local 'chain' wholefood store doesn't have much selection in grains and hate to pay postage for internet buys.
Madmuhhh,
You are exactly right. This is the epiphany I had last evening as I lay on the couch holding my stomach in pain. "Something is wrong with this!" My biofeedback was terrible and I am not sure why. I have never had problems eating potatoes and rice until I tried to eat 3x more than normal. I felt like my digestion stopped almost completely. That is not going to work.
Matt,
You are probably right about me having the wrong idea. Although, I am not doing RRARF. I am really doing this:
"My experience eating to appetite of a primarily starch-based diet is reduced calorie intake, fat loss, and increase in body temperature."
Because you have put such an emphasis on temperture being the greatest factor in determining metabolic health this is the most reasonable course of action for me. You have also said that reducing caloric intake is not a good idea. So my goal was to try to at least eat to maintenance to avoid a backlash of weight gain post high starch consumption. Everyone else panicked, I was just trying to follow the advice that is given here. Maybe I put the package together wrong. My thinking is I am past RRARF in the sense that I have been doing HED for a couple years and have not done crazy things to my metabolisim in the past. I still have low body temp, as do others who have done RRARF and HED. Therefore, going to a high starch ratio is the next step, you have even discussed adjusting RRARF to include higher starch. Based on all of this information is how I ended up where I am now. Somehow that was wrong. Please don't misunderstand, I am not being antagonistic. I am just explaining my thought process and how I arrived at my conclusion.
At this time, I will not be continuing on high starch. It was not working for my body at all. I am returning to my whole food ways and am planning on being more careful with my food choices and try to eat smarter. I am also going to incorporate some daily, moderate exercise and see if that is more effective for me at this time.
I appreciate all of you and your advice. I am looking forward to many more discussions. Love ya!:D
Acne David,
I've only had minor problems with acne and only on the face. My experience has been PUFA (peanut butter especially) and chocolate exacerbate it. I'm not sure if it's the sugar in the chocolate or the chocolate itself. My chocolate is pretty high quality (Equal Exchange, no soy, etc.). It takes a few days not eating these foods for acne to clear up.
Dawn,
I'm with you. I'm going to continue my mixed real foods diet my body finds flavorable and pleasant. I tried the high starch thing a couple days ago. It was bland as hell and I felt like I was force-feeding (which I was) even though I knew it was a normal size meal. My one-hour post prandial BG was 181 (highest ever). I'll continue to explore higher starch based meals. I would like to get basal temps up and fasting BG down as both numbers seem stuck. BT low 97s, fasting BG mid 80s to mid 90s.
JT, just wanted echo something Elizabeth said-
I too became a non-believer in "calories count" but your comments always seem to make the most sense here – and you are the first to put "calories count" in such a way that I "get it" now – I think. Calories count IF fat loss is what the objective is. But calories are pretty much irrelevant for someone who's healthy, has a normal weight/body composition, healthy metabolism, etc. In other words, calorie surpluses won't make such a person fat. But calorie deficits will cause an overweight body to shed EXTRA fat, right?
But will it do so without the rebound effect? How do you avoid rebounding? Is the key – sticking to clean food 90% of the time like you said? So once you've shed all the unwanted fat, just eat mostly whole/clean food to appetite from there? And does meal composition matter at that point?
Are you trying to lose fat and/or gain muscle? You mentioned that you eat a high carb/low fat diet yourself. I'm curious as to why? I recall you saying this above:
"If you want the benefits of low fat that the low fat gurus recommend, then you will have to keep it around 10% This is not necessary if your only goal is weight loss, you can lose weight on any type of diet as long as you burn more calories than you consume."
What do you consider to be LOW fat? Maybe I went TOO LOW fat? And do you mind sharing what a typical day of high carb/low fat eating looks like for you?
Thanks so much for your contributions here!!
To all:
Glad to hear others chiming in about constipation – not glad that we are constipated (lol) – just glad to see I'm not alone.
And I have to agree with others that my body seems to be much happier with a more mixed diet – no digestion problems, perfect and frequent BMs, great sleep and mood, MUCH less hair loss, silkier (less dry) skin, and so on. It makes me believe that our bodies don't like us to go LOW on anything. My body's biofeedback is best when I DO just "eat the food" and not stress over meal composition, etc. Again, makes me think of early humans and populations like Kitavans – who just ate the whole natural food from nature – and didn't even think about meal composition – or did they?
