[QUOTE]i find it extremely hard to believe that eating vegetables ALONE will make u fat. You are obviously eating some form of added protein. [/QUOTE]
I agree.... I eat protein and fats with my veggies.... that I weigh, measure and track.
I imagine if I just ate veggies and fruit, I'd be hungry and not very productive.
To repair damage though is simple, unicorn steaks, fried in coconut oil with bullet proof coffee, at exactly 9 am, 1pm and 5pm everyday. This is up-regulate your gulibitate and regulate your sceptiod receptiors, you will then after 3 weeks need 3,000 kcals a day to maintain body weight never get ill, have boundless energy, be irristable to the oposite(and the same) sex and people with throw money and flowers at you in the street.
Shit...I knew I hadn't been doing it right. Grass fed Unicorn quite hard to come by in Australia. But grain fed fried in coconut oil should be just as good.
Me eat meat and plants when stomach hurt.
What to do when hungry?
First, kill meat.
Then, make fire, cook meat
Put plant on fire too.
Eat meat and plants until stomach full.
Wash down with water.
Repeat next time hungry.
[QUOTE=cori93437;914108]That statement is absolutely completely ridiculously FALSE. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
I am fat adapted. I have eaten primally for 8 months and gained 5kg, eating less calories than I was eating on conventional wisdom. I cannot stuff myself with high fat foods without gaining weight. I avoid nuts for that very reason. I have recently had to cut out bacon and sausage for the same reason.
I am active, lean, I lift heavy and move often, but after wrecking my metabolism with an ED I am stuffed. And not with primal foods. This is three meals a day, no snacks. I have gained from slightly underweight to now within the healthy range, but if I were to eat fatty food till I was full and couldn't eat anymore, I'd be tipping the scale the the other way in a few months. I am shocked at how easily a high fat primal diet has brought on a (needed) weight gain. I have reached a weight which is acceptable to me now, but if I don't want it to creep up anymore I will have to guard my fat intake very, very carefully. And that is how it is, for so many other women on this forum.
[QUOTE=magnolia1973;914109]I agree.... I eat protein and fats with my veggies.... that I weigh, measure and track.
I imagine if I just ate veggies and fruit, I'd be hungry and not very productive.[/QUOTE]
Well I believe that you do your best to monitor your food, eat primal and you weigh, track your food etc. It might just be something that hasn't been discovered yet that is causing you not to lose. I am friends with a few female "tortured" and "intense" artists types who ONLY subsist on vegetables (A LOT of veggies) and they are beyond ridiculously (although they don't look bad) skinny, they have really great skin and shiny healthy hair so i don't think they are lacking vitamins....maybe they take multivits...who knows...anyway my point was I just can't believe that eating only vegetable will make anyone fat.
[B]Anyone[/B] that eats a primal diet of high-quality, nutrient dense foods, including a way-higher-than average amount of fat, can literally stuff themselves and still lose weight. There really is only so much full fat real food you can eat before you really can't eat any more, whereas carbs are ridiculously easy to overeat.
Horse puckey. That may have been your experience but it wasn't mine.
[QUOTE=StackingPlates;913910]Ah, Napoleon Dynamite...such a special place in my heart.
Use Katch-McArdle and buy a BodyBugg, if desired, for cross reference. They will likely be pretty close (~5% if I recall off the top of my head). I would be willing to bet that a lot of folks severely underestimate their TDEE on here...
This should get you a baseline for testing. Adjust +/- as required...[/QUOTE]
Discovering Katch-McArdle made so much more sense to me when I wondered why I was able to eat a lot more food and still lose. I have a fair bit of lean mass (~20% bodyfat now) and a higher activity level, and between understanding how LBM was affecting my BMR and then noting the relationship over the years between my activity levels and weight, I now have a better grasp of what works for me.
For me, activity is the vital piece of the puzzle. I know that the general idea is that you can't exercise yourself thin, but I think some people are more metabolically sensitive to activity than others might be. I seem to get results from exercise that are more than one would expect from the calories that are supposedly burned during a given activity, and any time I've become more sedentary--the year I trashed my leg, for example--I've gained a lot of weight even if I've also eaten less. During my most active periods, I've been able to put down 3000+ calories per day and not gain, which is sort of outrageous for a woman.
I'm curious if anyone is aware of research on this particular area? I'm aware of the general stats quoted (diet is 80% of weight loss, etc.) but wonder if there's anything looking at variations in exercise response and fat loss.
[QUOTE=emmie;911682]I would also like to point out that even when there ARE medical issues involved, weight loss depends on caloric deficit.
I was morbidly obese my entire life (from early childhood), and after menopause, I seriously lost weight (almost 200 lbs) and am a 'normal' weight for the first time in my life at age 70.
I began eating low carb because I happen to be extremely sensitive to carbs, and I cut calories enough to lose slowly. I knew from experience that I had to watch both carbs and calories. I had already developed a goiter, but my primary physician kept assuring me that I had no thyroid problems.
I lost my first 80 lbs while hypothyroid and with escalating symptoms. It was only when I was too fatigued to complete a work day that I self-referred to an endo and was medicated appropriately. My slow thyroid simply meant that I ate fewer calories than someone else my size in order to lose. It did not prevent weight loss.
When I got down to 250 lbs, I plateaued, and I realized that I needed to cut calories further--to <1000 a day. I thought this might be 'too low' (scared by the Internet claim that no one should eat under 1200 cal), and I talked to my endo about it. He agreed that not only was I post-menopausal and hypothyroid, two things that tend to slow the metabolism, but he suspected that I have a 'genetically slow metabolism.' He not only told me that he thought about 900 cal would be 'right' for me, he has patients who can only lose on about 750 cal a day because of medical issues.
In any case, I lost the next 100 lbs eating about 900 cal a day. Since I lost steadily at only about one pound a week, clearly my deficit wasn't too large. Now I can maintain at about 1,100 cal daily. Interestingly, my 'head' would love more food, but my body is totally satisfied at this level.
I suspect that many overweight people imagine that they'll 'starve' if they eat less because they've learned to override their body's satiety signals. Mine were so repressed I didn't notice them at all.
Yes, I ate the 'right stuff'--focusing always on sufficient protein and whole foods--but I could not lose eating that way without a caloric deficit. And I couldn't use anyone else's 'number'--everyone has to find his or her own deficit level.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that comment. I've been reading a lot over the Internet about not going less than 1200 and if not losing to eat more.
Paleobird did you immediately eat 1500 at maintenance without any weight gain. Lots of talk that if you eat very low calorie you have to eat that way for life. If you up calories at maintenance will just gain.
Also the eat more to lose say you should be losing weight slowly not eating less than BMR. It could take months of patience before you see any weight loss. Lots of concern about rate of loss and that slower is always better??
[QUOTE=Sue;914194]Paleobird did you immediately eat 1500 at maintenance without any weight gain. [B]Lots of talk that if you eat very low calorie you have to eat that way for life. If you up calories at maintenance will just gain.[/B]
Also the eat more to lose say you should be losing weight slowly not eating less than BMR. It could take months of patience before you see any weight loss. Lots of concern about rate of loss and that slower is always better??[/QUOTE]
"Lots of talk", that's what it is. To a sugar burning metabolism, yes, I can see why the yo-yo effect happens the minute the "diet" restrictions are lifted. If you are fat adapted and just eat a little more gradually, you figure out what is your new maintenance level. This is not a "diet" that then goes out the window the minute the pounds are off. The changes in the way of eating are permanent.
Losing weight slowly is a good thing. But you have to eat under BMR numbers to lose anything. The thing is that the BMR chart numbers are pretty useless. BMR formulas are only a place to start. They have to be tailored for the individual.
And I did have patience. For months. And gained weight. I cut the portions down and the weight fell off.