A crazy theory, please read and give an polite opinion
Replies
-
blacktie347 wrote: »For the OP (and others reading this): If you eat 1,200 calories a day, which is the minimum recommended per a number of sources, unless you're following doctor's orders (spoken to you, not written in a book), you WILL lose weight. But if you eat less than that, you're likely to binge because your body will feel like it's starving (that "starvation mode" you've heard about, when you ravenously want to eat). So this is a generally safe and sustainable number of calories to eat (at least 1,200).
.
Not true if your metabolism is "broken." Think of the biggest loser study just published.
1 -
blacktie347 wrote: »For the OP (and others reading this): If you eat 1,200 calories a day, which is the minimum recommended per a number of sources, unless you're following doctor's orders (spoken to you, not written in a book), you WILL lose weight. But if you eat less than that, you're likely to binge because your body will feel like it's starving (that "starvation mode" you've heard about, when you ravenously want to eat). So this is a generally safe and sustainable number of calories to eat (at least 1,200).
The bold happens to me EVERY TIME I try to get too aggressive calorie-wise.
So I've set mine at maintenance for my goal weight, and I'm just taking it slow. And slow it is, but I'm not going crazy on foods I shouldn't due to a frantic drive to stuff my face. Which often makes me physically ill in the aftermath, and creates a vicious guilt cycle.
IMO, it's best to figure out how to best circumvent your weaknesses (I call it brain-hacking), so you can enjoy an appropriate amount of variety, but not at the expense of weight loss or health. That takes some out-of-the-box thinking and some experimenting sometimes.3 -
Some foods and flavors trigger cravings and overeating for me. Others cause pain and joint swelling.
I followed an elimination diet for quite awhile, and it was eye opening to see the way my body responded to various foods.
If you're looking to increase variety without triggering old, maladaptive eating behaviors, maybe try introducing one food at a time. Try a few bites of a new food the first day. If that went ok, try eating a full serving the second day. If still ok, you could try eating a serving for three days in a row. (Some foods are ok for me in small amounts, but day after day lead to problems. Other foods are not an issue in any amount, and others I can't tolerate at all!).
If you had a bad reaction to it, give your body a week or two to "rest" before trying the next introduction.
I also find that keeping a written list of foods that I *can* eat is helpful for meal planning. It's easy to focus on what we can't eat, and that tends to narrow down our usual food choices. A list of what we can eat is much larger, and a good reminder for when stuck in a rut.3 -
With regard to variety, it's important to eat vegetables, fruits, fiber, and if you're following LCHF, it's possible to do that within the constraints of a LCHF WOE. However, just because you might be following LCHF doesn't mean that you don't need the variety of foods, too, as well as vitamins. It's easy to not get enough calcium and vitamin D, for example, and end up at a lower weight with osteoperosis and be susceptible to falling and breaking your bones. People with anorexia, for example, are known to not get enough variety of nutrition, and that's one of the problems that can befall anyone, including the OP.
While I agree that a nutritionally sound way of eating is important, I disagree with some of the specifics in your assertions here.
Fibers effects and pros/cons are largely unknown outside of a standard western diet. When fat is increase substantially and grains are eliminated, then what? The studies don't really know, though observation says it's not inherently dangerous.
Likewise, there's evidence that osteoporosis is less about lack of calcium in general (as nearly all western civilizations consume a large amount of calcium-containing foods), but rather lack of vitamin D (due to lots of staying indoors, heavy use of sun block, and for the northerners, lack of quality sunlight to begin with) and preformed K2 (found in consequential amounts only in a handful of foods, most of which have been cut out or were never in the western diet to begin with).
Fruits don't contain any nutrients that can't be found in vegetables, in greater quantities, and without the sugar hit. Vegetables are generally considered healthy and can fairly easily fit into most people's diets, though some people find that certain compounds, like phytates or oxalates, are counterproductive to their health, and observationally, at least, have found that minimizing all plant material is, in fact, nutritionally sound (because while some nutrients may not be as abundant, they are generally more bio-available, allowing a higher percentage of the nutrients to be absorbed).4 -
Thanks all for your responses. I gather that there are a variety of studies and views on this, and it's good to see everyone's input
1
