Fast Metabolism Diet

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.
«13456

Replies

  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    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.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.
  • clicketykeys
    clicketykeys Posts: 5,731 Member
    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*
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,084 MFP Moderator
    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*

    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.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    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.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Life is a medical condition. We all have issues, even newborns.

    What a pessimistic view point to take.

    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.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 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.

    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. :)