I'm really sceptical of 'torpor' theories (unless it just means PUFAs fuck you up somehow). We're essentially African animals since way back. We're not designed to live in the North and we don't have a hibernation mechanism.
But that doesn't mean there aren't seasonal effects. We're not adapted to live here, and the funny seasons may well have effects.
1. Still very small impact on a noisy variable. 0.4kg is nothing. Even I would have to run this for 30 days to see a real effect size, and your weight is much less variable than mine. So I don't think this is a slam dunk either way (yet).
2. There are at least 2 effects on body fat by PUFAs. One is that they oxidize into 4-HNE which gives you the munchies. That's a short-term effect. Second, they get incorporated into your various cells, including the mitochondria, and mess with energy production there. The 4-HNE effect will be very short-term if you drastically reduce your PUFA intake, probably on the order of days if not hours until you see an effect. The other effect can take half a decade, over which it'll slowly get better, but not drastically.
3. "What happened between June and August" could've been effect #1. That doesn't mean effect #2 wasn't causing any issues. My hope is still that, in half a decade, when both of us are entirely dePUFA'd, we'll be "back" and can eat everything under the sun as long as it's PUFA free and not gain weight.
4. Your observation is pretty compatible with my observations, except your weight is much less variable than mine (then again I seem to be an outlier in both directions). Your crazy beginning weight loss mirrors mine, just at a smaller scale. Remember, I lost 20lbs the first month and 10 the next 2. 40lbs down in 3 months. I was sure I'd have abs by the summer! But even during the successful trials after that, it was much slower, to the point where -5lbs is now a good month for me. So maybe I maxed out effect #1 in the first 1-3 months, and am now slowly (over half a decade) working on effect #2, and until then, I have to restrict protein to lose weight (though probably not to dePUFA).
> 4. Your observation is pretty compatible with my observations, except your weight is much less variable than mine (then again I seem to be an outlier in both directions). Your crazy beginning weight loss mirrors mine, just at a smaller scale. Remember, I lost 20lbs the first month and 10 the next 2. 40lbs down in 3 months. I was sure I'd have abs by the summer! But even during the successful trials after that, it was much slower, to the point where -5lbs is now a good month for me. So maybe I maxed out effect #1 in the first 1-3 months, and am now slowly (over half a decade) working on effect #2, and until then, I have to restrict protein to lose weight (though probably not to dePUFA).
--
I imagine that I've had quite a lot less lifetime interaction with whatever is poisoning us than you have, remember that for most of my life I was perfectly healthy and largely eating traditional foods. I can still remember when PUFAs (except for olive oil) were 'cheap filth' rather than 'heart healthy', and I never really changed my mind about that.
Also I'm British, and whatever it is that happened, happened later here, and still isn't as bad.
5lbs a month is still pretty good! Hang on in there.
> 3. "What happened between June and August" could've been effect #1. That doesn't mean effect #2 wasn't causing any issues. My hope is still that, in half a decade, when both of us are entirely dePUFA'd, we'll be "back" and can eat everything under the sun as long as it's PUFA free and not gain weight.
I could definitely see that being true. Do you agree with me that a healthy human being should have his weight under homeostatic control and never need to think about it then? Or do we differ about that too?
That depends a lot on the definition of "healthy" and "should" I guess. A healthy human eating a modern American diet? Will not be healthy for long until the does a lot of thinking about it an reading of labels.
Healthy human living in a food environment of 1885, 1700, or 10,000BC? Sure, agreed there. Very few things you could do there that would lead to obesity.
I don't think that part. Unlike water dammed in a lake has a "homeostat" because it stays mostly stable. I just have a much narrower definition of "homeostat" than you, I suspect.
Unless you show me a control panel into which somebody typed "30% body fat" or "230lbs" or whatever, and a regulator system attempting to keep that value stable, I don't think there's a homeostat.
> 2. There are at least 2 effects on body fat by PUFAs. One is that they oxidize into 4-HNE which gives you the munchies. That's a short-term effect. Second, they get incorporated into your various cells, including the mitochondria, and mess with energy production there. The 4-HNE effect will be very short-term if you drastically reduce your PUFA intake, probably on the order of days if not hours until you see an effect. The other effect can take half a decade, over which it'll slowly get better, but not drastically.
I'm rather agnostic about mechanisms. But I think if that's the full and correct theory, I still shouldn't see my weight actually rising back to 99kg though. Or even above the 95kg it's seemed stable at for months now.
I think until you're entirely unPUFA'd, this theory would predict any sort of fat gain until you've undone it.
The people on r/saturatedfat that are completely weight stable no matter what (except PUFA) they eat have arrived there after years of strict cutting out PUFA.c
So maybe our difference here is that I think PUFAs should cause homeostat set point to be too high (and possibly infinite if the damage is bad), whereas you think that PUFAs somehow cause continuous weight gain?
Not continuous until infinity and beyond, but on a gradient until a certain equilibrium is reached. Although, for some people, that equilibrium seems to be near-infinite (there apparently exist 600lbs people).
Yes, I'm figuring that if your set-point is very high, then there'll eventually come a point where you can only just absorb enough energy to maintain your enormous body. That is for sure an equilibrium rather than the operation of a control system. Probably in that state you'd be starving hungry even though you're stuffed to the point of pain.
> 1. Still very small impact on a noisy variable. 0.4kg is nothing. Even I would have to run this for 30 days to see a real effect size, and your weight is much less variable than mine. So I don't think this is a slam dunk either way (yet).
I agree, I mainly decided to end it because I was bored. But I think it's pretty clear that my new equilibrium involves a seven-day average wobbling between 95.5 and 95.7, which is in flat contradiction of the idea that it went down to 95 and is now fixed there.
I've been summoned north in a couple of weeks, so it seems a bit pointless to do a bout of ex150ish like I was planning. I think I'll just eat ad-lib swamp for a bit and see what happens if I go home to Mum's cooking in what I think will be an unambiguously equilibrium state.
I'm now predicting that I stay at 95.5-7, or maybe see a very slow rise, and that my next Mom Test will just continue that trend, whatever it is. What do you think will happen?
Other possibilities I wouldn't be surprised by are 'slow rise and Mum can't make a difference', 'plateau and Mum can't make a difference'.
Either fast up or down will surprise me.
Saying that, I find myself keen to squeeze in an ex150ish bout... I guess I'll sleep on it until my next shopping trip and see how I feel.
In the case of ex150ish-6 I predict startling weight loss (2-3kg), water weight regain (1.5kg), leaving me at about 94kg, and then speedy return to roughly 95.7 while at home.
We're getting there. We are both starting to make predictions about how I'll respond to various things.
And I'm pretty sure that you'll drop in an exponential decay sort of way on ex150 (as if heading for BMI 25) and rocket on high-protein (as if trying to get to a very high set point).
We don't have mechanism, but we're getting a good sense of 'what happens next'.
Have you any interest in Gary Taubes and his book The Case for Keto? He provides an anecdote about someone whose magic fat loss was stymied by the addition of a daily cup of berries. And my personal experience is of magic fat loss that was stymied by the addition of a daily apple. That's all it takes for some of us. Keto for me means adequate protein, high fat, no nuts fruits or food bars, yes bacon cheese whipped cream.
I am interested in all theories, even the mainstream ones, and I didn't realize Taubes had a new book out, so thanks! I'll put a copy on the guilt pile.
| "What the hell was going on last year between June and August?"
Summer, maybe? My annual lows for the past 3 years have been in August. Then Autumn and torpor (sigh).
Maybe.
I'm really sceptical of 'torpor' theories (unless it just means PUFAs fuck you up somehow). We're essentially African animals since way back. We're not designed to live in the North and we don't have a hibernation mechanism.
But that doesn't mean there aren't seasonal effects. We're not adapted to live here, and the funny seasons may well have effects.
1. Still very small impact on a noisy variable. 0.4kg is nothing. Even I would have to run this for 30 days to see a real effect size, and your weight is much less variable than mine. So I don't think this is a slam dunk either way (yet).
2. There are at least 2 effects on body fat by PUFAs. One is that they oxidize into 4-HNE which gives you the munchies. That's a short-term effect. Second, they get incorporated into your various cells, including the mitochondria, and mess with energy production there. The 4-HNE effect will be very short-term if you drastically reduce your PUFA intake, probably on the order of days if not hours until you see an effect. The other effect can take half a decade, over which it'll slowly get better, but not drastically.
3. "What happened between June and August" could've been effect #1. That doesn't mean effect #2 wasn't causing any issues. My hope is still that, in half a decade, when both of us are entirely dePUFA'd, we'll be "back" and can eat everything under the sun as long as it's PUFA free and not gain weight.
4. Your observation is pretty compatible with my observations, except your weight is much less variable than mine (then again I seem to be an outlier in both directions). Your crazy beginning weight loss mirrors mine, just at a smaller scale. Remember, I lost 20lbs the first month and 10 the next 2. 40lbs down in 3 months. I was sure I'd have abs by the summer! But even during the successful trials after that, it was much slower, to the point where -5lbs is now a good month for me. So maybe I maxed out effect #1 in the first 1-3 months, and am now slowly (over half a decade) working on effect #2, and until then, I have to restrict protein to lose weight (though probably not to dePUFA).
> 4. Your observation is pretty compatible with my observations, except your weight is much less variable than mine (then again I seem to be an outlier in both directions). Your crazy beginning weight loss mirrors mine, just at a smaller scale. Remember, I lost 20lbs the first month and 10 the next 2. 40lbs down in 3 months. I was sure I'd have abs by the summer! But even during the successful trials after that, it was much slower, to the point where -5lbs is now a good month for me. So maybe I maxed out effect #1 in the first 1-3 months, and am now slowly (over half a decade) working on effect #2, and until then, I have to restrict protein to lose weight (though probably not to dePUFA).
--
I imagine that I've had quite a lot less lifetime interaction with whatever is poisoning us than you have, remember that for most of my life I was perfectly healthy and largely eating traditional foods. I can still remember when PUFAs (except for olive oil) were 'cheap filth' rather than 'heart healthy', and I never really changed my mind about that.
Also I'm British, and whatever it is that happened, happened later here, and still isn't as bad.
5lbs a month is still pretty good! Hang on in there.
> 3. "What happened between June and August" could've been effect #1. That doesn't mean effect #2 wasn't causing any issues. My hope is still that, in half a decade, when both of us are entirely dePUFA'd, we'll be "back" and can eat everything under the sun as long as it's PUFA free and not gain weight.
I could definitely see that being true. Do you agree with me that a healthy human being should have his weight under homeostatic control and never need to think about it then? Or do we differ about that too?
That depends a lot on the definition of "healthy" and "should" I guess. A healthy human eating a modern American diet? Will not be healthy for long until the does a lot of thinking about it an reading of labels.
Healthy human living in a food environment of 1885, 1700, or 10,000BC? Sure, agreed there. Very few things you could do there that would lead to obesity.
OK cool, we're much closer than I thought!
You think human beings have homeostats, but ours are broken?
No, I think humans adapted to a certain food environment, and the food environment has changed.
Well, er, yes, I think that too. What's the difference between what I said and what you said?
> You think human beings have homeostats
I don't think that part. Unlike water dammed in a lake has a "homeostat" because it stays mostly stable. I just have a much narrower definition of "homeostat" than you, I suspect.
Unless you show me a control panel into which somebody typed "30% body fat" or "230lbs" or whatever, and a regulator system attempting to keep that value stable, I don't think there's a homeostat.
> 2. There are at least 2 effects on body fat by PUFAs. One is that they oxidize into 4-HNE which gives you the munchies. That's a short-term effect. Second, they get incorporated into your various cells, including the mitochondria, and mess with energy production there. The 4-HNE effect will be very short-term if you drastically reduce your PUFA intake, probably on the order of days if not hours until you see an effect. The other effect can take half a decade, over which it'll slowly get better, but not drastically.
I'm rather agnostic about mechanisms. But I think if that's the full and correct theory, I still shouldn't see my weight actually rising back to 99kg though. Or even above the 95kg it's seemed stable at for months now.
I think until you're entirely unPUFA'd, this theory would predict any sort of fat gain until you've undone it.
The people on r/saturatedfat that are completely weight stable no matter what (except PUFA) they eat have arrived there after years of strict cutting out PUFA.c
So maybe our difference here is that I think PUFAs should cause homeostat set point to be too high (and possibly infinite if the damage is bad), whereas you think that PUFAs somehow cause continuous weight gain?
Not continuous until infinity and beyond, but on a gradient until a certain equilibrium is reached. Although, for some people, that equilibrium seems to be near-infinite (there apparently exist 600lbs people).
Yes, I'm figuring that if your set-point is very high, then there'll eventually come a point where you can only just absorb enough energy to maintain your enormous body. That is for sure an equilibrium rather than the operation of a control system. Probably in that state you'd be starving hungry even though you're stuffed to the point of pain.
> 1. Still very small impact on a noisy variable. 0.4kg is nothing. Even I would have to run this for 30 days to see a real effect size, and your weight is much less variable than mine. So I don't think this is a slam dunk either way (yet).
I agree, I mainly decided to end it because I was bored. But I think it's pretty clear that my new equilibrium involves a seven-day average wobbling between 95.5 and 95.7, which is in flat contradiction of the idea that it went down to 95 and is now fixed there.
I've been summoned north in a couple of weeks, so it seems a bit pointless to do a bout of ex150ish like I was planning. I think I'll just eat ad-lib swamp for a bit and see what happens if I go home to Mum's cooking in what I think will be an unambiguously equilibrium state.
I'm now predicting that I stay at 95.5-7, or maybe see a very slow rise, and that my next Mom Test will just continue that trend, whatever it is. What do you think will happen?
I predict a continuation of the slow rise trend, and that Mum/Mom Cuisine will hasten this trend.
Yes, that seems very plausible to me.
Other possibilities I wouldn't be surprised by are 'slow rise and Mum can't make a difference', 'plateau and Mum can't make a difference'.
Either fast up or down will surprise me.
Saying that, I find myself keen to squeeze in an ex150ish bout... I guess I'll sleep on it until my next shopping trip and see how I feel.
In the case of ex150ish-6 I predict startling weight loss (2-3kg), water weight regain (1.5kg), leaving me at about 94kg, and then speedy return to roughly 95.7 while at home.
Agreed with all of that. The body is a harsh and unpredictable mistress, unlike buoyancy, which has been understood for millennia.
We're getting there. We are both starting to make predictions about how I'll respond to various things.
And I'm pretty sure that you'll drop in an exponential decay sort of way on ex150 (as if heading for BMI 25) and rocket on high-protein (as if trying to get to a very high set point).
We don't have mechanism, but we're getting a good sense of 'what happens next'.
Have you any interest in Gary Taubes and his book The Case for Keto? He provides an anecdote about someone whose magic fat loss was stymied by the addition of a daily cup of berries. And my personal experience is of magic fat loss that was stymied by the addition of a daily apple. That's all it takes for some of us. Keto for me means adequate protein, high fat, no nuts fruits or food bars, yes bacon cheese whipped cream.
I am interested in all theories, even the mainstream ones, and I didn't realize Taubes had a new book out, so thanks! I'll put a copy on the guilt pile.