15

votes

What is metabolic derangement, exactly?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created October 08, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I was reading the Jimmmy Moore post on "safe starches" [http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/is-there-any-such-thing-as-safe-starches-on-a-low-carb-diet/11809] and noticed a comment from someone named Anthony C. who questioned the term "metabolic derangement," going so far as to demand a definition of the term. Fair enough. So what is it?

If you look at our photos on the "before and after" thread, it's almost like a picture glossary of the term. It's hard to believe I got fat because, all of a sudden in my cases in my early 30s I started eating different foods. Or my hormones changed. ("Manopause" at 32?) It seems likely that my metabolism changed quite dramatically.

Is there such a thing as metabolic derangement? Definition, please! Something quasi-scientific, with some heft and validity! Jimmy didn't want to go there and I don't blame him but I think this deserves a response.

7116e6b07040e5741173df8e5b0ffcdd

(30)

on November 11, 2011
at 03:37 AM

"Troll/douche-like"? He was calling Jimmy out on his BS. Notice that there isn't a single person on his list of "movers and shakers" with whom he's ever had a serious disagreement? Coincidence? I doubt it. Jimmy's far from the aw-shucks, Southern good ol'boy image he projects. And most egregious of all: soliciting comments on his list - "let’s hear what YOU think" - when opinions in any way critical have about a snowflake's chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day. The larger paleo community is making a colossal mistake in embracing hucksters like Jimmy Moore - and franchises like LLVLC.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 10, 2011
at 03:33 PM

*Not only was this an abuse of my editorial powers at that site, but it was highly unethical and wrong. For that I am truly sorry, and promise that in the future when I find myself frustrated, I will simply leave comments as they are, step away and remember that not everyone will agree with me. If you go to that forum, then you will see I have apologized in like manner there making it clear to everyone that I was wrong and am truly sorry.*

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 10, 2011
at 03:31 PM

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/from-the-bottom-of-my-heart-im-sorry/1949 Before I continue, I first owe everyone–whether you are friend or foe–a very big apology for taking liberties with a highly critical comment of me at my sister web site LowCarbNewsline.com earlier this month. I didn’t simply ignore the comment or even delete the comment in question. I admit that I modified it to be positive and replied in kind. When called on it, I replied it was a joke and did not show the remorse I should have for something I should not have done in the first place.*

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 10, 2011
at 03:27 PM

Sounds like Jimmy needs to change his disclaimer http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/disclaimer *Regarding comment moderation, it is the policy of this blog to allow an open debate of ideas. However, vulgarity, profanity, and commercial uses of comments will not be tolerated and will be subject to moderation by the blog author. Simply disagreeing with an opinion stated by the author will not result in the comment being moderated.* In my book, moderation is one thing, but you're not the first to mention that he ALTERS them which is a whole 'nother story. Guess he's up to his old tricks.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on October 09, 2011
at 08:38 PM

Mem, thank you for providing a solid scientific argument to what I have found to be true with my own body.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 09, 2011
at 07:02 PM

Carbohydrates don't satiate you because you eat one potato, eat 5 and then tell me they don't satiate you. @jay mcdougall diet has a ton of success for people, alot more so than VLC.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on October 09, 2011
at 04:23 PM

just a thought but wat if 1200 cals of potatoes is simply producing starvation, so obviously youre going to gain weight....i dont know that say 2500 cals of potatoes would produce the same weight gain, you may just need to eat more to find balance and satiety with low fat to find balance... just playing advocate...

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 09, 2011
at 01:13 PM

All of the BG tests and other labs Jimmy has shared indicate he's not metabolically "deranged". He has low fasting insulin, he has no "hyperinsulinemia" postprandial or otherwise, and he is not glucose intolerant despite the diet he eats. Every time he's "experimented" with adding carbs it has been sweet potato fries, bread with a ton of butter, etc. Low carbers who gain weight adding back carbs need to simply cut back a BIT on the fat.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 09, 2011
at 01:03 PM

Regarding this whole mitochondrial damage stuff http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/10/mitochondria-and-insulin-resistance.html and http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/09/mitochondria-and-high-fat-diets.html .

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 05:02 AM

(cont) phosphorylation. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa031314#t=articleDiscussion

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 05:01 AM

(cont) of Type I fibers (mostly oxidative) to Type II fibers, (mostly glycolytic) in the insulin-resistant subjects.29,30 This finding is consistent with those of a biopsy study by Nyholm et al., who found an increased number of type IIb muscle fibers in overweight, insulin-resistant, first-degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes.33 Taken together, these data suggest that the insulin-resistant offspring of patients with type 2 diabetes have an inherited reduction in mitochondrial content in muscle, which in turn may be responsible for the reduced rates of mitochondrial oxidative

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 04:59 AM

To assess whether decreased mitochondrial activity may contribute to the increased intramyocellular lipid content, we also assessed the rates of muscle mitochondrial phosphorylation using 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy. We found that the mitochondrial rates of ATP production were reduced by approximately 30 percent in the muscle of the insulin-resistant subjects, as compared with the insulin-sensitive control subjects. Consistent with this finding of altered mitochondrial function, we also found a reduced ratio of inorganic phosphate to phosphocreatine, which may reflect a lower ratio

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on October 09, 2011
at 04:48 AM

Do you FB, Mr. Jones? Email me, please sherpamelissa at gmail dot com

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 02:46 AM

(con't) so violently with conventionally accepted cultural beliefs, beliefs that here begin to look like near Dieties? Or is it simply too boring to READ the research and writings of experts? What is so threateining about even just entertaining the idea, based on research that has already been done, that obesity is far more complex and fraught with real, biological changes than anyone really wants to know, especially those of us who do not have the luxury of peering at it from a safe intellectual/theoretical distance, but who must live inside its very body.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 02:39 AM

(con't) efficiently as fuel as "normies" do, continues to fall on deaf ears. Rose gets told to eat 1200 calories a day of a macronutrient that is going to produce greatly increased HUNGER for her.She's learned this in the past and has made it clear. Is there some small tinkle of sanity in these responses that I am missing? There is often the call on PH "cites, evidence!" Well, I've provdied plenty - alot of science reading. So, is the reality of researched metabolic changes in the soon to be obese, obese and post obese simply utterly dismissed because it is so unimportant or collides so

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 02:35 AM

(con't) obese which include descriptions of the appetite changes, reduced satiety, substantially increased "fuel efficiency,"including profound changes in gut biology that enhance caloric extraction from food as well as alterations in liver function, skeletal muscle and fat tissue that promote weight regain, along with research that describes very clearly, the changes in mitochondria in the obese which as Hyperlipid Peter would say, produce DUD MITOCHONDRIA function...and still...it does not register. And descriptions of the measured differences in the ability to oxidize fat - to utilize fat

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 02:22 AM

I keep batting my head against a wall, giving responses to these questions precisely because of replies like Cliff's and Ben's to Rose. Here, Rose makes it very clear that carbohydrate does not satiate here. We even have a study cited here that shows that there are other beings on earth for which this is true. Rose has been battling the obesity best since the age of 12. She cites the diets she has been on and their results. I cite scientific eveidence and studies, some from world renowned obesity research and clinical obesity experts, that discusses the very real changes in the obese and post

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 09, 2011
at 02:22 AM

Now that's a definition I could live with, Ben. I don't know if it fits everyone's experience, and if it doesn't, then maybe it wouldn't work. It sure fits mine, though.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:46 AM

Yeah, Ben, I don't see swapping my bacon and ribeyes for plain potatoes, but thanks for thinking of me. ;D

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:43 AM

LOL...you say a 1200 calorie a day, and he says what about 1000/day of potatoes? Seriously? Come on, whats next? 800 then 600....hey if you just don't eat ever maybe you'll lose weight without having to be VLC!!!!

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:27 AM

But ben its a horrible point. Usually I dont completely disagree with you but what?! 1200 calories a day of plain potatoe? If you're going for an extreme diet roses VLC has much more validity.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on October 09, 2011
at 01:26 AM

I'm with Jay. I didn't mind the question at all (why I answered it here!), but I thought the way he kept at Jimmy was definitely troll/douche-like.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:19 AM

I mean that btw to just illustrate the point not because I think it'd be an enjoyable lifestyle:)

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:17 AM

@rose, you of course know your body and your experience best so eat whatever works. I sometimes want to tell people who maintain that they *can not eat starch without weight gain* to eat 1200 calories per day (or whatever amount is a bit under whatever they are currently eating) of plain potato. I think if the calories aren't there then the macro substrate doesn't matter.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:13 AM

Could it be the *inability to eat carbohydrate and not gain weight*? isocalorically of course.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:08 AM

meh...obviously my post isn't clear in the fact that I think little is actually gained by defining and naming this particular altered physiological response. The question itself wasn't bad....the manner in which it was posed was. And in all honesty I kinda felt bad for Jimmy...The question should have been posed to one of the "experts" if he was truly looking for an answer...instead he chose the messenger. I thought it was kinda weak is all. He tried to pick on the guy least able to actually provide a legitimate answer and then left...troll

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:47 AM

Okay, Cliff, I'll play Charlie Brown. Hope you're not Lucy about to snatch the ball away, lol. Here's my condensed experience with starches: High-fat diet with dose of starch (Kwasniewski) = massive, rapid weight gain. Low-fat diet with lots of starch = no weight loss, but little gain, either. The downside is perpetual, miserable hunger. High-fat, lowish-protein, no starch and near-zero carb = weight loss/normal BMI, eat to satiety, no hunger. 47 years on the planet, battling obesity since 12 yrs old. Tried many diets many times; VLC/ZC's the only one that's worked longer than a few months.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:40 AM

people are probably gonna hate but andrew c is asking some legitimate questions imo.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:38 AM

I had numerous people come in another thread and tell me my recomendation to eat over 200g of carb is dangerous. I have personally never made similar statments toward low carbers, people can do whatever they think works for them imo.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:34 AM

Stop getting so defensive, i was truely interested. Have you ever tryed eating a 1000 calorie meal of plain potatoes? FYI i ask questions because I'm interested in actually learning, I'm not trying to get anyone....

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:59 PM

Oh, damn it, I have to say one last thing. I don't want to take anyone's potatoes away. I *cook* them for my husband, who's also a slender dude. I find it truly astounding that LCers are the ones continually accused of pushing dogma, when all we're trying to do is keep eating the way that's proven healthiest for us. I don't see us metaphorically snatching starches away from paleos who can handle them, but I sure have seen quite a few folks trying to shove potatoes down *our* throats. Over and out.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:55 PM

And to answer your question, one regular sized baked potato is what I ate on the 1,200 cal/day nutritionist's diet. Five weeks, one pound gained. On the Kwasniewski Optimal Diet, 1/2 potato every day, gained 17 pounds in seven weeks. Two other more recent forays into "safe" starches, similar results. Dissect away.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:52 PM

Oh, for crying out loud, Cliff. Stop trying to micro-dissect every LCer's answer looking for the gotcha. If I could eat potatoes without getting fat, I would. You don't hold the secret key to safe potato eating, other than perhaps being a young dude.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:46 PM

@rose-how many potatoes can you eat in one sitting?

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:45 PM

This is as close to the truth as any of the other definitions out there. I didn't fit into the "metabolic syndrome" definition -- I had low bp, fasting bg under 100, and most of my fat was in my ass, not my belly. But I still had to go to 500 cals a day to see weight loss (on a "regular" non-LC diet), and I consider that metabolically "deranged" for sure.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:17 PM

Oh, hell, I know people aren't upvoting this because it sounds flippant, but I actually think this is as close to the truth as any of the other definitions out there. I didn't fit into the "metabolic syndrome" definition -- I had low bp, fasting bg under 100, and most of my fat was in my ass, not my belly. But I still had to go to 500 cals a day to see weight loss (on a "regular" non-LC diet), and I consider that metabolically "deranged" for sure.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:16 PM

Oh, hell, I know people aren't upvoting this because it sounds flippant, but I actually think this is as close to the truth as any of the other, more complicated definitions currently on offer, especially in the JM thread. I didn't fit into the "metabolic syndrome" definition -- I had low bp, fasting bg under 100, and all my fat was in my ass, not my belly. But I still had to go to 500 cals a day to see weight loss (on a "regular" non-LC diet).

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:15 PM

Oh, hell, I know people aren't upvoting this because it sounds flippant, but I actually think this is as close to the truth as any of the other, more tortured definitions currently on offer. I didn't fit into the "metabolic syndrome" definition -- I had low bp, fasting bg under 100, and all my fat was in my ass, not my belly. But I still had to go to 500 cals a day to see weight loss (on a "regular" non-LC diet).

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:09 PM

*cough* and not to poke another sleeping can of mixed metaphors, but I was just as "insensitive to the satiating effects" of plain unseasoned potatoes, as I remember all too well from my numerous lengthy and painful attempts at ultra-low-fat diets.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:06 PM

Okay, bringing the conversation back to short words here, I would just like to say that this phrase: "insensitivity to the satiating effects of carbohydrate," is maybe the best description I've ever read of how I used to feel when I would eat a plate of pasta and feel exhausted, empty, and hungry ten minutes later. Whatever polysyllabic concatenation of biochemical interactions causes that "insensitivity to satiety," that's what made me fat. That raht there.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 08, 2011
at 09:15 PM

Mem I think I covered a lot of this early on in my mitochondrial series and in the leptin part three post (Oprah) All good finds by you here...... but the mitochondrial problem of obesity is tied initally to loss of intracellular Magnesium. Mitochondria become less efficient in obesity and when they do the increase "leakiness" at the first cytochrome of oxidative phosphorylation. This increases ROS and leads to the neolithic diseases associated with obesity.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 08, 2011
at 09:03 PM

(con't) macronutrient ratios for *some* groups...just two would be: the hvery heavily plant weighted vs the very heavily fat/protein animal weighted...And then variations on a theme...those who would have a very high starch ratio for optimal health as well as feelings of well-being. I think these divisions are VERY real and for some, them are absolutely imperative to stave off serious outcomes like obesity...this all, of course, falling under the unbrella of ancestral eating basics.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 08, 2011
at 08:59 PM

@Cliff: No, don't have access to the full paper. :( But my guess is that this would vary widely between persons. I don't know about a divide between genders. And perhaps surprising to some, I do not view it as a wide-spread, generally applicable truism. BUT, for those of us for whom it applies, yes, it is a biggie. The trick is, paying enough attention to identify these things, and also dientifying these differences between what might ostensibly be genetic groups, and widely disseminating the info for self help. This would mean that yes, there would be big differences in optimum

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:45 PM

I thought this was pretty interesting "in obese individuals or those concerned with body weight, fat in the yogurts was less effective in reducing subsequent food intake than carbohydrate" http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/5/1086S.short the full pdf has some good info

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:38 PM

Do you have access to the full paper(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219950)? I wonder if men are much less effected by this, as the main people who seem to have this problem are woman.

C6c2511c805bb5477a3846d93670d4b2

(116)

on October 08, 2011
at 06:10 PM

This seems to be the question of the day. Well asked. Let's see how it plays out here and on Moore's blog.

  • 531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

    asked by

    (8878)
  • Views
    22.9K
  • Last Activity
    1406D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

8 Answers

8
Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 08, 2011
at 07:29 PM

I think there is not a single, exact answer to this question, as to EXACT mechanism and WHEN this occurs. But I think there is alot of good info out there pointing to the fact that it does occur and that as far as anyone knows, at least some of the resultant changes are very longlasting if not absolutely permanent.

"Yale University researchers have found one of the mechanisms that cause fat cells to lose their ability to efficiently store and use energy - a scientific mystery and a phenomenon that contributes to a major public health problem.

The Yale team discovered a mechanism that allows cellular fat droplets to expand when excess metabolic energy is present - i.e., when the body has taken in more food than it can burn off - helping them to take in fatty acids, the end products of our meals. The obese suffer a myriad of health problems when fat cells can no longer do this job. The scientists report their findings in the Oct. 5 issue of the journal Cell Metabolism. "

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/235490.php

The following has been cited by myself and others in other threads, but deserves to be cited ad infinitum, in my book, until who this problem affects is really understood by all, and the extent of the problem and its chronic ramifications are understood.

"But what if we had trouble using fat for energy???or using energy at all? Clearly we???d have a problem: we would eat food, and as soon as the energy was either used or stored, we???d be hungry again???even though we were gaining weight!

This is exactly what happens to many people.

I???ve previously discussed metabolic flexibility and the RER (???Respiratory Exchange Ratio???), also known as the RQ (???Respiratory Quotient???), at length in this article. Metabolic flexibility (???met flex???) is the ability of our cells (specifically, our mitochondria) to switch back and forth between glucose oxidation and fat oxidation for energy, and the RER/RQ is how we measure what proportion of glucose vs. fat we???re burning.

It turns out that:

The obese have impaired metabolic flexibility. The obese have impaired mitochondrial capacity to turn nutrients into energy in the muscles. The obese have an impaired ability to oxidize fat for energy, which we can objectively measure. Both the formerly obese and the soon-to-be-obese also suffer these impairments."

Of great import here is this statement, which I think cannot be repeated and emphasized enough:

"BOTH the FORMERLY OBESE and the SOON-TO-BE-OBESE also suffer from these imapirments."

And of course, the import of the following statement is HUGE:

"In other words, obese people have a greatly decreased ability to create energy from the nutrients they ingest.

The ability to oxidize fat is also impaired. How great is this impairment?"

There are a number of studies that are utilized here and they are all available as links for readers who really want to understand the basis for these statements, and they are all here:

http://www.gnolls.org/2407/when-satiety-fails-why-are-we-hungry-part-4/

Scroll down to: Satiety Failure #3: Energy Stuck in Storage

Here's a quote from the abstract of a paper which for me, best pulls it all together. The full text version of the research is available in a PDF link on the link page supplied below.

"To develop an explanation for this apparent contradiction in energy homeostasis and the chronic overeating relative to energy used in obesity, a review of the literature was conducted. The resulting model of obesity is based on a growing body of research demonstrating that altered mitochondrial energy production, particularly in skeletal muscles, is a major anomaly capable of setting off a chain of metabolic events leading to obesity. Alterations in skeletal muscle mitochondria distribution and their oxidative and glycolytic energy capacities in obesity are described. The metabolic responses of obese and normal individuals to exercise are contrasted, and the effects of weight loss on energy production are presented. The effect of altered fat oxidation is considered in relation to energy regulation by the central nervous system and the development of major obesity comorbidities, including systemic inflammation, insulin resistance and diabetes, and cardiovascular disease."

http://brn.sagepub.com/content/10/4/356.abstract

Even as much attention (and rightfully so!) has been given to J.Stanton's excellent satiety series, I have not seen any real discussion of the following paper, which I think it a HUGE piece of the puzzle for some of us, and I am one of them for sure!

"They came to the laboratory on two separate days to consume breakfast; on one day the principle energy source was fat and on the other day carbohydrate. Satiety responses were determined by ratings of hunger and fullness for 2 h after breakfast, and intake at a mid-morning snack test. Those scoring high on the TFEQ-disinhibition scale consumed more energy at the snack test than those with low TFEQ-disinhibition, but this was only following the high carbohydrate breakfast. The TFEQ-restraint scale did not independently predict food intake or interact with the TFEQ-disinhibition related overeating. In normal-weight females the tendency to overeat may be related to insensitivity to the satiating effects of carbohydrate."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219950

For me, this research is highly suggestive of a*key* issue for some of us, which I "secretly" hypothesize may worsen over time...that of carbohydrates NOT being satiating for some subset of people. This is absolutely true of me. And the consequences of this are great...REAL HUNGER which occurs too often and too quickly after a "normally" carbohydrate laden meal.

We have to get to the point where we really understand that for one group of people, carbohydrates are satiating and indeed, make them feel "good." And in another group of people, this is absolutely the opposite and will cause real metabolic issues if the macronutrient ratios of meals are too high in carbohydrates.

For now, I think this is enough to chew on...and as my computer is acting up, I will not go into more. Arya Sharma's work should certainly be considrered and I amy provide some links later.

I also feel that we need to be careful about separating the specifice medical diagnosis of metaboic syndrome that some of the obese suffer with, from the larger and different metaboic changes cascade we are talking about here which is a much larger and perhpas more generalized phenomenon among the soon to be obese, obese and formerly obese.

EDIT: OK, at the rsik of making this waaay too long, I cannot leave out Dr. Sharma and a link that so well addresses the question, though, of course, not absolutely definitively. There is no one on earth, right now, who can do that. So, let me just lift a few quotes and supply the link for those who really might give a hoot...

"As readers will recall, the biology of the post-weight loss state is nothing like the biology of someone who has never lost weight. There are countless ways in which the psychoneurobiology, energy physiology and metabolism in anyone who has lost weight are remarkably different from someone ???naturally??? of that weight."

"The consistent finding from all such studies is that all individuals or animals in a post-weight-loss state face considerable ???homeostatic pressure??? that aims to drive their weight back to initial levels.

The paper extensively discusses how changes in biological signals of fat stores (e.g. leptin) elicit profound metabolic and behavioural adaptations - a topic that I dealt with extensively in previous posts.

The key findings of increased hunger and appetite, reduced satiety and substantially increased ???fuel efficiency??? have very real underlying biological drivers - drivers powerful enough to ultimately wear down even the most persistent dieter."

"The paper also extensively discusses some of the lesser known metabolic adaptations to weight loss including profound changes in gut biology that enhance caloric extraction from food as well as alterations in liver function, skeletal muscle and fat tissue that promote weight regain."

http://www.drsharma.ca/obesity-why-diet-and-exercise-is-not-a-treatment-for-obesity.html

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:45 PM

I thought this was pretty interesting "in obese individuals or those concerned with body weight, fat in the yogurts was less effective in reducing subsequent food intake than carbohydrate" http://www.ajcn.org/content/62/5/1086S.short the full pdf has some good info

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:06 PM

Okay, bringing the conversation back to short words here, I would just like to say that this phrase: "insensitivity to the satiating effects of carbohydrate," is maybe the best description I've ever read of how I used to feel when I would eat a plate of pasta and feel exhausted, empty, and hungry ten minutes later. Whatever polysyllabic concatenation of biochemical interactions causes that "insensitivity to satiety," that's what made me fat. That raht there.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:59 PM

Oh, damn it, I have to say one last thing. I don't want to take anyone's potatoes away. I *cook* them for my husband, who's also a slender dude. I find it truly astounding that LCers are the ones continually accused of pushing dogma, when all we're trying to do is keep eating the way that's proven healthiest for us. I don't see us metaphorically snatching starches away from paleos who can handle them, but I sure have seen quite a few folks trying to shove potatoes down *our* throats. Over and out.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on October 09, 2011
at 04:23 PM

just a thought but wat if 1200 cals of potatoes is simply producing starvation, so obviously youre going to gain weight....i dont know that say 2500 cals of potatoes would produce the same weight gain, you may just need to eat more to find balance and satiety with low fat to find balance... just playing advocate...

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:43 AM

LOL...you say a 1200 calorie a day, and he says what about 1000/day of potatoes? Seriously? Come on, whats next? 800 then 600....hey if you just don't eat ever maybe you'll lose weight without having to be VLC!!!!

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:34 AM

Stop getting so defensive, i was truely interested. Have you ever tryed eating a 1000 calorie meal of plain potatoes? FYI i ask questions because I'm interested in actually learning, I'm not trying to get anyone....

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 02:39 AM

(con't) efficiently as fuel as "normies" do, continues to fall on deaf ears. Rose gets told to eat 1200 calories a day of a macronutrient that is going to produce greatly increased HUNGER for her.She's learned this in the past and has made it clear. Is there some small tinkle of sanity in these responses that I am missing? There is often the call on PH "cites, evidence!" Well, I've provdied plenty - alot of science reading. So, is the reality of researched metabolic changes in the soon to be obese, obese and post obese simply utterly dismissed because it is so unimportant or collides so

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:27 AM

But ben its a horrible point. Usually I dont completely disagree with you but what?! 1200 calories a day of plain potatoe? If you're going for an extreme diet roses VLC has much more validity.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 02:35 AM

(con't) obese which include descriptions of the appetite changes, reduced satiety, substantially increased "fuel efficiency,"including profound changes in gut biology that enhance caloric extraction from food as well as alterations in liver function, skeletal muscle and fat tissue that promote weight regain, along with research that describes very clearly, the changes in mitochondria in the obese which as Hyperlipid Peter would say, produce DUD MITOCHONDRIA function...and still...it does not register. And descriptions of the measured differences in the ability to oxidize fat - to utilize fat

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:52 PM

Oh, for crying out loud, Cliff. Stop trying to micro-dissect every LCer's answer looking for the gotcha. If I could eat potatoes without getting fat, I would. You don't hold the secret key to safe potato eating, other than perhaps being a young dude.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:47 AM

Okay, Cliff, I'll play Charlie Brown. Hope you're not Lucy about to snatch the ball away, lol. Here's my condensed experience with starches: High-fat diet with dose of starch (Kwasniewski) = massive, rapid weight gain. Low-fat diet with lots of starch = no weight loss, but little gain, either. The downside is perpetual, miserable hunger. High-fat, lowish-protein, no starch and near-zero carb = weight loss/normal BMI, eat to satiety, no hunger. 47 years on the planet, battling obesity since 12 yrs old. Tried many diets many times; VLC/ZC's the only one that's worked longer than a few months.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on October 08, 2011
at 09:15 PM

Mem I think I covered a lot of this early on in my mitochondrial series and in the leptin part three post (Oprah) All good finds by you here...... but the mitochondrial problem of obesity is tied initally to loss of intracellular Magnesium. Mitochondria become less efficient in obesity and when they do the increase "leakiness" at the first cytochrome of oxidative phosphorylation. This increases ROS and leads to the neolithic diseases associated with obesity.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 09, 2011
at 07:02 PM

Carbohydrates don't satiate you because you eat one potato, eat 5 and then tell me they don't satiate you. @jay mcdougall diet has a ton of success for people, alot more so than VLC.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:46 AM

Yeah, Ben, I don't see swapping my bacon and ribeyes for plain potatoes, but thanks for thinking of me. ;D

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:38 AM

I had numerous people come in another thread and tell me my recomendation to eat over 200g of carb is dangerous. I have personally never made similar statments toward low carbers, people can do whatever they think works for them imo.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 08, 2011
at 08:38 PM

Do you have access to the full paper(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219950)? I wonder if men are much less effected by this, as the main people who seem to have this problem are woman.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:19 AM

I mean that btw to just illustrate the point not because I think it'd be an enjoyable lifestyle:)

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 02:22 AM

I keep batting my head against a wall, giving responses to these questions precisely because of replies like Cliff's and Ben's to Rose. Here, Rose makes it very clear that carbohydrate does not satiate here. We even have a study cited here that shows that there are other beings on earth for which this is true. Rose has been battling the obesity best since the age of 12. She cites the diets she has been on and their results. I cite scientific eveidence and studies, some from world renowned obesity research and clinical obesity experts, that discusses the very real changes in the obese and post

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:55 PM

And to answer your question, one regular sized baked potato is what I ate on the 1,200 cal/day nutritionist's diet. Five weeks, one pound gained. On the Kwasniewski Optimal Diet, 1/2 potato every day, gained 17 pounds in seven weeks. Two other more recent forays into "safe" starches, similar results. Dissect away.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on October 09, 2011
at 08:38 PM

Mem, thank you for providing a solid scientific argument to what I have found to be true with my own body.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 09, 2011
at 02:46 AM

(con't) so violently with conventionally accepted cultural beliefs, beliefs that here begin to look like near Dieties? Or is it simply too boring to READ the research and writings of experts? What is so threateining about even just entertaining the idea, based on research that has already been done, that obesity is far more complex and fraught with real, biological changes than anyone really wants to know, especially those of us who do not have the luxury of peering at it from a safe intellectual/theoretical distance, but who must live inside its very body.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 08, 2011
at 09:03 PM

(con't) macronutrient ratios for *some* groups...just two would be: the hvery heavily plant weighted vs the very heavily fat/protein animal weighted...And then variations on a theme...those who would have a very high starch ratio for optimal health as well as feelings of well-being. I think these divisions are VERY real and for some, them are absolutely imperative to stave off serious outcomes like obesity...this all, of course, falling under the unbrella of ancestral eating basics.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:09 PM

*cough* and not to poke another sleeping can of mixed metaphors, but I was just as "insensitive to the satiating effects" of plain unseasoned potatoes, as I remember all too well from my numerous lengthy and painful attempts at ultra-low-fat diets.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on October 08, 2011
at 08:59 PM

@Cliff: No, don't have access to the full paper. :( But my guess is that this would vary widely between persons. I don't know about a divide between genders. And perhaps surprising to some, I do not view it as a wide-spread, generally applicable truism. BUT, for those of us for whom it applies, yes, it is a biggie. The trick is, paying enough attention to identify these things, and also dientifying these differences between what might ostensibly be genetic groups, and widely disseminating the info for self help. This would mean that yes, there would be big differences in optimum

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 08, 2011
at 11:46 PM

@rose-how many potatoes can you eat in one sitting?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:17 AM

@rose, you of course know your body and your experience best so eat whatever works. I sometimes want to tell people who maintain that they *can not eat starch without weight gain* to eat 1200 calories per day (or whatever amount is a bit under whatever they are currently eating) of plain potato. I think if the calories aren't there then the macro substrate doesn't matter.

8
7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on October 08, 2011
at 06:51 PM

I think this interchange between Jimmy & Kurt Harris indicates he's really talking metabolic syndrome:

Jimmy: Perhaps exhibiting any of the markers of metabolic syndrome being awry is how to best judge if there is metabolic damage. Multiple markers out of whack determines the severity. And that's not to say that it's impossible to reverse this condition if it does exist.

Kurt: Then let's just use the medically accepted term metabolic syndrome in lieu of metabolic derangement or damaged metabolism, to improve communication. And of course not everyone who is obese or can't lose fat has metabolic syndrome, nor is metabolic syndrome by definition irreversible.

Metabolic syndrome is somewhat better defined (here's a definition from NIH). But for purposes of a discussion related to LC and paleo, I think it's essentially the inability for the body to adequately deal with excess calories in general and dietary carbs in particular (reflected by higher postprandrial BG and higher fasting insulin).

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on October 09, 2011
at 01:13 PM

All of the BG tests and other labs Jimmy has shared indicate he's not metabolically "deranged". He has low fasting insulin, he has no "hyperinsulinemia" postprandial or otherwise, and he is not glucose intolerant despite the diet he eats. Every time he's "experimented" with adding carbs it has been sweet potato fries, bread with a ton of butter, etc. Low carbers who gain weight adding back carbs need to simply cut back a BIT on the fat.

4
C2ad96801ec1e22d2bf62475b6e52751

(1416)

on October 08, 2011
at 06:59 PM

Metabolic derangement is the state of not being able to lose weight because one is not able to lose weight.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:16 PM

Oh, hell, I know people aren't upvoting this because it sounds flippant, but I actually think this is as close to the truth as any of the other, more complicated definitions currently on offer, especially in the JM thread. I didn't fit into the "metabolic syndrome" definition -- I had low bp, fasting bg under 100, and all my fat was in my ass, not my belly. But I still had to go to 500 cals a day to see weight loss (on a "regular" non-LC diet).

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:15 PM

Oh, hell, I know people aren't upvoting this because it sounds flippant, but I actually think this is as close to the truth as any of the other, more tortured definitions currently on offer. I didn't fit into the "metabolic syndrome" definition -- I had low bp, fasting bg under 100, and all my fat was in my ass, not my belly. But I still had to go to 500 cals a day to see weight loss (on a "regular" non-LC diet).

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:45 PM

This is as close to the truth as any of the other definitions out there. I didn't fit into the "metabolic syndrome" definition -- I had low bp, fasting bg under 100, and most of my fat was in my ass, not my belly. But I still had to go to 500 cals a day to see weight loss (on a "regular" non-LC diet), and I consider that metabolically "deranged" for sure.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 08, 2011
at 10:17 PM

Oh, hell, I know people aren't upvoting this because it sounds flippant, but I actually think this is as close to the truth as any of the other definitions out there. I didn't fit into the "metabolic syndrome" definition -- I had low bp, fasting bg under 100, and most of my fat was in my ass, not my belly. But I still had to go to 500 cals a day to see weight loss (on a "regular" non-LC diet), and I consider that metabolically "deranged" for sure.

3
7116e6b07040e5741173df8e5b0ffcdd

on November 10, 2011
at 03:46 AM

'Metabolic derangement' is Jimmy-speak for 'Goshdarnit! I can't eat all the low carb frankenfoods I want [now 'paleo' foods] and still lose weight...' Matt Stone's piece from 2010 still pretty much sums it up: http://180degreehealth.com/2010/03/poor-poor-jimmy-moore.html. Hoping for anything even resembling an honest debate on Jimmy's site is wishful thinking at best. It's one of the most heavily-moderated blogs out there - people with whom he disagrees are banned, their comments edited beyond recognition (usually favorably to Jimmy), or simply ignored altogether. All of this creates the very false sense of a veritable army of LLVLC admirers - one that simply does not exist (unless you count the scores of failed dieters on his forum trying to the lose the same twenty pounds for the fifth year in a row).

And yeah, this is attacking the messenger. But in this case the messenger's an idiot.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 10, 2011
at 03:33 PM

*Not only was this an abuse of my editorial powers at that site, but it was highly unethical and wrong. For that I am truly sorry, and promise that in the future when I find myself frustrated, I will simply leave comments as they are, step away and remember that not everyone will agree with me. If you go to that forum, then you will see I have apologized in like manner there making it clear to everyone that I was wrong and am truly sorry.*

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 10, 2011
at 03:31 PM

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/from-the-bottom-of-my-heart-im-sorry/1949 Before I continue, I first owe everyone–whether you are friend or foe–a very big apology for taking liberties with a highly critical comment of me at my sister web site LowCarbNewsline.com earlier this month. I didn’t simply ignore the comment or even delete the comment in question. I admit that I modified it to be positive and replied in kind. When called on it, I replied it was a joke and did not show the remorse I should have for something I should not have done in the first place.*

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 10, 2011
at 03:27 PM

Sounds like Jimmy needs to change his disclaimer http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/disclaimer *Regarding comment moderation, it is the policy of this blog to allow an open debate of ideas. However, vulgarity, profanity, and commercial uses of comments will not be tolerated and will be subject to moderation by the blog author. Simply disagreeing with an opinion stated by the author will not result in the comment being moderated.* In my book, moderation is one thing, but you're not the first to mention that he ALTERS them which is a whole 'nother story. Guess he's up to his old tricks.

3
3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:15 AM

I just always assumed that when people say metabolic "derangement" they are speaking of metabolic syndrome...is that not clearly enough defined? I read Anthony C.'s comments and thought he was kind of a douche/troll.

In general we like to name things then apply treatments to that name. The idea that all states of disease are simply states of altered physiology based on current stressors is lost on most. When you have a drug (hero) you have to have a disease (villain). Heck we invent diseases just to sell more drugs. I guess my point is whats in a name? Call it whatever you want, but the symptoms include insulin resistance, leptin resistance, hypertension, overweight/obese, diabetic/prediabetic...and so on and so forth.

We could make this like a number of diseases (fibromyalgia comes to mind) where you meat 11 of 16 criteria or something then you get the diagnosis (like its some sort of prize). In the end if you (not OP personally, just a generalization) need an authoritative figure to explain specific parameters outside of which you will have this diagnosis....just give it a few more years. The drug companies will eventually put out some "standards" for which if you are outside of then you will be prescribed their brand new Metabolic X drug. Its guaranteed to help your metabolic syndrome....(side effects may include: nausea, depression, diarrhea, death, dismemberment, rectal prolapse, schizophrenia, double vision, blindness, hypertension, hypotension, oh and increased symptoms of metabolic syndrome... ect.....).

Edit: After that drug advertisement I meant to add in that a paleo diet would fix achieve better results than said drug with absolutely no side effects except for better health.....but who would wanna do that?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on October 09, 2011
at 12:40 AM

people are probably gonna hate but andrew c is asking some legitimate questions imo.

7dc950fc76a046048e683d2a27dced37

on October 09, 2011
at 01:26 AM

I'm with Jay. I didn't mind the question at all (why I answered it here!), but I thought the way he kept at Jimmy was definitely troll/douche-like.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2011
at 01:08 AM

meh...obviously my post isn't clear in the fact that I think little is actually gained by defining and naming this particular altered physiological response. The question itself wasn't bad....the manner in which it was posed was. And in all honesty I kinda felt bad for Jimmy...The question should have been posed to one of the "experts" if he was truly looking for an answer...instead he chose the messenger. I thought it was kinda weak is all. He tried to pick on the guy least able to actually provide a legitimate answer and then left...troll

7116e6b07040e5741173df8e5b0ffcdd

(30)

on November 11, 2011
at 03:37 AM

"Troll/douche-like"? He was calling Jimmy out on his BS. Notice that there isn't a single person on his list of "movers and shakers" with whom he's ever had a serious disagreement? Coincidence? I doubt it. Jimmy's far from the aw-shucks, Southern good ol'boy image he projects. And most egregious of all: soliciting comments on his list - "let’s hear what YOU think" - when opinions in any way critical have about a snowflake's chance in hell of ever seeing the light of day. The larger paleo community is making a colossal mistake in embracing hucksters like Jimmy Moore - and franchises like LLVLC.

0
C7f9fe8d2948b873e4e378258b3e0a34

(0)

on October 14, 2012
at 07:04 PM

metabolic derangement is when something in your metabolism is off, and causes psychological symptoms. It has nothing to do with carbs or weight. Think psychosomatic. for instance hypothyroidism can cause depression, and even paranoid delusions if it is severe. over-active adrenals can cause anxiety. Many things on a metabolic blood panel can also cause mental health symptoms.

0
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 23, 2011
at 09:15 PM

I'm fairly sure I don't have metabolic syndrome and I'm doubtful I ever did since I've never had the markers that define the syndrome except for being very obese.

However, I describe myself as having deranged metabolism because I have binge eating disorder and my binges were spectacular and repetitive. Since I didn't want to binge, or more accurately I didn't want to be fat, I do assume my metabolism was seriously out of whack no matter what you choose to call it. Also, I became deranged whenever I tried to diet until I stumbled onto ancestral eating. :-))

Still, if you just saw my vital stats you'd assume I'm at an ideal weight.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!