• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

The one show discussion

Tannith said:
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?
Click to expand...
Something like this one you mean?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.21538
 
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.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
Is this two thirds of the calories, 2 thirds of the carbs, or two thirds of the portion sizes?
Click to expand...
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.
 
lucylocket61 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Not everyone has a large appetite to begin with. I never have over eaten. I eat the same amount now that I always have, just different food choices.
 
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!
 
lucylocket61 said:
whether or not you did overeat?
Click to expand...

Good point! My Resting Metabolic Rate is now about 1900 calories, if I do light exercise, that goes up to 2600. I have eaten much less than 1900 calories for ages, even if I cooked 3 meals a day, I would keep to less than 1900. Have I eaten more than my body uses? Obviously I must have done, I just can't work out what my BMR really is, it's not what the Harris Benedict formula say it is and it seems to keep changing anyway. For some reason my metabolism speeds up while on holiday so in my simple mind, that's the answer. Never going to happen though.
 
first14808 said:
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!
Click to expand...
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 take your point about eating wiser. I am eating more now than i ever did before, as non-carbs do not seem to put weight on me whereas even minimal carbs do, immaterial of the actual calorie content of them.
 
Indy51 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
Indy51 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very well said. And in addition to "If I did it, then anyone can" there also seems to be a lot of "If I did it, then it's the best way" and "If I didn't do what you're doing, then you're wrong".

I find myself very much in the middle ground in this thread. I've argued both in favour and against certain aspects of the ND, and I believe, with very good reason, based on evidence, or the lack of evidence which is extremely frustrating. I want to know how things work and I really don't care about taking sides.

I think the Biggest Loser study and how you interpret it is a good way to find out whether you have Diet Religion. The conclusion from that study is actually mixed. Yes, there was bad news in terms of resting metabolic rate reduction and weight regain at 6 years. But there was also good news in that the approach was actually rated to be more successful than many approaches.

It's definitely worth reading the last 3 paragraphs of the 'discussion' at the end of the Biggest Loser paper. In fact it's worth reading them twice. First from the perspective of being very cynical about crash diets, and the next time from the perspective of looking for their potential. Maybe even a third time, from the perspective of someone who just wants to understand how things work and isn't interested in taking sides:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.21538
 
@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.
 
zand said:
@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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Me too.
I also need to avoid / severely limit the major foods ( eggs, dairy and nightshade family vegetables ) which I have diagnosed intolerances to.
For me massive rapid and sustained weight loss ( 6.5 stone in 6 months) came 35+ years ago some 15 years prior to diabetes diagnosis & only came with getting intolerances diagnosed and treated. I remain 10 stone lighter than at my heaviest but have to watch calories, carbs and intolerances
 
Last edited:
Boo1979 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Tannith said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Any diet you like". If I choose to do the 800 calorie per day diet using fruit my liver may not necessarily shed much fat. Booze is full of empty calories and yet alcoholics, like my sister, don't fare well. You might think me facetious for making these remarks but my point is that I beleive that the source of calories is more important (especially for those of us with metabolic dysfunction) than the number of calories.
 
AdamJames said:
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.
Click to expand...
so do i , you are not alone : )))))
 
bulkbiker said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
I do think it’s also environmental. We have many more pollutants in our environment. That has to have an influence on our health.
Im trying to find the link to a study about plastics and how they can mess with hormones.
Ill add it when I find it.
 
Last edited:
Tannith said:
Very well done Paul. If someone so fat can do it, it bodes well for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Back
Top