- Messages
- 5,540
- Type of diabetes
- Type 2
- Treatment type
- Diet only
Dr Gary Fettke posted this on Twitter not long ago.
Brilliant!
Brilliant!
Because 90% of people who undertake a calorie controlled diet end up the same or heavier afterwards.Watch the calories? Why is it a lie? I don't understand
Have a look at this old thread of mine. I lost more weight in 5 days consuming 2300 calories than in a month consuming 1000 calories. For anyone who is fat because they are insulin resistant calories are largely irrelevant, it's carbs that matter.Watch the calories? Why is it a lie? I don't understand
Calories came from the food and slimming marketing camp and are essentially irrelevant in the context of what you eat. It's bad science as the body isn't a test furnace. Forget them and focus on controlling carbs and then the other main food groups. Fat has twice the calorific value than carbs but has far less effect on weight gain and BS than carbsWatch the calories? Why is it a lie? I don't understand
I think its 2/3 from memory on ND sounds like a recipe for long term hunger to me.Calories do matter.....to those whose markets rely on them. A traditional calorie controlled diet can reduce insulin resistance and improve diabetes; however there is a big BUT. Your "set" point is lowered, which in simplistic terms means that if you maintained weight eating 2000 calories prior to the calorie restriction, once the weight is lost you must likely will have to drop the same meals prior eaten to around 1800 - 1850 calories to maintain the weight loss - usually the individuals metabolic rate drops, and this gets worst the more diets are attempted. There is a potential further complication in that calorie restricted diets tend to be low fat and high carb, which for many means hunger
On the low calorie Newcastle diet, Professor Taylor says that a less food is to be consumed (from memory about 75% of the original), alongside exercise to maintain weights loss and blood glucose control. LCHF relies on the fat and adequate protein to fill you up in place of starchy carbs which ultimately increase hunger.
Happy to be corrected, I knew it was significant, but that is worse. I will give Professor Taylor props as he has been upfront about this and the need to exercise. When I found out about the ND diet I was all in, until the requirement to eat less and the MBR slow down, so this became something in the arsenal (for others), but for me, well behind LCHF/ Keto / Fasting and exercise.I think its 2/3 from memory on ND sounds like a recipe for long term hunger to me.
Once you get to a "certain age" calories count (blast it).I agree with it all except the calories matter, - they do at least to me, I have to watch the calories- I maybe a freak but it's true for me, BUT if you eat good natural food cooked from scratch you can get a hell of a lot of food for 1200 calories- including plenty of fat.
It's pretty much turned out that way for me in maintenance. It was a huge step putting the scale away and trusting my appetite to tell me what to do. Surprisingly it seems to work, even when I did my double usual intake of saturated fat for the Cholesterol Code experiment. My body seems to have found its "sweet spot" and I'm sooooo grateful for thatCalories seem to matter to me - but only if they are carb calories.
Protein and fat calories are Freeeeeeeeee (so long as I don't mix them with those dratted carbs)
So why not just think carbs and forget calories?Calories seem to matter to me - but only if they are carb calories.
Protein and fat calories are Freeeeeeeeee (so long as I don't mix them with those dratted carbs)
So why not just think carbs and forget calories?