= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Ketogenic Soylent - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (101)
That's a moderately fair question. One answer is in vitro-- start with blood tests, and possibly with examining fat cells.
Another possibility is a different sort of poking. Dietary changes should be designed to be experiments for finding out what's going on rather than aimed directly at fat loss.
I'd really like to see some work on why Eliezer gets so knocked out from missing a meal or two. Frequent blood tests? I have a notion there's something in the situation about his liver, which I believe is in charge of maintaining blood sugar in the short run.
Glucagon causes the liver to convert stored glycogen into glucose, which is released into the bloodstream, and it wouldn't surprise me if he's got something wrong with that pathway.
(Yay for the well-stocked subconscious supplemented by google. I thought the liver produced glucagon, and I was wrong, but wikipedia turned up the information.)
Is that really so unusual?
I think so. I get hungry and unhappy, but not knocked out.
There seem to be people (not a high proportion) who forget to eat-- they keep on going for two or three days and then realize that the reason they're feeling bad is that they need food.
Would you mind sharing your current weight/diet history?
Current weight 173 lb. I'm 4' 11".
I've done almost no dieting. My weight gradually drifted upwards to 184 pounds from about 125 in the 1970s. I've slowly cut back on simple carbs over the years as I found they were bad for me-- a box of 8 Entemann's large chocolate covered donuts eaten in the course of a day would lead to two or three days of being knocked out, including an internal monologue of "I don't care".
The current weight loss seems to be related to reading some Eric Franklin (probably in his Relax Your Neck, Liberate Your Shoulders) about how the ribs connect to the sternum, combined with imagery for relaxation.
Correction: It was actually Franklin's Dynamic Alignment Through Imagery - 2nd Edition.
When I did that, I realized that I was holding my shoulders up all the time, and let them come down. This seemed to cause me to feel less anxious, and to my surprise, I found I was much less interested in eating when I wasn't hungry.
Previously, my hunger-satiety spectrum was hungry, not hungry but food is interesting, full. This didn't mean I was eating all the time, but I was eating somewhat more than my gut wanted. I didn't binge because I don't have that sort of pain tolerance. Quite suddenly, I was spending a fair amount of time in a state of "comfortable and definitely don't want food". Sometimes I would hit a wall while eating.
Comfortable and don't want food is more common if I completely avoid simple carbs.
Thanks for sharing. Anyway, here is my hypothesis which is the result of fairly intense thought and internet research over the past couple years.
Although we talk about peoples' metabolic rate as if it is a specific number, e.g. 1866 Kcal/day, the reality is that there is a range. If you eat towards the top of the range, you might gain a very small amount of weight but for the most part your body will adjust by running hotter. On the other hand, if you eat towards the bottom of the range, you will lose little or no weight but your body will adjust by running cooler. People sometimes refer to the cooler situation as "starvation mode," but I think this is an overstatement. "Starvation mode," i.e. eating at the bottom of your metabolic range is completely normal and probably healthier that eating at the top. Common sense says that revving your system hour after hour, day after day, puts more wear and tear on it.
Looking at your typical American in his late 20s or 30s who is slowly drifting up in terms of weight, one can infer that he must be eating at the top of his metabolic range -- otherwise he would not be gaining weight. The upshot is that he actually has a very fast metabolism at that time. Which goes against the conventional wisdom but when you think about it, it makes sense.
If such a person suddenly starts fasting, his metabolism will eventually adjust but the adjustment probably takes a few hours or days. In the meantime, this person will quickly burn through most of the readily available energy in his system and he will feel terrible pretty fast.
The other thing which is going on for a lot of people is mild addiction to certain foods. i.e. there are certain foods which produce a rush of good feeling (a bit like smoking a cigarette but less intense) followed later by withdrawal symptoms. Probably this is also part of the reason why it feels pretty terrible for some people to miss a meal or two.
Of course I don't know EY's individual situation that well, but I do think that it's completely normal for a lot of people to feel knocked out if they miss a couple meals. If you eat at the top of your metabolic range for years, the feeling of running hot seems normal and "starvation mode" seems pretty scary. But in my opinion, what's normal (in the sense of doing what your body is designed to do) is running cool. Starvation mode = normal mode.
Since your weight has been steady and/or drifting downwards, probably you are eating more towards the bottom of your metabolic range. Thus it's much easier for you to miss a meal than it otherwise would be.
Anyway, that's my hypothesis. I fully admit that I'm not an expert when it comes to diet, weight loss, etc. What I am saying is based purely on my own reasoning, research, and self-experimentation.
Your hypothesis is interesting, and to a certain extent my personal experience mimics it. When I'm eating to gain weight, I tend to be more active and fidgety, and I also tend to be warmer. When I'm eating to lose weight, I tend to be more sedentary and still, and I tend to be cooler. Yet more evidence for bulking in the winter and cutting in the summer. I think it's possible to alter your metabolism to use more calories and still maintain weight, if you do it in a controlled manner (and increase activity as well). It's certainly possible to alter your metabolism to use less-and-less calories via constant caloric restriction and excess low intensity steady state cardio.
"Starvation mode" is what happens when your body is breaking down organ tissue and muscle for energy. This doesn't happen until a long time without any food; how much depends on how much fat a person is carrying. Check this study out, an obese patient went over a year without food (they had supplements for essential nutrients) and was healthy at the end of it.
I think you are probably right, but what would you be trying to achieve in doing so?
Well it depends on how you define the phrase "starvation mode." I regularly hear people assert that their weight loss efforts (and other peoples') have stalled or plateaued because of "starvation mode." From the context, it seems that they are referring to the "running cool" which I have described and not something extreme like breaking down organ and muscle for energy.
The more food you eat, the more micronutrients you take in. If you have a higher metabolism, you'll get more micronutrients and still maintain weight. Plus, you get to eat more ice cream. If you previously damaged your metabolism (and I'd call a 1200cal maintenance 'damaged'), then raising your metabolism will be good for you.
I mean, if you're using it wrong, sure. "Starvation mode" is largely another bullshit meme propagated by the fitness/nutrition crowd, like 'toning' and 'heavy weights make you bulky'. Fact is, you'll downregulate your metabolism by eating less, so eventually, you have to eat even less to break the plateau. This isn't starvation mode.
This doesn't seem like the ideal way of optimizing your micronutrient consumption.
I'm not sure that makes much of a difference. To illustrate, consider a strapping young man who can eat a pint of ice cream a day and stay in energy balance. Compare him with a petite girl who can only eat half a pint a day of ice cream and stay in balance. Does the man derive significantly more pleasure in life from ice cream eating than the girl? I doubt it.
Well how would you define "damaged" and what does it mean?
No need for a semantic debate, what's commonly referred to as "starvation mode," which I have referred to as "running cool," is perfectly normal and healthy in my non-professional opinion.
I don't think micronutrients fall under the "the more the better" category.
For all nutrients, micro and macro, there is an optimal range with a minimum and a maximum.