Dr. Beth Westie
momseev
Posts: 2 Member
Is there anyone who is doing Dr. Beth Westie's program or utilizing her ideas? I don't have the money to join her program but have started doing her suggestions on eating with your hormones and would like to chat with others who are doing it as well. Definitely the way to go for women!
30
Replies
-
Oh no... Using nutrition that matches female hormones to achieve lasting weight loss. That's not just stupid, it's sexist. Fat is gender neutral.46
-
Eat with your hormones? Our hormones are with us all the time. What does it mean to eat "with" them?
OP, looks like she is a chiropractor. This would lead me to question why she feels qualified to set herself up as an expert on weight loss, hormones, or women's health.
It also looks like she is trying to make her living by charging for the "secrets" of fat loss, combined with saying that other methods will not work. This, for me, is a huge red flag.34 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Eat with your hormones? Our hormones are with us all the time. What does it mean to eat "with" them?
OP, looks like she is a chiropractor. This would lead me to question why she feels qualified to set herself up as an expert on weight loss, hormones, or women's health.
It also looks like she is trying to make her living by charging for the "secrets" of fat loss, combined with saying that other methods will not work. This, for me, is a huge red flag.
LOL a chiropractor!? I definitely wouldn't read a word she says about nutrition.17 -
sounds a lot like Stacy Sims info from ROAR - that is hardly backed up by scientific evidence - but lots of triathletes are just latching on to it1
-
Well first off she's a chiropractor and not an endocrinologist, so I'd be sceptical right away.10
-
Is there anyone who is doing Dr. Beth Westie's program or utilizing her ideas? I don't have the money to join her program but have started doing her suggestions on eating with your hormones and would like to chat with others who are doing it as well. Definitely the way to go for women!
You don't need money to join any program - you're in the right place already. Read the stickies here, fill out your diet and fitness profile, set a reasonable loss per week goal, and log accurately. Voila! Weight loss magic (except it's not magic).20 -
14 -
Estrogen smoothies? Prednisone a la king? I've never heard of hormone eating. Yikes.9
-
-
-
Most people eat "with" their hormones; generally, women who aren't counting calories or are on any diet will naturally eat slightly more around times of ovulation and/or menstruation, and then go back to eating normally once menstruation is over. Leptin and ghrelin are the hormones responsible for sending hunger and satiety signals, and presumably eating "with" them means learning to recognize and pay attention to the signals they're sending to eat and to stop eating. You don't need to shell out a wad of cash to be told that you need to learn to pay attention to these signals. I've just told you. But if you want I'll send you my PayPal details 😊19
-
DoubleUbea wrote: »
One of my personal rules of thumb: If book has an author with "Dr." or "Ph.D." in her or his name on the cover, that book is garbage.
I say this as a professional with a PhD. Professionals don't usually use their titles in this way, which is a hint that this is a marketing tool.29 -
Both, or rather all 2^n genders have pretty much the same hormones. The concentration level of some differ among the 2^n genders. About half the 2^n genders have a mense and as a consequence of that experience an elevated risk of anemia. They need to consume more iron.9
-
MelanieCN77 wrote: »Well first off she's a chiropractor and not an endocrinologist, so I'd be sceptical right away.
Great. Another Dr. Berg. A quack chiropractor pretending they know something about nutrition.
The "eating with your hormones" thing would be a giant red flag to me. Even more so coming from a chiropractor. She sounds like another woo peddler just milking it for the money.12 -
Chiropractors shouldn’t be allowed to use the title “Doctor.”
Here’s my weight loss book: Eat fewer calories than you burn. Full stop.
Send me $21 -
There's a dude called Lyle. He has written many books. He recently wrote a book about women and dieting.
It is (apparently) pink. It is (apparently) full of spelling errors. It is (apparently) expensive as heck.
He still hasn't been shot by the many women who frequent his web site and facebook pages. Or the guys who do the same.
He happens to be quite knowledgeable and he references research throughout his writing. And yes, he does discuss hormones.
If I had a burning desire to spend money and I was a woman who was concerned with her fat levels... I could do much worse than acquiring a copy of The Women’s Book Vol 1: A Guide to Nutrition, Fat Loss and Muscle Gain.26 -
There's a dude called Lyle. He has written many books. He recently wrote a book about women and dieting.
