Your questions, hypotheses, and curiosities?
Options
Replies
-
I don't get bingeing/overeating release when I eat "bad" carbs (you know the ones, pasta, potatoes, breads, desserts, ice cream). I can eat them and be fine, no overeating, no gorging. I can have cookies sitting in my pantry and not have to eat the whole package.
I'm not sure if I fall into the Special Snowflake category on this, or if I'm "normal". Or am I hanging around too many people who have this problem? It's sort of like "look at all these people on MFP who have PCOS/hypothyroidism/Celiac/gluten intolerance/ED" and yeah, there are plenty of people who have those, but MFP is a place where they congregate, so it's going to be quite prevalent to see so many with these problems. I'm really thinking that I'm the oddball because I don't have any of these issues.
So I guess the question is: is it me? Am I the only person who doesn't go full binge-mode on "bad" carbs?
I don't either. Even cheesy pasta which I love love love eating, as long as I take it slowly I'll get full just like normal. It's only a problem because it makes me want to eat it up quickly.
0 -
I wish I was missing the starchy carb gene, lol.
zyxst - I think you are fairly normal. Most people even presenting for bariatric surgery don't have binge eating problems. It's probably about a third of folks with obesity who struggle with some form of binge eating or significant emotional eating.
0 -
Someone posted a very interesting article on weight loss differences in people with insulin sensitivity vs insulin resistance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
The findings were that people with insulin sensitivity lost more weight on a 60% carb 20% fat diet and people with insulin resistance lost more weight on a 40% carb 40% fat diet. The additional weight loss was MORE than would be expected based on the deficit that was targeted. The discussion also speculated that while the lower carb higher fat ratio might be good for people with insulin resistance, if the IR improves then it might be beneficial for them to transition to a higher carb lower fat diet.
I think this matches my own experience in actually having what should have been a pretty small deficit but able to lose close to 2 lbs a week consistently for several months on a very similar diet (30-40% carb, 40-45% fat) and I have insulin resistance. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be however, so will have to think on that one. The researchers speculated that NEAT increased or sleeping metabolic rate changed. So interesting!0 -
girlviernes wrote: »Someone posted a very interesting article on weight loss differences in people with insulin sensitivity vs insulin resistance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
The findings were that people with insulin sensitivity lost more weight on a 60% carb 20% fat diet and people with insulin resistance lost more weight on a 40% carb 40% fat diet. The additional weight loss was MORE than would be expected based on the deficit that was targeted. The discussion also speculated that while the lower carb higher fat ratio might be good for people with insulin resistance, if the IR improves then it might be beneficial for them to transition to a higher carb lower fat diet.
I think this matches my own experience in actually having what should have been a pretty small deficit but able to lose close to 2 lbs a week consistently for several months on a very similar diet (30-40% carb, 40-45% fat) and I have insulin resistance. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be however, so will have to think on that one. The researchers speculated that NEAT increased or sleeping metabolic rate changed. So interesting!
Hmmm... while that's interesting to me, since I'm not in a race to lose weight? Moderating my carbs helps manage my fatigue level. I suspect that over time, rates of weight loss would have evened out for both groups. I'm not insulin resistant, and the thought of upping my carbs 15% and lowering my fat 15% makes me want to take a nap. And feel hungry. Does that make me a special snowflake?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Someone posted a very interesting article on weight loss differences in people with insulin sensitivity vs insulin resistance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
The findings were that people with insulin sensitivity lost more weight on a 60% carb 20% fat diet and people with insulin resistance lost more weight on a 40% carb 40% fat diet. The additional weight loss was MORE than would be expected based on the deficit that was targeted. The discussion also speculated that while the lower carb higher fat ratio might be good for people with insulin resistance, if the IR improves then it might be beneficial for them to transition to a higher carb lower fat diet.
I think this matches my own experience in actually having what should have been a pretty small deficit but able to lose close to 2 lbs a week consistently for several months on a very similar diet (30-40% carb, 40-45% fat) and I have insulin resistance. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be however, so will have to think on that one. The researchers speculated that NEAT increased or sleeping metabolic rate changed. So interesting!
Hmmm... while that's interesting to me, since I'm not in a race to lose weight? Moderating my carbs helps manage my fatigue level. I suspect that over time, rates of weight loss would have evened out for both groups. I'm not insulin resistant, and the thought of upping my carbs 15% and lowering my fat 15% makes me want to take a nap. And feel hungry. Does that make me a special snowflake?
Well for one thing, I think that this study can be considered to be more support that there are going to be individual factors that impact what type of diet is ideal for you. Insulin sensitivity may be one factor, but there could be innumerable factors. So the observations that you've made about feeling better on your current ratio are both important because you want to feel better and it makes this more sustainable over time. Whether or not you have optimal weight loss is another issue, but I would tend to guess that the macros that you feel best on might also be the macros that are best for your weight loss as well. But, one question I have is do you think your weight loss has been faster, same, or slower than would be predicted?
0 -
The A to Z diet study by Christopher Gardner showed something similar. The abstract (here) only concludes that overall the low carb diet was more effective but in this presentation Gardner talks about individual results correlating with insulin sensitivity.0
-
girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Someone posted a very interesting article on weight loss differences in people with insulin sensitivity vs insulin resistance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
The findings were that people with insulin sensitivity lost more weight on a 60% carb 20% fat diet and people with insulin resistance lost more weight on a 40% carb 40% fat diet. The additional weight loss was MORE than would be expected based on the deficit that was targeted. The discussion also speculated that while the lower carb higher fat ratio might be good for people with insulin resistance, if the IR improves then it might be beneficial for them to transition to a higher carb lower fat diet.
I think this matches my own experience in actually having what should have been a pretty small deficit but able to lose close to 2 lbs a week consistently for several months on a very similar diet (30-40% carb, 40-45% fat) and I have insulin resistance. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be however, so will have to think on that one. The researchers speculated that NEAT increased or sleeping metabolic rate changed. So interesting!
Hmmm... while that's interesting to me, since I'm not in a race to lose weight? Moderating my carbs helps manage my fatigue level. I suspect that over time, rates of weight loss would have evened out for both groups. I'm not insulin resistant, and the thought of upping my carbs 15% and lowering my fat 15% makes me want to take a nap. And feel hungry. Does that make me a special snowflake?
Well for one thing, I think that this study can be considered to be more support that there are going to be individual factors that impact what type of diet is ideal for you. Insulin sensitivity may be one factor, but there could be innumerable factors. So the observations that you've made about feeling better on your current ratio are both important because you want to feel better and it makes this more sustainable over time. Whether or not you have optimal weight loss is another issue, but I would tend to guess that the macros that you feel best on might also be the macros that are best for your weight loss as well. But, one question I have is do you think your weight loss has been faster, same, or slower than would be predicted?
My weight loss is fairly spot on what is predicted. About a pound a week, maybe a little more. I'm sure it will slow way down sometime soon. I don't have any room for dropping calories and still have 50 pounds to lose.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »The A to Z diet study by Christopher Gardner showed something similar. The abstract (here) only concludes that overall the low carb diet was more effective but in this presentation Gardner talks about individual results correlating with insulin sensitivity.
The thing I found especially interesting in this study was that the group with more insulin sensitivity had improved weight loss on a higher carb ratio (compared to lower carb ratio). I'll have to check out that video when I have time, do you know the time-point he talks about insulin sensitivity?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Someone posted a very interesting article on weight loss differences in people with insulin sensitivity vs insulin resistance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
The findings were that people with insulin sensitivity lost more weight on a 60% carb 20% fat diet and people with insulin resistance lost more weight on a 40% carb 40% fat diet. The additional weight loss was MORE than would be expected based on the deficit that was targeted. The discussion also speculated that while the lower carb higher fat ratio might be good for people with insulin resistance, if the IR improves then it might be beneficial for them to transition to a higher carb lower fat diet.
I think this matches my own experience in actually having what should have been a pretty small deficit but able to lose close to 2 lbs a week consistently for several months on a very similar diet (30-40% carb, 40-45% fat) and I have insulin resistance. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be however, so will have to think on that one. The researchers speculated that NEAT increased or sleeping metabolic rate changed. So interesting!
Hmmm... while that's interesting to me, since I'm not in a race to lose weight? Moderating my carbs helps manage my fatigue level. I suspect that over time, rates of weight loss would have evened out for both groups. I'm not insulin resistant, and the thought of upping my carbs 15% and lowering my fat 15% makes me want to take a nap. And feel hungry. Does that make me a special snowflake?
Well for one thing, I think that this study can be considered to be more support that there are going to be individual factors that impact what type of diet is ideal for you. Insulin sensitivity may be one factor, but there could be innumerable factors. So the observations that you've made about feeling better on your current ratio are both important because you want to feel better and it makes this more sustainable over time. Whether or not you have optimal weight loss is another issue, but I would tend to guess that the macros that you feel best on might also be the macros that are best for your weight loss as well. But, one question I have is do you think your weight loss has been faster, same, or slower than would be predicted?
My weight loss is fairly spot on what is predicted. About a pound a week, maybe a little more. I'm sure it will slow way down sometime soon. I don't have any room for dropping calories and still have 50 pounds to lose.
Yeah mine slowed down at about the same spot, but I would attribute the slowdown to generally becoming more lax and eating out more.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »The A to Z diet study by Christopher Gardner showed something similar. The abstract (here) only concludes that overall the low carb diet was more effective but in this presentation Gardner talks about individual results correlating with insulin sensitivity.
The thing I found especially interesting in this study was that the group with more insulin sensitivity had improved weight loss on a higher carb ratio (compared to lower carb ratio). I'll have to check out that video when I have time, do you know the time-point he talks about insulin sensitivity?
Unfortunately, no. I watched this years ago when I was still researching low carb diets.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Someone posted a very interesting article on weight loss differences in people with insulin sensitivity vs insulin resistance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
The findings were that people with insulin sensitivity lost more weight on a 60% carb 20% fat diet and people with insulin resistance lost more weight on a 40% carb 40% fat diet. The additional weight loss was MORE than would be expected based on the deficit that was targeted. The discussion also speculated that while the lower carb higher fat ratio might be good for people with insulin resistance, if the IR improves then it might be beneficial for them to transition to a higher carb lower fat diet.
I think this matches my own experience in actually having what should have been a pretty small deficit but able to lose close to 2 lbs a week consistently for several months on a very similar diet (30-40% carb, 40-45% fat) and I have insulin resistance. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be however, so will have to think on that one. The researchers speculated that NEAT increased or sleeping metabolic rate changed. So interesting!
Hmmm... while that's interesting to me, since I'm not in a race to lose weight? Moderating my carbs helps manage my fatigue level. I suspect that over time, rates of weight loss would have evened out for both groups. I'm not insulin resistant, and the thought of upping my carbs 15% and lowering my fat 15% makes me want to take a nap. And feel hungry. Does that make me a special snowflake?
Well for one thing, I think that this study can be considered to be more support that there are going to be individual factors that impact what type of diet is ideal for you. Insulin sensitivity may be one factor, but there could be innumerable factors. So the observations that you've made about feeling better on your current ratio are both important because you want to feel better and it makes this more sustainable over time. Whether or not you have optimal weight loss is another issue, but I would tend to guess that the macros that you feel best on might also be the macros that are best for your weight loss as well. But, one question I have is do you think your weight loss has been faster, same, or slower than would be predicted?
My weight loss is fairly spot on what is predicted. About a pound a week, maybe a little more. I'm sure it will slow way down sometime soon. I don't have any room for dropping calories and still have 50 pounds to lose.
Yeah mine slowed down at about the same spot, but I would attribute the slowdown to generally becoming more lax and eating out more.
Here's the bottom line for me, though. As interesting as all of this information is, it really doesn't mean jack if you can't have compliance.
Some people just won't want to eat low carb. They can still lose weight. Didn't @Virgoddess lose her weight without low carbing? She was IR.
I just wish ... my thoughts ran away from me ... there was a connection here... but I just wish there was more focus in the diet industry and in everyone's thinking on the long-term. It's all well and fine to see what "works" for weight loss, but it's like a tourniquet. It'll stop the bleeding, but the patient still needs ongoing care.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Someone posted a very interesting article on weight loss differences in people with insulin sensitivity vs insulin resistance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
The findings were that people with insulin sensitivity lost more weight on a 60% carb 20% fat diet and people with insulin resistance lost more weight on a 40% carb 40% fat diet. The additional weight loss was MORE than would be expected based on the deficit that was targeted. The discussion also speculated that while the lower carb higher fat ratio might be good for people with insulin resistance, if the IR improves then it might be beneficial for them to transition to a higher carb lower fat diet.
I think this matches my own experience in actually having what should have been a pretty small deficit but able to lose close to 2 lbs a week consistently for several months on a very similar diet (30-40% carb, 40-45% fat) and I have insulin resistance. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be however, so will have to think on that one. The researchers speculated that NEAT increased or sleeping metabolic rate changed. So interesting!
Hmmm... while that's interesting to me, since I'm not in a race to lose weight? Moderating my carbs helps manage my fatigue level. I suspect that over time, rates of weight loss would have evened out for both groups. I'm not insulin resistant, and the thought of upping my carbs 15% and lowering my fat 15% makes me want to take a nap. And feel hungry. Does that make me a special snowflake?
Well for one thing, I think that this study can be considered to be more support that there are going to be individual factors that impact what type of diet is ideal for you. Insulin sensitivity may be one factor, but there could be innumerable factors. So the observations that you've made about feeling better on your current ratio are both important because you want to feel better and it makes this more sustainable over time. Whether or not you have optimal weight loss is another issue, but I would tend to guess that the macros that you feel best on might also be the macros that are best for your weight loss as well. But, one question I have is do you think your weight loss has been faster, same, or slower than would be predicted?
My weight loss is fairly spot on what is predicted. About a pound a week, maybe a little more. I'm sure it will slow way down sometime soon. I don't have any room for dropping calories and still have 50 pounds to lose.
Yeah mine slowed down at about the same spot, but I would attribute the slowdown to generally becoming more lax and eating out more.
Here's the bottom line for me, though. As interesting as all of this information is, it really doesn't mean jack if you can't have compliance.
Some people just won't want to eat low carb. They can still lose weight. Didn't @Virgoddess lose her weight without low carbing? She was IR.
I just wish ... my thoughts ran away from me ... there was a connection here... but I just wish there was more focus in the diet industry and in everyone's thinking on the long-term. It's all well and fine to see what "works" for weight loss, but it's like a tourniquet. It'll stop the bleeding, but the patient still needs ongoing care.
Well I'm in complete agreement, what actually matters is having a plan that you stick with over time. If you white knuckle low-carb or high-carb or whatever you perceive to be ideal, that is a recipe for problems.
One of the interesting things in the study is that every one lost weight. The folks with the "mismatched" diet lost rate at exactly the pace that would be predicted by the targeted deficit (400kcals/day). It was just that with the "matched" diet people lost even faster.
Also it is worth noting that I don't think 40% carb is super "low" carb.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Someone posted a very interesting article on weight loss differences in people with insulin sensitivity vs insulin resistance http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479
The findings were that people with insulin sensitivity lost more weight on a 60% carb 20% fat diet and people with insulin resistance lost more weight on a 40% carb 40% fat diet. The additional weight loss was MORE than would be expected based on the deficit that was targeted. The discussion also speculated that while the lower carb higher fat ratio might be good for people with insulin resistance, if the IR improves then it might be beneficial for them to transition to a higher carb lower fat diet.
I think this matches my own experience in actually having what should have been a pretty small deficit but able to lose close to 2 lbs a week consistently for several months on a very similar diet (30-40% carb, 40-45% fat) and I have insulin resistance. I'm not sure what the mechanism would be however, so will have to think on that one. The researchers speculated that NEAT increased or sleeping metabolic rate changed. So interesting!
Hmmm... while that's interesting to me, since I'm not in a race to lose weight? Moderating my carbs helps manage my fatigue level. I suspect that over time, rates of weight loss would have evened out for both groups. I'm not insulin resistant, and the thought of upping my carbs 15% and lowering my fat 15% makes me want to take a nap. And feel hungry. Does that make me a special snowflake?
Well for one thing, I think that this study can be considered to be more support that there are going to be individual factors that impact what type of diet is ideal for you. Insulin sensitivity may be one factor, but there could be innumerable factors. So the observations that you've made about feeling better on your current ratio are both important because you want to feel better and it makes this more sustainable over time. Whether or not you have optimal weight loss is another issue, but I would tend to guess that the macros that you feel best on might also be the macros that are best for your weight loss as well. But, one question I have is do you think your weight loss has been faster, same, or slower than would be predicted?
My weight loss is fairly spot on what is predicted. About a pound a week, maybe a little more. I'm sure it will slow way down sometime soon. I don't have any room for dropping calories and still have 50 pounds to lose.
Yeah mine slowed down at about the same spot, but I would attribute the slowdown to generally becoming more lax and eating out more.
Here's the bottom line for me, though. As interesting as all of this information is, it really doesn't mean jack if you can't have compliance.
Some people just won't want to eat low carb. They can still lose weight. Didn't @Virgoddess lose her weight without low carbing? She was IR.
I just wish ... my thoughts ran away from me ... there was a connection here... but I just wish there was more focus in the diet industry and in everyone's thinking on the long-term. It's all well and fine to see what "works" for weight loss, but it's like a tourniquet. It'll stop the bleeding, but the patient still needs ongoing care.
Well I'm in complete agreement, what actually matters is having a plan that you stick with over time. If you white knuckle low-carb or high-carb or whatever you perceive to be ideal, that is a recipe for problems.
One of the interesting things in the study is that every one lost weight. The folks with the "mismatched" diet lost rate at exactly the pace that would be predicted by the targeted deficit (400kcals/day). It was just that with the "matched" diet people lost even faster.
Also it is worth noting that I don't think 40% carb is super "low" carb.
It's really not. I'm actually not far off the low carb diet percentages.
Correction. I forgot I had adjusted my macros. My carbs are lower than that.
0 -
That's interesting about the different ratios. I have read (need to dig up) that lower carb diets tend to work better for the obese and high carb for leaner people, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's really a function of insulin resistance.
It was part of why I tried a lower carb (100 g or so, not especially low) approach when I started, although the bigger reason is that the starchy carbs are what I miss least usually.
I've transitioned to more of 40-50% carbs and was actually wondering if I should try reducing again, but maybe that would be a bad idea. I can't imagine doing 60% carbs, but it would probably help with my concern/suspicion that I eat too much meat.0 -
It's not so much BED, but you see the posts about how "I can't have any cookies in the house! Just one sets me off and I eat them all!" Or ice cream, that one's been pretty popular for "bingeing". I want all the cookies, too, but I don't eat all the cookies anymore. And it's not that I tell myself I can have more tomorrow. I just stop eating them (for the most part, I have my depressive days of only food will fix me).girlviernes wrote: »I wish I was missing the starchy carb gene, lol.
zyxst - I think you are fairly normal. Most people even presenting for bariatric surgery don't have binge eating problems. It's probably about a third of folks with obesity who struggle with some form of binge eating or significant emotional eating.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »That's interesting about the different ratios. I have read (need to dig up) that lower carb diets tend to work better for the obese and high carb for leaner people, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's really a function of insulin resistance.
It was part of why I tried a lower carb (100 g or so, not especially low) approach when I started, although the bigger reason is that the starchy carbs are what I miss least usually.
I've transitioned to more of 40-50% carbs and was actually wondering if I should try reducing again, but maybe that would be a bad idea. I can't imagine doing 60% carbs, but it would probably help with my concern/suspicion that I eat too much meat.
I think over time I'd like to keep bumping up beans and lentils and gradually bringing down meat slightly.
0 -
It's not so much BED, but you see the posts about how "I can't have any cookies in the house! Just one sets me off and I eat them all!" Or ice cream, that one's been pretty popular for "bingeing". I want all the cookies, too, but I don't eat all the cookies anymore. And it's not that I tell myself I can have more tomorrow. I just stop eating them (for the most part, I have my depressive days of only food will fix me).girlviernes wrote: »I wish I was missing the starchy carb gene, lol.
zyxst - I think you are fairly normal. Most people even presenting for bariatric surgery don't have binge eating problems. It's probably about a third of folks with obesity who struggle with some form of binge eating or significant emotional eating.
This is a very good question and I wish I knew the answer. I think the sample is going to be very different here as well as folks I work with so it probably seems very common to me.
I typically do struggle with eating sugary/snacky/starchy foods if I have them around, but I had a few glorious months where it was a total non-issue, which I attribute primarily to better management of insulin resistance although I'm sure there is more to it.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »The A to Z diet study by Christopher Gardner showed something similar. The abstract (here) only concludes that overall the low carb diet was more effective but in this presentation Gardner talks about individual results correlating with insulin sensitivity.
I thought those who were participating in this thread might be interested to know Gardner did a follow up 6 month RCT pilot study and found that weight loss on a low carb or low fat diet was similar regardless of insulin sensitivity. The results were just posted this week:
Results
Baseline % carbohydrate:% fat:% protein was 44:38:18. At 6 months, the LF group reported 57:21:22 and the LC group reported 22:53:25 (IR and IS combined). Six-month weight loss (kg) was 7.4 ± 6.0 (LF-IR), 10.4 ± 7.8 (LF-IS), 9.6 ± 6.6 (LC-IR), and 8.6 ± 5.6 (LC-IS). No significant main effects were detected for weight loss by diet group or IR status; there was no significant diet × IR interaction. Significant differences in several secondary outcomes were observed.
Conclusions
Substantial weight loss was achieved overall, but a significant diet × IR status interaction was not observed. Opportunity to detect differential response may have been limited by the focus on high diet quality for both diet groups and sample size.
Source
0 -
Thanks for posting the follow up, very interesting.0
-
Yes, thanks for posting follow up - the whole thread was very interesting! I hadn't seen it when it originally posted. Lots of interesting questions/observations.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions