A crazy theory, please read and give an polite opinion
Options
Replies
-
Well, I'm not telling people what to eat. Im sure everybody knows what's good for their own body plus everybody is an adult and can make their own choices. I was talking about they way I felt when I was eating a different way. Now I'll probably stick with no more than 1200 calories a day, I jus want to stop eating and sampling everything I see in the store. I was just talking about an experience I had in the past and how I didn't waste away and died because of it. I did eat ketogenic for some time but I still watched how much I ate. Also it worked better when I was doing intermittent fasting on it. I would love to go back to it but I seem not to be able too. Now I'm just doing low carb with some intermittent fasting.2
-
@baconslave I'm working on the mental game right now. I think that's the key. I do keep it low carb...5 days out of 7. I'm working on keeping it 7 out of 7. I'm also trying to keep it simple. Eggs, bacon and bunless burgers.2
-
But thank you all for understanding. You were all helpful.0
-
Emphasis mineAstharteea wrote: »After that I started eating fruit and regular food on and off. But I was never gaining weight. The weight come when my meals started being regular and consistent. Basically I noticed that I had to live like an irresponsible student on a limited budget that had only ketchup and mustard in the fridge. The minute my fridge looked like the one of an adult with food And regular dinner and lunch...I lost it. I think that my body will stay lean if I only eat crazy one day a week. Problem is... It is not easy going back to that.Astharteea wrote: »So...I came to a conclusion that what kills us is too much and too diverse food. I once lived on 4 oz of chicken breast a day plus a couple of boiled eggs and maybe a yogurt. I might have had a small lettuce salad sometimes too. I cried and cried and had dreams about being part of a festum festival and wake up and just have a black coffee with an boiled egg and go about my day. Then dinner was coming and I was grilling 4 oz of chicken breast and making a lettuce salad from scratch. That until one day when I was washing it and this poor slug was trying to get away crawling on the side of the sink...and that was it as far as salad goes. Never again I made salad. So...the yogurts came a few weeks later and then a peach or two But that was pretty much my diet. It was thought in the first month or two...but by then I had no cravings. I was actually trying to remember how French fries taste and I couldn't but there was no craving. So then miraculous things started to happen My nails started growing, my hair got better...all thick and great. My skin cleared and I was feeling great. I, naturally, lost weight...unfortunately I can't remember numbers but I did lose everything I wanted plus more. But not once I felt sick. So, I honestly believe that 1200 calories a day minimum...is a sham. Somebody was saying in an article that this is the proper way of eating but no one will say it in the media because people will start becoming bulimics and anorexics ( like that's easy). Oh, after I lost all that weight by eating probably 500-600 calories a day, I didn't continue like that forever. I did started eating everything I wanted but not consecutive days or regularly. Whenever the situations and I still didn't gain weight. But then...I moved here and I wanted to get accustomed with foods and things and ...80 lbs later...my hair is *kitten*. My nails are *kitten*. And so many other things seem wrong. I got kicked out of forums and other platforms for talking about this but I do believe that eating so much less...it is so much healthier. I mean...do I really have to try the velvet cake crepes from IHOP ? Or the ramen bun burger from Red Robin? Or the stuffed crust pizza? Or whatever have you? No, I don't...but damn it!
Is no one else picking up on this? This is severely disordered eating. The OP's definition for eating "crazy" is regular, consistent meals. Almost everyone in this group eats regular consistent meals and is still able to lose weight in a healthy manner. My "polite" opinion is that you have been banned from other forums and platforms because you are advocating a dangerous WOE, it is not LCHF, it is dangerously low everything.
It has not gone unnoticed, I assure you.
OP - as has been pointed out, the way you're eating is dangerous in the long run, because it is not nutritionally sound and doesn't contain enough food in general to fuel the body.
What makes your assertions particularly dangerous is that you're not entirely wrong, but the degree to which you've taken it is a problem.
There is some evidence that longer term fasting is beneficial - Dr. Jason Fung is an advocate of such things, and has had good results - but it requires strict medical supervision to ensure you don't accidentally cause yourself long term harm.
The sheer amount and variety of food available is arguably a problem. We no longer have some of the natural mechanisms that kept us lean (like sheer lack of food and the need to go hunt it down or grow it ourselves), and we have year-round access to previously seasonal foods (for which we arguably evolved to eat in order to put on weight to survive the winter).
However, there's a huge chasm between eating ramen burgers and IHOP crepes, and living off half a chicken breast, coffee, and an egg. Within that chasm is a myriad of ways to eat that include the level of variety that works for you and a sane, healthy amount of food and sufficient nutrients. The dichotomy of eating literally next to nothing or eating everything is a false one.
I highly recommend reading the articles in the Launch Pad and learn about the academics behind this way of eating and the proper ways of doing so.8 -
Dr. Oz (back when he was still a respected medical professional instead of Dr. Phelonious T. Quackenbush, Sole Purveyor of the Secret Tonic of the Kikkapoo Indian Tribe) had some good ideas. One was to put one meal, preferably breakfast since that's easiest, on automatic pilot. Have pretty much the same thing for that meal every day and restrict your variety to the rest of the day. I love to cook and to try new things but the same breakfast every single day gets me off to a good start. It helps that I get up early enough to drink my tea, make my own breakfast, read the paper and do a load of laundry before Hub wants his own breakfast.2
-
Astharteea wrote: »But thank you all for understanding. You were all helpful.
@Astharteea I do agree with you that adding back in too many types of food can complicate an already misfiring metabolism. @glossbones went through a ground beef challenge, followed by adding in a single food family to identify the inflammation triggers, and it wasn't long before it spiraled out from more food choices than intended. So she had to resimplify again.
I think that the number of foods we have readily available to us now due to modern conveniences far outnumbers those our ancestors had readily available. Many folks can adapt readily to this arrangement, but those of us with compromised metabolisms cannot.
I think that going with a simpler version of low carb that allows you to intake sufficient calories, as you indicated 1200 calories above, while remaining compliant to your plan, is a good starting step.
I will add the caveat that "no plan survives contact with the enemy," (in this case our metabolism and body we're fighting to regain control over), and so don't be afraid to bump your calories up or mix the foods up after 4-12 weeks if you don't see the changes you're in search of. But it takes 4-12 weeks to see changes in your metabolism and body - and admittedly sometimes longer! So don't mix up too many things too closely together.2 -
Through changing my WOE to a LCHF I have learned that everything I thought I knew was horse crap. We are all different and most of what we have been led to believe as Gospel truth just isn't. We don't all need exactly eight glasses of water for example. An apple a day does not in fact keep the doctor away. Boneless skinless chicken breast is not the way to happiness.
If you've found something that works for you then more power to you. I'm still searching but what I know now is that I am the only one who can do this and must find my own path amongst many.3 -
The mods decided to reopen so we can have a good and helpful discussion on healthy WOEs and sustainability. I think a lot of us can relate with adding variety which can sometimes cause us to lose control and swing to an extreme. op has explained that the calorie cutting was in her past. She wants to learn how to avoid going crazy on food and be able to add variety without turning into Cookie Monster.
Helpful and supportive replies are fine. Remember we are all friends here. If you are going to be critical, also be CONSTRUCTIVE.
TIA.
--baconslave5 -
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).
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.
So while I'm not a doctor, I think it's probably best to get vitamins, nutrients, and fruits and vegetables, as well as (for me) a LCHF WOE, with at least 1,200 calories consumed per day. Now, I'll be honest - do I ALWAYS follow this? No. But it's what is best for safe, sustainable weight loss and maintenance without sustaining serious health problems.
And if you have any questions, it's best to consult with your doctor.0 -
@blacktie347 - I'm not sure I'm ready to buy your book - but I do appreciate the sprit in which you've offered your point of view!2
-
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
