Why would my metabolism slow down if I’m getting cals from fat stores?

[carolT]

This belief in appetite regulation requires a nearly faith-element that massive chemical abuse by the pseudofood supply every day pretty much our entire lives from toddler on, has not forked up our satiety signals…

Yes. I think the tendancy to overeat is reduced from an imperative signal to dull background noise for most people going from carb to keto. Not everyone will experience this, at least not right away, maybe never. It also doesn’t take into account emotional-based eating and other psychological aspects that aren’t food based.

[ZuleikaD]

I mean it’s nice it didn’t seem to affect REE but these kids growth was stunted, essentially, that’s what it was saying, right. So still there is something going on, although perhaps it doesn’t affect our metabolism discussion.

Yes, for starters, I think we’re mostly talking about metabolism here. Since we don’t have studies specifically on that topic, we’re looking at stand-ins.

As for the kids and growth in that study, it may open up a whole new avenue of debate, but I think it’s important to remember that they’re on a medically ketogenic diet for epilepsy. Those diets tend to be low protein, so it makes sense that kids were not growing as they might otherwise. People who are on a nutritionally ketogenic/very low carb diet should be eating sufficient protein, so the same concern does arise. There is no need to restrict protein just for the sake of hitting a certain macro percentage, as there is with the medical diet for epilepsy.

[RightNOW]

Ah yes, excellent point – the low protein – I had forgotten that entirely, thanks!

I also hadn’t thought until after the post about the fact that IGF-1 though normally good (growth hormone yay) is possibly dose dependent. A lot of things seem to have a point where higher doses begin to not work as well and eventually can do harm.

Quote from a random blog:

insulin-growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which at high levels can contribute to insulin resistance, and potentially rids the body of inflammatory, ill-functioning senescent cells, which in turn can improve cellular functioning and metabolic flexibility (the ability of cells to switch seamlessly between fuel sources such as sugars and fats) in aging tissues.

Possibly IGF-1 reduction was merely reducing it to what should be normal; or was a result of the low protein; but in any case seems possibly related to lower growth pattern, but might relate not to keto but to the low protein.

[PaulL]

I hope it means that. Given that we are essentially animals (mammals) and our bodies create saturated fat, how would our brain know fat is ours vs. our steak’s, unless of course it recognizes our unique signature somehow.

The brain doesn’t know, that’s the point. But the low insulin level resulting from minimal carbohydrate intake allows fat cells to release fatty acids into the bloodstream. These then become available to be metabolised. The low insulin level also permits leptin, secreted by the fat cells when they are full, to be received by the brain again (high levels of insulin block off the brain’s leptin receptors), so that the brain knows there is an abundance of available energy. The brain then shuts off the secretion of ghrelin, the main hunger hormone, and secretes other hormones that tell us we are not hungry. So it really does not matter where the fat comes from, it is available to be metabolised. As long as insulin remains low, excess fat in the fat cells is included with the fat available to be metabolised. And of course, when the available fatty acid drops below a certain level, the fat tissue stops secreting leptin, and the brain activates the secretion of ghrelin to make us hungry again.

[Arbre]

Interesting thread. Two comments:

1. Regarding reduced metabolism: in addition to less metabolism due to having to carry less weight, it is supposed keto should induce a “partial fasting”, so organs should contract. This would be essential for future autophagy. Then, this reduced metabolism would be at least partly benefitial, no?
2. For the time being, my medically-controlled high-protein-keto diet is working really well. The amount of protein (from soy mostly) is at normal levels, but both fats and carbs are set at very low levels. I am severely calorie restricted, but without hunger. I do not have the feeling my metabolism is slowing down at all. Could it be that eating “normal” protein, while reducing fat (inducing own fat consumption) and carbs (low insulin, leading to switch towards a “anti-fat-storage” mode) is optimal?

[carolT]

keto should induce a “partial fasting”, so organs should contract. This would be essential for future autophagy.

As I understand it, autophagy is a function of protein restriction so a fat-only fast would be preferential to a protein-sparing fast for this purpose.

