Interesting stuff came out of my post on calories, particularly from those posters who are near their goal weight but just can't quite get where they want to be.
I was pondering on all this, because I'm pretty certain artificial caloric restriction and/or extensive fasting can't be the answer. Yes, it'll probably achieve the desired result ... temporarily. Yes, as LCHFers, we all seem to tend towards fewer meals naturally. I'm just wondering if there's another possibility.
I asserted in that post that fat has a purpose: to store enough energy for both medium-term and long-term dips in dietary intake (glycogen is the usual recourse for short timescales). That hypothesis carries a testable prediction: eat more often and your body should have less need for bodyfat.
So I'm going to try an experiment on myself (n=1). I'm aiming for 5-6 meals a day. I started this yesterday and I'm consciously attempting to overeat - particularly on fat, and frankly I'm already not feeling good about it. Someone asked the question "how do you avoid eating 100g of cheese?". Well, I ate 30g of it last night and I don't have any immediate urge to eat another 70g of it, even though it's nice cheese. If anyone's still incredulous, I'd encourage you to pick up the Toad Challenge and see just how much cheese you can stuff into your face over a period of a week. I'm pretty confident it won't be as much as you think.
I started today with some Greek yoghurt and a sort of chicken pâté that I made for snacking on (I just wrap it up in salad leaves and eat it cold). I then had a large brunch with salad, a cheese omelette, and two sausages. I'll have a large low-carb evening meal as usual, plus more high-fat snacks at 3pm and 10pm.
In conjunction with that, I've switched to a standard bodybuilding routine at the gym: 4 days a week, mostly resistance work (split workouts), and train-to-failure.
It's not a very good experimental design - too many factors being changed at once - but I'm really just interested in finding out if fewer calories/fewer meals is really essential for bodyfat loss, or not.
I'm posting the experimental description and hypothesis first because that's what you do (I'll report back in a couple of weeks). Too much mainstream nutrition involves experiments where the goals are vague and the experimenters fit their hypothesis around the data after it's all done and dusted.
Written by
TheAwfulToad
Ambassador
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Brilliant! I love experimenting. I will be watching for your reports and result s with interest! All mine, at the moment , are concerning fasting and keto. because I find it easy and natural to me personally, plus, has worked well for me in the past when I have dipped my toe in. But I know that for many people (my sister in particular) it is not working well and they get frustrated and give in. They try so hard, but it is a struggle and don't seem to get good results. Eating several meals throughout the day would be more fitting if that is the way your body works best. many of us are natural grazers, so your experiment could be a great help to them. 👍
I'm not sure I'd agree we're natural grazers, though thinking back to our earliest ancestors, I wouldn't really know. I think it's something we've developed in recent times.
In my childhood, we ate three meals, at the table, very rarely anything between. It was seen as bad mannered to eat in the street. And there was no concept of "snacking". I've tried hard to think of what a snack might have been and it was probably what you might have on the odd occasion when your meal was delayed for some reason - maybe bread and cheese or a piece of fruit. Certainly there was nothing marketed as "snacks": whatever you had was just food.
I'll be very interested to see the results of TAT's self experiment
I think it is more that the way of life for a lot of us theses days has changed so much! It is not always possible to find time for three meals at a table, and certainly rare for the whole family to be able to do it together. I think the grazing mentality tends to have come from grabbing what you can when you can and the reluctance to cook a meal, if the rest of the family can't join you. Plus so much emphasis put on eating and drinking in front of the TV, as a 'reward' for getting through a stressful day which also seems to have replaced 'family' time in the evenings.
I'm sure you're right. Maybe we don't respect food enough - it's so freely and cheaply available to most of us these days - and, while the three meals a day together as a family is a thing of the past, I think it would be a shame if sharing food was lost entirely.
The other thing that existed for many when I was a child was workplace canteens and dining rooms. Now it's the norm for people to eat at their desk or on the move or not at all. And shift workers - working far longer shifts than when I worked in hospital, for instance, have extra challenges that I don't envy.
No wonder we can't get a sense of balance in our lives. But I still think it's worth trying to aim for full, filling meals rather than constant top-ups throughout the day
Totally agree with you! As said, I find the fasting comes second nature now. I am not tempted to snack at all these days and quite happy to not until I can get home and have a meal with my OH ..... even if it is not the same thing.
The loss of mealtimes is a terrible thing. Many years ago I worked for BT, and we had an excellent canteen - you could drop in and get breakfast at 10am, which for me was a much more civilised time to eat. It was a bit like school dinners - lots of carbs with gravy! - but at least it was proper food, and people took their time to sit and eat and chat.
Your post took me right back to my childhood too. A snack was, at best, two jammie dodgers purchased for about 1d (old penny) with our free school milk ...OR better still a custard cream dunked in a glass of cherryade. 😆😆
I can remember those soft drinks too, They were literally just coloured sugar-water in those days, weren't they? I wouldn't like to think what went into them. Funnily enough, I remember trying them once or twice as a "treat", and was completely underwhelmed.
They had a much more interesting selection of sweets in those days, though. Remember sweet shops where you could go in with a penny (or even a halfpenny) and buy literally two sweets with it? Nowadays you have to buy a 500kCal monster, because it's not economically viable to sell you anything smaller.
Seems to be several reasons why people struggle, but I've noticed one big problem is that people just can't get their head around eating to satiety. They try to count and restrict calories, or they try to conform to what the government says is a "normal" portion size; or, equivalently, they try to restrict fat as well as carbs. They are, in short, hungry, and they snack between meals.
What happened with your sister? She just wasn't losing weight? Hidden posted a video about that. There are definitely people who don't respond very well to moderate low-carb. Atkins addressed this problem in his book, and listed out an alternative induction protocol for people who don't see immediate results.
I simply don't think it fits her life style. maybe she was still having too many carbs, or maybe she was overdoing the cheese and cream in the 'eating window' plus she is not able to get out and about right now (broken leg a few weeks ago) Plus she was trying to do too many things at once.
She has now calmed it down! 6 hour eating window every day. and cutting out all the bread, pasta and wheat (she had cut them back a lot before but cutting them altogether now) and cutting alcohol down to 2 days a week. she has found the eating window helpful, because she has always been a grazer. Recently retired as head of a school, the grab what you can when you can habit has yet to leave her, and she now has all day to do it! I am sure she will get there in the end... especially in a few minths when i am not her chubby old sister anymore and we have similar amounts to lose. 😂
I look forward to hearing how you get on and how it makes you feel. And as for cheese, I could eat it all day long - blue, soft, chilli, smoked mmmmmmmm I think I’ll have to find some now! 😊
I will follow this with interest, but just a question about the first paragraph, posters who “are near their goal weight but just can't quite get where they want to be“. Maybe we should be allowing our bodies to set the goal weight, which might to us seem very arbitrary for example 10st 1lb when we really want to be 10st exactly. I personally haven’t set a goal weight, and even though according to stats for my height I am still overweight, would be quite happy if my “plateau” at this weight continues because I now feel good in myself. Good luck with your research project!
Agree wholeheartedly about arbitrary goals. How do we know that extra pound wasn't needed to be a chunk of brain, or liver?
Over-simplication deliberate, but shows how much I agree.
Also, both full bladder/bowels and female hormonal changes put together can change body weight by a staggering 10.5lb, even in the same human with the same fat stores.
Yes, I agree with that entirely. One of the things that drives me nuts about the "calories in calories out" hypothesis is that it implies you can reduce your fat mass down to an arbitrarily low value simply by eating less. Everyone knows this isn't true - and the fact that it isn't true implies that the hypothesis itself is flat-out wrong. Yet the nutritionists keep bleating about it.
I try to use the word 'bodyfat' rather than weight, because as Stoozie said, your weight is dependent on all sorts of things; at a healthy bodyweight, the average human will be carrying around 10kg of fat (plus or minus), which isn't a lot. A loss of 1kg will show up in the mirror far more clearly than on the scales. Conversely, a difference of 1kg on the scales doesn't mean you've lost or gained 1kg of fat (although, again, the nutritionists believe that this is so).