Having said that, I'm about 20 pounds overweight – I think. Maybe not – I may find that I look fine at a heavier weight than I imagine. I just want to shed this extra fat (that I gained from eating HED-style). But I am so confused as to how to do that. Like others have stated, when I started doing high carb/low fat, as Matt suggested (and others seem to be having good results from), my body seemed to REBEL! (like some others have experienced).
So I'm at such a loss at to what to do now. I am so confused.
Eat the food,
Chronic caloric surpluses will make a metabolically sound person fat. I just won't likely make them obese. Obesity is associated with metabolic imbalance.
Take a look at some of the pics is Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Not all lean, some a little chunky, nonetheless healthy.
Metabolically sound people will be better equipped to have proper satiation and adhere to it.
Dawn,
That is why I think on "refeed" days its important not to focus on "mostly starch". Eat fat and meat and perhaps a little ice cream, or even some pizza.
Important to get those calories up without feeling like you are going to explode.
Nathan, thank you – makes sense. Yes, I can see how "chronic" caloric surpluses OR deficits would do that. I just meant occasionally over-eating or high calorie days, for examples.
JT, I wanted to clarify – I know you said "10%" in the your statement I quoted. When I asked what you consider to be low fat, what I mean is what does it (10% fat) look like? I am so not good at weighing, counting calories, fat grams, etc. But what does a high carb/10% fat meal look like?
I have another question for all:
I've heard it said here many times that a high fat diet should be low carb and a high carb diet should be low in fat. Why? And where does protein fit in? Should protein be fairly low with both of those diets? And why or why not?
Thanks again!
I should clarify on my previous statement. I should have said big mixed meals. Meaning not restricting fat or protein. Not just the consumption of meat and fat.
On this resistant starch thing, how cool do the potatoes need to be? Is room temperature effective, or do they need to be refrigerated? I've googled it and can't seem to find any information on what "cool" means.
@acneDavid
I think Digestion has played the biggest role in my acne over the years. I too had acne all over my back and chest as well so maybe we're alike.
What is your digestion like?
B-vitamins, gelatin broth, fermented foods, apple cider vinegar, avoiding insoluble fiber and adding soluble fiber helped me in that department.
@Matt
So high fiber, high carb, and low flavor is the new thing?
Eventually you may have to consider 360 Degree health as an alternative name lol =0
I kid, I kid..
Interesting and suprisingly semi-related to the topic of the post : http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/index.html
…"They began to eat compulsively, to the point where they continued to do so in the face of pain. When the researchers applied an electric shock to the rats' feet in the presence of the food, the rats in the first two groups were frightened away from eating. But the obese rats were not. "Their attention was solely focused on consuming food,"…
Eat the Food,
Seems like you are starting to come to a good understanding of the big picture.
Calories still matter for people with a healthy metabolism. If you have a big enough calorie surplus you will put on weight. This is how guys that are intentionally trying to gain bulk up, they just increase their calories. You are right about calorie deficits, that is the the only way to reduce fat.
They way you avoid rebounding is sticking to it and being disciplined. You must integrate a healthy diet and exercise into your life if you want to maintain. The only other option is drugs, and we can probably all agree that is not a good option for most.
I consider low fat under 20% of calories, but 10% is what the gurus like and it is about where I am at. I am not trying to lose fat right now because i got lean enough, I am trying to gain so I am not weighing my food right now. My diet is simple, I eat starch (mostly rice) and lean meats 3-4 times a day, and have a protein shake. I have been experimenting with low protein and fat high starch meals at night and this has been good for sleep. I eat pasta, mashed potatoes, burritos, etc… It tastes great and I feel so much better than on low carb.
Sydney,
Is your diet completely made up of fermented grains and dairy? Why are you practicing such restriction? There is so much awesome food out there to eat!
JT Sorry I talked about why I was doing the diet in a post on another day. Well I'm trying to get my temp up. But as much I'm trying to get my appetite and liking for food back and to eat regularly, my pattern was to eat only a couple times a day. I've had the same effect from the high fat wap diet as matt had on fump. I don't like food and I don't like eating. This bland food allows me to eat when I couldn't face anything with higher flavour. My grains aren't fermented-I don't like the taste. I've got alot of mixed feelings about becoming 'normal'(eg eating for amusement/pleasure)- especially now I've got my temp up and am out of the buzzing energy state of mind and am able to sleep. Theres a feeling of freedom in not caring what you eat (obviously not talking nutritional-wise, I want to continue to be healthy), though actual food repulsion is a fairly new thing. But to be honest I've never cared as much about eating as other people seem to do. Its something I do cause I must. I'm still enjoying the effects of eating more often, maybe when I get used to this new, improved me, I'll get bored with the bland food, maybe my appetite will come back, maybe I'll enjoy food, who knows? Right now I feel I could eat this way forever it feels so right. I want to say I'm not blaming (if thats appropriate?) wap diet for this, I think it just happened to exasperate tendencies that were already there.
Thanks Riles-
I saw that when it came out and it's a good complement to this post – giving it even greater specificity as to propose that flavor-calorie associations are marked by rises in the reward neurotransmitter dopamine followed by downregulation of dopamine receptors. This breaks the negative feedback loop and spirals out of control as eating becomes an addiction that overrides the normal weight regulation systems.
JT-
Consciously cutting calories and then enduring hunger and using discipline to fight against it and the food cravings that accompany it is not an acceptable form of treatment for weight problems. It never has been, and never will be. Every obesity researcher knows this because they deal with people suffering from chronic signs of starvation when they follow that approach with almost 100% consistency.
The only way to lose weight with any permanent success for more than the micro-fraction of people with iron and stubborn will is to lower the weight set point, because it's the only way a human will cut calories without an increase in hunger and a decrease in metabolism.
El66k-
High-carbohydrate diets are not one sole entity. There are nearly 100 types of carbohydrates.
Simple sugars, fructose being the king but it appears even straight glucose can have this effect too – encourage de novo lipogenesis in the liver and the production of triglycerides.
Starch does not have this effect. In fact, starch appears to perhaps be the most most protective food against developing hypertriglyceridia and hypercholesterolemia.
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/1/83
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/8/1991
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/8/1659
EL 66K – Here are another 2 studies describing the different effects of Starch & Sugars:
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/1FCCCE.htm
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/20/2/131.pdf
It seems to have been recognized for a long time.
JT,
My sister is just about to have a baby and wants a good protein source for her husband every morning without having to cook. What protein shake do you drink?
Thanks David-
It seems pretty basic and straightforward, and it's one reason why the glycemic index is somewhere between useless and straight up wrong when we know that lower glycemic index often means = higher fructose content = higher trigs = increased insulin resistance = increased serum insulin levels
There are still two huge question remaining though.
The first is, are triglcyerides a problem, or are they only a problem in a reduced metabolic state in which fat storage is favored over burning the trigs for fuel?
The 2nd is, can fruit really be thought of as a food rich in sucrose and fructose that has the same effect? We know that fiber, because it acts like resistant starch, is a massive protectorant against a low metabolism – but enough to override the fructose, sucrose, and free glucose content?
JT,
"My sister is just about to have a baby and wants a good protein source for her husband every morning without having to cook. What protein shake do you drink?"
Cottage cheese with no additives tastes great, has no cooking and provides a lot of protein. Ricotta cheese and Ricotta ensalata cheeses are also made with whey and are high in protein. I use the Kalona Organics cottage cheese. I eat it everyday for breakfast with some fruit or a sweet potato (strange but good!)
Most shake powders are created by heat treating whey (which is what cottage cheese is mostly anyway). They aren't always good for you.
http://www.strongerfasterfitter.com/protein-powder-options-cholesterol-or-msg/
My own experience with protein powder was very negative. It triggered my allergies in a big way (whey!).
Having said that there is one product at my co-op that I've been anxious to try:
http://www.teraswhey.com/health.html
They supposedly use a cold filtering process that shouldn't damage the protein.
Cottage cheese and root vegetables… I don't why it's so damn good but it is.
I like the baked potato with cottage cheese and salsa myself.
But I have had the sweet tater cottage cheese think too and wowza!
@danyelle1 & Jenny:
You can also buy cold-filtered, grass-fed whey from Swanson Vitamins. I've tried it and it's a pretty decent product, though more expensive than conventional protein powders, obviously.
With regards to making starch more palatable, no ones mentioned mixing in fried onions/red peppers, etc….
Would this be an appropriate approach or would the extra sweetness be a drawback? I imagine it would be a better solution than adding in a ton of fat.
Would be interested in anyones thoughts on this.
Hey JT, great stuff. I always enjoy reading your comments. What are your thoughts on Martin Berkhan/LeanGains? I'm not asking about the IF part of it (I generally skip breakfast anyways as my workday is very busy from 6am until noon) but more to some of his other recommendations.
1: High protein consumption (~3x LBM in kg) when trying to lose fat. I know I feel stronger on this amount of protein. Do you eat anywhere near this?
2: He advocates the carb cyclying approach by eating high starch/low fat meals after workouts and fruits and veggies otherwise. He has obviously had great results with him and his clients but just wondering whether you think there is anything magical going on here or could this just be done following your approach?
3. I generally avoid wheat as it scares me (autoimmune) and doesn't make me feel good but what about dairy. Martin is a cottage cheese fiend and I do enjoy putting down a couple of cups with some fruit. I have been doing a skim milk and whey shake after working out also. Do you have any quams with dairy?
Thanks JT. Matt, feel free to chime in, your thoughts are always welcome.
By the way, congrats on the new eBook Matt!
Matt (and others), you should read French Women Don't Get Fat. I really think it has a lot of the answers. In addition to things like moderating fat and taking in a lot of fruits and veggies, she recommends really focusing on your food and being mindful because you reach satiety faster, and I really believe satiety is a trick in helping your body realize it shouldn't go into starvation. She certainly would not encourage people to eat bland food (quite the opposite – herbs and spices instead of high levels of fat, and lots of variety in foods and slavors). I went to France earlier in the summer and ate lots of white bread and still lost a few pounds (eating what felt like a lot). I noticed the food there doesn't have high levels of fat (everything is pretty low in fat except for cheese and the desserts–definitely not oily like food here). And the long meals. I think there's a lot to be said for things like focusing on your food and seeking pleasure in eating. I absolutely would not eat a plain plate of potatoes. I use slivers of butter but I use it, and herbs and spices, too. Who wants to live otherwise? -Amy
Sorry, I meant to write "flavors" not "slavors"
Matt/JT/Riles/anyone,
What are your thoughts on avoiding wheat? I have read and heard a lot of research that has made me not make it part of my daily intake (here and there in small amounts is tolerated but a half a pizza destroys me). Do you avoid wheat? Thanks
Mark,
I don't eat wheat very often. But, I don't go out of my way to avoid it mainly because I don't have much to eat it with that I like eating on a daily bases.
I definitely eat it when I decided to go outside of my basic "diet" and never have problems. I think that eating the type of wheat we have now in the USA with the frequency and quantity it is eaten today is the main problem. I mean people today eat this modified high protein flour at breakfast lunch and dinner and have snacks which contain it everyday. That is where they could be potential problems. I avoid pufas and sugars more than I avoid wheat.
OK Matt, I have a question for you. If eating an abundance of carbs can result in lipogenysis, how can we ever be fat deficient? Can't we just make it on our own? Why is it that we can go too low in fat? Just trying to wrap my brain around this one. Thanks!
Whether we can ever be fat decifient or not is debatable. The only fats that are considered "essential" are the PUFA fats, but that too is highly debatable.
Mark-
I eat lots of wheat. Not everyday, but I don't really pay much attention to whether what I'm eating has wheat in it or not.
Thanks Matt. So you don't care about your "gut health" or do you think that a vibrant metabolism will take care of it?
An extra few thoughts from up above after spending a few days away.
JT- All due respect man, but I don't understand how you can keep arguing that white rice is what half the world eats and remains healthy on, and suggest that we ought to eat it too. I agree that it's a great starch source and hypoallergenic, but if Stephen Guyenet is right, white rice hasn't been a staple for all that long in any human diet http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-search-of-traditional-asian-diets.html . Plus according to Matt, populations eating white rice are declining in health too. It seems to me quite possible that the negative downstream effects of white rice just aren't fully visble yet, and may become more pronounced with each successive generation. Not to say that it's terrble and you should never eat t, or that supplementing with nutritional yeast or something won't help offset those potential pitfalls. But suggesting it to be a thoroughly innocuous food, without at leats acknowledging some of those things, seems irresponsible, especially since you're generally well respected around here.
Also- to hammer home that Gabriel, mind/body connecton again- in my case anyway, there were non-food reasons why a whole food diet didn't make me magically lean. It helped, but didn't bring me the robust health I hoped. I think other factors are at play in our body composition and overall well-being. It's not just what you eat, but what your body does with what you eat, you've said Matt. And it seems that you're focusing a lot on the mechanics of forcing your body to produce the outcomes you want- high body temp, insulin sensitivity, favorable body composition. But that's why I sked above whether this isn't sending us down a road of imprisonment to the interventions we're making. That once the mechanical forcing is through, the adapatation won't evaporate as well, and all the effort we put in won't be for naught. The times I really resonate with your writing are when you emphasize letting it happen naturally, and automatically, as above with JT and calorie-counting. That's honing in on something that makes so much sense to me.
Not that I'm actively proposing the Gabriel Method as the only path here, but I just wanna keep throwing this out there to keep it in your mind, and encourage you to hold on to that bigger picture focus that non-dietary factors play a role in our biochemistry and that simply altering our nutrients might only force the body and not coax it.
