40 replies to this topic

[corkobo]

Umm, when I wrote "it cannot last" I was referring to the rate of weight loss of 1 kg per week.

 

First of all because the body adapts to whatever diet - assuming the minimum required nutrients - and it learns to optimize whatever food it gets.

Second, because the lower the weight (fat) gets the harder it is to lose it.

And third because I never in the past lost 1 kg per week for more than 2 weeks or so.

 

And if I'm mentally preparing for a stall - even to the point of having a plan for when it happens) it is because I have always stalled in the past at about week 6 to week 8 (about where I am now) and at about 79-78 kg (about where I am now).

 

But the diet I follow right now does not seem unsustainable to me. I love meat but I can live with eating it just 2 or 3 times a week. I do not like potatoes but I don't hate them either so I can use them as the basis of my diet. The way I've eaten over the last month and half or so is not that far removed from the way my grandparents did. They were religious so no meat every Wednesday or Friday, ever, plus a plethora of other days with no meat for various saints days, etc. And it's not like they ate much meat the rest of the time. Bread or polenta were their staple foods, with vegetables coming in second place and meat/eggs in third place. Their diet was also very seasonal, with meat/fat consumed predominantly in winter, not so much in summer and fall and very little in the spring. And they were never fat. 

 

Anyway, this is not about what I should eat or not eat, I know what I want. This was about Alphamale thinking of the best supplements for weight loss and maybe ideas about what diet to use.

 

And my first message is that this year I'm losing weight faster than before while not using any "dedicated" weight loss supplements (but do use others). So in a way my message is a bit negative in the sense that I was not helped to lose fat by supplements.

 

My second message (and less important IMO) is that this year I just happen to go Low Fat instead of Low Carb and it's going well, maybe even better than LC.

As it happens I've also started an exercise regime which may help long term.

 

But I am now so sure that my belly fat is evil - that's where my fat lives, in and on the belly ... - that I will make everything else second priority to losing that until it is done.

I truly believe that if I manage to become lean - and still have a bit of muscle - it will be easier to stay lean.

 

And if I'm wrong then I'll just try again, because what alternative is there? Give up?

 

I'm sorry if my words were not sufficiently explicit in my previous post.

And for the record, I'm not a doctor or a nutritionist, all I state is what is going on with me, or it is simply my belief, some based on my experience some from what I read and agree with.

Seeing as I'm still overweight I certainly do not presume to tell anyone else what to eat, when and how. 

 

Edited by corkobo, 28 April 2016 - 07:46 PM.

[niner]

But I am now so sure that my belly fat is evil - that's where my fat lives, in and on the belly ... - that I will make everything else second priority to losing that until it is done.

I truly believe that if I manage to become lean - and still have a bit of muscle - it will be easier to stay lean.

 

I found something that seems to affect my level of belly fat:  Acetyl L-Carnitine, 500mg twice a day.   I've taken this for years, but stopped a few years ago.  A while after I stopped, I noticed a significant increase in my waistline.  Upon restarting it, I slimmed back down, all without any big changes in diet.    Carnitines are involved in lipid metabolism, and ALCAR increases the carnitine pool.   Controlled experiments in very elderly subjects given L-Carnitine have shown body composition shifts away from fat.  I don't recall any similar experiments in younger people, (haven't looked lately) and the effect may or may not occur in the young.  A little added carnitine worked for me though.  I'm in my late 50's.

[aconita]

I don't think high carbs low fat is the most efficient way to improve body composition but at 1400 kcal/day no wonder you are loosing weight (but in my opinion the muscle/fat loss ratio is far from optimal with such an approach).

 

It has to be considered the lifestyle and goals one aims at but from what you write satisfaction is still quite far.

 

There are a few issues with your approach, high carb, especially at high glycemic index (potatoes), give very short lasting high burst of energy leading to cravings often difficult to manage and low energy to train or for an active lifestyle, the very low calories intake (which is mandatory in order to loose weight whit such a protocol) are making things even more difficult.

 

Even if you don't report those issues for the vast majority of people it would be a huge obstacle...and I am not really sure about how active you really are in the first place.

 

Another issue is of hormonal nature, low fat means low cholesterol which means not much raw building material for androgens, long time between meals low in calories and very short lasting means long time spent in a high cortisol state, since cortisol in an antagonist of testosterone the hormonal balance is far from ideal.

 

Belly fat has two reasons, first fat do tend to accumulate more around the waist as a rule therefore up to a certain degree it is normal if you are a bit overweight to have most of it around your waist.

 

Second is an hormonal outcome, high cortisol leads to an even greater percentage of fat to accumulate around the waist.

 

the body adapts to whatever diet - assuming the minimum required nutrients - and it learns to optimize whatever food it gets

 

 

To a certain degree that is certainly true, when improvements slows down is time to be smart and to implement smarter strategies, like alternating low caries day and high calories days, low carbs days and high carbs days, etc...

 

That way you'll blow away the attempt of the body to adapt.

 

Second, because the lower the weight (fat) gets the harder it is to lose it.

And third because I never in the past lost 1 kg per week for more than 2 weeks or so

 

Because a linear approach has huge limits, exactly the ones you already mentioned above: adaptation.

 

My strategy is a bit different, I want plenty of energy in order to have a very active lifestyle, I do train a lot and heavy, I want a nice amount of muscles which will burn fat even while I am resting, I aim to optimize my hormones as much as I can and that requires plenty of raw building material, plenty of sleep, very little stress including low calories induced.

 

I cruise at around 5000 kcal/day, sleep 12 hours/night and train hard, at 55 I am usually between 8 and 14% body fat which I don't have any issue to adjust according to my wish, if I want to go 6% or lower I can do it no problem, it is all a matter of knowledge and mind.

 

Am I lucky?

 

Undoubtedly a bit yes but at my age is not as much genetics as knowledge really.

 

Everybody can do it, for someone it would be easier, for someone else it would be harder but everybody can be in excellent shape,only 50 years ago fat people where a rarity, or you are trying to convince me that in this last 50 years human genes shifted dramatically or what really happen is that nutrition and lifestyle did.

 

I am sorry but I buy the second option, if your ancestors where lean I can't see why you shouldn't.

 

Knowledge and will, that's all.

 

[corkobo]

Niner,

Thank you for your advice. My initial impulse was to say "I've tried Carnitine, didn't do it for me" then I thought I'll check the difference between Carnitine (which I took) and Acetyl Carnitine.

And it looks like while they seem to transform from one to another in the body the absortion and bioavailability may be different.

Also, maybe Carnitine did not have much of an effect on me when doing LC but it may have one now when doing LF. So I'll give it a shot.

I'm not that much younger than you, I'm 49 which I may as well call 50s so it may work for me too.

 

Aconita,

I also believe that our genes did not change significantly in the last few generations so it is life style. Maybe pollutants a bit, maybe nutrients quality and quantity in food a bit, but mostly I believe it is down to food being always available, relatively cheap and calorically dense.

Certainly I am responsible for my own problems, I can easily recall eating huge qunatities of pizza, ice cream, tiramisu (oohhh, tiramisuuuu...), etc. so I'm not surprised.

And yes, I've been quite sendentary at the same time.

 

I don't think I can do what you do, eat and burn 5000 kcal a day. And my fat % aims are more modest, 15-17 % will be goodenough for me.

The exercise I'll do will be modest, in order to first get and then stay strong and mobile enough to be properly functional, being able to lift, carry, travel, work with no pain and strain. I envy you a bit. 

 

 

[YOLF]

Look at habits this way, if one has to perpetually calorie restrict or diet, one must eat food that doesn't taste as good or isn't as filling/satifying... once you get fat, your vagus nerve and more are built to send hunger and eating signals and you're programmed to like a certain portion size and a certain type of food. That doesn't change, you're used to having those rewards fire at a certain intensity for a certain amount of time. You can change your habits yes, but for those who struggle, they face losing months, and in some cases years of work. With GT, a greater amount of people will retain their losses for a longer amount of time, and the work at becoming thinner will be more rewarding. You can eat more and still be fitter, or eat less and find new levels of fitness previously not attainable. 

 

Every fat cell sends a signal to eat, so unless you can keep them suppressed long enough, such as with more muscle mass provided by GT, just having been fat will always predispose you to risk of over eating. However, if you simply can't sustain fat building because you've had GT, your fat cells will eventually die off and stop sending signals to your brain and liver to eat and fill them up. So, with GT, it eventually becomes sustainable and fixes itself. So unless you want obesity to be a lifelong punishment for eating too much in the first place and want 97% of people whlose weight will to continue to overeat and gain it all back until they die.

[aconita]

Hey, I didn't mean everybody has to do what I do, I do have my own goals which are not necessarily everybody's goals.

 

You don't have to get 5000 kcal/day and train hard 5 days/week as I do, it was just an example.

 

What I meant is that there are ways more efficient than others to get the desired results, the goals may differ but the principles are the same.

 

With your approach you are experiencing and expecting issues, I try to show you why and how to overcome them, I am not here to preach for low carbs against low fat in a silly crusade attempt, just trying to explain why different approaches or tweaks are likely to yield better and more satisfying results.

 

For example as results with your approach start to slow down switch to low carbs/high fats, this would overcome the adaptation process that leads to staleness, than, when adaptation starts to kick in again, reverse back to low fats/high carbs and so on.

 

Not exactly what I consider the most efficient way but it will work, better than an unidirectional linear method for sure.

 

Don't be envy, you and only you are setting your own limits, if your setted limits makes you unhappy shift them, otherwise just enjoy your happiness and ignore what others do or think. 

 

 

[corkobo]

YOLF,

Maybe I should know this but can you tell me what is this "GT" in your previous post?

 

Aconita,

Your idea of switching from LF to LC when I stall makes sense to me.

In a way I already do such a switch, in a very small time interval, when I eat one or two of my weekend meals (lots of meat or fish with or without cheese and not much carbs).

I think I'll try this before I try the Fast (or almost Fast) intervention. Thanks.

 

As for your advice to follow my own star, I do that mostly and I agree.

 

But I also pay much attention to other people's opinions - which is why I read this Forum and some other sources regularly.

Yes, I filter what I read for common sense and for theories or claims that are - to my mind - scientifically impossible. 

I've learned a lot of new things about biology, supplements, diseases (many that I'm lucky I don't have), aging, chemistry, etc. in the last month or so. Besides being useful it is very, very, very interesting.

 

I'm so glad I found this Forum!

Much better for me to spend time reading things here than watching the - mostly depressing - news.

[YOLF]

GT = Gene Therapy

 

The prospect of it makes one feel like a sports car

[corkobo]

Gene Therapy! Oh well, I'm quite deflated now...

 

I thought you were talking about some new compound (something like Glycine that I'm reading about now).

I was trying to guess what the acronym stands for chemically and quite looking forward to reading about it and finding the cheapest price as it sounded quite good in your post above.

 

I suspect GT to stop fat deposits (preferably only after a certain level is reached) will come one day but I don't kow that it will be soon. And I won't be able to afford it.

[YOLF]

Gene Therapy! Oh well, I'm quite deflated now...

 

I thought you were talking about some new compound (something like Glycine that I'm reading about now).

I was trying to guess what the acronym stands for chemically and quite looking forward to reading about it and finding the cheapest price as it sounded quite good in your post above.

 

I suspect GT to stop fat deposits (preferably only after a certain level is reached) will come one day but I don't kow that it will be soon. And I won't be able to afford it.

 

Actually, Elizabeth Parish (BioViva) wants it to be inexpensive. It's around $100k now though. But it works, they've been giving it to kids who would otherwise be dying iirc and it appears to be pretty safe.

 

Though I think mice engineered not to have it from birth had brittle joints? That might be different than the one BioViva is selling though. I mean the company president is taking it...

[niner]

BioViva isn't selling anything at the moment, and is a very long ways away from selling it, at least in the US.  Like a decade, at least.