Fast Metabolism Diet
sophiesmom56
Posts: 2 Member
Hello,
I've read the book and am ready to lose... Is there anyone else interested in trying this diet? I know it works, I just need to stay motivated to follow thru.
I've read the book and am ready to lose... Is there anyone else interested in trying this diet? I know it works, I just need to stay motivated to follow thru.
0
Replies
-
No such thing as a fast or slow metabolism. Just eat at a reasonable deficit and lose weight. No need for gimmick diets.13
-
That diet is a scam.
A diet doesn't work if it only works in theory, and if you need to stay motivated to follow through, it means that it only works in theory.
You just need to eat less than you burn.6 -
Form the web it sounds like a calorie restriction diet. It moves a person away from sugar and more towards a low carb, higher fat diet. It basically really cuts carbs and a few other random things like coffee.
Cutting sugar has been amazing helpful to me. For me added sugar drives hunger and makes me miserable. In May I cut way back on added sugars, trying to keep it less than 10g / day. My stalled weight loss took off and I've lost about 1.5kg per month since then. My waistline has gone from 103 cm to 86 cm. So cutting sugar can be pretty powerful. I don't think it change my metabolism, I thing it is just letting my body work like it should.
While I generally try to keep my other refined carbs moderate I don't push it. I live in Japan and avoiding rice and noodles is an exercise in painful living. I'm also not a fan of dietary ketosis. If you want to be in ketosis just stop eating, that seems more natural and actually more comfortable process. However most people are fearful of fasting.
Frankly though I don't see why that diet would boost your metabolism but it will probably help you lose weight for a least a few months.4 -
Form the web it sounds like a calorie restriction diet. It moves a person away from sugar and more towards a low carb, higher fat diet. It basically really cuts carbs and a few other random things like coffee.
Cutting sugar has been amazing helpful to me. For me added sugar drives hunger and makes me miserable. In May I cut way back on added sugars, trying to keep it less than 10g / day. My stalled weight loss took off and I've lost about 1.5kg per month since then. My waistline has gone from 103 cm to 86 cm. So cutting sugar can be pretty powerful. I don't think it change my metabolism, I thing it is just letting my body work like it should.
While I generally try to keep my other refined carbs moderate I don't push it. I live in Japan and avoiding rice and noodles is an exercise in painful living. I'm also not a fan of dietary ketosis. If you want to be in ketosis just stop eating, that seems more natural and actually more comfortable process. However most people are fearful of fasting.
Frankly though I don't see why that diet would boost your metabolism but it will probably help you lose weight for a least a few months.
Cutting sugar out put you into a caloric deficit so you lost weight. Nothing about the evil properties of sugar!9 -
Metabolism isn't any one thing. Metabolism is a series of processes in our bodies and it's a personal pet peeve of mine that it's come to be referred to almost as if it's a single entity unto itself. It can't be broken, sped up or slowed down.
The idea behind this diet itself sounds appealing based on a flawed understanding of what metabolism is.
Dieting is about creating a calorie deficit.14 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Form the web it sounds like a calorie restriction diet. It moves a person away from sugar and more towards a low carb, higher fat diet. It basically really cuts carbs and a few other random things like coffee.
Cutting sugar has been amazing helpful to me. For me added sugar drives hunger and makes me miserable. In May I cut way back on added sugars, trying to keep it less than 10g / day. My stalled weight loss took off and I've lost about 1.5kg per month since then. My waistline has gone from 103 cm to 86 cm. So cutting sugar can be pretty powerful. I don't think it change my metabolism, I thing it is just letting my body work like it should.
While I generally try to keep my other refined carbs moderate I don't push it. I live in Japan and avoiding rice and noodles is an exercise in painful living. I'm also not a fan of dietary ketosis. If you want to be in ketosis just stop eating, that seems more natural and actually more comfortable process. However most people are fearful of fasting.
Frankly though I don't see why that diet would boost your metabolism but it will probably help you lose weight for a least a few months.
Cutting sugar out put you into a caloric deficit so you lost weight. Nothing about the evil properties of sugar!
I actually was consuming more calories because I added a lot of healthier foods to my diet, rather high in heathier fat. There isn't very many calories in sugar compared to fat. Also I added complex carbs at my doctor's request which have similar calories to sugar. I had started out to make a calorie deficit but decided that wasn't what I needed or wanted.