One reason for my experiment is that I believe hard exercise is the only way to get below 15% bodyfat (men) or 25% (women), particularly for older people. That's not because "exercise burns calories"; it's (a) because a larger muscle mass inevitably decreases your BF%, all else being equal and (b) a muscular body seems to have less need for fat; I have no idea why.
It will certainly be interesting to see how you get on with this experiment.
About 3 weeks ago it dawned on me (took ages - brain fog) that I was relying on carbs to get me through the day and was ready for bed by about 3 in the afternoon. I decided to go keto - but I eased into it. I cut out all sugars and starchy root veg except 2 slices of toast with breakfast (my bread is a heritage spelt, so at £3 a loaf there was no way I was chucking that out, lol). I also ditched the nightly Dioralytes for hydration and switched to lightly salted water.
I felt instantly better the next day. I was quite shocked by how much better. It's also worth mentioning I was having daily headaches and about once a week a severe migraine.
I went fully keto exactly one week ago. I have enough energy to actually cook the meals I need and do a bit of housework and walk the dog once a day (I still need my walker for the morning walk). No napping in the afternoon, either.
But most significant of all... not a single migraine or headache. I'm guessing having LAR and/or being hypo messes with insulin/sugar regulation?
I didn't go keto to lose weight (although I had quite a large belly). My belly had gone down a bit after the first week. 3 weeks later it's almost flat.
I eat massive amounts of fat, but losing the carbs does seem to be key. Although I love it, I don't have cheese aside from a small amount of Parmesan, and I don't have any other dairy.
I don't think I'm in ketosis, as I still feel hungry and eat about 4 times a day (with fat bombs in between), but I expect that will kick in soon enough.
Another weird but good side effect - I'm no longer up all night peeing. Maybe once or twice, but it used to be every hour or 2.
That's a great story, Nico101 . We did have someone a while back who reported relief from migraines, and someone else who was plagued by migraines but terrified of starting keto because she thought she wouldn't be able to contend with 'keto flu' and migraines at the same time. Unfortunately I can't remember who they were
Getting up for the toilet every hour or two sounds an awful lot like diabetes to me, unless it was something to do with your LAR condition. Did you ever get tested for T2D?
It's hard to know which thing worked as I tried a few things at once, starting running, losing weight, lower carb and intermittent fasting have all come in as a gradual approach.
One thing though, I have NOT given up wine or coffee. Both of which I feared were the real culprit but I was too stubborn to give up yet
About 5 years ago and it was negative - this was when my symptoms first began, and the terrible thirst made me think it was diabetes. Then I recovered for a while, another round of DWP-induced stress for a few months and my symptoms returned, then Dr P put me on Adrenavive and Metavive, recovered really fast and felt great... then 18 months of severe DWP-related stress which mainly ended last September with some issues just ending now, but the symptoms didn't get really bad until about December (someone said on another thread that their symptoms are delayed by a few months after the period of stress).
Anyway, after 1 1/2 years of stress so bad I was suicidal, I upped my meds myself and, since Dr P isn't around, tried various diets and ways to ingest salt until I got some advice on here about salt, then ditched the carbs.
I am due for a blood test tomorrow (NHS) and have asked them to test for insulin and blood sugars. I'll post the results when I get them for advice.
Perhaps nothing will show up now I'm off the carbs?
I did read (perhaps in STTM?) that there is a rare for diabetes associated with adrenal/thyroid issues. Maybe it was Dr P's book, can't remember.
Don't get me wrong - I'm far from ok and my energy levels are still in the toilet - esp in the mornings, but I can't say how wonderful it is not to have the migraines. I was getting so depressed from it all and the pain was horrific.
I know a couple of people who have occasional migraines, and I just can't imagine how horrible it must be to have them on a regular basis. Are you still migraine-free? Any results from your blood test? Let us know how you're getting on - this is interesting stuff.
Yes - so far, touch wood. I've also lapsed a little the last 4 days on the keto, but my diet is still extremely low in carbs and no migraines. My NHS blood tests should be available tomorrow. I haven't done the private ones yet due to being unsure about stopping certain supplements, but I intend to do my cortisol and DHEA one tomorrow, and I sent my thyroid tests back to Medichecks and bought a different one - which should arrive Tuesday. So a busy old week test-wise.
Yes, migraines are pretty horrific. I've never suffered with them before my adrenals and thyroid started playing up. They can take up almost a whole week. They're a bit like an earthquake. You get the build up, then the main event, then you feel wiped out for another 2-3 days. I'd never realised they could be so debilitating until I began having them.
I will keep you posted. The diet seems key, though.
Ah, I wasn't quite clear about that, was I? It's precisely as you stated.
However I'm using the highly unscientific method of looking in the mirror to gauge the outcome, since I don't have access to any instrumentation for measuring bodyfat (I've changed gym recently, so I can't even use one of the bioimpedance gadgets). And as noted, N=1. Therefore, I can't apply an actual statistical test for significance.
I'm taking daily weight measurements, but as you said earlier, the scales don't really measure what people think they measure. You can dial out measurement noise, but that doesn't mean that measuring your weight is a good proxy for fat mass or bodyfat ratio.
"Overeating" here means eating too much [fat], too often. I'm already struggling with this. It's truly unpleasant to attempt a meal when you feel like you're still full from the last one. However, in the interests of science, I'm giving it a go! I've frequently argued that it's physically impossible to overeat on LCHF, and I have a gut feeling that this at least is true. For me, anyway.
It really is hard work getting all that fat in, isn't it? I have a book with recipes that are exactly the amount of macros in each meal - BUT, a lot of it is American stuff you can't get here or meals I'd never eat in a million years. I haven't the energy for all that stuff so for now I'm just winging it.
TBH, I think my meals are a bit protein-heavy, but I'm sure I'll suss things out as I get my head around it more. I'm lucky in that I was on the Specific Carb Diet for Crohn's for a couple of years, so I already know a fair bit.
My bet (for fun) is that the 2 changes will cancel each other out. The 6 meal events a day will spike your insulin more than your previous 2ish. But your muscle building will increase your energy burn to compensate.
And the body likes sameness so that will smooth over discrepancies between the power of the 2 measures.
Yes, that's the problem with changing two things at once! You can't separate out the effects. OTOH I haven't radically changed my workout intensity - I'm just doing somewhat different things. I was previously doing 3 days (occasionally 4) days a week, but with about 50% cardio (running, intervals).
I'm starting to get used to "overeating", which is a bit of a surprise.
My weight seems to have increased by 1kg over the past couple of weeks (least mean squares fit). Where it's gone is a bit of a mystery though. I can't see much in the way of additional fat or muscle. I suspect it must be a bit of both, but I really can't tell ... yet.
One thing though - it's really hard to eat frequent meals, or to "over eat". After a brief phase where I thought I was getting used to it, I still find it quite a chore. Even cream didn't get used as much as I intended (I was putting it in my coffee, two a day on average, and in scrambled eggs).
I've actually lapsed today - mainly because I've been outside. I had a coffee and egg-and-tuna sandwich this morning (yup, bread), and a small chicken salad for lunch, although the latter was more to kill some time than because of hunger. I'll eat a proper meal in the evening.
It might just be me, of course, but I'm more convinced than ever than eating too much fat, or too much in general, is a rather unlikely cause of weight (fat) gain; your appetite just rebels against it. OTOH it's early days, so I could still be wrong about that. I'm definitely wrong about the theory that eating more frequently will cause you to lose bodyfat. It seems to make no difference either way, at least in the short term.
Anyway, I'll be doing some construction work for the next 2 weeks instead of going to the gym, so I'll try to stick with the high-fat multiple-meals regimen. I'll post updates if anything interesting happens!
Yes, I’m really curious on this. I usually get hungry for a mid-afternoon snack and have found chopped up raw veggies and a fatty dip works great. I’ve been wondering if that’s ok (it’s working so far) or if I should experiment with adding more fat to lunch and skipping the afternoon snack. But I’m hoping to see the results of your experiment first! 😊
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Broke my keto eating, so cross.