The no BS approach to weight loss.

portexploit

taem, thanks for you post and I agree with what you have said. I do like what you said about ketosis. I think I started in the OP, that you can increase your insulin by eating too many calories. This includes fats and protein. Just eating in general causes are insulin to go up to some degree. What you said about ketosis is good. The thing is, it depends on the “type” of carbs you eat, as you well know. I eat about 90% green vegetables, my carb intake turns out to be around <= 125grams a day, but I am also on 1750 calories a day. Which is low for me. Overweight people are more sensitive to carbs, as they lose weight they can increase their carbs. As you said it, we are designed to eat things that aren’t processed. My view is we’re designed to eat the way man is supposed to eat. Before agriculture there was no disease. Once agriculture was created was when people started to develop disease. What man ate was things in their natural state. No rice, pastas, breads, or anything of that sort. Fruits, vegetables, and protein sources.

erinkeely4

Meaning that a person who consumes 800 calories will lose more weight than the one who consumes 1200 calories, but will lose proportionately less weight.

This article explains it better:

http://www.weightwatchers.com/templates/print.aspx?PageId=1211021&PrintFlag=yes&previewDate=1/4/2011

Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.

For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes."

When I cut my caloric intake drastically I lose weight very, very quickly. But then when I start eating regularly again I put it back on very quickly!!

taem

taem, thanks for you post and I agree with what you have said. I do like what you said about ketosis. I think I started in the OP, that you can increase your insulin by eating too many calories. This includes fats and protein. Just eating in general causes are insulin to go up to some degree. What you said about ketosis is good. The thing is, it depends on the “type” of carbs you eat, as you well know. I eat about 90% green vegetables, my carb intake turns out to be around <= 125grams a day, but I am also on 1750 calories a day. Which is low for me. Overweight people are more sensitive to carbs, as they lose weight they can increase their carbs. As you said it, we are designed to eat things that aren’t processed. My view is we’re designed to eat the way man is supposed to eat. Before agriculture there was no disease. Once agriculture was created was when people started to develop disease. What man ate was things in their natural state. No rice, pastas, breads, or anything of that sort. Fruits, vegetables, and protein sources.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just wanted to point out that carbs, insulin, and ketosis are natural functions and give a bit more detail and history. We can go deeper, but then the low carb, low fat debates are going to happen again.

I generally agree with your OP.

portexploit

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just wanted to point out that carbs, insulin, and ketosis are natural functions and give a bit more detail and history. We can go deeper, but then the low carb, low fat debates are going to happen again.

I generally agree with your OP.

I know you weren't diagreeing with me. Yes they're natural functoins, they do serve a purpose. It's just sometimes, by our actions the purpose they serve can harm us.

errbear315

I will say that as a college student, eating three small meals of 300 calories apiece has helped to boost my weight loss. Then, I save a whopping 400 calories in "snacks." A granola bar between class, an apple after the gym, and a bag of soy crisps in the library. It's not a perfect system, but it prevents me from ever feeling like I'm depriving myself.