In my case it wasn't just about calories it was about my liver not handling the fructose very well. Besides I've lost more weight in the past with much less improvement in body measurements. There is a lot more to weight loss than just calories. The energy balance happens but we don't control what our bodies do with the calories or how much calories our body uses. Ideally we want our body to burn more fat to balance out demands, but short of fasting or forcing yourself into ketosis you can't really force your body to burn fat. Mostly one is just putting in a request and hoping for the best.
Excessive amounts of fructose cause many people problems. While my consumption wasn't that high, I had enough decades of it to cause problems with my liver. Glucose isn't an issue but Fructose is. Additionally I've experimented since then. I can have a sugary desert once in a while but my hunger afterwards increases. If I do it two days in a row it the hunger gets to be bad again. Cut the sugar and the hunger is gone after a day. It might be in my head, but it isn't pleasant.5 -
I actually was consuming more calories because I added a lot of healthier foods to my diet, rather high in heathier fat. There isn't very many calories in sugar compared to fat. Also I added complex carbs at my doctor's request which have similar calories to sugar. I had started out to make a calorie deficit but decided that wasn't what I needed or wanted.
In my case it wasn't just about calories it was about my liver not handling the fructose very well. Besides I've lost more weight in the past with much less improvement in body measurements. There is a lot more to weight loss than just calories. The energy balance happens but we don't control what our bodies do with the calories or how much calories our body uses. Ideally we want our body to burn more fat to balance out demands, but short of fasting or forcing yourself into ketosis you can't really force your body to burn fat. Mostly one is just putting in a request and hoping for the best.
Excessive amounts of fructose cause many people problems. While my consumption wasn't that high, I had enough decades of it to cause problems with my liver. Glucose isn't an issue but Fructose is. Additionally I've experimented since then. I can have a sugary desert once in a while but my hunger afterwards increases. If I do it two days in a row it the hunger gets to be bad again. Cut the sugar and the hunger is gone after a day. It might be in my head, but it isn't pleasant.
Medical conditions and surgery excluded; you cannot lose weight without a calorie deficit. I am not talking about hunger, cravings or anything else just fat loss.11 -
Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.4
-
Chef_Barbell wrote: »No such thing as a fast or slow metabolism. Just eat at a reasonable deficit and lose weight. No need for gimmick diets.
That is wrong. There definitely are people who do have fast and slow metabolism (especially with hyper/hypothyroidism), but most people fall within a standard range. And that would only account for part of the equation; you still have to look at daily activity (NEAT) and exercise.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
OP, if you feel that you can utilize this book's strategy, than good luck. At the end of the day, you still need to eat fewer calories than you burn to lose weight. You might want to track calories along the way to make sure that you aren't eating too much.
And to point out, foods will not increase metabolism. And while protein does burn more calories through digesting, it's essentially 1 calorie per gram increase over your existing diet.5 -
-
trigden1991 wrote: »
Woo woo diets give me a pain in my *kitten*. Is that a medical condition?10 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »No such thing as a fast or slow metabolism. Just eat at a reasonable deficit and lose weight. No need for gimmick diets.
That is wrong. There definitely are people who do have fast and slow metabolism (especially with hyper/hypothyroidism), but most people fall within a standard range. And that would only account for part of the equation; you still have to look at daily activity (NEAT) and exercise.
https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
OP, if you feel that you can utilize this book's strategy, than good luck. At the end of the day, you still need to eat fewer calories than you burn to lose weight. You might want to track calories along the way to make sure that you aren't eating too much.
And to point out, foods will not increase metabolism. And while protein does burn more calories through digesting, it's essentially 1 calorie per gram increase over your existing diet.
Well... to be technical, in the case of hyper or hypothyroidism, that is simply one metabolic process that's out of whack. There are other metabolic processes affected by it, but... metabolism isn't one overall thing.
I hate to be a pedant about this, but I've come to be one.
FTR, I have Hashimoto's.
Metabolic processes are a complex series of interactions. Furthermore, RMR doesn't really matter. In the end, TDEE drives weight management. Even if slow metabolism were a thing, you can compensate for it.
I'm not arguing with you perse, I'm trying to broaden the conversation. I think too much is made of the idea of having a "slow metabolism" when simply moving around a little bit fixes it.11 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
I actually was consuming more calories because I added a lot of healthier foods to my diet, rather high in heathier fat. There isn't very many calories in sugar compared to fat. Also I added complex carbs at my doctor's request which have similar calories to sugar. I had started out to make a calorie deficit but decided that wasn't what I needed or wanted.
In my case it wasn't just about calories it was about my liver not handling the fructose very well. Besides I've lost more weight in the past with much less improvement in body measurements. There is a lot more to weight loss than just calories. The energy balance happens but we don't control what our bodies do with the calories or how much calories our body uses. Ideally we want our body to burn more fat to balance out demands, but short of fasting or forcing yourself into ketosis you can't really force your body to burn fat. Mostly one is just putting in a request and hoping for the best.
Excessive amounts of fructose cause many people problems. While my consumption wasn't that high, I had enough decades of it to cause problems with my liver. Glucose isn't an issue but Fructose is. Additionally I've experimented since then. I can have a sugary desert once in a while but my hunger afterwards increases. If I do it two days in a row it the hunger gets to be bad again. Cut the sugar and the hunger is gone after a day. It might be in my head, but it isn't pleasant.
Medical conditions and surgery excluded; you cannot lose weight without a calorie deficit. I am not talking about hunger, cravings or anything else just fat loss.
It's a heck of a lot easier to maintain a deficit when you aren't as hungry. If eating a low-sugar diet helps some people stay full and satisfied at a lower calorie level, it's going to make it easier for them to lose weight. *shrug*4 -
clicketykeys wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
I actually was consuming more calories because I added a lot of healthier foods to my diet, rather high in heathier fat. There isn't very many calories in sugar compared to fat. Also I added complex carbs at my doctor's request which have similar calories to sugar. I had started out to make a calorie deficit but decided that wasn't what I needed or wanted.
In my case it wasn't just about calories it was about my liver not handling the fructose very well. Besides I've lost more weight in the past with much less improvement in body measurements. There is a lot more to weight loss than just calories. The energy balance happens but we don't control what our bodies do with the calories or how much calories our body uses. Ideally we want our body to burn more fat to balance out demands, but short of fasting or forcing yourself into ketosis you can't really force your body to burn fat. Mostly one is just putting in a request and hoping for the best.
Excessive amounts of fructose cause many people problems. While my consumption wasn't that high, I had enough decades of it to cause problems with my liver. Glucose isn't an issue but Fructose is. Additionally I've experimented since then. I can have a sugary desert once in a while but my hunger afterwards increases. If I do it two days in a row it the hunger gets to be bad again. Cut the sugar and the hunger is gone after a day. It might be in my head, but it isn't pleasant.
Medical conditions and surgery excluded; you cannot lose weight without a calorie deficit. I am not talking about hunger, cravings or anything else just fat loss.
It's a heck of a lot easier to maintain a deficit when you aren't as hungry. If eating a low-sugar diet helps some people stay full and satisfied at a lower calorie level, it's going to make it easier for them to lose weight. *shrug*
Satiety is the most important factor. For me, I cut back on fats while I lose weight and concentrate on whole food sources, especially fruit.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.3 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
You restrict calories by fasting and eliminating specific foods. You lost fat due calorie restriction, even if you don't want to call it that.13 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
You restrict calories by fasting and eliminating specific foods. You lost fat due calorie restriction, even if you don't want to call it that.
Another expert self appoint expert on my diet!
I wasn't fasting at all when I lost the weight by cutting sugar. I also explained this before, if you fast but eat back the calories you missed, it isn't calories reduction. This is easy to do if I just skip supper, it is a bit harder when I skip breakfast since my supper is typically very light. Eating 2500 calories in two meals is the same as eating 2500 calories in three meals as far as calorie restrictions go.
Now I'm starting to do something different. While I have maintained my sugar cut, I going to see if I can't lower my weight set point. That means breaking insulin resistance and that is what the fasting is for. Once I have a good enough plasma glucose response I'm going to drop the fasting (expect for 12 hours between supper/breakfast) and see what happens. This is experimental and will probably drive my weight lower, but for a different reasons. I can do this now because my hunger post sugar cutting is mild and manageable. To do this I might have to fast for longer periods and in that case I won't make up the calories. I don't have plans to try and eat 5000 kc in a day or 7500 kc in a day. I could also eat 3000 calories a day and fast one full day, although that would increase my calories by 500 kc / week. I haven't decided yet.
Fasting can be used to restrict calories, it doesn't have to be used that way. People here are extremely closed minded when it comes to calories. It is also incorrect to consider all calories equal, they clearly aren't even close to equal and go through different metabolic pathways. Protein is the least likely to be used for energy and is the most costly to convert. Carbs quickly break down mostly into glucose that can be used by most cells in the body directly as fuel. Fats are easy to store but take more effort for the body to burn. Not everything we can eat has calories either and there are lots of things we can't eat that have calories. The obsession with calories is blind to the real issues causing obesity worldwide. Calories are only a small part of the whole puzzle. Calories don't regulate fat, hormones do that.2 -
I'd like to see the no doubt meticulous logs you kept of your feat of losing more weight eating more calories, but that would mean derailing yet another thread with how you avoided sugar, ate more, and lost weight. Surely this is how you know that calorie restriction "doesn't work".
What does this have to do with metabolism?8 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.6 -
sophiesmom56 wrote: »Hello,
I've read the book and am ready to lose... Is there anyone else interested in trying this diet? I know it works, I just need to stay motivated to follow thru.
Any diet will work as long as you eat at a calorie deficit, just as no diet will work if you don't eat less than you burn. Diet type has nothing to do with weight loss is all about personal preference.
Also, a diet type will not speed up our metabolism because food does not have that power.
2 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Form the web it sounds like a calorie restriction diet. It moves a person away from sugar and more towards a low carb, higher fat diet. It basically really cuts carbs and a few other random things like coffee.
Cutting sugar has been amazing helpful to me. For me added sugar drives hunger and makes me miserable. In May I cut way back on added sugars, trying to keep it less than 10g / day. My stalled weight loss took off and I've lost about 1.5kg per month since then. My waistline has gone from 103 cm to 86 cm. So cutting sugar can be pretty powerful. I don't think it change my metabolism, I thing it is just letting my body work like it should.
While I generally try to keep my other refined carbs moderate I don't push it. I live in Japan and avoiding rice and noodles is an exercise in painful living. I'm also not a fan of dietary ketosis. If you want to be in ketosis just stop eating, that seems more natural and actually more comfortable process. However most people are fearful of fasting.
Frankly though I don't see why that diet would boost your metabolism but it will probably help you lose weight for a least a few months.
Cutting sugar out put you into a caloric deficit so you lost weight. Nothing about the evil properties of sugar!
Agree with this 100%. Calorie restriction is basic to weight loss, and we have to cut calories somewhere, whether it be just eating less of all or a certain food.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Setting medical conditions aside, CICO is the only way to lose weight.
Really....sugar is not evil, it does not have magic properties to keep fat on your body. You lost weight because your intake became less than your output, whether you want to admit that or not. Unfortunately, none of us get to be special snowflakes (and, believe me, if we could, I'd be first in line proclaiming I was a special snowflake.
) 3 -
Too gimmicky for me:
Phase One (Monday-Tuesday): Lots of carbs and fruits
Phase Two (Wednesday-Thursday): Lots of proteins and veggies
Phase Three (Friday-Saturday-Sunday): All of the above, plus healthy fats and oils
Repeat for four weeks!
I like to eat protein 7 days a week.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'd like to see the no doubt meticulous logs you kept of your feat of losing more weight eating more calories, but that would mean derailing yet another thread with how you avoided sugar, ate more, and lost weight. Surely this is how you know that calorie restriction "doesn't work".
What does this have to do with metabolism?
I used the food diary for a few months but frankly after a couple weeks it was pretty useless. All it did was tell me in six weeks I would weigh x more kg. The main use of it was trying to see how the food broke down, but many of the foods I eat weren't even in the database or weren't even close to correct. For example karaage (A type of fried Chicken) was listed as almost no protein in it. (Although I have found a listing since than that had 16g in 100g, which is closer to correct.) The problem is the database is filled with nonsense and that throws macros off. Most of the foods I buy locally aren't even in the database and when they are they often aren't correct. I get it, most people can't correctly read a Japanese food label.
Calorie restriction possibly forces the body to make changes to meet a energy balance. At some point the likely outcome is a reduction in metabolism. That is something I simply choose to avoid.
When I cut the sugar I started with cutting deserts completely. I was trying at the time to build a larger calorie deficit but the impact on my hunger was so profound that it shocked me into trying to understand why I lost hunger by cutting food. I then cut a lot more refined sugar, in some cases making food substitutions and I started adding back calories I had cut, mostly with foods like walnuts, salmon and complex carbs. It actually took a little planning because I had naturally stopped snacking when my hunger went down. The result was actually losing 7kg and about 13cm off my waist in 3 months. After that is slowed down and I settled at 8kg loss although my waist line is continuing to shrink, now down 17 cm (6.7"). Most of my older pants literally fall off me now.
So I had ate a very comfortable level ... 2300 to 2700 kc / day and lost weight like crazy. MFP determined I had to eat less than 1800 kc / day to lose the weight. That would be an extremely uncomfortable level for me. Although since I torn a muscle near my knee my workouts have dropped by about 90% so I might get by some days at that level.
In the two years I gained 1kg / year I rarely eat more than 3000 kc / day but I nearly always burned over 3000 kc / day. That isn't hard to do when you are doing things like 90 minute workouts. I would often run over 5k and do a lot of bodyweight calisthenics. (I was up to 40+ pullups and often hitting 100+ pushups, and those were just two of the many things I was doing.) I was did a lot of walking and biking, generally over 20km a day in total. The only times I had a really hard time hitting those high levels of calories burned was when I did a lot of stair climbing or only did calisthenics, then my workouts were in the 400 to 700 kc range. Every day I strove to keep myself in a calorie deficit, it just didn't work and I suffered a lot from hunger. I tortured myself for 2 years without weight lose. When I cut back on the sugar, wham the weight dropped even though I ended up without a calorie deficit because of other adjustments. The good thing is I did build some muscle while I was slowly losing fat those two years.
Metabolism turns out to be very complex and that is why people struggle so much with controlling their weight and even body composition. My metabolism was being driven by the refined sugar in my diet. That is what it has to do with metabolism.0 -
Honestly, if you're not tracking, you have no idea how many calories you're consuming.
And you admit to guessing about what the body does in response to calorie restriction, but this is a hill you are apparently ready to die on in thread after thread on here.
Why?
You saying what you say over and over doesn't make it true and you have no hard data to back it up.
The truth is:
1. You cannot prove that you were not in a calorie deficit, because you did not properly track calories.
2. Instead of taking responsibility for this, you blame everything else.
3. You are willing to go out on a limb on shaky perceived feelings and assert some guessed calorie intake anyway
4. You are willing to go out on a limb and concoct a theory on what everyone else's body does in response to what your own body did but you won't admit to.
Alrighty then.13 -
trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Setting medical conditions aside, CICO is the only way to lose weight.
Really....sugar is not evil, it does not have magic properties to keep fat on your body. You lost weight because your intake became less than your output, whether you want to admit that or not. Unfortunately, none of us get to be special snowflakes (and, believe me, if we could, I'd be first in line proclaiming I was a special snowflake.)
There is a wealth of research showing you are wrong. I used to believe the same, I was wrong and ended torturing myself for years because of it. Fructose is a serious problem in the quantities it is consumed in our modern diets. It isn't the only issue but for me it was a driving issue.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/sugar-101-how-harmful-is-sugar-part-i
Dr. Attia doesn't completely agree with Dr. Lustig, he thinks even too much glucose is harmful. Both agree too much sugar is a major problem. Very few people consume sugar at less than 20g / day in the modern industrialized world. Most diets are way over 50g / day. That is the problem, the amount. 50g a day is over 18kg / year (40 lbs).
It is clear that different people have different tolerance levels. Mine is probably on the lower side as is Dr. Attia's. That doesn't make us special snowflakes, it is just part of being human. There are metabolically healthy people that consume a great deal of refined sugar, they might be the special snowflakes.
PS. I know that many here that probably couldn't even begin to pass an organic chemistry test will claim these doctors and researchers are fruitcakes.1 -
Please post the wealth of peer reviewed, controlled metabolic ward research showing that CICO is not the only way to lose weight.4
-
trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »
You are the one with the pessimistic view point! Your claim is that only calories matter, what a grim outlook. Under eating is the only way to lose weight in your view. That is pessimistic.
Cutting refined sugar was easy. Living on reduced calories is much harder. I'm thankful that my body responds so positivity to cutting sugar. I lost 17 cm off of my waist line without real effort! That was visceral fat that was literally poisoning me. It literally just went away when I stopped eating refined sugars. The only cost to me was eating nuts/beans/fish instead of ice cream covered in chocolate. All the other changes didn't bother me at all, like not putting any sugar in my oatmeal and cutting back on some sauces. In fact it is a cheaper way to eat, not that I have to worry about the cost.
Yes I lost visceral fat, not just subcutaneous fat. Thankfully I not blinded by your style of pessimism.
Energy balance is science and the laws of thermodynamics apply to us all. Except you apparently. Also visceral fat is not poison!
I eat ice cream covered in chocolate and am leaner and heavier than most. It has no bearing on anything.
Do you even have a clue what thermodynamics is even about. I spent a hellish year in college with thermodynamics, although that was easier than some of the requirements. Humans aren't closed systems and no "laws" are broken, there are just far more inputs and outputs than you account for.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
Your sources need some refinement there.
Care to provide any that have peer review? Anything from pubmed?
If you care to dig in they reference many studies. However here is one for you; http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/647.pdf0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions