Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57

Thread: Konstantin Monastyrsky's Diet Series (Why Diets Fail) page 5

  1. #41
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    9,354
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by OneDeltaTenTango View Post
    I am starting to wonder if there is another thing at play as well. That is, make sure you eat enough volume of nutritious food to ensure that you are getting enough vitamins and micronutrients. This seems to be the way Perfect Health Diet points, as well as Dr. Terry Wahl's experience, and the conclusions of the recent article on the robust health of Victorian era folks in the UK.
    That's why he seems to stress super nutrient dense foods and portion control, so you can eliminate volume from the equation and consume less calories.

    It's kind of like how in the 70s-80s when they invented all that low-fat and calorie-free food thinking that high volume, low cal was going to save us. He seems to be saying that low volume (for the calorie reduction) combined with high nutrient (to make up for less volume) is going to save us.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 170 x 3. Current Deadlift: 220 x 3

  2. #42
    Terry H's Avatar
    Terry H is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    797
    [QUOTE=sbhikes;1145417]Basically, the Primal Blueprint with portion control and no 80/20. No big secret knowledge here.[/QUOTE

    But-but there must be! What will happen to the 50+ page threads?

  3. #43
    kmonastyrsky's Avatar
    kmonastyrsky is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    That's why he seems to stress super nutrient dense foods and portion control, so you can eliminate volume from the equation and consume less calories.

    It's kind of like how in the 70s-80s when they invented all that low-fat and calorie-free food thinking that high volume, low cal was going to save us. He seems to be saying that low volume (for the calorie reduction) combined with high nutrient (to make up for less volume) is going to save us.
    You are absolutely correct. But accomplishing this goal -- i.e. eating less for life -- is incredibly difficult after so many years of abuse and self-abuse, and that is what my book is all about.

  4. #44
    kmonastyrsky's Avatar
    kmonastyrsky is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes View Post
    So back to the series, I think the basic message here is to eat a lot less forever and make sure what you do eat is the highest quality ancestral food possible. Also move more, maintain muscle and bone mass, get adequate sleep and stay warm (not sure I see the point in the stay warm part but I like being warm.) Basically, the Primal Blueprint with portion control and no 80/20. No big secret knowledge here.
    All working concepts of simple. The difficulty is getting inspired to implement them, and even more difficult, stay with them for life.

  5. #45
    kmonastyrsky's Avatar
    kmonastyrsky is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by snoops View Post
    significant other
    Snoops, thank you! Got me fooled... And my wife, sorry, my spouse, would add after reading this: "We don't have "other."
    Last edited by kmonastyrsky; 04-02-2013 at 06:49 PM.

  6. #46
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Yes, Konstantin, "SO" is internet shorthand for "significant other", which is an all inclusive and therefore more politically correct term. It includes spouses, boyfriend/girlfriend, life partners of all possible gender combinations, etc. So, you would be addressing a person whose SO happened to have a more active job as opposed to addressing a woman whose husband has a more active job. Broader relevance that way without the gender stereotypes.

  7. #47
    lucy1984's Avatar
    lucy1984 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by kmonastyrsky View Post
    Makes a lot of sense. I'll edit out that reference. Sorry for my ignorance, but was is a "S.O." You mean S.O.B.? Please clue me in....
    HA. I know it doesn't stand for S.O.B and this was cleared up already, but frankly, sometimes when I cook for my male S.O. who does burn more calories than me naturally, and doesn't have to think about what he eats etc, in my mind I am all like, 'that S.O.B'

  8. #48
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    Yes, Konstantin, "SO" is internet shorthand for "significant other", which is an all inclusive and therefore more politically correct term. It includes spouses, boyfriend/girlfriend, life partners of all possible gender combinations, etc. So, you would be addressing a person whose SO happened to have a more active job as opposed to addressing a woman whose husband has a more active job. Broader relevance that way without the gender stereotypes.
    Paleobird's suggestion to eliminate the gender stereotypes in favor of broader language that applies to everyone is a really good one. I am a huge fan of your work, it has helped me personally and I recommend Fiber Menance and your Gutsense website frequently to others, but I have to admit that reading the bit about a woman with with a police officer husband was really off-putting; many people nowadays are in long-term committed relationships but aren't married (which includes both heterosexual and same-sex relationships) and I think women are just as likely to have active jobs as men.

    Even for women who have traditional jobs like teaching or nursing, there is a lot of walking and running around; as a teacher, I routinely walked 7+ miles a day (I wore a pedometer to check) and went up and down 30+ flights of stairs just in the course of commuting and being at work. That doesn't even take into account all the movement I did once my work day was over.

    Very few people live the 'husband go out to work and wife stay home' situation you used as your example, which I think has the unintended consequence of alienating a big chunk of your audience.

  9. #49
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,058
    The article is pretty good, but I'm not so sure about this:

    THERMOS EFFECT. As you gain fat, your body lowers the internal rate of energy metabolism (i.e., produces less heat) because your internal organs are cuddled in the warm blanket of your own fat, or, as doctors would say, adipose tissue. That is why overweight people are far less sensitive to cold than skinny ones. Unfortunately, this thermos effect (my term) has a profoundly negative impact on your ability to lose weight because your rate of metabolism is so much lower, and this has little or nothing to do with your thyroid or adrenal glands that you may think are “underactive.”

    THE TAKEAWAY: If it is too late for you, do everything you can to prevent your daughters and younger sisters from gaining weight. Expect a longer journey toward your own normal weight. Increase your level of physical exercise to increase your metabolic rate. Keep the thermostat up so your body isn’t spooked into hibernation mode (more on this later) when it is cold inside (from central air) and out.
    My understanding is that your adipose tissue take energy too, so any increase in fat would also increase you BEE, not lower it. Obese people have a higher BEE than normal weight people.

    Am I wrong here?
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  10. #50
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,863
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    The article is pretty good, but I'm not so sure about this:


    My understanding is that your adipose tissue take energy too, so any increase in fat would also increase you BEE, not lower it. Obese people have a higher BEE than normal weight people.

    Am I wrong here?
    This is my understanding too, which is why my 300 lb colleague is constantly complaining about being too warm, always sweating, and literally warms up the room for everyone else when he enters.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •