She is probably age wise in between these two pictured. Just guessing. I can't really judge age anymore.
Ernestine Shepherd, World's Oldest Female Bodybuilder, Muscles Her Way Into Guinness World Records (VIDEO)
I am just glad to see anyone weight lifting, especially of a certain age. I always hated cardio, lifting weight was my thing. I wish I never would have stopped. But there was this man... and then there was this baby.... and then there were 20 lost years............
65lbs gone and counting!!
Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey
Louisa655 is online now Senior Member
You're still on here you naughty girl!
I don't mean to cherry pick your post, but this is really the only point I feel the need to address.
I think a HFLC diet does have a place, and that its place is medicinally. I felt no need to mention it here because this thread is about simply losing weight, and I do not believe a HFLC diet is ideal to lose weight. In fact, I think it's probably the worst for losing weight. Why?
1.) Fat has little to no TEF. Fewer calories are lost due to accelerated metabolism from eating fat.
2.) Fat does not boost thyroid, unlike sugar and starch. People who adhere to prolonged low carbohydrate diets tend to have a slower thyroid than people who take a moderate approach, or a higher carbohydrate approach.
3.) Carbohydrate suppression diminishes mitochondrial respiration. People who eat lower carbohydrate diets for long periods of time generally have lower levels of carbon dioxide in their blood. This is indicative of mitochondria that are less robust: less robust mitochondria = less cellular respiration = less CO2 found in blood = slower metabolic rate.
I believe that calorie per calorie, a high fat low carbohydrate diet will land you at the highest bodyfat setpoint. That doesn't mean it's not useful in some cases, but I do not believe it is for the majority of us.
I don't believe that fat is very satiating. I believe that Primal people on HFLC diets think fat is satiating because they're consuming a lot of meat and vegetables and drawing that conclusion. But it's not the fat. I think the three most satiating things are:
And a HFLC diet is going to be much higher in protein, fiber and water consumption than a typical Western diet. I'll elaborate.
Eggs are 63% fat, 35% protein, 2% carbohydrate. 100g of eggs contain 75.8g of water, meaning an egg is roughly 76% water. 1 dozen extra large eggs (672g) contain 960 calories. (Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Egg, whole, raw, fresh)
Bacon is 89% fat, 11% protein, 0% carbohydrate. 100g of bacon contains 40.2g of water, meaning bacon is roughly 40% water. Half a pound of bacon (227g) contains 1,040 calories (Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Pork, cured, bacon, raw).
Macadamia nuts are 88% fat, 4% protein, 8% carbohydrate. 100g of raw macadamia nuts contain 1.4g of water, meaning there is roughly no water all all worth mentioning. 1 cup of raw macadamia nuts (138g) contain 962 calories (Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Nuts, macadamia nuts, raw).
Eggs are significantly lower in fat than bacon and macadamia nuts. How many of our ladies reading this thread can eat a dozen eggs in one sitting to get 960 calories? Any takers? I'm guessing few it any, correct me if I'm wrong.
Bacon, which is much fattier...well...how many of us can eat a half pound of bacon in a sitting to get 1,040 calories? I'm guessing all of us...in about 3 minutes, right?
Now how about 1 cup of macadamia nuts to get the same caloric load as the eggs? That's probably even easier. Grind them into nut butter and you can eat that in what, 5 spoonfuls?
Now let's look at the dreaded boneless, skinless chicken breast. Champion of the low fat movement, reviled for being dry and tasteless by many Primals. Chicken breast is 10% fat, 90% protein, 0% carbohydrate. In 100g of chicken breast, there is 74.8g of water, making it about 75% water. You would have to eat 2 pounds of chicken breast to get 1,000 calories in a sitting. (Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, raw)
If you follow the logic here, you'll find that satiety follows the water content and protein content of foods - low protein/moderate water foods like bacon are fairly simple to overeat, low protein/low water content foods like nuts are a breeze to overeat and high protein/high water content foods are damn near impossible to overeat.
I don't feel the need to get into fiber because how many of us are going to consume six and a half pounds of broccoli to get 1,000 calories? Broccoli is actually 20% protein and 89% water by the way (Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Broccoli, raw).
It's not the fat keeping you full, it's the high protein, high fiber and high water content associated with most Primal foods - meats, fruits and vegetables. That's why nuts, chocolate and cheese are so darn deadly for weight loss - high fat, low water, low(ish) protein, low fiber.
I believe chicken breast, sirloin and pork loin to be more satiating than pork spare ribs, chicken thighs and ribeye. They have similar water content, yet more protein and less fat, so they'll satisfy better. Again, I believe people should find the minimum amount of fat they feel good on while still enjoying every meal. Drop too low and you feel sluggish or stop enjoying food and it will not be sustainable anymore. That's a no-no.
If I were to recommend a completely random stranger I met on the street to eat a certain way without knowing a thing about them, my go-to response would be 33% fat, 33% protein, 33% carbohydrate. I tend to support that the overwhelming majority of the time because it:
1.) Allows for enough healthy fat and healthy carbohydrate without causing an overabundance of one or the other (in the vast majority of us).
2.) It allows ample fuel from fats, sugars and starches.
3.) It is high enough in protein to support a robust metabolic rate and promote lean mass.
4.) It is high enough in carbohydrate to support a robust thyroid and strong cellular respiration.
5.) It is high enough in fat to encourage nutrient absorption of fat-soluble vitamins.
But the REAL reason why I advocate it so much - it allows people to eat ANYTHING they want provided it is real food. If you tell someone to eat HFLC, they will start excluding and they won't listen to their body. If you tell someone to eat LFHC (which may be even worse), they won't listen to their body and they may compromise nutrient absorption. If you tell someone to just eat a bit of everything, they'll listen because they'll have the least anxiety and fear over what goes into their mouths. Rather than focus on complicated ratios and worry about things like excess insulin or too little fat to absorb vitamins, they'll listen to themselves and just chill out and eat real food. They will also be the least likely to stray and find out what works for them. A HFLC would be reluctant to up carbs from 10% to 20%. A LFHC would be reluctant to go from 20% fat to 30% fat. But a guy that just moderates will increase/reduce their fats and carbs to what truly works for them - by listening to their body, not diet paradigms - much more naturally since they won't be so concerned with ratios. At least that's my experience.
That's really my message. Sorry for the novel, but I hope it clarifies where my thought process lies.
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.
somehow I manage to leave my intelligence and decorum at the door wherever I go. I doubt your journal will be an exception to that - not on the rug
What the F&#* is a decorum? - Mr. Anthony
yeehaaaa - the man in the little red suit has come on over - I do like me a man in a suit - or uniform.............
"never let the truth get in the way of a good story "
I just hope it was humorous. That's all I intended. What a smile!