Egg Fast Fail

(Empress of the Unexpected) #12

107 pounds. High school weight.

(MooBoom) #13

That’s awesome it’s worked for you, but it’s important to recognise that’s also your individual n=1.
@Bibi doesn’t seem to be having much luck using calorie restriction as a tool- but then again those last few pounds do tend to stubbornly hang around! We all have to find what works for us.

(Empress of the Unexpected) #14

We all have to watch what we eat!

(Little Miss Scare-All) #15

107 pounds. Kindergarten weight.

Jk. I wasn’t that big in kindergarten. The last time I was 107lbs was definitely elementary school, embarassingly enough.:frowning_face:

(Bunny) #16

…why won’t it?

That’s why I love observing people’s dependence on that calorie macro counting thing or what ever the whatchamacallit is?

The so called laws of thermodynamics will run into a problem if it becomes not so thermodynamic anymore?

Variable switching from electrical to mechanical, to chemical within the human body; it’s not all that electrical as we would like to make it out to be when measuring the energy units in foods, it then becomes not so thermal without a wick on which a fire can burn?

(MooBoom) #17

Yes, @PaulL has very eloquently answered this on many occasions but yet- it persists! So here is his excellent explanation again :slight_smile:

(Alec) #18

Horse. Dead. Flog.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #19

There is this researcher, Stephen Phinney, M.D., Ph.D., who set out, many years ago, to prove Dr. Atkins wrong. Lo! and behold, he ended up discovering the biochemical basis for the Atkins diet. He even coined the term “nutritional ketosis,” to distinguish this healthy state of the body from diabetic ketoacidosis.

I discovered his lectures early on—they are part of the reason I went keto in the first place—because he gets invited to events sponsored by Low Carb Down Under (Dr. Rod Taylor from Australia and Dr. Jeffrey Gerber from the U.S.), and they put Dr. Phinney’s lectures up on their YouTube channel. Dr. Phinney explains a ketogenic diet much better than I can, and backs up every word with a reference to a scientific study. Anyone who wants to understand how the body responds to food would do well to start by watching a lecture by Dr. Phinney and checking out the studies he links to.

The saddest part about the whole thing is the fact that we need research by people like Dr. Phinney, in order to prove that eating the way our ancestors evolved to eat over a two-million-year period isn’t going to kill us.

(Alec) #20

But Paul, there’s no money in it. The status quo has lots of money in it… :rage::face_with_symbols_over_mouth:

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #21

Truer words . . . :sob:

(hottie turned hag) #22

You and I are on one end of the bell curve a bit in that we’re so small (and in my case also sedentary) we really can do well (lose or maintain) on 800 or 1000 cals. I get what you’re saying because I too live it X55 years. Now some days I may have 3000 cal intake but then not eat for 48h or have only 200 next few days so averages out to p low over several days.

We don’t experience metabolic slowdown as another may on such low cals; goes to my statement I just happened to make -post- before seeing this post, about how highly individualized biochemistry is.

(Jennibc) #23

If you are going to restrict calories you can NOT do it everyday or your resting metabolic rate will slow. I think that when we get close to goal, we do need to start paying closer attention to intake vs. just macros - I was sitting about 12-14 pounds above goal for almost 3 months. Started paying closer attention to calories (which of course some people on here condemn but it’s working for me) and am now only 7 pounds above goal about five weeks later. That said, I eat lower calories one day and jump right back up to the roughly 1800 I was eating when I stalled. I wasn’t counting necessarily but that is what my body naturally settled at. So one day 1200-1300 the next day 1800, the following back to 1200-1300 and then 1800 and so on and so on. The hope is that my body won’t then adjust to the lower calorie level.

I’d decided to do that when I went and got my resting metabolic rate tested several weeks ago. It was slow - probably because of the severe calorie restriction I’d done over the years TRYING to drop weight but not being very successful. The woman testing it at the university where I had it done was a nutritionist and recommended I drop to 1100 a day. Nope! Not a chance.

(Cristian Lopez) #24

Just do regular fasting?

(Jennibc) #25

That’s fine if your body can manage it, but the most I can do is about 20 hours without food. I am middle aged and am still recovering from surgery.

(Empress of the Unexpected) #26

There must be some difference between trying to drop calories and feeling full on fewer. I agree if I started intentionally restricting now it would be bad news, but since I’ve always filled up around 1100 max I don’t think that would be a problem.

(traci simpson) #27

I’ve never been able to drop calories and be full.

(Empress of the Unexpected) #28

I worded that soooo badly! I meant to say that it is probably a bad thing to intentionally reduce calories, but, for instance, I have never been a big eater, so my caloric intake would be considered reduced by some, yet for me, it keeps me full. Does that make sense?

(Paulene ) #29

Perhaps this explains why people on a very low calorie diet for weight loss usually experience a slowing of metabolism, whereas people who have a very low calorie diet as a result of gastric bypass surgery do not experience a drop in metabolism.

(Empress of the Unexpected) #30

That makes a lot of sense.

(Tracy) #31

I’m confused about when to fast. Is fasting used to break a stall or does fasting or not eating enough calories cause your body to hold on to fat?