Weight loss study (III)

8 min read
Featured Image

In Weight Loss Research (I), we discussed the importance of a mindfulness shift. In “Weight Loss Research (II)”, we continued to discuss how to analyze and research a weight loss method after a mind shift so that you can find the one that works for you. Today I would like to discuss the issue of calories, because it does cause a lot of trouble for people.

There is nothing wrong with the equation (caloric intake < caloric expenditure) = weight loss. In fact, all kinds of weight loss methods follow this equation. However, if we have to count calories every day of our lives, we are often the ones who suffer the frustration. For example, I often hear people say to me, “You need to eat less, you need to consume less calories, you need to eat more fruits and vegetables, you need to eat less meat, etc.” because I have maintained my weight at around 105 kg all year round. And I feel very unfair inside, because I eat very little all year round, basically two meals a day. The so-called high-calorie food, including sweets, red meat, fried food all do not touch, each meal has meat and vegetables, the main food is very little, buy fruit three times a week. That’s it, you want me to eat less and take in less calories, you might as well lock me up and feed me water.

I am not a special case, in daily life through observation can be found, the same food, the same amount, means the same calories, but different people eat the results are completely different. It is true that there are people who do not gain weight, and it is also true that there are people who eat like a balloon. From this we can infer that different people do not have the same sensitivity to the same food. Calories are definitely not a simple addition or subtraction, how many calories eaten, minus how many calories consumed, is the result. Some people are naturally good at absorbing starch, others are naturally good at absorbing protein, so will two people eat the same 500 calories of starch with the same result? Using calories to measure a meal is not really a good indicator. And focusing on calorie numbers is not very helpful for weight loss.

Before considering calories, I think we should understand ourselves. This is not difficult, we can in a short period of time by changing the structure of the meal, we can come to the conclusion that our body is sensitive to which type of food, which food is not sensitive to, or, their body is a balanced type, eat anything to gain weight. Then, the next natural thing to do is to consider adding which foods your body is not sensitive to, so that although it is the same satiety, your body takes in a very different amount of calories. There can be a big difference between the theoretical number of calories in a food, and the actual number you end up absorbing. There are indeed examples in life where people change nothing, but change the chef, or change the cuisine a bit, and eat for a week to find weight loss.

Of course, I’m not supporting reckless gorging or indiscriminate calorie intake. For example, I would not support the consumption of alcohol, especially beer and wine, during weight loss. Because in past experience, they are very effective at converting weight and are very efficient calorie bombs. Likewise, I would not support snacks like donuts, where starch + fried + sugar = calorie nukes that probably provide the same amazing amount of calories for most people, no matter how different their body types are. When we discuss calories today, we should be referring to the removal of foods that are clearly known to be high in calories, and then analyzing the absorption rate.

Under the topic of calories, I think it is starch and fat that really deserve our discussion. Since the 1970s, the health care view that high carbohydrates account for more than 60% of each meal has prevailed. Today there is widespread awareness of the dangers of sugar, but awareness of the risks of starches, or high carbohydrates, is far from developed. I myself have a real-time blood glucose monitor tied to my body and have found over several years of observation that any refined rice or white flour can create a significant blood glucose shock as soon as half an hour after taking it, with a rapid spike in blood glucose within two hours. Protein, on the other hand, is much better, with a smooth increase in blood sugar. The best is fat, which contributes extremely little to blood sugar.

Incidentally, this is the reason why I am against the so-called “small meals”. First of all, most of the meals contain high carbohydrates, either rice or noodles; secondly, less food will also trigger blood sugar shock, the original shock three times, after less food and more meals shock six times, there is not much smooth time in the day; the last point is that this way of eating is actually stimulating the body to form a conditioned reflex, after repeated blood sugar shock, blood sugar a little bit lower feel uncomfortable, it is necessary to immediately make up high carbohydrate Water, either cookies or snacks, so that blood sugar up. This, in general, enhances the intake of high carbohydrates, and forms a firm bond, which is no different from smoking, which is essentially cultivating addiction.

So, in recent years there has been a lot of clamor for boosting the proportion of fat in food. In the midst of this change, protein is in a neutral position, with either side defending its share. The most controversial part is the relative relationship between starch and fat. Fat has twice as many calories as starch, so if calories are the criterion, it is certainly more “cost effective” to consume starch. But here’s the problem: a person who eats a pound of rice or noodles at a meal, instead of eating fat, probably can’t eat a pound of fat at all. It may only take two or two fats and oils, he already feels very full. Moreover, grease has a long gastrointestinal emptying time, meaning he can go a long time without feeling hungry. Since he does not feel hungry, there is no need to touch some small snacks to fill his stomach. Overall, fats and oils may instead lower the caloric intake for the whole day.

Of course this view does seem a bit off the mark, as any mainstream nutrition expert will tell you that fats are more likely to make people gain weight than starches. However, in my own weight loss process, I tried a very low starch, combined with a high protein, high dietary fiber and high fat meal structure. Then, I noticed that my blood sugar became extremely smooth, the difference before and after meals was reduced to within 2 moles, and the symptoms of lethargy and sleepiness after meals disappeared. At the same time, in conjunction with daily exercise, my weight was steadily decreasing. Since there was oil and meat, I felt happy at every meal and did not feel hungry at all times, which was the most unexpected point.

After reviewing some nutritional views, one of them struck me. This theory holds that whenever high carbohydrate is eaten, the body is stimulated to secrete insulin. And after the body secretes insulin, as insulin is a hormone in the body, its effect is to inhibit the breakdown of fat, in addition to lowering blood sugar. Then, when the high carbohydrate intake is not enough, there is no need for insulin secretion. The body quickly runs out of liver glycogen and muscle glycogen and begins to enable the sequestered fat, which, without the inhibiting effect of insulin, feeds the body by burning fat - if this doctrine is correct, then it would explain the phenomenon that happened to me, that is, it is possible for oil to consume oil.

I’ll leave the debate to the medical experts, who have a lot of research to do anyway. In my case, the focus of weight loss has shifted from keeping an eye on calories in the past to keeping an eye on insulin. I rarely think about calories in any food I eat now, unless it’s a “calorie bomb”, and I think more about whether it stimulates insulin secretion. As long as the food will stimulate insulin secretion and raise blood sugar, I will try not to touch it. Instead, eggs, grilled meats, fried salmon and steak are back on my table. Essential in this process is a large amount of dietary fiber. I would add a vegetable salad and a half to each meal, requiring three or more different colors of vegetable leaves. Also because the salad was essentially salt-free, it incidentally lowered my blood pressure and eliminated my edema.

Frankly, I don’t care about calories right now. For me, if I would feel hungry, I didn’t eat enough. Consider eating a little more or adding more fats so that you gradually adjust to a state where you don’t think about eating all day. I also know that this is very difficult for many people, each meal without a bunch of starch, without a bowl of rice, they feel that the meal is considered not eaten. But I kind of got out of counting calories per meal, and I got out of counting calories per exercise. Because the results of genetic testing tell me that I have only a moderate sensitivity to exercise energy consumption, so I’ll just walk as much as I can.

(to be continued)

Title photo photography by Bruna Branco

Image license based on: www.unsplash.com Related License Agreement