Trouble shifting body fat? Two solutions (which are free! And simple).

Lots of good things happen when you eat well (and by well, I mean forgoing the advice of the dietary guidelines and following a less processed, more whole food kind of approach). Your sleep can improve, your skin clears up, your eyes sparkle with an increase in vitality and that brain fog you were struggling with for years (it’s just age!) has cleared. Your concentration levels are second to none.

But your weight isn’t budging. And you’re frustrated as hell. I get it. I talk to many clients and online coaching members about this. If all other aspects of your health improve with the change in diet and lifestyle, then by default, excess body fat should begin to shift. But, unsurprisingly, not for everyone*.

What,then, are two diet ‘hacks’ that could help you push through the weight loss stall?  Well it could be pretty simple, actually. You could either eat more, or eat less.

Eat more

If you are consistently trying to eat fewer calories, this can backfire on you – over an extended period of time this will break down muscle tissue and reduce overall metabolic rate, sending signals to your hypothalamus to shut down all unnecessary metabolic processes as energy needs to be preserved. In this context, the last thing your body wants to do is shift body fat. This is something that the physique athletes (such as bodybuilders) have known for years and often use a ‘refeeding’ period (of more calories or carbohydrates in one or more meals per week) that sends a message to the hypothalamus assuring it that there is enough calories coming in that it doesn’t need to slow anything down, or shut any processes off. While this is used a lot anecdotally, in research we see an increase in the hormone leptin with an increase of carbohydrate calories during periodic overfeeding, though the metabolic changes are modest at best. Despite lack of scientific verification, I’ve seen many weight loss stalls broken through once calorie cycling is introduced (and overfeeding, something I term a metabolic reset meal – I should really ™ that one).

Some options could be to:

  1. Include a meal based around kumara or potato, and make it a large one (for example, jacket potato with taco mince for dinner.
  2. Have dessert – it doesn’t have to be processed, refined carbohydrate if you don’t want it to be (though it can be! 90/10 and all that…) How about a fruit crumble or real banana icecream made with frozen banana and coconut cream?
  3. Eat whatever you want, one meal a week – this isn’t a license to binge, but rather a recognition that it’s what you do typically that makes the overall difference – one meal is neither here nor there, really. Have McDonalds if you really want to (not judging or anything, though I can’t imagine why you’d want to.)

Your body responds well to changes in energy flux – consuming a higher number of calories on days where you expend more energy (ie a high energy flux) will encourage hormone signalling in your body that allows for more lean tissue to be laid down, and is great for bone health.

Eat less

Conversely, if you’re eating too many calories on every day of the week, then you’re…eating too much. I know, can it really be that simple? Think about it: you’ve changed the types of foods you’re eating, and this has equated to better appetite regulation so you’re no longer eating because of insulin surges and blood sugar crashes. However you may still be in the habit of eating a certain amount of food which could be preventing you from dropping body fat. If you’re following a low carbohydrate, higher fat approach as a means to lose weight, a common mistake is that people eat too much fat. Don’t forget that you want to utilise some of those calories stored on your body, and part of the ‘HF’ of LCHF should come from this reserve rather than be provided by the diet. You don’t need to count calories to do this, either. It might be as simple as:

  1. Dropping out one or more snacks (if you’re in the habit of snacking) –those nuts mid-morning, the bier stick mid afternoon or the 70% cocoa chocolate at night. What is the worst that can happen? You’ll feel hungry, likely. This doesn’t mean you need the calories, it’s more likely your body’s used to eating at that time, therefore it’s anticipating a feeding period and releasing ghrelin (our ‘hungry’ hormone) because of this. It will pass. Have a drink of sparkling water and brush your teeth instead.
  2. Dropping the fat content on days you aren’t as active – this is an easy way to drop calories (thus cycling calories) – but without the feeling that you’re depriving yourself. I’m not suggesting you use products that have had their fat removed (ie trim milk), but don’t use as much added fat as you normally might on the days where energy expenditure is lower. Forgo the almond butter on your cottage cheese and berries for breakfast, omit the nuts that you’d normally add to your lunchtime salad, or serve salmon with the skin on at dinner with steamed vegetables rather than creamed or roasted ones. If you are hungrier, then up the amount of protein you consume on these days by about a third per meal (as we know that this will likely benefit body composition). This won’t make up for the number of calories you’ve saved by making these small changes.
  3. Experiment with fasting. You’ve got nothing to lose with this one and, if you do it in a way that is sustainable for your lifestyle, then you’ll naturally drop body fat with little effort. I know many people are afraid to fast for the additional stress it might place on their body. To be honest, I think there’s almost been a disservice to our stress response – we hear so often of how everyone is ‘too stressed’ and while this is true, I speak to many people who are now too afraid to exercise due to the metabolic damage they could incur due to their already stressed state. Stress is really healthy for the body – it adapts and becomes more resilient. Fasting is a type of stressor (and I’ve written about it in more detail here) and it might be the thing you need to kick your fat loss into gear. You may have more to gain from a 5:2 protocol, where your normal food intake is cut by a third on two (non-consecutive) days of the week. You may wish for this to be one meal or two smaller meals. Go easy on the activity on these days (and time your workouts to be before your larger meal), and when you do eat, make them protein and vegetable based – the caloric restriction doesn’t allow for a large fat intake, and protein will be more satiating anyway. I suggest not doing back to back calorie-restricted days- you may eat slightly more food the day after the fast (or not, it’s quite individual) and if you fast for a second day after a refeed meal, this could put you in a bit of a hungry/hangry spin.

So, these are just a couple of things you could try. Of course, there may be more going on that is preventing you from shifting fat, and that’s where talking to a professional can help. But if you’ve not tried either of the above, then give it a whirl. For a good 4-6 weeks I think. Your body needs time to adjust to a change in environment.

* Now I don’t use scales in my clinic, nor make it a blanket recommendation for people to do so as their measure of fat loss. How your clothes fit, your waist measurement, what you see in the mirror –these are far more accurate ways of assessing changes in body composition. In saying that though, some are motivated by what the scales say and if they can remove their perception of self-worth from the number on the scales, then it’s not a problem. In addition, some find them a very useful monitoring tool and can keep on target if they use scales daily – research does support the daily use of scales for helping people reach their body composition goals.

East_More_Food

PC: eatTV.com

Six things I think you should know about LDL cholesterol

Does bacon deserve the health halo it now seems to have in light of what is becoming common knowledge about saturated fat? Mm. Good question, and it probably comes down to context. If we were to position bacon against Flora Proactive, then that changes the question somewhat: which is better for your health? I mean, one is designed specifically to lower low density lipoprotein (LDL), aka ‘bad’ cholesterol (something we’ve been told for years to strive for) and is ridiculously expensive; the other is … well, bacon. Due to its saturated fat content (or perceived saturated fat, it contains less than 50% of its fat from saturated sources), it is always the second food which people think of when it comes to elevating cholesterol levels and causing heart disease – the first being butter.

Many clients come into my clinic with a total cholesterol above 5 mmol/L and are told by their GP that they should bring their cholesterol level down by way of eating low saturated fat, low total fat and reducing animal protein in their diet. OR (worse) go on cholesterol lowering medication (why is medication worse? Check out here and here). There are many things contributing to a higher cholesterol level, and the risk this poses to you is based on many factors. I’ve covered some of these (and what you can do about it) previously.

Here are 6 things I found useful to know about LDL cholesterol. I’m not talking about particle size, particle number, patterning of particles or Apo A or B, reverse transport cholesterol etc. Keeping it kind of simple. If you know more than your average Joe about cholesterol this will likely be a bit elementary. Otherwise:

  1. Most studies and media reports that report a reduction of risk of heart disease when taking cholesterol lowering medication focus on the relative risk. Relative risk – takes a small effect and it amplifies it. This makes the medication look far more effective than it actually is. Let’s explore what this means:

If you have a clinical trial whereby 100 people are given a placebo drug* and 100 people are given the experimental drug, you might find that 2 people in the placebo group go on to have a heart attack (2%), 98 have no adverse events. In the drug-treated group, 1 person has a heart attack (1%), and 99 people have no adverse events. The difference is 1%, however the relative risk reduction is 50% and a much more impressive number, don’t you think? Those reporting in the media certainly do.

