Of refeeds and diet breaks
Options
Replies
-
Muscle biopsy wouldn't be a good measure as glycogen storage is non-uniform distribution. Even if one area was depleted no telling if that means another is...
Some good points. And depletion here being an oversimplification because the body isn't ever going to be truly depleted. In full on ketosis the body still produces enough glycogen for day to day.With refeeds you can completely saturate glycogen in about 2-3 days by eating a buttload of easily digestible carbs and topping off stores in succeeding days. Glycogen depletion occurs when you perform aerobic and total body anaerobic exercise consistently throughout the week while keeping carb intake minimal.
You can replenish glycogen sufficiently in a single day or if you're like me and an amateur competitive eater in a single meal. My latest personal experiments show elevated glucose levels for four days after a re-feed post glycogen depletion (three days fasting).
Glycogen depletion occurs with prolonged caloric deficit and doesn't require exercise for depletion. It also requires both carbohydrate and protein intake reductions as the body can produce substantial glycogen levels from gluconeogensis. My latest personal experiments also show elevated glycogen levels can be maintained on a protein/fat only re-feed for at least three days post glycogen depletion (five days fasting).
Yes, you can replenish glycogen in one day, but the period of not eating slowly dips into liver glycogen, and that period of not eating is sleep. Therefore, you'd have to top it off in the days succeeding day 1.
Liver glycogen depletion occurs with a prolonged caloric deficit. Muscle glycogen doesn't follow that rule. It exists to live for fueling the muscle groups where they reside. Using extended fasting as an example, if you needed to sprint for your life (for whatever reason you want to use), muscle glycogen (and ATP) is used in that process to run like hell.
Gluconeogenesis can replete muscle glycogen in about 18-24 hours after those stores have been used, so to consistently deplete them in preparation for a refeed, you would have to consistently use them. Gluconeogenesis can use any substrate that can be broken down to create carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen molecules.
As for measuring glycogen levels, unless you're taking muscle biopsies and measuring them in a lab, glucose levels only indicate free-floating glucose in the blood, which is not indicative of storage capacity.
For the purposes of a carb refeed, aside from leptin/hormonal regulation, is if you're following CKD, you want to be glycogen depleted from a total body perspective to prime the muscles for an anabolic response to stimulus and that glucose/insulin spike is what's going to be the catalyst for that.
But I'll bite.. what experiments are you running? What's your hypothesis, method, and data from the results you've seen?
But muscular stores run out a bit quicker than you suggest and they are replenished from the body's stores - as mentioned mainly from the liver. Many other energy substrates can be directly consumed such as with the lactic acid shuffle. Cortisol and lactic acid aren't a useless byproduct...
For the experiments mentioned, I was merely testing the ability of protein/fat meals to replenish glycogen stores. In my prior experiments I had a lot of people say gluconeogenesis can't occur to sufficient quantities to replenish stores.
So I fasted for three days, did a carbohydrate re-feed, measured fasting glucose for 5 fasting days to establish a baseline, did a protein/fat only re-feed, then measured glucose over a 4 day fasting period. Crazy enough fasting glucose levels go up (mine around 105 mg/dL on fasted states). While the body is fasted insulin secretion is suppressed to allow the body to transport glycogen stores. Just didn't think it'd be that high... So when it drops below baseline levels I know I am running out of stores. A week long fast will put me at 50 mg/dL.
I do a lot on personal experimentation on cholesterol, fasting glucose, BMR, ketosis, body composition, etc. But that's another story...
Right. Muscle glycogen never gets completely depleted and some do get used upon moderately intense exertion, and protein and fat are sufficient enough to restore muscle glycogen, you’re completely correct, but for those same reasons that they’re effectively constant as they’re replenished by gng, they exist in the muscle to fuel anaerobic activity. The point of glycogen depleting exercise is to use up as much glycogen as possible, typically more than natural replenishment rates, and super compensate glycogen stores.. which in this case, carbs are more effective since they bypass the rate of gng because pure glucose can readily be converted directly to glycogen in the liver.
In ketosis, insulin is suppressed, as you stated, but that also means glucose is spared for parts of the the brain and cells that cannot use ketones or fatty acids as fuel, so in the case of early stages of starvation ketosis (evidenced by extended fasting), gng ramps up to provide glucose for them. When bhb levels reach a high enough blood level, they actually stimulate insulin to inhibit lipolysis for the body to get rid of excess ketones and prevent metabolic acidosis. That insulin surge will incidentally shuttle glucose where it needs to go, either in muscle as glycogen or into fat cells, resultantly dropping blood glucose readings. But circulating blood glucose is not a direct measurement of stored muscle glycogen. I don’t see how it could be without taking a sample of muscle and measuring it in a lab.
All that said, I’m not sure if you’re part of the ketogains or optimising nutrition groups on fb, but you have a pretty good grasp of it for the most part. If you want more background knowledge on ketosis and general physiological responses to substrates read Cahill and Frayn’s work. It’s pretty fascinating. And if you want to use keto for body composition, read Lyle’s book. As far as cholesterol goes, Dave Feldman is pretty much the current low carb/keto experimenter as of late, though Peter Attia is also a lipidologist who went low carb, but I haven’t heard much from him.
Fasting glucose levels during extended fasting periods is a good reflection of when stores run out. Simply put, the body is going to replenish muscle stores from organ stores until it starts running out. If the body stores enough glycogen for three days you'd expect to see elevated levels post refeed then a drop after the three day mark - which is exactly what I observed on 3 of 3 occasions so far.
Unless you want to suggest that after three days of fasting dropping glucose levels aren't a biological indicator of stores running out?
I'm suggesting that circulating blood glucose is a direct measurement of circulating blood glucose. How that translates to stored muscle glycogen depletion is completely separate. Liver glycogen freely releases glycogen for blood glucose, but skeletal muscle glycogen exists only to be used by the muscle for anaerobic activity, not released passively.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248697/
Just as a visual representation, consider that a freeway represents your blood stream, and the cars on that freeway represent blood glucose molecules. When there is little traffic on that freeway, just because there are very few cars does not mean they somehow just disappeared, rather they are stored elsewhere, and in this example, storage is either muscle glycogen or fat cells.
In terms of ketosis induced fasting metabolism on glucose, the basal insulin response due to insulin sensitivity regulates blood glucose levels so a drop in fasting glucose is merely a physiological response to keep it regulated. Hepatic glycogen freely gets depleted during fasting, and I understand what you're trying to convey, but liver glycogen is not muscle glycogen.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-595X(76)80028-X
As for direct measurement of skeletal muscle glycogen, biopsies have been the clinical gold standard of glycogen measurement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371784/
Regarding the claim you are responding to.
I've never seen where it was found that blood glycogen would be filling muscle stores if the liver also needed topping off.
And as you have mentioned, insulin needs to be up anyway for blood levels being too high.
In other words, I thought liver was given precedence over muscle stores.
Hence the reason the body prefers to keep muscle stores lower than potential during a diet, because what is eaten goes first to liver, then to muscles stores while also being used for energy needs right then.
Hence the reason coming out of a diet usually has water weight increase for this specific reason - potential stores are topped off again.
And of course a slight twist to this in keto, but is muscle stores ever given preference over liver?
Seems like bad survival mechanism.0 -
Muscle biopsy wouldn't be a good measure as glycogen storage is non-uniform distribution. Even if one area was depleted no telling if that means another is...
