Back when I first started Atkins in March 2009, I did Induction for three weeks and then moved to Ongoing Weight Loss (OWL) for an additional four and a half weeks. During that time, I:
Lost a total of 11-1/4", which included:
3/4" around my neck
3/4" around my bust
1-1/4" around my midriff
1-3/8" around my waist
2-7/8" around my navel
1-1/4" around my hips
1-1/4" around each of my thighs
1/4" around each of my calves
Lost 0.022 off my waist-to-height ratio
Lost 0.010 off my waist-to-hip ratio
Lost 2.2 points off my body fat percentage
Gained 2.2 points onto my lean body mass percentage
Lost 4.1 pounds of body fat
Gained 2.1 pounds of lean body mass
Lost 2 pounds on the scale
Looking back on those numbers now, they look pretty darn good. But all I saw was that I had only lost 2 pounds on the scale in seven and a half weeks, which is a total of only about a quarter of a pound per week.
I talked to Colette Heimowitz, the Atkins Nutritionist, told her that I had only lost 2 pounds, and she suggested that I reduce my food intake. Together, we came up with this plan:
1400 calories
106g fat (68.4%)
91g protein
19g total carbs
8g fiber
11g net carbs
Over the next 15 weeks, I slowly started adding in more fat, protein and carbs, and was steadily losing scale weight and body fat. At the end of that time, my food basically looked like this:
1637 calories
122g fat (67%)
101g protein
30g total carbs
15g fiber
15g net carbs
During that 15 weeks, I:
Lost a total of 11-1/2", which included:
1/4" around my bicep
1/2" around my bust
1-1/4" around my midriff
1-1/8" around my waist
2-5/8" around my navel
2-1/2" around my hips
1-1/4" around each of my thighs
1/4" around each of my calves
Lost 0.018 off my waist-to-height ratio
Gained 0.019 off my waist-to-hip ratio
Lost 4.4 points off my body fat percentage
Gained 4.4 points onto my lean body mass percentage
Lost 9.6 pounds of body fat
Gained 0.4 pounds of lean body mass
Lost 9.2 pounds on the scale
This was better progress, but then everything fell apart, and I started gaining again. If you read this blog with any frequency, you know that I have been gaining and losing and gaining ever since, usually with no rhyme or reason.
I have been reading a lot lately about how staying very low carb for a long time can have a detrimental effect on thyroid function. Obviously, this is not true for everyone, but it might be true for me - my thyroid function has been decreasing and my metabolism seems to just be shut down. I gain weight very quickly, and it is really hard to get it back off again.
I have decided to try to increase my carbs up to a moderate level, rather than the low level that I have been at for the past couple of years, to see if it will help my thyroid function and metabolism.
I am going back to a modified version of the plan Colette gave me over two years ago, as far as the total calories go, but I am going to increase total carbs by 2 per day and decrease fat enough to keep me at 1400 calories per day. I am also lowering the protein to the lowest level that is recommended by Atkins for my height - 71g of protein daily. I started on this plan on August 9, 2011. Below is the starting point and the ending point, which will fall on September 8, 2011:
August 9, 2011
1401 calories
106.3g fat (68.3%)
71g protein
40g total carbs
September 8, 2011
1401 calories
79.6g fat (51.2%)
71g protein
100g total carbs
I have completed 5 days of this new plan, and my food today will look like this:
1401 calories
101.9g fat (65.4%)
71g protein
50g total carbs
One of the other considerations of this new plan is how it will affect not only my body fat, but my blood glucose. I have started testing my blood glucose on a regular basis, and so far, it has not gone out of normal ranges eating this way.
When you only eat low-carb vegetables, it is a challenge to get those carb numbers up. So I have started having a serving of fruit per day and also full fat Greek Yogurt. As the carb numbers climb, I will start adding starchier vegetables, like squashes, and even an occasional tuber, probably yams. I ate a peach the other day, and it was like heaven!
Here are my beginning stats:
August 9, 2011
Total inches - 286.375", which includes:
12.25" neck
11.5" bicep
36.5" bust
31.5" midriff
32.25" waist
36.625" navel
40.25" hips
22.875" thigh
14.125" calf
0.512 waist-to-height ratio
0.801 waist-to-hip ratio
53.4 pounds body fat (36.2%)
94.2 pounds lean body mass (63.8%)
147.6 pounds on the scale
Because I love charts, I have decided to track my progress on this new plan with charts. And here are those charts since I started this five days ago:
I tracked my food five days this past week on Fitday. Here is the breakdown of what I ate:
I take my full measurements every Sunday. In the past 5 days:
I lost a total of 1", which includes:
I lost 1/8" around my neck
I lost 0" around my bicep
I lost 0" around my bust
I lost 1/8" around my midriff
I lost 3/8" around my waist
I lost 1/8" around my navel
I lost 0" around my hips
I lost 1/8" around my thigh
I lost 0" around my calf
Lost 0.006 points off my waist-to-height ratio
Lost 0.009 points off my waist-to-hip ratio
Lost 0.3 points off my body fat percentage
Gained 0.3 points onto my lean body mass percentage
Lost 1.3 lbs. of body fat
Lost 1.1 lbs. of lean mass
Lost 2.4 lbs. on the scale
I've done the lower protein thing for two weeks now, and I gained body fat the second week.
Dr. Jack Kruse
Someone posted on the Atkins Community Forum about Dr. Jack Kruse, who is doing a lot of blogging about Leptin Resistance. He has his Leptin Prescription up on his website, and I have decided to try it, and I started this morning.
Here are the basics:
1. First, make sure you really are Leptin Resistant (LR) to begin with.
The easiest way to do so, if you're heavy, is to look in the mirror. If you're overweight, you definitely are LS. If you still have a large appetite and crave carbohydrates, especially at night, these are also signs that you are likely LR. If you are fit or in decent shape and not sure based upon the above symptoms I would tell you to go get a blood test and check your Reverse T3. If you are LR, it will be elevated. I also recommend simultaneously checking a salivary cortisol level. With LR, you will always see higher cortisol levels later in the day.
2. To regain LS follow a strict paleolithic diet as outlined in The Paleo Solution or the Primal Blueprint.
The type of fuel is important in eliminating the foods that cause Leptin receptors to become nonfunctional. These two books clearly outline a solid reference point to achieve this.
A. Try to eat as soon as possible upon rising in the morning. Make sure that breakfast has little to no carbs and has a lot of protein and fat. I use, as a general rule, 50-75 grams of protein with most patients. Some patients can use less and some need more. The key point of knowing how much for you is your hunger later in the day. If you remain ravenous you need to eat more protein in the morning. If you can hold off eating until dinner, you probably are at homeostasis for you. If you can skip both meals your likely are overdoing it at breakfast. As for sources of protein, I suggest pastured or organic eggs first, then leftover dinner scraps of grass fed meats/poultry/fish and a third option would be whey protein or protein shakes.
B. Try to limit carb intake to 25 grams if your are overweight by greater than 30 lbs. If you are fit and have a small amount of weight to loss (less than 30 lbs) you can titrate up your carb loads. Even then, I do not advocate potatoes or rice as some paleo diets allow for. You will be able to eat them eventually, but try to avoid starches until you have mastered your cravings and hunger. Do not count calories. It is not needed at this point. Any time I eat carbs, I use liberal amounts of butter, heavy cream, coconut oil and palm oil. I do not recommend other oils initially like olive oils or industrial seed oils. I would also avoid nut oils at the initial stages. My personal favorite is coconut oil because of the great metabolic effects of MCT and how it helps heal the guts of LR folks.
3. How you eat that fuel is MORE IMPORTANT than any other factor including the food itself.
A. Never snack at all. This is meant initially and forever. Snacking completely stresses the liver’s metabolism and is just not recommended. Your liver needs to relearn how to use gluconeogenesis normally again when you sleep and awake. Snacking just destroys timing and circadian clocks that work in unison with Leptin.
B. Try to eat three meals per day initially, but as your hunger and cravings fade, you can adapt to two meals per day.
C. Try to eat breakfast as early as possible from rising.
D. Do not work out before or after breakfast.
E. Try to allow 4-5 hours between dinner and bedtime.
F. If you decide to incorporate working out, do it after 5 PM.
G. Within an hour of sunset try to make your surroundings as dark as possible.
H. If you have trouble falling asleep, I suggest 3-5 minutes of body weight exercises right before bed (push ups or air squats are fine). Avoid this if your PM cortisol are high.
I. If you're inclined to, try becoming mindful when you first lay down. I use transcendental meditation techniques to help me clear my mind and concentrate on improving my thinking. (Optional, but is awesome if your PM cortisol are high)
4. Most people will notice a change in their cravings and hunger within 4-6 weeks.
Other changes I ask of my patients is to supplement with prescription-grade fish oils. The dose depends upon their HS CRP and salivary cortisol levels.
5. Signs that you are becoming Leptin Sensitive (LS) again:
Men will notice quick weight loss. Women will notice mood changes first (calmer/sleepy), and their sleep will improve. Their clothes will fit differently, but weight may not change drastically initially because of effects on the pituitary. This will change, too, if they continue moving forward. Both men and women: You will notice a change in your sweating pattern. You will also notice you have better recovery from exercise and your energy levels seem to have risen. Your hunger is gone and so are your cravings. And when you awaken you will feel very refreshed like you slept well. Generally, when the signs are all present, I then really push HIIT exercise with heavy weights.
**********
I had a couple of questions of Dr. Kruse, so I posted them on his blog. Here was my first post:
My reverse T3 is elevated, but my cortisol is not elevated in the evening, by blood and saliva tests recently. I have 15 pounds to lose that just won’t budge even after eating low carb for 2 years and Paleo for the past year. My body fat is 35%. I am a 55 year old female, peri-menopausal and on bio-identical thyroid, progesterone and testosterone. With elevated T3 and normal cortisol, could it still be LR?
Here is his answer:
If your Reverse T3 is up and you have 35% body fat, there is no doubt that you're Leptin Resistant. I'll bet that you likely have Pregnenolone Steal at the same time to get that result. 25 grams of carbs it is until your Reverse T3 falls and weight loss starts.
I also asked him this, but I have not had an answer yet:
Thank you so much! I guess that 25 carbs is total carbs and not net carbs. Lately, I have only been eating 80 grams of protein per day, split evenly between lunch and dinner – I have been skipping breakfast all together. I see that you say not to do that.
I have been thinking that it was too much protein that was causing the high body fat, and that is why I have cut it down to 80 grams. (I am only 5’3″ tall). I have never eaten more than 25 net carbs per day. I noticed that you said that people should eat 50 grams of protein within 30 minutes of waking, but that some people need less than that. I’m afraid that if I start eating higher protein, I will gain weight. By the way, I do not have carb cravings. I do, however have a huge appetite for a woman my size. I always feel like I want more to eat. I do not snack – I only eat at meals. I do not eat after dinner.
I already lift weights (HIT), but I only do it once a week and I will start doing that after dinner per your suggestion.
I guess my main concern is that if I increase my protein I will start gaining again. How is a person to know if they are one of the ones who needs less than 50 grams of protein at breakfast? Do you suggest that I just jump in and give it a try with the 50 at breakfast and then lunch and dinner without counting grams except for carbs to keep it under 25?
**********
So here is what I am going to do, and I'm going to try to stick with it for eight weeks:
Eat 50 grams of protein with liberal fat and little to no carbs for breakfast, immediately upon rising.
Eat a normal lunch, limiting total carbs to 12.
Eat a normal dinner, limiting total carbs to 13.
Eat nothing between meals.
Eat dinner no later than 6 pm.
On weight lifting days, do it after dinner.
Try really hard to be in bed reading by 9-9:30 pm and lights out by 9:30-10 pm.
********
As I mentioned, I did this for the first time today. I have not been hungry. I will post my menu tomorrow as part of my Daily Stats and Menu.
I've made a lot of choices for change in my life, and some changes have been forced upon me against my will. This change is one of those.
For the past few weeks, I have been having hot flashes off and on all day long, night sweats, no "time of the month", and I have pretty much lost the ability to sleep. I have forgotten a few important details in the past week as well.
I am 55 years and 3.5 months old, and someone has stolen my estrogen! I think this is menopause, and it is no doubt overdue. I guess time will tell.
I have a call in to my bio-identical hormone replacement doctor to see if she wants to make any changes to my hormone replacement. I also need to get another testosterone pellet implanted.
Having this change so suddenly may be part of the reason why I have recently gained weight and have had such a problem getting rid of it.
I'm not sure what to attribute the damage to - eating too many carbs or having my testosterone run out. Maybe it's a combination of the two. At any rate, here is what happened to my body size during the last four weeks:
I gained 0.125" around my neck
I gained 1.125" around my bust
I gained 2.75" around my midriff
I gained 2" around my waist
I gained 3" around my navel
I gained 1.375" around my hips
I gained 1.25" around each of my thighs
I gained 0.5" around each of my calves
My body fat percentage went from 31.6% to 37.4% - an increase of 5.8 percentage points.
I feel and look like a blob. I am wearing my "fat" jeans again. Oh, well, back to Pre-Maintenance and off to the doctor to get another testosterone implant.
The latest blog post from Tom Naughton, the maker of the movie Fat Head:
In a Weight Watchers discussion group, someone recently posted this advice:
The key to successful weight loss is simple mathematics . . . ingest fewer calories than calories expended in a day.
That second part of that sentence is, of course, correct. Your body won’t tap the energy reserves in your fat cells unless the energy is needed. You have to expend more than you ingest. But that doesn’t mean successful weight loss is all about “simple mathematics.” Biological systems aren’t simple.
Unfortunately, too many people grasp (again, correctly) that gaining or losing weight requires an imbalance between the energy consumed and the energy expended, but then take a leap in logic and conclude that:
Consuming additional calories is the root cause of becoming fatter (as opposed to a response to storing more calories as fat).
Everyone who becomes fatter is either eating more or moving less than before.
Consuming fewer calories will automatically lead to a lower weight and less body fat.
In other words, they think it’s about simple mathematics, just like a savings account. To dispute any of these conclusions, we’re told, would be to ignore the laws of thermodynamics. So let’s see how that contention holds up in the face of controlled research.
In a study published earlier this year, researchers conducted two experiments, each lasting three or four weeks, in which obese mice were divided into two groups: a control group that ate freely (ad libitum) and a calorie-restricted group. In the first experiment, researchers first recorded the average caloric intake of the mice when they were allowed to eat freely, then limited the calorie-restricted group to 95% of that intake. In the second experiment, researchers observed the on-going caloric intake of the mice allowed to eat freely, then limited the calorie-restricted group to 95% of that intake. In other words, if the mice eating freely ate more, the calorie-restricted mice were given more food … but they were still eating 5% fewer calories than their freewheelin’ cousins.
A legitimate criticism of many diet studies is that the researchers relied on food-recall surveys or diet journals to determine how much people ate. Those methods can be notoriously inaccurate. Realizing this, the researchers on this study elected not to allow the mice to keep their own diet journals. Instead, the researchers precisely measured and recorded how much each mouse ate — even going so far as to examine the little critters’ cages and subtracting any bits of food they found from the food-intake totals.
In both experiments, researchers took precise before-and-after measurements of weight, lean body mass, and adipose-tissue mass. In the second experiment, they also used infrared sensors to track locomotor activity levels (”moving around” to us laypeople), and measured oxygen consumption and carbon-dioxide output to calculate how much energy the mice expended. I’d say that’s about as precise as a diet study gets.
Now, according to Jillian Michaels and the other leading experts in thermodynamics, there are only a couple of possible outcomes for these experiments:
The calorie-restricted mice, who were prevented from making little pig-mice of themselves, ended up weighing less and were leaner.
If the calorie-restricted mice somehow ended up fatter, it could only be because they were far less active than the mice who ate freely.
Yup … if you get fat, by gosh, it means you’re either eating more or moving less. Now let’s look at the actual results:
At the end of first experiment (four weeks), the calorie-restricted mice weighed a teeny bit less than their free-eating counterparts — the difference was not statistically significant, but it was there. However, the calorie-restricted mice also had 68.5% more fat mass, and 12.3% less lean mass.
Being put on a diet made them fatter.
At the end of the second experiment (three weeks), the average weight for both groups was virtually identical — it was also virtually identical to their baseline weights. But the calorie-restricted mice had 43.6% more fat mass and 6.4% less lean mass than the free-eating control mice. Once again, being put on a diet made them fatter.
Well, clearly, those fat little calorie-restricted mice must’ve spent too much time sitting around watching reruns of The Biggest Loser while their free-eating cousins were whipping themselves into shape by running on the big wheel, right?
Nope. According to the study data, there was no difference in locomotor activity levels between the two groups.
The calorie-restricted mice ate less, they moved around just as much, but they ended up weighing the same as the mice allowed to eat freely, and also ended up with more fat and less muscle. Oh, dear me … did these mice find a way to violate the laws of thermodynamics?
No, heck no, for the thousandth time, NO.
The researchers didn’t take body-heat measurements (too bad), but reported that the calorie-restricted mice expended significantly less energy: 5% less overall, and 20% less while at rest. Simply put, their metabolisms slowed down, even though they were just as physically active. No laws of thermodynamics were violated in the process.
I once sent a link to this study to someone who insisted that according to the laws of thermodynamics, weight gain is caused by eating more or moving less, period. His reply was something like, “That doesn’t prove anything! I’m not a mouse. I’m talking about people.”
Well, I agree that mice aren’t little furry people, which is why I’m not concerned when this-or-that food is shown to trigger cancer in mice. (Mouse chow probably wouldn’t agree with me either.) But remember, we’re talking about The Laws of Thermodynamics here. They don’t apply to one species, but not another. If mice can become fatter without eating more or moving less, yet somehow avoid violating the laws of thermodynamics in the process, then so can people.
The researchers were at a bit of a loss to explain why the calorie-restricted mice grew fatter, but I’m pretty sure we can rule out gluttony and sloth. They suggested perhaps the mice were reacting to the stress of a limited food intake.
“Reacting,” of course, means something hormonal was going on. (It wasn’t thyroid hormone. The researchers checked.) Perhaps the calorie-restricted mice produced more cortisol. Perhaps evolution geared the mice to respond to the threat of starvation by accumulating more fat, even if it means sacrificing lean tissue.
The point is, they didn’t get fatter by eating too much, and they didn’t get fatter because they decided to expend less energy. They began to expend less energy (in spite of being just as active) because they were being hormonally driven to accumulate more fat, even on less food.
Doesn’t that sound something like the process described by a best-selling science journalist who supposedly doesn’t understand that his hypothesis would violate the laws of thermodynamics?
Insomnia is present in approximately 1 out of every 8 Americans, most commonly in women. Sleep is a very important time for your body to renew and refresh itself - as a matter of fact, growth hormone, and DHEA, your body’s “master hormone” are both produced during the first 90 minutes of sleep. Insufficient sleep leads to insufficient growth hormone production, which in turn leads to lower bone density and muscle mass and oftentimes causes adrenal fatigue. In addition, insufficient levels of growth hormone can also disrupt the production of other hormones throughout the body: DHEA, testosterone, insulin, cortisol, progesterone and estrogen.
Insomnia has also been linked to a wide range of chronic and deficiency-related diseases. Studies suggest that by reducing your amount of sleep, you can increase your risk for diabetes. The second major health risk has to do with the adrenal glands which are responsible for the production of the stress hormone known as cortisol. Cortisol helps the body cope with stress. So the less you sleep, the more unstable your adrenal glands become, and it becomes increasingly difficult to manage stress, ultimately resulting in adrenal fatigue. The third major risk caused by lack of sleep is depression. Intermittent sleep cycles can disrupt the function of neurotransmitters, and could bring on sudden bouts of depression.
Many of my patients initially complained about sleep problems – in fact, for the majority of them, it was their chief complaint. Sleep helps the body repair itself overnight. It’s estimated that we’ll spend one-third of our lives under the covers. If you’re having trouble sleeping, it would be wise to avoid sleeping medications at all costs. Many sleep aids are effective on the short-term, but can be habit-forming and oftentimes do more harm than good, with a wide variety of side effects.
Here are some ways you can get a good night’s sleep, without the use of prescription drugs:
1.Hormonal Levels - Adequate sleep is the foundation to balancing all of the other hormones! A lot of sleep problems can be hormonal. Get your hormones checked and balanced. Hormonal imbalances caused by sleep can lead to hot flashes, low sex drive, fatigue, blood sugar instability, difficulty concentrating, painful intercourse, and other symptoms of menopause/andropause.
2.Good Sleep Hygiene - Only use your bed for sleeping and make sure it is dark and quiet in your bedroom.
3.Make Sure to Manage Stress - When you are stressed you can’t sleep. It is important to have a wind down ritual such as drinking tea, or taking a warm shower right before going to bed. Make sure that right before you go to sleep you have a routine that will calm and relax you.
-Dr. Eric Honing, BodyLogicMD of Phoenix
To read the full article, including links, click here.
Unexplained Weight Loss and Weight Gain: Mystery Weight Fluctuations and the Root Cause of Obesity
Unexplained weight loss and weight gain can shine light on the root cause of obesity. This essay will explain why.
Why do drugs, genetic abnormalities, medical conditions, pollution, and other factors cause weight changes?
According to conventional thinking, overeating and inactivity lead to weight gain, and diet and exercise lead to weight loss. Unexplained weight loss or gain, therefore, can only be understood in terms of appetite and/or metabolism. For instance, let's say someone gains weight while on an antidepressant. The presumption would be that the drug made her hungrier, driving her to eat excess calories. Thus, the weight gain.
The other hypothesis about what makes us fat says that "mystery" weight changes result when these X factors do something to the fat tissue itself. This then leads to the storage (or release) of fat. Perhaps a medication causes elevation of insulin levels, for instance. This would drive the storage of fat in the fat tissue, irrespective of changes to diet or exercise. In other words, mystery weight gain/loss has nothing to do with appetite or physical activity (or lack thereof). It has to do with what is going on inside the fat tissue itself.
So which theory makes more sense? Let's look at specific classes of medications, diseases and hormonal changes to see whether evidence from the real world can help us decide between these two hypotheses. Click on any link for details:
I was sure that I posted this on my blog back in July when it was posted on Adam's site, but I can't find it. So, just in case you missed it (or I never posted it!), click here to go to the interview.
--> A couple of years ago, in response to watching the movie Super Size Me, I completely stopped eating at fast food restaurants and I've never looked back. Tom Naughton's response to watching the movie was a little more extreme: He set out to make his own documentary, exposing the obvious (to him) inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright deceptions in that movie.
The result was Fat Head, a factual and comic look at Super Size Me, written by, produced by and starring Tom Naughton, a stand up comedian, sit down writer and first time film-maker. Not only does Tom rip Super Size Me to shreds, but he also shines a very informative spotlight on the whole low carb nutritional movement. I just got my copy a week ago, after watching all the teasers for the same on youtube, and I loved it. However, because of the way I am "wired", I wanted to know more about what Tom thought on a few low carb confusions of mine.
I contacted Tom, asking if I could grill him a little, and he graciously told me to fire away. In pretty short order, I got some very interesting and thought-provoking answers and observations from Tom, which helped me fine tune my own understanding of the way I have chosen to eat - high fat, moderate protein and low carb.
Following are some Q & A from Tom and me.
Rebecca: How is fat stored in the absence of insulin? Most of the things I have read talk about how the over-release of insulin causes glucose to be stored as fat. I have also read that protein that is not needed by the body is converted to glucose and stored as fat. But what happens when a person eats overeats fat? I asked that question of Gary Taubes in his recent interview with Jimmy Moore. Gary answered by saying he has a problem with the word “overeat” and then he really didn’t answer the question. He said that what is enough for one person might not be enough for another person.
So I am trying to rephrase the question so that it is clear: Say a person is eating a certain amount of fat, protein and carbs (very low carb), and they are maintaining their weight on these amounts of each macronutrient. Then, they suddenly increase their fat intake only by a large amount. Do they begin to gain weight? And if so, why? If fat storage is driven by insulin, and fat does not provoke an insulin response, then how does that fat get stored?
I have heard some say that excess fat beyond what the body needs will just cause the body to raise the metabolism to burn it off. I have heard some say that the body does not use the excess fat, but just excretes it. I have heard some say that the excess fat is a “calorie bomb” and will be stored as fat, but they do not say by what biological mechanism this happens.
Dr. Atkins said that we can eat as much fat as we want, because it will not cause insulin to be produced and there will be no way for the fat to be stored. But then he says that if we eat way too much, it will cause weight gain. How?
Tom: Unless you’re a type I diabetic, your body will always produce some insulin in response to food, and good thing too, or you’d waste away and die. Carbohydrates generally provoke the greatest insulin response, but protein provokes an insulin response too. I’m not aware of any experiments in which subjects lived on a diet of 100% fat, so I can’t say whether or not it’s possible to gain weight on fat alone, but we don’t eat fat alone; we eat fat with protein.
So my guess is that while you’re less likely to store calories as fat if you’re eating nothing but fat and protein, it’s still possible to gain weight if you eat enough, because the protein could provoke an insulin response sufficient to store some fat.
Rebecca: What is the difference between “Calories In Calories Out” and “Creating a Calorie Deficit”? I have heard many people talk about how 3500 calories equals a pound, and that to lose a pound per week, all you have to do is cut 500 calories from your daily food. Or cut 250 calories per day and increase your activity by 250 calories each day for the same result.
Many low carb people will say that this theory is wrong, because a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie. The body will react to 100 calories of high glycemic index carbs differently than it will react to 100 calories of butter. I know that I, personally, will maintain my weight on 1100 calories of high carb, low fat food, and I will also maintain my weight on 1800 calories of low carb, high fat food. So I do believe that there is a “metabolic advantage” to eating low carb and high fat.
Also, many will say it is wrong because the body can adapt through homeostasis or thermogenesis, and keep the body from losing weight. I heard this analogy recently: It's kind of like the Borg on Star Trek, where a phaser weapon works against the alien Borg creatures once, but then they adapt, and soon the same phaser blast no longer does anything.
I started a thread on the Atkins Forum called “My Body is Not a Piggy Bank! (Do Calories Matter?)” and I posted information that I got off of Adam Kosloff's website Why Low Carb Diets Work. On that website, Adam attempts (and does a great job, I think) of crystallizing Gary Taubes’ Good Calories Bad Calories into an easily read and understood form. Gary told Adam that he thought it was good.
If anyone can prove that homeostasis and/or thermogenesis are real, it is me! Without changing my activity, I have both gained and lost weight eating 1400 calories and 2000 calories and everything in between. And all of this high fat, moderate protein and very low carb (never more than 40 total carbs and as low as 20 total carbs).
Tom: To lose weight, you still have to create a calorie deficit. The idea behind low-carb is that the fat cells are open for business, so if you create the need to tap them, you can. Otherwise, simply eating less can encourage your body to slow your metabolism.
Calories In Calories Out assumes the number of calories you burn stays more or less constant. It ignores adaptive thermogenesis, the process by which your body can dramatically raise or lower your metabolism in response to the foods you eat, hormones, etc. So according to the Calories In Calories out crowd, if you simply eat less, you’ll automatically lose weight matching the equation 3,500 calories = 1 pound of fat. However, if your fat cells aren’t open for business and you simply eat less, your body will respond to starvation at the cellular level by slowing your metabolism. That’s part of the reason so many diets fail, and also the reason some people who try to grit it out end up losing muscle instead of fat. Likewise, people who literally can’t seem to gain weight (my son, for one) have metabolisms that ramp up if they eat more.
If your fat cells are open for business, your body can make up for a fuel shortage by burning body fat, so it won’t experience cellular starvation and won’t slow your metabolism. But any way you slice it, you need to give your body a reason to tap those fat cells. I’ve seen people accuse the low-carb doctors of either denying the need for a calorie deficit or just now admitting to it, but Drs. Eades & Eades wrote about the need to create a calorie deficit way back with their first Protein Power book, which was published in 1997.
Research has shown that people who go on low-carb diets often end up eating less spontaneously. There’s a reason for that: once the fat cells are opened up, they supply a bigger share of your energy, so you don’t feel the need to eat as much.
Rebecca: It seems like you are saying that Calories In Calories Out does not work if the fat cells are “closed” but it does work if the fat cells are “open”. Or maybe it works when the fat cells are “open” but you make sure not to drop your calories too low and cause the body to “shut” the fat cells again.
But doesn’t “creating a calorie deficit” also ignore adaptive thermogenesis? If the fat cells are “open” does that turn off adaptive thermogenesis, or is it still possible?
If I am understanding this correctly, the difference between Calories In Calories Out and Creating a Calorie Deficit is really only a matter of semantics. You could basically say that if you are eating high carb and low fat, Calories In Calories Out will not work. But if you are eating low carb and high fat, Calories In Calories Out will work. Isn’t Creating a Calorie Deficit really the same thing as Calories In Calories Out, provided, of course, that you are acknowledging that all calories are not created equal?
Just eating less and exercising more (Calories In Calories Out) will not make a person lose weight IF they are eating wrong. But if they are eating right, eating less and exercising more will make them lose weight (Calorie Deficit). Please help me to understand this better!
Tom: Well, it’s a big, complex subject, but I’ll try to make it as clear as possible. The Calories In Calories Out crowd believes that 1) Body fat is passive and 2) All calories count the same. Therefore, they make goofy statements such as “If you just cut 100 calories per day from your diet, you’ll lose 10 pounds per year.”
They see the body as a bank which has a set number of daily expenses (your basal metabolism). Every calorie consumed is a deposit, and every calorie burned through activity is a withdrawal. So in their view, if your basal metabolism is 1500 calories and you burn an extra 500 calories through activity, eating more than 2000 calories will always cause weight gain, and eating fewer than 2000 calories will always cause weight loss.
We know this is poppycock because people like my wife and son weigh exactly the same year in and year out. They can’t possibly be consuming EXACTLY the right number of calories every year. My son easily consumes more than a million calories in a year. According to simple calorie math, if he over-ate by a mere 7,000 calories, he’d gain two pounds – yet that never happens. So unless he’s eating exactly the right number of calories every year – with 99.3% accuracy – his body must be adjusting his metabolism up and down in response to his diet to maintain his weight.
In fact, my son twice tried to gain weight by eating quite a bit more, but it didn’t work. Other people have tried to starve themselves thin but couldn’t lose anything close to what the simple Calories In Calories Out math says they should have lost.
That’s what Taubes explained in his book. It’s important to understand that despite what some of his critics have said, Taubes does not believe calories can magically disappear or that the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to the human body. (We’re talking about a guy with a degree in physics, after all.) In any system, the body included, the inputs and outputs must match. However, Taubes believes that 1) Body fat is an active driver of your metabolism, 2) the amount of fat your body wants to maintain is determined by hormones, and 3) the body responds to different sources of calories in different ways.
Body fat drives metabolism by providing you with a supply of fatty acids for fuel. To keep your blood sugar level, your body needs to alternately store and retrieve fat – storing fat when blood sugar is high so the blood sugar will be consumed first and brought down to a safe level, retrieving fat as blood sugar drops so blood sugar isn’t over-consumed and pushed too low. The amount of body fat you need for this system to work depends on how efficiently your fat cells can release fatty acids, which in turn is a function of several hormones. Insulin, of course, is a prime mover in this system because high levels of insulin can slow down or block the release of fatty acids. If your fat cells are slow to release fat, your body will work to make them bigger, because bigger fat cells can release more fatty acids, thus allowing you to keep your blood sugar stable.
So if hormones are telling your body to maintain a certain level of body fat, it will fight your efforts to gain or lose. It fights by adjusting your metabolism up or down. So you cut 100 calories per day from you diet, just like the experts suggest, and nothing happens. Why? Because if hormones are telling your body to remain fat, your body will respond by making adjustment to the calories it expends.
The Calories In Calories Out crowd doesn’t account for those adjustments. They also don’t account for the fact (despite plenty of clinical research) that the body tends to raise its metabolism in response to certain nutrients, such as proteins and medium-chain triglycerides – the fat found in coconut oil.
Here’s an analogy: To the Calories In Calories Out crowd, the gas I put in my car is calories in, the gas my car burns while idling is basal metabolism, and the gas my car burns while moving is calories expended through activity. In their minds, this equation never changes. But of course, we all know you can buy a car that gets 35 mpg, and three years later it’s only getting 28 mpg. That doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics, and it doesn’t mean the energy in no longer matches the energy out. It means something has changed inside the car’s system and it’s no longer using the energy in exactly the same way.
There is no getting around the fact that to burn away body fat, you need to create a need for your body to consume the fat – an energy deficit. But merely cutting calories may not do the trick, because your body can adjust your metabolism down, thus reducing or eliminating the deficit. That’s what Taubes was trying to explain: The calories in can cause adjustments in the calories out. If you don’t solve the hormonal issues first, shrinking your fat cells will simply produce a situation where your body can’t retrieve fatty acids quickly enough to feed your cells and keep your blood sugar level. Then your body will fight like crazy to avoid shrinking the fat cells any more – again by slowing your metabolism.
So for the calorie deficit to work in the long term, it must be combined with a hormonal environment that allows your body to efficiently retrieve fatty acids from your fat cells. That’s where keeping your insulin levels low comes in.
Rebecca: If I am Creating a Calorie Deficit, why am I still 36% body fat, even though I eat high fat, moderate protein and very low carb?
Even though it makes sense, in theory, that I need to “burn” more calories than I take in, I have not been able to make that theory a reality in my body. It seems that every time I either increase or decrease fat and protein (carbs always staying very low in all cases), there is no rhyme or reason to why I either stay the same weight, or lose weight or gain weight.
Remember my "Borg" analogy? Well, my body is the Borg, and it wants to weigh 143.4 pounds and Resistance is Futile! When I decrease my intake of food in order to create a calorie deficit, it will sometimes give up a little fat, but then adapts and starts storing fat again, bringing me back to 143.4 pounds or more. There was one time that I increased my food intake from 1600 calories to 2000 calories, and dropped several pounds in a week, but then my body adjusted my metabolism (I’m assuming) and all the weight came right back, with a little more just for good measure, to teach me a lesson.
In your Jimmy Moore interview,Tom, you said that people can look up exactly what you ate and how it caused you to lose a certain amount of weight. If you were to look at my food diary, you would see no rhyme or reason to the weight I have lost, gained or maintained relative to the food I happened to be eating at the time or the amount of exercise I was getting or not getting.
I recently just gave up and ate 1800 calories per day for a few months without a change. My weight stayed the same. I then dropped down to 1400 calories, and did not lose weight. I have been doing this now for two weeks, with no change in my weight. But didn’t I create a calorie deficit? And 1400 calories for a 5’3” woman is certainly not starving, I would think…
How can a person (me!) create a calorie deficit when thermogenesis is at work, it seems, to keep my body at a certain weight? What is the likelihood that a person has no control over their weight, and no matter what they eat or how much they exercise, they will not lose weight?
Tom: Okay, this is the answer nobody wants to hear, but here goes: Short of starvation that would ruin your health, it may not be possible for you to be as thin as you would like to be. As I explained above, your body needs to be able to store and retrieve fatty acids to keep your cells fed and your blood sugar level. The amount of body fat required to do that job depends on how quickly and efficiently your fat cells release fatty acids. Think of it this way: if you’ve got weak batteries, you need more of them to produce the same charge. So unless you can make your fat cells more efficient, your body is going to fight you tooth and nail to maintain your current level of body fat – because it NEEDS that body fat to avoid cellular starvation between meals, especially when you’re sleeping.
You may be able to make your fat cells more efficient through changes in hormones – thyroid recovery, adrenal recovery, insulin sensitivity recovery, etc. – but if you’ve suffered irreversible damage to any of those, there’s a limit to how much body fat you can or should lose.
I once managed to semi-starve myself down to 165 pounds, but the love handles and bit of belly fat in the front still didn’t go away. I started burning up my own muscles instead. My arms, legs and chest got skinnier, the belly didn’t. At some point, my body refused to sacrifice the body fat it needed. I just didn’t realize at the time that it did, in fact, need the fat.
So I can only suggest looking into possible fixes for hormone problems, keeping your carbs low (which you apparently already do), and engaging in hard exercise to improve your insulin sensitivity a bit. Beyond that, I believe the smartest thing to do is to accept that what matters is health, not body size. As Dr. Mary Vernon said in a lecture I attended, “From a health standpoint, I don’t care how fat you are. I care about what you’re burning for fuel.”
Rebecca: What do you think of the BodyBugg? I have a friend who uses one, and he says it accurately tells him how many calories he is burning off each day so that he can create a 20% calorie deficit and lose weight consistently. He eats high fat, moderate protein and low carb. I feel that if I got one (out of desperation!), it would tell me that I am burning calories, but I still would not lose weight.
Tom: Never seen one. Since the body will adjust your metabolism to keep you fat if you don’t solve the hormonal issues first, I don’t see the point of counting every calorie.
Rebecca: What other processes are at work in the body to store fat due to hormonal imbalances other than insulin?
Estrogen dominance, low progesterone, low testosterone, low thyroid, high cortisol and low melatonin will all cause weight gain. Why? (By the way, I have all of these, and having my hormones balanced with natural, bio-identical hormone replacement has not helped me lose weight.) Do people with these imbalances gain weight because the imbalances cause excess insulin to be produced? And if that is so, and a person is eating very low carb, what the heck is the insulin driving into the fat cells? Fat and protein?
Tom: I don’t believe they all work directly through raising insulin. From what I’ve read, they all have an effect on how efficiently your body can release fatty acids for fuel. Testosterone, for example, aids in lipolysis – the release and burning of fatty acids. Insulin, however, can block the actions of hormones that aid in lipolysis. If you can’t release fatty acids quickly, your body doesn’t want to give up the body fat it needs.
Rebecca: It's disappointing to me that I am actually a success story in the new Atkins book, A New Atkins for a New You.
Tom: I take it you don’t feel successful at the moment?
Rebecca: The answer to that is resounding NO! I have done everything right. I have exercised, I have lifted weights, I have eaten low carb, I have had my hormones naturally balanced with bio-identical hormone replacement. I am one of the top three contributors on the Atkins Community Forum, where some of my articles are used in the forum “stickies” so that newcomers will see them. I am profiled in The New Atkins For a New You. I was interviewed by Jimmy Moore for his podcast this past September. I have this health and nutrition blog.
And sometimes I feel like a hypocrite. I spend all my time telling everyone I know that low carb is the way that human beings were designed to eat, but eating this way is not causing me to lose more than just a few initial pounds of fat. I started out at 46% body fat and now I am 36% or so, and I am stuck. I did get down to around 33% over a year ago, but it has steadily been going back up since then.
Tom: I hear you. I’d love to have arms with veins that pop and six-pack abs, like my son. But it’ll never happen. I stopped a life-long weight gain and reversed it to a significant degree, but I know I damaged my metabolism as a young man, and it will apparently only recover so far. I have to focus on the fact that at age 52, I’m stronger than when I was at 25, I can walk for miles in hilly terrain without getting fatigued, I kick my wife’s behind in racquetball even though she’s 14 years younger, my blood pressure is low, my triglycerides are low, my HDL is high, and I’m the only one of my friends in my age bracket who isn’t taking some awful prescription drug.
You are NOT a hypocrite, Rebecca. You cannot compare yourself to people whose bodies are happy to be thin. (If I compared myself to my wife and son all the time, I’d go bonkers.) You can only compare who you are now with who you would’ve been if you hadn’t taken steps to improve your health. So I don’t compare myself to my son. The only person I compare myself to is the one I used to be.
Rebecca: Can fat tissue be damaged beyond repair? I have heard some say that the basic problem is that fat tissue function is damaged. Do you think that there is a possibility that, in some cases, adipose tissue has been damaged beyond total repair? Is there a chance, when there are no other possible issues at play, that a person cannot be capable of creating a calorie deficit in order to lose weight? Gary Taubes said something to that effect in his recent interview with Jimmy Moore. He said that, in some people, there will be excess fat that will not go away, no matter how well they eat.
Tom: I think Gary’s right, for the reasons I have already talked about here.
Rebecca: So you think that a person can be fat and healthy? In your Jimmy Moore interview, you talked about the difference between being overweight and being unhealthy, using members of your family and yourself as examples: You are a little overweight and yet you have normal blood sugar, and others in your family are normal weight and yet have Type 2 Diabetes. Do you believe that being overweight causes disease, or that disease leads to overweight? My father’s doctor has always told him to avoid gaining weight in order to avoid Type 2 Diabetes. His mother, my grandmother, was overweight most of her life and developed Type 2 Diabetes in her 60s.
I think of myself, and realize that I have low triglycerides, good HDL and slightly high LDL, but normal blood sugar, and low inflammation markers, like C-Reactive Protein and Homocysteine, and yet I am 36% body fat. If I stay this fat, will that lead to developing Diabetes and Coronary Heart Disease, or can I stay fat and remain healthy, as long as I eat right (low carb) and exercise? Should I only care about my health, and not try to lose weight, and if I do that, will this fat, healthy body of mine lead me down the road to ill health?
Tom: My father-in-law is lean, athletic, and a type 2 diabetic. My maternal grandmother is on the skinny side, but also became a type 2 diabetic. Clearly, body fat is not the cause of type 2 diabetes, or we wouldn’t see lean type 2 diabetics. It’s far more likely that many people eat diets that both make them fat and create insulin resistance at the same time. Others can eat the same diet and become insulin resistant without becoming fat.
Having said that, there is some evidence that the fat that accumulates in your liver may accelerate insulin resistance through the production of inflammatory cytokines.
Rebecca: So basically, does staying slim keep you healthy, or does staying healthy keep you slim (chicken/egg)?
Tom: Proper diet can aid in keeping you both slim and healthy. Losing weight may assist in keeping you healthy by removing inflammation-producing visceral fat from your liver.
Rebecca: Tom, why do people get fat? I know that Gary has a book coming out about this, but I am interested to hear your take on it. I have heard it said (maybe by Gary) that we don’t get fat because we sit on the couch and eat too much – we sit on the couch and eat too much because we are fat.
In other words, we aren’t fat because we eat too much and don’t get enough exercise. We’re not just lazy gluttons. It’s not just Calories In Calories Out. There is actually something wrong in the adipose tissue that is driving us to eat (specifically carbs) and causing us to stay inactive and keeping our metabolism slow.
I know that I did not change the way I was eating or exercising, but when I hit thirty, I just started gaining weight. I now blame hormonal imbalances, of which I’m sure insulin was one. I was also eating a high carb and high fat diet, except when I was trying to lose weight, and then it was high carb and low fat.
What do you think?
Tom: Metabolic derangement happens first. The result is weight gain and lethargy. When Dr. Robert Lustig treated kids for cancer, they nearly all become fat and lazy soon after. Realizing something hormonal must’ve happened, he tested them and ended up giving them a drug to suppress excess insulin production. Bingo; they lost weight and became active again, without anyone harping on them to eat less and exercise more.
Rebecca: I've been doing a lot of reading lately about cholesterol, because my husband's is high. Based on what I've been learning, I am beginning to wonder: Does serum cholesterol even matter?
Since starting low carb 20 months ago, my cholesterol has gone from around 200 to around 220. I’m sure it would not surprise you to know that my doctor wants me on statins. I refused. I did agree to start supplementing with red rice yeast, but now I am wondering if I should even be trying to lower my LDL. I have been reading a lot of things in books and on the internet that say that as long as triglycerides are low, and inflammation is low, you could have a high LDL and it doesn't matter. Some doctors believe that, ten years into the future, cholesterol will not even be considered a marker for heart disease. What do you think?
Tom: Don’t try to lower your LDL. High LDL protects you against infections and cancer. It’s only a problem if you’re producing small, dense LDL, which is unlikely if you have low triglycerides and high HDL. Also, LDL isn’t usually measured; it’s calculated. If you have low triglycerides (below 100), that calculation will nearly always overestimate how much LDL you have. Your doctor probably doesn’t know this, but there’s never, ever been an association shown between high cholesterol and heart disease in women. In senior citizens, those with high cholesterol have the longest average lifespans, primarily because they have a lower rate of cancer.
Rebecca: Thanks, Tom! I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions! I know that we all hope that low carb wisdom will prevail - and hopefully in our lifetimes!
Insomnia is present in approximately 1 out of every 8 Americans, most commonly in women. Sleep is a very important time for your body to renew and refresh itself - as a matter of fact, growth hormone, and DHEA, your body’s “master hormone” are both produced during the first 90 minutes of sleep. Insufficient sleep leads to insufficient growth hormone production, which in turn leads to lower bone density and muscle mass and oftentimes causes adrenal fatigue. In addition, insufficient levels of growth hormone can also disrupt the production of other hormones throughout the body: DHEA, testosterone, insulin, cortisol, progesterone and estrogen.
