This simply cannot work. If it does, that would imply that a short term dietary intervention would result in long term metabolic changes. More specifically, if one were to become able to maintain the new lower weight on the same caloric intake and macro nutrient composition that previously maintained a higher bodyweight, that necessarily requires either a) a higher energy expenditure, or b) less efficient assimilation of nutrients. Irrespective of which is the case, it also requires that there is no compensatory change in appetite to induce you to eat more. And all of this would be brought about by eating only [fill in your favourite short term dietary intervention details here] for a few days.
I really wish metabolism worked this way ... it would make things much easier.
Last edited by pklopp; 10-30-2012 at 10:19 AM.
PK, I am not sure I follow your thinking. You're saying that it's impossible to keep the weight off that is lost via a short term diet hack? I don't think that's true. The metabolism may be stimulated somewhat plus the lower level of calories consumed produces the temporary accelerated weight loss. No? You go back to eating as before and you go back to your prior rate of weight loss (or maintenance) and go on with your life. I was losing 5 pounds a month before trying this. This hack gave me an accelerated rate of weight loss. Now I'll go back to my 1.25 pound a week or so loss.
I think the key point with a hack like this is that it's far easier to maintain a new, lighter weight than it is to actually lose weight.
Given the choice between a month of slow and steady fat loss while continuously depriving myself or a couple of days of bland spuds before adopting a less starvey diet, I'll pick spuds. Basically it's just a shortcut.
I started a potato fast yesterday, in spite of some concerns about insulin resistance.
I can't say for certain if it's lack of fat (I suspect so) but the results from changing up my eating plan from high fat to almost nonfat has resulted in a loss of 4 lbs since Saturday.
I made a large pot of organic chicken vegetable soup and skimmed the fat. I ate that exclusively on Sunday along with my usual cup of coffee, but the coffee was with fat free creamer (yeah, not primal, I know. This is an experiment) Then yesterday I had coffee again with nonfat creamer and just potatoes.
I don't know if this will last, but if I can lose a pound a day doing anything without starving myself, I'm a happy camper.
I will add, for the sake of you who love flavor, that I experimented with ACV, Mrs Dash Lemon Pepper and regular Mrs Dash Garlic and Pepper seasoning. I also found some butter flavored salt that isn't just synthetic garbage. These seasonings plus my usual pink Himalayan sea salt made a huge difference. I'm really enjoying this.
I'll mention that after my third potato "snack" (I made a bunch of different types throughout the day and snacked on them as hunger returned) I noticed what I think of as a hypoglycemic feeling - slightly shaky and light headed - which promptly went away when I had a few more of the oven baked wedges with ACV and salt. Felt great the rest of the evening, and woke up NOT hungry this morning for the first time in months.
No, read more closely, by a "less starvey diet" I mean it's easier to eat one's needed calories than it is to maintain a calorie deficit.
For example, using some figures out my ass, suppose you currently need 3000 cals to maintain and perhaps only 2000 to lose fat at an acceptable rate. Well only 2000 is tough when you're used to 3000 but if the hack gets you where you want to be in a few days, then it's much easier to maintain your new 'needed' level of 2500.
Obviously if you go back to 3000 you'll go back to your old weight.
2500 is easier than 2000. A few days on spuds is easier than a couple of months of 2000.