My Effortless Weightloss Story: A Quick Runthrough
18Portia
10Portia
8Matt Goldenberg
6CuoreDiVetro
2Portia
5CuoreDiVetro
12gilch
3CuoreDiVetro
3Portia
2gilch
3Portia
3CuoreDiVetro
19Portia
4CuoreDiVetro
14Portia
1CuoreDiVetro
1CuoreDiVetro
4gilch
2Portia
-2Ansel
1ACrackedPot
1CuoreDiVetro
1CuoreDiVetro
4Portia
1Jazi Zilber
1CuoreDiVetro
1CuoreDiVetro
11romeostevensit
9Wbrom
1CuoreDiVetro
1Wbrom
4waveman
5CuoreDiVetro
2waveman
5CuoreDiVetro
2waveman
4CuoreDiVetro
2gilch
1CuoreDiVetro
1Portia
1CuoreDiVetro
3Matt Quinn
1CuoreDiVetro
3Gordon Seidoh Worley
3CuoreDiVetro
3Gordon Seidoh Worley
2Elizabeth
2Gordon Seidoh Worley
3Joel Burget
2CuoreDiVetro
3Elizabeth
1CuoreDiVetro
3solomon alon
1CuoreDiVetro
2wachichornia
3Portia
2CuoreDiVetro
2MetallicDragon
2CuoreDiVetro
2Jyotish
1CuoreDiVetro
1ClareChiaraVincent
1CuoreDiVetro
1Review Bot
1Matt Quinn
1Dzoldzaya
2CuoreDiVetro
1CuoreDiVetro
1lc
0AnthonyC
5CuoreDiVetro
9Elizabeth
5Elizabeth
3CuoreDiVetro
3Elizabeth
3CuoreDiVetro
3Elizabeth
3CuoreDiVetro
New Comment
Weight loss per day is nearly all water weight loss, and not informative as to what is causing fat burning.
If you are on a diet where you lose 1 kg of fat a week - which is good - your daily fat loss is 140 g. Most body weight scales only do 0.1 kg units, so that barely shows up at all. More importantly, your body weight shifts from morning to evening by about two kilograms - more by factor 20. If you are observing weight loss from one day to the next, you are de facto measuring water retention.
There is also a very simple alternate hypothesis for the potato diet that does not require a potassium hypothesis, but makes sense within established research. Potatoes are relatively low calorie density and high satiety. Give a person the same calories in potato, rice, and pasta, and they will feel fuller longer on the potatoes; they are also more likely to finish the pasta plate in one go, but not the potato plate, as they will feel full before they are done. 100 g of potatoes have 69 kcal, and 2,3 g fibre; 100 g of pasta have 137 kcal, and only 1,2 fibre. So you get double the calories, half the fibre. Meaning people who ate more potatoes rather than other carbs would have sim...
1This also holds true vice versa. In order to gain 1 kg of fat in a single day, you would need to consume a caloric excess of 7000 kcal. Assuming your daily burn is 2000, that means eating 9000 kcal in a single day. This is practically impossible if your diet is remotely healthy. For the record, 9000 kcal in potatoes is 13 kg of potatoes. (Not 1,3 kg.13 kg. That is 8+ bags of potatoes.)
But of course, you scale can go up by 1 kg within a day. Heck, it can go up by several kg in a day. This happens e.g. if you go from ketosis to reintroducing carbs (carbs bind to water and are stored in your muscles, massively upping your water weight), if you overconsume salt (ups water retention), if you are sleep deprived, stressed or getting stick (ups inflammation, which ups water rention) or eat pro inflammatory foods (again, ups water retention), if you have not passed stool due to constipation (meaning there is literally more material inside you when you step onto the scale), if you step onto the scale on the evening rather than morning (you lose water overnight through sweating and breathing, have fasted for 8 hours, and likely went to the toilet before weighing yourself) and at certain parts...
18
Potatoes aren't just satiating, they're weirdly satiating.
You can of course say that satiety explains the weight loss, but then you have to ask... what explains the satiety?
6
Absolutely :) I agree with all that you are saying in both your comments. Excellent remarks.
What I will get to in future posts: Potassium is not everything (hence why the SMTM experiment on K showed only light results), kCal/food_weight is the other very important factor. I'll show some control experiments I did for that. But even controlling for kCal/weight, K still plays a role. (I still have to finalize my experiments on that).
Re body-weight scales precision, water etc.: absolutely totally correct, and what is super fantastic and incredible is that with enough data, you can get results sub measurement scale, I will get to that later. Also to deal with 1 error issue I do two things: look at models which predict weight change many days ahead. And for promising interventions, do the intervention for many days in a row (for example 2 weeks) to see the cumulative effect.
2
Thank you. :)
I believe your correlations, but would offer an alternate explanation.
High volume low calorie foods trick a lot of people into stopping to eat earlier than the same calorie foods with less volume would have achieved. Doesn't work on everyone; some people feel like their stomach is cramped full, but they still feel hollow and hungry, and will get pushing in food, anyway, even past the pain limits, because they feel they are filled with empty garbage. But works on many people. That is the basic idea behind a high fibre high water diet, e.g. all those diets incorporating things like cabbage soups (magic cabbage soup) and giant salads and heaps of kale and platefuls of cucumber and celery.
Part of what tricks your body is not just the sheer volume that works as a "I had lots of food" cue, but also the composition. There are foods that are harder to digest than others. E.g. if you had either 1 liter of kale, or 1 liter of water mixed with enough ice cream to get to the same calorie count, I would predict you would be hungrier again much earlier after the ice cream slurry, while the kale would still keep your body busy. Same volume, same calories, but one of these would keep you full longer. The kale is less compressible and movable and processable, essentially.
Foods that keep you full longer than their volume alone would predict tend to be high in fibre. Foods high in fibre tend to be incidentally high in potassium. Foods highly processed, meanwhile, tend to be both low fibre, and high in salt. So you would see quite a robust correlation. But I would predict that if you ate high volume high fibre low calorie foods that are low in potassium and added salt, your fat loss would be the same. (Though you would gain water weight. But that could be dropped quickly after a week long intervention.) Examples of relatively low potassium foods that are still diet food classics and which I would expect to remain so even if paired with salt to get the ratio clearly
5
Ya. I agree, the low caloric density of potatoes (and even more so kidney beans) is an important componant to all this which I didn't bring up in the above article, but I'm convinced that it isn't the whole story. I will get to this in later posts, but here are some preliminary reasons why I think that:
* The SMTM drinking K diet helped a bit with weightloss: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/12/20/people-took-some-potassium-and-lost-some-weight/
* I'm trying a control (lentilles) which are low caloric density but don't have a lot of K, it works a bit (as much as K alone), but not nearly as much as potatoes or kidney beans.
* All my life, I've never felt full after eating an ice-cream cone, now on the days I take a lot of K, I feel really full afer eating an ice-cream cone, even the days where my K comes entirely from just coconut water.
I notice that I am confused. By the Na:K ratio hypothesis, in particular; I'm not disputing your individual results, which are interesting, so I've subscribed for updates.
The obesity epidemic is a relatively recent phenomenon, but I expect that diets before the era of refrigeration (which is before the epidemic) were even higher in salt (used as a preservative), so I don't think an increase in sodium consumption can explain it.
Anecdote, but when I was intermittent fasting to lose weight, I'd often drink cacao in milk (no sugar), which seemed to help control my appetite. I thought it was the theobromine, but maybe it was the electrolytes.
3
My model of the past (for example talking with my grandparents) is different to yours. Before refrigeration I don't feel people ate more salted (that was salted meats on a boat), people ate roots and tubers in winter (as those can keep a long time in the cold, in winter you have natural refrigeration) and fresh veggies in the summer when there was no refrigeration.
As for meat, you would slaughter it "just in time" most of the time (except on a boat).
And pickles (as in pickled vegetables, ketchups, chutneys, etc) are more vinegar than salt.
If you do find a source saying people of old ate more salt than now though, I would find super interesting.
Ya. I have the same feeling with cacao, one cup cuts my appetite for 2-3 hours usually.
3
Pickles - as in the original food where pickling is a preservation method - are extremely high in salt. The vinegar comes from fermentation. The reason the fermentation becomes something that does not spoil is the high salt content. Source: I make my own, and if the salt is too low, they spoil, it is the one thing all recipes stress.
Especially in the European Nordics, people ate huge amounts of salted fish, cured meats (which often involve copious salt), and vegetables prepped in brine, on a baseline of grains, which tended to be baked with a lot of salt. They often slaughtered most of their animals in fall, so they wouldn't have to feed them through the winter, and then preserved them so they could live on them through winter. They also tended to have massive catches if e.g. migrating fish, which then had to be collectively preserved, as they couldn't be eaten all at once. A lot of historic preservation methods specifically indicate the mass catch thing, e.g. when the storage container used was a massive animal carcass. As well as massive vegetable harvests, hence huge barrels of sauerkraut. From other cuisines I have encountered, salt also plays a massive historic use in preservation; e.g. fish sauce is a fermented sauce that is super salty, and a staple in Asian cuisine.
2
Acid is a preservative, but my understanding was that traditional pickle fermentation mainly produced lactic acid, rather than acetic acid, which is instead fermented from alcohol. Vinegar can be used to jump-start the process by lowering the pH, which favors the non-toxic acidophiles, but many pickle recipes don't require it. Sauerkraut, for example, is traditionally made with just cabbage and salt.
3
Yes, preservation via fermentation is typically achieved by putting your thing-to-be-preserved into salt in an oxygen restricted environment, which leads to selective bacterial activity dropping the ph and hence further restricting undesired bacterial activity, while boosting beneficial bacteria, breaking down anti-nutrients, and having all sorts of beneficial health effects. Which is why I rejected the idea "pickles are more vinegar than salt", insofar as your sole necessary starting base is salt, with the acidity a later result, and vinegar generally only the end-stage product that is often not even reached, and hence often not characteristic - sauerkraut is indeed made out of cabbage, salt, and water only, and the only acid in there is one produced by bacteria, and the predominant acid we target is lactic acid. Hence high salt consumption. - The idea that pickles are just "vegetable plus vinegar" is basically a modern invention - because most pickles you get in stores aren't actually pickles, they weren't fermented, they aren't probiotics, their antinutrients are untouched, and they needed to be sterilised (vitamin loss) or had preservatives added (bad for microbiome) to remain stable - they are just supposed to taste a bit of actual pickles due to the vinegar, and are hence easier, faster and more reliable to make. Actual pickles are basically vegetable plus salt plus time.
Which acids you get depends on a number of factors, like the temperature you keep it at, whether you are working with mixed bacteria, fungi, or combinations thereof (sourdough, kombucha...), and what your starting ingredients are, and how long you ferment without adding more raw material. E.g. my sourdough will alternate between being dominated by lactic acid, and dominated by acetic acid, depending on how cold I keep it (fridge or outside) and how much I feed it (daily or less often), which leads to dominance of different groups of bacteria or fungi, and also has them either metabolising ra
3
Thanks. That changed my mind about pickles and vinegar.
The original reason of talking about that was the person who brought it up thought old diets had a higher Na:K than modern diets, I'm highly unconvinced by this still, I think it is the opposite. You seem to know a lot, what is your take on the original point @Portia ?
Thank you. I appreciate your confidence, but I don't study historic salt intake.
But there are people who do!
"About 1000 years ago, salt intake in the Western world had risen to about 5 g per day. It continued to rise until the 19th century when, in Europe, it was about 18 g per day. In the 16th century in Sweden, when there was a high consumption of salted fish, it has been calculated that the daily salt intake rose to 100 g per day. A worldwide reduction of salt intake to an average of 10 g per day during the 20th century was probably due to the introduction of refrigeration."
If you were right, that Swedish community eating 100 g per day (Jesus Christ) would have been obese, which would have been very remarkable at the time, and yet was not remarked upon.
Furthermore, if you were right, obesity would have been absent prehistorically (hunter gatherers), then rose (agriculture), then peaked in the 19th century (world-wide trading of salt makes is highly accessible), then faded away to low levels again (refrigeration makes high salt fo...
4
Thanks for looking up the historic NaCl intake of Europeans. That's super useful. For reference also, modern people in the USA (particularly overweight) daily salt intake is only ~3.4g.
> weight loss is almost completely determined by caloric intake
I don't at all disagree with that. But emperically it seems really hard for people to eat fewer calories, so the question is what makes it so hard? And how can taking fewer calories be made easy and require no willpower? Populations who struggle to get enough calories available to them are not relevant in answering this question.
> what working mechanism are you even assuming?
For the moment, at least experimenting on myself, and from the two SMTM experiments, it seems like Potassium might have something to do with making it easier to consume fewer calories than are expended. I'm currently experiencing with lentilles as a control (low caloric density but very little K compared to potatoes or kidney beans) and the data is still very provisional but they really don't seem to work as well. I also did a period of going back to my pre-potato diet but adding Coconut water (lots of K but otherwise just sugar water) and it actually helped lose weight (or in this case stop gaining weight), it provisionally seems to work as well as one meal day of lentilles. So the key, it seems is both low caloric density + enough K.
The modern Western diet is K poor, my current working hypothesis is just that if people are lacking a nutrient, they continue to eat to get enough of it (eating not for calories but for getting the nutrient).
The info you turned up on historical NaCl intake is evidence that if that hypothesis is correct it might not be the ratio of K:Na that is relevant, but just the quantity of K. Which sounds plausible, given that any excess ions should be easy enough to eliminate in pee.
On the other hand this article says that exess sodium triggers the body's emergency system trying to get it to store more fat: https:/
Because humans are genetically wired to slightly overeat, in anticipation of future periods where they will be under high calorie demand (e.g. the weekly persistence hunt in which you would run a marathon to catch a prey animal) or forced to undereat (the cold or dry season, when there is no food), so they will have stores, and perishable food does not go to waste. You'd gorge yourself on fruit and nuts and slaughtered animals in fall, when lots are available, because in winter, there would be slim pickings.
But nowadays, we don't run into periods where we have to undereat for lack of food, so those stores just keep on building. Around Christmas, you should, based on evolutionary history, be getting pretty damn hungry. Instead, we are drowning in chocolate and meat. Nor do most of us run a weekly marathon, or walk an average of 30.000 steps a day, or climb a couple trees and dig out a bunch of roots and carry baskets full of berries each day. We drive our cars and sit in front of our desks.