It is (apparently) pink. It is (apparently) full of spelling errors. It is (apparently) expensive as heck.
He still hasn't been shot by the many women who frequent his web site and facebook pages. Or the guys who do the same.
He happens to be quite knowledgeable and he references research throughout his writing. And yes, he does discuss hormones.
If I had a burning desire to spend money and I was a woman who was concerned with her fat levels... I could do much worse than acquiring a copy of The Women’s Book Vol 1: A Guide to Nutrition, Fat Loss and Muscle Gain.
But is he a "Dr."?
11 -
There's a dude called Lyle. He has written many books. He recently wrote a book about women and dieting.
It is (apparently) pink. It is (apparently) full of spelling errors. It is (apparently) expensive as heck.
He still hasn't been shot by the many women who frequent his web site and facebook pages. Or the guys who do the same.
He happens to be quite knowledgeable and he references research throughout his writing. And yes, he does discuss hormones.
If I had a burning desire to spend money and I was a woman who was concerned with her fat levels... I could do much worse than acquiring a copy of The Women’s Book Vol 1: A Guide to Nutrition, Fat Loss and Muscle Gain.
Yes to everything. I have said pink typo ridden book and it does go into great detail about women's hormones and diet. I tamp down my rage because I like citations. And there are a ton in the pink book.
He provides different diet templates for different hormonal situations with exhaustive referencing.
I've also never managed to successfully execute his diet templates because i find them too high carb and the recommended deficits are too steep.
My sports performance has improved dramatically but the higher carbs (and deficit?) has made me super bingey.
I'm about to try again, but with a much smaller decifit.3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »There's a dude called Lyle. He has written many books. He recently wrote a book about women and dieting.
It is (apparently) pink. It is (apparently) full of spelling errors. It is (apparently) expensive as heck.
He still hasn't been shot by the many women who frequent his web site and facebook pages. Or the guys who do the same.
He happens to be quite knowledgeable and he references research throughout his writing. And yes, he does discuss hormones.
If I had a burning desire to spend money and I was a woman who was concerned with her fat levels... I could do much worse than acquiring a copy of The Women’s Book Vol 1: A Guide to Nutrition, Fat Loss and Muscle Gain.
But is he a "Dr."?
Judging by the amount of Woo's my reference to one of the few scientifically backed weight loss books written specifically for women (which incidentally also discusses hormones which were part of this thread's OP).... the current lack of Dr. in front of Mr. McDonald's name is certainly an impediment to him being believable!
Of course I know that woo's (especially that one woo I instantly get for mentioning that the sun rises in the east whenever I post between certain hours of the day) are flat out WOOHOO: You nailed it buddy! Thank you and high five!
17 -
I've also never managed to successfully execute his diet templates because i find them too high carb and the recommended deficits are too steep.
My sports performance has improved dramatically but the higher carbs (and deficit?) has made me super bingey.
I'm about to try again, but with a much smaller decifit.
Where people come from is also worth considering. His "crowd" is hardcore and is not looking for "fire and forget" solutions and doesn't often place too much of an emphasis towards making life easier long term.
When I was obese I run into and considered some of his past diet plans that would have ensured quicker success and rejected them in favour of losing slower and taking the time to find out how I ticked and whether I could modify my eating into a new normal as opposed to just engaging in a weight loss diet.
So I agree with you that the deficits he goes for are large and I personally believe that adherence and sustainability are more important.
Mind you, he does mitigate with re-feeds but they are a treacherous slope to navigate for the many people who have a leaning towards binge eating.
That said, the body of knowledge included in his book is quite extensive and so are the references and it does provide actionable (and personally modifiable) insights.
**I hasten to add that the above is mostly second-hand info from trusted MFPeops. I am personally not a member of his web-site, his facebook page, and do not own the women's, or any other of his books--but I HAVE watched a couple of videos and checked out some of the references and read through a legally obtained full pdf of one of his weight loss plans
5 -
Also an owner of the very pink Wimmin's Book. I haven't played with the altering macros in relation to cycle phase stuff yet, because I'm doing a different protocol at the moment. Like the poster above, I sort of went 'holy crap!' at the carb recommendations, because it's way more than I usually eat (just because of the foods I tend to eat, not because carbs are da debil), but I'm willing to give it a go at some stage just to see what happens.
Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though. In pretty much all Lyle's general dieting recommendations, he builds things around a deficit based on weight/target weight loss per week, with 0.5%, 1% and 1.5% options. A 0.5% per week weight loss target is not aggressive. At my current weight, that's just over 0.7lbs per week, with a daily deficit of about 360 cals (I'm reading this directly from the handy chart on p. 69 of the book, my current weight is between two of the chart weights and I can't be bothered working out exact numbers). The deficit is only too steep if you choose one that's too steep, and obviously there is nothing to stop anyone calculating at an even smaller deficit if they wish. And there is an entire chapter on goal setting and choosing an appropriate deficit.
No doubt I'll get woo'd too, because I mentioned Lyle McDonald. Just to make sure though - diet breaks!!16 -
Don't forget Jason Fung, Mark Hyman, Jonathan Bailor!Nony_Mouse wrote: »No doubt I'll get woo'd too, because I mentioned Lyle McDonald. Just to make sure though - diet breaks!!
I need some woos.
18 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though.
See, told ya I wasn't "up" on my Lyles! 0.5 to 0.75% would soundsgood to me!
My last full "Lyle book" read concerned protein sparing and modified thingies and was obviously aiming for inappropriately large deficits--not for me and for successful habit building.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though.
See, told ya I wasn't "up" on my Lyles! 0.5 to 0.75% would soundsgood to me!
My last full "Lyle book" read concerned protein sparing and modified thingies and was obviously aiming for inappropriately large deficits--not for me and for successful habit building.
Yes but that's a very specific protocol with a massive number of caveats around it.2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Also an owner of the very pink Wimmin's Book. I haven't played with the altering macros in relation to cycle phase stuff yet, because I'm doing a different protocol at the moment. Like the poster above, I sort of went 'holy crap!' at the carb recommendations, because it's way more than I usually eat (just because of the foods I tend to eat, not because carbs are da debil), but I'm willing to give it a go at some stage just to see what happens.
Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though. In pretty much all Lyle's general dieting recommendations, he builds things around a deficit based on weight/target weight loss per week, with 0.5%, 1% and 1.5% options. A 0.5% per week weight loss target is not aggressive. At my current weight, that's just over 0.7lbs per week, with a daily deficit of about 360 cals (I'm reading this directly from the handy chart on p. 69 of the book, my current weight is between two of the chart weights and I can't be bothered working out exact numbers). The deficit is only too steep if you choose one that's too steep, and obviously there is nothing to stop anyone calculating at an even smaller deficit if they wish. And there is an entire chapter on goal setting and choosing an appropriate deficit.
No doubt I'll get woo'd too, because I mentioned Lyle McDonald. Just to make sure though - diet breaks!!
Thank you for clarifying. I too have said pink book but have only just begun slogging my way through it.
I know Lyle has published several different diet books, but I was only aware of one that called for a steep deficit.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Also an owner of the very pink Wimmin's Book. I haven't played with the altering macros in relation to cycle phase stuff yet, because I'm doing a different protocol at the moment. Like the poster above, I sort of went 'holy crap!' at the carb recommendations, because it's way more than I usually eat (just because of the foods I tend to eat, not because carbs are da debil), but I'm willing to give it a go at some stage just to see what happens.
Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though. In pretty much all Lyle's general dieting recommendations, he builds things around a deficit based on weight/target weight loss per week, with 0.5%, 1% and 1.5% options. A 0.5% per week weight loss target is not aggressive. At my current weight, that's just over 0.7lbs per week, with a daily deficit of about 360 cals (I'm reading this directly from the handy chart on p. 69 of the book, my current weight is between two of the chart weights and I can't be bothered working out exact numbers). The deficit is only too steep if you choose one that's too steep, and obviously there is nothing to stop anyone calculating at an even smaller deficit if they wish. And there is an entire chapter on goal setting and choosing an appropriate deficit.
No doubt I'll get woo'd too, because I mentioned Lyle McDonald. Just to make sure though - diet breaks!!
Thank you for clarifying. I too have said pink book but have only just begun slogging my way through it.
I know Lyle has published several different diet books, but I was only aware of one that called for a steep deficit.
It's a pretty long slog! I'm still working my way through, but pick it up to look at specific things all the time. I've pretty much given up putting it back on the bookshelf, it just lives on the floor beside the sofa for easy access
And yeah, it's not cheap ($60USD for the hard copy), it's 400 pages, so...2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though. In pretty much all Lyle's general dieting recommendations, he builds things around a deficit based on weight/target weight loss per week, with 0.5%, 1% and 1.5% options. A 0.5% per week weight loss target is not aggressive.
While he does give examples for all three rates, he does suggest that cat 2 and cat 3 dieters use the 2 highest rates. For cat 3 and 2 dieters the 0.5% rate is listed as "probably too slow" and "possible" while the higher rates get a "yes" in his chart on rates vs. category. I followed the 1% recommendation which was in line with what he suggested for my weight category and I did find it agressive and not sustainable. I believe he described that rate as "moderate", though I don't seem to have that chart bookmarked.
You certainly can set a lighter deficit, but I tried it as recommended for my size. I'm 175-180 and cat 3.1 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though. In pretty much all Lyle's general dieting recommendations, he builds things around a deficit based on weight/target weight loss per week, with 0.5%, 1% and 1.5% options. A 0.5% per week weight loss target is not aggressive.
While he does give examples for all three rates, he does suggest that cat 2 and cat 3 dieters use the 2 highest rates. For cat 3 and 2 dieters the 0.5% rate is listed as "probably too slow" and "possible" while the higher rates get a "yes" in his chart on rates vs. category. I followed the 1% recommendation which was in line with what he suggested for my weight category and I did find it agressive and not sustainable. I believe he described that rate as "moderate", though I don't seem to have that chart bookmarked.
You certainly can set a lighter deficit, but I tried it as recommended for my size. I'm 175-180 and cat 3.
I lost most of my weight at less than 1% and I most certainly do not feel that it was slower than it should have been.
mind you I was not following a particular plan and re feeds and diet breaks were generally random in response to other events and not pre planned and structured!0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though. In pretty much all Lyle's general dieting recommendations, he builds things around a deficit based on weight/target weight loss per week, with 0.5%, 1% and 1.5% options. A 0.5% per week weight loss target is not aggressive.
While he does give examples for all three rates, he does suggest that cat 2 and cat 3 dieters use the 2 highest rates. For cat 3 and 2 dieters the 0.5% rate is listed as "probably too slow" and "possible" while the higher rates get a "yes" in his chart on rates vs. category. I followed the 1% recommendation which was in line with what he suggested for my weight category and I did find it agressive and not sustainable. I believe he described that rate as "moderate", though I don't seem to have that chart bookmarked.
You certainly can set a lighter deficit, but I tried it as recommended for my size. I'm 175-180 and cat 3.
Ah, okay. It is to some degree very individual, and I think Lyle would be the first to agree that if you find the suggested rate too difficult to adhere to then you should reduce it. Adherence trumps all.3 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Kind of perplexed at the statement about deficit being too steep though. In pretty much all Lyle's general dieting recommendations, he builds things around a deficit based on weight/target weight loss per week, with 0.5%, 1% and 1.5% options. A 0.5% per week weight loss target is not aggressive.
While he does give examples for all three rates, he does suggest that cat 2 and cat 3 dieters use the 2 highest rates. For cat 3 and 2 dieters the 0.5% rate is listed as "probably too slow" and "possible" while the higher rates get a "yes" in his chart on rates vs. category. I followed the 1% recommendation which was in line with what he suggested for my weight category and I did find it agressive and not sustainable. I believe he described that rate as "moderate", though I don't seem to have that chart bookmarked.
You certainly can set a lighter deficit, but I tried it as recommended for my size. I'm 175-180 and cat 3.
Oh, I meant to add math.. For 1% I'd be at a 900ish daily calorie deficit and for 1.5% I'd be at 1350 daily deficit. I'm also 20-25 lbs from the top of the normal weight range for my height (though I probably need to lose more to get the body fat % I want) for what that is worth.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions