Something I learned to avoid carbs

SLLRunner

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

So on your theory I shouldn't blindly follow something and I should question it. Urm. So this is what happened with CICO...

You don't get it.

You may not literally be counting calories, but your TDEE numbers are obviously miscalculated, so that with what little you consume, you are eating at a calorie deficit.

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

Kelly, something is wrong with your calculations. Given your stats above, even at a desk job with little or no exercise, your TDEE is a little over 1800. If you add some moderate exercise in, it's 2086, and your TDEE goes up from there.

Even now, if you are 115 pounds (just a guess), your TDEE with no exercise is 1775, moderate exercise 1968.

Where did you get your numbers from?

show previous quotes

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Newer science?

Please provide peer-reviewed studies to back up your claims about CICO not mattering as to weight loss.

Well I kinda did but a) I got told off for advertising and being obsessive and b) nobody seems willing to at least read it instead choosing to completely dismiss it as even a possibility because it doesn't suit their current beliefs/own obsession.

Zoe doesn't even have a degree in nutrition. She is not a researcher.
From an education standpoint, the person you're basing your whole belief on, the person who gets told off by actual science that she's full of it, doesn't know more about nutrition than you or me.

SLLRunner

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ncbisearch/to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

Kelly, something is wrong with your calculations. Given your stats above, even at a desk job with little or no exercise, your TDEE is a little over 1800. If you add some moderate exercise in, it's 2086, and your TDEE goes up from there.

Even now, if you are 115 pounds (just a guess), your TDEE with no exercise is 1775, moderate exercise 1968.

Where did you get your numbers from?

show previous quotes

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Newer science?

Please provide peer-reviewed studies to back up your claims about CICO not mattering as to weight loss.

Well I kinda did but a) I got told off for advertising and being obsessive and b) nobody seems willing to at least read it instead choosing to completely dismiss it as even a possibility because it doesn't suit their current beliefs/own obsession.

No you didn't, you posted a bunch of stuff about that diet website.

Can you please provide links to peer review studies backing up your claims that CICO does not matter as to weight loss? Some can be found here: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ncbisearch/

Unknown

This content has been removed.

kellysdavies

mamapeach910 wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.

Oh you have googled for bad stuff - random blogs. You can find whatever you want to find. I could post loads of links as to why calorie controlled diets don't work! Come on.

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

Without weights that doesn't help.

SLLRunner

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

If your Fitbit says you burned 1600 calories, you must have done some intense exercise for a really long time.

In what quantities did you eat that food?

Peer reviewed studies, please.

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.

Oh you have googled for bad stuff - random blogs. You can find whatever you want to find. I could post loads of links as to why calorie controlled diets don't work! Come on.

So you're saying she DOES have a degree in nutrition? That she did any research? That she has even the slightest clue about what she is talking about?

SLLRunner

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.

Oh you have googled for bad stuff - random blogs. You can find whatever you want to find. I could post loads of links as to why calorie controlled diets don't work! Come on.

Peer reviewed studies will be just fine for that. Please.

kellysdavies

MrM27 wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

So on your theory I shouldn't blindly follow something and I should question it. Urm. So this is what happened with CICO...

Well at least if you ask me how CICO works, how the body works, how macronutrients get metabolized I can explain that I have answers. You can't. You are claiming things that differ from actual science but you yourself said you can't even explain yourself.

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.

@kellysdavies
Can you comment on the links the user above posted about Zoe?

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

Without weights that doesn't help.

Lol! I don't weigh anymore ! Urm, porridge about 100g, pork chop tesco finest - guess about 200g, duck breast maybe 250 (it was big from the butchers) Greek yoghurt half a 500g tub, bacon no idea - just 4 strips of streaky bacon from the butchers, butter large knob, 10g maybe ? Cauliflower half a whole one (medium sized) oh and that has butter in it and onions and garlic ... Strawberries a dessert bowl full and maybe 50ml of double cream (not sure maybe less - the old MFP me still struggles pouring cream on without watching it!) ...

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

So on your theory I shouldn't blindly follow something and I should question it. Urm. So this is what happened with CICO...

Well at least if you ask me how CICO works, how the body works, how macronutrients get metabolized I can explain that I have answers. You can't. You are claiming things that differ from actual science but you yourself said you can't even explain yourself.

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.