Could it be that eating “normal” protein, while reducing fat (inducing own fat consumption) and carbs (low insulin, leading to switch towards a “anti-fat-storage” mode) is optimal?

I’m not sure what you mean by reducing fat “including own fat consumption”?

Assuming you are not creating excess insulin because of IR or T2D and thus limiting the release of fatty acids from your adipose tissue…
IF you are able to meet daily energy requirements by using your own fat, then reducing dietary fat shouldn’t change your metabolism for the worse, beyond the effects of reduced bodyweight on energy expenditure. If your hunger signals are working correctly, that is. Some people might experience an anorexic effect? So, rule of thumb: take estimated number of pounds of bodyfat x 30 kCal and use that as a maximum you’re getting from your own stores to be on the safe side.

Sometimes a short period of overfeeding can jump start a higher metabolic rate, and get past a stall. Or alternate fasting and feeding can do the trick.

Some warnings signs of slowing metabolism are cold feet or hands, tiredness, hunger or specific food cravings.

[daddyoh]

@Arbre

Sometimes a short period of overfeeding can jump start a higher metabolic rate, and get past a stall. Or alternate fasting and feeding can do the trick.

Or both. Mix it up.

cold feet or hands

You can get cold on extended fasts, especially at night. I’m not sure why but I think it is because for me I expel fluids. (I pee a lot of fluids out). As soon as I refeed this goes away.

[OldDoug]

For the time being, my medically-controlled high-protein-keto diet is working really well. The amount of protein (from soy mostly) is at normal levels, but both fats and carbs are set at very low levels. I am severely calorie restricted, but without hunger. I do not have the feeling my metabolism is slowing down at all. Could it be that eating “normal” protein, while reducing fat (inducing own fat consumption) and carbs (low insulin, leading to switch towards a “anti-fat-storage” mode) is optimal?

If you’re aiming at weight loss, it sounds really good to me. The body’s response to protein while on a ketogenic diet is much different than if a lot of carbs are eaten, i.e. vastly less insulin response. You’re evidently getting plenty of energy from burning your own fat, and feeling pretty good.

Protein digestion consumes a meaningful portion of energy, moreso than for carbs and fat. The ‘thermic effect of feeding’ for the protein in some meats is as high as 35%, i.e. it takes a good third of the energy contained just to digest it.

I see the following study, where soy protein averaged a peak 24% increase in oxygen uptake after eating it :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3500733/

Day by day this is not a huge influence - it’s only while protein digestion is going on.

Or is it? Just my own experience here - there have been multiple days where the only thing I ate was something like a container or two of sardines and a piece of cheese. We’re talking 400-600 calories, probably, in the afternoon or early evening. Should be no big deal, but then later on I feel increasingly energetic and warmer, and it continues through the night, sweaty pillow and all.

It does not do it every time, so I don’t really know what’s going on. What I want is fat loss, so I’m glad of it - and more convinced than ever that protein, per se, is not to be feared when eating keto.

Over the long term, it’s a good question - what really is “optimal”? Different people will experience different things. I wish we knew when the average person would get a metabolic slowdown from calorie restriction.

From the ‘Biggest Loser’ contestants and things like Keys’ Minnesota Starvation Experiment we know that in 5 or 6 months, the metabolism can be slowed. For those with adequate stored fat and access to it, I’m not sure there would be a slowdown, and some who have fasted for very long periods seem to not suffer from it, other than what stems from overall decreasing body weight and the lack of energy expenditure for digesting food.

While some people do feel cold while fasting, I don’t think that in a week or two the metabolism is going to be really much affected, i.e. after they start eating again, they’re like they were before. So somewhere out there in time, a month, two, three, four - is where I’m guessing the time for slowdown is, if calorie restriction is what’s driving it.

@Arbre - how long have you been on your current diet?

