Dr. Beth Westie
Replies
-
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 -
I would still personally adhere to no more than 20% of tdee / 25% if obese levels of energy reserves are present.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.
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.
I consulted the chart in the book Useful for those without it though! Agree that 900 is pretty steep (and 1.5% is 'shoot me now!!'. For me, 1% works out at around 700 cals a day. I was doing slightly higher than that this time last year, but with weekend refeeds (so I was basically following the Cat 1 recommendations on refeeds, but before the book came out, and at just above Cat 1, must be psychic!).
You mentioned sports performance in your first post, depending on what you do, that may be a factor as well.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.
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!
I'll point out that what the book says is that the dieter may feel the rate of loss at 0.5% is too slow - "Certainly a slow rate of loss is often superior for lean Category 1 women...,but the Category 2 and Category 3 female may find that slow rates of fat loss disappointing, compromising adherence".
And yes, regularly scheduled refeeds and diet breaks are an integral part of this. At my current size (Cat 2), if I were aiming for 1% per week I'd be doing a diet break every 8-12 weeks, and a two day refeed every 4 weeks, or one day every 2 weeks.1 -
Doh, meant to edit my previous post to point out in relation to the "too slow" perception that for anyone under 200lb 0.5% per week is less than one pound.
1 -
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.
That hug you got, it was from me. Woos be damned.
7 -
L1zardQueen 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.
That hug you got, it was from me. Woos be damned.
I'm choosing to laugh at the ridiculous uptick in woos on non woo-worthy posts (my total count has more than tripled in the past few weeks). I suspect someone(s) have an agenda...11 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »L1zardQueen 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.
That hug you got, it was from me. Woos be damned.
I'm choosing to laugh at the ridiculous uptick in woos on non woo-worthy posts (my total count has more than tripled in the past few weeks). I suspect someone(s) have an agenda...
I like them.3 -
I would still personally adhere to no more than 20% of tdee / 25% if obese levels of energy reserves are present.
I agree. I think this is more sustainable. And what I will be trying next.
However, to bring this back to hormones, Lyle's guidelines are based on what won't have (too large ) of an impact on hormones. More obese women can support a larger deficit without huge hormonal impact.
Refeeds help with leptin, ghrelin, as well as estrogen/etc. The fat macros help you maintain your cycle and the diet switches between more carb rich and more fat rich during the month to account for different insulin sensitivity as estrogen levels change.
I learned a lot from the book. But I thought it was fair to flag that I had problems with the diet and that it pretty easy to come up with fairly large deficits following the guidelines (depending on your starting weight, I guess). 1350 calories deficit daily is pretty close the calorie levels of his protein sparing modified fast for me.
1 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »That hug you got, it was from me. Woos be damned.
Which is where we go full circle of woo to where this reaction choice is *kittens* compared to a "disagree" button.
Because I can certainly see 6 people saying: "I disagree! You don't need to spend any money in order to lose weight! Are you trying to peddle a book for no reason?".
But my limited brain is failing to understand which part of my statement was off the wall "woo": "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"
So a woman who has a burning desire to spend money and is concerned with her fat levels ought to chose which non-woo book in the opinion of my 6 (at the time of writing) friends?6 -
This recent blog looks like pretty sound advice on hormones and eating
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/4-ways-to-optimize-your-hormonal-health-for-weight-loss/5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions