Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Sirt food diet

2»

Replies

  • OishiiOishii Posts: 2,629Member Member Posts: 2,629Member Member
    Thank you for all the well-thought-out answers.

    I don't back this diet in any way (though it sounds pretty yummy!), but I have to say it's thoroughly naive to think that if something worked well we'd all know about it. What happened with fat? It was unnecessarily condemned while research showing potential problems with sugar and carbs was ignored. I suspect that plenty of forces would be busy trying to discredit anything that would end obesity forever.
  • OishiiOishii Posts: 2,629Member Member Posts: 2,629Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    Oishii wrote: »
    I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!

    I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.

    There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
    1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
    2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
    3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
    4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.

    1) Seems the easiest explanation, but would be strange to be doing it almost consistently, rather than sometimes over estimating and sometimes underestimating. I weigh at home, but I guess when I have to.

    2) taking place over years, so not this.

    3) I use a Fitbit, but it doesn't know what I'm carrying (sometimes a toddler) or pushing, so this may be the greatest factor. However, it was still the case when my eldest had stopped being carried and before my youngest was born.

    4) This used to scare me, but all tests are normal, except iron and protein (which could suggest swelling).

    So I do wonder if the kinds of food I eat are a factor. It's a relief occasionally meeting people who lose the way I do on MFP. It's not particularly extreme as I'm quite capable of out-eating it and gaining, but I would love to know what different factors affect it.
  • Sued0nimSued0nim Posts: 17,504Member Member Posts: 17,504Member Member
    Oishii wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    Oishii wrote: »
    I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!

    I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.

    There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
    1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
    2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
    3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
    4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.

    1) Seems the easiest explanation, but would be strange to be doing it almost consistently, rather than sometimes over estimating and sometimes underestimating. I weigh at home, but I guess when I have to.

    2) taking place over years, so not this.

    3) I use a Fitbit, but it doesn't know what I'm carrying (sometimes a toddler) or pushing, so this may be the greatest factor. However, it was still the case when my eldest had stopped being carried and before my youngest was born.

    4) This used to scare me, but all tests are normal, except iron and protein (which could suggest swelling).

    So I do wonder if the kinds of food I eat are a factor. It's a relief occasionally meeting people who lose the way I do on MFP. It's not particularly extreme as I'm quite capable of out-eating it and gaining, but I would love to know what different factors affect it.

    Re 3 ..my Fitbit underestimates my TDEE which is possibly because for my age and gender I have a greater muscle mass than expected at my weight ..remember it also works on a formula ..if you understand that it underestimates then you need to eat more than it estimates...in maintenance I consume 1500-2000 calories more per week than the MFP allowance with Fitbit adjustments
  • booksandchocolate12booksandchocolate12 Posts: 1,738Member Member Posts: 1,738Member Member
    Dark chocolate and coffee? SMH - I should look like I have an eating disorder by now then.

    You and me both! :D
  • OishiiOishii Posts: 2,629Member Member Posts: 2,629Member Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Oishii wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    Oishii wrote: »
    I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!

    I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.

    There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
    1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
    2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
    3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
    4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.

    1) Seems the easiest explanation, but would be strange to be doing it almost consistently, rather than sometimes over estimating and sometimes underestimating. I weigh at home, but I guess when I have to.

    2) taking place over years, so not this.

    3) I use a Fitbit, but it doesn't know what I'm carrying (sometimes a toddler) or pushing, so this may be the greatest factor. However, it was still the case when my eldest had stopped being carried and before my youngest was born.

    4) This used to scare me, but all tests are normal, except iron and protein (which could suggest swelling).

    So I do wonder if the kinds of food I eat are a factor. It's a relief occasionally meeting people who lose the way I do on MFP. It's not particularly extreme as I'm quite capable of out-eating it and gaining, but I would love to know what different factors affect it.

    Re 3 ..my Fitbit underestimates my TDEE which is possibly because for my age and gender I have a greater muscle mass than expected at my weight ..remember it also works on a formula ..if you understand that it underestimates then you need to eat more than it estimates...in maintenance I consume 1500-2000 calories more per week than the MFP allowance with Fitbit adjustments

    Now that Fitbit has a gain option when I eventually get to my goal weight again I'll probably set it on that.

    I know what to do about the mismatch, but I'm still interested in why and I don't think it's muscle mass in my case.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    Oishii wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Oishii wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    Oishii wrote: »
    I put this in the Nutritional Debate category for a reason: i'm not asking for advice. Therefore, please don't try giving me advice!

    I lose weight faster than I 'should' according to any calculator, so I am always fascinated by any research that might suggest a reason why (the obvious answer is that I log too many calories, but that goes against all research of people's logging, so I am always open to other possibilities). The first seven days of this diet are clearly a success because you eat very little, but what interests me is the notion of 'sirt' foods. Having been on mfp for years, I know there are some very knowledgeable people on here and I would love to know their opinions of the mechanism described.

    There are a number of reasons to lose faster than you should.
    1. You are logging calorie counts of foods higher than they are. Potential reasons for this include estimating servings as larger than they are, or if using a scale, possibly having it malfunction and weighing things as heavier than they are. Other potential errors in this category could include using the entry for an item cooked, but weighing it raw.
    2. Water weight. Initial weight loss often comes from water, including water lost by lowering glycogen stores. This removes weight faster expected because removing glucose from the body removes more water weight than removing triglycerides and fatty acids that draw less water out when leaving the body. Such factors would only tend to happen initially, and less likely if loss is sustained at a faster than expected pace.
    3. Higher TDEE than projected. This could include several things, such as thinking one is sedentary, but being a pacer or other habit such that a person takes thousands of steps more than expected. One dietitian lecturer I listened to noted this pacing habit in one of her students and it turned out that his pacing while studying meant he was going through far more 10,000 steps above the expectation for his life style. The student was potentially burning a 1,000 calories or more than his projections. People who fidget and twitch also fall into this category.
    4. Higher BMR than normal. This would technically also raise TDEE, but honestly, the chances of this are rare. Most people with BMR's that are significantly above baseline have other major medical issues that are far more noticeable than the actual high calorie burn. Lizzie Velásquez is an example individual. Her metabolism is estimated at I believe 4,700 kcal / day because of issues. More noticeable than her calorie count is things like blindness in one eye, skin conditions, and other health issues from having a high, inefficient metabolism.

    1) Seems the easiest explanation, but would be strange to be doing it almost consistently, rather than sometimes over estimating and sometimes underestimating. I weigh at home, but I guess when I have to.

    2) taking place over years, so not this.

    3) I use a Fitbit, but it doesn't know what I'm carrying (sometimes a toddler) or pushing, so this may be the greatest factor. However, it was still the case when my eldest had stopped being carried and before my youngest was born.

    4) This used to scare me, but all tests are normal, except iron and protein (which could suggest swelling).

    So I do wonder if the kinds of food I eat are a factor. It's a relief occasionally meeting people who lose the way I do on MFP. It's not particularly extreme as I'm quite capable of out-eating it and gaining, but I would love to know what different factors affect it.

    Re 3 ..my Fitbit underestimates my TDEE which is possibly because for my age and gender I have a greater muscle mass than expected at my weight ..remember it also works on a formula ..if you understand that it underestimates then you need to eat more than it estimates...in maintenance I consume 1500-2000 calories more per week than the MFP allowance with Fitbit adjustments

    Now that Fitbit has a gain option when I eventually get to my goal weight again I'll probably set it on that.

    I know what to do about the mismatch, but I'm still interested in why and I don't think it's muscle mass in my case.

    There are ways to get your RMR (almost the same as your BMR) tested.
  • V_Keto_VV_Keto_V Posts: 342Member Member Posts: 342Member Member
    Interesting point though, there are drugs in the SIRT pathway inhibiting Peroxisome Proliferator Activator Receptor (PPAR) including fenofibric acids and thiazolidenediones that do help transport visceral adipose to subcutaneous adipose (far less detrimental). Not surprisingly, all of these meds are effective for lowering both triglycerides and LDL (not nearly as much as statins though) and raising HDL. In a nutshell, they change fat distribution; there is no fatloss or weight loss

    Whether food can do this seems far fetched; I'm sure ungodly quantities would have to be consumed to have a comparable effect to drugs. I'm just noticing some supplement companies trying to take this angle of a mechanism to promote fatloss products. Example: TTA & I believe another one is called Ursolic acid (some bull sh extract from Apple skin)

    This reminds me of the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin "mTOR" bull sh bodybuilders spew
    edited March 2016
  • EvgeniZyntxEvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,424Member Member Posts: 24,424Member Member
    For those interested in biology - here is one of the foundational papers:

    Sirt1 promotes fat mobilization in white adipocytes by repressing PPAR-γ
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820247/

    Note this is just biology - not a support for a SIRT diet.
    edited March 2016
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    V_Keto_V wrote: »
    Interesting point though, there are drugs in the SIRT pathway inhibiting Peroxisome Proliferator Activator Receptor (PPAR) including fenofibric acids and thiazolidenediones that do help transport visceral adipose to subcutaneous adipose (far less detrimental). Not surprisingly, all of these meds are effective for lowering both triglycerides and LDL (not nearly as much as statins though) and raising HDL. In a nutshell, they change fat distribution; there is no fatloss or weight loss

    Whether food can do this seems far fetched; I'm sure ungodly quantities would have to be consumed to have a comparable effect to drugs. I'm just noticing some supplement companies trying to take this angle of a mechanism to promote fatloss products. Example: TTA & I believe another one is called Ursolic acid (some bull sh extract from Apple skin)

    This reminds me of the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin "mTOR" bull sh bodybuilders spew

    Reminds of mTOR in the sense that it is a real thing but nothing anyone's going to manipulate much via diet or drug yet, particularly not to magically become jacked?
  • V_Keto_VV_Keto_V Posts: 342Member Member Posts: 342Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    V_Keto_V wrote: »
    Interesting point though, there are drugs in the SIRT pathway inhibiting Peroxisome Proliferator Activator Receptor (PPAR) including fenofibric acids and thiazolidenediones that do help transport visceral adipose to subcutaneous adipose (far less detrimental). Not surprisingly, all of these meds are effective for lowering both triglycerides and LDL (not nearly as much as statins though) and raising HDL. In a nutshell, they change fat distribution; there is no fatloss or weight loss

    Whether food can do this seems far fetched; I'm sure ungodly quantities would have to be consumed to have a comparable effect to drugs. I'm just noticing some supplement companies trying to take this angle of a mechanism to promote fatloss products. Example: TTA & I believe another one is called Ursolic acid (some bull sh extract from Apple skin)

    This reminds me of the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin "mTOR" bull sh bodybuilders spew

    Reminds of mTOR in the sense that it is a real thing but nothing anyone's going to manipulate much via diet or drug yet, particularly not to magically become jacked?
    Yep, mTOR inhibiting drugs exist, diet manipulation not so
Sign In or Register to comment.