And This I discovered via self-experimentation, anyway... :) A revisit of my DNA Test for "optimal diet" for my genetic type...and how you can use tracking to figure out what's best for you!

Those of you who have read me since the early days of this second weight loss blog of mine--the first one being Once Upon a Diet, where I spent time learning and trying to get my act together--will remember the Inherent Health DNA test that I took to help me with my journey.

It gave me some dire, but interesting info. Yes, I am genetically a high fat absorber and a fat hoarder. I have to exercise harder than the average person to burn fat. I am simply disposed to pack it on and keep it on. I gots some o' dem dere fatz geenz.

They then suggested I trim fat and use a diet similar to the low-fat model the government and many dietitians suggest. 65% carbs, 15% fat.

I had done that type of diet multiple times in the past with registered dietitians and using magazine low-fat diet menus, and really, never could do well on them.

I decided to go back to worked on my journey. Reducing carbs. I went to a dietitian who decided with my medical issues, reducing starches would be best to one serving a day, no more. I thrived, lost better than ever. I noticed in my SparkPeople tracking that I did best--weight loss wise--when my ratio was in the ranges where carbs were no more than 40% and fat was no more than 40%. Just observing the feedback on Sparkpeople. I mentioned that on this blog, how "Zone" type ratios seemed to be happy-making for my weight loss. If I kept my carbs to 80 to 100, I lost better and appetite was really low. My main temptation to not keeping that low is I adore fruit. :-)

I experimented with upping my starches again, for other health reasons, and this was not beneficial to the weight loss, I can tell you. Cravings came back hard.

I'm  back to working this week that plan of no more than 1 starch serving a day, and using fruit and veggies for my carbs. I am not dong LOW carb by the standards of Atkins type low-carbers, as my carbs can easily reach 150. Ideally, I'd like to keep them more in the 80 to 120 range. Ideally.

The reason I originally lowered my carbs in this journey in 2010 was due to my insulin resistance/prediabetes/Metabolic Syndrome. It seemed the best way to approach that condition from what I'd read.

I remember going to Inherent Health's FB wall and leaving a message that while they may advise me to do Fat Trimming type High Carb dieting, my weight loss went better with Carb Reducer type levels. So, sorry, I had to do it my way. But I'm glad to be armed with the reality of my DNA strikes against me.

So, all that preface to say that today, in the mail. I got  a letter from Inherent Health. And it states that while the DNA doesn't change--and no, I won't go into epigenetics, heh--their recommendations based on an expanded study they undertook that reveals"newly discovered correlations"  that show the optimal diet for my genetic type is not what they originally recommended. I should not trim fat.

They now recommend I follow the CARB REDUCER diet.
:-/

My reaction after reading the letter?

"No sh*t, Sherlock."

Well, I'm glad their expanded study and correlations back up what I learned on my own. They do emphasize it's for LONG TERM success at weight loss. Well, shoot. Ain't that what we're all after? Not short term, not razzle-dazzle lose a lot in 2 weeks. I want to lose it LONG TERM.

Now, to just apply it. Get back to that "Zoneish" whole foods way of eating --the 33-33-33 or 40-30-30--that worked well in 2010 and 2011 when I hit that sweet spot.

You can track your food for a few weeks/months and figure this out without any genetic tests. What works best with your body. Look at the feedback on SparkPeople...see which weeks fat just melted off. You may do better with more carbs or more fat or more protein or this ratio or that ratio. You can investigate it with diligent tracking.

BONUS: With detailed tracking, you'll also find where you fall short in your meal plans, as I learned from the SP nutrition tracker that I often fell short of zinc, copper, magnesium, potassium, iron, and folic acid, partly cause I was doing low calories and part because I can't eat a host of foods (allergies and sensitivities). I knew I had to supplement. And felt way better. :D

I will add that I had tried South Beach and Atkins first phases in the past, and felt like crap. (Lost loads of fluid weight the first weeks, which is always a boost, but felt like crap on very few carbs, hence my not doing low carb now, meaning induction type, 60 grams or fewer.)

I paid for a test. And I'm glad. But I also did the tracking, observation, measuring, pondering. I guess I did my own self-study. :D

I've been having about 120 carbs daily this week. And Tanita-San just put me back in the decade I had dipped into but not stayed in:  179.8

It's nice to have affirmaton. But hey, I knew what I knew..it's always application and consistency that are the keys to making the "I know" work.

All of you who have many dieting experiences behind you have a store of self-knowledge. If you don't remember or never tracked, try it. Learn. Apply.

