1. If insulin can direct all calories to be stored as fat, then there would be no calories for energy. Energy balance has to occur at some point.
Yes, it does but not at your whim.
Metabolism is extremely efficient with the calories it burns, while choosing where they come from. This is why there is no such thing as "energy balance" that can be controlled by you. The body can do quite a bit of intense work, using as little energy as possible. This leaves you desperately trying to burn as much energy as you can and falling short the moment you eat something.
So how can the body of a metabolically dysfunctional person store all of its calories, when it needs calories to just simply live? Easily. It stores most of its calories as fat, uses the rest and then breaks down lean muscle mass to create glucose to fuel whatever's left and make more fat with it. This is precisely why diabetics feel so tired and need to eat constantly to have energy. This is because they are running off short term glucose energy. Their body refuses to use fat even while lugging around a large fat mass reserve and having plenty of triglycerides floating around in the bloodstream. But their insulin redirects everything to their fat mass because diabetes is a starvation adaptation. The body is actively sparing its fat mass, storing as much fat as it can, from every source, and running on primarily glucose. The body doesn't mind using glucose for fuel because it doesn't mind breaking itself down. It only wants to preserve its fat as that is what will save it from starvation.
Like I have said before, the difference between Type I diabetes and Type II is that the Type I cannot stop breaking themselves down and a Type II cannot stop building themselves up.
2. You have spoken before on the best vegan/vegetarian and low-fat programs but what about the best calorie restricted programs? Are there any of those out there that may be helpful and what should we look for? There are just some of us that prefer calorie-based programs.
Normally calorie centered programs are not the correct approach for treating overweight/obesity simply because of the fact that overweight/obesity are starvation adaptations and calorie restriction is, well, starvation by definition. This causes for metabolism to just double down on its trajectory towards the sparing and building of fat mass over time. But I have said before, I don't like removing any treatment from the table and this includes calorie restriction because there are some instances where it is beneficial. I can think of three off the bat:
- Eating disorders respond well to calorie restriction if the person is actually willing to try it out. If they are already overweight/obese, they would have to combine calories with a macro nutrient centered protocol in order to address their eating disorder and their metabolic issues.
- People who aren't yet significantly overweight/obese and are generally healthy respond very well to calorie restriction. That loss of 25 - 30 lbs., that they will be able to achieve through a calorie centered protocol, can very well prevent overweight/obesity in the future.
- Calorie restriction also works very well for people who are already lean, generally healthy, and wish to maintain this. This includes people who want to body build, train better or improve athletic performance, etc.
As you can see, calorie restriction has its purpose and works well and easily for people who are still metabolically sound. This is why prevention is always better than cure. The method that works well for prevention, won't have much of an effect as a cure later. Once you have cancer, seizing to smoke won't make enough of an impact to cure your cancer. Cancer has no known cure and neither does obesity.
The people listed above have the option of following calorie centered protocols. They should just choose the right one so that they don't end up negatively affecting their metabolism over time. The best calorie restricted programs are the ones that try to fool the body into thinking that it is not under calorie restriction. This is best done three ways:
- Not dropping calories too low. Calorie goals should be realistic and based on your current weight and metabolic output. There is no one calorie goal fits all.
- Consumption of large amounts of low-calorie foods, like vegetables, at mealtimes. This tricks you into thinking you have reached satiety because vegetables stretch the stomach and take a while to digest.
- The program must make sure that the macros of protein and fat are at levels that prevent hunger from returning a few hours later. Adequate protein would be the target macronutrient for achieving this. In other words, the calorie restriction should be mostly achieved from carbs and fat, rather than protein.
The worst calorie restricted programs are the ones that simply have you eat whatever you want, as long as it meets your calorie goals for the day. Those programs will eventually deteriorate your metabolic health, driving you towards overweight/obesity that will no longer respond to calorie restriction in the end. Restricting your calories through the eating of chocolate cake every day, is not going to cut it in the long run. This is why you need to find a program director that is not a calories in/calories out (CICO) zealot or they will lead you into a burning house. They must be able to understand the basic nutritional needs of the body and have a basic understanding of how metabolism works. Stay away from people who only put weight on calories, or you will soon be putting weight on your body.
Calorie restricted programs must be designed precisely and strategically, taking all of these things into account, in order to achieve longer lasting results. They also have to be applied to the right person who is trying to achieve goals that calories would be appropriate for.
But the most important thing that calorie restricted programs must focus on, which they don't, is blood glucose regulation. Remember, in the end the most detrimental thing that leads to obesity is blood glucose abnormalities.