Some good points. And depletion here being an oversimplification because the body isn't ever going to be truly depleted. In full on ketosis the body still produces enough glycogen for day to day.With refeeds you can completely saturate glycogen in about 2-3 days by eating a buttload of easily digestible carbs and topping off stores in succeeding days. Glycogen depletion occurs when you perform aerobic and total body anaerobic exercise consistently throughout the week while keeping carb intake minimal.
You can replenish glycogen sufficiently in a single day or if you're like me and an amateur competitive eater in a single meal. My latest personal experiments show elevated glucose levels for four days after a re-feed post glycogen depletion (three days fasting).
Glycogen depletion occurs with prolonged caloric deficit and doesn't require exercise for depletion. It also requires both carbohydrate and protein intake reductions as the body can produce substantial glycogen levels from gluconeogensis. My latest personal experiments also show elevated glycogen levels can be maintained on a protein/fat only re-feed for at least three days post glycogen depletion (five days fasting).
Yes, you can replenish glycogen in one day, but the period of not eating slowly dips into liver glycogen, and that period of not eating is sleep. Therefore, you'd have to top it off in the days succeeding day 1.
Liver glycogen depletion occurs with a prolonged caloric deficit. Muscle glycogen doesn't follow that rule. It exists to live for fueling the muscle groups where they reside. Using extended fasting as an example, if you needed to sprint for your life (for whatever reason you want to use), muscle glycogen (and ATP) is used in that process to run like hell.
Gluconeogenesis can replete muscle glycogen in about 18-24 hours after those stores have been used, so to consistently deplete them in preparation for a refeed, you would have to consistently use them. Gluconeogenesis can use any substrate that can be broken down to create carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen molecules.
As for measuring glycogen levels, unless you're taking muscle biopsies and measuring them in a lab, glucose levels only indicate free-floating glucose in the blood, which is not indicative of storage capacity.
For the purposes of a carb refeed, aside from leptin/hormonal regulation, is if you're following CKD, you want to be glycogen depleted from a total body perspective to prime the muscles for an anabolic response to stimulus and that glucose/insulin spike is what's going to be the catalyst for that.
But I'll bite.. what experiments are you running? What's your hypothesis, method, and data from the results you've seen?
But muscular stores run out a bit quicker than you suggest and they are replenished from the body's stores - as mentioned mainly from the liver. Many other energy substrates can be directly consumed such as with the lactic acid shuffle. Cortisol and lactic acid aren't a useless byproduct...
For the experiments mentioned, I was merely testing the ability of protein/fat meals to replenish glycogen stores. In my prior experiments I had a lot of people say gluconeogenesis can't occur to sufficient quantities to replenish stores.
So I fasted for three days, did a carbohydrate re-feed, measured fasting glucose for 5 fasting days to establish a baseline, did a protein/fat only re-feed, then measured glucose over a 4 day fasting period. Crazy enough fasting glucose levels go up (mine around 105 mg/dL on fasted states). While the body is fasted insulin secretion is suppressed to allow the body to transport glycogen stores. Just didn't think it'd be that high... So when it drops below baseline levels I know I am running out of stores. A week long fast will put me at 50 mg/dL.
I do a lot on personal experimentation on cholesterol, fasting glucose, BMR, ketosis, body composition, etc. But that's another story...
Right. Muscle glycogen never gets completely depleted and some do get used upon moderately intense exertion, and protein and fat are sufficient enough to restore muscle glycogen, you’re completely correct, but for those same reasons that they’re effectively constant as they’re replenished by gng, they exist in the muscle to fuel anaerobic activity. The point of glycogen depleting exercise is to use up as much glycogen as possible, typically more than natural replenishment rates, and super compensate glycogen stores.. which in this case, carbs are more effective since they bypass the rate of gng because pure glucose can readily be converted directly to glycogen in the liver.
In ketosis, insulin is suppressed, as you stated, but that also means glucose is spared for parts of the the brain and cells that cannot use ketones or fatty acids as fuel, so in the case of early stages of starvation ketosis (evidenced by extended fasting), gng ramps up to provide glucose for them. When bhb levels reach a high enough blood level, they actually stimulate insulin to inhibit lipolysis for the body to get rid of excess ketones and prevent metabolic acidosis. That insulin surge will incidentally shuttle glucose where it needs to go, either in muscle as glycogen or into fat cells, resultantly dropping blood glucose readings. But circulating blood glucose is not a direct measurement of stored muscle glycogen. I don’t see how it could be without taking a sample of muscle and measuring it in a lab.
All that said, I’m not sure if you’re part of the ketogains or optimising nutrition groups on fb, but you have a pretty good grasp of it for the most part. If you want more background knowledge on ketosis and general physiological responses to substrates read Cahill and Frayn’s work. It’s pretty fascinating. And if you want to use keto for body composition, read Lyle’s book. As far as cholesterol goes, Dave Feldman is pretty much the current low carb/keto experimenter as of late, though Peter Attia is also a lipidologist who went low carb, but I haven’t heard much from him.
Fasting glucose levels during extended fasting periods is a good reflection of when stores run out. Simply put, the body is going to replenish muscle stores from organ stores until it starts running out. If the body stores enough glycogen for three days you'd expect to see elevated levels post refeed then a drop after the three day mark - which is exactly what I observed on 3 of 3 occasions so far.
Unless you want to suggest that after three days of fasting dropping glucose levels aren't a biological indicator of stores running out?
I'm suggesting that circulating blood glucose is a direct measurement of circulating blood glucose. How that translates to stored muscle glycogen depletion is completely separate. Liver glycogen freely releases glycogen for blood glucose, but skeletal muscle glycogen exists only to be used by the muscle for anaerobic activity, not released passively.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248697/
Just as a visual representation, consider that a freeway represents your blood stream, and the cars on that freeway represent blood glucose molecules. When there is little traffic on that freeway, just because there are very few cars does not mean they somehow just disappeared, rather they are stored elsewhere, and in this example, storage is either muscle glycogen or fat cells.
In terms of ketosis induced fasting metabolism on glucose, the basal insulin response due to insulin sensitivity regulates blood glucose levels so a drop in fasting glucose is merely a physiological response to keep it regulated. Hepatic glycogen freely gets depleted during fasting, and I understand what you're trying to convey, but liver glycogen is not muscle glycogen.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-595X(76)80028-X
As for direct measurement of skeletal muscle glycogen, biopsies have been the clinical gold standard of glycogen measurement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371784/
You're missing the point that this is during a completely fasted state in which the body is transporting all reserves.
So on that highway imagine no gas stations are open but you have several containers of gas in your trunk. As you run out your car either stops, or you refill the tank with your stores. If you were monitoring your car's fuel lines you can safely assume once the gas started drizzling in you were unable to refill it with stores...
Are you trying to state the body won't deplete reserves during long periods of fasting? Are you suggesting fasting glucose drops to 50 mg/dL with reserves still available?
I linked the Cahill starvation study in my response for you to read and understand why I'm saying what I'm saying. Completely fasted state for days = starvation.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-595X(76)80028-X
"Muscle cell glycogen appears to function as an immediate reserve source of available glucose for muscle cells. Other cells that contain small amounts use it locally, as well. As muscle cells lack glucose-6-phosphatase, which is required to pass glucose into the blood, the glycogen they store is available solely for internal use and is not shared with other cells. This is in contrast to liver cells, which, on demand, readily do break down their stored glycogen into glucose and send it through the blood stream as fuel for other organs.[14]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen#Muscle
In your metaphor, those gas containers are fat stores, and to an extent muscle and organ protein act as vessels to break down protein for amino activity. Muscle glycogen is a one way process, meaning it doesn't simply leak out in the face of nutrient deprivation but some of it does get used during the period of normal activity.
Metabolism in ketosis is a survival mechanism to spare as much organ breakdown as possible, primarily the important organs being the brain and life organs.
To @heybales post, you're correct that liver glycogen readily gets preference over muscle at any time, and muscle glycogen isn't saturated to capacity during a deficit or carbohydrate restriction. Reserves are generally enough for limited amounts of anaerobic activity and gluconeogenesis/glycogenesis naturally restores reserve levels.
Either we're all arguing the same thing said differently, or I'm completely off base, but my intention is to distinguish the difference between how muscle glycogen is stored and expended and how circulating blood glucose is not a direct measurement of muscle glycogen stores.4 -
Muscle biopsy wouldn't be a good measure as glycogen storage is non-uniform distribution. Even if one area was depleted no telling if that means another is...
Some good points. And depletion here being an oversimplification because the body isn't ever going to be truly depleted. In full on ketosis the body still produces enough glycogen for day to day.With refeeds you can completely saturate glycogen in about 2-3 days by eating a buttload of easily digestible carbs and topping off stores in succeeding days. Glycogen depletion occurs when you perform aerobic and total body anaerobic exercise consistently throughout the week while keeping carb intake minimal.
You can replenish glycogen sufficiently in a single day or if you're like me and an amateur competitive eater in a single meal. My latest personal experiments show elevated glucose levels for four days after a re-feed post glycogen depletion (three days fasting).
Glycogen depletion occurs with prolonged caloric deficit and doesn't require exercise for depletion. It also requires both carbohydrate and protein intake reductions as the body can produce substantial glycogen levels from gluconeogensis. My latest personal experiments also show elevated glycogen levels can be maintained on a protein/fat only re-feed for at least three days post glycogen depletion (five days fasting).
Yes, you can replenish glycogen in one day, but the period of not eating slowly dips into liver glycogen, and that period of not eating is sleep. Therefore, you'd have to top it off in the days succeeding day 1.
Liver glycogen depletion occurs with a prolonged caloric deficit. Muscle glycogen doesn't follow that rule. It exists to live for fueling the muscle groups where they reside. Using extended fasting as an example, if you needed to sprint for your life (for whatever reason you want to use), muscle glycogen (and ATP) is used in that process to run like hell.
Gluconeogenesis can replete muscle glycogen in about 18-24 hours after those stores have been used, so to consistently deplete them in preparation for a refeed, you would have to consistently use them. Gluconeogenesis can use any substrate that can be broken down to create carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen molecules.
As for measuring glycogen levels, unless you're taking muscle biopsies and measuring them in a lab, glucose levels only indicate free-floating glucose in the blood, which is not indicative of storage capacity.
For the purposes of a carb refeed, aside from leptin/hormonal regulation, is if you're following CKD, you want to be glycogen depleted from a total body perspective to prime the muscles for an anabolic response to stimulus and that glucose/insulin spike is what's going to be the catalyst for that.
But I'll bite.. what experiments are you running? What's your hypothesis, method, and data from the results you've seen?
But muscular stores run out a bit quicker than you suggest and they are replenished from the body's stores - as mentioned mainly from the liver. Many other energy substrates can be directly consumed such as with the lactic acid shuffle. Cortisol and lactic acid aren't a useless byproduct...
For the experiments mentioned, I was merely testing the ability of protein/fat meals to replenish glycogen stores. In my prior experiments I had a lot of people say gluconeogenesis can't occur to sufficient quantities to replenish stores.
So I fasted for three days, did a carbohydrate re-feed, measured fasting glucose for 5 fasting days to establish a baseline, did a protein/fat only re-feed, then measured glucose over a 4 day fasting period. Crazy enough fasting glucose levels go up (mine around 105 mg/dL on fasted states). While the body is fasted insulin secretion is suppressed to allow the body to transport glycogen stores. Just didn't think it'd be that high... So when it drops below baseline levels I know I am running out of stores. A week long fast will put me at 50 mg/dL.
I do a lot on personal experimentation on cholesterol, fasting glucose, BMR, ketosis, body composition, etc. But that's another story...
Right. Muscle glycogen never gets completely depleted and some do get used upon moderately intense exertion, and protein and fat are sufficient enough to restore muscle glycogen, you’re completely correct, but for those same reasons that they’re effectively constant as they’re replenished by gng, they exist in the muscle to fuel anaerobic activity. The point of glycogen depleting exercise is to use up as much glycogen as possible, typically more than natural replenishment rates, and super compensate glycogen stores.. which in this case, carbs are more effective since they bypass the rate of gng because pure glucose can readily be converted directly to glycogen in the liver.
In ketosis, insulin is suppressed, as you stated, but that also means glucose is spared for parts of the the brain and cells that cannot use ketones or fatty acids as fuel, so in the case of early stages of starvation ketosis (evidenced by extended fasting), gng ramps up to provide glucose for them. When bhb levels reach a high enough blood level, they actually stimulate insulin to inhibit lipolysis for the body to get rid of excess ketones and prevent metabolic acidosis. That insulin surge will incidentally shuttle glucose where it needs to go, either in muscle as glycogen or into fat cells, resultantly dropping blood glucose readings. But circulating blood glucose is not a direct measurement of stored muscle glycogen. I don’t see how it could be without taking a sample of muscle and measuring it in a lab.
All that said, I’m not sure if you’re part of the ketogains or optimising nutrition groups on fb, but you have a pretty good grasp of it for the most part. If you want more background knowledge on ketosis and general physiological responses to substrates read Cahill and Frayn’s work. It’s pretty fascinating. And if you want to use keto for body composition, read Lyle’s book. As far as cholesterol goes, Dave Feldman is pretty much the current low carb/keto experimenter as of late, though Peter Attia is also a lipidologist who went low carb, but I haven’t heard much from him.
Fasting glucose levels during extended fasting periods is a good reflection of when stores run out. Simply put, the body is going to replenish muscle stores from organ stores until it starts running out. If the body stores enough glycogen for three days you'd expect to see elevated levels post refeed then a drop after the three day mark - which is exactly what I observed on 3 of 3 occasions so far.
Unless you want to suggest that after three days of fasting dropping glucose levels aren't a biological indicator of stores running out?
I'm suggesting that circulating blood glucose is a direct measurement of circulating blood glucose. How that translates to stored muscle glycogen depletion is completely separate. Liver glycogen freely releases glycogen for blood glucose, but skeletal muscle glycogen exists only to be used by the muscle for anaerobic activity, not released passively.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3248697/
Just as a visual representation, consider that a freeway represents your blood stream, and the cars on that freeway represent blood glucose molecules. When there is little traffic on that freeway, just because there are very few cars does not mean they somehow just disappeared, rather they are stored elsewhere, and in this example, storage is either muscle glycogen or fat cells.
In terms of ketosis induced fasting metabolism on glucose, the basal insulin response due to insulin sensitivity regulates blood glucose levels so a drop in fasting glucose is merely a physiological response to keep it regulated. Hepatic glycogen freely gets depleted during fasting, and I understand what you're trying to convey, but liver glycogen is not muscle glycogen.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-595X(76)80028-X
As for direct measurement of skeletal muscle glycogen, biopsies have been the clinical gold standard of glycogen measurement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371784/
You're missing the point that this is during a completely fasted state in which the body is transporting all reserves.
So on that highway imagine no gas stations are open but you have several containers of gas in your trunk. As you run out your car either stops, or you refill the tank with your stores. If you were monitoring your car's fuel lines you can safely assume once the gas started drizzling in you were unable to refill it with stores...
Are you trying to state the body won't deplete reserves during long periods of fasting? Are you suggesting fasting glucose drops to 50 mg/dL with reserves still available?
I linked the Cahill starvation study in my response for you to read and understand why I'm saying what I'm saying. Completely fasted state for days = starvation.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-595X(76)80028-X
"Muscle cell glycogen appears to function as an immediate reserve source of available glucose for muscle cells. Other cells that contain small amounts use it locally, as well. As muscle cells lack glucose-6-phosphatase, which is required to pass glucose into the blood, the glycogen they store is available solely for internal use and is not shared with other cells. This is in contrast to liver cells, which, on demand, readily do break down their stored glycogen into glucose and send it through the blood stream as fuel for other organs.[14]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen#Muscle
In your metaphor, those gas containers are fat stores, and to an extent muscle and organ protein act as vessels to break down protein for amino activity. Muscle glycogen is a one way process, meaning it doesn't simply leak out in the face of nutrient deprivation but some of it does get used during the period of normal activity.
Metabolism in ketosis is a survival mechanism to spare as much organ breakdown as possible, primarily the important organs being the brain and life organs.
To @heybales post, you're correct that liver glycogen readily gets preference over muscle at any time, and muscle glycogen isn't saturated to capacity during a deficit or carbohydrate restriction. Reserves are generally enough for limited amounts of anaerobic activity and gluconeogenesis/glycogenesis naturally restores reserve levels.
Either we're all arguing the same thing said differently, or I'm completely off base, but my intention is to distinguish the difference between how muscle glycogen is stored and expended and how circulating blood glucose is not a direct measurement of muscle glycogen stores.
And along those lines... As a type 1 diabetic, I can absolutely attest that my blood sugar will plummet to 50 or below, without actually bothering to tap into its reserves. Those reserves will kick in after time, but in people like me, it's not an automatic response. The insulin has done such a fantastic job of doing its job, that it's too fast a reaction for the alpha cells to release glucagon to tell the liver to release the glycogen.
In me, it becomes more challenging, for example, because I have no alpha cell response. So my liver will kick out the glycogen *late* after it's realized that OH HAI WE HAVE A THING THAT IS CREATING EPINEPHRINE AND WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THAT. Which is why I'll get stuck with a rebound high. Because the liver doesn't realize that the event has passed, and the glycogen isn't need anymore.
Now, conversely, and perhaps in more of a "it all can happen" sort of thing, I will get stuck in these cycles where, since my default is to have pretty low glycogen stores, I will not be able to break out of a cycle of hypos. So then, I'll have these lows, treat them, and have another serious low the next day.4 -
*waves again*
Gawd, not even managing to keep up with my own thread! Been busy, busy, busy going into the city to identify bird bones for the past week and a half. Last day today, yay!!! Then once that data is entered, it's time to write. But I should have a bit more online time as of next week, because I won't have the up to 3 hours of travel on top of my normal work hours.7 -
collectingblues wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I've finally read nearly all of this thread. But I need people to dumb things down for me.
@Nony_Mouse Why are you now doing "moderately low carb"? I must admit I cringe at the thought of one of my heroes going the low carb cult route, but knowing you, you will have a good reason.
I've always eaten lowish carb (around 100-120) at a deficit, not because I think there's any magic in it, just because it's easier for me to create and sustain a deficit that way. Even at maintenance 150g a day would be the norm for me most of the time. I'm all about the protein, and the things I eat tend to be higher fat (I'm looking at you, avocado and halloumi, oh and dark choc pb in my shakes!), so by the time those two things are in there's not a lot of room left for carbs, and they're the thing I care least about. Nothing cultish about it, just basic maths. I just don't shout it from the rooftops that I'm technically low carb (if you subscribe to that meaning lower than 150g), because it's just the way I eat. Dropped that a little lower than normal the past few days simply to shift some of the unholy amount of water weight I was lugging around. Purely psychological, I know it isn't fat weight.
So there you go, I've always been moderately low carb, you just didn't know it
I've been doing the same thing, Nony. The dietitian had me doing a moderate low carb during the pre-race taper, to try to curb that taper weight gain and keep my brain from freaking out. I actually enjoyed it, and found it easier to do when I was focusing on protein more, so it seems to have stuck.
*slowly raises hand* I'm also low to moderate carb right now, just because that's how the macros land when I focus on protein. I would actually prefer to be higher carb since I'm ramping up my cycling and running, but I seem to be unconsciously reaching for the protein, fat and fiber trifecta.
Me, too. I've been really good at managing my macros for the last couple of months for roughly a 1/3 for each. My exercise has been crap for the last few weeks (though still getting steps) because of the 15 hour work days. But I keeping on track with what I can. I keep lots of food in my office, so even when there are emergency meetings, I can still manage my nutrition--at least the macros.1 -
I'll interject too the studies that show when you enter exercising state, despite increase glucose usage, the required amount is not all pulled from muscle stores, blood sugar is used too.
This is the misunderstanding at the start of aerobic workouts for the first 10-30 min depending on how well trained you are.
Blood sugar contributes a decent initial amount, lowering the longer you go and using the muscle stores more.
At the same time, the ratio of fat/carbs as source starts higher glucose then it'll end up later, again depending on training and warmup.
So double whammy to liver stores at the start of exercise. Even if keto adapted. Not a huge amount, but a difference.3 -
Right. I think we can at least agree that glucose is readily available fuel for immediate use by whatever system needs it.
Glycogen as a storage bundle of glucose, will be freely released from the liver to provide more glucose as needs are increased. During intense glycolytic activity muscle glycogen provides glucose for muscles.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22417/
There is never a point in time where we don’t have blood glucose circulation otherwise we’d die.4 -
And perhaps a slightly more digestible version of metabolism during starvation:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/17710895
Full text:
Bill Lagakos posted
Glucose dynamics during prolonged fasts
This is a somewhat complicated level of metabolism. Which tissues are producing what & how much, what are they burning & how much, etc., etc...
After a few weeks, things begin to level out -- we'll pick it up there. Much of this is from a class I TA'd for in grad school, this book, and all the Cahill studies.
"The rate of glucose use at this time is around 90-100 g per day [remember, this is starvation, so all of that glucose comes from gluconeogenesis]. Of that, about 40 g is recycled via the Cori and glucose-alanine cycles and the remainder is 'new' glucose, ~18 g from glycerol and ~45 g from amino acids."
http://caloriesproper.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Screenshot-2018-03-16-at-3.43.02-PM.png
"To maintain this rate of proteolysis (supplying amino acids for gluconeogenesis) would still require the breakdown of about 100 g protein (amino acids) per day."
"The glucose-sparing effect of fat-derived fuels" should more accurately be called "the muscle-sparing effect of fat-derived fuels."
http://caloriesproper.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Screenshot-2018-03-16-at-3.40.13-PM.png
"However, as ketones continue to rise (up to >5 mM), brain can use them in place of much of its glucose utilization. Brain ketone use is driven by substrate supply, but there is evidence that the ketone body transporters in brain increase during starvation. The brain still requires some glucose but it appears to restrict metabolism of most the glucose it uses via glycolysis to lactate, with very little undergoing complete oxidation to CO2 (we're really trying to "spare glucose"). Of course the glycolytic tissues continue to recycle glucose. The lactate goes back to liver for gluconeogenesis.
Most other tissues are using fatty acids or ketones except skeletal muscle, which uses predominantly fatty acids but we don’t know why – perhaps it is to spare ketones for the brain (although circulating ketone levels don't further increase).
Plasma glucose use has now decreased to about 1-2 g per hour, half for glycolysis and half for oxidation to CO2, ie, 24 g oxidized per day.
The high levels of ketone bodies can be considered as a water-soluble fuel for the brain to use in place of glucose. However, they come with a price, they are strong acids and produce a metabolic "starvation acidosis." They are also freely filtered in the kidney; this means that as ketones, rise they will be lost in the urine (a loss of energy in starvation = no bueno) and this must be buffered. Remember we excrete such strong acids as ammonium salts and the ammonia comes from glutamine metabolism in the kidney. Glutamine arises from the extensive proteolysis in muscle and is utilized by the kidney to produce ammonia, bicarbonate, and glucose. Thus renal gluconeogeneis increases in long term starvation and is directly related to the control of acidosis. It is often stated that in prolonged starvation, kidney gluconeogenesis is more important than that in liver; however, by this time the rate of gluconeogenesis in liver has decreased considerably. In keeping with this switch in gluconeogenesis tissue there is a change in nitrogen excretion. Initially during starvation urea excretion increases (reflecting the increased protein breakdown to provide gluconeogenic substrate) but then urea decreases and ammonia excretion increases as ketoacidosis develops. In long-term starvation urea only accounts for about 1 g of nitrogen excreted per day while ammonia accounts for >3 g (compared to 15 g and 1 g respectively at day one of starvation)."
TO BE CONTINUED!1 -
Right. I think we can at least agree that glucose is readily available fuel for immediate use by whatever system needs it.
Glycogen as a storage bundle of glucose, will be freely released from the liver to provide more glucose as needs are increased. During intense glycolytic activity muscle glycogen provides glucose for muscles.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22417/
There is never a point in time where we don’t have blood glucose circulation otherwise we’d die.
Yep, agree with all of that.
I think the part that is in question, is a drop (like I observed in the noted fasted measurements) an indicator of glycogen store depletion? Outside of biopsy, wouldn't that over ketone presence be a better indicator of liver glycogen levels? If not, what do you think qualifies as a non-invasive quantification?
It really depends. Were those home meters, or laboratory/hospital meters?
Home meters can be up to 15 or 20 percent off. That makes your 85 and your 75 about equal, with possibly a slight dip at 120 hours from the 75 to 60, but even that 60 is within 15 percent of the 75.
From a purely scientific standpoint, I'd say that you were fairly stable, which indicates nothing beyond that you are human with a functional pancreas and functional alpha and beta cells.8 -
collectingblues wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I've finally read nearly all of this thread. But I need people to dumb things down for me.
@Nony_Mouse Why are you now doing "moderately low carb"? I must admit I cringe at the thought of one of my heroes going the low carb cult route, but knowing you, you will have a good reason.
I've always eaten lowish carb (around 100-120) at a deficit, not because I think there's any magic in it, just because it's easier for me to create and sustain a deficit that way. Even at maintenance 150g a day would be the norm for me most of the time. I'm all about the protein, and the things I eat tend to be higher fat (I'm looking at you, avocado and halloumi, oh and dark choc pb in my shakes!), so by the time those two things are in there's not a lot of room left for carbs, and they're the thing I care least about. Nothing cultish about it, just basic maths. I just don't shout it from the rooftops that I'm technically low carb (if you subscribe to that meaning lower than 150g), because it's just the way I eat. Dropped that a little lower than normal the past few days simply to shift some of the unholy amount of water weight I was lugging around. Purely psychological, I know it isn't fat weight.
So there you go, I've always been moderately low carb, you just didn't know it
I've been doing the same thing, Nony. The dietitian had me doing a moderate low carb during the pre-race taper, to try to curb that taper weight gain and keep my brain from freaking out. I actually enjoyed it, and found it easier to do when I was focusing on protein more, so it seems to have stuck.
*slowly raises hand* I'm also low to moderate carb right now, just because that's how the macros land when I focus on protein. I would actually prefer to be higher carb since I'm ramping up my cycling and running, but I seem to be unconsciously reaching for the protein, fat and fiber trifecta.
Me, too. I've been really good at managing my macros for the last couple of months for roughly a 1/3 for each. My exercise has been crap for the last few weeks (though still getting steps) because of the 15 hour work days. But I keeping on track with what I can. I keep lots of food in my office, so even when there are emergency meetings, I can still manage my nutrition--at least the macros.
I have to say I feel you on the work hours cutting into activity time
I retired last May (sing hallelujah!) but for the 14 previous years I had a 4 hour daily commute and my activity was practically nothing outside of weekends. I'm impressed you're keeping up with your steps (I think you have a more or less sedentary job in mental health counselling?) Yeah, I ended up keeping a bunch of portioned out food in my office, because toward the end there I was hitting the snack machine for potato chips and snickers bars almost on the hour. 2 -
Right. I think we can at least agree that glucose is readily available fuel for immediate use by whatever system needs it.
Glycogen as a storage bundle of glucose, will be freely released from the liver to provide more glucose as needs are increased. During intense glycolytic activity muscle glycogen provides glucose for muscles.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22417/
There is never a point in time where we don’t have blood glucose circulation otherwise we’d die.
Yep, agree with all of that.
I think the part that is in question, is a drop (like I observed in the noted fasted measurements) an indicator of glycogen store depletion? Outside of biopsy, wouldn't that over ketone presence be a better indicator of liver glycogen levels? If not, what do you think qualifies as a non-invasive quantification?
I think your fasting glucose measurements are more indicative of metabolic health and glucose utilization as opposed to measuring stores. And I think this is where the divide in our understanding came to a pause, when I assumed you were speaking to total muscle glycogen, and not liver glycogen. So, if you were talking about liver glycogen, then yes, you're correct, ketone presence would indeed qualify as a measurement of liver glycogen depletion. For non-invasive techniques, I did come across this in passing, but it still requires testing outside of just using blood glucose solely: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_anyone_have_a_protocol_to_quantify_glycogen_levels_in_liver_and_skeletal_muscles
In your case, assuming you were following a keto diet for some time prior to the carb refeed, by definition your liver glycogen would be low if producing ketones, the glucose response from the carb refeed is initially an insulin resistant response.
From Lyle's ketogenic diet book:
Insulin resistance
Although low-carbohydrate diets tend to normalize insulin and blood glucose levels in many
individuals, a little known effect is increased insulin resistance when carbohydrates are refed.
There is little research concerning the physiological effects of refeeding carbohydrates after long-
71
term ketogenic dieting although fasting has been studied to some degree. Early ketogenic diet
literature mentions a condition called ‘alloxan’ or ‘starvation diabetes’, referring to an initial
insulin resistance when carbohydrates are reintroduced to the diet following carbohydrate
restriction (2).
In brief, the initial physiological response to carbohydrate refeeding looks similar to what is
seen in Type II diabetics, namely blood sugar swings and hyperinsulinemia. This type of
response is also seen in individuals on a CKD. It should be noted that this response did not occur
universally in research, being more prevalent in those who had preexisting glucose control
problems. As well, exercise appears to affect how well or poorly the body handles carbohydrates
during refeeding.
One hypothesis for this effect was that ketones themselves interfered with insulin binding
and glucose utilization but this was shown not to be the case (3,4). In fact, ketones may actually
improve insulin binding (2). The exact reason for this ‘insulin resistance’ was not determined until
much later. The change was ultimately found to be caused by changes in enzyme levels,
especially in those enzymes involved in both fat and carbohydrate burning (5). High levels of free
fatty acid levels also affect glucose transport and utilization (6).
Long periods of time without carbohydrate consumption leads to a down regulation in the
enzymes responsible for carbohydrate burning. Additionally, high levels of free fatty acids in the
bloodstream may impair glucose transport (6).
This change occurs both in the liver (5) and in the muscle (5,7). During carbohydrate
refeeding, the body upregulates levels of these enzymes but there is a delay during which the body
may have difficulty storing and utilizing dietary carbohydrates. This delay is approximately 5
hours to upregulate liver enzyme levels and anywhere from 24-48 hours in muscle tissue (8,9).
While there is a decrease in carbohydrate oxidation in the muscle, this is accompanied by an
increase in glycogen storage (7).
These time courses for enzyme up-regulation correspond well with what is often seen in
individuals on a CKD, which is really nothing more than a ketogenic diet followed by carbohydrate
refeeding done on a weekly basis. Frequently, individuals will report the presence of urinary
ketones during the first few hours of their carb-loading period, seeming to contradict the idea that
carbohydrates always interrupt ketosis. This suggests that the liver is continuing to oxidize fat
at an accelerated rate and that ingested carbohydrates are essentially not being ‘recognized’ by
the liver.
After approximately 5 hours, when liver enzymes upregulate, urinary ketone levels
typically decrease as liver glycogen begins to refill. Another interesting aspect of carbohydrate
refeeding is that liver glycogen is not initially refilled by incoming glucose. Rather glucose is
released into the bloodstream for muscle glycogen resynthesis (especially if muscle glycogen
stores are depleted) initially, refilling liver glycogen later.
In practice, many individuals report what appears to be rebound hypoglycemia (low blood
sugar) either during the carb-up or during the first few days of eating carbohydrates when
ketogenic eating is ended, for the reasons discussed above.
Ketones themselves do not appear to alter how cells respond to insulin (4) which goes
against the popular belief that ketogenic diets somehow alter fat cells, making them more likely
to store fat when the ketogenic diet is ended. Practical experience shows this to be true, as many
72
individuals have little trouble maintaining their bodyfat levels when the ketogenic diet is stopped,
especially if their activity patterns are maintained.3 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Haven't been posting but happily keeping up with everyone's stories!
So my diet break led into the realization that I probably don't need to lose more weight, new goal = recomp. So r-e-a-l-l-y extended diet break
. I read all these posts here about you guys struggling to eat too much and thought, there's NO WAY I would have that problem! And yet here I am often having an extra snack I otherwise wouldn't have even thought about because I need a few more calories.
I guess it makes sense though. I gained weight over the years getting slowly used to a little bit more food and a little bit more food. And so in the process of losing the weight very slowly, I got used to a little bit less food and a little bit less food.
I spent a lot of the last 2 years trying to get in a deficit and not managing to, or hitting the deficit one day and then undoing it the next, so maintaining. But my mindset was always deficit. It's weird not having that in the back of my mind anymore!
I've still bumped into the same threads you respond to lol.
And welcome to the recomp club. The painstaking process of feeling like you're spinning your wheels that only becomes apparent that progress is occurring over months, as opposed to weeks.
It's a little bit jarring isn't it? Completely not feeling the need to cut anymore after doing it for so long scares a lot of people.
Yeppers, I've seen you wandering around out there in the mfp wild west!
Considering I lost 15 lbs over almost 2 years, and then another 5 lbs over the next year and a half
you'd think spinning my wheels would be old hat by now, but yeah it's weird. I'm unusually patient by nature though, so I'm sure I'll settle into the new mindset soon. It is kind of nice to step on the scale, see I'm still in my range, and know that means job well done.
I think you might have been around MFP long enough to have seen the threads in their infancy when it was a true wild west haha, but seems like nothing has changed much. At least there aren't threads making claims that peeing out white stuff is the body getting rid of fat. That thread is forever burned into memory and I think it's about 6 years old?
At least with recomp, you know that you can measure success by progressively increasing strength, new vascularity, and/or suddenly seeing muscle definition you haven't seen before if remaining around the same weight. These are objective measurements of progress. If nothing changes, well, then .. time to get some new tires (>_<)
My face literally made the "woo" expression reading this.
I believe I made many unsubtle "white substance" expulsion comments in that thread. The OP specifically used chicken fat as her example. I couldn't ignore taking the shot, so to speak.5 -
@anubis609
Thank you! I haven't had any problems in the TOM department; my only issue was feeling deprived and having a difficult time staying within my budget. I'm not having tiredness issues or mood swings or anything like that; just an increased desire to cheat and being unhappy with my limits, which is why I'm working in the diet break. And if winter would ever let go, I'm itching to start getting some walking in!
I"m a little confused on the 12-14 x current body weight recommendation. When I re-do my profile on MFP to maintain, I get 2460 calories; calcuator.net gives me 2360. But 12X271 (my current weight) = a whopping 3252 calories! That's a big jump for a mostly sedentary person, so I'm a little confused as to what to look for.
I'm definitely not even trying to explain macros to my sister right now; right now its all about getting her used to eating less than she did before. She's complained often of being breathless just walking across a parking lot and of her joints hurting and aching, so I'm working with her on diet for now; hopefully, as she loses weight, the load on her joints will ease and she'll be able to start incorporating more activity. And I do hope that the positive feedback you mention will kick in for her. She was used to eating probably close to 3,000 calories a day; a horrible diet for a woman who is 5'2" and completely sedentary! I started her out around 1700 which is a little over a lb a week deficit for her, but I'm hoping that at first, she'll lose more than that in water weight which will help to reinforce the idea that this will work. I didnt' want to start her at 0.5 lb a week because its so slow that I was afraid the progress would be discouraging for her and she'd quit - to keep her going, she needs to see the progress. And since she's just starting into the deficit, she's dealing with a hunger right now - her body and brain are used to just getting all the food they want, so they're whining; natural I know, but I'm hoping that the scale loss will help her see its completely worth it and she'll ride it out until she gets used to the lower amounts.
She was eating a lot of fast food and boxed foods such as french fries, cheese sticks, etc, so I'm working on getting her to change her diet style a little at a time. For this week, to get her started, I've worked with her on packing her lunch, trying to give her plenty of low calorie snacks such as broccoli, carrots, etc as well as protein like cottage cheese so she can spread it out through the day. I also plan to sit down with her this weekend (barring another snow storm that gets me called in for storm dispatching duty......) to plan out next week's menu for lunch and dinner so she can get used to the planning side.
IT's had a nice side benefit for me in getting me back into the groove, but I so hope this works out for her and that she keeps going despite the initial bump in getting moving and the occasional setback because her health is really in bad shape and losing weight has been proven time and again to be a help with the problems that she's dealing with. And I want her to feel good about herself again!
2 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »@anubis609
Thank you! I haven't had any problems in the TOM department; my only issue was feeling deprived and having a difficult time staying within my budget. I'm not having tiredness issues or mood swings or anything like that; just an increased desire to cheat and being unhappy with my limits, which is why I'm working in the diet break. And if winter would ever let go, I'm itching to start getting some walking in!
I"m a little confused on the 12-14 x current body weight recommendation. When I re-do my profile on MFP to maintain, I get 2460 calories; calcuator.net gives me 2360. But 12X271 (my current weight) = a whopping 3252 calories! That's a big jump for a mostly sedentary person, so I'm a little confused as to what to look for.
I'm definitely not even trying to explain macros to my sister right now; right now its all about getting her used to eating less than she did before. She's complained often of being breathless just walking across a parking lot and of her joints hurting and aching, so I'm working with her on diet for now; hopefully, as she loses weight, the load on her joints will ease and she'll be able to start incorporating more activity. And I do hope that the positive feedback you mention will kick in for her. She was used to eating probably close to 3,000 calories a day; a horrible diet for a woman who is 5'2" and completely sedentary! I started her out around 1700 which is a little over a lb a week deficit for her, but I'm hoping that at first, she'll lose more than that in water weight which will help to reinforce the idea that this will work. I didnt' want to start her at 0.5 lb a week because its so slow that I was afraid the progress would be discouraging for her and she'd quit - to keep her going, she needs to see the progress. And since she's just starting into the deficit, she's dealing with a hunger right now - her body and brain are used to just getting all the food they want, so they're whining; natural I know, but I'm hoping that the scale loss will help her see its completely worth it and she'll ride it out until she gets used to the lower amounts.
She was eating a lot of fast food and boxed foods such as french fries, cheese sticks, etc, so I'm working on getting her to change her diet style a little at a time. For this week, to get her started, I've worked with her on packing her lunch, trying to give her plenty of low calorie snacks such as broccoli, carrots, etc as well as protein like cottage cheese so she can spread it out through the day. I also plan to sit down with her this weekend (barring another snow storm that gets me called in for storm dispatching duty......) to plan out next week's menu for lunch and dinner so she can get used to the planning side.
IT's had a nice side benefit for me in getting me back into the groove, but I so hope this works out for her and that she keeps going despite the initial bump in getting moving and the occasional setback because her health is really in bad shape and losing weight has been proven time and again to be a help with the problems that she's dealing with. And I want her to feel good about herself again!
It's not too hard to imagine that a larger body of mass does require a lot of energy to sustain itself, but I understand where you're coming from. That rough estimate does get more inaccurate at either extreme of bf%, so use MFP's calculator instead. Just as a reiteration of that, I'll include an excerpt from Lyle's Women's Book:
Women, as usual, have their own specific issues related to maintenance calories. The first is that
their energy expenditure for all components of TDEE are roughly 10% below those of men. As discussed
in Chapter 10, most of this is related to differences in body composition (1). This difference is also
reflected in the calculations below and no further adjustments have to be made. There can also be slight
adjustments to TDEE based on the hormonal modifier present and detail-oriented readers may wish to
apply those. Do remember that all of these calculations are only estimates at best; no matter how close to
TDEE they come, they may still have to be adjusted over time.
Estimating RMR
The first step in calculating TDEE is to estimate RMR, the number of calories that the body burns at
complete rest. There are endless equations that have been developed over the years that range from simple
to very complicated. Since they all tend to give results within a few hundred calories of one another, I
prefer to use the simpler equations. For the most part, RMR equations have only been based around body
weight (often including age, height, gender and others) but given the importance of LBM in determining
RMR, these tend to become increasingly inaccurate for women with a very high or very low BF%.
For example, a commonly used equation for women is to multiply bodyweight by 10 cal/lb (22
cal/kg). While this is accurate within a certain range of BF%, it becomes progressively more inaccurate as
BF% goes up. For this reason, I prefer equations that take body composition into account and am
presenting a simple one that I derived myself from other, more complex, equations. It requires body weight
and some estimation of BF% so that the total amount of LBM can be calculated. I've shown the calculation
for two women of different body composition below.
RMR = (12 calories * LBM in pounds) + (2 calories *fat mass in pounds) or
RMR = (26.4 calories * LBM in kg) + (4.4 calories * fat mass in kg)
Example 1
Female at 150 lbs, 22% body fat with 117 lbs LBM and 30 lbs of fat
RMR = 150 lbs * 10 cal/lb = 1500 calories
RMR = (12*117) + (2*30) = 1404 + 60 = 1464 calories or 9.8 cal/lb
Example 2
Female at 250 lbs, 50% body fat with 125 lbs LBM and 125 lbs of fat
RMR = 250 lbs * 10 cal/lb = 2500 calories
RMR = (12*125) + (2*125) = 1750 calories or 7 cal/lb
You can see from the above calculations that while the 10 cal/lb value is very accurate for the leaner
woman it drastically over-estimates the woman with a high BF% with the actual value for RMR dropping
from 10 cal/lb to 7 cal/lb. For women who don't want to perform the above math, the following chart can
158
be used to estimate RMR from just bodyweight. Some estimate of BF% is still required but the values
under each BF% can be multiplied by total body weight to estimate RMR.
BF% 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50
RMR (cal/lb) 10.0 | 9.5 | 9.0 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 7.5 | 7.0
RMR (cal/kg) 22 | 21 | 20 | 19 |17.5 | 16.5 | 15.5
To use the chart, bodyweight is multiplied by the RMR value underneath the appropriate BF% value.
The sample female at 150 lbs and 22% body fat would have an estimated RMR of 150 lbs * ~9.7 (halfway
between the 9.5 and 10.0 values for 20 and 25% body fat) or 1455 calories which is effectively identical to
the value I showed above. The 250 lb/50% body fat female would multiply her weight of 250 by 7 to get
an RMR of 1750, identical to the value calculated with the first equation. This value for RMR will be
modified by the activity multipliers, described next.
Activity Multipliers
If someone did nothing more than lay in bed all day, their TDEE would be equal to their RMR. Since
most do not, this value will be increased based on the level of activity being done. Traditionally, activity
multipliers have combined both TEA and NEAT but I find it more useful to split them up for better
accuracy. This approach also makes it easier to take into account changes in each when activity levels are
varying from day to day. Certainly only needing a single multiplier for every day would be simpler but this
tends to be unrealistic unless someone's daily activity is extremely consistent.
Daily Activity (NEAT)
Since not everybody is involved in formal exercise but everyone (unless they are completely
bedridden) performs at least some amount of daily activity, I will start with an estimation of that multiplier.
In the modern world, someone's activity may range from completely sedentary to requiring extremely high
levels of activity is their job or lifestyle is very labor intensive. For this reason, RMR multipliers from 1.2
to 1.9 are usually considered to be realistic with 2.5 times RMR being the maximum energy expenditure
that can be sustained for extended periods (athletes may surpass this for short periods due to their
incredibly high TEA values). For most people a realistic NEAT multiplier will be 1.4-1.7. In the chart
below, I've shown multipliers for different activity levels and their general descriptions.
Activity Level | Description | RMR Multiplier
Sedentary | Sitting, talking, reading, watching TV | 1.3-1.4
Light | Office work with moderate walking | 1.4-1.5
Moderate | Busy lifestyle w/ lots of walking | 1.6-1.7
High | Construction, hard labor | 1.7-1.9
If no formal exercise is being performed, RMR can simply be multiplied by the value above to get the
estimated TDEE. If our 150 pound female with a maintenance of 1455 calories had a sedentary lifestyle,
she would use a multiplier of 1.3 to get a maintenance of 1890-2040 calories (1455 * 1.3 or 1.4). If she
were moderately to highly active, she would use the 1.7 multiplier to get an estimated TDEE of 2475
calories/day (1455 calories/day * 1.7). If formal exercise is being done, it will have to be added to the
above value. I will also provide a chart later in the chapter that will simplify all of the calculations.
When using the above chart, I strongly encourage readers to be realistic about their daily activity
levels. Someone who sits in front of a computer most of the day and does little else will be somewhere
between sedentary and light activity even if they feel that is too low or dislike the relatively low TDEE
value that is estimates. Someone on their feet all day will be in the moderate category and few will achieve
the highest values unless they are moving continuously or working a very labor intensive job. While
many older estimates put most people's multiplier closer to 1.7, I feel that changes in the modern world
have made this too high for many people. Practically I would generally suggest erring on the side of too
low of a multiplier than too high. Calories always need to be adjusted based on real world changes and it's
better to be eating slightly too few and having to increase due to weight loss than the converse under most
circumstances.
1599 -
@bmeadows380
Just as a continuation from the above since the excerpt takes up space, but yes, be patient with your sister and yourself. Ideally, what she needs is the most basic of knowledge, and simply that's to reduce her total calorie intake. The approach I would personally take is to provide healthier alternatives to the foods she currently eats so that it's not a drastic difference from what she currently eats.
For example, if she eats fried chicken, fries, and fried cheese sticks, opt for grilled or rotisserie chicken, baked potato (you can include light drizzle of olive oil, chives, salt, pepper to taste), and string cheese sticks. From a macro perspective, it's about the same, but without the addition of being fried in vegetable oil, and the nutrient density has increased greatly.
You can include some creativity to have fun with food alternatives. If she's part of the selection process in enjoying what she's willing to eat, all the more she'll be into accepting the diet. The best diet is the one that doesn't feel like you're suffering.
If she's a textural eater and truly enjoys the crispiness of fried food, she can invest in an air fryer and air fry anything from vegetables to steak and bacon. Air fryers are dangerously fun (in a good way) to use for almost all your cooking.
If she's a volume eater and loves desserts, google recipes on protein fluff or protein frozen yogurt. It satisfies sweet cravings and is filling. I know I said to avoid supplements as much as possible, but desserts are eaten sparingly and so it's okay in this case. Hell, try adding her favorite protein powder flavor + some cocoa and cinnamon to reduced sodium/no sodium cottage cheese and it almost becomes a sweet ricotta type of treat.
You know her better, but she knows herself best. Just work with her and she'll either directly or indirectly let you know what she does and doesn't like.
And for simplicity's sake, if she's eaten her calculated calorie deficit for the day and she's still hungry, suggest that she can eat lean protein, like an egg white and turkey omelet or something. I linked the positive benefits of protein, even in an overfed state, though it's ideal to avoid overfeeding as much as possible: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321371925_The_Effects_of_Overfeeding_on_Body_Composition_The_Role_of_Macronutrient_Composition-A_Narrative_Review8 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »@anubis609
I"m a little confused on the 12-14 x current body weight recommendation. When I re-do my profile on MFP to maintain, I get 2460 calories; calcuator.net gives me 2360. But 12X271 (my current weight) = a whopping 3252 calories! That's a big jump for a mostly sedentary person, so I'm a little confused as to what to look for.
Bridget, thank you so much for posting this! I've been trying to re-figure my numbers and have run into the same confusion. Used the various calculators online to figure maintenance and was getting some pretty huge numbers, which caused me to chase my tail in WTF-land for a while. I found a pdf online of Lyle's Guide to Flexible Dieting and was beginning to use his calculations, which just confused me further. Then I got my copy of his Women's Book a couple of days ago but hadn't yet got to the section that @anubis609 pulled out. I'm now looking at a maintenance of 2478, which makes rather more sense.
I've been seesawing around a 7-lb range for a few months now and am pretty fed up with it. My first diet break was more confusing than enlightening, so I'm going to give it another shot with a little more awareness.1 -
@anubis609 - thank you very much for that excerpt with the formulas! That is so much more useful for me than the generic ones I was finding! It gives me a maintenance goal of around 2646, which is higher than MFP but may well prove to be more accurate. I was eating 1400 calories for a 1,000 calorie deficit, but I bumped it up to 1800 this week and had a 1.5 lb loss as of yesterday morning. I'll keep an eye on it for next week, and if I lose another 1.5 lbs, then I'll bump my intake up another 750 calories which would be closer Lyle's calculated value than MFP's. I very much appreciate this too, because with Lyle's formula, my 2 lb/week loss goal means I should be eating 1500-1600 calories a day and not the 1400 - that gives me much more room when I go back to full deficit!
This formula also gives my sister some more breathing room as well. The good news is that she loves vegetables but yes, she does loved her fried foods, too - french fries, cheese sticks, fried pickles, etc. I have a convection oven at my house, but I may bite the bullet and get an air fryer as well if it will encourage her to make her own stuff instead of buying the frozen boxed stuff.
On the one hand, she's not a big meat eater and unfortunately, she doesn't like chicken much. I've been working with her this week to try to get a variety of foods in her lunches and still give her things she likes - for instance, I bought her a bag of baked lays potato chips and purposely weighed them out into individual portions and packed them in ziplock bags so she could see what a serving size actually looked like, and so she could see she could still have the potato chips she loves; she just has to learn to portion them out.
I wish there was a way to bookmark a particular page in a thread - I don't want to lose this! I'll have to copy and paste it into an email for myself
2 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Haven't been posting but happily keeping up with everyone's stories!
So my diet break led into the realization that I probably don't need to lose more weight, new goal = recomp. So r-e-a-l-l-y extended diet break . I read all these posts here about you guys struggling to eat too much and thought, there's NO WAY I would have that problem! And yet here I am often having an extra snack I otherwise wouldn't have even thought about because I need a few more calories.
I guess it makes sense though. I gained weight over the years getting slowly used to a little bit more food and a little bit more food. And so in the process of losing the weight very slowly, I got used to a little bit less food and a little bit less food.
I spent a lot of the last 2 years trying to get in a deficit and not managing to, or hitting the deficit one day and then undoing it the next, so maintaining. But my mindset was always deficit. It's weird not having that in the back of my mind anymore!
I've still bumped into the same threads you respond to lol.
And welcome to the recomp club. The painstaking process of feeling like you're spinning your wheels that only becomes apparent that progress is occurring over months, as opposed to weeks.
It's a little bit jarring isn't it? Completely not feeling the need to cut anymore after doing it for so long scares a lot of people.
Yeppers, I've seen you wandering around out there in the mfp wild west!
Considering I lost 15 lbs over almost 2 years, and then another 5 lbs over the next year and a half you'd think spinning my wheels would be old hat by now, but yeah it's weird. I'm unusually patient by nature though, so I'm sure I'll settle into the new mindset soon. It is kind of nice to step on the scale, see I'm still in my range, and know that means job well done.
I think you might have been around MFP long enough to have seen the threads in their infancy when it was a true wild west haha, but seems like nothing has changed much. At least there aren't threads making claims that peeing out white stuff is the body getting rid of fat. That thread is forever burned into memory and I think it's about 6 years old?
At least with recomp, you know that you can measure success by progressively increasing strength, new vascularity, and/or suddenly seeing muscle definition you haven't seen before if remaining around the same weight. These are objective measurements of progress. If nothing changes, well, then .. time to get some new tires (>_<)
My face literally made the "woo" expression reading this.
I believe I made many unsubtle "white substance" expulsion comments in that thread. The OP specifically used chicken fat as her example. I couldn't ignore taking the shot, so to speak.
Way to take one for the team.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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