Setpoint theory and LC
Question:
I must eat fat….and when I cut back on fat, I get hungry and I’ll eat too much. I rarely do a "me, too" post but I thought this was important enough to add my two cent me, too.
Thanks, I really appreciate that validation. It seems so counter-intuitive to me to eat more fat to combat hunger, because this means that the total volume of food I eat will be less if I still keep my calorie count down. But that has been exactly what works for me. Since you have been so successful maintaining your weight, and the higher fat consumption has helped you, too, it really helps reassure me that I’m on the right track. Reb
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’ve recently come to realize that eating a piece of lean meat with vegetables for dinner is the death blow for me. A few hours later I’ll be really hungry. Not just munchy; HUNGRY. Real, pit in the stomach hunger. So I’m sitting there at 9 or 10 at night feeling like I need to eat another meal. Last night I had chicken salad for dinner. HUGE amount of fat. Nearly 50g. But I felt great. I was satisfied all evening. I didn’t go to bed hungry. You mentioned in another post that eggs don’t have enough protein to satisfy hunger, but I would have to disagree with that. On days when I have eggs for breakfast, I feel the most satisfied. I can easily make it well into the afternoon before I feel hungry again. Something else I find really satisfying is cream cheese. A couple ounces of that will keep me going for hours. There isn’t much protein in that, but there’s a whole lot of fat. In thinking about it, I realize that the common denominator in the foods which keep me from quickly getting hungry again is fat, and lots of it. In the last several days I’ve been eating a higher percentage of my calories from fat, and paradoxically, I’ve found it MUCH easier to keep my daily calorie count down, yet not be hungry.
Your whole post was great but I’ve just quoted the above because this has been of prime importance to me back when I was losing weight and in the last ten years of maintenance. I must eat fat….and when I cut back on fat, I get hungry and I’ll eat too much. I rarely do a "me, too" post but I thought this was important enough to add my two cent me, too. Kitty.
Response:
So my question is, I guess, are you actually _making_ a lot of similar foods like this? You could _easily_ use artificial sweeteners to overload a fatty icecream (from cream or coconut milk), and that would not only numb your sweet receptors on your tongue, but it would also make you eat that icecream a long time after it was sensible to stop. Now, ice cream was just an example, but it is easy to imagine a bunch of other foods that could approximate the same situation: e.g. mixed vegetables in full cream with cheese toppings (lots of saturated fat from the cream and cheese, and salt from the cheese — which would taste delicious, but it wouldn’t really be the wisest choice wrt. controlling appetive, nor is the loads of saturated dairy fats preferable.).
Actually, no, I don’t eat stuff like that. But I probably should. I know you feel that lean meats are the key to satisfying hunger, but that absolutely doesn’t cut it with me. I’ve tried it. More vegetables and more fiber don’t do anything for me, either. A higher fat consumption is the only thing which helps. A meal of lean protein with vegetables is quickly digested and hunger pains return. But a meal with more fat (say, around 30g or more) will stick around much longer. That is my experience, anyway. I’ve recently come to realize that eating a piece of lean meat with vegetables for dinner is the death blow for me. A few hours later I’ll be really hungry. Not just munchy; HUNGRY. Real, pit in the stomach hunger. So I’m sitting there at 9 or 10 at night feeling like I need to eat another meal. Last night I had chicken salad for dinner. HUGE amount of fat. Nearly 50g. But I felt great. I was satisfied all evening. I didn’t go to bed hungry. You mentioned in another post that eggs don’t have enough protein to satisfy hunger, but I would have to disagree with that. On days when I have eggs for breakfast, I feel the most satisfied. I can easily make it well into the afternoon before I feel hungry again. Something else I find really satisfying is cream cheese. A couple ounces of that will keep me going for hours. There isn’t much protein in that, but there’s a whole lot of fat. In thinking about it, I realize that the common denominator in the foods which keep me from quickly getting hungry again is fat, and lots of it. In the last several days I’ve been eating a higher percentage of my calories from fat, and paradoxically, I’ve found it MUCH easier to keep my daily calorie count down, yet not be hungry. Reb 226/213/120
Response:
I think that you have two separate issues being addressed. One is LBM loss with age and in yo-yo dieting. The problem seems to be that there is no proven way to revise your setpoint downwards. In fact, in most people it seems to drift depressingly upwards with age. There is also some evidence that yo-yo dieting can push it upwards as well.
As most people age (past 30 years old) they lose LBM and therefore drop their metabolism — if they don’t do some form of exercise to get or keep LBM Often times yo-yo dieting will do the same. Lose LBM, lower metabolism, gain BF back after you stop dieting. But I do believe that there could be hormonal reasons for your body to try and maintain a particular weight, or have problems maintaining a lower weight. — Rudy – Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm
Response:
[...] I personally don’t feel starved or in a situation eating "very little". Actually, the first three weeks on the NeanderThin diet I pretty much pigged out on bacon, eggs, nuts, bacon, apples, and did I mention bacon. I lost 3 pounds or so. Nothing spectacular, but I weren’t aiming for that either. I was just easing my way into the diet, and trying to maximize pleasure along the way. I would posit that the reason you lost after cutting the bacon, nuts etc was the huge reduction in sodium and therefore you lost quite a bit of water at once.
I just got a fat percentage reading again (the former reading was 4-5 weeks back). It said that I had definetely lost 5 kg. (about 10 pounds if a pound is 500 grams) of pure fat. The machine is insanely expensive my Gym told me, and it should be very reliable. I lost a total of 7 kilos, so the rest is probably water and some lean tissue. That isn’t to say that those things are definitely better consumed in moderation.
I should probably switch to uncured, unsalted bacon meat. It’s not the best of foods, granted. But it sure does taste good 
–V
Response:
Most people experience a loss of hunger when low-carbing, but this hasn’t happened for me. If I eat at a level where I can lose weight, I frequently experience hunger. If I eat every time I’m hungry, I don’t lose (or start gaining). This is one reason I decided to take a thermogenic stack. It does seem to help with hunger.
In his book "The Paleo Diet" Loren Cordain speaks of the insidious nature of modern foods, and why we tend to overeat them. Let me quote it: "Most of the foods we crave–and that make us fat if we eat enough of them–contain some combination of sugar, starch, fat and salt in highly concentrated form. (If you think about it, sugar, starch, fat, and salt are pretty much the recipe for ALL the foods people tend to overeast.) In nature, a sweet taste is almost aways associated with fruit. This is what drew our acenstors to strawberries, for instalnce–the desire for a "sweet." However, as a bonus, they got much more than the sweet taste–fiber, vitamins, minerals, phytochemical, and other healthful substances that improved their chances of survical. Similarly, our Paleolithic ancestors sought foods with a salty taste. Salt is absolutely essential for your health–but you don’t need much of it. The trace amounts of salt found in fresh fruits, vegetables and leans meats were just right for our ancient ancestors–who also got at hefty dose of potassium along with the sodium. Today, almost all processed foods are grossly overloaded with salt." He then provides a long list of "Fake Foods", ie. unnaturally engineered modern foods: "…If you take this same mixture [bread], deep-fry it in hydrogenated fats, an then glaze it with sugar, it becomes tastier still–a glazeddoughnut. [...] In Paleolithic times, starchy foods weren’t ALSO SALTY; new we have potato chips and corn chips. Sweet foods were never ALSO FAT. Now we have ice cream and chocolates. Fatty foods were almost never ALSO STARCHY. Now we have doughnuts that are not only fatty and starchy, but sugary as well." So my question is, I guess, are you actually _making_ a lot of similar foods like this? You could _easily_ use artificial sweeteners to overload a fatty icecream (from cream or coconut milk), and that would not only numb your sweet receptors on your tongue, but it would also make you eat that icecream a long time after it was sensible to stop. Now, ice cream was just an example, but it is easy to imagine a bunch of other foods that could approximate the same situation: e.g. mixed vegetables in full cream with cheese toppings (lots of saturated fat from the cream and cheese, and salt from the cheese — which would taste delicious, but it wouldn’t really be the wisest choice wrt. controlling appetive, nor is the loads of saturated dairy fats preferable.). (Again I’ll point out just for the record that I’m a NeanderThin/Paleo Diet oriented person, and that means I eat meat, mostly "good" fats, vegetables and fruit — and pretty much never counts calories. There’s no dairy, cheese, soy, legumes or anything like that on my list.) –Vad
Response:
What is a thermogenic snack??????? I need all the help I can get 
) LOL…I had to go back and read my post. I thought maybe I’d actually said "thermogenic snack" (sounds tasty, doesn’t it?).
Actually, I do have "thermogenic snacks" (I have found that bars don’t affect me negatively unless I eat obscene amounts of them… and then my digestive system screams before the weight loss is affected). So I sometimes have "thermogenic" bars. "Thermogenic snack." Cute, no? I’ll store that term in my vocabulary. ~M’isa
Response:
Yes, other than the fact that the URL had a non-english language setting I figured it out – thanks! -josh – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Josh, there has been an interesting discussion on this at Misc.Fitness.Weights – distinguishing between setpoint and settling point. Its somewhere in the middle of the following thread: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=iw&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=iw&newwindo… hope the URL works, Elli
Response:
Hi Josh, there has been an interesting discussion on this at Misc.Fitness.Weights – distinguishing between setpoint and settling point. Its somewhere in the middle of the following thread: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=iw&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=iw&newwindo… hope the URL works, Elli
Response:
What is a thermogenic snack??????? I need all the help I can get )
LOL…I had to go back and read my post. I thought maybe I’d actually said "thermogenic snack" (sounds tasty, doesn’t it?). Now I’m not sure if you were seriously asking about the STACK or just joking around! But in case you or anybody else is wondering, here’s a website which discusses it at length. http://drumlib.com/dp/000006.htm Basically, a stack is a combination of caffeine and ephedrine (and sometimes aspirin) which is supposed to make you lose weight more efficiently. It’s also supposed to help preserve lean body mass. Reb
Response:
After spending some time with Myra and listening to her struggle, she got on glucophage (Metformin) and started going down again after quite a long stall, so I too thought maybe I’ll try it again. I’ve been on it now for about 2+ weeks and things are shifting again thank goodness.
I’m so pleased it’s working for you! Myra
Response:
because of the insulin resistance and PCOS was not letting my muscles use much glycogen and I was getting extremely fatigued and therefore eating way too many calories as I was just craving large amounts of fat if you can believe that.
Yes, that does make sense to me. Before I started taking glucophage, excercising made me ravenous. Well, extra-ravenous actually, because I was just "regular ravenous" all the time. Since I’ve been on Glucophage my exercise time is more productive, I don’t get the shakes and I can go longer and feel great afterwards
Yeah, that makes sense, too. Pre-glugophage, I used to get low blood sugar very often when I tried to exercise. Boy, was that ever a miserable and scary feeling. But after I started taking glucophage, I never had a low blood sugar episode again. Unfortunately, since I’m not taking glucophage now, on the few occasions when I’ve really exercised intensely, I have gotten the shakes. I’ll need to experiment a little, though. I think I tend to start in exercising when it’s been too long since my last meal. Does your stack include ephedra or that other non-stimulating ephedra?
Yeah, it has ephedra and caffeine. Lots of it! I’ve never been a coffee drinker, so when I first started, I was bouncing off the walls, but now it doesn’t bother me at all. Reb
Response:
Thanks for the offer, but alas I don’t have Excel anymore. I can’t even use Dean’s awesome spreadsheet that he was kind enough to send me. Thanks though. — Mdmquincy (Jennifer)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve experienced ’set points’ too, ie I stuck for an exceptionally long time at a weight that I’d stayed for some time when I wasn’t dieting (in my case at 11 stone and 10 1/2 stone). The only way to prove or disprove the theory would be for several members of this group to faithfully and accurately submit weekly weight figures over a year. They would have to be sure not to cheat so as to invalidate the figures. They would have to be able to remember what weights they had stayed at for periods in their life when they weren’t dieting. A line graph in Excel, if the set point theory is correct, would show a pattern of dips and rises with a gradual downward trend but a level plateau at these setpoint weights. (BTW, a line graph very rarely shows a steadily sloping line. A frequent pattern is down, down, down, level bit, *rise up*, bigger slope down. Only a Trend Line (Excel users note) will show that the trend is downwards, even if individual measurements may rise at times. There are a few free charts you can use. If you have Excel 97 or plus, I have one on my website which you are welcome to. — http://homepage.ntlworld.com/evwool/ Evi
Response:
Ok, this is a relatively involved question. I have been reading a lot lately about setpoint theory and how it relates to weightloss. The basic idea is that we all have a certain weight ’setpoint’ that our body vigorously defends. Eat to much of the short term and you will gain, but you will quickly return to your setpoint weight once your eating returns to normal. Eat too little, and you will lose, but once your start eating normally again you return to the setpoint weight. This sort of behavior has been confirmed in animal and human studies.
I have never maintained a set weight. When I ate what I thought was a healthful diet (ie, low fat) in quantities that felt right, I gained almost 10 pounds per year, every year. If the setpoint theory is true then my setpoint must be higher than my highest weight achieved – 260 pounds. But why would a body have such an unhealthful setpoint? How does that decision get made? Now that I eat low carb in quantities that feel right, I’m losing weight effortlessly – about 60 pounds my first year. I’m eating "normally" and still losing. Sometimes it’s what you eat rather than how much.
Response:
Ok, this is a relatively involved question. I have been reading a lot lately about setpoint theory and how it relates to weightloss. The basic idea is that we all have a certain weight ’setpoint’ that our body vigorously defends.
<snip for brevity I personally don’t feel starved or in a situation eating "very little". Actually, the first three weeks on the NeanderThin diet I pretty much pigged out on bacon, eggs, nuts, bacon, apples, and did I mention bacon. I lost 3 pounds or so. Nothing spectacular, but I weren’t aiming for that either. I was just easing my way into the diet, and trying to maximize pleasure along the way.
I would posit that the reason you lost after cutting the bacon, nuts etc was the huge reduction in sodium and therefore you lost quite a bit of water at once. That isn’t to say that those things are definitely better consumed in moderation. Nice to see someone else though that does notice, and will comment on the benefit of eating more real food rather than prepared foods. The others on the list that post regularly who follow in the same vein seem have the best results. This is of course, only my opinion, but I’m sticking to it. If you have the will and the way, go with real food as much as possible. The neanderthals didn’t eat apples though. Neither did North Americans until mid 1600’s. So I wonder where Eve got hers? – Violet (who always believed chocolate was a better reason to get thrown out of any garden) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – –Vad
Response:
What is a thermogenic snack??????? I need all the help I can get ) —
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anecdotally, I would agree with the theory of setpoint. Mine seems to be an astonishing 226. If I eat comfortably, making no attempt to limit calories, but not eating excessively, either, my weight seems to settle there. For the past 15 years or so, every time I lost weight, when I regained it stopped there. And if I did gain any weight beyond that, it was only for a short time, and quickly returned to 226. As a teenager, my setpoint seemed to be around 175. I dieted and lost a considerable amount of weight a few times, but I always returned to around 175. However, at some point, for some reason I went beyond that. I read once that a severe episode of stress can trigger the onset of PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome…one symptom of insulin resistance). Thinking back on it, my PCOS symptoms became apparent very suddenly in my early twenties right before I jumped from 175 to 226. And it was indeed a stressful time in my life just prior to that. I often see quoted in this group to eat 8 to 10 times your body weight in calories; however, I have found that the meager weight I have lost thus far quickly starts coming back if I don’t keep my calories *below* a factor of 8. This would seem to support the idea that I am having to keep my caloric intake exceptionally low to break away from my setpoint. The last time I lost a significant amount of weight, down to about 170, I gained weight if I ate more than about 1,100 to 1,200 calories per day (a factor of 6.5-7 times my body weight). When I was in high school I lost down to 129 pounds. To do that, I had to consume less than 1,000 calories a day. Many days I ate only a few hundred calories. It would be tempting to think I caused my body to enter a "starvation mode," by eating so little, but normal eating simply did not produce weight loss. Right now I am very much struggling to keep in a downwards direction. I do fully expect that if I manage to achieve a significant weight loss, I will have to keep to an unusually low calorie count…or do an extraordinary amount of exercise. Most people experience a loss of hunger when low-carbing, but this hasn’t happened for me. If I eat at a level where I can lose weight, I frequently experience hunger. If I eat every time I’m hungry, I don’t lose (or start gaining). This is one reason I decided to take a thermogenic stack. It does seem to help with hunger. Reb 226/215/120 9-11-02
Response:
I’ve experienced ’set points’ too, ie I stuck for an exceptionally long time at a weight that I’d stayed for some time when I wasn’t dieting (in my case at 11 stone and 10 1/2 stone). The only way to prove or disprove the theory would be for several members of this group to faithfully and accurately submit weekly weight figures over a year. They would have to be sure not to cheat so as to invalidate the figures. They would have to be able to remember what weights they had stayed at for periods in their life when they weren’t dieting. A line graph in Excel, if the set point theory is correct, would show a pattern of dips and rises with a gradual downward trend but a level plateau at these setpoint weights. (BTW, a line graph very rarely shows a steadily sloping line. A frequent pattern is down, down, down, level bit, *rise up*, bigger slope down. Only a Trend Line (Excel users note) will show that the trend is downwards, even if individual measurements may rise at times. There are a few free charts you can use. If you have Excel 97 or plus, I have one on my website which you are welcome to. — http://homepage.ntlworld.com/evwool/ Evi
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I believe our setpoint is the closest weight that we have maintained for an appreciable amount of time. For example, I’m at 198, the closest weight down that I have maintained during the last 10 years is 190, the closest weight up is 208. If I stay lc and continue to lose, my next serious weight battle (possible plateau) will be at 190. If I completely fall off the wagon, I will likely skulk around 208 on the way back up. I remember these numbers down to 170 lbs., I know when I’m likely to plateau and can take counteractive measures. I Sorry to answer such an involved post with my own simply written opinion. but, HTH, — Mdmquincy (Jennifer) Ok, this is a relatively involved question. I have been reading a lot lately about setpoint theory and how it relates to weightloss. The basic idea is that we all have a certain weight ’setpoint’ that our body vigorously defends. Eat to much of the short term and you will gain, but you will quickly return to your setpoint weight once your eating returns to normal. Eat too little, and you will lose, but once your start eating normally again you return to the setpoint weight. This sort of behavior has been confirmed in animal and human studies. The problem seems to be that there is no proven way to revise your setpoint downwards. In fact, in most people it seems to drift depressingly upwards with age. There is also some evidence that yo-yo dieting can push it upwards as well. The studies that follow long term ‘losers’ (people who lose weight and keep it off) almost universally come to the conclusion that these people are forced to eat a calorie restricted diet continuously if they want to keep the weight off (one study I saw found an avg of 1200 cals/day for females, 1700 cals/day for men). This supports setpoint theory. These people, after losing weight are below their setpoint weight, and their body is basically in semi-starvation mode – vigorously attempting to get back to the setpoint by being stingy with fat burning metabolism and by slowing down overall metabolism – the only defense a person has is to eat less. So, it seems, that based on setpoint theory (and the studies of long term losers), the only means of long-term weightloss is continual calorie restriction. If you return to your previous caloric intake, you will return to your previous setpoint (or a new, higher, setpoint). Now, my question is – how do Atkins and other LC programs fit into setpoint theory? Is LC just an easier way to restrict calories long term? Or do people think LC’ing changes the metabolic equation enough so that your setpoint is different (BTW, there is no support of this in the research that has looked into diets with various proportions of fat/protein/carb – up to 70% fat). My feeling is that LC is simply a means of putting yourself in this mode of semi-starvation (with respect to calories) without hunger pangs and many of the other side-effects of a calorie restricted diet. This has certainly been my experience, as I can eat 1700-2000 calories a day with very little hunger, and plenty of energy. But it seems I will have to continue to eat at this level to maintain a lower weight long-term. I guess as long as I am getting proper nutrition I don’t have a problem with this, but it seems odd to have to eat so little, effectively for the rest of your life. What are other’s thoughts on this? -josh
Response:
started to exercise quite a bit to break a stall and just seemed to prolong the stall. Hey! I just KNEW there had to be a good reason to not exercise!
LOL!! I think what was going on was that my body, because of the insulin resistance and PCOS was not letting my muscles use much glycogen and I was getting extremely fatigued and therefore eating way too many calories as I was just craving large amounts of fat if you can believe that. Keep exercising!! Since I’ve been on Glucophage my exercise time is more productive, I don’t get the shakes and I can go longer and feel great afterwards like I used to in my 20’s when I was a competitve cyclist. I was taking glucophage for the past three years, but I quit taking it shortly after I started low-carbing. Unfortunately I don’t have insurance right now, so I can’t get any lab work done to see if my insulin level has gone back up. I have about a month’s supply of glucophage still, but I wanted to save it in case I stopped low-carbing (which seems less and less likely now) If I end up going back on glucophage (if my insulin has gone up), I sure do dread the breaking-in phase. I had gotten completely used to it, but I remember when I first started, for weeks I had to fight terrible nausea.
After about 3 months on LC my insulin levels went down to normal so I was the one that rejected the Glucophage as I didn’t think I needed it, then the stall, fatigue and muscle weakness hit. I’ve not experienced the nausea only the before mentioned other digestive ailments though I do take it with lots of fluid and eat very soon after taking it. How much are you on? I was taking 2500mg/day.
Right now, twice a day, 500 mg each (1000 total a day), of XR, brand as the generic regular is what I took last time but my Doc said, no, take brand. I wish all the luck and I hope the stack works for you. Thanks! So far I don’t think the stack has helped much with speeding weight loss (though, to be fair, I’ve never taken the full stack dose, only about half to two-thirds so far), but it does help a lot with appetite, it gives me an amazing amount of energy, greatly improves my disposition, and paradoxically enough, it makes me sleep better. I thought at first this might actually be due just to low-carbing. But when I ran out of my stack for a few days, I could definitely tell the difference. Reb
Does your stack include ephedra or that other non-stimulating ephedra? Because of having my adrenals all cooked up in my PCOS (one is considerably larger than the other) I can’t tolerate caffeine from coffee or ephedra type products at all. Makes me very ill. I was interested in the stack too. After seeing Myra’s success on the Glucphoage after a 2 year stall and my own, even with normal insulin levels, I’d say perahps give it a try again. I can make it through the day now w/o getting a food coma after lunch like I used to pre-LC. -Marcella 300/230ish/140
Response:
I believe our setpoint is the closest weight that we have maintained for an appreciable amount of time. For example, I’m at 198, the closest weight down that I have maintained during the last 10 years is 190, the closest weight up is 208. If I stay lc and continue to lose, my next serious weight battle (possible plateau) will be at 190. If I completely fall off the wagon, I will likely skulk around 208 on the way back up. I remember these numbers down to 170 lbs., I know when I’m likely to plateau and can take counteractive measures. I Sorry to answer such an involved post with my own simply written opinion. but, HTH, — Mdmquincy (Jennifer)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ok, this is a relatively involved question. I have been reading a lot lately about setpoint theory and how it relates to weightloss. The basic idea is that we all have a certain weight ’setpoint’ that our body vigorously defends. Eat to much of the short term and you will gain, but you will quickly return to your setpoint weight once your eating returns to normal. Eat too little, and you will lose, but once your start eating normally again you return to the setpoint weight. This sort of behavior has been confirmed in animal and human studies. The problem seems to be that there is no proven way to revise your setpoint downwards. In fact, in most people it seems to drift depressingly upwards with age. There is also some evidence that yo-yo dieting can push it upwards as well. The studies that follow long term ‘losers’ (people who lose weight and keep it off) almost universally come to the conclusion that these people are forced to eat a calorie restricted diet continuously if they want to keep the weight off (one study I saw found an avg of 1200 cals/day for females, 1700 cals/day for men). This supports setpoint theory. These people, after losing weight are below their setpoint weight, and their body is basically in semi-starvation mode – vigorously attempting to get back to the setpoint by being stingy with fat burning metabolism and by slowing down overall metabolism – the only defense a person has is to eat less. So, it seems, that based on setpoint theory (and the studies of long term losers), the only means of long-term weightloss is continual calorie restriction. If you return to your previous caloric intake, you will return to your previous setpoint (or a new, higher, setpoint). Now, my question is – how do Atkins and other LC programs fit into setpoint theory? Is LC just an easier way to restrict calories long term? Or do people think LC’ing changes the metabolic equation enough so that your setpoint is different (BTW, there is no support of this in the research that has looked into diets with various proportions of fat/protein/carb – up to 70% fat). My feeling is that LC is simply a means of putting yourself in this mode of semi-starvation (with respect to calories) without hunger pangs and many of the other side-effects of a calorie restricted diet. This has certainly been my experience, as I can eat 1700-2000 calories a day with very little hunger, and plenty of energy. But it seems I will have to continue to eat at this level to maintain a lower weight long-term. I guess as long as I am getting proper nutrition I don’t have a problem with this, but it seems odd to have to eat so little, effectively for the rest of your life. What are other’s thoughts on this? -josh
Response:
started to exercise quite a bit to break a stall and just seemed to prolong the stall.
Hey! I just KNEW there had to be a good reason to not exercise! Are you currently taking the PCOS cocktail and/or glucophage?
I was taking glucophage for the past three years, but I quit taking it shortly after I started low-carbing. Unfortunately I don’t have insurance right now, so I can’t get any lab work done to see if my insulin level has gone back up. I have about a month’s supply of glucophage still, but I wanted to save it in case I stopped low-carbing (which seems less and less likely now) If I end up going back on glucophage (if my insulin has gone up), I sure do dread the breaking-in phase. I had gotten completely used to it, but I remember when I first started, for weeks I had to fight terrible nausea. How much are you on? I was taking 2500mg/day. I wish all the luck and I hope the stack works for you.
Thanks! So far I don’t think the stack has helped much with speeding weight loss (though, to be fair, I’ve never taken the full stack dose, only about half to two-thirds so far), but it does help a lot with appetite, it gives me an amazing amount of energy, greatly improves my disposition, and paradoxically enough, it makes me sleep better. I thought at first this might actually be due just to low-carbing. But when I ran out of my stack for a few days, I could definitely tell the difference. Reb
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Right now I am very much struggling to keep in a downwards direction. I do fully expect that if I manage to achieve a significant weight loss, I will have to keep to an unusually low calorie count…or do an extraordinary amount of exercise. Most people experience a loss of hunger when low-carbing, but this hasn’t happened for me. If I eat at a level where I can lose weight, I frequently experience hunger. If I eat every time I’m hungry, I don’t lose (or start gaining). This is one reason I decided to take a thermogenic stack. It does seem to help with hunger. Reb 226/215/120 9-11-02
Reb, I too have PCOS and I have been LC’ing since February with a 70+ lb weight loss which is a lot for me, but I had topped about 300 lbs. At the beginning I experience some of the decreased hunger but then I started to exercise quite a bit to break a stall and just seemed to prolong the stall. I’ve been at this stall now about 3 months, still exercising and still LC’ing. I had been on glucophage before but did not tolerate it well at all; besides the trotts, I had horrendous digestive discomfort. After spending some time with Myra and listening to her struggle, she got on glucophage (Metformin) and started going down again after quite a long stall, so I too thought maybe I’ll try it again. I’ve been on it now for about 2+ weeks and things are shifting again thank goodness. I’m not getting the hunger anymore, I have a lot more energy and I can work out more and I’m not getting the almost debilitating fatigue. I have been upping my L-Glutamine some days though I go through some chocolate cravings about twice a month. I’m not getting the trotts this time, but some minimal gastric cramping about an hour after I take the Glucophage which for me is tolerable. I never thought I be able to have hope to lose this weight that has been such a burden, but it’s very slowly coming off. Are you currently taking the PCOS cocktail and/or glucophage? I wish all the luck and I hope the stack works for you. Marcella 300/230ish/140
Response:
Ok, this is a relatively involved question. I have been reading a lot lately about setpoint theory and how it relates to weightloss. The basic idea is that we all have a certain weight ’setpoint’ that our body vigorously defends.
(Let me just state for the record that I’m mostly into the NeanderThin diet myself) The body will generally tend to maintain homeostasis, which is a kind of biological equilibrium – or balance point. If you begin just starving yourself the body will _lower_ its metabolism, kinda "defending" its equilibrium. Thus, if you starve yourself, forcing the body to economize with its resources, it will generally _put on_ weight when you pick up normal eating – having lowered metabolism you’ll actually ingest more calories than used and gain fairly quickly. After a while your metabolism will return to its old level and you’ll seem to have returned to your setpoint. A chaos mathematician would tell you that a system can rest in seeming equilibrium, fending off all attempts to leave its resting point at the bottom off the landscape where it is currently located. However, such a resting place can be upset. Give the ball a big enough push and it rolls out of the resting place. Or: if you change enough values in the equation completely new equilibria can emerge. The problem seems to be that there is no proven way to revise your setpoint downwards. In fact, in most people it seems to drift depressingly upwards with age. There is also some evidence that yo-yo dieting can push it upwards as well.
Maybe not a proven way as such, but I fear that what is being looked for is the wrong thing. Somehow people wants the "magical setpoint" to adjust to a lower setting – without anything else changing much. But people’s existing setpoint is for good or worse a function of exactly how they’ve lived their life. The drifting up with age: think of the insulin resistence theory. People develop it slowly but surely, much in the way that diabetes II have been called "old man’s diabetes". I’m not sure how proven this point is, but there are some interesting correlations between increasing insulin resistance and almost everything else we think of as "bad bad bad". Yo yo dieting probably makes small dents downwards on the curve, but in the long run doesn’t change the trend: because dieters tends to NOT change in the long run either. So the question is if it actually pushes it upwards? The studies that follow long term ‘losers’ (people who lose weight and keep it off) almost universally come to the conclusion that these people are forced to eat a calorie restricted diet continuously if they want to keep the weight off (one study I saw found an avg of 1200 cals/day for females, 1700 cals/day for men).
I somehow suspect that most long term weight losers are still "eating inside the box" of insulin raising carb diets. I think the argument of the lo-carbers is that without the enormous amount of insulin, you will normally NOT store your (fat) calories. Thinking in paleolithic terms, imagine how life was back then. During spring and summer only game animals and the earliest vegetables would be available. Maybe the last leeks having thawed out of the ground. During summer the hunting is good and almost everything is plentiful. Yet the hunter has not prepared for winter yet. But with the onset of autumn almost all fruits are now ripe and sugary and vegetables are at their starchiest. *whooosh* There’s the rush of insulin, and dietary fat can now be stored, giving a lunchbox for the harsher winter, where only a few veggies are available. Now, my question is – how do Atkins and other LC programs fit into setpoint theory? Is LC just an easier way to restrict calories long term? Or do people think LC’ing changes the metabolic equation enough so that your setpoint is different
A lot of people get into LC to solve a specific medical problem, e.g. overweight. Some starvation is necessary to start eating up the love handles. However, the "maintenance" eating is more balanced and doesn’t starve the person. The point at maintenance should _definitely_ not be about metabolising more of your body! The NeanderThin diet would certainly advocate that you eat plenty of meat, fat, vegetables and some fruit to cover your energy and nutritional needs. And the theory is that you have a much more natural appetite, so you won’t seriously overeat – and besides, all that fat will _not_ be stored with the same zeal as when you’re hi-carbing. This has certainly been my experience, as I can eat 1700-2000 calories a day with very little hunger, and plenty of energy. But it seems I will have to continue to eat at this level to maintain a lower weight long-term. I guess as long as I am getting proper nutrition I don’t have a problem with this, but it seems odd to have to eat so little, effectively for the rest of your life.
