Fast Metabolism Diet

12346»

Replies

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,086 MFP Moderator
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    And we all agree that muscle weighs more then fat... and if you don't eat enough calories it can take your muscle instead of your fat, right?

    Answer to that can be found here.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10460011/the-ultimate-guide-to-mfp#latest
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    edited October 2016
    For the longest time I thought that I had "slow metabolism", but now I realize it is normal for my age.
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    pasewaldd wrote: »
    And we all agree that muscle weighs more then fat... and if you don't eat enough calories it can take your muscle instead of your fat, right?

    Answer to that can be found here.

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10460011/the-ultimate-guide-to-mfp#latest

    Nice save.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited October 2016
    DebSozo wrote: »
    dykask 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*

    So true. I was hungry quite a bit on high carb. When I upped the healthy fats and lowered the net carbs my appetite quelled.

    But that's not what dykask is arguing and absolutely no one disagrees that eating in a way that helps with appetite (if appetite is a problem for you) is important.

    Curious what you consider high here? Like 50%?

    For me, total amount of carbs makes no difference, although carb choice and how much protein I eat make my diet more or less satiating.

    (But I also know I didn't overeat because of hunger. I ate a really high carb/low fat diet compared to my usual when I was on a service trip in Nicaragua, for example (and was quite active), but was never hungry since there were specific eating times and you just didn't have the expectation that you'd reach for food all day long.

    But of course I do acknowledge that people are different and for some reducing carbs in and of itself may help. (I do think that outside of keto this is usually about changing overall diet and less about carb percentage, and that keto itself has an affect on appetite, at least for many.)
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    dykask 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*

    So true. I was hungry quite a bit on high carb. When I upped the healthy fats and lowered the net carbs my appetite quelled.

    But that's not what dykask is arguing and absolutely no one disagrees that eating in a way that helps with appetite (if appetite is a problem for you) is important.

    Curious what you consider high here? Like 50%?

    For me, total amount of carbs makes no difference, although carb choice and how much protein I eat make my diet more or less satiating.

    (But I also know I didn't overeat because of hunger. I ate a really high carb/low fat diet compared to my usual when I was on a service trip in Nicaragua, for example (and was quite active), but was never hungry since there were specific eating times and you just didn't have the expectation that you'd reach for food all day long.

    But of course I do acknowledge that people are different and for some reducing carbs in and of itself may help. (I do think that outside of keto this is usually about changing overall diet and less about carb percentage, and that keto itself has an affect on appetite, at least for many.)

    I was agreeing with clicketykeys for myself personally, not disagreeing with you. You are understanding of what my experience has been.