[AuntLynyrd]

Hi Sharon, it is well worth the investment to get Dr. Fung’s books “The Obesity Code” & “The Diabetes Code”. (I just finished my second reading of them.) Both of these books have been a wealth of information for me. They are very well written for the average person. Not a while lot of scientific jargon, but explained simply. Read Obesity Code first, then Diabetes Code. Whether we have a diagnosis of diabetes or not (which I did not have, but still quite sure I was insulin resistant), the info hit me like a bolt of lightning! He very sussenctly explains how our metabolism slows as our weight drops. It’s our body’s safety mechanism from starvation mode. Nothing to worry about or beat ourselves up over. Just takes longer to lose those pesky last 20 lbs or so as we get closer to the prize, our goal. #KeepCalmAndKetoOn sister!

[Keto6468]

So, rule of thumb: take estimated number of pounds of bodyfat x 30 kCal and use that as a maximum you’re getting from your own stores to be on the safe side.

So if I weigh 165 pounds, and 26% of that is currently fat, and I can get 30 kcal per pound then… I should be able to get 1287 cal from my own body fat. That seems like a lot. Are you sure it’s not kilocalories per kilogram? For me that would mean a lot of calorie restriction to lose any weight at all . And maybe that’s actually true. Please verify, thanks

[PaulL]

Yep, 165 lb. x .26 x 31.5 (k)cal/lb. (a bit more, actually, than the 30 you were quoting) = 1331.35 (k)cal. Which is why Phinney and Volek found that people in the induction phase of a ketogenic diet who eat to satiety typically eat around 1000 (k)cal less than their energy needs, because their appetite is set at a level that allows the “missing” 1000 (k)cal to come from stored fat. I’m not sure where “calorie restriction” comes into the picture, because you are not restricting calories if your body is telling you to stop eating because you don’t need more food.

Note that there is a minimum level of fat that the body wants to retain. In the case of women it’s in the range of 21-23% of total weight, in the case of men around 10-13%. (Women need a larger fat reserve, of course, to support pregnancy and lactation.) As we approach this in-built limit, the amount of fat the body considers excess shrinks, the caloric contribution from dietary must increase (it does so automatically if we continue to eat to satiety), and fat loss slows and eventually ceases.

I highly recommend reading through the following thread, in which @richard explains the issues at length:

Restrict plate fat when trying to lose body fat - discussion

[image]@richard @CanKeto @Fiorella @devhammer I am fascinated to know what you think of the principle put forward in this diagram from @ted.naiman & how it fits into this pretty fierce debate! This really interests me as I still have plenty of body fat to lose & more healing of T2D to be done. Am I understanding ted’s diagram correctly, he’s saying restrict plate fat when trying to lose body fat, he’s talking about fat grams but of course a gram of fat is 9 calories so is he committing the keto…

[Arbre]

@OldDoug I have started my second keto diet (the first one went well, and I maintained my weight for a few years; then I regained them, after a change in my lifestyle) recently.

I remember from my first keto diet that when I lost most of my weight, I was colder than usual in winter.

But I was giving the responsibility to the lack of fat, which naturally acts as a “coat”. Of course, it could be both: the loss of the “fat coat” and the reduction of metabolism.

But even in the case of reduction of metabolism, we should differentiate between absolute reductions (e.g. less muscle is needed to carry the body, less blood pressure is needed …) which in general are “good” from relative reductions (e.g. is the internally generated heat lower than in the case of a “healthy” person, with a stable weight and BMI similar to the ketoer?).

Even though relative reductions may exist, I would like to see the numbers and compare them with the absolute reductions. My intuition is they are not very meaningful. I think most of the reductions are healthy (less blood pressure, less muscle to carry the weight …).

[Keto6468]

Well if I look at a number of calculators to see would a woman of my age and sedentary lifestyle needs to eat by way of calories I come up with somewhere between 1400 and 1500 cal. (I’m 63, I weigh 165 lb, I have 26% body fat, and I have a sedentary lifestyle)

If I can pull almost 1300 cal from my own body fat then I pretty much need to be fasting all the time to lose ANY weight. I will tell you right now that I eat somewhere around 1300 to 1500 cal. I stay below 20 cal, sometimes below 20 total calories, of carbohydrates. I have increased my protein, and reduced my plate fat. The “eating to fat to satiety” is more fat than I normally allow myself to eat. I could probably eat more fat but I’m trying to help my body eat my own fat. I have stayed at about 165 pounds for a solid year.

Either I need to fast, a lot, or maybe just lean protein, no carbs and no fat.

Thank you for the article I will re-read it

[coffeekittie]

But if you control your carbs, and focus on protein, then you don’t have to eat a lot of fat, and let your own stores help fuel you, yes?

[atomicspacebunny]

Well if I look at a number of calculators to see would a woman of my age and sedentary lifestyle needs to eat by way of calories I come up with somewhere between 1400 and 1500 cal. (I’m 63, I weigh 165 lb, I have 26% body fat, and I have a sedentary lifestyle)

Either I need to fast, a lot, or maybe just lean protein, no carbs and no fat.

I just wanted to point out what I think the problem is with this?

You cannot be sedentary and expect anything to happen?

Here is why it is not working (if that is the issue?):

You have to get your muscle mass increased, even though your doing everything right, counting calories is to help recognize portion size but actual numbers is not happening because they are not even close to being actuarial.

Even though your eating fat and your in ketosis and doing everything right, your still burning sugar when you eat protein and/or carbohydrates, there is no possible way of explaining that away.

The more muscle mass you have, the more you will oxidize sugar/glucose before it is turned to lipids (body fat), the only other way around that is cold thermal adaption where you get brown adipose tissue to act as if it were muscle tissue which burns up sugars/carbs as soon as you eat it!

You must burn through a wall of glycogen before you can even come close to burning up actual body fat!

The larger your muscle mass is in ratio to adipose mass, the more successful at burning actual body fat you will be (high fat, low fat, high carb, low carb or no carb…it does not matter)!

Another good question is why are we so thin when we are young? It is because we have more muscle mass than adipose fat, once you exceed that ratio in body fat with time (not age) then you get fatter because your no longer oxidizing sugar/carbs as soon as you eat it!

References:

[1] “…Whether fed or fasted, the body is always releasing, burning, and storing fat. When insulin is high, storage predominates, but turnover continues. When insulin is low, release and oxidation predominate. If you eat fat along with a lot of carbohydrates, it is prone to be stored. When fat is consumed in the context of a well formulated ketogenic diet, it — along with fat released from adipose stores — is prone to be burned. But once digested and absorbed, dietary fat and stored fat enter the ‘turnover pool’ and are in a constant state of mixing. …” …More

[2] Dynamics of human adipose lipid turnover in health and metabolic disease

[3] Fat Tissue Growth and Development in Humans.

[4] Impact of fat mass and distribution on lipid turnover in human adipose tissue

[5] Dynamics of Adipocyte Turnover in Humans

[6] Fat cell number is set in childhood and stays constant in adulthood

[7] The Glycogen Depletion Workouts to Do Before Feasting

[Ilana_Rose]

If I can pull almost 1300 cal from my own body fat then I pretty much need to be fasting all the time to lose ANY weight.

Not at all. 1300 calories is the maximum your body can take from your fat a day without needing to slow down your metabolism. You don’t actually want to try to “hit” that target or you risk overshooting it. Any net amount of fat taken from your cells will result in losses. Even 100 calories a day, but it will be slow.

[atomicspacebunny]

Not at all. 1300 calories is the maximum your body can take from your fat a day without needing to slow down your metabolism. You don’t actually want to try to “hit” that target or you risk overshooting it.

”…Here’s why: One of the variables that affect your resting metabolic rate is the amount of lean muscle you have. At any given weight, the more muscle on your body, and the less fat, the higher your metabolic rate. That’s because muscle uses a lot more energy than fat while at rest (see the graphic in section one/below). …” …More

Contribution of organs and tissues to bodyweight and basal metabolic rate. | European Childhood Obesity Group: Metabolic And Mechanical Cost Of Sedentary And Physical Activities In Obese Children And Adolescents

And also: …the resetting (re-distribution) of GLUT4 transports and Leptin & Ghrelin signaling in salivary amylase breakdown of carbohydrates e.g. basal and resting metabolic synchronization; all controlled by muscle mass to adipose ratios etc…

For example: let’s take the case of Jane & John Doe? Using the 1300 calories as an example; both Jane & John Doe; a happily married couple decide to go on a ketogenic diet together at 1300 calories each, John is losing weight (real body fat) like crazy and Jane is not losing any weight at all (stall/plateau) and she cannot figure out why? It is because John already has more muscle mass (and not lifting any weights) and Jane does not? So she would have to lift some weights and do a little weight training to keep up with John? If John wanted to lose weight even faster than Jane then he could outpace Jane’s efforts by lifting weights!

Weight Loss Stalling Plateaus: It is not a female hormone or thyroid thing as popularly assumed; that is, if you really examine the research closely and deeply enough?

Why fasting and/or dieting is futile for the purposes of trying to lose weight: a lot of people believe this a way to lose body fat, that is an assumption and severe error in logic, you may lose a little body fat and visceral fat but the problem is as soon as you start eating you will gain it all back if you have more body fat in contrast to muscle mass. A small increase in muscle mass makes a big (huge) difference in maintaining a desired weight (muscle body weight is not the same as body fat weight) or body composition (if you have lots of loose skin cut back on protein intake; cycle it meaning don’t eat protein everyday)!

[PaulL]

Well if I look at a number of calculators to see would a woman of my age and sedentary lifestyle needs to eat by way of calories I come up with somewhere between 1400 and 1500 cal. (I’m 63, I weigh 165 lb, I have 26% body fat, and I have a sedentary lifestyle)

Most people’s energy expenditure is in the range of 2000 to 28000 calories. Those calculators are set by default to tell you to eat at a caloric deficit, which is why we recommend changing the setting to “maintenance,” even when you are just starting out on keto.

My point is that we don’t know, with any real accuracy, what our daily energy expenditure is, nor do we have truly accurate information about the energy content of our food (we say a gram of carbs or protein contains 4 calories, but that’s rounded, not the precise figure; and the figure for fat is not precisely 9 cal/g, either). So doesn’t it make sense to trust that our body knows what it wants? Especially since, as Gary Taubes points out, that if intake exceeds expenditure by less than 20 calories each and every day, that will still theoretically add up to a twenty-pound weight gain in a year’s time.

Fortunately, the hormonal situation is more complex than that, and we don’t need to be precise in our calculations, because our bodies evolved to handle that for us. It can lower metabolism to meet a restricted intake, and it can increase metabolism to handle abundance.

My big problem with the energy-balance hypothesis is that it makes certain assumptions that don’t appear to be valid. For instance, it is assumed that any caloric deficit will be met only from the fat store, but we know that fat can be mobilised for use only in the case of low insulin, leaving lean tissue as the only source of calories. The hypothesis also assumes that a caloric deficit is the cause of weight-loss, whereas actual experience shows that it is putting the body into weight-loss mode that causes the caloric deficit. Another assumption is that energy expenditure is fixed and invariable, and we know that’s not true. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the long-term effect of trying to use caloric deficit as a lever on the body has deleterious effects. Kevin Hall’s study of the “Biggest Loser” contestants comes to mind in this connexion.

On the other hand, eating in a way that allows the body to re-establish the proper hormonal balance seems like a more sensible approach. After all, our ancestors managed quite nicely on meat and whatever small amount of plant food they could forage, and all without knowing what a calorie is. Mike Eades’s lecture on the health problems encountered when the race began eating agricultural produce is fascinating in this regard.

[Arbre]

Is it known at which BMI the fat tissue stops secreting leptin, leading to the brain secreting ghrelin to make us hungry again?

[Madeleine]

It would be a bodyfat % rather than a BMI but there are so many individual variables that I can’t imagine there’s one answer to this!