Today is the big day... My interview with Tom Nicoli for Premier Summits Weight Loss Summit is finally up. You have exactly one day to listen to it for free, so check it out right away if you get a chance. The subject is the body weight set point, how restricted eating, stress, and endurance exercise tend to raise the weight set point (the weight your body maintains while sedentary and eating to appetite of a mixed diet), and the dietary and lifestyle factors that are likely to be the most effective in lowering the weight set point. The gist of course is that any weight you lose without a fall in weight set point occurs at the detriment of your health and with a virtual guarantee of returning and "bringing some friends along with it" over time.
Showing posts with label weight set point. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weight set point. Show all posts
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Altering the Weight Set Point
Today is the big day... My interview with Tom Nicoli for Premier Summits Weight Loss Summit is finally up. You have exactly one day to listen to it for free, so check it out right away if you get a chance. The subject is the body weight set point, how restricted eating, stress, and endurance exercise tend to raise the weight set point (the weight your body maintains while sedentary and eating to appetite of a mixed diet), and the dietary and lifestyle factors that are likely to be the most effective in lowering the weight set point. The gist of course is that any weight you lose without a fall in weight set point occurs at the detriment of your health and with a virtual guarantee of returning and "bringing some friends along with it" over time. 
Friday, 15 October 2010
Podcast with Elizabeth Walling
Yesterday Elizabeth Walling interviewed me on The Nourished Life podcast. We discussed mostly weight set point while diverging into a few side tangents such as exercise, the Paleo diet, and more. You can listen to the podcast here...
The Nourished Life
I also regret my response to her last question, which was more or less "where does someone start?" when it comes to lowering the body weight set point. I rambled a bit, and should have said something along the lines of...
"Wake up every day and try to set a new record for how well you nourish yourself that day with quality, unadulterated, nutritious food, a good night's sleep, plenty of pure water, and whatever else you find to be enjoyable and nourishing on a physical and emotional level."
The Nourished Life
I also regret my response to her last question, which was more or less "where does someone start?" when it comes to lowering the body weight set point. I rambled a bit, and should have said something along the lines of...
"Wake up every day and try to set a new record for how well you nourish yourself that day with quality, unadulterated, nutritious food, a good night's sleep, plenty of pure water, and whatever else you find to be enjoyable and nourishing on a physical and emotional level."
Thursday, 29 July 2010
The Flavor-Calorie Theory
In March I did a quick video introducing Seth Roberts, a Berkeley psychologist, and his interesting theory known as the flavor-calorie association theory of body weight set point regulation. I also mentioned Roberts’s pioneering work in 180 Degree Metabolism – in the lengthy discussion about the going theories on what causes leptin resistance and a rise in set point.
I am still incredibly captivated by this theory, and really struggle to find loopholes and flaws in it. It’s come to the forefront recently as I have experienced a tremendous anorectic (hunger-suppressing) effect from eating a high-starch/low-fat diet, which contains much lower flavor intensity (it’s bland as hell) and much lower calorie density (8 pounds of potatoes contain the same amount of calories as 1 pound of butter, for example) – both prominent factors in the creation of flavor-calorie associations that increase hunger and lower metabolism. These, of course, are telltale signs of an increase in bodyweight set point. I, on the other hand, have experienced a big decrease in appetite and a rise in metabolism – down 5 pounds in the first 27 days of July.
For more on increasing metabolism, please read this FREE 180DegreeHealth EBOOK.
Here are the prime factors in the flavor-calorie theory, which explains numerous diets all under one umbrella…
1.) Calorie density – the more calorie-dense a food is, the more it triggers an activation of reward centers in the brain and a mysterious rise in weight set point.
2.) Absorption rate – the faster a food is absorbed, the stronger the flavor-calorie association and the larger the rise in the activation of reward centers in the brain and a rise in set point that occurs when these pleasure centers are tickled.
3.) Flavor-intensity – the more highly-flavored the food is, the more it raises set point
4.) Food familiarity – the more you eat ditto foods with a strong flavor-calorie association (like, say, Cool Ranch Doritos), the more you start to prefer those foods, the stronger the flavor-calorie association becomes, and the more fattening those foods become.
5.) Liquid vs. Solid – Liquids, in general, promote stronger flavor-calorie associations and are more fattening than solid foods – raising the set point.
