Whole mess 'O' research to peruse.

I'm going to take the lack of response as people either just not having the time, or not being able to follow the research. It IS super technical. Please let me know if you looked at any at least. If nobody's reading any of this stuff, then I'd just as soon not waste time posting it. Oh well.

bahh, I don't think I'm gonna do that. It would mean a lot of extra work and even I don't have that kind of time in the middle of the week. They're all related to nutrition, obesity, and human metabolism. Many deal with restricted calorie diets and fasts as well and what they do to the hormonal balance in the body (which is central to fat mass and weight loss topics)

@viv, these were 8 women, not men. @carmen, abdominally obese does not mean obese in the classical terminology. It just means a predominance of their fat is in their belly. Enough to make the stomach higher in fat content than normal.

I'll have to re-read and confirm, but I think the main conclusions of this study were that, while healthy women (and men to a different degree) have a sharp, rapid increase of lipolytic response (increased adipose fat burning) for short term IF, abdominally obese (and by extension generally obese, one would imagine) women have a very reduced increase, meaning that their body's don't seem to kick into the "fat burning" mode after a reduction or elimination of carbohydrate intake over the course of a few days.

While troubling, it's not conclusive IMHO, its just further confirmation that when women gain to much fat, their bodies don't respond to stimuli like they normally would. Which I'm sure most of us guessed already. I.E. when a woman gets to fat, their body makes it harder to lose that fat for some unknown reason. That's troubling but not completely unexpected.

@viv, these were 8 women, not men. @carmen, abdominally obese does not mean obese in the classical terminology. It just means a predominance of their fat is in their belly. Enough to make the stomach higher in fat content than normal.

I'll have to re-read and confirm, but I think the main conclusions of this study were that, while healthy women (and men to a different degree) have a sharp, rapid increase of lipolytic response (increased adipose fat burning) for short term IF, abdominally obese (and by extension generally obese, one would imagine) women have a very reduced increase, meaning that their body's don't seem to kick into the "fat burning" mode after a reduction or elimination of carbohydrate intake over the course of a few days.

While troubling, it's not conclusive IMHO, its just further confirmation that when women gain to much fat, their bodies don't respond to stimuli like they normally would. Which I'm sure most of us guessed already. I.E. when a woman gets to fat, their body makes it harder to lose that fat for some unknown reason. That's troubling but not completely unexpected.

On a completely (or only slightly related note). I used to never gain fat in the abdominal region (I was always an hourglass, not quite a pear shape). After a two-year course of corticosteroid treatment, my body hasn't been the same. I now gain/have great difficultly losing in the gut region. This could also be due to being, um, no longer twenty, but even women in my family who were aged (like my great grandmother) had the hourglass body.

Troubling is right. I find that, now that I spent a considerable amount of time heavy...it is nearly impossible to convince my body to let go of what I consider the last ten pounds (or so) of fat. Do you know of any studies regarding corticosteroid use, the subsequent weight gain and long term effects on weight loss? I could probably google this, but you seem to be deep into the studies right now...so just wondering if you'd come across any...

How did I miss that they were women, not men? derp.

I would assume that the abdominal fat gains were probably at least partly to do with the steroid treatments, which probably increased testosterone levels, which has been shown to enhance the body's abdominal fat storage (I.E. why men store fat in the stomach more easily than women). along those same lines, estrogen seems to be a factor in why women store more fat in the lower body, and I think maybe the steroids probably changed your estrogen and/or testosterone levels. Or at least they didn't help matters. As women age they produce less estrogen, so that probably is one of the reasons. Your doctor could probably help with that if it's still an issue, many women receive estrogen treatments, it's something to consider at least.

Thanks for the resources, unforunately, just another reason to lament aging! :sad:

heh, (holding my ears). LALALALALALALALALA. i'm not listening to you.

In college, a full rugby game was a warm-up for me. Then I'd go out and play the B-side game if we didn't have enough guys, that's ahh what? 120 minutes of sprinting, wrestling, and un-dislocating fingers and stuffing cotton up my nose to stop the bleeding. And then we went drinking. Now, I'd be lucky to play a half without having a TIA on the field.

]

Thank you. My current doctor (who I've finally decided is not so great of a doctor) hasn't been believing me when I tell him how much I eat, and said, regarding my steroid treatment "that wouldn't effect weight gain." (whaaaa? I gained thirty pounds in my first three months on the damn things while eating pretty much the same amount).

this gives me a good starting point of inquiry when I get my new doctor. Thanks.

doctors are like any other profession these days, overworked, and working of potentially out of date information. It's really up to the individual doctor for how proactive they want to be with the latest research and information. Some of this metabolic stuff is less than 10 years old, which means you may be ahead of him on it. It's possible, especially if it's a GP doctor who doesn't focus on metabolic conditions.

Yeah, I'm sure he qualifies in the whole overworked thing...but he's essentially accused me of lying to my food journal (or him.) I would lie to my own mother before I would lie to my food journal.:laugh:

Essentially, something (insulin resistance/hormonal issues/thyroid problems/something else) is up, and he won't investigate it. Or, it could be as simple as the study we were talking about...once I spent time significantly overweight, I'm doomed. I don't want to be doomed, and I'm suffering health problems that I believe are directly tied to the extra fat. (normal cholesterol levels, but high levels of arterial plaque, for example.) :grumble:

I think maybe 35 years ago you would have been doomed, as they didn't have the synthetic hormones they do now. But I think, with the correct blood work, correct diagnosis, and proper hormone therapy, you would be able to beat it. Those are some hurdles, but it all depends on having the right medical staff involved, someone who really knows their stuff and is willing to think a little outside the box. I'm sure there' someone around now that would be able to treat you, I just don't know that a regular General Practice doctor would be that solution, they're so afraid of anything out of cookie cutter treatments these days (lawsuits are a *****), that they won't dare prescribe something to someone who isn't on their death bed.