Meditation helps with high blood pressure. It may also help you handle emotional eating, which could help you lose weight. Learn how at WebMD. Sometimes you're just not in the mood for oatmeal. USA Laboratories Weight Loss Supplements. USA Laboratories provides the only pharmaceutical grade, pharmacist designed weight loss dietary support. Original Article. Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet. Iris Shai, R.D., Ph.D., Dan Schwarzfuchs, M.D., Yaakov Henkin, M.D., Danit R. The Coconut Diet and Weight Loss. I would like to say that I have been on Virgin Coconut Oil for the past 2 months (4 tablespoons daily) and feel. For those who want to understand why, keep reading (hopefully this is still everyone). This topic is — surprise, surprise — very nuanced, and almost always bastardized when oversimplified, which I’m about to do, though hopefully less than most. In part III (and possibly a part IV) of that series, I’ll go more into the actions of ketones and why you may or may not want to consider putting yourself into a state where your liver makes them. There seems to be great confusion around . But, before I try to dispel any of the confusion, we need to go through a little primer on what I like to call “fat flux.”One point before diving in, please do not assume because I’m writing this post that I think adiposity (the technical term for relative amount of fat in the body) is the most important thing to worry about. While there is a correlation between high adiposity (excessive fat) and metabolic dysfunction, that correlation is far from perfect, and, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, I think the arrow of causation goes from metabolic dysfunction to adiposity, not the reverse. In other words, the number of adipocytes (fat cells) we have as an adult does not change nearly as much as their size and fat content. Fat flux 1. 01. According to “An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English,” the word flux comes from the Latin word fluxus and fluere, which mean “flow” and “to flow,” respectively. While the term has a clear mathematical meaning in physics, defined by a dot product I promise I won’t speak of, you can think of flux as the net throughput which takes into account positive and negative accumulation. If we start with a bucket of water and put a hole in the bottom, the result, needless to say, is an efflux of water, or negative water flux. Since TAG are too big to bring across cell membranes, they need to be “hydrolyzed” first into free fatty acids, then re- assembled (re- esterified) back into TAG. Translocates GLUT4 transporters to the plasma membrane from endosomes within the cell. Once bound to albumin the free fatty acids are free to travel elsewhere in the body for use (e. ATP). Though not shown in this figure, insulin appears to indirectly act on malonyl- Co. A, a potent inhibitor of CPT I, one of the most important mitochondrial enzymes that facilitates the oxidation of fatty acids. High levels of insulin promote fat storage and inhibit fat oxidation, and low levels of insulin promote fat mobilization or release along with fat oxidation. If this sounds crazy – the notion that insulin plays such a crucial role in fat tissue — consider the following two clinical extremes: type 1 diabetes (T1. D) and insulinoma. In the former, the immune system destroys beta- cells (the pancreatic cells that make insulin) – this is an extreme case of low insulin. Ben Greenfield July 18, 2013. Good article. If B-OHB (measured in blood) = B-OHB produced (from dietary fat) plus B-OHB produced (from lipolysis of TAG) less.They literally lost all fat and muscle. I’ve tried to size the arrows accordingly to match their relative contributions of each input and output. The first figure, below, shows a state of fat balance, or zero net fat flux. Input #1: De novo lipogenesis, or “DNL” – Until the early 1. It was about 5%, hence the tiny red arrow under a state of fat balance (i. A very important point to be mindful of, however, is this: this represents an average throughout the body and does not differentiate specifically between, say, DNL in the liver and DNL in the periphery (i. This limitation is not trivial, but rather than focus on the very specific details of this paper, I’d rather use it as a framework for this discussion. The 1. 99. 5 paper also examined what happened to DNL during periods of over- and under- feeding CHO and fat.)(*) Marc is on the Scientific Advisory Board for Nu. SI, so perhaps I’m biased in my admiration of him and his work. Input #2: Re- esterification, or “RE” – In a state of fat balance, RE is largely composed of dietary fat sources that are not immediately used, but rather stored for later use. For the purpose of simplicity, this diagram does not show some portion of the L fraction returning to the RE fraction, though this is exactly what is happening in . This study, published in 1. Journal of Lipid Research, suggested that the RE process is a bit more complicated than simply re- assembling fatty acids on a glycerol backbone inside an adipocyte. For example, someone like me who is in fat balance (i. I’m neither gaining nor losing fat mass at this point), has virtually zero DNL, but quite high RE, especially after meals. Well, not so fast. This is where one actually gets the energy (ATP) from fatty acids. The same hormones and enzymes that promote L, directly or indirectly act on other intermediaries that promote oxidation, more or less. The converse is also largely true. Brief digression: I’m always troubled by folks who have never tried to take care of someone who is struggling to lose weight (fat), and who themselves have never been overweight, but who insist obesity is . This is probably the most rapid state of negative fat flux a human can experience. So what we do about it? I do not believe there is only one state, shy of total starvation, which will assuredly put you in state of negative fat flux. Yup, this is probably (though not necessarily) going to work, depending on how “profound” is defined. This is where the discussion gets really interesting. The rationale, of course, is provided by the first figure above (from the textbook) and a slew of clinical studies which I will not review here (see Gardner JAMA 2. Ludwig JAMA 2. 01. Shai NEJM 2. 00. 8 to name a few). But, the bigger question is why? Why do most (but not all, by the way) people with excess fat to spare who are on well- formulated carbohydrate- reduced diet lose fat? Or, do they eat less because they are losing weight? I suspect the later. They are not giving up fat from their fat cells because they are eating less. If you can’t wait, which I can understand, I highly encourage you to start scouring the literature for Mark’s work. What?, you say, doesn’t this violate the First Law of Thermodynamics? What differentiates those in this camp (I was in this camp) from those above (point #1), is unclear to me. I’m not stating the obvious – that the deliberate EE is higher – that is clearly true. I’m suggesting resting EE is for some reason more likely to rise in this setting. It is also possible that this increase in free/available energy results in an increase in deliberate EE (i. They could be partly or mostly responsible for this. The literature is quite dilute with respect to this question, but in my experience (feel free to dismiss), it is not uncommon to see a reduction in cortisol and an increase in testosterone (I experienced about 5. Today, however, I don’t consume this much, closer to 3,8. I have always found the term “metabolic advantage” to be misleading, though I’m guilty of using it periodically. The question is not, does it exist? The questions are, why does it only exist in some people, what relevance does it have to fat loss – is it cause or effect? In my experience (and Gardner’s A TO Z trial seems to validate this, at least in pre- menopausal women), about 2. RQ environment. Using the Ornish diet as the example from this paper, I suspect the reason is multifactorial. It restricts sugar, flour, and processed carbohydrates. So, I don’t really know how likely it is to lose weight on a eucaloric diet that is 6. CHO and 2. 0% fat, if the quality of the carbohydrates is very poor (e. It’s quite possible, of course, since ketosis results in a large L and implies a very small DNL. Fat flux is net positive. Still in ketosis, by the way (quantified loosely by fasting levels of B- OHB greater than about 0. M), but not losing fat. That’s the problem with multivariate algebra (and physiology). Many people who enter nutritional ketosis do so, I worry, because they believe it “guarantees” fat loss. I hope I have convinced you that this is not true. It comes with some advantages and some disadvantages, just like other eating strategies. Part One - Weight Loss“When a person has nothing to eat, fasting is the smartest thing he could do.” – Herman Hesse, Siddhartha. I like that quote. It’s making (non- caloric) lemonade out of lemons, and for all the transcendental insights contained in Hesse’s book, this line strikes me as a really cool, no- nonsense way to make the best out of a bad situation. No doubt about that. But how useful is it, really, to today’s readers? Very few of us ever have “nothing to eat.” On the contrary, food is ever at our beck and call, with very little effort required to obtain it. Actually, that’s not completely true. Processed junk and fast food is readily available, while the good stuff – fresh meat and veggies, actual, you know, food – requires prep work, cooking, time, and the doing of dishes. But the main point stands: we rarely go without. That doesn’t mean the quote is useless. In fact, with a few slight modifications, it becomes extremely effective weight loss advice. Check out my version: “When a person has had too much to eat, fasting is the smartest thing he could do.” – Mark Sisson, Mark’s Daily Apple. If that sounds harsh or even unrealistic, consider the story of the Scotsman. Back in 1. 96. 5, an obese Scotsman of 2. Department of Medicine in Dundee, Scotland, with a problem. He needed to lose weight. A (1/8 of a) ton of it. The doctors suggested maybe not eating for a few days could help. It was just an offhand recommendation, but our Scotsman (known only as “AB”) really took to it. He stayed at the hospital for several days, taking only water and vitamin pills while undergoing observation to ensure nothing went wrong. When his time was up, he continued the fast back at home, returning to the hospital only for regular monitoring. After a week, he was down five pounds and feeling good. His vitals checked out, blood pressure was normal, and though he had lower blood sugar than most men, he didn’t seem particularly impaired by it. The experiment continued. All told, he lost 2. Over the five following years of observation, AB regained just sixteen pounds, putting him in excellent, but underpopulated territory (at least 8. Other doctors paid attention. Maybe it was the fact that it was the 6. Vietnam, Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters blazing across the U. S. Study after study shows that whatever you want to call the protocol – intermittent fasting, fasting, alternate day fasting, or alternate day caloric restriction – it works very well for weight loss. A few recent ones: So, yes: it works. But does fasting work solely through caloric restriction, or is it doing something special? That’s the real question. There’s no question that fasting causes weight loss through caloric restriction. Obviously, when you don’t eat anything, your body turns to its own stored energy reserves, reserves that take up physical space and have mass. Depletion of those energy stores reduces mass and thus weight. Total and absolute caloric restriction. That’s elementary stuff and the studies from the 1. To dig a bit deeper, let’s look at how weight loss occurs during a fast. I’ll stick to research involving humans only (sorry, rodent personal trainers). Secretion of growth hormone, one of the premier fat burning hormones, increases during a fast. In a five- day fasting protocol, men experienced increased GH secretion on day one and day five (the only two days where GH was measured). A later study showed that during two- day fasting sessions, growth hormone secretions increased in both frequency and intensity in men. They experienced more frequent GH bursts and each burst secreted a higher mass of GH. A more recent study found that 2. GH by 1. 30. 0% in women and almost 2. Fasting decreases fasting insulin levels. The presence of insulin inhibits lipolysis, the release of stored triglycerides (body fat). Without lipolysis actually releasing stored body fat, it’s rather difficult to, well, burn that body fat for energy. During a fast, fasting insulin decreases and lipolysis increases. This insulin- blunting aspect of fasting quite literally allows the fast to be successful, because without the ability to access stored body fat for energy, making it through a period of zero caloric intake will be nigh impossible. Fasting improves insulin sensitivity. Fasting increases the catecholamines, both adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline (norepinephrine). Both catecholamines increase resting energy expenditure during a fast, and guess where your fasting body finds the energy to expend? From body fat. Catecholamines activate hormone sensitive lipase present in adipose tissue, spurring the release of said fat. This makes intuitive sense, doesn’t it? If you’re hungry in the wild, you need to hunt (or gather, or fish, or somehow procure food) and you need energy to do it. The catecholamines help provide some of that energy while burning fat in the process. Hmm, notice anything? All those mechanisms dealt with fat burning specifically. While there may be some weirdo out there who’s interested in reducing bone mineral density and muscle mass while maintaining fat tissue, I would wager that what most people mean by “weight loss” is “fat mass loss.” From the stuff I just linked, it looks like fasting burns fat, rather than just weight. But what about Conventional Wisdom which claims that fasting increases muscle wasting – maybe because your body will totally recognize the lethal nature of all that arterycloggingsaturated animal fat and choose to break down muscle instead? Is it true? Let’s go to the research: In one study, normal weight subjects ate just once a day without reducing overall caloric intake. Weight didn’t change, which isn’t really surprising, but body composition did change – and for the better. Body fat decreased and lean weight increased (in addition to a bunch of other beneficial changes) without an overall reduction in calories. A recent review of the relevant literature found that while fasting and caloric restriction are “equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass,” fasting is “more effective for the retention of lean mass.”Conventional Wisdom strikes out again. In closing. It decreases caloric intake. In order to lose weight, you need a caloric deficit. That really isn’t in contention here, folks. It increases fat oxidation while sparing lean mass. Since what we’re trying to do is lose fat (rather than just “weight”), the fact that fasting increases hormones that preferentially burn fat and decreases hormones that inhibit fat burning is extremely desirable. It improves adherence. In most of the studies surveyed, participants found fasting to be an extremely tolerable way to diet, especially when compared to outright caloric restriction. Even AB, the fasting Scotsman, reported very little difficulty throughout his 3. If fasting is easier for you than trying to laboriously count calories, fasting is going to be the more effective weight – er, fat – loss method. All in all, fasting is an effective way to lose body fat. It’s not the only way, and it isn’t “required” for Primal weight loss, but many in the community have found it to be very helpful and the literature backs them up. If you’re looking to jumpstart your fat loss, fasting may be just the ticket. To get some ideas, be sure to check out my post on various fasting methods. In subsequent installments, I’ll highlight some of the other benefits of fasting. There are a ton, and new research is being released all the time, so I expect I’ll have a lot to discuss. Until then, I’d like to hear about your experiences with fasting for fat loss. Has it worked? Has it failed you? Let us know in the comment section! Thanks for reading, everyone! Here’s the entire series for easy reference: Why Fast? Part One – Weight Loss. Why Fast? Part Two – Cancer. Why Fast? Part Three – Longevity. Why Fast? Part Four – Brain Health. Why Fast? Part Five – Exercise. Why Fast? Part Six – Choosing a Method. Why Fast? Part Seven – Q& ADear Mark: Women and Intermittent Fasting. Subscribe to the Newsletter. If you'd like to add.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |