T Nation

You are as Fat as you Need to Be...


biochemically speaking, that is.

I had an epiphany, or maybe a brainfart, let figure this out.

I watched the video of this guy:

and that is his line, you are as fat as you need to be, biochemically speaking.

His point is, though he does not make it as such, is that white fat cells are not the passive participants in the sugar and fat metabolism as they are usually described.

I think we all know how insulin resistance develops but there are two sides to this coin, the body not only needs to be able to get rid of blood sugar quickly, it also needs to be able provide energy to the body.

But, given that high insulin resistance pretty much makes sure that there is insulin in the body all the time, how would it do that?

I think I know how:

The bigger a fat cell gets , the easier it lets go of the fat- they become more sensitive to glucagon, insulins antagonist, meaning if you are insulin resistant and you need to be able to still move around, your body needs lots of big, full fat cells in order to be able to coax fat out of them if it needs it, insulin be damned.

That means biochemically speaking your body will try to make your fat cells exactly as big as they need to be in order to overcome the insulin in your bloodstream.

So, if that is true, losing weight per se will not do much for anybody, for the simple reason that if the underlying issue is not addressed, the body will snap back to where it needs to be.

If however you somehow manage to decrease insulin resistance, your body should shed fat in order to remain at a new equilibrium.

This would explain a lot, like:

Why people balloon up after a diet.

Why most people seem to have a set point where their body wants to be.

And of course why the ADA, this stupid, bought of fuckers need to be led behind a barn and at the very least be flogged with barbed wire.


The tendency to gain weight back is not related to equilibrium but rather simply explained by a depressed metabolism combined with reverting back to old eating habits/calorie intakes.


The tendency to gain weight back is not related to equilibrium but rather simply explained by a depressed metabolism combined with reverting back to old eating habits/calorie intakes.


Please elaborate!

If at all possible with studies and stuff, because there are lots out there that show that Fat cells indeed do shed fat more easily if they become bigger.


Well the old eating habits would include the exact same food that required enormous amounts of insulin so there.

The depressed metabolism is something is not an explanation per se, why is it depressed, obvious things like the depletion of T3 cells and loss of muscle mass not included.


Speaking from personal experience, the problem for most people is psychological, not physiological.

Where one divides that line may vary, however.


Hypertrophied adipose cells can get to the point where their regulating machinery no longer functions properly and consequently, they over secrete fatty acids. But this is an effect of aberrant hypertrophy, not a physiological 'goal'.

It's also important to recognise that insulin resistance can affect tissues to different degrees, depending on the aetiology. Although, it is common for adipose insulin resistance to cause deregulated lipolysis. That is, they will secrete fatty acids regardless of insulin concentration.

To me, all this points to an over supply of fatty acids in obese or insulin resistant individuals as a consequence of their condition, rather than a state obtained to overcome something.


So you see this more as a kind of damage and not a something that counteracts an oversupply of insulin?

Does it not make you the slightest bit curious that this damage just so happens to supply the body with energy when nothing else would, short of digesting internal organs?


But that would imply that people today are just that much psychologically weaker than 2-3 generations ago.

While that point most certainly can be made, I think it is a cheap cop out to promote moderate to high carb diets to people and then attribute it to their character when they fail.


The people aren't weaker, per se, so much as they are conditioned to be weaker. The food is completely different, as well.

I think my High School biology teacher said it best, 'We have the technology to make food super, super yummy.' It's true; the food is unnaturally delicious. Magically delicious, even. Our bodies and brains haven't changed, but our environment has. We're not weaker, the cupcakes just have bigger guns.


Lipolysis and plasma free fatty acids do not correlate with fat oxidation. So even though they are elevated, it does not mean they will be used more. In fact, the liver usually kicks glucose production into overdrive when insulin resistant.

Have a think about this: insulin resistant people generally have high fasting triglycerides. Triglycerides are the primary source of fat for oxidation, not free fatty acids released from adipose tissue. High fasting triglycerides indicate slow hydrolysis (uptake/clearance) of triglycerides. So in most cases, tissues are receiving less fat for oxidation.


Wouldn't this make sense that in the beginning of a fat loss phase, fat loss is much greater? And then it slows down? And then you have to add new variables, like change macros, calories, add cardio, etc..


I read / heard somewhere that once new fat cells are formed, they never go away, and they contribute and regulate the metabolic/hormonal demand of your body, hence losing weight below levels where your fat cells are extremely depleted is physiologically and psychologically quite demanding. TLDR if you are already have a high bodyfat percentage, its tougher to lose that fat and stay slim.



Is there a "Biochenistry for Dummies" ?, cause I needz it.



There is or was a poster on here who is a complete whiz kid when it comes to diabetes and he claimed that it is a very, very bad idea to put someone with diabetes 2 on a VLC diet.

In fact, some poster here did that and his grandpa collapsed as far as I remember.

Could that be because someone with diabetes 2 has not only a fucked up sugar metabolism but also an impaired fat metabolism, so without a few carbs things get ugly?


You form most of the fat cells you will ever carry as a child before you ever hit puberty. It would take a MASSIVE amount of fat gain for your body to start creating new fat cells. I am talking about "bed ridden Jerry Springer" kind of weight, not someone who simply gains 50lbs.


We all know that it does, but I was referring to the fat cells themselves. Their size correlates with how readily they give up fat.

Apparently, this is only part of the equation because insulin fucks up your ability to use fat too.

So the conclusion is that the more fat the less carbs, but we already knew that.


Plus, we still do not know whether those fuckers die to be simply replaced by new ones, or if they can die and not be replaced or what !?!

I do know though that visceral fat tends to consist of relatively large fat cells, whereas fat on the hips and thighs consists of more new formed cells.

So the more you tend to store fat in a male pattern, the less fat cells you have probably created.