Something like this one you mean?They said nothing on the BBC programme about metabolism starting to slow. Prof Taylor said that if you follow his diet with eating two thirds of what you ate before you will maintain the weight loss. I did this and not only maintained the weight loss but have lost a further couple of pounds since I finished the diet at the turn of the year! Its a bit of a sweeping statement that "most people know" that its almost impossible''' "as your metabolism slows..." People often do start to regain but have you any proof that its to do with their metabolism slowing - at least for any length of time - or is this an urban myth? Perhaps its just that they return to their former eating habits?
eating two thirds of what you ate before you will maintain the weight loss.
doesnt this also depend on what amount you ate to start with and whether or not you did overeat?Is this two thirds of the calories, 2 thirds of the carbs, or two thirds of the portion sizes?
doesnt this also depend on what amount you ate to start with and whether or not you did overeat?
some of us have never overeaten and our weight gain was caused by other factors - a point which seems to get ignored by many. Its not all about food intake.
whether or not you did overeat?
my point was the assumption that some of us are fat and/or diabetic because we overeat, regardless of the composition of that food. Its not always true. Therefore decreasing our intake will not make us either lose weight or stop being diabetics, so the advice to eat less is not a cure all for all of us.I think it's about eating smarter, not necessarily eating less. So 100g of potato will provide around 17.5g of carbohydrate, whereas 100g of lettuce is 2.25g, or 6g for cabbage. But 100g of potato will look a lot smaller on a plate, and spike BG higher than an equivalent quantity of greens because they're usually harder to digest to get at the carb content than with starchy foods like spuds, rice, pasta etc.
So with the right ingredients, we can still load our plates and feel stuffed. And not be tempted to nab a few extra roasted spuds. Even (or especially) if they've survived long enough to get cold. And then there's the added temptation to slice those, slap'em on some bread with some cheese and sour cream and carb load even more. Not that I miss doing that. Not at all.
Ok, so cooking mostly for myself, I reduce temptation by not having those foods around. But the portion control is another overly generalised part of Eatwell, and may lead people back into bad eating habits because they don't feel full. I also think it's the same with the idea that you should weigh your food.. Especially as seeing the size of a carb-counted ingredient can be pretty depressing. Kind of like bread. So 1 slice could be 30g, which puts even a single open sandwich into becoming a main part of a low carb diet. Last weekend I had a pub roast dinner and impressed friends with the load on my plate. 'I though you were diabetic?'. Hold the spuds & carrots, check the gravy isn't thickened with starch and dig in & enjoy!
Hurrah! A comment on this thread that applies equally to strong advocates of all dietary approaches and therefore highlights the frequently unackowleged commonality between them, rather than arguing about the differencesJust an observation from 6 years of reading at various forums and other online resources. Diet fanaticism has a tendency to follow from one basic belief: "If I did it, then anyone can". It's absolute nonsense and anyone who falls into the trap of believing it, well, it says more about them than anybody else, JMO.
Just an observation from 6 years of reading at various forums and other online resources. Diet fanaticism has a tendency to follow from one basic belief: "If I did it, then anyone can". It's absolute nonsense and anyone who falls into the trap of believing it, well, it says more about them than anybody else, JMO.
@AdamJames The studies are fine as far as they go, but I think on an individual level there are too many variables to conclude whether one way or another is best for you. The only thing you can do is try one and see if it works. What works for me won't necessarily work for you and what worked for me yesterday doesn't work for me today because my body keeps adapting grrr.
Me too. I wish I knew for sure what my RMR was and why it changes and not necessarily with exercise.I need to calorie count even on LCHF, that seems to make me different from many people, but it is what it is.
We all saw the priest do it on the programme. Importantly, we saw his before and after pancreatic scans with the proviso from Prof Taylor that he wasn't quite there yet and needed another week or two on the diet as the filming wasn't quite long enough for his needs. He did lose the most amazing amount of weight though, in a relatively short time. And he mostly lost his diabetes. Very well done Paul. If someone so fat can do it, it bodes well for the rest of us. Incidentally Prof Taylor says you can do the ND with "any diet you like". The essence of it is not the shakes or any other particular diet but getting the fat off the liver and pancreas with a vlcd.You can choose whichever one suits you personally the best.Hurrah! A comment on this thread that applies equally to strong advocates of all dietary approaches and therefore highlights the frequently unackowleged commonality between them, rather than arguing about the differences
We all saw the priest do it on the programme. Importantly, we saw his before and after pancreatic scans with the proviso from Prof Taylor that he wasn't quite there yet and needed another week or two on the diet as the filming wasn't quite long enough for his needs. He did lose the most amazing amount of weight though, in a relatively short time. And he mostly lost his diabetes. Very well done Paul. If someone so fat can do it, it bodes well for the rest of us. Incidentally Prof Taylor says you can do the ND with "any diet you like". The essence of it is not the shakes or any other particular diet but getting the fat off the liver and pancreas with a vlcd.You can choose whichever one suits you personally the best.
so do i , you are not alone : )))))Yes I totally agree. You can use studies to argue for or against most things. All they do is help you build up a picture of how the universe works in general, and give you idea for what might work for you. Even in the biggest loser study, there was so much variation in such a small sample size that the clue is there: we are all different.
One thing that I've learned for sure about myself is that I need to calorie count even on LCHF, that seems to make me different from many people, but it is what it is.
While I agree that the way, what and how much we eat has changed in the last 50 years and this has caused an increase of Type 2.Problems with all this genetics stuff is it doesn't explain the sudden rise in obesity that we have seen over the last 50 years or so.
We had far fewer obese people 50-60 years ago and I'm pretty sure that genes don;t change that quickly so it has to be something that has changed in the period maybe with people being genetically more susceptible to it. Which brings us back to that old chestnut of food...
You are doing it again.... saying if Paul can do it the rest of us can. Not so. We are all different, what works for one won't work for another. Like I said earlier, I am pleased the ND worked for you, but It doesn't work for everyone. It's great that you are sharing your success but please don't think the ND will help everyone. Not sure why you think reversing diabetes is harder for someone 'so fat' either. Sounds like you are fat shaming Paul. It's wonderful that you have found what helps you but it would be good if you could be a little less evangelical/fanatical about it.Very well done Paul. If someone so fat can do it, it bodes well for the rest of us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?