I personally don’t feel starved or in a situation eating "very little". Actually, the first three weeks on the NeanderThin diet I pretty much pigged out on bacon, eggs, nuts, bacon, apples, and did I mention bacon. I lost 3 pounds or so. Nothing spectacular, but I weren’t aiming for that either. I was just easing my way into the diet, and trying to maximize pleasure along the way. About ten days after all this fun I decided to cut most of the fruit out and stop munching too many nuts and too much bacon. I lost about 6-8 pounds in those ten day. Last week wasn’t amazing but with a new baby girl on our hands I’m not fine tuning much in my diet I lost only 1 pound in 5 days. I should probably add that I had been drinking lots of beers at two or three parties, as well as enjoying a couple of bottles of wine. Oh well … so I’m not a saint –Vad
Response:
Anecdotally, I would agree with the theory of setpoint. Mine seems to be an astonishing 226. If I eat comfortably, making no attempt to limit calories, but not eating excessively, either, my weight seems to settle there. For the past 15 years or so, every time I lost weight, when I regained it stopped there. And if I did gain any weight beyond that, it was only for a short time, and quickly returned to 226. As a teenager, my setpoint seemed to be around 175. I dieted and lost a considerable amount of weight a few times, but I always returned to around 175. However, at some point, for some reason I went beyond that. I read once that a severe episode of stress can trigger the onset of PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome…one symptom of insulin resistance). Thinking back on it, my PCOS symptoms became apparent very suddenly in my early twenties right before I jumped from 175 to 226. And it was indeed a stressful time in my life just prior to that. I often see quoted in this group to eat 8 to 10 times your body weight in calories; however, I have found that the meager weight I have lost thus far quickly starts coming back if I don’t keep my calories *below* a factor of 8. This would seem to support the idea that I am having to keep my caloric intake exceptionally low to break away from my setpoint. The last time I lost a significant amount of weight, down to about 170, I gained weight if I ate more than about 1,100 to 1,200 calories per day (a factor of 6.5-7 times my body weight). When I was in high school I lost down to 129 pounds. To do that, I had to consume less than 1,000 calories a day. Many days I ate only a few hundred calories. It would be tempting to think I caused my body to enter a "starvation mode," by eating so little, but normal eating simply did not produce weight loss. Right now I am very much struggling to keep in a downwards direction. I do fully expect that if I manage to achieve a significant weight loss, I will have to keep to an unusually low calorie count…or do an extraordinary amount of exercise. Most people experience a loss of hunger when low-carbing, but this hasn’t happened for me. If I eat at a level where I can lose weight, I frequently experience hunger. If I eat every time I’m hungry, I don’t lose (or start gaining). This is one reason I decided to take a thermogenic stack. It does seem to help with hunger. Reb 226/215/120 9-11-02
Response:
Ok, this is a relatively involved question. I have been reading a lot lately about setpoint theory and how it relates to weightloss. The basic idea is that we all have a certain weight ’setpoint’ that our body vigorously defends. Eat to much of the short term and you will gain, but you will quickly return to your setpoint weight once your eating returns to normal. Eat too little, and you will lose, but once your start eating normally again you return to the setpoint weight. This sort of behavior has been confirmed in animal and human studies. The problem seems to be that there is no proven way to revise your setpoint downwards. In fact, in most people it seems to drift depressingly upwards with age. There is also some evidence that yo-yo dieting can push it upwards as well. The studies that follow long term ‘losers’ (people who lose weight and keep it off) almost universally come to the conclusion that these people are forced to eat a calorie restricted diet continuously if they want to keep the weight off (one study I saw found an avg of 1200 cals/day for females, 1700 cals/day for men). This supports setpoint theory. These people, after losing weight are below their setpoint weight, and their body is basically in semi-starvation mode – vigorously attempting to get back to the setpoint by being stingy with fat burning metabolism and by slowing down overall metabolism – the only defense a person has is to eat less. So, it seems, that based on setpoint theory (and the studies of long term losers), the only means of long-term weightloss is continual calorie restriction. If you return to your previous caloric intake, you will return to your previous setpoint (or a new, higher, setpoint). Now, my question is – how do Atkins and other LC programs fit into setpoint theory? Is LC just an easier way to restrict calories long term? Or do people think LC’ing changes the metabolic equation enough so that your setpoint is different (BTW, there is no support of this in the research that has looked into diets with various proportions of fat/protein/carb – up to 70% fat). My feeling is that LC is simply a means of putting yourself in this mode of semi-starvation (with respect to calories) without hunger pangs and many of the other side-effects of a calorie restricted diet. This has certainly been my experience, as I can eat 1700-2000 calories a day with very little hunger, and plenty of energy. But it seems I will have to continue to eat at this level to maintain a lower weight long-term. I guess as long as I am getting proper nutrition I don’t have a problem with this, but it seems odd to have to eat so little, effectively for the rest of your life. What are other’s thoughts on this? -josh
Response:
Filed under: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.