There is ample evidence supporting all of these arms of the flavor-calorie association hypothesis. Of course, what I just described is the food produced by food companies – packaged/processed foods, fast food, and other restaurant food. This is something that anyone with personal experience and the eyes to see can observe. Most don’t develop severe weight problems eating homemade, solid, unsweetened, unrefined food with a low calorie density and no added flavor enhancers. Most who do develop weight problems do so by repeatedly eating specific foods that are scientifically-designed to outcompete other foods in activating reward centers in your brain and creating strong flavor-calorie associations that make plain food increasingly unpalatable and undesirable.
Food companies have this down to a science – serving up food that is designed to be masticated and absorbed more quickly, enhanced with MSG and other flavor enhancers, and washed down with a highly-sweetened beverage in liquid form, sometimes sweetened with Aspartame or other highly-sweetened substance that causes a stronger flavor-calorie association and an increase in bodyweight set point.
The reasons why I find this theory to be so compelling:
1) Humans are the only creatures that have the intelligence to specifically manipulate their food in such a way (combining certain ingredients, cooking, adding spices, chemical flavor enhancers). The only creatures that eat food that comes in such a package are humans and their pets, the only creatures on earth that suffer from obesity (and giant squirrels and chipmunks that are fed this food by humans).
2) In simple laboratory studies, feeding a highly-sweetened substance like Saccharin, an artificial sweetener with no calories, increases food consumption and body weight. According to Roberts's theory, you would also see artificially-sweetened beverages consumed by themselves as opposed to with a big calorie load in a mixed meal NOT be fattening or induce greater calorie consumption, which may indeed be true.
3) In simple laboratory studies, feeding more liquid calories and fewer solid food calories increases calorie consumption and body weight. For example, feeding sucrose in granulated form is not fattening. Feeding sucrose as part of a liquid solution is very fattening.
4) High-fructose corn syrup, which is a liquid and is also sweeter than sucrose due to its higher concentration of fructose, is markedly more fattening than white sugar.
5) The strongest association between obesity and food is the association between obesity and soft drinks, highly-sweetened, rapidly-absorbed, liquid food that tastes exactly the same every time you drink it.
6) Lab animals that are fed “chow,” which, because it is more palatable than fat, carbohydrate, and protein separated into different bowls, causes the lab animals to become fatter and maintain a higher weight set point than controls. When the controls are switched to chow, they do not gain weight, suggesting that flavor-calorie associations that affect bodyweight set point occur in youth to a greater degree than adulthood (perhaps a reason why Granny can eat all kinds of things without getting fat that make YOU blow up like a balloon).
7) Feeding humans less calorie-dense foods, such as a diet high in fiber and water content from fruit, vegetables, and unrefined starches causes a massive decrease in calorie consumption – up to an instant 40% decrease with no decrease in satiation reported (from Burkitt et. al.’s Western Disease).
8) Diets that are sweetened vs. diets that are unsweetened are much more fattening and promote greater calorie intake.
9) Refined carbohydrates, which are more calorie-dense and more rapidly absorbed tend to increase calorie intake and body fat, whereas unrefined carbohydrate diets have the opposite effect.
10) Low-carbohydrate diets are comprised of foods that are not particularly palatable, and typically decrease appetite and body weight.
11) Low-carb diets that contain artificial sweeteners often negate the hunger-suppression and weight loss effect of a low-carb diet. Even Atkins reported this, and advised those who weren’t losing weight to make sure they excluded aspartame from their diets.
12) Displacing more homecooked food, which generally has low flavor-intensity, natural flavor variability, slow absorption, and less calorie-density with packaged, processed, refined, rapidly-absorbed, chemical flavor-enhanced ditto foods and restaurant foods parallels a huge rise in obesity. It’s reported that calorie intake per capita has increased 20% in the United States since the early 70’s.
13) Obesity was unheard of in all places in which unrefined carbohydrates were ingested as opposed to refined carbohydrates.
14) There are strong associations between obesity and the flavor enhancer MSG.
I could go on for a while here, but that is a good starting point. Ideally we would all be able to raise body temperature without any increase in body weight. Instead, this could be achieved by lowering body weight set point. Of course, lowering the weight set point is easier said than done, and is, as I discussed in my conversation with Sean Croxton last night, perhaps the most important secret yet to be revealed.
But I do find this theory to be solid and applicable. Those attempting to lose weight may find much better success…
- eating almost exclusively homecooked whole foods
-cooking differently each time or with the addition of different spice combinations to reduce flavor-calorie associations
-eating lots of food that is not calorie dense – like root vegetables and vegetables
-avoiding all liquid calories
-eating foods that require lots of chewing
-keeping fat intake reasonable (which decreases flavor-calorie associations), and being wary about foods with strong flavor-calorie associations where fat and carbohydrate are conjoined and in ditto form – pizza, ice cream, fast food, chips, cookies, etc.