  1. We need cholesterol to synthesise naturally occurring steroids in our system. It is necessary for life. It is the substrate for every sex steroid, for vitamin D, to make new neurons and new synapses to consolidate memories. Many people think cholesterol is in our body solely to clog arteries, and the lower the better. This is not the case. For example, in some populations a low total and LDL cholesterol are linked to higher incidence of depressive symptoms. A low cholesterol level may also result in less synthesising of vitamin D in the body, lower hormone production and an impaired immune system.
  2. LDL is an innate part of the immune system. When there is damage to the artery, you have susceptibility to infection, and there is evidence of pathogens present in plaques. When there is damage to the artery and artery wall, resulting in atrophy, there is an infusion of white blood cells as well as LDL cholesterol which work together to promote inflammation (for healing purposes). Blaming LDL for creating damage is like blaming the fireman for creating a fire.
  3. There is NO level of LDL that is unhealthy. There is an assumption that LDL cholesterol is inherently atherogenic and that above a defined level it is dangerous – there is something about the LDL packaging of cholesterol that causes heart disease. That’s not the case, and some experts in the field believe there is no level of LDL that should be treated with a statin. Researchers reviewing the literature have found people with high LDL with no heart disease. The cut-off of 4mmol/L or 5mmol/L depending on your reference point is an artificial distinction that has been created to suggest LDL is inherently toxic to the heart and cardiovascular system. Now there are people who have a genetic predisposition to storing cholesterol, so they have an increased risk? Actually research looking at the lifespan of people with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH, a mutation in the LDL receptor whereby the end result is elevated LDL cholesterol) have found that, aside from a subsection of the population, there is normal lifespan, with just a small number of these people going on to develop heart disease. There are people who have other genetic variants which do result in build up of LDL cholesterol, and we don’t know enough to say that a very high LDL level is NOT dangerous – however the likelihood of harm will be increased with the presence of other risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high blood pressure or smoking.
  4. It is not LDL that is causing heart disease. Blood cholesterol (including LDL) is high in people consuming a higher fat diet. However, research shows that other biomarkers are not only fine, but can be improved when transitioning to a higher fat diet from the standard western diet. A recent paper found that people 60 years and older who have the highest LDL live as long or even longer than those with low LDL. They have lower rates of cancer and lower rates of infectious disease.
  5. If it’s not LDL cholesterol, then what is causing a heart attack? A critical trigger factor is coagulation. We rely on the coagulation factors in our bloodstream to create a clot when we become wounded and begin to bleed. However, our blood can clot without there being a wound. High stress, tobacco smoke, high blood sugar all trigger clotting mechanisms. It looks like this:
    1. In our artery wall, there are tiny arteries which feed to the inside of the artery (called vasovasorum).
    2. Vasovasorum are easily blocked or clogged by clots.
    3. If these can’t feed our artery wall, the wall essentially becomes hypoxic and the tissue dies.
    4. When the tissue dies, the LDL cholesterol comes in to repair it, and this happens repeatedly, causing the artery wall to become thicker and thicker until it chokes the artery.
    5. When you combine this thickening of the artery wall with something that might trigger clotting of the blood (such as high blood sugar, smoking or a stressful or emotional event etc), a clot will pass through the narrowed artery,
    6. The clot will eventually block the artery entirely and the result is a heart attack.
    7. None of this is caused by LDL cholesterol.

What really matters is keeping your clotting factors inactive until they are needed. Most people (unless they are haemorrhaging) don’t need their clotting factors on high alert all the time.

So, which is better for your health? IMO – while bacon may not be a health food, I’d choose it over the Flora (preferably free range, minimal added preservatives, along with an abundance of vegetables). Flora doesn’t have a lot going for it, TBH, and while it may lower your cholesterol level, how important is that really? If your cholesterol levels are high and you’re not sure of your risk, get in contact with someone like me who can work with you to address the lifestyle factors that might be driving up your cholesterol levels and contributing to health risk.

IMG_3158

This bacon isn’t preservative free, however it’s the only one I could see that had less preservatives and was free-farmed, so using it as an illustration. Henderson’s is free of preservatives but only select supermarkets carry their free-farmed variety FYI