Something I learned to avoid carbs

Unknown

This content has been removed.

PeachyCarol

kellysdavies wrote: »

I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?

This is my end. Night night xx

Kelly, it actually looks more like you're low carbing than real food combining (not that food combining has merit, but it's stricter than what you're doing). I would guess that you're sated on this way of eating and your satiety is regulating your appetite enough to keep your portions in check in order to create a deficit.

That's my best guess as to what's really going on, not the nonsense in that video.

And you know what? That's great. You've found a thing that works for you that's getting you the results you want.

Just... don't go around thinking there are ways to defy science. Because there aren't.

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking 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!) ...

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.

I don't want to! I don't want to weigh my food! I don't NEED to know how many calories I am eating because it doesn't matter. That's the whole frigging point of what I am doing.
I am losing weight. I am not eating processed foods, I am eating all natural foods. I am not mixing fats and carbs (apart from veg and salad). That's all there is to it and I am losing weight. Again. And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now.

I thought you only lost 6 pounds eating this way? Now it's a stone and a half?

Which would put her at 108 pounds if she started at 9 stone 3 like she said.

How many times ....
I lost a stone and half doing CICO since joining MFP around March last year.
I was 10stone11.
I got down to 9stone3 doing CICO.
Then I stalled for six months.
Then I tried something new.
I have since lost on my new way of eating 6lb.
Now I am about 8stone11/12 after a few weeks.
I would like to be 8stone7.
I am 5ft 1.
I could go down to about 7stone10 or something which would be in my healthy weight range.

adamitri

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

adamitri wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?

This is my end. Night night xx

The problem is a lot of people ended up here eating the way you are, that's why they're at a calorie counting website.
I'm really glad you found what works for you and you're losing weight again but don't push pseudo science down people's throats. You can say you like something but there's got to be a point where it goes a bit too far. A lot of people need help not going over their weekly cals because they're not good at guesstimating so nothing is ever one size fits all. Keep doing you if that works for you.

Urm well I would have left it at my first post but people kept asking me questions or asking for more info! It works both ways. You pushing (what I believe) puesdo science on to me too. There is one of me, many of you! But to your last point totally agree and that's maybe why CICO worked for me for as long as it did. But I needed a new direction. And yes I like it. I thought someone else might like it too. Thanks for ending nicely.

So CICO is pseudo science even when it was working for you? Even when it works for a lot of people. No matter how you eat, when you're in a deficit you lose weight and when you go over and are in a surplus you gain weight. That's what it comes down to in the end. How you approach food is what you have to figure out be it LCHF, CICO, Paleo or what ever.

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

strategicchibi wrote: »

I don't care who did what, this is a clusterf*ck of negativity.

We're discussing with Kelly why it physically can't work the way she thinks it does. That's not negativity, it's trying to explain something to her.
It's not working too well.

I feel your pain. Same same. You are all quite negative mind! I haven't told anyone that CICO doesn't work and/or they should stop.

The difference between you and us is that our claims are backed by the scientific community and yours by a single person who doesn't even have the qualifications to talk about the things she talks about.

Okay but I and people like Zoe question those claims - for example she has gone to great lengths to find out where the 3500 cals = 1lb theory actually comes from and her results are astounding. Going to the top of the scientific community who admit they have no data to back it up. The food standards agency hasn't a clue. It's just become accepted (and disproved by other scientists ... Again... You need to read the book to fully understand)
One day someone questioned the scientific community on why eggs were bad for you or why smoking was good for you.... Things change.

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking 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!) ...

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.

I don't want to! I don't want to weigh my food! I don't NEED to know how many calories I am eating because it doesn't matter. That's the whole frigging point of what I am doing.
I am losing weight. I am not eating processed foods, I am eating all natural foods. I am not mixing fats and carbs (apart from veg and salad). That's all there is to it and I am losing weight. Again. And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now.

I thought you only lost 6 pounds eating this way? Now it's a stone and a half?

Which would put her at 108 pounds if she started at 9 stone 3 like she said.

How many times ....
I lost a stone and half doing CICO since joining MFP around March last year.
I was 10stone11.
I got down to 9stone3 doing CICO.
Then I stalled for six months.
Then I tried something new.
I have since lost on my new way of eating 6lb.
Now I am about 8stone11/12 after a few weeks.
I would like to be 8stone7.
I am 5ft 1.
I could go down to about 7stone10 or something which would be in my healthy weight range.

"And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now."
The way you said that is different from this.

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

strategicchibi wrote: »

I don't care who did what, this is a clusterf*ck of negativity.

We're discussing with Kelly why it physically can't work the way she thinks it does. That's not negativity, it's trying to explain something to her.
It's not working too well.

I feel your pain. Same same. You are all quite negative mind! I haven't told anyone that CICO doesn't work and/or they should stop.

The difference between you and us is that our claims are backed by the scientific community and yours by a single person who doesn't even have the qualifications to talk about the things she talks about.

Okay but I and people like Zoe question those claims - for example she has gone to great lengths to find out where the 3500 cals = 1lb theory actually comes from and her results are astounding. Going to the top of the scientific community who admit they have no data to back it up. The food standards agency hasn't a clue. It's just become accepted (and disproved by other scientists ... Again... You need to read the book to fully understand)
One day someone questioned the scientific community on why eggs were bad for you or why smoking was good for you.... Things change.

The book you didn't buy?

adamitri

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

strategicchibi wrote: »

I don't care who did what, this is a clusterf*ck of negativity.

We're discussing with Kelly why it physically can't work the way she thinks it does. That's not negativity, it's trying to explain something to her.
It's not working too well.

I feel your pain. Same same. You are all quite negative mind! I haven't told anyone that CICO doesn't work and/or they should stop.

The difference between you and us is that our claims are backed by the scientific community and yours by a single person who doesn't even have the qualifications to talk about the things she talks about.

Okay but I and people like Zoe question those claims - for example she has gone to great lengths to find out where the 3500 cals = 1lb theory actually comes from and her results are astounding. Going to the top of the scientific community who admit they have no data to back it up. The food standards agency hasn't a clue. It's just become accepted (and disproved by other scientists ... Again... You need to read the book to fully understand)
One day someone questioned the scientific community on why eggs were bad for you or why smoking was good for you.... Things change.

And yet, what does she use to back herself up? And again stop pushing the book on people. I guess anyone can go around claiming anything and everything they want to hear and someone will follow it.

PeachyCarol

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking 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!) ...

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.

I don't want to! I don't want to weigh my food! I don't NEED to know how many calories I am eating because it doesn't matter. That's the whole frigging point of what I am doing.
I am losing weight. I am not eating processed foods, I am eating all natural foods. I am not mixing fats and carbs (apart from veg and salad). That's all there is to it and I am losing weight. Again. And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now.

That's fine that you don't want to weigh your food. Your claims that you're eating at an energy surplus are specious, in that case.

This type of plan isn't the only one to come down the pike touting some miracle hacking of the way the body utilizes food to get around the "faulty theory" of CICO. There's another one out there that's exceptionally extremely low-fat and very carb-heavy and it's plant based (no, not specifically Freelee). I went to the website for that. That person talked and talked and talked about the massive amount of calories she was consuming. Then she posted pictures of her typical plates.

Her intake was nowhere NEAR what she was going on about. I'm not the best at eyeballing, but I do know what bean and grain servings look like.

She was so in love with the idea of hacking the body that she didn't count either. She just convinced herself she was eating way more food than she actually was.

It's amazing what self-suggestion can do to you.

I found that site because one of the adherents came on here and was spouting off about ALL the food he ate.

OF COURSE... no logging, no weighing, empty profile, but he was just going on and on and on about how many potatoes he ate for breakfast. Just plain, mind. And how many calories he HAD to be eating every day compared to what he used to eat.

kellysdavies

lemurcat12 wrote: »

show previous quotes

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).

Yup.

Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.

Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.

Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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).

Yup.

Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.

Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.

Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.

We're not saying you're lying. We're saying you're overestimating.

MelodyandBarbells

I now have a headache and might need my inhaler. This post is giving me the feels. Not sure what kind

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking 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!) ...

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.

I don't want to! I don't want to weigh my food! I don't NEED to know how many calories I am eating because it doesn't matter. That's the whole frigging point of what I am doing.
I am losing weight. I am not eating processed foods, I am eating all natural foods. I am not mixing fats and carbs (apart from veg and salad). That's all there is to it and I am losing weight. Again. And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now.

I thought you only lost 6 pounds eating this way? Now it's a stone and a half?

Which would put her at 108 pounds if she started at 9 stone 3 like she said.

How many times ....
I lost a stone and half doing CICO since joining MFP around March last year.
I was 10stone11.
I got down to 9stone3 doing CICO.
Then I stalled for six months.
Then I tried something new.
I have since lost on my new way of eating 6lb.
Now I am about 8stone11/12 after a few weeks.
I would like to be 8stone7.
I am 5ft 1.
I could go down to about 7stone10 or something which would be in my healthy weight range.

"And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now."
The way you said that is different from this.

Or the way you read it is different?

adamitri

Pu_239 wrote: »

show previous quotes

adamitri wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?

This is my end. Night night xx

The problem is a lot of people ended up here eating the way you are, that's why they're at a calorie counting website.
I'm really glad you found what works for you and you're losing weight again but don't push pseudo science down people's throats. You can say you like something but there's got to be a point where it goes a bit too far. A lot of people need help not going over their weekly cals because they're not good at guesstimating so nothing is ever one size fits all. Keep doing you if that works for you.

Urm well I would have left it at my first post but people kept asking me questions or asking for more info! It works both ways. You pushing (what I believe) puesdo science on to me too. There is one of me, many of you! But to your last point totally agree and that's maybe why CICO worked for me for as long as it did. But I needed a new direction. And yes I like it. I thought someone else might like it too. Thanks for ending nicely.

So CICO is pseudo science even when it was working for you? Even when it works for a lot of people. No matter how you eat, when you're in a deficit you lose weight and when you go over and are in a surplus you gain weight. That's what it comes down to in the end. How you approach food is what you have to figure out be it LCHF, CICO, Paleo or what ever.

Reminds me of the polio diet thread.

I'm sorry I missed that one, but polio diet? Really?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

kellysdavies

MrM27 wrote: »

show previous quotes

strategicchibi wrote: »

I don't care who did what, this is a clusterf*ck of negativity.

Okay, then why are you hanging around?

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?

This is my end. Night night xx

Nope, because you are making false claims while prompting a diet to people you can't even explain.


Also, remember everyone. Don't eat carbs and fat together but eat all the cheese you want.

Yep. Well done. Almost there...

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking 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!) ...

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.

I don't want to! I don't want to weigh my food! I don't NEED to know how many calories I am eating because it doesn't matter. That's the whole frigging point of what I am doing.
I am losing weight. I am not eating processed foods, I am eating all natural foods. I am not mixing fats and carbs (apart from veg and salad). That's all there is to it and I am losing weight. Again. And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now.

I thought you only lost 6 pounds eating this way? Now it's a stone and a half?

Which would put her at 108 pounds if she started at 9 stone 3 like she said.

How many times ....
I lost a stone and half doing CICO since joining MFP around March last year.
I was 10stone11.
I got down to 9stone3 doing CICO.
Then I stalled for six months.
Then I tried something new.
I have since lost on my new way of eating 6lb.
Now I am about 8stone11/12 after a few weeks.
I would like to be 8stone7.
I am 5ft 1.
I could go down to about 7stone10 or something which would be in my healthy weight range.

"And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now."
The way you said that is different from this.

Or the way you read it is different?

No, you just wrote it as if you attribute the stone and a half to to your new way even though you lost the stone and a half with CICO and not even half a stone with your new one.

Alatariel75

adamitri wrote: »

show previous quotes

Pu_239 wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?

This is my end. Night night xx

The problem is a lot of people ended up here eating the way you are, that's why they're at a calorie counting website.
I'm really glad you found what works for you and you're losing weight again but don't push pseudo science down people's throats. You can say you like something but there's got to be a point where it goes a bit too far. A lot of people need help not going over their weekly cals because they're not good at guesstimating so nothing is ever one size fits all. Keep doing you if that works for you.

Urm well I would have left it at my first post but people kept asking me questions or asking for more info! It works both ways. You pushing (what I believe) puesdo science on to me too. There is one of me, many of you! But to your last point totally agree and that's maybe why CICO worked for me for as long as it did. But I needed a new direction. And yes I like it. I thought someone else might like it too. Thanks for ending nicely.

So CICO is pseudo science even when it was working for you? Even when it works for a lot of people. No matter how you eat, when you're in a deficit you lose weight and when you go over and are in a surplus you gain weight. That's what it comes down to in the end. How you approach food is what you have to figure out be it LCHF, CICO, Paleo or what ever.

Reminds me of the polio diet thread.

I'm sorry I missed that one, but polio diet? Really?

Well muscle weighs more than fat* so a muscle wasting disease would surely result in weight loss?


*jokes.

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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).

Yup.

Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.

Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.

Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.

We're not saying you're lying. We're saying you're overestimating.[/quote

After a year or so weighing all my food I'm pretty accurate at eyeballing. Amazes my husband. But sure okay let's say 200g. Minimum.

adamitri

Alatariel75 wrote: »

show previous quotes

adamitri wrote: »

Pu_239 wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

adamitri wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?

This is my end. Night night xx

The problem is a lot of people ended up here eating the way you are, that's why they're at a calorie counting website.
I'm really glad you found what works for you and you're losing weight again but don't push pseudo science down people's throats. You can say you like something but there's got to be a point where it goes a bit too far. A lot of people need help not going over their weekly cals because they're not good at guesstimating so nothing is ever one size fits all. Keep doing you if that works for you.

Urm well I would have left it at my first post but people kept asking me questions or asking for more info! It works both ways. You pushing (what I believe) puesdo science on to me too. There is one of me, many of you! But to your last point totally agree and that's maybe why CICO worked for me for as long as it did. But I needed a new direction. And yes I like it. I thought someone else might like it too. Thanks for ending nicely.

So CICO is pseudo science even when it was working for you? Even when it works for a lot of people. No matter how you eat, when you're in a deficit you lose weight and when you go over and are in a surplus you gain weight. That's what it comes down to in the end. How you approach food is what you have to figure out be it LCHF, CICO, Paleo or what ever.

Reminds me of the polio diet thread.

I'm sorry I missed that one, but polio diet? Really?

Well muscle weighs more than fat* so a muscle wasting disease would surely result in weight loss?


*jokes.

I know some people are desperate to lose weight but damn that's a bit scary to think someone actually considered that as an actual means of weight loss. It's like ingesting a tape worm.

MelodyandBarbells

kellysdavies 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.

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.

WHAT???

kellysdavies

MrM27 wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

strategicchibi wrote: »

I don't care who did what, this is a clusterf*ck of negativity.

We're discussing with Kelly why it physically can't work the way she thinks it does. That's not negativity, it's trying to explain something to her.
It's not working too well.

I feel your pain. Same same. You are all quite negative mind! I haven't told anyone that CICO doesn't work and/or they should stop.

The difference between you and us is that our claims are backed by the scientific community and yours by a single person who doesn't even have the qualifications to talk about the things she talks about.

Okay but I and people like Zoe question those claims - for example she has gone to great lengths to find out where the 3500 cals = 1lb theory actually comes from and her results are astounding. Going to the top of the scientific community who admit they have no data to back it up. The food standards agency hasn't a clue. It's just become accepted (and disproved by other scientists ... Again... You need to read the book to fully understand)
One day someone questioned the scientific community on why eggs were bad for you or why smoking was good for you.... Things change.

The book you didn't buy?

Interesting......

Correct. Was given. Also probably in a library.

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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).

Yup.

Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.

Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.

Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.

We're not saying you're lying. We're saying you're overestimating.

After a year or so weighing all my food I'm pretty accurate at eyeballing. Amazes my husband. But sure okay let's say 200g. Minimum.

I'm pretty good at eyeballing and I know it's not accurate enough to make claims.
See video I posted earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU

Looks almost the same but one day has over 1000 calories morethan the other.

I am however excellent at getting almost exactly 100 grams of spaghetti out of the package.

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking 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!) ...

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.

I don't want to! I don't want to weigh my food! I don't NEED to know how many calories I am eating because it doesn't matter. That's the whole frigging point of what I am doing.
I am losing weight. I am not eating processed foods, I am eating all natural foods. I am not mixing fats and carbs (apart from veg and salad). That's all there is to it and I am losing weight. Again. And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now.

I thought you only lost 6 pounds eating this way? Now it's a stone and a half?

Which would put her at 108 pounds if she started at 9 stone 3 like she said.

How many times ....
I lost a stone and half doing CICO since joining MFP around March last year.
I was 10stone11.
I got down to 9stone3 doing CICO.
Then I stalled for six months.
Then I tried something new.
I have since lost on my new way of eating 6lb.
Now I am about 8stone11/12 after a few weeks.
I would like to be 8stone7.
I am 5ft 1.
I could go down to about 7stone10 or something which would be in my healthy weight range.

"And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now."
The way you said that is different from this.

Or the way you read it is different?

No, you just wrote it as if you attribute the stone and a half to to your new way even though you lost the stone and a half with CICO and not even half a stone with your new one.

Oh FFS. Well I didn't because I don't. You just read it that way. I've been quite clear. You're nitpicking for the sake of it.
'Not even half a stone' ... Hmmm... In what 4 ish weeks ... So now I should be doing CICO to lose at a faster pase than 1lb a week?

MKEgal

mandyclay wrote:

Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more
and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just set your carbs to
20% and you will be blown away

No, getting only 20% of your calories from carbs is not healthy.
It should be 45 - 65% of calories.
Here's a table from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which shows the levels for all macronutrients:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/1/1/T1.expansion.html
Surely they know what they're talking about, have done research, are educated in the topic, etc.

.

pu wrote:

Carbs are not essential, fat and proteins are

Um, no. Wrong. That's why carbs, fat, & protein are the macronutrients. (All of them.)


.

whmscll wrote:

the sugar in certain carbs, especially simple sugars like those in candy, pastries, etc.,
stimulates pleasure centers in the brain and makes you powerfully crave more and more. It is NOT
just a matter of willpower.

Yes, there is such a thing as sugar addiction.
I used to think "no way!", then I read this article, which has lots of links to supporting data.
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/here-s-what-happens-your-brain-when-you-give-sugar-lent

In ways that drugs of abuse – such as nicotine, cocaine and heroin – hijack the brain’s reward
pathway and make users dependent, increasing neuro-chemical and behavioural evidence suggests
that sugar is addictive in the same way...
There are four major components of addiction: bingeing, withdrawal, craving, and cross-sensitisation
(the notion that one addictive substance predisposes someone to becoming addicted to another).
All of these components have been observed in animal models of addiction – for sugar, as well as
drugs of abuse.

.
"reductions in total carbohydrate intake, increases in protein intake, and adoption of a Mediterranean diet seem to be more effective in inducing weight loss than reductions in fat intake"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24911982

.

chrysalid wrote:

CICO still applies, unless you have a medical condition called hypothalamic obesity,
which is a living nightmare and proves that CICO does not work for absolutely everyone

Um, no, CICO applies even then. Science still works.

The problem there is that the brain & gut aren't on speaking terms, so the person always feels hungry*,
even after consuming more calories than needed. If they ate less than they needed, they'd still lose weight.

*At least, that's what Cincinnati Children's Hospital says:
http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/h/hypothalamic-obesity/
"When there is damage to the hypothalamus, the communication between the gut and the brain
goes haywire, causing a constant feeling of hunger.
Since the hypothalamus cannot “hear” the signal that comes from the fat that is supposed to tell
the hypothalamus to turn off hunger, the person continues to feel hungry. He or she will continue
to eat excessively, the extra calories eaten are stored as fat, and the person never feels full...
In addition to the feeling of non-stop hunger, the person may feel irritable because there is extra
insulin production."

Unknown

This content has been removed.

kellysdavies

stevencloser wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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).

Yup.

Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.

Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.

Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.

We're not saying you're lying. We're saying you're overestimating.

After a year or so weighing all my food I'm pretty accurate at eyeballing. Amazes my husband. But sure okay let's say 200g. Minimum.

I'm pretty good at eyeballing and I know it's not accurate enough to make claims.
See video I posted earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU

Looks almost the same but one day has over 1000 calories morethan the other.

I am however excellent at getting almost exactly 100 grams of spaghetti out of the package.

Okay so now we're arguing how much my duck breast weighed. Things are getting tense in this debate ... Lol.

adamitri

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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).

Yup.

Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.

Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.

Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.

We're not saying you're lying. We're saying you're overestimating.

After a year or so weighing all my food I'm pretty accurate at eyeballing. Amazes my husband. But sure okay let's say 200g. Minimum.

I'm pretty good at eyeballing and I know it's not accurate enough to make claims.
See video I posted earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU

Looks almost the same but one day has over 1000 calories morethan the other.

I am however excellent at getting almost exactly 100 grams of spaghetti out of the package.

Okay so now we're arguing how much my duck breast weighed. Things are getting tense in this debate ... Lol.

I thought you said you were going to bed now?

stevencloser

kellysdavies wrote: »

show previous quotes

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

kellysdavies wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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).

Yup.

Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.

Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.

Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.

We're not saying you're lying. We're saying you're overestimating.

After a year or so weighing all my food I'm pretty accurate at eyeballing. Amazes my husband. But sure okay let's say 200g. Minimum.

I'm pretty good at eyeballing and I know it's not accurate enough to make claims.
See video I posted earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU

Looks almost the same but one day has over 1000 calories morethan the other.

I am however excellent at getting almost exactly 100 grams of spaghetti out of the package.

Okay so now we're arguing how much my duck breast weighed. Things are getting tense in this debate ... Lol.

You're not measuring so you can't be sure about the weights, if you can't be sure about the weights you can't be sure about the calories, so you claiming you eat above maintenance is unsubstantiated.
What's your rebuttal?

kellysdavies

MrM27 wrote: »

show previous quotes

kellysdavies wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

strategicchibi wrote: »

I don't care who did what, this is a clusterf*ck of negativity.

Okay, then why are you hanging around?

kellysdavies wrote: »

I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?

This is my end. Night night xx

Nope, because you are making false claims while prompting a diet to people you can't even explain.


Also, remember everyone. Don't eat carbs and fat together but eat all the cheese you want.

Yep. Well done. Almost there...

Because cheese is either all fat or all carbs right? 2 different kinds of cheese?

Cheese has hardly any carb content.