@kellysdavies
Can you comment on the links the user above posted about Zoe?

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

Without weights that doesn't help.

Lol! I don't weigh anymore ! Urm, porridge about 100g, pork chop tesco finest - guess about 200g, duck breast maybe 250 (it was big from the butchers) Greek yoghurt half a 500g tub, bacon no idea - just 4 strips of streaky bacon from the butchers, butter large knob, 10g maybe ? Cauliflower half a whole one (medium sized) oh and that has butter in it and onions and garlic ... Strawberries a dessert bowl full and maybe 50ml of double cream (not sure maybe less - the old MFP me still struggles pouring cream on without watching it!) ...

Well there's your problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU

Works both ways.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Nony_Mouse

I love these people who have no idea how much they are eating but insist they are eating at a surplus despite losing weight (or vice versa).

kellysdavies

SLLRunner wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

If your Fitbit says you burned 1600 calories, you must have done some intense exercise for a really long time.

I climbed a mountain.

In what quantities did you eat that food?

I have no idea as I don't weight now (yippeeee !) but all big plates. You can visualise 3 medium eggs scrambled and 4 rashers of bacon... A bowl of porridge about 100g, a roast dinner not piled up but plate full... Half a Cauli mashed, half a large courgette spiraled... Can't be more specific sorry as I don't need to weigh anymore !

Peer reviewed studies, please.

Oh sorry. You mean other people who have reviewed this particular diet. I haven't looked for these (sorry I misunderstood reviewed studies for the actual book ... Thicko) I'll have to see if there are any! At this point I can only give my experience (but there are loads of people on her forum (much like this one ) who have also seen incredible results)

doughnutsndeadlifts

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

So on your theory I shouldn't blindly follow something and I should question it. Urm. So this is what happened with CICO...

Well at least if you ask me how CICO works, how the body works, how macronutrients get metabolized I can explain that I have answers. You can't. You are claiming things that differ from actual science but you yourself said you can't even explain yourself.

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.

@kellysdavies
Can you comment on the links the user above posted about Zoe?

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

Without weights that doesn't help.

Lol! I don't weigh anymore ! Urm, porridge about 100g, pork chop tesco finest - guess about 200g, duck breast maybe 250 (it was big from the butchers) Greek yoghurt half a 500g tub, bacon no idea - just 4 strips of streaky bacon from the butchers, butter large knob, 10g maybe ? Cauliflower half a whole one (medium sized) oh and that has butter in it and onions and garlic ... Strawberries a dessert bowl full and maybe 50ml of double cream (not sure maybe less - the old MFP me still struggles pouring cream on without watching it!) ...

Ding ding ding! Here's your problem. You have no clue how many calories you are eating because you don't weigh your food. It's simple. Weigh your food if you want to lose weight.

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

If your Fitbit says you burned 1600 calories, you must have done some intense exercise for a really long time.

I climbed a mountain.

In what quantities did you eat that food?

I have no idea as I don't weight now (yippeeee !) but all big plates. You can visualise 3 medium eggs scrambled and 4 rashers of bacon... A bowl of porridge about 100g, a roast dinner not piled up but plate full... Half a Cauli mashed, half a large courgette spiraled... Can't be more specific sorry as I don't need to weigh anymore !

Peer reviewed studies, please.

Oh sorry. You mean other people who have reviewed this particular diet. I haven't looked for these (sorry I misunderstood reviewed studies for the actual book ... Thicko) I'll have to see if there are any! At this point I can only give my experience (but there are loads of people on her forum (much like this one ) who have also seen incredible results)

Do you climb mountains and all that often?
That burns a lot of calories you know. Probably enough to lose weight at 2000 calories.

kellysdavies

Sciencebeliever wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

Sounds yummy! The classic high-fat, no refined sugars, no carbs from grains way of life (it is not a diet) that is sweeping the nation.

Also works great if you are pre-Type 2 diabetic because it stops diabetes in its tracks (but not great for the endocrinologists, who would lose you as a life-time Type 2 patient).

Well this was just two days! Last week I had a bowl of quinoa with veg for lunch and another day brown rice pasta ... Oooooh and a butternut squash curry with brown rice for dinner one night ... So I am getting some grains (what with these and my porridge) I just don't eat them with fat.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

So on your theory I shouldn't blindly follow something and I should question it. Urm. So this is what happened with CICO...

Well at least if you ask me how CICO works, how the body works, how macronutrients get metabolized I can explain that I have answers. You can't. You are claiming things that differ from actual science but you yourself said you can't even explain yourself.

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.

@kellysdavies
Can you comment on the links the user above posted about Zoe?

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

Without weights that doesn't help.

Lol! I don't weigh anymore ! Urm, porridge about 100g, pork chop tesco finest - guess about 200g, duck breast maybe 250 (it was big from the butchers) Greek yoghurt half a 500g tub, bacon no idea - just 4 strips of streaky bacon from the butchers, butter large knob, 10g maybe ? Cauliflower half a whole one (medium sized) oh and that has butter in it and onions and garlic ... Strawberries a dessert bowl full and maybe 50ml of double cream (not sure maybe less - the old MFP me still struggles pouring cream on without watching it!) ...

Well there's your problem.

What problem ? I don't have a problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU

Works both ways.

doughnutsndeadlifts

Pu_239 wrote: »

I took a nap, why is everyone on kelly's case? What "claims" is she making that you see as aren't true?

I went back 6 pages trying to catch up, but, yeah, that's not going to work in a reasonable time frame.

She thinks you can lose weight while in a calorie surplus, which is just plain false.

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

If your Fitbit says you burned 1600 calories, you must have done some intense exercise for a really long time.

I climbed a mountain.

In what quantities did you eat that food?

I have no idea as I don't weight now (yippeeee !) but all big plates. You can visualise 3 medium eggs scrambled and 4 rashers of bacon... A bowl of porridge about 100g, a roast dinner not piled up but plate full... Half a Cauli mashed, half a large courgette spiraled... Can't be more specific sorry as I don't need to weigh anymore !

Peer reviewed studies, please.

Oh sorry. You mean other people who have reviewed this particular diet. I haven't looked for these (sorry I misunderstood reviewed studies for the actual book ... Thicko) I'll have to see if there are any! At this point I can only give my experience (but there are loads of people on her forum (much like this one ) who have also seen incredible results)

Do you climb mountains and all that often?
That burns a lot of calories you know. Probably enough to lose weight at 2000 calories.

Nope! Last time was in January. We had to come back down because it was too icy. Went back today to get to the top. And we did. Hurrah!

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

So on your theory I shouldn't blindly follow something and I should question it. Urm. So this is what happened with CICO...

Well at least if you ask me how CICO works, how the body works, how macronutrients get metabolized I can explain that I have answers. You can't. You are claiming things that differ from actual science but you yourself said you can't even explain yourself.

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....

kellysdavies wrote: »

What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.

Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.


So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?

No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.

Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?

Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!

Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?

Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.

Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.

100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.

The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.

Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.

Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.

Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.

You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.

You don't know science.

On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.

Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.

@kellysdavies
Can you comment on the links the user above posted about Zoe?

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

.

shell1005 wrote: »

For me, it's just a preference. I know I have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. I prefer to do that with a reduced carb and high protein diet. It's what works best for me.

Harcombe diet would be perfect for you. And you won't need to eat at deficit. Total joy.

Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.

WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.

So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.

She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.

She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.

Houston, we have a problem.

Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.

You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.

What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.

Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).

Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate

Breakfast

4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato

Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup

Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate

Decaf teas and coffees about 4

Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt

I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!

Without weights that doesn't help.

Lol! I don't weigh anymore ! Urm, porridge about 100g, pork chop tesco finest - guess about 200g, duck breast maybe 250 (it was big from the butchers) Greek yoghurt half a 500g tub, bacon no idea - just 4 strips of streaky bacon from the butchers, butter large knob, 10g maybe ? Cauliflower half a whole one (medium sized) oh and that has butter in it and onions and garlic ... Strawberries a dessert bowl full and maybe 50ml of double cream (not sure maybe less - the old MFP me still struggles pouring cream on without watching it!) ...

Well there's your problem.

What problem ? I don't have a problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU

Works both ways.

The possible problem that you're looking at the food and thinking "Oh that must be like 2000 calories!" when it might in fact be a lot less. And now attributing it on that diet by someone who has no business creating diets.

MelodyandBarbells

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I love these people who have no idea how much they are eating but insist they are eating at a surplus despite losing weight (or vice versa).

*Sigh*. Why was that enough to get me off me *kitten* and headed out for a run?

Pu_239 wrote: »

I took a nap, why is everyone on kelly's case? What "claims" is she making that you see as aren't true?

I went back 6 pages trying to catch up, but, yeah, that's not going to work in a reasonable time frame.

Dunno about anyone else. Personally I was told I wasn't interesting. When I thought about it, I decided Kelly was

kellysdavies

MrM27 wrote: »

show previous quotes

Pu_239 wrote: »

I took a nap, why is everyone on kelly's case? What "claims" is she making that you see as aren't true?

I went back 6 pages trying to catch up, but, yeah, that's not going to work in a reasonable time frame.

We can lose weight (fat) while in a caloric surplus. A net deficit isn't needed.
We can't eat fat and carbs together.

Haters gonna hate ...
Yes to your first point. This is the bit which jars with everyone because I choose to believe not all calories are equal..and it's daft to think all our food does the same thing in our bodies ..

No to your second. But I am following a food lifestyle where I don't do this while I am losing weight. Or to lose weight. Once I am where I am wanna a be a bit of mixing comes back into play. But I'll always 'manage' my carbs - if i get to this point. Not sure I will cause I'm losing the will to live right now.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

amusedmonkey

MrM27 wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

Short google search on Miss Harcombe:

http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/
http://bitemywords.com/tag/zoe-harcombe/
http://blog.wcrf-uk.org/2010/11/is-zoe-harcombe’s-advice-based-on-solid-scientific-evidence/
http://carbsanity.blogspot.de/2010/12/insulin-wars-i-anonymous-lc-author.html
http://carbsanity.blogspot.de/2011/08/zoe-harcombe-credentials.html
http://wwddtydty.com/2015/01/evil-asa-4-zoe-harcombe/

And so on.

Wow.....that woman is so dumb.

Dumb? Probably not. Just another charlton who found a way to separate people from their money.

stevencloser

Pu_239 wrote: »

show previous quotes

MrM27 wrote: »

Pu_239 wrote: »

I took a nap, why is everyone on kelly's case? What "claims" is she making that you see as aren't true?

I went back 6 pages trying to catch up, but, yeah, that's not going to work in a reasonable time frame.

We can lose weight (fat) while in a caloric surplus. A net deficit isn't needed.
We can't eat fat and carbs together.

Well if that's the case, I do understand her point of view, but I think she misunderstood what actually happened. I seen many low carbers go around saying "I used to eat x calories, and i couldn't lose weight, now i eat x+y calories and I am losing weight, calories don't matter"

As I said so myself, I 'when I do low carb I lose at 2,500 calories, when i incorporate a higher carb intake I have to eat around 2,000 calories"

The thing with these types of diets they don't have such a big negative impact on metabolic rate.

"Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre-weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432

My own personal data comparing a LOW CAL DIET and keto

Crash diet results for 28 days
Caloric Intake: 1461
Fat Mass Loss: 12.9lbs
LBM: 171lbs
Estiamted TDEE: 2839 (calculated from results)

Keto 28 day results
Calorie intake: 2,379
Fat Mass Loss: 8.9lbs
LBM: 170lbs
Estimated TDEE: 3,491

*cough cough*

"was greatest with the low-fat diet (mean [95% CI], -205 [-265 to -144] kcal/d), intermediate with the low-glycemic index diet (-166 [-227 to -106] kcal/d), and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet (-138 [-198 to -77] kcal/d;"
A 70 calorie difference.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

adamitri

amusedmonkey wrote: »

show previous quotes

MrM27 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

Short google search on Miss Harcombe:

http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/
http://bitemywords.com/tag/zoe-harcombe/
http://blog.wcrf-uk.org/2010/11/is-zoe-harcombe’s-advice-based-on-solid-scientific-evidence/
http://carbsanity.blogspot.de/2010/12/insulin-wars-i-anonymous-lc-author.html
http://carbsanity.blogspot.de/2011/08/zoe-harcombe-credentials.html
http://wwddtydty.com/2015/01/evil-asa-4-zoe-harcombe/

And so on.

Wow.....that woman is so dumb.

Dumb? Probably not. Just another charlton who found a way to separate people from their money.

Yep, in the end it comes down to just another way for someone to stuff their pockets. P