Also because we are also genetically wired to be hungry enough to go to the trouble of finding and prepping food - but both those things are trivial nowadays. - Yesterday, we made a traditio...
11
Ya, all that sounds about right to me :) Thanks for writing out so clearly :)
1
The relevant part of the above article:
"“JOHNSON's surprising observation is that, in mouse models, high consumption of salt triggers the body's own fructose production.
Salt and glucose are very different compounds? Why would they trigger fructose production?
According to Johnson, because both act as distress signals.
If there is a lot of glucose or salt (or both) in the blood, the concentration of the blood changes, and this happens when the body dries out.
The body therefore thinks that the creature is suffering from a lack of water.
The body prepares for the threat of dehydration by accumulating fat, because fat is not only an energy store but also a water store.
When fat is burned, water is produced, which the body can use. For the same reason, camels accumulate a hump of fat on their back - to get water.”"
4
Calories-in, Calories-out is a distraction. A red herring. True but useless. Nobody here is disputing the laws of physics. Obviously, a caloric deficit is required to lose weight and a surplus is required to gain it.
Does that explain the obesity epidemic? Hardly. Why the sudden change? Has humanity never had enough Calories before? Is it a cure? Hardly. It implies the "willpower" diet (Just stop eating so many Calories!), which doesn't work. Yes, the Caloric deficit makes you lose weight in the short term, then you get hungrier until you binge and gain the weight back with interest. Or just gradually give up because you're miserable and gain it back slowly, again with interest.
As living organisms, we have various mechanisms to maintain homeostasis, including our weight. Somehow these have stopped working in the recent past, for a large fraction of the population. Something environmental has changed (it's too sudden to be genetic). Our set points are going up. A true explanation would tell us why. I have heard many plausible hypotheses. Some of them readily evaporate upon closer inspection. Na:K seems to be one of these, given the history of salt consumption you just shared.
2
See my more extensive answer below - I'd propose the reason for the obesity epidemic is constant effortless access to highly processed high calorie, low satiety foods, with zero need to move. With human genetic make-up, the automatic response to that is overeating calories and hence obesity unless one intervenes to resist the impulse (indeed hard to sustain, albeit not impossible - anorexia is a thing), or changes one's immediate environment (e.g. the food one keeps in one's home and one's movement routines.)
-2
I disagree with this. The fact that the active mechanism of any functional weight loss strategy is having lower caloric intake than expenditure is obviously a critical aspect of dieting that makes sense to talk about, so I disagree with calling it a red herring.
Calorie counting doesn't work well for everyone as a weight loss strategy, but it does work for some people. Obviously a strategy that works well when adhered to, and which some people can successfully adhere to, is worth talking about. Also obviously, people who have trouble with implementing it themselves should try other strategies. Find the strategy that works for you, and combine with a form of exercise that you enjoy.
1
I tried potassium supplementation. The very first thing I noticed is that a significant portion of hunger was immediately converted into thirst; to be specific, where normally at time X I would be hungry, instead at time X I was thirsty instead. There was an immediate and overall reduction of calories in.
This suggests to me that I had a slight potassium deficiency which my body was compensating for by increasing the amount of food I was consuming.
Cursory research suggests potassium content in fresh foods has declined ~20% over the past century - which is not particularly surprising, if you think about modern farming methodologies. Additionally, it appears that lithium consumption (tying into SMTM's hypothesis) may deplete the body's potassium reserves (which could conceivably be the mechanism by which lithium causes weight gain, in slight contradiction to SMTM's hypothesis). Additionally additionally, and most importantly - low potassium content appears to be correlated with something like a 20% increase in caloric consumption, second only to protein deficiency in terms of increasing "natural" caloric intake. (All of this is cursory internet research, and should not be taken too seriously, but it is all pointing in a particular direction very suggestively).
I think the "sodium intake" is a red herring, sort of (if your body needs potassium, but can't distinguish between potassium and sodium in food intake, it may result in people salting their food more - another change that occurred after I began supplementing potassium is that I didn't need as much salt to make food taste like anything - so sodium intake may be a symptom of potassium deficiency).
Supposing we're all slightly potassium deficient at a healthy level of food consumption, and we cover the potassium intake gap by simply eating more food (thus getting the necessary levels of potassium), then potassium supplementation could quite reasonably decrease caloric consumption without any effort. And
1
Thanks for this info. Ya this really goes in the direction of what I think is happening.
1
Also, @Portia , you say you have never been overweight, I'm curious about you.
Is it easy for you stay thin, or do you need use willpower to stop yourself from eating? (i.e. do you count calories and then stop yourself from eating?)
Also do you think you could estimate your daily Potassium intake? (Many thin people I talked about this to said they had a really high potassium intake).
No need to answer those personal question if you are not comfortable answering.
4
I find that a false dichotomy - it is easy for me, but when needed, I do count calories. I find counting calories relaxing. It gives me an exact certainty of how I am doing, with no worries. I can forget about what I have eaten, because I have tracked it. I don't have to worry whether I have under- or overeaten, because I know. But usually, it is not required.
I wouldn't say me being normal weight is automatic at all - it is very much a consequence of awareness and choices. I know that a higher weight fucks up my joint disease and pushes my dysphoria through the roof, while I also have a healthy respect for low weight due to former anorexia. So I have decided to stay normal weight for life, and hence, I am.
But nor would I describe it as a struggle. It runs in the background while I do everything else, and I have never found it hard. If it is hard, it is unsustainable when life gets hard, and hence, one should look for something simpler.
I'm aware of where my body is at a time - usually, I have a scale that I step on once a day in the morning, and I see how my clothes fit (I still fit into clothes I have had since I have been 15, when my bones stopped growing, and I know which parts of my wardrobe correlate with which part of normal weight), notice how fast I run, how easily I climb, how easily body weight exercise comes to me, how slender my waist is. So I notice early when my body fat shifts.
When it is in the perfect range, I don't think about calories. If I feel like fasting for a day or two, I just do. If I feel like eating a giant portion of food, I just do. If I have a craving for a high calorie healthy food, I eat it. If I am food averse, I don't force it. I have found my body is usually on to something with the things it wants, and it evens out. I've had times where I consumed multiple days worth of calories in a day... to then find that I had come down with the flu, and that my body was now happily burning through it all with an epic fever that had me
1
wow. nice post. and respect!
1
I totally believe that a low potassium 500 kcal diet would see rapid and significant weight loss. My experience so far tells me that I would expect doing a 500 kcal diet on low K would be very difficult (my body would just painfully crave food) whereas with high K it would make it much easier.
1
Wow! Thanks for all the detail. You seem to have a precise and detailed knowledge of how your body works! I'm impressed.
anecdata: I lost 8-9lbs over 90 days doing 25% potato and otherwise eating moderately healthy. The weight stayed off for 9 months afterwards eating ad libidinum (but with slightly more propensity towards potatoes). My recent weight gain seems related to lifting harder and regaining some lost muscle mass. I'll run another potato fueled cut soon and see how it is.
Note: 25% potatoes by calories feels like half of food eaten by weight.
The diet was indeed very easy as if I was hungry at the end of the day I would just microwave a bowl of mashed potatoes with some frozen peas and carrots. This was consistently delicious, which surprised me.
edit: I weighed myself in the morning a few times and I've only regained half the weight over a year later.
1Hi there. I'm confused about the units you are using through the post. You start using milliliters (mL) as a unit when referring to the KCl salt that you were putting on your food. Was it a liquid supplement? If not did you mean milligrams? How did you measure?
Do you have an estimate of the total milligrams or milliequivalents per day?
Thanks for the post!
1
You are right that KCl should be measured by weight if you want to do it properly. But I used measuring spoons to measure it, not a scale which would have been a lot more tedious. Thus I really mean 2 mililiters which was roughly 3.2g of KCl (at least with my crystals) which corresponds to roughly 1600 mg of K.
For comparison, my typical potato meal was 500g of potatoes which corresponds to 2700 mg of K.
1
Thanks for the reply
Two pieces of information that would really help me to unterpret this post
1. How old are you? Weight loss seems to get exponentially harder with age (up to about 70 years old)
2. Were you able to assess how much fat was lost as opposed to how much weight was lost? No-one cares about losing weight, the goal - which is what should be measured - is fat loss.
Comments:
Potato only diet sounds a lot like Shangri-La diet - nothing tasty. I did lose weight on the SL diet but it takes away much of the pleasure of consuming food.
A lot of the other things you mentioned seeme to be stimulants (e.g. LSD, Cocoa). These do help weight loss but at a cost.
5
1. I'm in my forties.
2. Unfortunately not. I only had a normal scale at my disposal. Subjectively it feels like it was mostly fat, but it was probably muscle too, My push-up count and chin-up count didn't change, and I would have expected them to go up had I lost only fat and kept all my muscle.
Comment on taste: I always made my potatoes tasty, adding butter to taste or a bit of sour cream, or hot sauce or other sauces and spices or herbs I liked. I just didn't add table salt (or MSG). Also remember that it is only one meal a day, all other meals are unchanged.
Comment on other things: Sorry, my typo, I meant to say Cacao (chocolate) not the precursor to cocaine is what I used after christmas (fixed in the text), basically making myself a cup of hot chocolate. Other things also worked too which I mentioned such as red or black kidney beans meals that worked even better than potato meals.
2
5
I did measure my waist circumference. It went from 106cm (mid-filled lungs) at the beginning to 89cm (maximum air-filled lungs, I changed my method mid-way, I figured it was harder for me to decieve myself if always max-filled my lungs rather than doing it "mid"-way) at the end. But I quickly noticed that waist circ tracked weight surprisingly well, just that it had a ~3 day lag, so I ended up paying more attention to weight.
2
> waist went down
OK good - all we need now is your height
The standard method to measure waist is with lungs neutral (neither full nor empty) and measure at the point of the belly button. E,g, not necessarily where your belt goes. I assmume you did this.
4
I did it at the belly button, but I did it at lungs-full because I thought it would be harder for me to cheat myself at lungs full. lungs neutral felt like I could unconsciously be little less full when it would support my hypothesis and little more full when it wouldn't ...
2
My smartwatch can scan body composition electrically. So can my bathroom scale, although I never figured out how to work the thing. It's the kind with metal foot plates. These things are probably not very accurate, but certainly affordable and convenient (compared to an immersion tank) and even noisy data is useful when you collect enough of it. I prefer the watch because it records the results on my phone.
1
Ya, I know ... by the time I thought it might be nice to get one of those because it really worked much better than I ever expected so I was going to write about it thus have more data might be nice, I had already reached my target weight.
1
If you shifted a large portion of your diet to potatoes, which are only 2 % protein, unless you compensated for it actively with protein elsewhere through further shifts in your diet, I think muscle loss playing a role in the weight loss you observed is not implausible. If one had, say, 2,4 kg of potatoes a day (that would come to 1750 kcal, which is compatible with its use as a sole food while losing weight), one would only be getting 48 g of protein a day, while at a caloric deficit - I'd expect muscle loss with those values. And indeed, if you had maintained muscle mass, body weight exercises would have gotten markedly easier. Muscles weigh more than fat, too, so the loss shows quite a bit on the scale, and hence, may make up a significant proportion of the loss you observed.
Also, as a German, I strongly protest the notion of the poster above you that potatoes are not tasty or varied. There are over 3000 potato breeds, covering all sorts of colours (white, yellow, orange, red, pink, purple...), shapes, consistencies (festkochend (with bite, e.g. great for fried potatoes), mehlig (creamy, e.g. if you want to mash them), vorwiegend festkochend (an interim)) and tastes, from sweet, fruity and subtle to intense and hearty with earthy, aromatic and nut-like notes. A good potato cultivar, harvested fresh or at least stored correctly, is delicious, needing nothing but a bit of salt and maybe a hint of fat. We've had outright campaigns to keep particularly tasty cultivars on the market (e.g. Linda), and German farmers traditionally name their potato cultivars they are proudest of for their wives. American potatoes bred to look pretty and become huge may be bland, but good potatoes really are not. They should be an excellent stand-alone, and enrich any dish they are added to. - And now I crave potatoes.
1
I had 500g of potatos a day and didn't change the other meals.
Strong agree with potatoes being tasty and being able to make them in so many ways.
1
Not really. It's an ion. Your body easily eliminates anything which is water soluble in your pee.
I'm going to try a version of this based on the post. If I remember I'll let you know how it goes (feel free to remind me!). Here's what I'm going to try:
- replace breakfast with 2 bananas on days I eat breakfast
- continue to skip breakfast on days that I fast until lunch
- aim to drink 1 coconut water every day in place of a soda
- pick foods with more potassium on the margin when possible (I eat most meals out or heat frozen things in the microwave)
I'm slightly tempted to try eating more bananas in place of other food. The Internet mildly recommends against...
3
Ya coconout water is great. I just finished a week or so of going back to my pre-potato diet but substituting most of my drinks (usually water) for coconut water which gave me between 2800 mg and 6000 mg of K per day (so at least as much as one meal of potatoes).
A few questions:
Have you tried losing weight before and what was your experience then? (I ask because some people have legitimate doubt that this only works for people who haven't really tried to lose weight before.)
Is your main goal in doing this to lose weight or to experiment?
If you want to just test out K and are curious about the role of K for you, you're intervention is perfect.
If you mainly want to lose weight, then as Portia pointed out in some other comments here, there is another thing which is critical (as I will get to in future posts, I'm still finilizing some experiments) is a high volume/weight meal low in calories. Considering that you heat up stuff in the microwave, let me give you some good options which are also high in K
* Canned or boxed tomatoe soup (as long as they don't add too much Na in it)
* Canned Red/Black kidney beans (add a bit of sour cream, hot sauce, herbs, to make tasty)
* Really any type of canned beans or legumes (just look for low sodium content).
Looking forward to hear about your experience.
3
Yep, I've lost significant weight before through intermittent fasting (dropped from 230 to 170 lbs, 5'10" tall). The lowest weight my body will tolerate without extreme effort seems to be 180. Right now I'm staying just shy of 200, and want to get back down to 180.
I can fast again, but it's a lot of long, slow work and requires a lot of discipline. I lack the motivation right now for that, as at the time I wanted to become a bit more attractive to find a long-term partner. Now I'm married, so it's less pressing, but don't want to get above 200 for health and aesthetic reasons.
Also, thanks for the suggestions! I try to have the majority of my diet be plants and minimize animal products, and when I do eat animal products prioritize minimizing suffering on the margin (e.g. no seafood, careful on egg sourcing, dairy mostly okay other than some GI issues with it, etc.), so I'm quite used to eating food with low caloric density that fills my stomach, and that helps a lot with avoiding calorie dense snacks.
2
have you considered watermelon?
2
I love watermelon and appreciate the nudge to eat more of it. However, watermelon doesn't always serve as its high water content makes it more like a drink than an alternative to what I would otherwise eat. But eating more watermelon on the margin seems like a good idea.
Re Na:K : Potassium Chloride is used as a salt substitute (which tastes surprisingly like regular salt). This makes it really easy to tweak the Na:K ratio (if it turns out to be important). OTOH, it's some evidence that it's not important, otherwise I'd expect someone to notice that people lose weight when they substitute it for table salt.
2
My current belief is that Potassium is only part of the answer, but it does have an important contribution. I will get to this more in future posts in the series. In the meantime some people did indeed try only adding KCl to their diet, and for some people, it did have an effect:
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/12/20/people-took-some-potassium-and-lost-some-weight/
1
yes :)
Ok so now make a prediction. What kind of data do you expect to see in clinical studies?
For example do you expect RCT’s involving potassium chloride to cause weight loss? Do they actually cause weight loss?
1
Ya, I think it's a little bit more complicated than just K, but I think K plays a critical role. I'll get to this point when get into the effects of various things I tried both according to my internal model and my mathematical model. But for KCl SMTM already did a trial :
https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/12/20/people-took-some-potassium-and-lost-some-weight/
Did you count calories? Did you try to keep the same amount of calories of the replaced meals, but with potatoes?
3
That would only be meaningful if OP had accurately weighed and tracked the food, which is enough of a hassle that this would have been mentioned, I think. And without it... you would naturally assume that OP consumed fewer calories, because a significant part of their diet was now a highly satiating low calorie food with resistant starch. That would definitely be my guess.
2
Good question. As Portia says, I didn't. The whole point of this is to not use willpower, so restricting calories when you feel like eating goes against that. I didn't measure, but I'm willing to bet that how it works is that this diet makes me eat fewer calories without actively trying to eat fewer calories. What I tracked, was only things which were "easy" to track, for example how many meals (light, medium, heavy), how many "snacks", etc. Super imprecise measurements, what was really superizing in the end is despite that, how high and R^2 I could get on my linear model next day (or next few days) weight prediction. Will talk about this more in detail hopefully in a future post.
Dark chocolate has a significant amount of caffeine in it. If you used 100% Cacao powder, 36g can contain as much as 80mg of caffeine, which is about as much as a cup of coffee. Caffeine can suppress hunger and acts as a diuretic - two things which might affect your weight on the days you had chocolate.
The amount of caffeine could be less depending on the exact mix of coco powder vs coco butter in the chocolate you used.
2
Super good point. So to add to this, coffee is another thing I tracked, and coffee also seemed to have an effect in weightloss.
I would be interested to see how far down the BMI ladder the potato / potassium diet experiment can take someone.
I have read the posts you refer to as being your starting point, by Slime Mold Time Mold, discussing their potato diet experiment. Their data set has little data for how the diet works at lower BMIs : Most people who participated in the experiment had BMIs in the overweight or obese range to start with, or in the upper range of normal BMIs. Those with the lower BMIs lost less weight.
No one had a BMI in the low reaches of healthy range, as ...
11
I don't really want to go to unhealthy levels of BMI so I don't really want to go down much lower. I'm currently doing some more experimentation for the next posts so I'm intentionally back at a BMI of 26. Maybe eventually I will try to get to 24 after I'm done the current experiments, but I doubt I will want to get lower than that.
To answer your question about can it get me to 20. I don't really know, everything shows me that it was not harder to lose weight when I was at 29 than when I was 26 BMI but I subjectively felt that at 25.5 it started getting harder, but it might later it felt like it was just a plateau which eventually went away. So I'm not sure.
Yes, I have an average muscle mass.
According to my new and improved body scale which claims to test body fat %, when I was at BMI of 24.7, my body fat % was 19,8% , but I don't know how much I trust this figure, I don't think those scales a reliable way to track absolute values even if they are probably ok to track relative change in those values.
I'd also love to know if it would work for you. I'd would be great if you would test it and report back :)
You said there might be more in the series, is that still happening? Is there an update planned? Thanks for all your good work!
1
Yes. That is still planned!!! I'm just very bad at writing.
Primer: I've been collecting more data since and something super weird happened. I tried to gain more weight again to redo experiments, it was suprisingly harder than expected to gain more weight, but I managed. But super weird. After gaining more weight, going back on the half-assed potato diet didn't work as well anymore. I still didn't manage to loose the weight I intentionally gained! If I went on a total potato I would loose weight. But the semi-potato diet is not enough to compensate the days where I go to a party (or there is some sort of event with lots of food)! Super interesting because previously the semi-potato diet could easy compensate for those big meals days.
The LessWrong Review runs every year to select the posts that have most stood the test of time. This post is not yet eligible for review, but will be at the end of 2024. The top fifty or so posts are featured prominently on the site throughout the year.
Hopefully, the review is better than karma at judging enduring value. If we have accurate prediction markets on the review results, maybe we can have better incentives on LessWrong today. Will this post make the top fifty?
Forgive the unverified sources here, but total potato consumption seems to correlate quite strongly with obesity across Europe, so if there's any causal effect behind the potato, it would have to explain why countries that eat potatoes as staples seem to have slightly higher obesity rates than other countries.
2
Oh, and also comparing averages (patato consumption per capita) with the size of the tail of a distribution (obesity prevalence) can sometimes be problematic. See the following blog post for a good explanation: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/q8hfzHjskaGknKLdn/the-average-north-korean-mathematician
1
Very interesting observation. But I think a lot of things have this geographical correlation pattern that we are seeing in the above graph. The main one that immediately commes to mind is GDP/capita: https://i.redd.it/2m553hojgke11.png
There could be just so many confounding factors here.
Also note that my lazy potato diet was equivalent to ~180kg/year of potatoes, so appart from Belarus, no country on the graph about reach that.
I think there are some very strong selection effects involved in the info that generated your priors about weight loss.
- It is in the interests of the diet industry to make people think weight loss is hard, and specifically that there is a secret they know and you don't, or a product only they can provide.
- The people who talk about how hard weight loss is are largely the ones struggling with it. They're the ones thinking and talking about it for longer spans of time, and the ones that have the most need to be involved in a community talking about weight loss.
5
As to the hypothesis you allude to of weightloss being either hard or easy for people, and that people who lose weight on the potato diet would have lost weight also if they tried something else:
If I understand @Elizabeth 's post which I just randomly read a few minutes ago, at least in her case, the potatoes worked where other things didn't. That's just n=1, but it does indicate that a strong version of the hypothesis isn't true.
It's possible that there is a distribution of people: some who would lose weight under any diet, some who wouldn't lose weight under most diets but yes with potatoes, and some who wouldn't lose weight under any diet including potatoes. The question is then is then what proportion of people are in each bin (and it's probably more a spectrum and discrete bins).
9
I have a pet hypothesis that weight loss intervention studies are done almost entirely on people highly resistant to weight loss (because people try multiple interventions before signing up for science), and that's why the are so many programs with great anecdotal support that fail in rcts.
5
note: now pretty sure watermelon was necessary for the weight loss, and unclear if potatoes contribute or not. There are more complications but I don't think this changes your larger point
3
Interesting.
Watermelon has 30 kCal and 112 mg K per 100g
(boiled) potatoes have 87 kCal and 380 mg K per 100g
So per calory they have roughly the same amount of potassium, but watermelon is clearly much less energy dense than potatoes.
3
My overall potassium over the last year+
I was losing weight from July to November in 2022, and August 2023 -now, so potassium doesn't look like an obvious driver.
3
Oh wow!! Great data! Thanks for that.
So my incomplete tests for the moment seem to indicate that if I take no potassium and no calorie-not-dense meal, then I gain weight. If I just take ~2500 mg K or more but no calorie-not-dense meal, I lose weight very slowly, if I just take one calorie-not-dense meal a day but no K I lose weight very slowly, but if I do both, then I lose weight visibly. Do you think something like that could be consistent with your experience?
3
Define consistent? It's definitely consistent with my broader experience that very little in weight loss or food in general makes sense. I can come up with stories that the key in me was potassium delivered in a high fiber/low cal package, but I put that as less likely than fiber + water + slow release sugar.
3
Ya. I think you are right about those 3 points influencing my priors about weight loss in a biased way.
However, and at this point I only have anectodal evidence for this, but I think (75% probability) that even the majority (50% + ) of people who have had a hard time losing weight could easily lose weight with a few easy guidlines that deal with 3 of what I think are very common causes for over-eating (Potassium deficiency / Sodium over-consumption in modern diet being one of the 3). The anectotal evidence I have for this is that most people on the potato diet lost weight, including many people who had tried to lose weight for a long time but failed. The other is that when I talked to some people who have always been thin, and I told them what I think works, they said that they have always been doing that naturally.
Curated and popular this week
