Something I learned to avoid carbs
Replies
-
What IS processed then?0
-
With all due respect, you just don't get it.kellysdavies wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies 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: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
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: »kellysdavies 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: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
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: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
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.
Nobody disputes that you are eating more food than you used to, but if you are losing weight then you have to be eating less calories than you were when you were maintaining or even gaining weight. Eating less calories than you burn is the only way any one of us can lose weight.
This thing about not eating carbs and fat together is 100% ridiculous. It makes not sense whatsoever.
I wasn't asking for peer reviewed studies to support the type of diet you are on, but studies to back up your claims that calorie restricted diets don't work. Got any?
If calorie restriction doesn't work, that means my 44 pounds came off due to some magic thing I'm not aware of, or maybe I ate just the right combination of foods, or I just got plain lucky. Perhaps that weight loss had nothing to do with all my hard work of learning moderation in all things and how to restrict calories whether I want to lose weight or maintain. In fact, your idea that calorie restriction diets don't work means I really had nothing at all to do with losing that 44 pounds and maintaining for well over a year.
0 -
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.
Am I reading that correctly? You guesstimate you ate almost 9 ounces of duck and over 7 ounces of pork chop?
And it didn't make you sick?
0 -
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.
Am I reading that correctly? You guesstimate you ate almost 9 ounces of duck and over 7 ounces of pork chop?
And it didn't make you sick?
I knocked out a 16oz steak a couple weeks back. It made me sleepy, but not sick.0 -
Alatariel75 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.
Am I reading that correctly? You guesstimate you ate almost 9 ounces of duck and over 7 ounces of pork chop?
And it didn't make you sick?
I knocked out a 16oz steak a couple weeks back. It made me sleepy, but not sick.
Whoa!
That is an awful lot!
I'll be yours is not a guesstimate, though.0 -
A pound of meat? Depends on what I got on the side if I can eat that in one go.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »A pound of meat? Depends on what I got on the side if I can eat that in one go.
I can't do it. I love salmon, chicken, roast, and steak, and with a full meal I can maybe do 6 ounces, mostly 4 to 5, but that's about it.0 -
Alatariel75 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.
Am I reading that correctly? You guesstimate you ate almost 9 ounces of duck and over 7 ounces of pork chop?
And it didn't make you sick?
I knocked out a 16oz steak a couple weeks back. It made me sleepy, but not sick.
Whoa!
That is an awful lot!
I'll be yours is not a guesstimate, though.
Nope, I had it there in black and white
It was a huge, huge steak but I rose to the challenge!! Normal intake is half that. I could certainly not do it more than very occasionally, and I left most of the sides behind. 0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Alatariel75 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.
Am I reading that correctly? You guesstimate you ate almost 9 ounces of duck and over 7 ounces of pork chop?
And it didn't make you sick?
I knocked out a 16oz steak a couple weeks back. It made me sleepy, but not sick.
Whoa!
That is an awful lot!
I'll be yours is not a guesstimate, though.
Nope, I had it there in black and white It was a huge, huge steak but I rose to the challenge!! Normal intake is half that. I could certainly not do it more than very occasionally, and I left most of the sides behind.
Good enough.
0 -
I don't understand how something being "processed" automatically makes it evil.0
-
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »I don't understand how something being "processed" automatically makes it evil.
It doesn't. No food is evil (unless you don't like said food, then it's evil.) 0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »I don't understand how something being "processed" automatically makes it evil.
It doesn't. No food is evil (unless you don't like said food, then it's evil.)
Or if you like it but it makes you horribly sick. Then it's super evil.0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »I don't understand how something being "processed" automatically makes it evil.
It doesn't. No food is evil (unless you don't like said food, then it's evil.)
I used to hate green beans, but now I'll eat those too. No food is off the table for me (get it, table??)
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »lemonsnowdrop wrote: »I don't understand how something being "processed" automatically makes it evil.
It doesn't. No food is evil (unless you don't like said food, then it's evil.)
Or if you like it but it makes you horribly sick. Then it's super evil.
That's so true.0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »lemonsnowdrop wrote: »I don't understand how something being "processed" automatically makes it evil.
It doesn't. No food is evil (unless you don't like said food, then it's evil.)
I used to hate green beans, but now I'll eat those too. No food is off the table for me (get it, table??)
Maybe the beans went to confession, performed an act of contrition, and are no longer evil (see page 1). 0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »lemonsnowdrop wrote: »I don't understand how something being "processed" automatically makes it evil.
It doesn't. No food is evil (unless you don't like said food, then it's evil.)
I used to hate green beans, but now I'll eat those too. No food is off the table for me (get it, table??) 0 -
Must be time for cat pics, surely.0
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Must be time for cat pics, surely.
My cats go ballistic when I open a can! LOL!0 -
Coming in late, believer that everyone has to figure out what works for them as an individual... a bit tired of reading requests for peer reviewed articles/studies. There is a huge concern in every field that as the criteria for peer review is poorly defined, the results are inconsistent, biased, and inefficient. These journal articles support the need for standardization in peer review:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0066-782X2012000200017&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676336/
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are no scientific laws, only theories that haven't been disproven yet.
It wasn't too long ago (relatively speaking) that Einstein developed his theory of special relativity, stating that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Most people accepted that as a law of physics. Just recently, scientists disproved that theory. Science is constantly evolving... what is believed to be true today may be found to be inaccurate in the not too distant future.
If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, don't automatically dismiss it for everyone. There are just too many variables.0 -
Uhhh, the speed of light hasn't been disproven.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »Coming in late, believer that everyone has to figure out what works for them as an individual... a bit tired of reading requests for peer reviewed articles/studies. There is a huge concern in every field that as the criteria for peer review is poorly defined, the results are inconsistent, biased, and inefficient. These journal articles support the need for standardization in peer review:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0066-782X2012000200017&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1676336/
I've said it before and I'll say it again - there are no scientific laws, only theories that haven't been disproven yet.
It wasn't too long ago (relatively speaking) that Einstein developed his theory of special relativity, stating that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Most people accepted that as a law of physics. Just recently, scientists disproved that theory. Science is constantly evolving... what is believed to be true today may be found to be inaccurate in the not too distant future.
If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, don't automatically dismiss it for everyone. There are just too many variables.
How can CICO be disproved when anyone who eats at a calorie deficit loses weight and anyone who eats at a calorie surplus gains weight?0 -
0
-
I love pictures like that.
I can only imagine she means that Alcubierre Drive that I read about recently? Which doesn't go faster than light, it would shorten the distance between you and your goal by warping space-time, thus allowing you to reach the goal faster than light without actually going faster than light (and is probably going to be impossible to implement in reality due to various reasons).0 -
The CDC disagrees with you.pu wrote:the "exercise more" part in the "eat less exercise more" can be removed.
That's not a viable means to help the obesity problem.
"Most weight loss occurs because of decreased caloric intake. However, evidence shows
the only way to maintain weight loss is to be engaged in regular physical activity."
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
That specific article states:
"To lose weight and keep it off: You will need a high amount of physical activity unless you also adjust your diet and reduce the amount of calories you're eating and drinking. Getting to and staying at a healthy weight requires both regular physical activity and a healthy eating plan."
It's telling you watch your diet. With out a dietary change there is a very little chance that weight loss will occur. As my original article on the subject stated. THe key factor in weight loss is diet. Not exercise.
You're restating the theory. They're telling you what "strong scientific evidence" as in experiments and practice have shown. And I will say that the maintenance portion is extremely important since by now surely we've seen that you can lose weight on just about any kooky diet/cleanse/detox known to man...
0 -
This study somewhat supports the OP's theory... for certain people - unless we aren't supposed to take TEE and REE into the weight loss equation (although I've seen enough people using them in these forums as part of their arguments against anything that isn't simply CICO.) I'm sure there are studies that would show different results for other people. Again, just too many variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432
No, the speed of light hasn't been disproven - just the theory that nothing can travel from point A to point B faster than the speed of light.stevencloser wrote: »Uhhh, the speed of light hasn't been disproven.
0 -
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »This study somewhat supports the OP's theory... for certain people - unless we aren't supposed to take TEE and REE into the weight loss equation (although I've seen enough people using them in these forums as part of their arguments against anything that isn't simply CICO.) I'm sure there are studies that would show different results for other people. Again, just too many variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432
No, the speed of light hasn't been disproven - just the theory that nothing can travel from point A to point B faster than the speed of light.stevencloser wrote: »Uhhh, the speed of light hasn't been disproven.
Yeah, Alcubierre Drive. You're not going faster than light, you're taking a shortcut that's shorter than a straight line. That didn't disprove Einstein.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »This study somewhat supports the OP's theory... for certain people - unless we aren't supposed to take TEE and REE into the weight loss equation (although I've seen enough people using them in these forums as part of their arguments against anything that isn't simply CICO.) I'm sure there are studies that would show different results for other people. Again, just too many variables.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432
No, the speed of light hasn't been disproven - just the theory that nothing can travel from point A to point B faster than the speed of light.stevencloser wrote: »Uhhh, the speed of light hasn't been disproven.
Yeah, Alcubierre Drive. You're not going faster than light, you're taking a shortcut that's shorter than a straight line. That didn't disprove Einstein.
If speed = distance/time and the EM Drive (which is not exactly the same as the Alcubierre Drive) allows "shortcuts", how do you then measure the distance travelled? If distance is measured as a straight line, then yes, I believe it does disprove it. If distance is not linear, but rather measured as a "fold" in space/time, it's going to mean a total change in the way we process distances. Even the laws of physics are proving mutable.0 -
NO ONE asked the IMPORTANT question:
How much was @kellysdavies paid to advertise this idea/book/diet?0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »Why is it faddy? Have you actually read it? No. What silly rules? Why silly? You have no idea. You're making assumptions with no proper knowledge because you don't want to believe there *might* just be another way. Open your mind.
I don't get what you mean about the 800 calorie thing?
I was 10stone12. Goal weight 8stone10 (still upper end of the range for my height - could go down to 7stone10). I did TDEE for about a year. I got down to 9stone2. It worked! I was only on about 1300 cals a day but it worked. Over a year (maybe a bit more)
Then it stopped working. My BMR and TDEE are very low as it is (I'm 5ft1, woman, 36). I didn't lose for 6 months. Yes I weighed everything. Yes I was accurate with my recordings. I sat it out. Then I reduced my calories to 1000 a day and I was lost about half a pound in 4 weeks. If that. This wasn't maintenance - I still had more to lose. To lose any more I'd have to go to 800 calories. Did I say I did ? NO. I didn't want to. I don't want to. It's ludicrous. So I started researching why this was and what I could do. Done this diet for a month and now down to 8stone13.
So read posts properly before you make silly comments. Embarrassing yourself. Awkward.
@kellysdavies
I've read The Harcombe Diet and I've done it ...three times
Been there (twice) got the t-shirt (twice), didn't stick ...failed long term defined as more than 6 months success (3 times) ..
Lost a lot of weight the first time ...crashed and burned as soon as I ate a potato...water weight whooshed back and I thought what's the point, because once your resolve goes on restricting a yummy, pervasive macro the dam just bursts ..only more so
Tried again ...lost a lot of weight quickly again ..."oh look mum, 10lbs in 2 weeks"...ate a slice of toast and whoosh yet again
But good luck ...hope you stick for life ..because it is not an easy "diet plan" to fail ..there is no way to incorporate "normal" living and socialising on it ..it is a constant willpower thing
But some people do very well achieving their calorie defecit through reducing carbs..the medical mumbo-jumbo up front is interesting but I never found a single independent scientific study to back it up0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions