@ctviggen _ I’m very interested in your experience, and what you’ve shared about your satiety. I am also one who takes a lot to feel satiety, and that’s more the case when sweets are introduced. I’ve ordered cacao butter in hopes of helping with this, and am encouraged with what you’ve shared about your fullness. I’m curious - are you just using it like butter, and cooking meat with it? Not in any desserts, I presume? Please share your use of it, as I’m eager to give this a try.
Late to the party… Personally, I think this is a mirror image to the CICO failure. CICO thinks that only calories matter, you sound like only the food composition matters but not the calories. I think both is wrong, in the sense that it gives us only a part of the picture and not all of it. And the key difference is the satiety signal. On high carbs, we usually get hungry way before we have burned off all energy from food intake, so we overeat (read: with all the factors influencing energy expenditure, we eat more than we need). On keto, we usually get hungry only after we have burned off all calories from food, so we’ll burn a bit from our lipid cells. But the amount of calories matter, as any stored fat is burned off only after energy from food is used up.
I never believed in Brads theory, or maybe his protons interpretation. In fact I would expect that any diet that is moderate to high in carbs and high in fats should be obesogenic, regardless of the type of fats and carbs.
Note that Peter thinks that you’ll gain weight if you are insulin sensitive, because IR lipid cells won’t store more fat. I’d assume that you regained some insulin sensitivity in 7 years of keto. As you ate a ton of saturated fat, there was no need to draw fat from your lipid cells. The presence of carbs in the diet will cause your lipid cells to store excess fats, and possibly increase hunger. No PUFAs required.
The first law of thermodynamics still holds, even though the CICO people got it completely wrong If you eat a lot, you won’t lose weight. (You may not gain weight either, depending on your insulin.) If you eat undercaloric, you’ll lose weight. (The rate depends on the insulin, again. And yes, “undercaloric” is different in a black and white fashion between keto and carby.) On Keto, we can eat almost as much as we can and we won’t gain weight significantly (even though it can happen, I’ve seen people gain a lot of weight on keto), because the absence of carbs means that we won’t store the fat.
But you did eat carbs, even though only after workouts if I understood this right, which will have caused the weight gain. You also ate dairy, which contains IGF-1 which acts like insulin in our body. You had to eat a lot to stay satieted, ergo you didn’t burn off the fat that you stored. The diet probably worked for Brad because he was satieted for 24hours or longer, he was never hungry. It didn’t work for you because you had to eat more often. Why? Wish I knew. But it’s a question of satiety, and satiety only.
But I don’t see where this contradicts the protons theory in any way. Protons is concerned with the way we store and burn fat, but this is a satiety issue. If there is a magic ingredient in your diet that makes you constantly hungry, you will gain weight unless your insulin is very, very low. To me, the idea of the croissant diet was that high stearic acid will make you so satieted that you’ll eat undercaloric even if you add carbs. This theory clearly failed in your case.
I absolutely believe that PUFAs have 2 effects: (a) they increase insulin resistance and inflammation if they are stored in our body in high amounts, and (b) they interfere with our satiety signalling, causing us to overeat (Mike Eades talks about this). But they are not the only cause of overeating, and insulin resistance wasn’t the problem in your case anyway. BTW, Ben Bikmans new book on IR is highly recommended.
On a side note. I know an elderly couple that eats very much like the French do. They have toast for breakfast with fatty toppings like fish, fat cheese, tons of butter and the like, say 9am. Not a lot of sugar though. Then they eat a modest lunch at 2pm, as they aren’t very hungry after the hearty breakfast. And they don’t eat anything until the next morning, giving them a 19h intermittent fasting, where insulin drops and they burn off fat. They are slim because they are satieted for a long time, and don’t need a 3rd meal.
Eating to satiety is what makes this happen. There is no calculating needed, if the appetite hormones are not being interfered with by insulin. Don’t forget that the metabolism adjusts (within very broad parameters) to compensate for the amount of food we eat. The body is as capable of wasting energy as it is of conserving it.
Bikman (and others) have presented strong evidence that ketosis can ‘waste’ energy via mitochondrial uncoupling (BAT) and ketone excretion in both urine and breath.
Exactly. But insulin is tricky and depends on your metabolic health. For some people very small insulin amounts will throw this off. PUFAs are an independent factor here, they make us extra hungry (at least on a carby diet). But I’m not sure if this works as well on the croissant diet.
That’s what I meant with “And yes, ‘undercaloric’ is different in a black and white fashion between keto and carby”. But the ability to waste energy isn’t unlimited, there was that one guy who ate twice his daily calories for 3 weeks and he gained weight. Only a fraction of what was predicted by the CICO model, but he did gain weight. He intentionally overate, but this is mechanistically not very different from eating something that throws off your hormones to make you hungry.
I myself can confirm that I will gain a bit if I overeat for weeks (damn, this mousse au chocolate is tasty that I do). Energy balance does matter. Of course, to do any predictions, you need a good model to predict the energy expenditure. Which can be paradoxical of course (eating less can cause weight gain because the body overcompensate in a drop of BMR, and eating less can cause weight loss because the body freely wastes energy).
And then there are people like Sam Feltham, who ate 5000 calories a day for four weeks, gained a bit of muscle, and lost a bit of fat. He looked great to start with, and even better four weeks later!
I’m not sure that we disagree on anything. As I said, you may not gain weight on 5000 calories if your insulin is really low. (I should have added that the background is really important. Results will most likely be different if you come from the SAD or from years of keto.)
But we’re discussing @ctviggen here, who did eat some carbs in between. Do you think Sam Feltham would have lost any fat if he had eaten carbs, say once every other day? I don’t think so.
@KetoSponge Sorry for the delay. I have a lot going on. I got a respite from my basement project, as I ordered drill bits for concrete…which did not fit my drill. I forgot I had a special drill that needed special bits. So, I had a bit of time and wanted to check in.
Anyway, I started out doing Brad’s high stearic acid ghee. Basically, you take butter, make ghee, then add his stearic acid. But they I would melt about 50% cacao butter with it. I ate it just like this.
I would also take chunks of cacao butter and add it to yogurt with dark chocolate. The cacao butter doesn’t taste that great.
I also made white chocolate with cacao butter and fake sugar and other ingredients (coconut milk powder, which is basically 100% saturated fat, though I’m not sure of what type) . These were mainly for my kid’s lunches, but I ate them too. This is where I think the “all you need is high saturated fat and low PUFA” idea fails: even though these are high in saturated fat, because they are sweet, I could eat a ton of them.
Can you guys boil this conclusion to one or two sentences?
I think what’s happening is they are front-loading all of their calories. The problem is that we all aren’t like that.
Brad follows a woman on Twitter who goes by “sasha” I believe. She eats similar to what you described, in that she eats most of her calories in the morning and a tiny (and I do mean TINY) meal at night.
But I can’t do that.
Here is Dr. Eade’s version of this, where he also places obesity on PUFAs:
So, if the theory is that you can eat carbs as long as you eat PUFAs and high saturated fat – and this is the theory, as they use the French as an example – for me, it’s wrong. As soon as there is one black swan, the theory is wrong.
You also should note that I ate low carb (no TKD) AND high saturated fat. Same effect. If I do not eat enough saturated fat, I do not get a satiety effect.
Also, as for dairy, I don’t have any issues I’ve ever seen. I’ve tried not eating dairy and eating dairy. No difference that I could see.
The issue is that if you want to increase your saturated fat, how do you do that? Dairy. Most meat (other then beef suet) does not have that much saturated fat. I’ve tried suet too, but that has the same issue: I have not been able to get a satiety effect with the amount I’ve eaten. And I don’t like it that much. Too “chewy”.
Brad has two new posts up:
In the second one, he gives this:
Again, I must be different. This theory is the lower the better. I get a 1.67 yet am not “lean”.
Fire in a Bottle - The ROS Theory of Obesity and The Proton Theory
@ctviggen Thanks for the links, Bob! Maybe this is a clue to your issues:
In part 2 I will argue that the difference between a lean metabolism and a post-obese metabolism is permanently up-regulated SCD1 in the post-obese state. I will present a mechanism by which dietary PUFA could lead to permanently up-regulated SCD1.
I’ve already purchased the oil he is selling, to be released in January. I’m not found of increasing inflammation, but taking it a month shouldn’t be bad.
Might also get some CLA (or maybe something else? One of his recommended herbs?). I used to take CLA, a long time ago.
By the way, just to be clear: I still use high saturated fat at times. For instance, if I’m going to fast the next day (OMAD) or for 36 hours, I’ll eat some dairy, dark chocolate, and cacao butter. This helps me get “hot” so I don’t get cold while fasting.
I’m currently trying a TKD again and eating some spaghetti squash on my first meal after my workout. This week, I’m using spaghetti sauce, as my wife accidentally bought spicy sauce, and I’m the only one who can eat it. Next week, I might make some ghee + stearic acid and put that in my spaghetti squash.
For me, my question arises with carbs (the carbs in spag squash are quite low; I’ve been using maybe 30 grams/meal). I know most people say “carbs + fat = bad”, but the critique of this is that populations like the French eat carbs + fat and are thinner than we are. Why? Also, when I heard Brad interviewed, he said that the “carbs + fat = bad” is a US thing; it’s not the same way in other cultures.
And if it WAS possible to eat a croissant with butter and you would not be hungry for a long time, would you do it? I was thinking mainly for my kids, as this would provide something more “normal” for them to eat. For me, I would eat these every once in a while, as I think wheat and I still don’t get along. But at least I’d know I could eat these.
Unfortunately, it seems I can’t. My mind could, of course, change as I gather more data. I usually make some “bread” for Thanksgiving/Christmas, as since everyone comes to our place, I can make bread, eat some, and it’s gone. That’s my treat. I may make croissants year, assuming we get together. If I do make croissants, I’ll see what my hunger does. The one time I tried this, it did not seem blunted. But I could be wrong.
True. But this is Brads theory, not Peters (protons). I already said that I don’t agree with Brad there.
Protons establishes PUFAs as one driver of obesity, but doesn’t rule out that there are other drivers (like insulin). I also remember talks where Eades argues that the combination of PUFAs and carbs is to blame, talking about this study where children ate to satiety and consumed almost twice the calories when their carbs came from fries (in PUFAs) vs. mash (with butter). Not sure if it was the linked talk.
We know that rich people were obese as long ago as ancient rome, and they certainly didn’t eat PUFAs. I’m not an expert, but I’d wager they ate carbs, at least some fructose and plenty of alcohol.
Because everything changes once you get metabolic syndrome. With low insulin, fat will predominantly be burned and not stored. With high insulin, fat gets stored and we need more carbs to satisfy our energetic needs. The “paradox” French did not have metS.
BTW, the French people got a lot fatter in the recent years, as did the Japanese and other supposedly thin cultures. It’s the same story all over: Increase your insulin via the many mechanisms out there (too many carbs, PUFAs, environmental toxins, stress, lack of sleep, again I’ll recommend Ben Bikmans fantastic book here), and you will get fat on exactly the same mix of nutrients that keeps insulin sensitive people perfectly slim.
I also made an experiment, ate some carbs for 2 weeks. Gained 6 pounds, had major cravings, even though my HOMA-IR has returned to almost normal levels (1.3 was the last value). Perhaps even many years on keto are not enough to make our body tolerant to carbs again.
Maybe PUFAs are a major driver for developing metS in the first place. Once you have it, it may not matter if you eat PUFAs or not. MetS is permanent perhaps, sentence for life. That explains why people who lived low PUFA all their life can eat carbs.
My guess is that you were always intolerant of carbohydrate, it’s just that when you were weaned onto carbs you were too young to notice or report the symptoms.
That would be a very differently working body so I don’t know… But nope, I need nutritious food, not just fat and starch and I need it for each and every meal. So I still would eat fatty protein. Or carby protein. More appealing food and more useful as well. (And with my actual body, the only way to reach satiation.)
Another (possible) reason why I wouldn’t do it… I probably would need very very many croissant with butter to reach satiation. So I would massively overeat each and every day. Using not really valuable food. Not good.
I don’t think carb + fat = bad, I never agreed with that opinion. It may be horrible for many, sure but it’s just not seem to be true for everyone. It is for me but it’s way way worse (and completely impossible) if I use little fat while eating much carbs. But carb + fat is the only and great way to eat for some people. Each to their own, I always say.
I don’t talk about gaining fat, that’s basically about overeating (even if it’s complicated as some people overeat while not eating very much for their stats while others need to stuff themselves like crazy all the time to gain a little per year. and there may be interesting hormonal and other conditions interfering. still, one needs the energy to gain the extra fat).
Sorry, I’m getting back to this. Will read above, but maybe not until this weekend.
Tried a TKD with a bit of spaghetti squash and high-stearic-acid butter oil. About 3-4 heaping table spoons full.
What I find is that the reduction in hunger does not occur while eating. In fact, I was a bit hungry after eating my first meal around 10 am (body weight workout for about and hour at 6 am, so about 3 hours after my workout). But the reduction in hunger comes hours later. It’s not 4:20 pm, so about 6.5 hours since I ate, and I’m not that hungry.