The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 36

[StackingPlates]

Without trying to downplay the severity of your food related issues (actually have no idea what they are), you are comfortable mandating this diet to everyone - including those who have no food related issues?

[Nady]

Without trying to downplay the severity of your food related issues (actually have no idea what they are), you are comfortable mandating this diet to everyone - including those who have no food related issues?

I don't mandate anything. I've been married for 45 years to a man that still eats his Cheetos and cookies every day. Lucky him, his system can handle it. Mine can't. To say that PB isn't valid because it offers you no improvement in health is pointless to those of us who have already tried it your way for years. Kind of a *been there, done that, have the scars* sort of thing, KWIM?

[magnolia1973]

It's interesting that all that is thrown out to solve obesity is cut calories/ exercise.

I feel like raising/healing your metabolism is seldom considered beyond exercise (which I think does less than people think). When you are fat... you don't really want to mess around with eating more and risking gaining weight.

[Neckhammer]

Stacking looks to be a young healthy guy. Getting across preventative change to a fellow like that is damn near impossible. What is he to expect from changing what he does? If you already feel good and are in relatively good health....well its not going to take you from there to being superhuman. You have to be able to see the wide and long view.

[joe2.0]

this fear of sugar stuff is quite mind numbing. you did not do any permanent damage in those last 2 weeks. if anything, thats the most nourishing 2 weeks you have had in a long time. most of the 5 pound gain was glycogen/water weight.

Yeah, ice cream and candy are optimal nourishment...You don't really believe that do you? Incredibly irresponsible nonsense.

[paleo-bunny]

Without trying to downplay the severity of your food related issues (actually have no idea what they are), you are comfortable mandating this diet to everyone - including those who have no food related issues?

This is a fair point.

I have food related issues (an intolerance to various lectins) so I avoid the foods in question, or eat them in moderation. Just because I can't tolerate tomatoes it doesn't follow that I believe that everyone should avoid them.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with eating moderate amounts of safe starch (e.g. white rice), as I've never been insulin resistant. So I don't need to eat low carb as some do. I've eaten low sugar and low glycaemic index for ages and been active most of the time, and that's helped keep me insulin sensitive. It saddens me that so few people here understand the differences between starch and sugar.

[Leida]

It was not nourishing, but after I was sick, first I could only eat bread (which I happily stop doing the moment I could keep down other foods), and then I couldn't resist tasting treats of my childhood that I haven't seen for 15 years, and will not taste again. It was not the right thing to do, but it will come off, by obvious reasons, all of it, or some of it. High blood sugar was the only abnormal blood test I had, and my thyroid never returned as abnormal. In Canada, nobody is going to give you some ultra-customized blood testing, lol. I have serious doubts that I ever underate in my life for long time, because my appetite always makes me eat more than I was aiming at, and in my entire adult life, I probably had like a week of eating less than 1000 calories a day. Just can't. And I would love to stop eating fruit because when I manage to go on meat and vegetables alone, I ended up not hungry and full of energy. (Shrug). I dunno, I feel like I have a reasonable plan, eating whole foods, fermented dairy, whey protein, with legumes and no grains, and good oils and cutting out fruit as much as I can. Not paleo or primal, by any stretch of imagination, unfortunately, but I think it's good enough.

[labmonkey]

Yup. But by continuing to restrict more and more the individual ends up doing even more harm to their metabolism. They force their body to conform to 1000 calories, when they could be burning 1600 while losing weight. And then they blame a "slow metabolism" for their inability to eat a higher intake because they'll "gain weight" immediately.

It's simply flawed logic.

Paleobird, can you comment on this? This is what you did, right? And it worked and you are maintaing at 1500 now..soo

I don't need to go that low but, if I wanna lose the last 10 I probably have to hit 1300-1400. I'm maintaining right now and I'm sure it's 1600-1800..depending on the day.

[Paleobird]

Paleobird, can you comment on this? This is what you did, right? And it worked and you are maintaing at 1500 now..soo

I don't need to go that low but, if I wanna lose the last 10 I probably have to hit 1300-1400. I'm maintaining right now and I'm sure it's 1600-1800..depending on the day.

Sure. Well, first of all, my special snowflake metabolism is 50 years old, post menopausal, and taking some medications for epilepsy.
So, don't take my numbers as gospel any more than the official chart's numbers. You need to find your own.

The idea that cutting and cutting calories damages the metabolism I think comes from people with sugar burning metabolisms. It is incredibly stressful on a sugar burner to go without food (shaky dizzy, lethargy, etc.). People who have transitioned to being what Mark calls a fat burning beast are not damaged by calorie restriction at all. Burning your own body fat gives the metabolism a nice tasty snack to go along with the lower levels of dietary calories, so there is no damage.

This was the way we survived famines for millions of years. It's a natural process.

The modern day famine is a Weight Watchers diet which just gives you smaller portions of "all the foods you love". It gives you enough sugar/carbs to keep you in sugar burning mode and low enough calories to keep you miserable. This kind of calorie restriction done repeatedly to the body definitely can lead to damage to the metabolic systems.

But WW dieting should not give all caloric restriction a bad rep.

[kitoi]

The idea that cutting and cutting calories damages the metabolism I think comes from people with sugar burning metabolisms. It is incredibly stressful on a sugar burner to go without food (shaky dizzy, lethargy, etc.). People who have transitioned to being what Mark calls a fat burning beast are not damaged by calorie restriction at all. Burning your own body fat gives the metabolism a nice tasty snack to go along with the lower levels of dietary calories, so there is no damage.

Exactly!