3. Calories in/calories out (CICO) people always bring up 'The First Law of Thermodynamics' to try and silence any dissenting voice.
This is caused by people reading into something what they want to, instead of what it really says. 'The First Law of Thermodynamics' applies to closed systems. The human body is an open system. It uses more information than just calories (heat transfer) to determine its energy input and output. This is pretty basic knowledge. I am not a physicist but the fact that I know this, and these CICO people do not, should make you very leery about their advice.
Don't just repeat what someone else says because you might end up repeating a fallacy. People need to actually research what they are discussing.
4. Hormonal imbalances and medical conditions are used as a crutch by the overweight/obese to simply not work hard to reach their goals.
In some instances, yes. There are some who put in no work to reach their goals or only minimal work and then blame some disease or a misinterpretation of "hormones" to excuse themselves, but this isn't everyone. There are many who put in a lot of work and continue putting it in for a very long time but find themselves falling short of reaching their goals or even having setbacks. The explanation for this is much more complex than some trainer's assumption that the person is not "working hard" or "long enough" to achieve results. The only people who make those assumptions are fit people who aren't aware of how overweight/obesity works or simply don't care because they believe they can "break" metabolism through sheer will alone.
Well, ask them if they have the same belief about cancer. Can they break cancer by sheer will alone? Maybe in the beginning they might think so but soon cancer will show them a thing or two.
5. If hormones are just messengers, not calories, they cannot convert into body fat. For example, a person in a famine cannot gain weight, even if their insulin is very high.
Hormones are the messengers that tell calories where to go and how much of them can be burned. This means that hormones can make you fat, irrespective of calorie amounts because if they tell for most of your calories to become body fat and not be burned, you will get fatter, regardless of what you eat.
Of course, this would not be the case in a famine. People who are in a famine have 0 or close to 0 calories to eat, so 0 calories will be stored as nothing. Their insulin levels would be irrelevant. The person under famine breaks down their own body to store as fat, but that eventually runs out. Muscle is not infinite. No one in the first world is going through famine, unless they purposely starve themselves with 0 or close to 0 calories. Famine always ends in "weight loss", but the side effect is death.
In order to achieve weight loss using famine, 0 calories or close to 0 calories, are the only way to go. Famine is 0 calories for a prolonged period of time. 0 calories are the only effective way of using calories for the treatment of overweight/obesity because only 0 calories are the amount that can truly make a difference. 0 calories can take you from obese to lean, if you don't die of malnutrition is the interim. But, you most likely will, so it's not condoned by any medical expert.
This is why comparing famines, gulags, concentration camps, etc. with "weight loss" is the most asinine thing a human can do. Starvation is not new. It has been around forever, and it has been studied very extensively. We have gotten a lot of information on what happens to the body and metabolism during starvation, but you know what these studies haven't provided? A cure for overweight/obesity. This is because curing overweight/obesity through starvation equates to the cure being worse than the disease. In fact, the most important thing that starvation studies have shown in the context of overweight/obesity is that:
- The body eats its lean muscle mass during starvation, while still sparing and building fat.
- Bouts of starvation trains the body to become better at getting fatter.
So, comparing starvation to weight loss is sort of like comparing life to death. If I die, then all of life's problems are solved. That's true, but it's the incorrect way of solving life's problems. If I starve in a famine, I will lose weight. That's true, but that's the incorrect way of solving weight problems.
6. My coach says she has "hypothyroidism", but she is slim and trim. I thought a "slow thyroid" made you fat.
A lot of people make "thyroidism" claims for all sorts of reasons, so unless there is a diagnosed pathology, I don't take these statements seriously.
"Hyper/hypothyroidism" does not always result in negative outcomes. People just assume this is so because there are pathological conditions associated with, and which cause, hyper/hypothyroidism. But the thyroid can work perfectly well and healthily in "pseudo" hyper/hypo states.
For example, your coach might have "hypothyroidism" because she is not building fat mass. The building of fat mass would cause the thyroid to work more. Hers doesn't have to. This is why some people who take medications to increase their thyroid function, experience weight gain, while people who are losing weight, experience an absolutely normal thyroid slow down.
Isolated "numbers" on a lab result, in the absence of other symptoms and conditions, cannot be interpreted in any meaningful way unless they are so off kilter that they indicate pathology. You actually have to see what's occurring in vivo in order to interpret these numbers in context. Is the person actively obese or lean? Do they have metabolic syndrome or not?
That's why we don't chase symptoms by chasing numbers on this blog. The only thing that matters is whether you are actively obese or obesity resistant. Those are the two states that can better help you interpret any metabolic numbers.
No comments:
Post a Comment