But not everyone can lose weight that way, Tom. For instance, if I give my appetite free reign, even on Low Carb, I will not lose weight. I might even gain a tad. I've tried this for 8 months on end, it simply doesn't work for everyone. I'm not even close to what I should weigh, which was around 130 in my 30's... I'm giving myself a free 10 pounds because I'm in my mid-40's now.. I earned it.

I realize it seems odd, it does to me too. Why do some people fail to lose weight at very low levels of calories? Are they impervious to starvation? That isn't possible... obviously given enough time they'd starve to death. But people can live a long, long time without eating... if I recall correctly its about 60 days or so. I doubt anyone came out of a concentration camp fat even though they were starved.... So why can't people on moderately low calorie diets lose weight sometimes? What is going on?

Its just weird.

I think (calorie staggering and period refeeding) will help even those who are thyroid hormone dependent, and I'll explain why. Raw thyroid hormones aren't the end-all be-all of the thyroid. Even if you are taking adequate doses of synthetic thyroid hormone, if you are in a highly catabolic state (starvation), the hormones will not work properly.

As the first study I cited reported, thyroid hormones are only one half of the picture... how well they work also depends on cofators namely insulin and IGF (insulin-like growth factors). They bond to the thyroid hormones, thereby making them active and bioavailable.

WHen you trigger rapid catabolism whether by simple severe calorie reduction or a super low carb diet, insulin and IGF plummet to accomodate. This then reduces thyroid hormone potency, by resulting in less bioavailable thyroid hormone. Basically the human body has evolved over time to associate at the hip catabolism with an automatic lowering of thyroid output. Even if you're taking synthetic hormones, if you're insulin and IGF is kaput because you're practically starved, your not going to be using much energy for fuel or anabolism. In normal people with normal thyroid functioning, eating more food and sugar after prolonged deprivation will bring everything back to normal. In synthetic thyroid hormone dependent people, eating more will allow the hormones to actually work better.

That's my theory, anyway.

Here's some personal anecdotal evidence of the starvation/restriction/fat loss causes stalls because of reduced thyroid functioning.

When I was at the height of my restrictive dieting, I was consuming roughly 1100 calories per day and eating rather low carb (not ketogenic, but close). I exhibited numerous signs of adaption to restriction and thyroid insufficiency.

My basal temp routinely came in at low 97, high 96. The max I would see would be high 97. It almost never got above 98 degrees.

Flash forward to today. I now eat 1500-1600 calories daily, and all indicators of energy conservation are getting much better (for one, muscle anabolism has increased dramatically, energy levels are better, I am no longer as cold sensitive, I am much more capable of naturally regulating food intake (i.e. I no longer have that famous starvation/weight loss induced screwed up hunger/satiety signaling).

I just took my temp with the same thermometer. Of three readings the values were as follows:
98.2
98.1
98.2

Much more close to normal.
Keep in mind the only thing I really changed was the quantity of food I've eaten. If I eat more calories and carbs, I likely could improve things more (as well as improve my perception of energy, well being and general health which still aren't ideal, although they are SIGNIFICANTLY better than they were before when I was restricting calories).

The only way to catabolize body fat is by triggering an energy deficit some how. Low carb is not absolved. YOur body doesn't care how this energy deficit is being made. Some methods are more extreme than others (e.g. doing a semi-fast is much more extreme and hurtful to the body than smaller modest caloric deficits). Eventually, though, the toll is the same. The only differences between the approaches is how long it takes to get into this state. Persist in fasting and within days you'll be conserving lots of energy. Do a "sensible diet" with no brakes that results in stead weight loss, and after a couple of months you'll be where the faster was within a week.

We are the products of thousands of years of selection. Your body is not stupid. It is designed to regulate and conserve tissue stores to ensure survival. If these are being depleted, it will try to protect itself. The starvation response is dependent exclusively on the difference between energy available for use (both on the body and from diet), and the actual need for energy. If you are losing weight, you are creating an energy deficit. Your body doesn't care if you do it slowly and more healthfully with atkins or if you're a mentally disturbed anorexic. The only difference between the methods is how soon and how severe your symptoms will be.

I do agree that a lot of people who stall out on Atkins are simply comfortably eating to complete fullness, enjoying that satisfied feeling of being "stuffed" after a meal, etc.

Not always, though. Relative to how little I was eating, I wasn't losing that much weight. I even entered ketchup and onions in fitday, and I always overestimated serving sizes. I don't think over eating was the culprit for me in so much as energy conservation was. Don't get me wrong I was still losing, however it was slower than it should have been for a healthy person.



I do think it has psychological benefits as well. This was my original theory.

However, in my own personal experience, I really think there's more to it than that.
It's also more than a long term enzymatic shift, since the results of calorie staggering are immediate and appear within days (as my experiences, and the studies suggest). Technically if you were stalled due to an enzymatic adaption to using a certain kind of energy, the staggering part wouldn't work. Changing your diet back to a higher calorie, higher carb would.
Also, more evidence against the theory is that when people do carb and calorie staggering, it's mostly calories that are changed. Carbs are barely changed at all. In my case, I eat slightly more carbs but way more calories.

I'm not saying these other factors don't exist (psychological factors, avoiding making enzymatic adaptations to a fat based metabolism), I merely think they are less significant than the thyroid connection.

You know, you gave me an idea. Maybe the thing that should trigger a "carb up" is one's temperature going down. Hm... that's an idea.

I lost my weight on 1500 calories a day, ALWAYS (well almost) having a 'free day' on the weekend. I started out with two free days (back when I was 168), and cut it down to one. I still do it, and eat a clean 1800-2K calories the rest of the week. I think it helped me from dropping my metabolism down too low so I can maintain at 120-something and have 1800 calories+/day. Keep in mind, however, that while I was lowering carbs, my weight loss phase still was 40% carbs so a carb count didn't effect me either way.

My free days aren't binges, but they are pretty durn free. :) (and considerably higher carb/fat/calories :P)

Woo - I logged into your fitday and I noticed something - we are similar in size and I noticed your daily calorie expenditure was much lower than mine. I think you have it set up for being bed-ridden! Just noticed because we are similar in size, and don't know if you care, but thought I'd point it out

Anyhow, sorry to go OT, carry on!

Hi runnr,
Yes I set the calorie expendature for bed ridden. IMO fitday's lifestyle calorie estimations are far too high.

I don't really use fitday anymore, but when I did I found it to be much too generous.

I don't think that either study has any meaning in regards to a low-carb lifestyle. The first study was done on army Rangers during heavy training in which they had a greater than 2000 Calorie deficit. The second was on obese females on 300 calorie diets. No low-carb diet that I am aware of suggests that you restrict calories to such an extent. Both studies show that starvation is not good, but we knew that anyway.

ItsTheWoo, I always enjoy reading your posts... totally helpful and interesting. You're an inspiration to us all: Brilliant, beautiful, and will power of steel.

I have noticed as well that if I'm stalled and exhibiting unhealthy body signals that eating more for a couple of days usually gets my system going again.

When I have my up carb days, I eat a low carb candy bar, or some fruit, an extra low carb tortilla, never real sugar, pasta, potatoes, corn anything like that, I do snack on popcorn every now and then. After I eat like this a couple of days, then go to low carb "induction levels" I do start feeling better and losing fat or water or something, because I feel better. My skin is a mess, I am so dry, and my face is breaking out, so I had a couple of up carb days, and now my face is clearing up, and I am getting better skin too!! I guess it just depends on the person!! I can handle the cravings, because of all of the success I have already had.