I’ve been a busy boy, posting four new videos in the past couple days. First and foremost however, is my lengthy guest post at Elizabeth Walling’s The Nourished Life more or less on the topic of leptin resistance. Please check that out. It’s a good one.
As somewhat of a follow-up to that post, I did a video on leptin resistance and obesity – basically stating that obesity, from a functional/hormonal standpoint, is starvation in every respect. Definitely worth taking a peek.
Next in the lineup is a little fun. Lately, as many of you are aware, there has been a huge titanic battle going on between Anthony Colpo and Michael Eades (here’s a taste of that) – some of the louder voices in the health and nutrition internet scene. In this video, I play knucklehead referee, suggesting that low-carb diets can slow down your metabolism (hardly a metabolic advantage – which was the focus of the dispute), and that Colpo’s book should be called The Fat Gain Bible. Crap, I can’t make any friends. I’ll take some heat over this one fo’ sho’.
#3 in the video lineup is an important video showing the link between inflammation and obesity. Inflammation triggers the release of a leptin-resistance inducing protein called SOCS3, as well as cortisol which has similar consequences. A low omega 6 diet is certain to help improve this metabolic downward spiral.
Last but not least is the latest 180 Kitchen post. It’s still Filet Mignon March, and today’s installment is a buttery, velvety, silky smooth lil’ taste of heaven. Beef Tartare. God I love it!
I really don't understand why you keep repeating the mainstream nutrition dogma of lowering you omega 6 intake. I thought you were contrarian to the conventional view. This gives people people the wrong impression, that omega 3 intake is good, when in fact it can be just as bad or worse than omega 6. It's all PUFAs that need to be avoided, not just omega 6.
That is not the mainstream belief. Walter Willett, the primary medical voice in the world on health and nutrition issues, for example, thinks that omega 6 is a very healthy fat. The medical establishment thinks that it's a good, essential fatty acid, and because it's polyunsaturated it's like manna from heaven.
You are unlikely to hear me say to increase omega 3 intake, and I've made it quite clear in other posts on the topic that the root problem is consuming too much omega 6, not too much omega 3 (Westerners consume an incredibly low amount of omega 3 already). The worst way to deal with an imbalance is to take more 3 without addressing overconsumption of 6.
Matt, you usually mention sugar craving as associated with leptin resistance. Am I the only hypothyroid, low body temperature, diabetically predisposed, stubborn fat person out there who has yoyoed her hormones to death and who does NOT crave sugar? I mean, I binged on candy and ice cream and soda, etc. growing up, but post low-carb, sugar sort of tastes like poison to me.
Nuts, on the other hand, I will binge on. Peanuts are my nemesis especially and I can't go near them, but even macadamia nuts are problematic. High fat dairy like cheese, yogurt and cream, any starch combined with fat… that's what I crave.
Maybe extra fat is extra smart at what will keep it alive and well?
Sugar cravings are more common, but lets consider what the starving hypometabolic men in Ancel Keys's study craved…
He reported that the most common cravings were for pastries, sweets, dairy products, and nuts.
Some of your readers may appreciate this:
Watch to the end. It sets a few things in perspective!
Both audio (MP3) & video versions are available.
i dont crave sugar or anythign sweet at all either…. cheese, dairy and nuts though… wow… 24/7 i crave them
i know dairy is known to promote a high insulin response, and maybe nuts can too? maybe its the salt?
There's no question that dairy is the ultimate natural "weight gainer." It's designed to help youngsters achieve rapid growth of body mass. It figures that we would crave dairy if looking to store calories due to believing we were in starvation (whether actual or not).
As for nuts and sugar – you can just picture bears chowing down on acorns and berries, getting their fructose-PUFA combo. on in preparation for hibernation. Not surprisingly, the fructose-PUFA combo. only exists in seasonal areas right before winter sets in.
But it can't all be attributed to PUFA. Mac nuts are just as cracklike as any high-PUFA nut I've ever had.
First, being mainstream doesn't in itself make something wrong. Anyway, it's arguable whether mainstream is pro omega 6 or not.
Second, saying that one should reduce omega 6 does not mean that person is saying omega 3 is good–you're just making an incorrect assumption. And anyway, again, Matt does not recommend increasing omega 3.
So macadamias are still good? Whew. I've been downing them at an alarming rate. They've totally replaced my peanut butter addiction.
I still want chocolate though, even after I'm completely satiated. There must be something else going on there. I wonder if I completely cut it out (!) if that would drop my appetite.
I'm in week 4 of really really low PUFA consumption and I *think* my allergies (to pollen and dairy) are improving. Spring will be the real test of that though.
Man, I sure hope cutting out PUFA's is what will kick some weight loss into gear. I could eat mashed potatoes with bone-broth gravy and beef pot roast every meal.
And you have friends on the internets – you *know* we're your friends if we still talk to you after you tell us we may gain some weight before we lose it.
@Matt: Do you mean weight gainer as in "weight weight" or as in "lean mass gain"?
Interesting about Eades and Colpo. When Dr. Guyenet at "Whole Health Source" wrote about the Kitavans being really healthy on a high glycemic carb (sweet 'taters) diet, some of the low carboids went nuts.
Carbs are evil, doncha know.
The low carb priesthood is not to be messed with.
My wife's grandparents both lived to be 90 in mostly great health. They ate red meat and white flour tortillas, as well as beans, potatoes, and every proscribed food of either the low fat, or low carb/paleo weenie crowd. They did not consume soda and prepared snack foods. Sweets (chocolate or ice cream) were consumed almost daily in small quantities. their daily activity was walking and gardening/ housework. My wife says her grandpa was quite strong into old age, building adobe houses in his late 70's. they were semi-rural people who grew a lot of their own food.
Interestingly, they were not overweight, and both died with all their own teeth, in spite of all them taters. I know this is anecdotal, but my wife and I eat pretty much the same way and we are both slender. No jogging either.
Something else is wrong, and it isn't traditional foods.
Matt two things.Just wanna first say that I am loving the videos!Very kool and loved the Eades/Colpo one…havent watched the inflammation one yet.The other things is that isocaloric you point out is one macro diet.This is incorrect as isocaloric means equal calories from each of the 3 macro nutrients.
Isocaloric diet is the only way I ever got a sixpack.I started at 2500cal per day and got down to 1200 by the time my abs were showing.I had to keep adjusting the diet to stay isocaloric and then fatloss would stop.By the time I was at 1200 calories I would smell food cooking from a block away.Working in Manhattan and delivering flour to bakeries at the time was highly tasking for me.The ripped body was from pure commitment.Ok,back to the vids…..keep em coming!
@madMUHHHH, yes — i have the very same question. does drinking RAW whole milk contribute to fat storage / weight increase *or* lean muscle mass?
Matt, if you do think it adds to increased fat storage — how does this jive with its apparent therapeutic metabolic effects? oh, and what's your reco on how much (raw/whole) milk a person should drink? a tad confused…
@Matt: Do you mean weight gainer as in "weight weight" or as in "lean mass gain"?
There's no question that dairy is the ultimate natural "weight gainer." It's designed to help youngsters achieve rapid growth of body mass. It figures that we would crave dairy if looking to store calories due to believing we were in starvation (whether actual or not)
Matt is right, dairy is the ultimate weight gainer and that is it's purpose in nature. Milk will make You will agin fat and muscle, but mostly fat. This is a good thing for babies.
It doesn't matter milk is raw or not, it will cause the same amount of fat and lean gain. Raw milk may be better for other health related reasons though.
I emailed you a couple times and this is my first blog reply. I'm continuing to sort through all the different bits of data I've encountered about health and wellness. A couple things come to mind: is it a good thing to have a high-burning metabolism? According to Nora Gedgaudes (of Primal Body, Primal Mind) and Dr Mercola, a low burning metabolism in the long haul signals efficiency and greater durability. As in: you don't want your engine burning hotter all the time, because it'll burn out faster. Also- keeping things cool preserves them, as in a refrigerator.
Or maybe the idea is to regain leptin and insulin sensitivity, and over the long term maximize our metabolic efficiency so we can function well on less fuel?
Also- this is a little tangential, but have their been studies that look at the ways our bodies and metabolisms might change over the course of the seasons, and at different stages of our lives (beside the fact that our metabolism supposedly slows as we age, which as you've noted, might be related to cellular build up of omega 6s and its cumulative thyroid-lowering effects). I ask this because I have this notion that we are very deeply cyclically disregulated in all sorts of ways, from artificial lighting and disregulated sleep to unseasonal eating, to unaltering thermal environments, to regularized movement patterns and so forth. I have this notion that our bodies still pick up all these cues and end up deeply confused when we live out of rhythm in these ways. And so I wonder which, if any, of these possible co-factors are accounted for when people do these nutritional and metabolic studies, and if they are not accounted for, whether we might look to them to provide more context for our findings.
Anyway, thanks Matt. Cheers
Matt, the idea of omega 6 being bad and omega 3 being good is very mainstream. If you don't think so then you need to spend a day reading all the pop diet books at the bookstore. Go to the grocery store and see All of the omega 3 products. I know of many people who have poisoned themselves unknowingly on omega 3 products like fish oil and flax. The problem I have with your advice is that you know better and still just talk about omega 6.
Andrew Weil is a good example of this. He likes low omega 6 high omega 3. He is also anti fructose as wellsurprisingly, and prefers whole grains and other starchy
vegetables. He is pretty fat eating this diet, so do t think
that eAting low omega 6 and low fructose is going to get
The reason starving people crave sugar is because that is what your body needs in order to quickly rebuild. That is why they give it to actual starving people in Africa. But, just because you crave sugar doesn't mean you are starving.
rob a, thanks for bringing up the seasonal fluctuations, artificial lighting, etc.
i tend to suspect that those issues, and also cases of severe or prolonged emotional stress in childhood, probably impact the metabolism in a much more significant way than changes in diet do.
You're wrong on the account of leptin resistance causing loss of lean tissue in the obese due to sending a "starvation" signal to the hypothalamus (not the exact words but you said something that implied it in the video).
The reduced fat oxidation commonly observed in the obese vs lean controls may be, in part, due to peripheral resistance to the lipolytic actions of leptin.
But even so, loss of lean mass during calorie deprivation or starvation is considerably less than normal-weight or lean controls – regardless of leptin resistance.
I wrote a bit about leptin today as well, if anyone is interested.
Good work Matt! :)
I've been waiting when you get to the roots of leptin resistance. I made my readings about endotoxin, inflammation, SOCS3 and leptin resistance couple of months ago. Inflammatory responce of your body seems to be in quite central role here.
Thanks for bringing out that omega-6, IL-6 and SOCS3 connection.
Matt do you think we have enough interest yet for a forum? One of the successes of MDA is a pretty good forum, i think.
i would LOVE a forum
i woule LOVE to hang out on the internet with people that don't think fat people are basically lazy and undisciplined
Yeah, a forum is definitely in order. Shouldn't be too hard to get up and running with whatever the kids are using nowaways – vBulletin or some other free system?
I'm just writing about this a little bit today – seasonality and the many ways in which we violate nature's laws – like eating omega 6 365 days per year when it is only abundant in the food chain seasonally in seeds, nuts, and grains – it's pre-hibernation food. In high latitudes you only get omega 6 and fructose together for a month or two per year – right before hibernation time, which is the fodder that bears, squirrels, marmots, and other small mammals eat to store fat and slow down their metabolisms for hibernation (animals that don't hibernate have ways to convert omega 6 to other fatty acids – and humans aren't designed to live in seasonal climates where the food chain is high-PUFA). The light issue is a fascinating one too. You'd love T.S. Wiley's book if you haven't read it already (not saying it isn't moronic in places).
As for the metabolism, it is a wonderful thing to consume less oxygen and have a lower total calorie burn/metabolism. But let me clarify what I mean by that…
The larger your body, the more calories you burn. Extra fat takes a ton of extra work by your body to keep it warm and circulate blood to your extremeties. Fat people have higher metabolisms than thin people. I'd say that, at minimum, your body uses 5 calories per day for every pound of extra fat you carry. That's why 800 pound people can maintain calorie balance on 7,000 calories per day. The result is that their bodies are working like freight trains to keep up. Talk about burning hotter. Resting pulse is astronomical, blood pressure is typically higher, breathing is heavy. But their actual core temperature is low, as they think they are starving (leptin resistance) and trying to conserve calories while naturally inclined to overeat on weight-gaining foods. This is a huge burden compared to a lean Okinawan who weighs 130 pounds and needs 1,800 calories per day to satisfy appetite and keep body temp at 98 degrees F.
Basically, you want a high body temperature for optimal function (as a result of being leptin sensitive, having a healthy thyroid, and meeting your caloric needs), and the minimal metabolism (low total calorie burn due to being lean) for your level of lean body mass. That's why little people, or little dogs, outlive the big ones. You can't shed lean mass without lowering your body temp., but you can relieve the extra metabolic burden of being overweight.
So the best of both worlds is a high body temp. without excess weight. Crackheads like Gedgaudas or Ron Rosedale think the way to live longer is to lower your body temperature. No, that's the way to live shittier, not longer.
Young mammals, because of the hormonal state they are in (lots of growth hormone), build a greater proportion of lean mass to body fat with milk as a fuel than at any other time in life. Hormones determine whether you build tons of lean mass off of milk – like a young foal, or build fat. In general, the higher the body temp. and the greater your level of anabolic hormones, the more you will build lean mass with dairy – not fat. But dairy probably will raise your metabolism faster than anything, which is why the milk diet is so powerful.
I've been waiting to do a forum until I can actually embed it on my main site. That takes a little design work, which I am just now able to afford to have done. Sorry for the delay on that. We'll have it by summer or I'll die tryin'.
Interesting that Weil promotes a low omega 6, low fructose diet while selling date/fig bars with cashews in it. He may promote that, but he's obviously not dedicated. Like I said, that's pre-hibernation food for creatures that don't convert omega 6. By low fructose/omega 6 he must mean 10 grams omega 6 and 50 grams of fructose per day.
There's no question that the overweight lose less lean mass on low-calorie diets. The point I was making is that when they ingest excess calories their bodies use it preferentially for fat storage and not building lean mass. Every young mammal on earth during its most hypermetabolic and anabolic phase is taking in more calories than they burn through the entire developmental period – and progressively raising their ratio of lean mass to body fat during that time.
The problem is that fat people have different metabolic tendencies than the lean.
For example, a lean 200 pound man may burn 3,500 calories per day and have a body temp. of 98 degrees F. A 300-pound fat man may burn 4,500 calories per day and have a body temp. of 98 degrees F. But when obesity researchers take 100 pounds off the 300 pound guy so that he weighs 200 like the lean guy, he may burn 2,300 calories per day and have a body temp. of 96 degrees F at that point. The two men may now weigh the same, but they are very different – even if body composition is the exact same.
Matt, I would not even mention it to other health bloggers that don't understand the dangers of all PUFAs, but you do, and you are in a position to help the people who follow you. So, that is why I am bringing this up, and do not understand why you intentionally single out omega 6. Especially now that so many "health" conscious people are hurting themselves because of the mainstream promoting omega 3 as healthy.
Hi Matt (& others)–A bit off topic, but I'm a several-months grateful reader of your blog trying to get my body temperature up by following a low-PUFA, high(er than my previous low-carb)-starch diet.
Ray Peat once described hogs whose fat became more saturated by wearing sweaters! (I assume because their temperature/metabolism went up?) Is it ridiculous to think that one can speed up the metabolism-healing process along by wearing extra layers (in addition to diet, rest, etc.)? I've been doing this for the past couple of weeks and my body temperature has dramatically increased (more so than diet alone), but now, when I take off the extra sweater, I feel colder than usual. I'm wondering whether I am/was "cheating" and whether my temperature gains do NOT correlate to increased health, and might, in fact, be counterproductive….Any thoughts you have would be much appreciated!
There's no question that humans are designed for warm weather – we are perhaps the best adapted mammal on earth for hot temperatures. Saturated fat is an adaptation to warmth for the most part in nature – PUFA is an adaptation to cold weather.
You may be onto something. I always lose fat in warm weather too BTW, but sunlight and vitamin D synthesis may be a factor in that as well – which, like a sweater, might also encourage saturated body fat, as saturated fat is less light and heat sensitive.
@Matt's take on dairy:
Makes a lot of sense. And to say that milk is fattening no matter what is a bit silly in my opinion. In fact one could almost refute that statement with one word: Masai.
The Masai and many other primitive tribes rely heavily on dairy and dairy products and still are lean. So I guess it's once again not "you are what you eat" but "you are what your body does with what you eat".
I believe Matt is singling out Omega 6 rather than just saying LOW PUFA in general because the primary PUFA consumption in the world is Omega 6. Most natural food has very little Omega 3 in it, so its not really something to worry about. Some natural food and MOST processed food has lots of Omega 6. The only reason most people are taking Omega 3 is because they have a lot of Omega 6 in their diet and believe you have to have that good ratio. So by cutting out Omega 6, one would likely cut out the Omega 3 as well since it it no longer needed in larger quantities to get that mainstream endorsed ratio
Speaking of Omega 3 check out this calculator http://whole9life.com/fish-oil/ that paleo homeboy Robb Wolf has me on 20 pills just for maintenance. Am I correct in thinking I can forget Omega 3 supps if I keep Omega 6 low? What about the beneficial effects that DHA has on the brain?
i dont agree at all with people who intake large amount of omega 6 trying to artifically "even the ratio out" by popping excessive omega 3…something about that seems like way to much omega period and more work for the body.
i dont crave sugar or anythign sweet at all either…. cheese, dairy and nuts though… wow… 24/7 i crave them
i know dairy is known to promote a high insulin response, and maybe nuts can too? maybe its the salt?"
Sounds like a fat craving, pure and simple.
"Makes a lot of sense. And to say that milk is fattening no matter what is a bit silly in my opinion. In fact one could almost refute that statement with one word: Masai."
Yeah Liz lost 3 pounds on the milk diet eating way over her recommended calories per day. I'm thinking of giving the diet a go because of her quick basal temp response. I've been at this a damn year almost and the most I've ever had is three days in a row at 98+ and I think those were mid cycle.
Also my kid is another great example. He is skinny and tall with no "budda belly" that most little kids have. He eats probably 50% of his calories or more from dairy. (Cheese, milk and yogurt, all organic, grass fed and minimally processed…not quite raw though). At age two his pediatrician had us switch to 2% and encourage him to stop drinking milk before bed. He had one of those buddha bellies in a few months of that. I took him off the 2% because I threw all that low fat shit out of the house and never looked back. His growth this year has been amazing. The pediatrician was so impressed with the change and she asked what I did. I think she was skeptical when I told her, but that has been the main switch in his diet. I've cut back sugar too, especially fruit and that has helped increase his appetite for a greater variety of foods. But still his babysitter gives him treats all the time and so do the neighbors. The main difference is the milk.
"There's no question that humans are designed for warm weather – we are perhaps the best adapted mammal on earth for hot temperatures. Saturated fat is an adaptation to warmth for the most part in nature – PUFA is an adaptation to cold weather."
I've always been fascinated by the brown fat phenomenon. I think it wouldn't take that long (less than a generation) to develop brown fat if there was drastic climate change. Obviously you'd need a wholesome diet to do it. I've read about channel swimmers that manage to develop it inside of a few years of sleeping with the windows open, etc.
Exactly what is the "milk diet"?
Do you consume mostly milk?
Matt, look at Chris who just commented on you blog about taking extra omega 3. If you you would just promote the whole truth instead of just parts then he would be clear. Maybe the low omega 3 thing is too controversial for you to advocate publicly. But, we should recognize that it is a fad among health conscious people to guzzle omega 3.
Regarding warm climates, I have to agree. I always feel better when I am in a warm tropical climate, and I always get extra lean very quickly. Saunas have also been seen by many cultures as being healthy.
I also listened to the Ray peat interview on the pigs who wore sweaters. He also mentioned that it takes 4 years to convert ones fat stores from being pita dominate to a more healthy fat composition. That is when I got the idea of speeding up the process by getting lean first.
I Meant to say that Ray Peat said it would take 4 years to change from a PUFA dominant bodyfat to a more healthful composition.
i actually enjoy your own posting taste, very charming.
don't quit and also keep posting mainly because it simply nicely to read it,
impatient to read much more of your articles, cheers!
JT I think it is probably quite clear we needn't supplement with O3's as the only reason they are pushed by the mainstream to my knowledge is to balance out high Omega 6's, I would just like verification on this topic. What is more interesting to me is the effect that EPA and DHA have on the body and mind, if they are really so beneficial then fish oil caps still have a place for me……..
I read this earlier, http://tinyurl.com/yel8cro pretty interesting stuff from another Paleo fanboy, it is amazing how Paleo has gone so mainstream guys think they are running the nutrition show and feel severely threatened when carbs are mentioned. Certainly a good read.
This is OT, but just want to say to you Matt that I bought a piece of Fromage D'Affinois yesterday and OMG! You were totally right, it is so awesome, the texture and taste are totally orgasmic. Actually, I think maybe this is too good to eat and it should be illegal.
From my understanding (please someone chime in if I am totally of base) is that the human body has a very low actual requirement of EPA and DHA to be health, happy, and strong. Of course the need for these fatty acids does increase during early stages of fetal development and nursing.
The body is capable of converting ALA (egg yokes) to both EPA and DHA. Which apparently women are more efficient at doing, which makes sense (see above). IMO the bodies efficiency of this conversion is strongly associated with your over all metabolic rate, the amount of inflammation in the body, and competition of metabolizing n-6. All of which is negatively effected by the amount of PUFA in the diet.
I promise you I have no such boner for omega 3, but I think it's premature to put any kind of anti-emphasis on it. I don't think people should supplement or even think about it. If your diet is the least bit unrefined you'll get a gram of so a day. Even the Kitavans, on one of the lowest-PUFA diets on earth, still get 3 grams of omega 3 per day (and about 1.5-2g omega 6).
But I'm definitely open to the possibility that just because DHA is great and all, that doesn't mean that whatever fatty acid the body would produce in its stead (like Mead acid) wouldn't be even better. It's all speculative of course, as no one studies low EFA diets for fear that they will result in death and dismemberment based on the current EFA belief.
Also, it's not just body fat that needs turnover. It's all cells and tissues that accumulate PUFA. But yes, this might expedite the process, and body fat itself is thought to be inflammatory. You may be onto something with your "clean slate theory" of body re-building.
By the way, the milk diet is raw milk ONLY for roughly 4 weeks and sometimes longer, consumed in a very specific manner with other presumably-important guidelines such as refrain from too much physical activity.
Totally. That's the best-textured cheese you can get in the U.S. I hear unpasteurized Epoisses in France is even better though. Cheeseslave says it's better than sex and is not joking when she says that (ouch, her poor husband). I've had the pasteurized verson here and it's still in my top 3.
Sounds like you've been a little "touched in the head" too. What were Liz's temp. changes BTW?
Criminy! If fat is inflammatory itself, and I need to lower my inflammation to lose fat, what the heck am I supposed to do? Sounds like the worst kind of catch 22.
And maybe I'm missing something here, but my d'Affinois smelled like a foot. Either I got some bad cheese or my taste buds are tres gauche.
D'affinois usually isn't that funky smelling. You musta got one with the funk. Foot-smelling cheese ain't always something to run from though. Epoisses is the most foot-odored cheese on earth. It's so potent that it has been banned from public transportation in France. It is so the chronic though.
Danyelle, I understand why you are confused, but it is not a catch 22. What you should do depends on your current state.
What is you bodyfat like now? What is your diet and exercise like? What is your age, hormone, health status like?
Everyone is not the same, and to recommend the same thing to everyone regardless of their situation is not a good idea.
Matt, There are many benefits to getting lean first before trying to overfeed to increase lean tissue.
If you are already fat, then you will add mostly fat to your body when you up the calorie consumption, especially carbs. If you are lean first then you can handle the overfeeding, especially the carbs. The leaner you are the more carb tolerant you will be.
Also, we have the possibility of expediting the process of the "oil change", getting rid of the bad fats, before trying to build up. This may get rid of some of the health problems associated with PUFA consumption and a low metabolic rate. We should ask Ray Peat about this, he may be one of the only people in the world who knows. See if you can get an interview with him!
Matt, it’s outstanding that, unlike most of the others health writers, you are very open-minded and can accept the discussion of new ideas, including points of view which at first seem completelly opposite to yours.
For instance, I have read your comment on Martin Berkhan’s blog and just wanted to add that you are confusing a subtle calorie deficit with starvation. It is very possible to be in the single digit BF range and be healthy if you do it right. A. Colpo’s FLB revolves around that. I am not sure if you have read The Great Cholesterol Con from Colpo, but it’s the best piece of work ever written debunking the low-fat dogma. And The FLB is not starvation.
Well here's a little more information: I'm 36 yrs, 5'7" and 190 lbs. If you would indulge my vanity, most people don't believe I weight that much when I tell them (not just friends, always the nurse at the doctor's office is surprised.) I think I really have some pretty substantial lean tissue underneath this fat.
Most of my extra fat is in my abdomen, especially the last 10-15 lbs that I put on over last Christmas season and starting the HED start of February. I've been avoiding PUFAs as much as reasonably possible since mid-February. After the initial weight gain I seem to have stabilized.
I tend towards insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome as I was diagnosed gestational diabetic for all 3 of my pregnancies. I get very light exercise chasing my 3 boys around all day since we do homeschool.
I just found my old blood glucose meter tonight and measured 1 hour after eating a mixed meal of approximately equal calories from each macronutrient. It was 76 mg/dl. My basal body temps have been rising slowly steadily (from a start of 97.2) since starting the HED (or whatever Matt describes in his metabolism e-book.) This morning it was 98.3 oral. And in the last week I've moved towards some higher starch/lower fat meals.
There. That's the high points. Now which food can I eat to lose weight and never die?
My D'Affinois does have a slight funk smell…but that is part of its charm. I love stinky cheeses and usually the stinkier the better. I had some Limburger cheese a couple months ago and it wasn't nearly as bad smelling as everyone says. Of course, my favorite cheeses are blue cheese and gorgonzola. Would love to try the Episois.
Thanks for responding. That clarifies a bit. Now, I'm still trying to sort through all this contraductory information. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that raising your metabolism, as indicated by basal body temperature, is a good way to regain baseline great health. And you're also saying that going low-carb may not correct your metabolic function, but may effectively mask the obvious problems of this for many people. However, it locks you into a low-carb lifestyle, such that you have disastrous consquences if you ever choose to eat carby foods again. Moreover, it may not even correct the hormonal imbalances, and may fuck you up even worse over the long haul. Is that right?
My inclination is away from grains, and toward a low-carb sort of approach, though I certainly see the danger of villainizing carbs, as fat too was once unjustly villainized. Would you suggest that one could choose a low-grain, low-carb approach, but ony after hormonal imbalances are corrected and metabolism is strengthened adequately? I can see the logic in that- we have inherited a poor nutritional legacy from our recent ancestors, and must correct the imbalances and reclaim our birthright: robust constitutions capable of the sort of adaptability the omnivorous human animal is famous for.
Re: lower body temperatures- is it possible that after achieving good baseline health, a good metabolism, a robust constitution, etc,. that your thyroid would downshift and your body tenperature would lower? Not due to perceived starvation, but due to some other factor. Or do high body temperature and high metabolism go hand in hand?
I'm sure I have more comments and questions, but I'll pace them. Thanks Matt.
PS- Thanks for the Wiley book recommendation. I'be spent some time with it, and it is fascinating. I really think that nutrition is but one pillar in the cathedral of health. Certainly a big one, since eating connects us most directly to the land, and like sex, tilizes all our senses. But many other factors too, I think play a role in how abundant and nourished we feel while here, and I want to stay cognizant of and in right relation to them. Cheers.
I think you've got what I'm getting at Rob. Low-carb may medicate problems like hypoglycemia, poor glucose tolerance, etc., but it's not a solution and can make the core problem, a low metabolism worse.
The irony is that starch seems to be the more metabolically-stimulating food. It raises leptin more than any other substance – glucose that is. Not to mention that a high-starch diet is almost invariably lower in PUFA than a low-carb diet.
I have tried creating small calorie deficits. It had the same effect as a large one as far as I could tell. BFFM made me ravenous and fat after 2 weeks of very mild calorie deficit. My worst starvation experience was on 2,400 calories per day. There's obviously better ways to do it than others, and Berkan no doubt has provided some good insights to his followers. Time will tell if my thoughts on this change. I am open. I am always up for new ideas, even the same tired old ideas that have failed me before, if there are new twists involved.
If you are insulin resistant, overweight, and mostly sedentary, you would be better off going ahead and getting lean and then try to refeed using calorie spikes down the road. Now, all of the extra calories you are taking in are being converted to fat. You should look into a more moderate carb approach like Schwarzbein untill you are lean enough to handle the carbs.
Resistance exercise will allow you to retain more muscle mass while leaning out. It will also allow you to increase your calorie intake in the future without having it all go straight to fat, and improve your insulin resistance. I would shoot for at least 5 hours a week at a good intensity as long as you are in good enough health and have clearance from your doc.
Concerning body temp, this is only part of the picture and should not be seen as the ultimate gauge of health. I always had a high body temperature when i was low carb, even though this is how i ruined my health. The reason my temp was high was because adrenaline and cortisol levels were through the roof.
You people need to quit emphasizing these external measures. More emphasis should be placed on how you feel, look, energy, mood, concentration,etc… Quit focusing on scale weight and thermometers!
"If you are already fat, then you will add mostly fat to your body when you up the calorie consumption, especially carbs. If you are lean first then you can handle the overfeeding, especially the carbs. The leaner you are the more carb tolerant you will be."
Only if you equate leanness with good metabolic health and obesity with poor health. It didn't work like that for the subjects of the Minnesota starvation experiment. They became very lean at the end of the starvation phase, and then when they started to overfeed they gained mostly fat in the beginning. Only when they had become much fatter than before the experiment, did they start to gain more lean mass and shed fat mass.
And it certainly didn't work like that for me. I was the leanest I'd been in my life before I began the HED, the result was that I initially blew up like a balloon – gaining almost 30 pounds of mostly fat/water in three weeks. Over time, the weight gain became progressively slower, and the fat gain slowed down even more to be replaced by lean mass gains. The fatter I got – the harder it became to gain fat.
Furthermore, your theory that you become more resistant to fat gain the leaner you get is directly contradicted by the general failure of calorie restriction to produce lasting weight loss. Millions of overweight people succeed in temporarily losing weight and becoming leaner, yet very few succeed in maintaining it.
"More emphasis should be placed on how you feel, look, energy, mood, concentration,etc…"
I agree that there is way more to the picture than basal temperature, but what you're saying is also problematic since not feeling good can be temporary symptoms of your body turning down production of endogenous stimulants and other reparative processes. I had a period a month ago or so during which I felt and looked pretty bad for a couple of weeks – tired, hazy and constant low grade headache. Should I have taken this as a sign that I was doing something wrong? Well, I didn't, it eventually passed, and now I'd say I feel better than ever since starting the HED.
I'm not so sure asians eat a high carb diet compared to the average American.. I think the asian diet is lower in carbs and higher in fat than you might think.
Oh well if it comes to mood and how I feel, I'm definitely never going back. I feel great, I wake up in the morning feeling refreshed instead of tired, I don't yell at my children as much as I used to, my hands and feet are warm instead of icy cold, and I'm not stressing over food nearly as much.
I've tried the dieting/resistance training way – and I'm sure it wasn't exactly the way you would recommend – but that sucked. And was worthless for fat loss. I'm sticking with eating to appetite and avoiding PUFAs/fructose like the plague.
Even if Asians do eat a carb based diet with moderate fat. There not exactly the pinnacle of all health.
