That's why I find it very strange when posters seem to argue using reductio ad absurdum, and constantly claim
'you can't live on 800 calories forever' er, no, you don't need to, it's an 8 week diet
or 'you can't eat like you did before' er no, I ate as much as the rest of the family put together, the diet resets eating habits.
From the comments in this thread, while rapid weight loss certainly isn't for everyone it seems, it does seem effective to aid the reversal of diabetes, and it seems those who have reversed it can indeed eat a normal diet again.
I never feel hungry, and have to remind myself to eat. Like @zand my weight loss stopped soon after starting LCHF, and I havent lost any more weight for nearly 8 months now. Definitely not overeating, snacking, grazing or anything else, and counting calories as well as low carbing.
Maybe it's an alternative starvation mode?
If you never feel hungry, the body doesn't realise it needs to start to burn fat.
So it starts to switch to starvation mode, you don't feel hungry, and even if you don't eat, you don't lose weight?
Maybe that's why shaking a diet up can have a dramatic affect on kickstarting weight loss again, and why I always lose weight by calorie reduction, as I can always eat, and never see starvation mode, no matter how little I eat on a diet.
Have to disagree with you there.. fasting for a few days with no food seems to have the effect of a slight boost in basal metabolic rate according to Dr Fung whereas calorie restriction for extended periods does indeed seem to lower the BMR the dreaded "starvation effect" as evidenced by the "biggest loser" winners who nearly all turned back into the biggest gainers for this exact reason.You do realise that fasting is a severe calorie restriction which messes up some people metabolism, dont you?
Thanks @Brunneria I should have done that myself.here's that link, in case anyone needed to know what BB is talking about
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/biggest-loser-diet-explained/
(I just like dropping this link in at every opportunity, because it illustrates that 'eat less move more' is a nonsense as a long term weight loss tool.)
Maybe it's an alternative starvation mode?
If you never feel hungry, the body doesn't realise it needs to start to burn fat.
So it starts to switch to starvation mode, you don't feel hungry, and even if you don't eat, you don't lose weight?
Maybe that's why shaking a diet up can have a dramatic affect on kickstarting weight loss again, and why I always lose weight by calorie reduction, as I can always eat, and never see starvation mode, no matter how little I eat on a diet.
Not rocket science but for some other factors come in to play. Hormones and stress make a big diffence.If you're low carbing and not losing weight then you're eating too much.... Its not rocket science, burn more than you're consuming and weight loss will follow, basic biology.
If you're low carbing and not losing weight then you're eating too much.... Its not rocket science, burn more than you're consuming and weight loss will follow, basic biology.
Yes, the calories in/ calories out theory has been heavily challenged recently..Not as simple as that, I am afraid. Basic biology doesn't cover the myriad hormone 'stuff' that many on this forum live with on a daily basis.
Yes, it really is that simple. It may not work as effectively in all people but basic biology applies even if to a lesser degree.Not as simple as that, I am afraid. Basic biology doesn't cover the myriad hormone 'stuff' that many on this forum live with on a daily basis.
Yes, it really is that simple. It may not work as effectively in all people but basic biology applies even if to a lesser degree.
Ultimately, over time, you will lose weight regardless and that cannot be argued with.
There is a fine line, that of course is individual to each person, finding it is the challenge.
For me, weight loss stalls if I eat twice a day, once a day and I lose quickly.
Yes, it really is that simple. It may not work as effectively in all people but basic biology applies even if to a lesser degree.
Ultimately, over time, you will lose weight regardless and that cannot be argued with.
There is a fine line, that of course is individual to each person, finding it is the challenge.
For me, weight loss stalls if I eat twice a day, once a day and I lose quickly.
I don't really understand why the personal comments and stereotyping just because I'm not over weight and male.... Completely unnecessary.No, it really isn't that simple.
Although, if your avatar is a photo of yourself, I can understand why you believe this.
Most of the people on the forum who support your ideas the most vociferously are male, not too overweight, with un-messed up hormones.
Those of us who have learned through bitter, ongoing, personal experience that such simplistic ideas do not fit the wide variety of different things that can contradict your belief system, are often female, with messed up hormones.
Thank you for this link, @Brunneria - that's really, really valuable information and illustrates perfectly why so very many people struggle having followed - with all good health intentions - this decades-long prescriptive advice.here's that link, in case anyone needed to know what BB is talking about
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/biggest-loser-diet-explained/
(I just like dropping this link in at every opportunity, because it illustrates that 'eat less move more' is a nonsense as a long term weight loss tool.)
Then we'll have to agree to differ.... If you starve yourself you will lose weight, I know I've been there and speak from experience. It is impossible to sustain weight without nutrition.@Jamesuk9 I'm sorry but it's also offensive to say weightloss is as simple as calories in /calories out. It isn't.
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?