Thanks Rob. I appreciate that. And perhaps one day we'll have more confirmation that just eating lots of good, tasty food is the way to go – even with the fat gain – with losing the fat later if needed or maybe just saying "ah screw it, being lean is for narcissistic tools."
But remember too that Gabriel switched from eating junk food to eating foods that were not very calorie dense at all (lots of raw foods, the least calorie dense and most slowly-absorbed foods with therefore the lowest flavor-calorie association) and noticed that his hunger dropped and metabolism sped up (decreased weight set point) which is the point of this post.
Mark-
With a thick and healthy gut wall, gluten is not problematic. Not only that, but the resistant starch and fiber found in whole wheat is outstanding for strengthening the gut wall, improving digestion, improving gut bacterial ecology and more. No wonder all the people that subsisted off of whole wheat like the Sikhs and many Central American people had such excellent digestive health with no autoimmunity, IBS, Crohn's, etc. – even when the wheat was not sprouted, fermented, or even cooked for very long.
Like most foods, humans are dependent on the whole foods. Take away the things in wheat that protect against certain things in it (fiber and starch for example in the case of gluten, or vitamin E in case of the PUFA) and you run into trouble.
Say what you want about gluten, but healthy humans in real life were able to eat lots of it with nothing but health to show for it. When that's the case, it's hard to develop an unecessary phobia about it, especially when it is pervasive in the American diet and would be pretty crippling to religiously avoid.
Oh and Rob, wanted to make sure you saw this…
http://www.leangains.com/2010/08/definition-of-lean-gains.html
Notice how the guy, on a Paleo diet, looks frail, tiny, and skinny fat like one of the Aborigines in NAPD, or the guys in The God's Must Be Crazy, but looks like a Roman warrior on a high-starch, high-calorie, low-fat diet.
Hey Matt
Did indeed see that link, and I hear that. And I'm not disputing that that sort of regime can get you big. This dude also is high-protein, I think, something you advise against.
Some of the folks in NAPD and TGMBC look a bit skinny fat, not exactly like the dude on Leangains in my opinion, but sure, not everyone looks like they came off the set of 300. But that's not what I picture lean paleo peopel looking like- Erwan le Corre of MovNat is more like it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKGF-ErsJiI and here: http://barefootted.com/uploaded_images/IMG_1537-1-738634.JPG Lean and strong but not huge or bulky, not even all that ripped, is how I imagine native humans looking. Remember that the Kalahari is a fairly marginal environment that the forager San moved into because they were pushed out of the more fertile areas by farmers. It's hard say how representative TGMBC is for paleo humans living as they did for most of the human experience.
Good point too about Gabriel eating lots of low flavor intensity raw food. He also eats pretty low carb from what I gather- avoiding potatos and breads. So he's not exactly a starch-based low fat kinda guy, either.
Lots to tease out there. Glad you hear me out though, amigo.
Danyelle,
The only dairy I can tolerate is peptopro protein powder. I like brown rice protein like sunwarrior.
Mark,
I eat about a gram per pound of LBM in protein. I don't like really high protein diets and excessive use of dairy, doesn't seem healthy at all. I don't like carb cycling because it is too complicated and unnecessary. I have no problems with wheat, but don't eat it everyday.
RobA,
There is nothing wrong with white rice, billions of people survive healthily on it. It only becomes a problem if it is the ONLY source of food. No need to obsess over the small stuff man, just find what works for you and stick with it. I have actually been eating mostly Haiga rice lately which still has the germ, you could try this if you are scared of white rice.
There is no need to imagine what native humans looked like, you can find plenty of pictures on the internet. Most didn't have great physiques. Not many paleo-diet followers look good, I looked like I was extremely malnourished.
but Matt,
Tanner looks "frail, tiny, and skinny fat" not on a Paleo diet, but pre paleo diet.
"A little over 6 months ago I started eating paleo nutrition style, I was sitting around 170lbs of a short (5'6") and stocky muscle and fat."
"I dropped my weight down to an unhealthily 135lbs in a matter of a couple months. Tons of muscle mass as well as fat dropped off while following the paleo nutrition lifestyle along with my own form of intermittent fasting – as in, I ate whenever I felt like it. Which was like once a day probably only consuming 800-1200 calories at most."
Picture shows "Tanner at about 170 lbs back in October. This was before he dropped a ton of weight by undereating."
wegwbwlrqpnerlpdsoub, http://nailfunguscurecuretreatment.com Nail Fungus Cure, dWoYlmN.