Interesting theory, unfortunately I have to say it is at odds with nutritional science & biology as I understand it. You also seem to have a misconception about a few things. Below I have outlined where and why I find fault with the “eat tons of calories to lose weight” theory. I apologize for the ridiculously long post, but in order to understand why this theory is bogus you really have to understand the biological implications.
1) Re: sugar.
Sugar is not a separate energy source, but a form of carbohydrate. “Carbohydrate” is everything and anything which serves one purpose in the body: to provide it energy in the form of sugar. Therefore, starch (from pasta) is sugar, fructose (from fruit) is sugar, sucrose (from white table sugar) is also sugar, and maltitol (from low carb candy) is sugar. Basically, carbohydrate is anything that is potential energy from sugar.
These examples of different types of carbohydrate are eventually broken down into even more simple sugars (such as glucose) and then used by the body. Most carbohydrates have 4 sugar calories per gram of weight, but not all. Some special carbohydrate sources contain no or reduced amounts of energy because our body lacks the necessary enzymes required to completely transform them into sugar. For example, maltitol is a carbohydrate which is incompletely digested by the body. Only 75% of it is absorbed, making it only have 3 sugar calories per gram. This reduced sugar content makes it rather popular in low-carb foods, however it is well known to cause a myriad of problems when eaten in excess. On the other end of the incompletely-absorbed carbohydrate spectrum is erythritol. Erythritol is about 95% unabsorbed, and therefore only has only .02 calories per gram, making it almost entirely symptom & sugar-free. Another good example of a partially/completely unabsorbable carbohydrate source is the new insoluble starch technology used in Dreamfields products. Dreamfields pasta is made from starch which has been “coated” with a protective layer that our body lacks the enzymes to break down, making it impossible for the body to derive very much sugar from the starch. 33 grams of starch from semolina flour, as if by magic, are transformed into the sugar energy equivalent of a cup or two of broccoli. The most common type of indigestible carbohydrate is cellulose, otherwise known as fiber. Cellulose, like the sort found in broccoli, has 0 effective calories per gram and is entirely sugar-free because our body lacks the enzymes required of turning cellulose into glucose. 100% of cellulose passes through the body unabsorbed as bulk and has zero glycemic load.
This all seems rather complicated, doesn’t it? The most important thing is to familiarize yourself with the glycemic index, and to frequently choose carbohydrates which are low on the GI. However, be aware that quantity of net energy from sugar matters just as much as quality (GI). 600 calories from sugar is still 600 calories from sugar, and equals about 150 carbs… regardless of how rapidly it is absorbed or assimilated. Choosing low GI carbs might eliminate dramatic swings in energy balance by mitigating excessive insulin production, but a carb is still a carb and by its nature requires a certain amount of insulin to utilize. The goal is not only to eat low glycemic carbohydrate, but you want to eat them with fat/protein/fiber (which further reduced glycemic index), and you want to eat limited amounts.
2) RE: fat-storing and low carb.
Yes, excess carbohydrate is converted into fat, but so is excess fat and protein. Calories which are not burned are stored as fat, period. A healthy body will not “turn up the furnace” to completely compensate for excessive calories, nor will it allow them to completely pass through in feces/urine/sweat/etc. Some extra calories will be burned off, and some will pass through, but by far the majority will be stored as fat. Sorry, as much as I wish it were true there is no physiological basis to support the assumption that only when carbohydrate is in ones diet is fat storing possible.
I think this myth is based in a grain of truth. When we low carb our insulin levels decrease. Insulin is the hormone which makes fat storing possible, and if your body is not producing any insulin (such as in diseases like diabetes) it is impossible to store fat regardless of how much or what you eat. Diabetics who produce very little to no insulin will lose weight even if they are eating large quantities of food. This is because without adequate levels of insulin, the caloric energy consumed cannot be assimilated by the body. In uncontrolled diabetes, energy cannot be mobilized. Instead it instead floats around in the blood (where it is toxic to delicate nerves, especially the eyes) and eventually spills out of the body and urine (diabetes mellitus literally means “honey passing through” for this reason).
This scientific reality of the impossibility to create fat in an insulin deficient environment due to disease is then fallaciously applied to a low carb, and the myth is born. The preponderance of this myth is a perfect example of the correlation-proving-causation fallacy. People see that an absence of insulin in disease makes fat storing impossible, they also see that on low carb insulin is reduced, and therefore they assume that fat storing is likewise impossible on low carb. It just isn’t true, as many other factors come into play besides relatively reduced insulin levels.
First of all, being incapable of creating any insulin is a very different animal from having environmentally adequate insulin. Being insulin deficient due to disease will never produce the same effects of being insulin adequate, even if “insulin adequate” is numerically lower due to dietary preference. It’s really not about bare levels but “ratio”; a certain amount of insulin is required to mobilize a certain amount of energy, and your body produces insulin as needed. On LC we change things so that we require little insulin, however the insulin we do produce is adequate for the task. On LC we are not in a state of insulin deficiency, but of insulin adequacy. Therefore, symptoms of insulin deficiency (such as the inability to use any energy) are not applicable to us.
Should we for whatever reason decide to overstuff ourselves, those extra calories do not disappear. What will happen is your body will raise insulin as necessary to store them as fat. As unglamorous as it sounds, it’s the cold hard truth.
3) RE: over-eating and low carb.
There seems to be another misconception that one can eat as much energy as they want on a very low carbohydrate diet without gaining weight. Actually, you’ll be surprised to hear that I believe this is mostly true. You are probably wondering how I can say it is possible to eat as much as you want and not gain weight, even though extra calories are stored as fat. Sounds contradictory, but it isn’t. Want is the operative word here. On Atkins we want only to eat to our energy needs. If dietary sugar is satisfactorily restricted, it is in practice rather difficult to eat to the point where we are gaining weight. To understand why this is true you need to understand what happens hormonally when dietary sugar is restricted.
When you deprive your body of sufficient energy from dietary sugars, this causes a shift between the hormones glucagon and insulin. Insulin and glucagon oppose each other in function, and therefore balance between both is ever teetering like a see-saw. Glucagon – the sugar-raising, fat/sugar stores burning, insulin antagonist hormone - is dominant when blood sugar is low. On the other hand, insulin – the sugar-mobilizing, energy-storing hormone - is dominant when blood sugars are continuously high.
These two hormones affect energy balance and satiety greatly. Insulin is ever-lowering the blood sugar, always sending away calories to storage (churning out fat). Because insulin’s principle job is to store energy, it also indirectly induces hunger. Insulin-stimulating blood sugar spiking food will provide relatively little satiety as the energy contents are soon emptied from the blood, leaving you wanting more. Glucagon, on the other hand, is ever-raising the blood sugar and fueling the body from itself as needed. Glucagon does not cause your body to need much food from environment, as your body is food.
A high insulin environment is the equivalent of throwing any energy you give your body into a storage box for later, while at the same time making you feel like you are starving -- even shortly after eating! Imagine sitting down to a huge feast and then just taping all the food directly to your thighs and butt – not eating the food, not getting any satisfaction, just sending that potential energy immediately to your fat-storage zone. You’ve just “consumed” a big meal with hundreds of calories, but have nothing to show for it. You are still weak and hungry and low on energy, and have nothing to show for your meal but bigger thighs and butt. That, my friend, is what eating foods which promote an insulin-dominant environment does to you. Not only does insulin-dominance encourage rampant fat storage and hunger, but it prevents you from ever using your body stores. As long as insulin is high, that storage box will never open… you’ll just keep throwing more and more energy in it, storing it for a famine that will never come. Even if calories are restricted, someone who is hyperinsulinemic (like a type 2 diabetic), will not be able to lose weight unless something is done about the hyperinsulinemia. This is why people with IRS who don’t lose on 1000 calories of low fat can sometimes lose easily on 1500 calories of low carb.
Compare this to a state of glucagon dominance. A high glucagon environment is the equivalent of opening that chest and taking what you need from it effortlessly and easily. Just as insulin wants to store consumed energy, glucagon wants to burn existing energy. They are total polarities. A high glucagon environment causes your body to stop storing from the winter, and instead allows you to start finally burning it all off. Because glucagon dominance encourages “self-cannibalization” (body fat loss), hunger is dramatically reduced in such a state. The body needs less energy from the environment because it is easily deriving energy from stored fat, amino acids, & muscle/liver glycogen.
Now here is why it is hard to over eat on LC in practice. On LC we are more glucagon-dominant. Insulin plays a much smaller role than it does on a “normal” diet. When ones dietary composition requires high insulin production to mobilize the energy, it is very easy to gain weight because of the hormonal action going on within us when eating that sort of food. This is not true of LC. A high carb (or “high insulin”) diet causes hunger and easier fat storage. A low carb (or “high glucagon”) diet causes low calorie intake and easier “body burning”.
So, yes, theoretically you can gain weight on a LC diet. In theory, too much energy in a healthy body will always result in extra adipose. In practice, it is very unlikely you would be consuming too much energy as low carb forces your body into a state which is self-cannibalizing as opposed to fat-storing. Even if you eat a lot on one day, the fullness will stick with you into the next day because your hormonal state is not conducive to storing fat. Try it some time . Stuff yourself on a LC meal, and that fullness sticks with you for hours and hours. On a HC blood sugar spiking, insulin stimulating meal, the fullness would pass quickly.
3) RE: protein metabolism.
Protein consists of building blocks for tissues known as "amino acids". Dietary excess of amino acids are converted into energy. Amino acids are all either ketogenic or gluconeogenic in nature. Ketogenic amino acids are synthesized into ketones (and used as such), and gluconeogenic amino acids are synthesized into sugar. However, the vast majority of amino acids are gluconeogenic. Your body derives sugar from protein by a process known as gluconeogenisis. Gluconeogenisis, like fat metabolism, is not energy-efficient and some fuel is wasted in the process (but how much is exactly unknown, it is likely to not be much).
4) RE: fat metabolism and the metabolic advantage.
I am open minded to the potential existence of a small metabolic advantage from eating fat or protein. I am sorry, if the metabolic advantage exists it is no where near 120% lack of efficiency. It is simply impossible, far too many people on this forum are eating no where near that amount of calories without losing weight rapidly. The metabolic advantage might allow for slightly more caloric intake, but doubling it? Come on, lets be realistic .
If one is able to go on Atkins, double their previous caloric in take, and still lose weight, this does not offer evidence that calories don’t matter. It doesn’t offer evidence of any superior metabolic advantage either. All that implies is that these people were insulin resistant, hyperinsulinemic, & coming off of a very high sugar diet. Hyperinsulinemia associated with metabolic pathology, as I explained above, makes weight loss impossible -- even when calories are restricted. Just as a complete deficiency of insulin makes fat storage impossible, an abnormal abundance of insulin makes fat loss equally impossible. Totally different state, but same underlying biology: a deficiency or overabundance of insulin interferes with normal metabolic function.
However, these special cases are just that, special. Most people do not have the severe IRS that you or I do. Healthy people with a well functioning metabolism can not double their caloric intake, regardless of where it is coming from, and expect to lose weight. The metabolic advantage, if it exists, is simply not that generous. There are just far too many people on this forum who carefully monitor calories and find they do not lose weight when eating maintenance calories for this theory to have any weight. I should know, I’m one of them.
5) RE: Starvation mode – truths and misconceptions.
Ah the much dreaded “starvation mode”. Yes, starvation mode is a real thing… it’s a hormonally induced physiological state reactive to leptin depletion, that’s the truth. The misconception is that starvation mode is something your body slips in and out of without much thought. Here’s the whole story.
First let me explain what leptin is. Leptin is an anti-starvation hormone released by fat cells. Leptin lets your body know if you are gaining weight, losing weight, or maintaining weight. It tells your body the state of your energy balance via negative feedback loop. Since leptin is produced by fat, when fat is depleted leptin is also depleted. When leptin is depleted, this tells your body famine looms on the horizon. Once famine is perceived, we adapt in response. The way a body adapts to leptin depletion – perceived starvation - is by causing a hormonal shift which results in a number of undesirable things such as hypothyroidism (low metabolic rate, listlessness, depression, feeling cold all the time, etc) and food obsession. This is known as starvation mode.
No, not eating for 1 day will not put you in starvation mode. No, a responsible short-term diet won’t do it either. The only way to experience starvation mode is by seriously depleting leptin.
There are two types of ways to deplete leptin in a healthy body: absolutely and relatively. Absolute leptin depletion occurs when body fat levels have dipped below a certain genetically determined threshold... this threshold is known as our “set point”. It doesn’t matter how carefully or slowly the fat was lost, once body fat falls below our biologically determined “safety zone” we will experience absolute leptin depletion and fight symptoms of starvation. This kind of leptin depletion applies mostly to athletes, actresses, and anorexics… it is not of concern to us.
The sort of leptin depletion that is relative for us dieters is relative leptin depletion. Relative leptin depletion occurs when we are losing too much weight too fast. It is possible for one to still be very far above their absolute leptin depletion body fat level threshold and still experience relative leptin depletion. This is why experts warn that fast weight loss usually preceeds fast weight gain… when we create caloric deficits which are too large we are setting ourselves up to fall hard, as our body will exhibit symptoms of starvation.
Relative leptin depletion is not as easily accomplished as dieters fear. If you are crash dieting, eating almost nothing, and losing weight very rapidly – yes, you might have to worry about putting yourself in “starvation mode”. If you are losing at a reasoned pace, have been on a diet for a relatively short amount of time, then no you do not have to worry about reactive starvation mode.
Eating more calories to “break a stall” in absence of leptin depletion will accomplish nothing. The majority of stalls are caused by too many, not too few calories.
|
). This was not intended to be seen as an advocation for refeeding as a resolution for stalled weightloss.......What I was really trying to say was that I believe that I understood now WHY refeeding works in theory and I really mean "IN THEORY ONLY", not in reality, just theory. And the reason why I believe it works in THEORY is because of my research. What I do believe works in reality and NOT JUST theory is the hypothesis I came up with that to truly lose weight on Atkins you need to make sure that you are consuming no less than 400-700 less than your metabolic rate plus lifestyle (found in your fitday) which for most means 1800-2300 calories a day and that at least 75% of those calories should come from fat, about 5-8% from carbs and the rest from protien and the carbs should be veggies, not lc foods with the exception of an occasional 2-3times a week treat. The hypothesis and conclusion are my opinion yes, but based on the FACTS. Jenny, I am definately not trying to pick on you......because quite a few replies addressed the refeed, not just yours and it's because of this that I am concerned that many believe I am advocating the refeed when in reality that was just what caused me to begin my research on upping calories and fat to reach the weightloss you desire while keeping your body out of starvation mode and ensuring that you are giving your body enough fuel.
Linear Mode
