Wow, so incredibly sorry for my opinion in a completely open forum on the internet.
Hurry! Back to science!
Good luck.
Printable View
Wow, so incredibly sorry for my opinion in a completely open forum on the internet.
Hurry! Back to science!
Good luck.
I think this whole thing is pretty pointless, so much randomness that it doesnt really show anything.
I would just like to point out that for a male your size, 1500 calories is below starvation. I wonder how great your health is and wonder if that has anything to do with your "epic fail".
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1015683]This is not spam. It is interesting information that clearly shows this person's experience documented very carefully. The fact that his experience, that a restricted calorie diet that has plenty of fat and protein works better than a restricted calorie diet of carbs, doesn't agree with the hack du jour doesn't make it spam.
And, as far as this being the "real" potato diet or not. Get over it folks. He was not willing to sacrifice his lovely muscles to do the "real" thing. I don't blame him. It would be a shame to waste abs like that.[/QUOTE]
psh, 4 days won't waste muscle so he'll continue being perv worthy for whoever wants to look
[QUOTE=pklopp;1015685]May I suggest that if you don't like what I post, then by all means feel free to not read it. This is especially true of threads that I start. By all means feel free to black list me.
And with respect to the "potato hack", I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean the approach where I eat an indiscriminate amount of calories from potatoes and then hold my breath waiting for results that may or may not materialize?
Perhaps you find the inclusion of protein objectionable, because that's like a potato magic antidote? Interesting, then, how this didn't seem to affect the results of the high fat, _same_ protein, low carbohydrate approach.
but, whatevs.
-PK[/QUOTE]
the potato hack thread otzi started specified potatoes and low/zero fat and sugar spicing for a few days. you added and took away from to do a personal study that can't be counted as a valid argument against it
[QUOTE=InSearchOfAbs;1015687]Wow, so incredibly sorry for my opinion in a completely open forum on the internet.
Hurry! Back to science!
Good luck.[/QUOTE]
Do you actually realize the irony of this statement when your last post was precisely to give me a rough time for stating "my opinion in a completely open forum on the internet." You are a hypocrite in the finest tradition.
I find it sad that you think "Back to science!" in some way constitutes an insult.
Back to the cave with you ... the shadows await.
-PK
[QUOTE=pklopp;1015700]Do you actually realize the irony of this statement when your last post was precisely to give me a rough time for stating "my opinion in a completely open forum on the internet." You are a hypocrite in the finest tradition.
I find it sad that you think "Back to science!" in some way constitutes an insult.
Back to the cave with you ... the shadows await.
-PK[/QUOTE]
I just find *you* sad.
WINNING
[QUOTE=Leida;1015657]Did you actually went [I]500 below BMR[/I], not below the whole energy expenditure including exercise? How did you estimate the BMR? I am just wondering because an almost a month on 0.75 BMR would have destroyed me mentally.
EDIT: Heck, a month AT BMR would have sent me to a suicide for that matter. On CW I was not digging in trash cans at BMR only because there was no tasty orange peel in the trash can to dig up and devour....[/QUOTE]
Well, I went to 1500 kcal. - 1600 kcal. and the BMR calculations are based on various model out there using my body weight, height, gender, age, etc. They tend to converge around 2000 kcal. as my BMR.
Now, the models are just that, models, they are not the real thing ( me ). So, I always take them with a grain of salt. One of my favourite sayings is "Believe the terrain, not the map." With that in mind, there is clearly something about my metabolism that conventional models fail to account for. This may have something to do with the fact that I've been intermittently fasting for years now, but I'm just speculating.
On the other hand, if you take a look at that thread here on MDA regarding gymnasts on ketogenic diets and their performance, you will see that they seem to be doing quite well on what nominally is a very restricted calorie diet. I suspect we've been grossly and systematically overestimating caloric requirements.
-PK
[QUOTE]Basic Parameters
Ensure a minimum intake of 1.5g of protein per kg of body weight
Only low fat protein sources: potatoes, egg whites, albacore tuna
Once protein requirements were met, consume only potatoes for remaining calories.
Consume 1500 kcal per day, 500 below BMR.
Evaluate progress after one week, continue for an additional week depending upon results[/QUOTE]
I don't believe you could consume 1.5g of protein per kilo of body mass and call your diet a potato one. There just ain't that much protein in a plain old potato. I agree with Bloodochid. I just don't see how your experiment counters Otzi's.
[QUOTE=InSearchOfAbs;1015687]Wow, so incredibly sorry for my opinion in a completely open forum on the internet.
Hurry! Back to science!
Good luck.[/QUOTE]There are things I'd like to say here, but I'm already on like my 5th warning from the mods. So instead here's ron paul with a pancake on his head
[img]http://www.faithmouse.com/ron_paul_pancake_head.jpg[/img]
This is interesting but says nothing about the efficacy of the all-potato diet, because you didn't [I]do[/I] the all-potato diet.
But still, cool that you were so scrupulous in studying the diet you formulated.
a person has to admire the graphs, at the very least ;)