-keeping sweets to a minimum, especially when combined with a calorie-dense meal. Fruit, which has a very low-calorie density, eaten by itself, does NOT form strong flavor-calorie associations. When consumed with a high-calorie load after a mixed meal, I find fruit to be very fattening, and juices even more so, which would be expected if Roberts’s theory is accurate.
-not seasoning foods too heavily
For more on Seth’s theory, read the Shangri-La Diet or Seth’s free report here:
http://sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf
I am still incredibly captivated by this theory, and really struggle to find loopholes and flaws in it. It’s come to the forefront recently as I have experienced a tremendous anorectic (hunger-suppressing) effect from eating a high-starch/low-fat diet, which contains much lower flavor intensity (it’s bland as hell) and much lower calorie density (8 pounds of potatoes contain the same amount of calories as 1 pound of butter, for example) – both prominent factors in the creation of flavor-calorie associations that increase hunger and lower metabolism. These, of course, are telltale signs of an increase in bodyweight set point. I, on the other hand, have experienced a big decrease in appetite and a rise in metabolism – down 5 pounds in the first 27 days of July.
For more on increasing metabolism, please read this FREE 180DegreeHealth EBOOK.
Here are the prime factors in the flavor-calorie theory, which explains numerous diets all under one umbrella…
1.) Calorie density – the more calorie-dense a food is, the more it triggers an activation of reward centers in the brain and a mysterious rise in weight set point.
2.) Absorption rate – the faster a food is absorbed, the stronger the flavor-calorie association and the larger the rise in the activation of reward centers in the brain and a rise in set point that occurs when these pleasure centers are tickled.
3.) Flavor-intensity – the more highly-flavored the food is, the more it raises set point
4.) Food familiarity – the more you eat ditto foods with a strong flavor-calorie association (like, say, Cool Ranch Doritos), the more you start to prefer those foods, the stronger the flavor-calorie association becomes, and the more fattening those foods become.
5.) Liquid vs. Solid – Liquids, in general, promote stronger flavor-calorie associations and are more fattening than solid foods – raising the set point.
There is ample evidence supporting all of these arms of the flavor-calorie association hypothesis. Of course, what I just described is the food produced by food companies – packaged/processed foods, fast food, and other restaurant food. This is something that anyone with personal experience and the eyes to see can observe. Most don’t develop severe weight problems eating homemade, solid, unsweetened, unrefined food with a low calorie density and no added flavor enhancers. Most who do develop weight problems do so by repeatedly eating specific foods that are scientifically-designed to outcompete other foods in activating reward centers in your brain and creating strong flavor-calorie associations that make plain food increasingly unpalatable and undesirable.
Food companies have this down to a science – serving up food that is designed to be masticated and absorbed more quickly, enhanced with MSG and other flavor enhancers, and washed down with a highly-sweetened beverage in liquid form, sometimes sweetened with Aspartame or other highly-sweetened substance that causes a stronger flavor-calorie association and an increase in bodyweight set point.
The reasons why I find this theory to be so compelling:
1) Humans are the only creatures that have the intelligence to specifically manipulate their food in such a way (combining certain ingredients, cooking, adding spices, chemical flavor enhancers). The only creatures that eat food that comes in such a package are humans and their pets, the only creatures on earth that suffer from obesity (and giant squirrels and chipmunks that are fed this food by humans).
2) In simple laboratory studies, feeding a highly-sweetened substance like Saccharin, an artificial sweetener with no calories, increases food consumption and body weight. According to Roberts's theory, you would also see artificially-sweetened beverages consumed by themselves as opposed to with a big calorie load in a mixed meal NOT be fattening or induce greater calorie consumption, which may indeed be true.
3) In simple laboratory studies, feeding more liquid calories and fewer solid food calories increases calorie consumption and body weight. For example, feeding sucrose in granulated form is not fattening. Feeding sucrose as part of a liquid solution is very fattening.
4) High-fructose corn syrup, which is a liquid and is also sweeter than sucrose due to its higher concentration of fructose, is markedly more fattening than white sugar.
5) The strongest association between obesity and food is the association between obesity and soft drinks, highly-sweetened, rapidly-absorbed, liquid food that tastes exactly the same every time you drink it.
6) Lab animals that are fed “chow,” which, because it is more palatable than fat, carbohydrate, and protein separated into different bowls, causes the lab animals to become fatter and maintain a higher weight set point than controls. When the controls are switched to chow, they do not gain weight, suggesting that flavor-calorie associations that affect bodyweight set point occur in youth to a greater degree than adulthood (perhaps a reason why Granny can eat all kinds of things without getting fat that make YOU blow up like a balloon).
7) Feeding humans less calorie-dense foods, such as a diet high in fiber and water content from fruit, vegetables, and unrefined starches causes a massive decrease in calorie consumption – up to an instant 40% decrease with no decrease in satiation reported (from Burkitt et. al.’s Western Disease).
8) Diets that are sweetened vs. diets that are unsweetened are much more fattening and promote greater calorie intake.
9) Refined carbohydrates, which are more calorie-dense and more rapidly absorbed tend to increase calorie intake and body fat, whereas unrefined carbohydrate diets have the opposite effect.
10) Low-carbohydrate diets are comprised of foods that are not particularly palatable, and typically decrease appetite and body weight.
11) Low-carb diets that contain artificial sweeteners often negate the hunger-suppression and weight loss effect of a low-carb diet. Even Atkins reported this, and advised those who weren’t losing weight to make sure they excluded aspartame from their diets.
12) Displacing more homecooked food, which generally has low flavor-intensity, natural flavor variability, slow absorption, and less calorie-density with packaged, processed, refined, rapidly-absorbed, chemical flavor-enhanced ditto foods and restaurant foods parallels a huge rise in obesity. It’s reported that calorie intake per capita has increased 20% in the United States since the early 70’s.
13) Obesity was unheard of in all places in which unrefined carbohydrates were ingested as opposed to refined carbohydrates.
14) There are strong associations between obesity and the flavor enhancer MSG.
I could go on for a while here, but that is a good starting point. Ideally we would all be able to raise body temperature without any increase in body weight. Instead, this could be achieved by lowering body weight set point. Of course, lowering the weight set point is easier said than done, and is, as I discussed in my conversation with Sean Croxton last night, perhaps the most important secret yet to be revealed.
But I do find this theory to be solid and applicable. Those attempting to lose weight may find much better success…
- eating almost exclusively homecooked whole foods
-cooking differently each time or with the addition of different spice combinations to reduce flavor-calorie associations
-eating lots of food that is not calorie dense – like root vegetables and vegetables
-avoiding all liquid calories
-eating foods that require lots of chewing
-keeping fat intake reasonable (which decreases flavor-calorie associations), and being wary about foods with strong flavor-calorie associations where fat and carbohydrate are conjoined and in ditto form – pizza, ice cream, fast food, chips, cookies, etc.
-keeping sweets to a minimum, especially when combined with a calorie-dense meal. Fruit, which has a very low-calorie density, eaten by itself, does NOT form strong flavor-calorie associations. When consumed with a high-calorie load after a mixed meal, I find fruit to be very fattening, and juices even more so, which would be expected if Roberts’s theory is accurate.
-not seasoning foods too heavily
For more on Seth’s theory, read the Shangri-La Diet or Seth’s free report here:
http://sethroberts.net/about/whatmakesfoodfattening.pdf
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Reactive Hypoglycemia
The telltale sign of reactive hypoglycemia, without using a glucose meter, is tremendous hunger and shakiness within an hour or two of eating a meal. A glucose meter provides more hard evidence of the condition, and typically shows a high fasting blood sugar level that plummets after ingesting food.
The basics of reactive hypoglycemia, which are experienced most commonly by people who have lost a lot of weight and have entered into a functional state of starvation (whether going from 400 to 250 pounds on a low-carb or calorie-restricted diet, or going from 120 to 80 pounds via eating disorders seems to be somewhat inconsequential).
In this well-hidden Jimmy Moore podcast, a former colleague of Dr. Atkins, Keith Berkowitz (yeah, that slightly creepy looking dude up above - I don't think he has a twin brother), describes how, in those who have lost a lot of weight, he keeps repeatedly seeing the strange phenomenon known as reactive hypoglycemia in his patients.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Traditionally, it is well known that eating a diet with a pretty high ratio of dietary protein to carbohydrate helps to medicate this problem. The high ratio helps to trigger glucagon release, which triggers the release of stored carbohydrate – keeping blood sugar levels more stable. One of the first to publish a book exclusively on hypoglycemia was Broda Barnes, who published Hope for Hypoglycemia: It’s Not Your Mind, It’s Your Liver with his wife Charlotte in 1978 – the year the world began (at around midnight between February 6th and 7th according to my mom). More on Broda Barnes in this FREE EBOOK.
In the book, Barnes reveals some tremendous insights. The first is that he was able to give “hope” to hypoglycemics by supplementing desiccated thyroid extract in sufficient doses to raise basal body temperature to 97.8 to 98.2 degrees F (armpit temp). This appeared to completely eradicate the condition for many patients, allowing them to eat foods they never thought they’d ever be able to eat again, like chocolate cake, without having extreme hypoglycemic reactions (like that noted by Ailu in the comments in the last post, who has literally passed out after eating pancakes by themselves for breakfast).
This makes perfect sense when you consider that, when dropping well below the body weight set point, humans have been repeatedly shown to have huge drops in body temperature/metabolism – well beyond what can explained by the change in body mass. In fact, this quote by Robert Pool, author of what I consider to be perhaps the best book written on the puzzling illness of obesity in reference to Rudy Leibel’s work, says it all:
Might I also mention that these reduced obese subjects, when eating the 2,171 calories required to maintain their new weight, ALL experienced ravenous and gnawing hunger which persisted until every ounce of weight they had lost was regained.
Anyway, the point is that whether fat or thin, the starvation reaction of the body is the starvation reaction of the body – whether you weigh 220 or 60 pounds. And the result is often the same when it comes to reactive hypoglycemia, which very commonly affects the hypometabolic, and is a huge barrier for the anorexic and reduced obese alike when it comes to reintroducing carbohydrates into their diet. Because when they do – crash and burn. Not only that, but it re-awakens a beastly and outrageous hunger that is the worst nightmare of both Anorexics and obese alike. Fear of weight gain and out-of-control eating set in quickly.
So, what the hell do you eat if you are trying to overcome hypoglycemia? That’s a good question, because the standard high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet given to hypoglycemics since forever to control and medicate the condition, also happens to lower metabolism according to Dr. Barnes, who knew a thing or two about it…
“…it has been clearly established that a high protein diet lowers the metabolic rate, [therefore] symptoms of hypothyroidism will be aggravated… Hypoglycemia may be controlled on the high protein diet, but the other symptoms of thyroid deficiency which usually accompany hypoglycemia are aggravated.”
I agree, and it makes sense on some level that protein would lower metabolism. For starters, protein, calorie for calorie, is more satiating. Therefore, you eat less food – not good for the metabolism of someone in a functional state of starvation. Secondly, consuming EXCESS protein beyond what your body uses (and your body uses very little for muscle-building if you are not eating very many carbohydrates – the Taxi for getting dietary protein into muscle cells), forces the excess protein to be burned as energy (protein oxidation). Uh oh, you need a rise in adrenal hormones like cortisol to use protein as fuel, which are antagonistic to the thyroid, increase insulin resistance, etc.
And lastly, protein requires more energy to digest, which is one reason nearly all diet authors advocate big protein intakes. It causes a greater heat production (thermogenesis from food digestion) than any other type of food – grounds for saying it “raises your metabolism!” Well yes, it “burns more calories” and causes a postprandial rise in body heat, but when this causes your body’s resting energy expenditure to decline, then it’s actually counterproductive, not productive.
Anyway, what to do?
I think what Riles and JT proposed in the last comments section was very sound. Instead of jumping straight into a very high-carbohydrate intake to heal metabolism, build lean tissue, and feel better fast – it might be best to slowly transition into it.
For starters, matching starch and protein intake on a gram for gram basis is a good start. Tha boyz recommended 1 gram per pound of lean body mass of each – with a little fat to satisfy the appetite at first. Slowly, you begin increasing the ratio of carbohydrate to protein in the diet (by increasing carbs and slowly reducing protein – as well as fat) until you’ve reached what is more or less the preferred macronutrient ratio for high-body temperature, low cortisol, great muscle building, good physical performance, and great difficulty in gaining body fat – even when overfeeding and not exercising. That is at least a 5 to 1 ratio of carbohydrate to protein upon close scrutiny, with fat well under 20% of total ingested calories.
Another approach would be to eat high-fat/low-carb with the RIGHT amount of protein (1 gram per kg of body weight) and slowly displace an increasing amount of fat with carbohydrate. Not sure which route would make for an easier transition, but I would think trying to increase carb intake while fat intake is very high would be tough, and increase the likelihood of gaining weight.
For more on the importance of body temperature and how it can be brought up through dietary measures, read THIS FREE EBOOK.
Of course, supplementing with thyroid extract is a very viable option during the transition period as well.
“To date, when the symptoms of hypothyroidism are relieved, hypoglycemia, like the others, disappears.”
-Broda Barnes
I should also mention that reactive hypoglycemia appears to be caused by secreting WAY too much insulin in response to ingested food. I believe this to be an aggressive attempt by the body to store food into cells - part of the programmed famine response of the human body.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)