This is a VERY stressful time in our household (again), so applying is a challenge, but is necessary. Life always has stressful times. We need to deal with those without a host of excuses. I don't want to make excuses. I want to....be in control. :D

Reducing carbs makes it a little easier for ME.

Happy Friday.

Be well...

Just Changed Settigns on my SparkPeople Nutrition Tracker to Reflect Genetic Test Suggestions

So, I took a while to figure out the calories per macronutrient and the grams to reflect between 1400 and 1600 cals for the 65/15/20 recommended breakdown.

I'm really nervous. That's A LOT OF CARBS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been eating way, way fewer carbs and way, way more protein and fat.

It's making me jittery.

But part of me is excited and curious to see how this affect 1. appetite 2. sense of well-being and 3. weight loss rate.

I've calcuated ranges of grams/calories for fats, protein and carbs. It looks tough. A big change from how I've been eating since around May/June.

Ranges:
carbs-- 227 grams/910 calories to 260 grams/1040 cals daily
protein--52 grams/210 calories to 60 grams/240 calories
(that seems such a piddling amount!)
fats--31 grams/280 to 35 grams/320

Man. Man. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

I figure I'll be bumping along trying to figure out how to fit stuff in to make the day balance out. Having it on my nutrition tracker will at least let me see how the day is working out meal by meal, snack by snack, and give me a pie chart to see the breakdown once the day is done, and then I can analyze to see how to tweak.

I'll give it a month, maybe more. If it works out well in terms of appetite/rate of loss and my labwork comes out good, fine. I'll consider it a successful experiment. If it makes my appetite rage and my glucose in the labs changes for the worse, then, back to the higher-protein, lower carb. Cause...man, that sure is a ton of carbs.

Oh, I found an article that discusses the particular genetic variances. It's not happy reading for me, given how I turned out on the tests, but it is illuminating for those who are curious. And yes, science-speak: Genotyping and the diets to lose weight

One lady did comment over on the Facebook for Inherent Health that her hubby, also a Fat Trimmer, lost a lot of weight and got to goal weight in a relatively short time (months, not years). Like 50 lbs in 3 months using the recommendations.

I have a lot of my protein stuff around, and fortunately most are low-fat, too, so I don't have to ditch them. Just figure out how to incorporate. 

Here is a blog post by someone else who is a Fat Trimmer/High Met.

Onward to the experiment....

The Results of my DNA testing for optimal diet/exercise as per my genes

Okay, here it is. Finally.

Actually, it took a couple weeks and that's what they said.

First, if you don't know what I'm talking about, I used one of those little brushes to swab cells from the sides of my mouth (like you see in CSI on tv) and sent them in. I paid for two tests done by the company that was referred to in the plethora of television show segments and news reports back in spring talking about the type of diet basedo n DNA: one for a marker that shows a predisposition for heart attack based on inflammation, the other for what would be the type of diet and exercise level most suited for my genotype. There are some categories  people fall in:

1. Fat Trimmer
2. Carb Reducer
3. Balancer

There are also differing optimal exercise levels based on genes. For some, moderate exercise is optimal. Others require high intensity exercise.

I thought I'd be a Carb Reducer or Balancer. I was wrong. I tested out as a Fat Trimmer. Here is the "interpretation" of the results:


Individuals with this genetic pattern absorb more dietary fat into the body and have a slower metabolism. They have a greater tendency for weight gain. Clinical studies have shown these individuals have an easier time reaching a healthy body weight by decreasing total dietary fat. They may have greater success  losing weight by following a reduced fat, reduced calorie diet. In addition, they benefit from replacing saturated fats with monosaturated fats within a reduced calorie diet. Clinical studies have also shown these same dietary modifications improve the body's ability to metabolize sugars and fats.


I hoped I was a moderate exerciser, but I'm a "High Met" (Higher Intensity):


High Met: Individuals with this genetic pattern are less able to break down body fat for energy in response to exercise than those with the alternative genetic pattern. They tend to lose less weight and body fat than expected with moderate exercise. These individuals require more exercise to activate the breakdown of body fat for energy and weight loss. They must also maintain a consistent exercise program to keep the weight off.



Their recommendations for me are:

1. Diet--Reduced-Fat
65% carbs, 20% fat, 15% protein

2. Exercise --High Metabolic Equivalents
High intensity activity of 6 mets or more at least 3x per week.
Total weekly MET score of 13 or greater.

My intermediate level Pilates that I do 2x a week with a trainer falls in the 5-6 MET range, with some bursts of up to 8, but probably averaging closer to 5-6. So, I've been doing 10 to 12 METs. Not enough.

I can't jog or run or do treadmill or elliptical (bad knees/ankle). So, my options for higher MET would be recumbent bike (at a particular level, of course) or rowing (OMG!). I've tried rowing. That is not for me.

I've been doing higher fat/lower carb/higher protein. I'm gonna start to play with the diet. I want to decrease fats, not overly decrease protein, and start to slowly raise carbs (ideally, good carbs, right?) I don't want to face hunger pangs again (which I do tend to get with carbs). But I like the idea of having more fruit (which I have restricted some). I don't know if 65% carb is really ideal--appetite-wise. But I"m willing to give it a go. I just have to figure out how to make the meals fit.

If anyone has a recommendation of a diet that fits this profile, do let me know.

You can google up METs (lots of charts out there) to see where your activity falls.


Hope this was interesting for y'all.

Face the Truth Friday: 54 pounds down, waiting for those DNA results, still wheezy, still motivated, but more cravings this week...and begging the Young and the Fat to face their truths ASAP!

245.0

That's 54 pounds down from my highest (without clothes, at home) back in 2004. My highest at my primary care doc's office was 303, with shoes, clothes, some water intake. So, I think my scale at home was pretty accurate.

I weighed 267 on the first day of January of this year, so 22 lbs lost so far this year. My best year's lost since, well, years. 

The truth I'm facing: It finally feels like it's my time to do this weight loss thing. I know, all dieters have done this over and over and over, especially if you've been overweight since your twenties and are now looking at AARP age just ahead. But I've never felt calmer and less fumbling and uneasy eating less. I've never felt less binge-prone.

That's not to say it's easy. When craving hit--and they have this week--it's a battle. The battle is shorter than in times past. I am succeeding more in saying no to myself than in times past. But it's still a hard thing. I am a bit worried about the bounty of Thanksgiving dinner, but I just say to myself, I'll cope. I'll manage. I'll get it done. And it doesn't feel like some big fat lie. I feel as if it's possible. :)

What cravings? Chocolate. Last night I wanted it bad, and no, I didn't want high protein chocolate shakes or puddings. I wanted chocolate. So, I had a few sugar-free chocolate covered almonds (don't affect blood sugar to set up more cravings, and I saw more than one comment from those in ketosis--which I'm not--who ate these and stayed in ketosis). It was hard to stop at half a serving (and as you may guess, a serving of anything with nuts is miniscule), but I did. Earlier in the week I was having crazy pizza cravings. I got the stuff to make it at home, but the craving passed (for now).  I also get frequent cravings for salty chips and salsa. Sometmes, I can cure that with a high protein salty snack. Sometimes, I just have to wait it out. 

And I keep noticing that on my SparkPeople Nutrition tracker, I show greater losses on the morning after days when I eat high-fat, lower carb, normal protein. I don't know if that's a function of water loss from the lower carb (and I notice this even if my salt intake is higher and calorie level is unchanged from the norm on this challenge) or that my body handles that combination better due to Metabolic Syndrome (I have a book by an endocrinologist I got in the 90's when I was diagnosed with Syndrome X, now called Metabolic Syndrome, that recommends a higher fat diet). 

I am still waiting for the results of my DNA test for optimal 'diet type' for my body. Another week or two, I guess. I am eager to see how it jives with what I'm seeing (ie, I do better on lower carb, higher fat, middling to higher protein).

I will say to those younger fatties out there: Get it done. Read the books. Drink the water. Follow the blogs. See a cognitive therapist. Join a group. Write a journal. Start a blog. Sign up with a trainer. Do whatever it takes to get it off while you are young and your flesh is elastic and you can develop good eating habits for life. Do it NOW. If you procrastinate like I have, you will regret it. I promise you: YOU WILL REGRET IT.

Your metabolism when you're young, your energy, your joint health...all that helps. If you let yourself stay fat you will damage a lot of stuff and that damage will not go away: skin will not return to snugness, knees will not regenerate, arteries may or may not unclog, liver may or may not heal.

Do it now. Face that truth today. However you must do it, do it aggressively before you hit middle age or old age. It only gets HARDER with age and entrenched habits.  Save your own life.

Today I sent off my swabs for that genetic test for weight loss compatibility...and some links to others who've done the test!

Yep. Handed it to my mail carrier. Two swabs. Hope I got enough cells on those babies. :)

Now to wait the couple weeks or so for results.

I did find people online who did the test. This article by one is very nicely done, and the test confirmed what she suspected through her own dieting/exercise/weight historical experience: She needs to reduce carbs and do high-intensity exercise, not plain old walking.

Here's another with that profile: Erin Slick. 

Another carb reducer/high met: HERE.

I admit it, I'm really curious to see what they say about my DNA and what weight loss plan suits it.

I will add that, apparently, not all scientists are behind this:

From the article about the gal who did the test (link above), I quote:

Dr Loos, an obesity genetic researcher, explains: 'Because environment - or lifestyle - plays such a huge role in obesity, these tests are likely to be of limited value. They also typically give very general advice, as they don't want to run the risk of being too specific.'

Talking specifically about the Inherent health test, she says: 'There are indications that the gene variants tested in this kit are associated with obesity, but as credibly as some of the 12 we have identi f ied, which have been confirmed in studies of 100,000 people. We have years of research ahead of us to really identify the biological pathway that underlies the link between the gene variant and obesity risk.'

From another online article:

...some scientists argue that no test can determine the success of a weight loss strategy. To be certain, there are many factors that influence weight loss including diet, physical activity, lifestyle, stress, mindset and environment.

 And extensive research over the years has shown that a diet that excludes refined carbs is most likely to produce significant weight loss results, regardless of genetic composition. Protein and healthy fats are also important as they are more difficult to break down and increase resting metabolic rate...

The idea of genetic testing to determine who may benefit most from different foods in an effort to encourage weight loss is an interesting concept that requires more research before it can used to reliably predict success. Everybody is coded with a different genetic build, and some people may be able to better metabolize carbs, fats and protein based on evolved heritage. The fact remains that the vast majority of people will achieve optimal health and successful weight loss by following a whole diet that includes plenty of foods eaten in their natural state.

Read more: http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/best-weight-loss-diet-determined-by/#ixzz1443en9zV

The "carb reducer" lady I quoted earlier in this post concludes:

So it looks like I've paid [euro]120 for a shot in the dark.
Still, one thing's for certain. Getting a glimpse into my DNA has toughened my resolve to say 'no' to carb-laden cakes, bread or biscuits - and step up from a gentle stroll to a sprint on the treadmill.

This is what I figure. Even if I don't see a huge difference following the "genetic" suggestions, knowing if, genetically, I may be hampered by a high carb or high fat diet will make me think twice about the items that don't serve my ....DNA profile. I'll take my motivation where I can get it. And it will be cool to learn something about my inner workings. I think that's cool.

Face the Truth Fridays: A new "decade" and maybe the Zone is worth considering?

674 days and 89.8 lbs to go

I had a good long sleep (as opposed to a few days of shorter zzzzzing). As past experience confirms, when I sleep well and a lot, I lose a bit more. Always.

Scale: 249.8

I'm 4/5ths of a pound from a 50 pound loss.

I stayed at the Double Dog Dare challenge calorie limit--or under--from Mon through Wed. I went 9 calories over yesterday, which was more than made up for my the 300 or so calories I was under the previous days combined.

Loss since last week's weigh-in: 1.2 lbs. 

I met (and exceeded) goal for weekly loss (1 lb) and am still on track for my two-year loss goal (98 lbs).

I had figured that my loss at 1800 (pre-dare daily calorie goal) would be about goal (1 lb). This week, due to the challenge, I've eaten under 1800 enough to exceed  goal. So, yes, eat less, lose more. :) I haven't moved MORE this week than any other (well, okay, a very small walk Monday that made my plantar fasciitis act up).

Truth I'm Facing: I'm nowhere near being "on automatic" about food choices. Even to eat at my "maintenance at goal weight" level of 1760, I had to plan, calculate calories before eating to make sure I didn't go over, log food so I wouldn't forget what I ate, and had to force down water.

I have a long way to go to being in fully habituated "lower calorie controlled eating" mode. A long way. But these 4 days have shown me a couple things by examining my food log:

~I will stay satiated longer the lower carb the meal is.
~I get hungrier on exercise days
~It is possible for me to drink MORE than 10 glasses of water a day and not puke
~I lost the most this week the day after my nutrient breakdown was 40-31-29 and I had multiple snacks.

That made me look hard at that chart. That breakdown was suspiciously close to the 40-30-30 of The Zone (a book I never read, btw). I had bought a groupon to a local diet delivery service that follows The Zone guidelines, and after noting this on my SparkPeople.com nutrition feedback--they show graphs and colorful pies, which are not just cool, but so informational and eye-opening-- it certainly makes me wonder if this will be a consistent result. In other words, if I do more days in that range with multiple snacks (not just one snack), will I lose more than on days when I do fewer meals that are out of the 40-30-30?

Anyway, that would jive with my suspicion that I'm a "mixed" eater type, and it will be interesting to see if the DNA testing that I'll do in November--see previous post on it this week--will let me know that, too.

I have to note another truth: I was peckish last night. Very snackish. And if I were not reined in by the challenge, I bet I'd have noshed up to 2000 cals. Accountability is a huge help here.

Anyone out there done The Zone? Didja like it?

Okay, so that's my progress (goals met), truths faced, and things for me to look into.

Have a Fit Friday and here's to your weekend being a beautiful one!

I paid $149 to find out if I do better on low carb, low fat, or "balanced" type diet for weight loss!

Yep. I just sprang for a genetic test from INHERENT HEALTH.

I should have it in a week or so.

I should have results a couple weeks AFTER I send in my swab.

So, let's say 3 weeks or so until I know where I fall in the "best eating plan" continuum.

I had read reports earlier this year--what weight loss blogger didn't given how much it was reported in the media--of how a study on a number of women showed that there is a genetic basis for individuals doing better on a particular diet (low carb, low fat, balanced). Even Dr. Oz featured it.

If I had to guess, I'd say I'm a mixed/balanced diet gal. I answered a long test over a year ago in some book about metabolic type and I was "mixed." And then I came across this tonight:

Results from the Inherent Health line of genetic tests provide individuals with a clear understanding of their genetic profile as it relates to a particular health concern, a summary of the role those genes have on their present health and steps to improve their future health outcomes. Relating to nutrition, the article, "What's Your Diet DNA?--Find out fast and for free," appeared withing a larger article "Dr. Oz's Diet Breakthrough," that appeared in the August 9, 2010 issue of Woman's World (The date refers to how long the magazine is to be kept on news stands). In this article, is a questionnaire with 14 questions.

The people with apple shapes, flat derrieres, those who hate skipping meals, those struggling to not overeat sweets, those getting bloated or gassy from eating carbs, those with high blood pressure, diabetes, or heart disease in their families, those with a family history of high triglycerides (above 150) are classified in the article as needing to be on a low-carb diet.

Those classified as needing to be on a low-fat diet check off questions in the article as having a clear "pear body shape." The pear body shapes who need a low-fat diet (not a low-carb diet) check off questions asking whether they "have junk in their trunk," tend to skip meals, then pig out, have a struggle not to overeat high-fat foods such as bread and butter, chips with dips, pasta, and cream sauce.

My apple shape and flattish derriere says I should be "low carb", but I have a waist, too. I have HBP and flirted with diabetes. I HATE skipping meals, and like having my three regular ones and sometimes snacks. (I am snacking to keep protein up. If I didn't do that consciously, I'd skip snacks and have the "three round meals" of tradition.)  I don't get gassy from carbs. I sometimes crave sweet, but I mostly crave salty/cheesy/creamy/rich/savory. But I crave fatty rather than sweet--that list of bread and butter, chips and salsa and cream sauces has my  name on it! So, even with that mini-categorization, I'm mixed.

I've always been able to lose weight if I restrict calories, certainly, but when I did the high-carb/low-fat in the late 80's, I was constantly hungry. So, I think carbs really do open up my appetite, whereas fat and protein satiate me. But I can't imagine life without fruit and pasta. :(

What it comes down to is that I want to know for sure. I mean, I still have 91.8 pounds to go. I'd rather do it the most optimal way for my genetic type.

I will say that since I made a conscious effort to up protein and reduce carbs (without actually BEING lowcarb, as I do get 150+ carbs a day, but don't go over 200) has helped the appetite a lot. I am trying to get protein and carbs in balance, with a lower than some low-carbers do. I am not trying to be in ketosis--at all. Just to take some of the load off my pancreas and insulin-resistant system. :)

I have never seen a fatfighting blogger report using this test--if you know of one, drop me a link!--so I will certainly be reporting on the results here for anyone interested. Then, I'll tweak my eating plan accordingly.

If it makes the tough job of losing weight more targeted and faster and, maybe, easier, hey, it will be worth $149.

So, what type do you think you are? And would you pay that  much to know?