Weight loss stalled

[nmonaco]

The following is representative of every day for the last 3 months (except Fri and Sat)

 

So here I am with 92% nutrients with only one D supplement at 1100 calories. Before dinner. After dinner I will be just under 1500 cal at about 94% - then I take a multivitamin to reach about 96%. 

 

I am keeping my cal below or at 1500 per day but drinking wine on Friday and Sat lowers my nutrients and raises my cal for those 2 days only. (but still under 2000)

Could that be the cause of a weight loss stall? I am now 191 lbs at 5'10" but would like to be closer to 185. Do I need to completely cut out the wine? Am I doing something else wrong?

Thanks for the help gentlemen!

[mccoy]

nmonaco, sometimes too low a caloric content, considering you exercise, may trigger metabolic mechanisms which prevent further weightloss, that's a known fact among bodybuilders. The hypothalamus/hippocampus adjusts metabolism accordingly to the perceived starvation in an homeostatic fashion. Yours might just be one of such cases. 1500 kcal may just be to little. I had my wife go thru a 900 kcal diet (with no exercise) and she just hit a plateau, felt cold and sleepy, no further weightloss.

But If you are patient and go further you may start loosing again after a while, perhaps.

 

I don't have a ready solution, your macronutrients ratios appear proper ones,  it also depends on your fat/lean mass ratio and exercise volume, you may want counterintuitively to increase the calories a little for a while (in the range 1500-1800 kcal) and then adjust the ratio with less carbs and more protein and fat while keeping exercising and monitoring bodyweight and muscles size. Too little carbs will probably cause muscle mass loss as well.

 

I don't think it's the occasional wine! Bodyweight and the mechanism adjusting it is still in great part a mistery to science.

 

Good experimentation!

[Gordo]

I don't subscribe to the eat more calories to lose weight idea.  I guarantee you will lose weight if you fast, 3 days would be good.  But if you won't do that, try more intense exercise, just be careful not to go overboard if you are light headed - be safe.  Are you sure you are accurately measuring calories?  Many people don't know how to do this well, or they just don't count things they don't feel like counting ;)

[Todd Allen]

Combining Mccoy & Gordo's advice, ie eat a little more when eating alternated with some fasting I'd expect to produce results largely determined by the percent of time you spend fasting.  I've found fasting effective for weight loss though unfortunately I've learned I lose lean mass disturbingly quick when I fast, not entirely unexpected with a genetic muscle wasting disease - I did a series of fasts that quickly dropped 21 lbs but cost me nearly 8 lbs lean mass.  Might not be an issue for you, but if your goal is fat loss versus trying to lose other tissues like muscle and bone you might consider other measures to better track body composition such as a tape measure, skin fold calipers, photos and/or dexa scan or immersion testing.

 

I've found tracking blood glucose useful for guiding food selection.  A year ago I was somewhat shocked to discover how high and long my blood glucose would spike in response to things like oranges and dried apricots which probably meant insulin was also high which suppresses lipolysis and growth hormone and other factors negatively impacting body composition.  Through glucose tracking I've reversed all my symptoms of diabetes, brought my HbA1c down to 5.0 and my 12 hour fasted blood glucose down to ~80 mg/dl from nearly diabetic levels.  And recently I've been increasing my total carbohydrate intake and reintroducing some formerly problematic foods as they no longer produce much spiking.  Lab test results from last week now show an excellent HOMA IR of 0.4 and modestly above average for age growth hormone/IGF1 (previously were super low).  Elevating GH/IGF1 is not a goal of many CR/longevity people but at least in the short term it correlates well with improving body composition.

 

I've also found tracking body temperature useful.  A year ago I was often 2 F or more below normal and now when eating for maintenance I'm back to normal and I limit periods of caloric restriction / fasting to an averaged 1 F drop.  Finally, I'm surprised no one else mentioned it, especially Gordo, but I've found thermal stress useful to boost weight loss and mitigate the body temp drop induced through CR/fasting.

[nmonaco]

Thanks Gentlemen!

 

Question for Todd on "I've found thermal stress useful to boost weight loss and mitigate the body temp drop induced through CR/fasting"

I am unfamiliar with this practice. Can you explain? Thanks!

 

Thanks Gordo - I use the cronometer app and weigh and measure my foods thoroughly - although I was making some errors for a while -  like not distinguishing between raw and cooked spinach (big difference in weight measurement) and not counting "zero calorie" butter spray - but I have corrected those. As for more intense exercise - it seems like whenever I do this I get slightly injured so I keep it to weight training 3-4 times a week for about an  hour per session. 

