Yet another study shows no weight loss benefit for low-carb
Options
Replies
-
crzycatlady1 wrote: »mjames1319 wrote: »Didn't read the study .....but my theory on Keto is that maybe you don't lose more on the scale but I feel like those on the diet lose more inches. I realize there's the loss of water/bloat weight, but even longer term keto dieters always look like they have lost a ton of inches compared to when I look at cico dieters' before and afters.
I haven't seen a lot of before /after pictures of keto and low carbers because so many of them don't actually have pictures of themselves in their profile areas? Maybe their sharing them in the low carb group that I don't have access to or something. I'd be curious to see this difference that you're talking about though.
u can look at my profile pic.. thats all keto right there. 100lbs gone.. now im plant based and weightloss stalled. only way i got the scale moving was by doing a keto vegan way of eating which is difficult. mainly lots of avocados.. but yeah i swear by keto.. its awesome.. only for short term tho.. cause bacon will literlaly kill u0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »Amongst all this thermodynamics and insulin discussion, we must remember that the body naturally wants to be lean if you let it.
No, it doesn't. The body wants to have enough fat to serve as "insurance" against future famines. We evolved to survive cycles of feast and famine. That doesn't mean the body wants to be obese, but it's not going to "waste" calories; that's not what it evolved to do.
Well, if that is the case, why do people who store fats become more prone to diseases and abnormalities within the body because of it? The body performs its best and is healthiest when lean (that term is loosely used...there is allowance for body fat as you state). It has less metabolic defects, less overall health problems, better reproductive health, and better stamina...
There are both upper and lower limits where that doesn't hold true. No, obesity is not a good thing and I haven't seen anybody say we're better off being obese, or that we were designed to be that way. But being very lean can create health problems and hormonal disruptions as well. As for "better reproductive health", I've seen plenty of guys in bodybuilding-related forums complain about their sex drive (and "abilities") plummeting to zero when they're cutting and getting pretty lean. Many women lose their periods and have all kinds of screwy hormonal issues when they get lean. A little further over on the spectrum, anorexics, many of who are very lean, have just as many or more health issues than obese people do.
Maybe your thought holds water if you're defining "lean" as loosely as "being something less than obese" - say maybe the 18% - 25% BF range (for males), which is generally categorized as "Average". But in the terms of people into fitness, that's not lean at all. "Lean" would be somewhere around 10% - 12% or less (for males), and no, the human body doesn't naturally want to be that lean. It's pretty easy to get into the "average" range and maintain it, but getting down into that "lean/ripped" territory is a battle and it takes a lot of effort, restraint and self-discipline to maintain it. Ask any guy at 10% BF if he got that way just by letting his body do its thing and be where it naturally wanted to be.
(I'm excluding the discussion of third world countries where food scarcity/malnutrition is a fact of everyday life. I don't imagine there are a lot of fat dudes wandering around Burundi or Eritrea. It's not hard to maintain extreme leanness when you have nothing to eat most of the time, and that's an entirely different topic with plenty of attendant health problems.)5 -
Yes, you are correct. Maybe I am too liberal with that word. I do mean somewhere in the 15-25% range, or ideal weight ranges as health organizations define it. My (5'9") ideal weight and bmi would be 155 lbs and 23%. I might want to be leaner than that, with a little bit more muscle mass, say 19% and +3-5%.
Thank you for correcting me. I made those edits.0 -
Blambo - I have completely lost track of your point, it reads to me like a few disparate ideas being conflated.
I understand there is an energy cost in both storing and retrieving enerygy as/from fat.
I would imagine it is something of a constant, IE - it happens regardless of diet type.
I would also imagine this is essentially factored into the average CICO calculation. IE, if you are losing weight you are using more energy than you consume, and the fat storage/retrieval plays part of that.
I lost weight right on que, as per projections. All of this "extra" burn was happening but didnt make me lose weight any faster.
Are you saying that keto/low carb diets somehow make the "cost" of retrieving energy from fat higher? Consequently increasing the CO part of the equation?
If so, why?1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Or you could stop wildly speculating and taking what was actually shown in controlled environments to be true time and time again.
Or you could also look into the success people have had and see if there is anything to it. You are cherry picking your studies. I don't know how much LC / IF , etc help, but I do know that there is a lot of evidence that they do and also they are not an impossibility due to laws of physics (thermo).
First, and please lets get this straight. No one on this site, regardless of how biased they are, will deny that there are benefits of lchf to people. But this us no different than any other diet. All diets work. It really us that simple. If it enables compliance and adherence, and addresses any medical issue, it will work. But in terms of science, like actual studies, when protein and calories are constant, there is zero additional benefit. All the other studies that dont maintain prrotein benefit from more protein. That is why there is that article from authoritynutrition on 23 studies that low carbers frequently promote. To me, it demonstrates the effectiveness of increased protein.
If you look at this site, a large portion of the more lean and fit people mainly follow moderate to higher carb diets. There are a lot of benefits from a moderate carb or even high carb program if you goal us muscle gain in a deficit... something muscle harder to achieve in keto or lchf. Dont get me wrong there are other factors such as exercise programming, newness to lifting, genetics and nutrition.
And honestly i am trying to give you a benefit of the doubt but all of your arguments are based off of anecdotes and not studies that are controlled. And for every one that you can find showing huge metabolic advantage for one person, you will find another blog saying the opposite.
Personally, i low carb 3 days a week and and high carb 4 days a week. Right now, as painful as the low carb days are, it has given me a but more vigor for compliance and staying on track with calorie counting. Because at 16% body fat, i have a lot less room for error.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »spinningmadlyon wrote: »Keto is not just about appetite suppression (ie calories in calories out). Its about improving insulin sensitivity. Most overweight people have higher than optimum AC1 numbers approaching prediabetes or may even have T2 diabetes already.
That's overstated, and of course lots of people who do get their numbers back to normal just by losing weight. Another great way to increase insulin sensibility for most people is exercise.
Also, does keto actually improve insulin sensitivity (outside of weight loss)? Or does it reduce the need for insulin (with respect to carbs anyway) so that IR is less of a problem? The test would be whether one can do keto for a while, without weight loss as a contributing factor, control blood glucose levels that way, and then reintroduce carbs and respond as an IS to them. I don't think that's normally the case. If it leads to weight loss, of course, that often cures the problem.If you are a "sugar" (carb) burner, you need to eat fairly frequent.
I don't get this idea that people are "sugar burners" or "fat burners." People burn both, in percentages consistent with what they eat (and with body fat being used to make up for any deficit). You don't have to be on a low carb, let alone keto diet to burn fat. We all burn fat, especially when sedentary or exercising at a low level (walking, sitting, sleeping).
And no, you don't need to eat all that frequently. People did fine on three meals a day with typical diets with carbs as the largest source of calories. People follow similar eating patterns on high carb diets all over the world in various cultures. I personally always found that they easiest diet, even when eating higher carbs--I think the need to eat a bunch is cultural, we have food offered all the time, not about macros. And even without being on keto it has never been that big a deal to me to fast for a day (and others do various forms of IF without doing low carb).Each time you have that low calorie high carb rice cake or piece of healthy fruit your insulin spikes. These frequent insulin spikes from low calorie but high glycemic index foods contribute to a progression of hormonal malfunction of insulin (increasing your blood sugar levels). So long as you have higher than normal blood sugar levels you will not break down fat for energy. Your body doesn't need to. Calories in calories out do count, but not nearly as much as how your food choices impact the release of insulin in your body.
This is just wrong. People lose fine on high carb diets. When you have a deficit you burn the carbs, but then still need to burn fat when they are gone -- there's no difference, that claim that you can't lose eating carbs makes no sense and is part of keto rhetoric that is a lie. Also, blue zone diets and lots of other very healthy diets are higher carb than the US diet, and yet people are normal weight and don't have problems with IR or T2D. So scaremongering about fruit makes no sense.
They were not saying you can't lose eating carbs. Only that some things help burn fat more than the deficit requires. Insulin has been shown to inhibit fat formation.
Yes, he or she was were suggesting that even at a deficit you will not lose if you eat carbs too frequently. You have claimed that in the past too, and that you will lose a lot more if you low carb or fast -- I recall psulemon explaining in detail why you were wrong (I think it was him, could have been stevencloser, or both).
It is true that while insulin is high you won't be burning as much fat (but you also won't be adding it if you are burning it or need to fill glycogen stores, both of which are going to be true if at a deficit, most likely). But the bigger point is that amount of carbs doesn't affect overall fat burning, as you will either have lots of short spikes followed by fat burning or fewer longer periods of high insulin followed by periods of fat burning. In neither case will you be unable to ever burn fat but still have a deficit -- that makes no sense, as you can't be active/alive and burning nothing, and with a deficit by definition you will run out of carbs to burn (and plus everyone tends to burn fat when sedentary/asleep).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I've been sick so have been away from MFP for the past few days. I'm still not feeling very well, but let me see if I have this straight:
Has blambo been saying that it theoretically doesn't violate any thermodynamic principals for more fat to be burned than would be accounted for in the CICO model given the correct substrate ratio and is offering Peter Attia to back up this theory while ignoring the fact that in controlled conditions, such an effect has not been observed?
I think the notion is that in certain foods not all calories are turned into energy and just wasted (i.e., if you eat 1000 cals of nuts, not all 1000 calories would be converted into energy). But who knows because actuals studies confirm otherwise.
My reading is that he's claiming that this happens not so much with certain foods (although it could be that our usual counts are somewhat off on some things, like nuts, and will be corrected eventually), but with certain ways of eating. Some months ago I remember he was off on the theory that if you ate a huge amount of calories in one sitting you would excrete a lot of them without using the calories (hmm, a theme?), and now it's supposedly keto does this. But like you say, the studies haven't supported this, and I still don't see a logical mechanism whereby the body would do this. I mean, sure, initially converting to ketones might require a bit of excess output (which is what the studies seem to show) and maybe making glucose from fat takes some extra (as does making fat from carbs, actually), but that is unlikely to be meaningful--mostly you don't need to make glucose from carbs when on keto (you need a little bit of glucose for the brain, but usually you aren't that low and anyway it's not that many calories).
Beyond that, the idea that your body would, in essence, waste calories when in keto probably seems appealing if one needs to lose weight or wants to eat more than maintenance, but it would not be an efficient or useful thing for the body to do, so why would it have evolved to do this? Indeed, the body tends to interpret keto as starvation or food scarcity, so the idea that it starts wasting calories in keto makes no sense to me.
Might there be more energy to fuel food search or some such or diminished hunger? Sure, that could make sense. Might IR people have impaired energy output with higher carb diets (since they are not able to effectively convert the carbs to energy properly)? Yeah, that makes sense to me. But a major wastage of calories as suggested? Don't see it.
I also think wanting that reads as messed up to me, but this could be my own food biases. The idea that there's some desirable state of eating a lot and having calories go through us feels wrong to me (even if it were possible to achieve, which I don't believe). How would that be different in kind from that horrible stomach pump device that has been talked about in the forums?
I hate being misrepresented which seems to happen a bit. I have previously said that all CI don't get used which makes total sense.
Which is what I said you said, so no, not misrepresenting. You also said that if doing keto we are for some reason going to use less of our food, which makes no sense (fat is one of the more efficiently used macros, especially when you are talking about adding fat (if not at a deficit), and the body tends to perceive keto as starvation, so why would it waste calories as you keep claiming).I've never proposed that we should try to not digest our food.
You keep arguing that it's valuable to try to eat in ways that would lead to food being excreted or otherwise wasted by the body without the calories being used. Seems to be the same thing to me.4 -
@blambo61 You might find Feltham's self experimentation interesting. He tries different diets at 5000kcal per day for 21 days and logs his results. I know he has done LCHF and HCLF vegan diets. Of course his experiences will not prove true for all others. It's his own n=1, but I found them interesting. http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
Thanks!
just want to butt in and say 3 weeks, when accounting for the glycogen and water depletion associated with getting into ketosis, is a long enough time frame to make any meaningful comparison.0 -
The article actually contradicted itself. It said that the fat is burned and gives off heat and then said all fat loss isn't due to cico. They could have clarified that a bit I think. I'm raising the possibility that stored fat can be burned independent of energy requirements. I don't know if it can be excreted without giving off heat or not. If the macro composition of what you eat drives a set point in your body, then it could possibly be telling the body to burn off stored fat independent of the bodies energy needs. I think LC moderate protein could do this, probably due to the low insulin levels that result from that kind of macro comoposition. This would be fat lost in addition to what the traditional CICO model would say you would lose due to energy requirements.
So now we're assuming that (1) set points are a real scientific thing, and that (2) evolution designed a species that would have to avoid starving to death, but that would waste food for no reason?2 -
Its a bad idea to restrict carbohydrate when dieting because when you come off the diet, you will binge/become obsessed with thinking about carbs. When dieting think: is this something you could do everyday for the rest of your life? If it isn't, then once you stop dieting the weight will more than likely pile back on. What I did that worked for me is still having carbohydrate BUT the carbs that I had are low-glycemic index carbs. That is, carbs that have a more stabilizing impact on blood sugar levels and that keep you fuller for longer. These are things like grainy/whole wheat/brown breads, high-fibre low sugar cereal, brown rice, brown pasta etc and minimizing the inclusion of white carbs i.e. white bread, rice, pasta or combining white carbs with a good serve of lean protein and vegetables.0
-
Our ancestors (apes, if you follow that logic) also live in a land that is plentiful with food, temperate year round, and one in which they must fight gravity to obtain meals. Although, you may be right in that we naturally want to be fat. It just might not benefit us in the long run:
*sigh* Gorillas and chimpanzees are not our ancestors. We share a common ancestor with them. They are our closest living relatives (what with us also being apes), but in a distant cousins way, not a distant grandparents way. Sorry, people getting that very simple fact wrong irritates the hell out of me. Also our diets are no longer even remotely comparable. We've diverged a hell of a lot over 5 million + years.
Also pretty sure no one said we naturally want to be fat, just that the body won't 'fight' to stay lean. There is a big difference. We're talking about seasonal cycles here: plump up in the seasons when food is more plentiful, drop that weight over winter when it's scarce. Obesity takes years, not a few months. Which also addresses your health issues stuff. People weren't getting big enough, nor staying big enough, for those weight-related health issues to come into play.11 -
domeofstars wrote: »Its a bad idea to restrict carbohydrate when dieting because when you come off the diet, you will binge/become obsessed with thinking about carbs. When dieting think: is this something you could do everyday for the rest of your life? If it isn't, then once you stop dieting the weight will more than likely pile back on. What I did that worked for me is still having carbohydrate BUT the carbs that I had are low-glycemic index carbs. That is, carbs that have a more stabilizing impact on blood sugar levels and that keep you fuller for longer. These are things like grainy/whole wheat/brown breads, high-fibre low sugar cereal, brown rice, brown pasta etc and minimizing the inclusion of white carbs i.e. white bread, rice, pasta or combining white carbs with a good serve of lean protein and vegetables.
I would argue that you dont need to pick a diet you can stick with the rest of your life. Quite frankly what i am doing now is only a method to the means. The only thing you need is finding a strategy to allow you to achieve what you wsnt and then a strategy to reintroduce you to another strategy.
Dont get me wrong, a lot of people dont take on that type of thinking, so it might be beneficial for them to figure out a diet they can sustain long term.2 -
domeofstars wrote: »Its a bad idea to restrict carbohydrate when dieting because when you come off the diet, you will binge/become obsessed with thinking about carbs. When dieting think: is this something you could do everyday for the rest of your life? If it isn't, then once you stop dieting the weight will more than likely pile back on. What I did that worked for me is still having carbohydrate BUT the carbs that I had are low-glycemic index carbs. That is, carbs that have a more stabilizing impact on blood sugar levels and that keep you fuller for longer. These are things like grainy/whole wheat/brown breads, high-fibre low sugar cereal, brown rice, brown pasta etc and minimizing the inclusion of white carbs i.e. white bread, rice, pasta or combining white carbs with a good serve of lean protein and vegetables.
I would argue that you dont need to pick a diet you can stick with the rest of your life. Quite frankly what i am doing now is only a method to the means. The only thing you need is finding a strategy to allow you to achieve what you wsnt and then a strategy to reintroduce you to another strategy.
Dont get me wrong, a lot of people dont take on that type of thinking, so it might be beneficial for them to figure out a diet they can sustain long term.
I think very few can do that though. Mostly because the goal is to lose weight without the focus on maintaining so fad/crash/overly restrictive dieting ensues, after said diet eat what they want and regain.
If the goal from the beginning is to maintain and they have a grasp on their habits then I think some can make a switch.
But I have nothing to back that up:)0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »domeofstars wrote: »Its a bad idea to restrict carbohydrate when dieting because when you come off the diet, you will binge/become obsessed with thinking about carbs. When dieting think: is this something you could do everyday for the rest of your life? If it isn't, then once you stop dieting the weight will more than likely pile back on. What I did that worked for me is still having carbohydrate BUT the carbs that I had are low-glycemic index carbs. That is, carbs that have a more stabilizing impact on blood sugar levels and that keep you fuller for longer. These are things like grainy/whole wheat/brown breads, high-fibre low sugar cereal, brown rice, brown pasta etc and minimizing the inclusion of white carbs i.e. white bread, rice, pasta or combining white carbs with a good serve of lean protein and vegetables.
I would argue that you dont need to pick a diet you can stick with the rest of your life. Quite frankly what i am doing now is only a method to the means. The only thing you need is finding a strategy to allow you to achieve what you wsnt and then a strategy to reintroduce you to another strategy.
Dont get me wrong, a lot of people dont take on that type of thinking, so it might be beneficial for them to figure out a diet they can sustain long term.
I think very few can do that though. Mostly because the goal is to lose weight without the focus on maintaining so fad/crash/overly restrictive dieting ensues, after said diet eat what they want and regain.
If the goal from the beginning is to maintain and they have a grasp on their habits then I think some can make a switch.
But I have nothing to back that up:)
Pretty much whatever people do, they have about a 80 to 90% failure rate. Its unfortunate. I will say, i believe the strategies i mention are more prevalent in thr fitness community as opposed to those looking to just lose weight. .1 -
domeofstars wrote: »Its a bad idea to restrict carbohydrate when dieting because when you come off the diet, you will binge/become obsessed with thinking about carbs.
No, some people might, but not everyone will. Also, often low carb is a planned lifetime way of eating, not a diet only thing.When dieting think: is this something you could do everyday for the rest of your life? If it isn't, then once you stop dieting the weight will more than likely pile back on.
What's important is to have a maintenance strategy. That might be the same thing as when dieting, but more calories, or it might -- often does -- include more treats or more carbs, but still in a maintenance amount.
Since I need more calories when at maintenance I tend to eat certain foods more than I do when dieting, but not beyond what would be maintenance, of course. I also try different things with my diet (meaning how I eat) all the time, because I find it interesting.3 -
domeofstars wrote: »Its a bad idea to restrict carbohydrate when dieting because when you come off the diet, you will binge/become obsessed with thinking about carbs. When dieting think: is this something you could do everyday for the rest of your life? If it isn't, then once you stop dieting the weight will more than likely pile back on. What I did that worked for me is still having carbohydrate BUT the carbs that I had are low-glycemic index carbs. That is, carbs that have a more stabilizing impact on blood sugar levels and that keep you fuller for longer. These are things like grainy/whole wheat/brown breads, high-fibre low sugar cereal, brown rice, brown pasta etc and minimizing the inclusion of white carbs i.e. white bread, rice, pasta or combining white carbs with a good serve of lean protein and vegetables.
why are white carbs bad and brown rice good?3 -
domeofstars wrote:These are things like grainy/whole wheat/brown breads, high-fibre low sugar cereal, brown rice, brown pasta etc and minimizing the inclusion of white carbs i.e. white bread, rice, pasta or combining white carbs with a good serve of lean protein and vegetables.
There is no meaningful difference per the Glycemic Index.
I don't know people get this "broscience" stuff from.
Your stomach does not know the difference between white, brown, red, orange or any other color in the spectrum.
Brown Rice (GI) 50 to 87
White Rice (GI) 43 to 89
Basmati rice is the lowest on the GI of all types (43 - 57)
There are no practical nutritional benefits to brown rice over white rice.
Saying it has something like "It contains 105% more fiber!" does not mean much when you are talking about 1.7 grams of fiber vs 3.5 grams of fiber. Many humans are bad at math.
More importantly, brown rice is usually higher in arsenic and much higher in phytic acid (prevents protein absorption) than white rice.
These facts are readily available from sources like the FDA and NIH.
The Japanese eat WHITE rice 3 times a day almost every day of their lives and have about a 5% national obesity rate - including sumo wrestlers.
White rice is not "worse" for you than brown rice. Generally the reverse is actually true.5 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »domeofstars wrote: »Its a bad idea to restrict carbohydrate when dieting because when you come off the diet, you will binge/become obsessed with thinking about carbs. When dieting think: is this something you could do everyday for the rest of your life? If it isn't, then once you stop dieting the weight will more than likely pile back on. What I did that worked for me is still having carbohydrate BUT the carbs that I had are low-glycemic index carbs. That is, carbs that have a more stabilizing impact on blood sugar levels and that keep you fuller for longer. These are things like grainy/whole wheat/brown breads, high-fibre low sugar cereal, brown rice, brown pasta etc and minimizing the inclusion of white carbs i.e. white bread, rice, pasta or combining white carbs with a good serve of lean protein and vegetables.
I would argue that you dont need to pick a diet you can stick with the rest of your life. Quite frankly what i am doing now is only a method to the means. The only thing you need is finding a strategy to allow you to achieve what you wsnt and then a strategy to reintroduce you to another strategy.
Dont get me wrong, a lot of people dont take on that type of thinking, so it might be beneficial for them to figure out a diet they can sustain long term.
I think very few can do that though. Mostly because the goal is to lose weight without the focus on maintaining so fad/crash/overly restrictive dieting ensues, after said diet eat what they want and regain.
If the goal from the beginning is to maintain and they have a grasp on their habits then I think some can make a switch.
But I have nothing to back that up:)
Pretty much whatever people do, they have about a 80 to 90% failure rate. Its unfortunate. I will say, i believe the strategies i mention are more prevalent in thr fitness community as opposed to those looking to just lose weight. .
This is honestly a problem that I run into in a lot of these debates. I have a "feed the machine" mentality, and often forget that most people have less self-control than a dog in a Skinner Box.
My cuts usually involve removal of all but trace anounts of carbs and fats, EFAs and supplements. Works great for me, because my goal is fast loss so I can get back to a more rapid progression as quickly as possible. I have a feeling though, that if most people tried it, they'd either end up binge bailing halfway, or bingeing at the end, which is the worst possible time to do so, as your body is primed to put on all kinds of fat at that point.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »
Our ancestors (apes, if you follow that logic) also live in a land that is plentiful with food, temperate year round, and one in which they must fight gravity to obtain meals. Although, you may be right in that we naturally want to be fat. It just might not benefit us in the long run:
*sigh* Gorillas and chimpanzees are not our ancestors. We share a common ancestor with them. They are our closest living relatives (what with us also being apes), but in a distant cousins way, not a distant grandparents way. Sorry, people getting that very simple fact wrong irritates the hell out of me. Also our diets are no longer even remotely comparable. We've diverged a hell of a lot over 5 million + years.
Also pretty sure no one said we naturally want to be fat, just that the body won't 'fight' to stay lean. There is a big difference. We're talking about seasonal cycles here: plump up in the seasons when food is more plentiful, drop that weight over winter when it's scarce. Obesity takes years, not a few months. Which also addresses your health issues stuff. People weren't getting big enough, nor staying big enough, for those weight-related health issues to come into play.
Haha, thank you for that correction, my logic was flawed. I have "On the Origin of Species" on my desk, but have yet to pick it up.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »domeofstars wrote: »Its a bad idea to restrict carbohydrate when dieting because when you come off the diet, you will binge/become obsessed with thinking about carbs. When dieting think: is this something you could do everyday for the rest of your life? If it isn't, then once you stop dieting the weight will more than likely pile back on. What I did that worked for me is still having carbohydrate BUT the carbs that I had are low-glycemic index carbs. That is, carbs that have a more stabilizing impact on blood sugar levels and that keep you fuller for longer. These are things like grainy/whole wheat/brown breads, high-fibre low sugar cereal, brown rice, brown pasta etc and minimizing the inclusion of white carbs i.e. white bread, rice, pasta or combining white carbs with a good serve of lean protein and vegetables.
I would argue that you dont need to pick a diet you can stick with the rest of your life. Quite frankly what i am doing now is only a method to the means. The only thing you need is finding a strategy to allow you to achieve what you wsnt and then a strategy to reintroduce you to another strategy.
Dont get me wrong, a lot of people dont take on that type of thinking, so it might be beneficial for them to figure out a diet they can sustain long term.
I think very few can do that though. Mostly because the goal is to lose weight without the focus on maintaining so fad/crash/overly restrictive dieting ensues, after said diet eat what they want and regain.
If the goal from the beginning is to maintain and they have a grasp on their habits then I think some can make a switch.
But I have nothing to back that up:)
Pretty much whatever people do, they have about a 80 to 90% failure rate. Its unfortunate. I will say, i believe the strategies i mention are more prevalent in thr fitness community as opposed to those looking to just lose weight. .
This is honestly a problem that I run into in a lot of these debates. I have a "feed the machine" mentality, and often forget that most people have less self-control than a dog in a Skinner Box.
My cuts usually involve removal of all but trace anounts of carbs and fats, EFAs and supplements. Works great for me, because my goal is fast loss so I can get back to a more rapid progression as quickly as possible. I have a feeling though, that if most people tried it, they'd either end up binge bailing halfway, or bingeing at the end, which is the worst possible time to do so, as your body is primed to put on all kinds of fat at that point.
I would honestly kill myself or others on your plan. I tried a few weeks at 2k and i almost lost my crap, lol.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions