New to this and loving it but

(Terence Dean) #124

Well its not confusing for me because I’ve already read other articles on keto about creating a deficit to lose weight but I assume this first column is for a 200lb person who is already fat adapted. Even if you were fat adapted you’d still need to make sure you don’t go below the 1400, in this case, with the rest of your macros.

I personally agree with the argument that the CICO model is not good because I’ve done that 3 times and failed, actually got down to my goal weight every time but when I got there naturally I was so deprived and starving that I went back to my old ways and soon stacked it all back on again. CICO does get the weight off but it is very difficult not to cheat, binge eat, and you are starving all the time. I had no clue it was the carbs and the subsequent sugar addiction that was inhibiting my chances of keeping it off. Keto is just so much better, besides the health benefits, due to the lack of hunger.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #125

It’s total rubbish in the context of dieting to lose weight, because the hormones stimulated by the food we eat determine how much of what we eat gets stored and how much gets metabolized, as well as determining whether any excess fat stored in the adipose tissue gets released to be metabolized.

Think of it this way: does a ravening teenager grow to adult stature because he or she eats too much, or does he or she eat so much in order to fuel growth under the stimulus of hormones? We know without having to think about it that the growth spurt is the cause of the eating, not the other way round.

The hormonal model of weight gain and loss applies the same thinking to fat accumulation in adulthood: it is because their hormones are causing them to increase their fat store that fat people eat so much; eating too much is not the reason for the weight gain. It is in this particular sense that we say that CICO is rubbish.

If anyone gives you any guff about the laws of thermodynamics, just tell them that these laws apply only in a closed system, and the human body is not a closed system.

(karen) #126

–Thermodynamics lady waving madly :hugs: –

JK. No thermodynamics today. I see what @MonkeyNuts is objecting to - this chart is 100% CICO, down to the math, saying create a calorie deficit of 1400 calories a day via a low calorie diet + a Lot of exercise - which is basically the opposite of what’s ordinarily suggested here, especially if you want to a. keep the weight off, b. burn fat instead of cannibalizing muscle, and c. not go into a metabolic slowdown.

(Terence Dean) #127

You’ve got to remember that carbs in this instance are even more restricted than the maintenance example (35g/day) and as Phinney explains you need to get your body’s daily requirement from somewhere, upping the protein is not viable although it appears you can increase it a bit but effectively all the rest of the calories needed would need to come from fat. You cant reduce carbs by much to cause an effective deficit because you’ve got nothing to reduce essentially so it must come from protein or fat. Obviously not good to reduce protein too far so that leaves fat as the only macro where you can reduce calories.

You guys are looking at this table wrong (in my opinion), given that the 200lb guy’s total calorie expenditure is 2800, for him to maintain zero weight gain/loss he would need to have his intake at 2800. That’s my take but I could be wrong!

I’ve played this video several times and learn something from it every time.

(Terence Dean) #128

Not necessarily exercise per se, I’ve worked in manually intensive, heavy lifting jobs where you are in a constant sweat all day, and you need a lot of calories and water to cope with the workload. You just wouldn’t last half a day on low calories.

But then I’ve also worked in Office and IT environments where you sit down all day and barely move except between your desk and the coffee machine. Two totally different daily calorie requirements but the same size body. Guess what happens?

(Aimee Moisa) #129

Not exactly PLAIN English. There is an Aussie on the podcast after all. :wink:

(Bubba) #130

Thank you Karen, that’s exactly what I was trying to say :grin:

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #131

You are right, but with a caveat:

As I recall, Dr. Phinney’s point in showing this table is to illustrate how, if one eats fat to satiety, calorie-counting is unnecessary. In the “induction” phase, he says, people with stored fat spontaneously limit themselves to a calorie level where much of their daily energy expenditure comes from the adipose tissue. In the “adaptation” phase, by continuing to eat fat to satiety, they automatically raise their fat calories to compensate for the body’s reduced fat store. And in the “maintenance” phase, they have lost all their excess body fat, so all their daily energy needs come from the food they eat. And all without evern needing to count calories.

As he points out in the lectures where he shows those slides, the amounts are made up and are there simply to illustrate the natural progression when eating fat to satiety.

(Terence Dean) #132

Yes, yes, yes! Took me a while to understand what is really meant by eating fat to “satiety”. By his own admission many people new to Keto have a major problem bringing themselves to eat so much fat, after-all, we’ve been brainwashed to think that fat is BAD.

A lot of people have visions of needing to chew on huge lumps of lard but it need not be that bad as he points out when he brings out his little bottle of olive oil which conveniently hold 700 calories, squirt that on the salad or whatever and instant fat injection.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #133

Yikes! I could never do that! (Though I have been known to eat lumps of butter and to drink the bacon juice . . . . )

(karen) #134

Well true it is all relative. For me, 2800 calories is about double what my body ordinarily burns, so either 10 hours of ditch digging or an entire day in the gym. Basically, the way I interpret the chart, he’s saying in the adapting phase eat 1400 calories and burn off 2800, which is pretty extreme, whether on the intake for someone who’s big and busy, or the output for someone who’s small and ordinarily sedentary.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #135

Forgive a small correction: Dr. Phinney is not saying “eat 1400 calories during the adaptation phase,” nor is he saying, “Everyone uses 2800 calories a day”—he’s saying “Eat fat to satiety,” and using three charts of completely made-up numbers to illustrate how eating fat to satiety works. The point is that by eating fat to satiety, you automatically give your body the amount of energy it needs you to give it, at every step of your keto journey—no need to count a calorie or to try to figure out what your TEE is.

(karen) #136

Apologies, I didn’t delve, just skimmed the table, which taken out of context appears to advocate extreme calorie deficit.

(Terence Dean) #137

I’m averaging 3lbs a week weight loss and have been doing so for nearly 10 weeks, I can tell you for sure that I’m not eating less than 1400 calories/day and my exercise is moderate (20 mins walking x 2). I don’t care that much about tracking figures too accurately, I tend to do what works and then modify from there up or down. I think its a very individual thing with calories, I agree with Paul those numbers could be fake.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #138

Not a problem. I just wanted to make sure people understood what Dr. Phinney was getting at, because the charts make more sense in the context of the lecture that they are taken from. And it was only in the lecture that he said the numbers were made up, for the sake of convenience. Unless you had seen the lecture, you couldn’t have known.

(Bubba) #139

I wanted to ask a couple of things that have been puzzling me please, if anyone can she’d any light…

  1. Cheating/falling off the wagon, not that I’m intending to, but it just made me question that if youre trying to get fat adapted, does cheating like start you back at square one for this process?
    Also, if you are already fat adapted, would cheating prevent this being the case anymore?
  2. I’ve read in different articles not to go below a certain number of calories, as it would lower the metabolic rate, fat adapted or not. If fasting, won’t this affect the metabolism and do precisely that?
    Someone relieve my curiosity please!:grin:
#140

Great questions! Here’s my understanding.

Excess carb intake (cheating) will have a more deleterious effect early on when your body isn’t fat-adapted, but once it is, it can withstand the extra carbs from time to time. Just as it takes time for the body’s cells to begin to prefer fat/ketones, it takes longer than one or two cheat meals to change that preference back. That said, frequent cheats will set you back.

Fasting is different because of the hormonal response to severe restriction of food. Hormones like epinephrine and norepinephrine increase and stay increased for the duration of the fast, preventing metabolic rate from decreasing substantially. Jason Fung’s talks at the Low Carb Down Under conferences (on YouTube) are great for details on this.

(karen) #141

Yes, I think the quick n dirty was that if the body perceives that There Is No Food, it maintains or even raises metabolic rate - presumably so we can go out and find some food - whereas if there is a reduced amount of food, the body compensates with a shrug - ok, that’s all we got, we’ll make do.

(Bubba) #142

Thank you, makes perfect sense!

Now, I’ve woken up feeling really p*ssed off…I’m now like almost 6wks in and the same small weight loss goes on, comes off, goes on, comes off! Ok so instead I then check measurements and no change from day 1 - what, what, what am I doing wrong??? Honestly can someone please tell me where I’m going wrong?

Here’s what I ate yesterday;

Breakfast
1 avocado, mini pepperami

Lunch
Chicken and mayo

Dinner
3 eggs, butter, parmesan, pepperami and mayo

1600 cals, salt and 1/4 teaspoon of lo-salt
Carbs 7g (2%) Fat 144g (82%) Protein 66g (16%)

Anything glaringly obvious? I’m keeping to my calories, percentages and not going over the protein limit for my body. I’m feeling so defeated, I know we’re all different but a month and a half…something should be happening? I’d appreciate any help, thanks😢

(Ron) #143

Yes, this-

Stress will cause weight loss to stall or stop. It took me 10 weeks to become adapted before ever losing any weight aside from the beginning water weight the first week. It takes time for the body to heal years of damage done from years of misguided eating. Patience grasshopper.:wink:
I don’t remember your stats but 1600 seems way low and if you have been eating at that level since the beginning you have slowed everything down drastically and sabotaged yourself and hindered the processes.:frowning:
What are your stats?