 

mccoy - helpful as ever - and thanks for the wine - I hated the thought of losing that!

 

And p.s. I finally lost another pound and am at 190 right now - so maybe the tide is turning again. I got to 183 over the last summer vacation with stricter diet (no booze) and more workouts - but hard to sustain that when back at work. Hoping to find a sustainable solution. Still down over 30 lbs since beginning CR a year ago and have not been sick at all in 4 years (organic and paleo diet). 

[Todd Allen]

Thanks Gentlemen!

 

Question for Todd on "I've found thermal stress useful to boost weight loss and mitigate the body temp drop induced through CR/fasting"

I am unfamiliar with this practice. Can you explain? Thanks!

 

 

 

By thermal stress I mean exposure to cold and/or heat.  Currently where I live the temperatures have been in the low 40s F and I've been going for brisk morning walks for 30 minutes or so wearing shorts and a T-shirt.  In warmer temps I often take a shower or bath running straight cold water (typically in the mid 60s F).  I also take very hot baths before bed which like strenuous exercise elevates the heart rate and makes one sweat profusely.  Gordo and Dean have discussed wearing ice vests in another thread and cryo-therapy chambers are an increasingly popular option though expensive.  Likewise saunas, steam rooms, and heated exercise rooms - such as hot yoga are other options for heat exposure.

[Gordo]

Yea, cold exposure is a great way to burn extra calories (and has a host of other health benefits as well).  My summary is here.

Also see: Cool fat burner science page.

 

You haven't actually stated (at least in this thread) what your goal is.  If your goal is longevity, and you are very muscular, you may be near some "set point" already, and you'll have to decide if you want to be less muscular or not.  I believe (based on science) that the longevity sweet spot for men involves being as muscular as possible within a BMI of 20-22 (which in no way implies being ripped like a bodybuilder, more like just solid muscle tone). For you that means getting down to a body weight of about 155lbs.  For longevity, though still debatable, most believe you want to avoid spiking IGF-1.  For this and other reasons, I would consider getting off of the paleo diet.  The longest lived people groups ever studied, with the largest numbers of people living past age 100, were pesco-vegetarians (California Adventists and Okinawans), for men in particular, vegans may have a slight edge over fish eaters.  From: Okinawans vs. Adventists - Is it the Low Calories or Vegetarian Diet?

 

you can see that it was the male vegans who had the lowest all-cause hazard ratio risk of all (male?) dietary groups (beating the pesco-vegetarians):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/table/T4/

[mccoy]

Speaking of individual differences, the topic of another couple of threads, it's interesting to notice the difference between me and nmonaco.

 

nmonaco is averaging 1500 kcal daily and has difficulties in loosing weight.

 

I'm averaging 2340 kcal daily and have difficulties in gaining weight.

 

The both of us are practicing resistance exercise, although I lift lighter weights more often and with short sessions.

 

What's an ideal BMI for longevity? There are articles on that stating that the U curve exhibits an optimum at about 21-23 if I remember well. Figures slightly higher than those cited by Gordo, but that was not measured on people exercising with weights, or intense chalistenics.

 

Probably there are no data on the longevity of such a subset of people.

 

By logical inference, I see no reason why muscular people with BMI=26 should be disadvantaged compared to people with BMI =20 (beer belly=visceral fat is ruled out from the comparison).

 

Injuries do contribute to mortality hazard, and a muscular body with strong bones tends to protect against damage caused by traumatic events.

[nmonaco]

Fascinating differences - and my most recent Dexa scan this summer had me at 16% body fat with 159.2 lbs lean body mass at a total of 189lbs. I cannot imagine getting down to 155 lbs total weight - although your point about goals Gordo is an important one. I think I am divided between a pure longevity/wellness goal and a more vain appearance goal. I want to hold on to as much muscle as possible while losing fat. I have another weigh in set for later this week and prob another Dexa scan soon after - So I will have a better idea of progression since my summer scan.

 

And mccoy has a great point too re BMI - I always had issue with BMI since it does not account for muscle over fat - just total height/weight ratios. Seems inaccurate when measuring health.

[Gordo]

Regarding optimal BMI I guess we don't know for sure, but we have clues.  Anecdotally, how many big muscle men have you met or do you know that are old (>80) and healthy?  OK, maybe they just naturally lose all the muscle and slim down when they are old, but how many actually "age well"? Bodybuilders, boxers, football players, and other muscular male athletes have terrible longevity.  Being big and muscular implies high IGF-1 levels (and probably absolute protein intake as well), which is associated with a shorter lifespan, this is also why tall people die younger on average (but don't die younger when they intentionally lower their growth factors, for example with a plant based whole food diet, instead of fueling growth like so many do).

 

What if you looked at, for example, just professional basketball players, do the taller ones die before the shorter ones?  We didn't know... until last month 

Do "big guys" really die younger? An examination of height and lifespan in former professional basketball players.

More growth hormone -> shorter life.   Now what I'd REALLY like to see is longevity statistics for vegan professional basketball players, but I don't think we have that data yet and I'm not sure it would be meaningful anyway as you can spike your IGF-1 with soy and other protein supplements if you really want to, as seen with vegan bodybuilders.

 

Note this article is about more than just height.  The heart of the issue is that humans have limited cell regeneration, when you are near your limit, you get diseases, especially cancer, and you die.  The key to longevity is slowing down that process of cell replacement, and the hope is that some future tech will be able to replace cells in old bodies one day.  Anyway, intentionally trying to be bigger or fueling cell division is counterproductive to long life.

 

By the way Mccoy that higher range you cite for optimal BMI included women, I'm only looking at men for that 20-22.

[mccoy]

Gordo,

from the logical POW is reasonable to believe that very muscular guys (today's bodybuilders) may be located in the upper region of the hazard U curve, where hazard is as large as in the lowest regions.

 

When muscle mass is of more moderate dimensions though, muscle growth may also not entail continuos stimulation of IGF-1 mTOR and other growth factors. Muscle mass can be gained by periods of growth and proliferation, then it can be conserved by exercise while in the repair and manteinance mode.

 

Some guys with credentials (Dr Peter Attia, for example) even contend that it's possible to grow muscles while keeping IGF-1 and mTOR low, and give examples (taking Leucine supplements, exercising in a particular way, making sure to keep blood sugar and insuline down by wearing a blood sugar detector, and so on).

 

Literature explains that the mechanoreceptors in skeletal muscle cells powerfully stimulate mTOR, bypassing the IGF-1→akt path. Of course Leucine and amminoacids must be present in enough amounts. So we might be able to stymulate muscle protein synthesis with a relatively low IGF-1. Theoretically at least and by a very skillfull dietary and exercise design.

 

But at the end, while everyone agrees that systematic growth & proliferation (all organs and tissues) is detrimental to helth and longevity, many affirm that local growth (muscle tissue, nervous tissue) is beneficial.

 

Name of the game woudl be to keep local growth active in muscles and brain for example, while stunting growth factors in organs as above explained.

 

Bottom line: I'd like to see some specific study on BMI and longevity in athletes and especially so strength athletes, including all those who have developed muscle mass. Unfortunately professional strength athletes and even many amateurial strength athletes use performance enhancing drugs, which will inevitably confound the results. The study should be performed on a subset of 'natural' strength athletes. There are schemes to screen those who use steroids (very high BMI and very low bodyfat).

 

I'll have to check the BMIs data I was referring to, posted in another thread. You may be right about the inclusion of both sexes but I really do not remember now.

[mccoy]

 

By the way Mccoy that higher range you cite for optimal BMI included women, I'm only looking at men for that 20-22.

 

Gordo, I could not find the old thread but I searched again and it seems that sex has actually been treated as a confounding factor and male & female individuals have been separated into distincts subsets. Strangely, optimum BMI turns out to be the same for males and females. I'm surprised myself but the fact remains that the optimum for the general population after adjusting for smoking and reverse causation appears to be in the region where BMI<25. Please also note that Luigi Fontana believes that the curve is a J curve rather than a U curve and that the high mortality associated to lower BMIs is due to visceral fat in thin individuals. This is in another article.

The objective truth is probably that we still have a U curve but the higher mortality shows up in very low BMIs, where phenomena of impaired glucose tolerance and other disturbances due to nutrients deficiency of scarcity become relevant (we all read Dean's experiences on the subject of very low BMI).

 

Optimal body weight for health and longevity: bridging basic, clinical, and population research

Luigi Fontana1,2,3 and Frank B Hu4,5

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

The continuing controversy regarding overweight and mortality has caused a great deal of confusion not only among the general public but also among health professionals. This controversy underscores the many methodological challenges in analyses of the relationship between BMI and mortality, including reverse causation, confounding by smoking, effect modification by age, and imperfect measures of adiposity. However, evidence for the adverse impact of overweight and moderate obesity on chronic disease incidence is overwhelming and indisputable. In addition, mounting evidence indicates that being overweight significantly reduces the probability of healthy aging. Many well-conducted studies in large cohorts have shown that being overweight does increase the risk of premature mortality. In these studies, after accounting for residual confounding by smoking and reverse causation, the lowest mortality is associated with a BMI < 25 kg m−2. The optimal BMI for most healthy middle-aged nonsmokers is likely to be in the lower and middle part of the normal range. The range of BMI (<25) that has been generally associated with desirable metabolic health and successful aging is supported by abundant data from DR studies in animal models and humans regarding metabolic parameters, disease risk, and longevity.

[mccoy]

And mccoy has a great point too re BMI - I always had issue with BMI since it does not account for muscle over fat - just total height/weight ratios. Seems inaccurate when measuring health.

 

nmonaco, other indexes have been adopted to allow for visceral fat for example. One of these is waist to height ratio.

 

It ignores weight whereas it normalizes height for waist in a very simple metrics (waist divided by height), constituting an index of abdominal obesity or visceral fat. We have a pure number at the end, for example my WHR is 0.47. Coupling BMI and WHR is probably the best thing, someone must have done it. An high BMI with a low or intermediate WHR means the subject has probably a very developed skeletal muscle system, without excess visceral fat.

 

In my case I'm just in the middle of the healthy range. 

 

BMI=23 (still in the optimum region where BMI<25)

HWR= 0.46 (no excess visceral fat)

 

 

[mccoy]

T... I am now 191 lbs at 5'10" but would like to be closer to 185. Do I need to completely cut out the wine? Am I doing something else wrong?

Thanks for the help gentlemen!

 

At 190 lbs your BMI = 27.3

 

Now, that would be a little above the optimum region according to Fontana and Hu, 2014.

 

At this point you might measure your waist  and check whether the issue is visceral fat or not. Pleas let us know, visceral fat as far as I gather is not easy to get rid of and it may grant particular interventions. 

 

According to the pure BMI metrics, you should waight max 173 lbs.

 

However, if the WHR metrics shows a value lesser than 0.5, the BMI metrics alone is not sufficient to tell you are above the optimum region and your weight might still be a healthy one, due mainly to muscle and bone mass.

[Gordo]

http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156

Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at... BMI 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. 

 

The longer the duration of follow up, the better the study.

[Todd Allen]

My experience has been visceral fat is the first to go.  Then subcutaneous fat.  Intramuscular fat is more challenging to lose.

[mccoy]

My experience has been visceral fat is the first to go.  Then subcutaneous fat.  Intramuscular fat is more challenging to lose.

 

Todd, have you read Dr. Attia's detailed reports on his loss of stubborn visceral fat? It's very interesting since he describes how, notwithstanding intense, even extreme physical activity, he couldn't get rid of his beer belly. He succeeded by adhering to a ketogenic scheme, which he later abandoned after the disappearance of the visceral fat.

This may also constitute another example on the variability of individual response.

[mccoy]

http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156

Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at... BMI 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. 

 

The longer the duration of follow up, the better the study.

 

Gordo, that's an impressive metanalysis whose detailed hazard curves, complete with confidence levels, I enjoyed. 

 

My considerations after having read the article:

• As you quoted, In healthy non smokers the hazard curve seems to have a J shaped curve with a nadir at 20-22 BMI when a long followup is considered
• The correlation between BMI and mortality is, according to prevailing science, due to adiposity
• People who train with weights or chalistenics may have higher BMIs with the same, or lower adiposity
• The above constitute a bias, unless specific subgroups made up of People who train with weights are included
• Such specific subgroups were not included in the metanalysis, only those who had lower BMIs because of physical activity (no resistance training)

Bottom line, for what is relevant to this thread, we still have no proof that an higher BMI in people with well developed skeletal muscles may be related to higher mortality. Again, if BMI is a proxy for adiposity, then many people who train with weights/chalistenics have an higher BMI but are less adipose than the average guys in teh same BMI class, hence should exhibit lesser mortality than said BMI class. Providing of course they do not use detrimental PEDs. A correction factor should be provided for such subgroups, or a specific study should be carried out.

[Todd Allen]

 

My experience has been visceral fat is the first to go.  Then subcutaneous fat.  Intramuscular fat is more challenging to lose.

 

Todd, have you read Dr. Attia's detailed reports on his loss of stubborn visceral fat? It's very interesting since he describes how, notwithstanding intense, even extreme physical activity, he couldn't get rid of his beer belly. He succeeded by adhering to a ketogenic scheme, which he later abandoned after the disappearance of the visceral fat.

This may also constitute another example on the variability of individual response.

 

 

Yes, Dr. Attia was a significant influence and lead me to explore monitoring blood glucose and then ketones when I transitioned to a ketogenic diet.  I've been doing an unorthodox version of the diet adjusting what I eat to meet my targets for BG, ketones, body temperature, etc. as opposed to targeting grams/ratios of macro nutrients.  I believe like him I had developed significant insulin resistance and had elevated insulin both basal and especially in response to carbohydrates and protein.  For many months my blood sugar would only fall below the pre-diabetic range when fasting or severely limiting carbohydrates and restricting protein.  But this has been improving dramatically in the past few months and I've been able to sustain normal blood glucose levels even after meals with increasing amounts of carbohydrate and protein.  Lately I've been averaging 75-80 grams of carbohydrate daily, about 25-30 g of fiber, and 120 g protein while sustaining my targets for both glucose and ketones.  This is roughly double my intake of carbs and protein 6 months ago.  By dexa scan in the past 3 months my visceral fat dropped from 1.38 lbs to 0.78 lbs.  And in 18 months my liver ALT has dropped from more than double the reference range to the middle of the range and my fasting blood glucose dropped from 120 to 79 mg/dl.

 

I don't think Dr. Attia has gone high carb and I doubt I ever will, but I am enjoying reintroducing moderate amounts of fruits and starchy seeds & vegetables and hope my metabolic tolerance for them continues to improve. 

[mccoy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think Dr. Attia has gone high carb and I doubt I ever will, but I am enjoying reintroducing moderate amounts of fruits and starchy seeds & vegetables and hope my metabolic tolerance for them continues to improve. 

 

 

Last thing I heard from himself, he was following a 20/20/60 diet (C/P/F) which sure doesn't classify as high carbs

[Todd Allen]

 

>Last thing I heard from himself, he was following a 20/20/60 diet (C/P/F) which sure doesn't classify as high carbs

 

He probably still has measurable ketone levels much of the time, especially after his endurance exercise sessions.  I'm not far from those macros and still solidly in ketosis.  According to cronometer today I was 15/24/61 (C/P/F) though 25% of my carbs were fiber and cronometer doesn't take fiber into account with respect to calories or macro percentages.  I've only been doing higher protein for a couple weeks but it seems to be working well for me so far.  I'll get another dexa after 3 months of my new regimen and get a better sense of the impact on body composition.

[Gordo]

we still have no proof that an higher BMI in people with well developed skeletal muscles may be related to higher mortality.

OK but do you have evidence to the contrary? There may be some hitherto undocumented group of low growth high muscle people with notable health and longevity, but you'd think someone would have discovered and published something about this...

[mccoy]

 

we still have no proof that an higher BMI in people with well developed skeletal muscles may be related to higher mortality.

OK but do you have evidence to the contrary? There may be some hitherto undocumented group of low growth high muscle people with notable health and longevity, but you'd think someone would have discovered and published something about this...

 

 

I believe this remains an unexplored area. Where are the researchers going to find natural strength athletes? Professionals all take steroids and amateurs often take steroids or other PEDs.

After a lot of difficulties in finding really natural bodybuilders (a sample with enough numerosity may not be available in one area), they must be followed for many years, keeping track of their BMIs and any changes in lifestyle. Also, bodyweight of bodybuilders varies remarkably with the training season, being higher during bulking and lower during conditioning. That's another confounder.

 

But, if we take the issue back to its source, BMI is simply a proxy for adiposity. It's probably the simplest proxy, since height and weight are the more basic anthropometric measurements taken during the most basic clinical visits.

 

So a condition where an high BMI is not due to adiposity but to muscle mass cannot be part of the conceptual framework, since BMI is no more a proxy for adiposity, rather becomes a proxy for muscle mass.

 

Bottom line, the observation that the nadir of mortality hazard lies in an area of 22-25 BMI (depending on follow up times) is, according to logic reasoning, not applicable to individuals with well developed muscle mass. Their adiposity may well lay into the optimum region.

[Sibiriak]

BMI is simply a proxy for adiposity.

 

 

I'm not necessarily disputing that,  but what's the evidence for that assertion  (in regards to mortality)?   How do we know  BMI isn't (also) a proxy for "calories, calories, calories",  to use MR's expression?

[mccoy]

 

BMI is simply a proxy for adiposity.

 

 

I'm not necessarily disputing that,  but what's the evidence for that assertion  (in regards to mortality)?   How do we know  BMI isn't (also) a proxy for "calories, calories, calories",  to use MR's expression?

 

 

Sibiriak, 'proxy for adiposity', that's what the authors say in that article, which I suppose reflects how BMI is viewed in the nutrition literature. 

And yes, it stands to reason that BMI has a positive correlation with calories, actually it couldn't be the opposite. The more you eat, the larger you are, either adiposely or muscularly, so it might sure be viewed as a proxy for calories.