Something which I have come to appreciate about my body is that there is literally, no substitute for glucose restriction in producing fat loss. As a supplement junkie and die-hard self experimenter I have tried hundreds's of supplements and many strange lifestyle modifications in attempt to get my fat mass down.
And......NOTHING works........ absolutely nothing,.... so aslong as im still eating significant glucose.
Even 23/1 intermittent fasting stalled me out at ~10lbs weight loss.
I have even tried 2g metformin AND 5mg saxagliptin per day, these are major drugs for diabetics that are associated with weight loss. These are also quite high doses. but no, no weight loss. Then I added 30g inulin per day to my diet. But nope, still nout.
My body only works normally when glucose is restricted. Only then does my body act like that of a normal lean person, food is directed towards energy production instead of storage. Only when I restrict glucose is it IMPOSSIBLE for me to gain weight,. satiation signals become naturally in check, and cravings die down. If it wasnt for the fact I am addicted to carbohydrates and that ketosis reduces my sleep duration to 5hrs, I would stay in ketosis FOREVER.
Funny thing is, I do feel that some of these supplements/drugs help with weight loss, but I MUST be restricting glucose for them to have any affect. Basically, when my glucose intake is high, EVERYTHING else is completely trumped, and my body only wants to store fat and gain weight. For example, recently I was trying 2g metformin per day with a high-carb intake, NOT from junk food, but from potato's, sourdough bread etc. And despite my calories dropping to 1600 per day, no weight loss occurred.
High dose metformin is especially good at reducing food intake and increasing satiety btw, I can attest to this strongly. Metformin has been shown to be a strong inhibitor of AgRP. So if you insist on "cutting" calories to lose weight, you might wanna take some metformin to keep that AgRP down.
Anyway, the real motivation for this post was a tweet by Guyenet linking to this study . One line in particular in the abstract almost sent me into a Wooo-fueled rage.... .....
The success of the so-called 'low carb' diet that is usually high in protein can be attributed to the relatively high-protein content per se and not to the relatively lower carbohydrate content.
This is SOOOOOOO wrong. MY failure to flourish on high-carb diets has nothing to do with my protein intake. MY appetite for protein has always been large, typically I need ~100-120g of protein per day for normal satiety and normal mood, and its true that this need in independent of my carb or fat intake. BUT
BUT, a high glucose intake will totally fuck me up. Doesnt matter what my protein intake is. Doesnt matter what my fat intake is either. Let me say it again...
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR GLUCOSE RESTRICTION
Even bariatric surgery ( sleeve gastrectomy ) is not a substitute for glucose restriction. Here the researchers are investigating if diet can possibly influence weight regain after sleeve gastrectomy. ( Given that weight regain DOES occur after sleeve gastrectomy surgery, is one of the many reasons I suffer from Calorie Denial Syndrome ).
So here we have obese Rats, then they receive sleeve gastrectomy, THEN after the surgery the rats get one of the following diets........
A ) chow ( CH )
B ) high fat + high Carb ( HF )
C ) Atkins-style lowcarb high fat. ( LCHF )
The results the researchers obtained were that, post surgery, the HF diet consistently results in higher weight regain, compared to either CH or LCHF.
In conclusion, consumption of a HF diet but not the more energy-dense LCHF diet reduced the effectiveness of VSG in rats.
Although its probably more correct to interpret these results as saying that only the combination of high-carb + high-fat is deleterious, and that this study does not argue for glucose restriction because chow also did not reduce the effectiveness of VSG, I nevertheless disagree.
There is clearly a reason the authors chose to use the word "carbohydrate" in the title of this study, and not the word "fat".