In Maintenance? Add Protein, says Dr. Mike

[BawdyWench]

You all probably know this already, but I've just been reading through all of Dr. Mike's blogs from the beginning and just finished one on maintenance:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=116

Dr. Mike's bottom line:


The take home lesson if you’re trying to maintain is to increase your protein intake by 50 grams or so daily, preferably with either whey or meat.


Interesting, huh?

[laughingW]

Man, I didn't follow his conclusion on that article, at all.

Without knowing what the maintenance diets were composed of, how would I be able to extrapolate that single study, to me.

For example, I know Paleo people who are getting great results in maintenance by increasing the fat and keeping the protein the same.

This one study might have compared increasing carbs but we just don't know.

[deirdra]

It was soon after that Aug 2005 post that I tried adding more protein (20-50g extra per day, always totaling more than 100g since one of the studies he cited said women lost more if they got >100g protein per day), and I did lose more weight for a while, but I think it was mainly dehydrating me. I could never get below 150 lbs eating like that.

However, dropping back down to my PP quota of protein and adding 300 calories of fat while avoiding all grains and high-casein dairy is what made it possible to lose the last 14 lbs & maintain effortlessly (for 13 months and counting).

[BawdyWench]

Interesting! I hadn't heard about the >100 grams for women thing. I usually exceed 100 grams, though. So easy to do when you love your meat!

[joanneb608]

Which dairy foods would qualify as high-casein, for instance? Thanks.:)

[Gabriel Guzman]

Man, I didn't follow his conclusion on that article, at all.

Without knowing what the maintenance diets were composed of, how would I be able to extrapolate that single study, to me.

For example, I know Paleo people who are getting great results in maintenance by increasing the fat and keeping the protein the same.

This one study might have compared increasing carbs but we just don't know.

How do we know that 'paleo' people kept their protein intake the same and increase their intake of fat? Or do you mean people currently following a 'paleo'-like diet?

It isn't very surprising that adding more protein in maintenance either decreases or makes it difficult to regain weight from fat in the post-weight loss period, given the effects that protein has in the metabolism.

Without even reading Mike's blog, I almost wrote about the person I know has done a lot of research on the effects of dietary protein, both in weight loss, maintenance, thermogenesis and other effects of protein. In the interest of completion, however, I took a look at the studies and it happens to be the same person (Margriet Westertep-Plantenga). She hasn't conducted just one study. Indirectly, other researchers have noted that people that consumed more protein in their diet didn't gain weight, although that wasn't part of the questions they were addressing but rather the effect on insulin homeostasis.

[Dharmalisa]

Interesting too because eating protein does cause a slight insulin response, but eating fat doesn't. Seems like adding fat would be better.

[Benay]

When I am on maintenance, I have to restrict my fats as well as carbs or I gain. (I cannot eat more than 1500 calories in a day or I gain despite keeping carbs low.) People keep telling me that I am lying. Here is a post that seems to explain why.

http://adipo-insights.blogspot.com/2009/...rning.html (http://adipo-insights.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-fable-of-unfettered-fat-burning.html)

Can someone more knowledgeable than me comment on this? Dr Mary Enig says that her women patients lose weight on a low carb 2500 cal high fat diet.

So what is going on? Which physiological process is a hoax, which is too simplistic, which should I pay attention to?

[Frank Hagan]

Benay, I'm a proponent of doing what works for you. I can eat much less on a LC diet without feeling hungry, so the debate about calories, metabolic advantage, etc. doesn't really interest me. But finding the right diet for health and the feeling of well-being is important to me because in the end, it doesn't matter which theory is right, but what makes you live longer.

[razgarcia]

When I am on maintenance, I have to restrict my fats as well as carbs or I gain. (I cannot eat more than 1500 calories in a day or I gain despite keeping carbs low.) People keep telling me that I am lying. Here is a post that seems to explain why.

http://adipo-insights.blogspot.com/2009/...rning.html (http://adipo-insights.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-fable-of-unfettered-fat-burning.html)

Can someone more knowledgeable than me comment on this? Dr Mary Enig says that her women patients lose weight on a low carb 2500 cal high fat diet.

So what is going on? Which physiological process is a hoax, which is too simplistic, which should I pay attention to?

If you gain weight on 1,500 Kcals/day while maintaining carbs low or even not so low, then I would suspect some underlying medical problem. Have you have your thyroid checked? Hypothyroidism could thwart your weigh loss efforts. It could also be that your body has adapted to low calorie consumption and is on some form of starvation mode maintenance.

Other than that, please tell us what your dietary regimen is like, i.e., what do you actually eat and how much of it on a typical day. There are some here who can provide you with advice if they had that information.

Now, I do agree with the article you referenced that in order to lose weight one must have an energy deficiency. But it's not as simple as calories in/calories out. And there is a metabolic advantage of about 300 Kcals daily for those on a REAL low carb diet.

Finally, have you tried the Six Week Cure? It worked for me.

[Benay]

Razgarcia, to answer your last question first, yes I have done the 6 week cure. The first time starting at the end of September and I lost 8 pounds, most on the shake weeks, which turned out to be 1,100 cals/per day as I only had 2 shakes a day not being hungry. I have just recently gone through the shake weeks again, this time with 3 shakes, in preparation for donating blood. No weight loss.

I was not really asking for help with my diet. I have done that often enough in the past few years on this forum and have no wish to repeat myself ad nauseum. I also have been religiously monitoring dietary intake. This is not the issue I raised.

What I want to know is: is there any validity to the assertions of the physiological process described in the article I posted? No more, no less.

Thank you

[laughingW]

All I can say is, the article seems to be physiologically correct in the metabolism of fats and what not. I kind of can't tell what you're asking. for example, yes there is ASP, and yes it works like that, and what assertions do you question?

There are only 4 things we can do with incoming food. Use it for structure and metabolism, use it for immediate energy, store energy as fat or glycogen, or waste energy as heat. Seems like we don't have a collectively agreed-upon understanding of how this works that explains every individual. For you, if you gain fat above 1500 energy calories, then it sounds like you don't have much of a wasting-as-heat part, where another woman who can eat 2500 energy calories, might have a better one.

[Benay]

Thanks LaughingW. So it sounds to you like a valid assertion and not a hoax, eh? The article also states that the carbs-in, insulin surge, fat storage is simplistic and does not account for the action of ASP.

In today's comments on Dr Mike's blog someone was sayng that he and his wife were following the shake weeks exacty as written but were not losing. (Several folk have said this, not just these folk,) They are asking why. Dr Mike replied they are not following instructions.

This says to me that there is something else gong on with certain folk who do not respond as predicted. It is not helpful to them to say they are obviously not following the grogram when they have just said that they are. Why not look further into other possible explanations, rather than just dismiss them. I wonder whether the action of ASP as described in the blog may be what has held so many back from a successful 6 week cure, from long term plateaus on PP and PPLP as well as induction Atkins.

I am wondering whether there is any research out on this that can explain what is going on for those of us whose bodies do not "follow the plan." Frustrating to just be told you are probably cheating. Sigh. No offense intended in case someone gets all defensive about this question.

[laughingW]

Thanks LaughingW. So it sounds to you like a valid assertion and not a hoax, eh? The article also states that the carbs-in, insulin surge, fat storage is simplistic and does not account for the action of ASP.Nor the action of other hormones. It can be complicated IMNSHO.

This says to me that there is something else gong on with certain folk who do not respond as predicted. It is not helpful to them to say they are obviously not following the grogram when they have just said that they are. Why not look further into other possible explanations, rather than just dismiss themI agree too.

I wonder whether the action of ASP as described in the blog may be what has held so many back from a successful 6 week cure, from long term plateaus on PP and PPLP as well as induction Atkins.Perhaps, and a lot of other things could be causing it too. The 6 week cure was not formally tested in a large trial to figure out who it would be good for, and who would not respond so well. It was something the Eades used for themselves and a few others and then put out for us to try.

I have heard so many bad stories from long-term induction Atkins that I think of it as the main way NOT to do low carb.

I am wondering whether there is any research out on this that can explain what is going on for those of us whose bodies do not "follow the plan." Frustrating to just be told you are probably cheating. Sigh. No offense intended in case someone gets all defensive about this question.Have you had all your thyroid tested, and completely? Like free T3, reverse T3, iodine? I didn't know until recently that thyroid problems come in two flavors - problems with the gland itself, and then problems not in the gland but in the peripheral tissues. Much like diabetes type I and II. The peripheral kind is what people get into with long term Atkins induction and thyroid docs often don't even know.

[razgarcia]

If you Google "acylation stimulating protein" (i.e., "ASP") you will have access to a series of links reporting on the results of a stufy of 76 obese patients who were obese, insulin-resistant, and ASP-resistant. The conclusion of the study, as described in the abstract, states this:
"We conclude that ASP augments glucose-stimulated insulin secretion through a direct action on the islet beta cells. The effect is dependent on glucose phosphorylation, calcium uptake and protein kinase C. Stimulation of insulin secretion by ASP in vivo results in augmented glucose disposal."
Now, in spite of my limited understanding of all this, it seems that the study is saying that ASP works by increasing insulin secretion. And as we well know, high level of insulin result in increased fat storage. So, is this "ASP connection" the primary contributing factor to the inability of some folks to lose body fat in spite of minimal caloric intake? And if so, what can be done about it? Someone with credentials in this field will have to answer that.

And I certainly don't question anyone's integrity when they say that they are following the PP or 6WC plans exactly as prescribed and still fail to lose body fat. Now, everyone I personally know (including myself) who attempted a low carb diet lost weight on it. Then again, that may not be true of others. But it appears to me that there must be some underlying medical problem which makes it impossible for some individuals to lose body fat on these plans.

[Benay]

Thank you both very much for your posts. i wrote you a long reply but when I hit the reply button I was told I was not logged on. I just don't have the energy right now to try to recreate my post.

[kelsey]

Wasn't there always an assumption that some people just have such a hard time getting into ketosis, their body is quite resistant to it? Isn't that why Atkins did the "fat fast" diet recommendations to kick start the body into ketosis so they could finally burn the fat and lose weight? On the 6 week I didn't really lose much the first week, but the second week really kicked in and I lost 14 lbs total for the two weeks. I did follow it to the letter. If you had asked me the first week, I would have said "Eh, not so great." Second week was like "Wow." I am trying it again this week after 2 months to see how I fare the second time around.

[deirdra]

One thing 6-wk-cure confirmed for me is that I am allergic to milk thistle (hives in minutes, which also happened to me on the shake-free Fat Flush Diet) and, once I got rid of the milk thistle I realized I am also very sensitive to whey (extremely itchy eyes, breathing difficulties, hives + inflammation that caused weight gain on 1100 calories!), and I tried many protein powders, including 100% whey. The only thing I could use was egg protein, but it is 10X more expensive than eggs. So I went back to eating eggs and other real foods only after a week of torment on the shakes.

It is likely that those dismissed by the Eades as not following the program have a problem with one or more of the highly processed ingredients in the diet.