One of these is that while Japanese and Chinese people have lower rates of heart disease than we do, they have higher rates of some other diseases. For example, the Japanese have strokes at a very high rate, while the Chinese have more pancreatic and thyroid cancers than we do. Not sure I'd pick any of those afflictions over heart attack. On the other hand, I'd prefer to avoid them all!
There are more countries in Asia than china and japan that are not becoming modernized and have great health and a high carb diet. Look at Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Burma…
You can ask any coach in the business that works with body recomposition. The leaner you are, the better you will be able to tolerate carbs and increasing calories without it being shuttled to fat stores. This is not a secret!
The reason people in the starvation study gained more fat in the beginning and less as they got fatter was because they were below their metabolic setpoint and the body wanted to go back to it. Once they were back at their metabolic setpoint the fat gain slowed. This is the same reason you got fat so fast eating HED.
I am glad to see that you are more concerned with feeling good, than being skinny. Most women your age obsess over weight and body image only. Just understand that eating HED and not doing any exercise will probably cause you to gain more fat. You will not get a lean muscular physique with this type of diet and lifestyle. But, who cares, you are a busy mom, who gets to spend her time enjoying her family instead of obsessing over diet and weight!
As far as Asia goes, I read in The Cholesterol Myths that they diagnose differently in different countries and countries like the United States are far more likely to diagnose a death as heart attack and in Japan they are far more likely to diagnose it as stroke, even on the same bodies. Plus, its not like everyone gets an autopsy at death. Here, they just look at someone and if they are overweight or maybe smoked or maybe had a high fat diet, they will probably diagnose it as heart attack just based on that. This is also how they inflate the AIDS death numbers in Africa, even if someone dies of lets say a staph infection or something, if the person looks skinny or lives in an area that has many AIDS cases, they will put cause of death as AIDS. Cause of this, death statistics are pretty false and pretty useless. I think it is better to look at all death numbers, regardless of what they say the cause is and also to look at life span and life quality. How many Americans have chronic diseases and are on prescription drugs for life compared to Asian countries? Which countries rely most on frequent antibiotics just to survive? Which countries have the healthiest and most babies? The U.S. has a very high infant mortality rate (compared to similar countries,) which most definitely has a lot to do with poor diet. If you were to take a bunch of American adults and children and put them in a less sanitary and harsher environment in a poor part of some Asian country…how long do you think they would last? I'm very certain they would not do nearly as well as the Asians eating a more natural diet and taking less pharma drugs. Whether their diet is high carb or high fat or whatever, I'm very sure that it is far more natural food based than the SAD. I read somewhere that the majority of U.S. children have never had a home cooked from scratch meal…ever. This is sad.
You first claimed that
"there are many benefits to getting lean first before trying to overfeed to increase lean tissue."
But then you agree that starving yourself down to leanness, which for an obese person means going far below ones set point, will increase your tendency to store excess calories as fat rather than lean mass until you've returned to your set point again. I think you're contradicting yourself here.
A fat person with poor metabolic health who starves himself down to leanness will not experience benefits, but rather a massively increased propensity to store fat instead of building lean mass.
So what are you trying to say really? That those who are "constitutionally lean" (good metabolic health) have less propensity to store excess calories as fat than do obese people (poor metabolic health)? Well no shit, that says nothing about how to improve metabolic health and lower ones body fat set point though.
JT has some great ideas, and they are certainly worth exploring, but note that my stance on what he just recommended is definitely not congruent.
You've obviously brought up your temp and stopped gaining weight while eating to appetite. That's great. To me, that's still the ultimate step 1. It's much easier to burn fat while keeping your temp up than trying to burn fat with a low body temp. But your body is out of calorie conservation mode which I still truly suspect to be an important pre-requisite for pursusing weight loss.
I think the insights coming up in my eBook should be able to provide some potential strategies that you can pursue. But you're right, the most important thing is how you feel, and there's no doubt that, for the most part, the HED will improve sleep, warmth, mood, and more.
What JT recommends still seems futile to me as Collden pointed out, and I don't think carb tolerance improves at lower weights, but at higher weight, when you can eat as many carbs as you like without an ounce of weight gain as happens after prolonged periods of going above the set point.
The big question is how to alter the set point and ratchet it down. We all have a good handle on how to ratchet it up – go hungry, overexercise, get stressed, become semi-malnourished of essential nutrients, and undersleep.
But it's clear as Collden pointed out. Starvation in any form ratchets up the set point. Low-carb, low-calorie, yada yada.
1. I am not happy to stay fat.
2. I really believe I'm headed in the right direction, even if the scale and my pants don't believe it yet.
Matt hasn't steered me wrong yet, so I think I'll stick with his advice for now, taking my appetite as the main guide. I don't think I'm ready to exercise yet, but I have noticed I have a hard time sitting/standing still lately. I want to move! Which is awesome.
JT- youre stance on leaner people being more carb tolerant is soooo incredibly far reaching from the truth?look at all the low carb advocates on high fat diets with tons of lean muscle mass and low body fat(there are a lot). That is not equating to their body handling carbs well, it equates to them round about keeping their physique through low carbing. Were they to eat high carbs, they surely blow up. Look at all the I fell off the wagon? shit on low carb forums of people who gained 10 lbs in like 2 days eating mashed potatoes! It is very untrue that lean people, like myself, handle carbs well. I handle carbs HORRENDOUSLY. I pack on water, I get headaches, blood sugars highs and lows a range or problems.
Malpaz, I am not going to argue this point with you because it is pretty well accepted among professionals in the physique business who do this with their clients. Of course, if you have been very low carb for a long time then you are going to have trouble upping the carbs all of a sudden because your body isn't used to it, and it will take some time to re-adapt to the carbs. Even Schwarzbein has her fat people start out lower carb, and then after they have been on the program for a while they slowly up the carbs.
Also, just because you gain 10 pounds in a few days doesn't mean you are gaining fat, it is water. This is not a bad thing, most of your muscle is made out of water. A lot of fighters will drop weight before a a fight and gain over 20 pounds in the 24 hours before the fight, and come in looking ripped even though they gained all that weight in short period of time. You shouldn't assume that weight gain is a bad thing.
There are not a bunch of low carb advocates with tons of lean muscle mass. Most are lean, but do not carry large amounts of muscle. There are MANY more high carb, low fat guys that are lean with lots of muscle. Most professional bodybuilders and athletes eat a ton of carbs. I was low carb/paleo for many years and I was lean, but looked horrible because I lost so much muscle mass.
So you think the fatter someone is the better they handle the carbs?
I mostly do not like low carb diets because of my bad experience with them, and personally eat a high carb diet with great results. But, I dont agree with that.
Did I hear you right in your video? You said eating too much omega 6 increased inflammation and this inflammation causes insulin resistance which causes carbohydrate intolerance. I knew the first part but the second part about inflammation causing insulin resistance is new to me. Could you give a reference on this point?
Inflammation increases cortisol levels. Increased cortisol levels decrease insulin sensitivity.
Inflammation also increases the production of free radicals, which will, in turn, oxidize tissue fats and create more inflammation.
When you have your intermittent high calorie days, do you think it is better to eat more at your regular meals or to spread it out and eat continuously(grazing) throughout the entire day?
Riles, It is better to take a break from the diet completely and just eat as much as anything you want whenever you want. This would provide a psychological break as well, which is just as important.You should enjoy!
I don't know what a "high carb diet is" to me a high carb diet is any diet over 250g.. I find it hard to believe any traditional hunter gather tribes ate over 250g carbs and i dont think any traditional asian ate more than 300…. Compare that to the average obese american they would eat well over 500… restrict that carbs and they lose weight. Keep the carbs up they dont lose weight.
!KUNG SAN'S DIET
cancer, heart disease obese free
The San DIET
cancer, heart disease, obese free
and what of the
Hell in Ireland, before the famine, the weather was perfect for potato growth and the population doubled between 1800 and 1845. During this time, on average, a family of 6 was eating 250lbs of potato a week! That is just shy of 6 lbs of potatoes a day per person . They must have been pretty unhealthy to have all those kids :/
What determines whether or not a diet is high or low carb is the percentage it makes up in the diet. I would say anything over 50% would be considered high carb.
Carbs wont necessarily make someone fat. i eat a high carb diet and i am lean. Most of the lean people I know eat a high carb, low fat diet. It is true that obese people almost always eat a lot of carbs, but that is just because carbs are about the only thing you can eat huge quantities of without getting full. If I was obese I would not eat more than 30 grams at a time. The reason they get fat is because they have a calorie surplus.
JT, I see you still refuse to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between natural unrefined carbs and the ones that Americans heavily consume… All about calories… still
I don't know why you insist on misrepresenting me Rosenfeltc.
I have repeatedly stated again and again and again and again that there is a HUGE difference in the quality of natural unrefined foods and processed foods. But, you are right calories do make a big difference. You will not get fat without a calorie surplus. There are plenty of animals in the wild who eat all natural unrefined foods and still gain large amounts of weight, this is a good thing, not a bad thing. Plenty of humans got fat in the past before processed food too, it is just more prevelant now because it is easier to consume processed foods, and people are more sedentary.
I personally eat lots of refined carbs. I eat at least 4 cups of white rice a day. I also consume 100 grams of sucrose a day too in my Kool-Aid when I workout. I also eat breads, pasta and other refined carbs too. But, I am still lean because I engage in intense exercise which prevents me from storing excess calories as body fat.
Well Riles you can eat an all potato diet or bean diet then post your results.
Zulu Tribe eating 90% carbs, really?
"Traditional foods include beef(Inyama yenkomo), mutton(Inyama yegusha), and goat meat, sorghum, maize and umphokoqo (dry maize porridge), "umngqusho" (made from dried, stamped corn and dried beans), milk (often fermented, called "amasi"), pumpkins(amathanga), beans(iimbotyi), and vegetables.
I dont know about you but that diet seems to be lower in carbs and higher in protein/fat
we can live well on diets that range from complete carnivory to plant-rich omnivory. We are possibly the most adaptable species on the planet.
On the Zulu diet…
"Dr RL Cleave observed that rural Zulu cane cutters had few health problems on a 90% carbohydrate diet containing large amounts of of sugar cane juice.
The I9th century Zulu warriors were the most formidable fighting force in Africa despite eating little but starchy grain porridges and watery beer. They would run 50 miles(80km) in a day and fight a battle before running home again. However once the Zulu men were no longer warriors they quickly became very fat and many of the relatively sedentary Zulu women were extraordinarily obese."
I have no dog in this fight. I just wanted to look up this info for myself.
Cleave reported that the Zulu on refined carbohydrates got ill, and on unrefined carbohdyrates maintained perfect health without any dental decay, obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, peptic ulcer, and half dozen other common illnesses. The only variable he saw was not physical activity but refined vs. unrefined carbohydrate. He stated:
?In that table it was shown that although 90 per cent of the calorific intake in the rural Zulu is provided by carbohydrates (which are generally regarded as the fattening foods), as against only 81 per cent of the intake in the urban Zulu, the crucial point is that, in the case of the rural Zulu, of the 90 per cent figure 89 is derived from unrefined carbohydrates, whereas, in the case of the urban Zulu, of the 81 per cent figure 71 is derived from refined carbohydrates. An explanation, therefore, based on the argument advanced in this work, fits the facts as a glove to its hand.
As for carbs and the overweight – I believe that the farther one goes above the set point, the better carbohydrate metabolism gets whether skinny or fat, and the less fattening they become. The real question is how is the set point raised? I believe that calorie restriction and dieting in general ratchets up the set point. So what ratchets is down, if anything? Eating well day in and day out for many months may help, it may not. It's what is being explored here. But eating well certainly creates a ceiling in weight for most, and stops the "lose and then gain it back plus" ratcheting up of the set point.
There is futility in having macronutrient debates. The only reason we discuss macronutrients here is in terms of which macrontrient ratios might have the greatest impact on reversing a low metabolism, or insulin resistance, or high cortisol levels, etc.
But the vast majority of healthy human diets, in which there was a wide variety, were not very low-carb (below 50 grams per day).
And yes, inflammation doesn't directly cause insulin resistance. It causes it indirectly by the secretion of the body's counter-inflammatory substances, such as SOCS-3 and cortisol.
"But the vast majority of healthy human diets, in which there was a wide variety, were not very low-carb (below 50 grams per day)."
This is quite true, but also I cant imagine the majority of human diets having above 250-300g of carbs compaing that to the average american getting well well 300g of carbs some of the extreme obese may get over 600g
Okay, I am confused. If my whole problem stems from fatigued adrenals (because they are not producing enough cortisol) – yet increased cortisol levels decrease insulin sensitivity – if I heal them up so they can produce more cortisol, how is that supposed to help? Surely I must be missing something.
Matt can you please post the link where you track you what eat for 3 days I can't find it. thank you
Also so people that are thin that can eat a lot and never seem to gain weight have a higher body temp?
Matt jack recommends a low carb diet?
Cortisol is not bad, and if you really have adrenal fatigue, you you know that low cortisol can be worse than high cortisol. You can die if your cortisol gets too low, so it is a very important hormone. What you want is a healthy system that will regulate the right amount at the right time, not too much and not too little.
You actually think that the fatter someone is the better they tolerate carbs? Why do you believe this? Client feedback? studies?
Also, what makes you think increasing the calories on already fat people will cause them to lower their metabolic setpoint?
My name is Tom, Im 38 yrs old, living in Fort Worth, TX.
I'd love to make good close friends here.
So how is everyone doing?? :)
I am a poster boy for adrenal fatigue. Anxiety, difficulty with sleep most of my life. Always been thin.
I started doing HED a month ago and have gained abdominal fat the first time in my life. That might indicate an increase in cortisol. Although I was also doing low-carb for a couple years, so my carb tolerance may have been weak.
As far as adrenal fatigue, that's the issue I want to address first, and I think it involves more stress management possibly more-so than diet.
I really don't plan on stressing my body in some way by overexercising or dieting to reduce the belly fat before I've addressed other issues first. Stuff I've read on adrenal fatigue says it's not good to exercise too heavily as that further stresses adrenals.
I agree with what Dr. Schwarzbein says "You need to be healthy to lose weight, not lose weight to be healthy".
Also in regards to the Zulu, if they were running 50 miles per day, they could have been torching their adrenals and thyroid, like the treadmill bunnies at gyms all over the place. (Can you say "over-training"?) Once you stop running 50 miles a day and you eat the same as you did before, you'll plump up faster than a Ballpark Frank.
I believe the High-Everything-Diet is bogus.
Thank you for this incredibly valuable piece of information!
I didn't mean that fat people tolerate carbs better than the lean. I meant it on an individual basis. If you weigh 370, down from 400 with dieting and exercise, you will be more insulin resistant and hypometabolic generally speaking. Overfeeding up to 430 heals that, and further fat gain above that point is extremely difficult – unless you diet and exericise your way down again which ratchets up the set point.
If undereating and overexercising raise the set point, why is it so implausible that eating to satiation with rest lowers it? I've generally been much leaner eating to appetite and exercising 90% less than I was in my mid-20's. Jon Gabriel lost over 200 pounds without rebound eating to appetite.
And on cortisol – your body won't produce too much unless you suffer from chronic infection and inflammation due to other factors, like omega 6 overload and a low body temperature.
The Staff Infection bacteria can survive on dry surfaces, increasing the chance of transmission. S. aureus is also implicated in toxic shock syndrome; during the 1980s some tampons allowed the rapid growth of S. aureus, which released toxins that were absorbed into the bloodstream. Any S. aureus infection can cause the staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome, a cutaneous reaction to exotoxin absorbed into the bloodstream. It can also cause a type of septicaemia called pyaemia. The infection can be life-threatening. Problematically, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become a major cause of hospital-acquired infections, and is being recognized with increasing frequency in community-acquired infections.
i came across, useful webpage
the easiest way to write blog posts who smash in people:
RAW MILK DIGESTION PROBLEMS:
Are you supposed to get used to raw milk after drinking it for a while?
Did you guys initially feel bloaty when you had raw milk?
I'm trying to get used to raw milk, according to the ray peat protocol (drinking it for a while will make your body produce lactose digesting enzyme), however, after 2 weeks of drinking plenty of raw, 100% grassfed, fresh milk I still have the following problems:
I am cold, Bloated, digestion is bad, I have diarrhea, stomach aches and cramps, tiredness, painful cough, hyperactivity…
I eat other foods too, like potatoes, tubers, fatty meats, cheese, few fruits, etc…
Please, someone, help me out here.
Should I continue to force feed myself this milk (it is really starting to feel addictive), even tho I have aall these issues with it? Did anyone here who is doing well on milk/raw milk have bloating when they first drank milk?
I Can't imagine myself ever being free from the bloating..!
I've also tried goat milk, side effects are less, but they are still there. Kefirs don't bloat me, but still make me cold, hyperactive, etc. Which I know is weird, since milk products should do the opposite (make you warm, speed up metabolism) right?
This is not an uncommon reaction to dairy products. Those who cannot digest the casein often have a lot of psychological, digestive, and autoimmune-type reactions to milk ingestion.
If you are going to try to re-introduce milk, I would think doing very small amounts of only kefir and no other food taken once every half-hour or so would provide the best ability for your digestive tract to repair itself.
[url=http://beautifulfigurines.com/deals/Dresden+Porcelain/]Dresden Porcelain[/url], [url=http://beautifulfigurines.com/deals/Lladro+Angel/]Lladro Angel[/url], [url=http://beautifulfigurines.com/deals/Nativity+Set+Italy/]Nativity Set Italy[/url], Vintage Lefton Figurines Lefton China Lefton Royal Doulton. Hummel Figurine To Market 49 0 Mint hummel figurine full bee Hummel Boots 143 Figurine Tmk 3 Boy Boots Sty Bee Mint Hummel Figurine For Keeps #630 Goebel Hummel 195 2 0 barnyard Hero'Figurine Hummel Figurine 81 Tmk 4 School Girl.
Mstt, I tried to click on the video for Colpo vs Eades and it said the video was removed by the user. I wanted to know what you thought of Colpo before I bought any of his books.
Since you wrote a gues post about leptin I have a question about it. There are a few books such as "Mastering Leptin" by Byron J. Richard that suggest that you can help leptin work better by following five rules:
1) Never eat after dinner. Allow eleven to twelve hours between dinner and breakfast. Finish dinner at least three horus before going to bed.
2) Eat three meals a day. Allow five to six hours between meals. No snacking between meals.
3) Do not eat larch meals. (I figure you'll disagree with this one though).
4)Eat a breakfast containing protein.
5) Reduce the amount of carbohydrates you eat. (Again you may not agree with this rule.)
There are a lot of scientific explanations in the book and many studies cited to support these recommendations. I can't say I fully grasp all of it. However, on his website wellnessresources.com he's got a few success stories and his Amazon reviews are great too. I've also found another non-science-based diet book called "The No S Diet" that makes similar recommendations but without the scientific rationale and lots of people seem to be getting great results losing weight with it. And these people stick with it for years.
All they do is eat 3 times a day with no seconds, no snacking and no sweets except on days that begin with S (Sat and Sun) and Special days.
I'd love to hear your ideas on why the programs by these two authors might work for some people and if you would recommend integrating their ideas into yoru program. (I figure you would disagree with the no seconds rule in the No S Diet but wonder what you think of the other recommendations).