|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 30, 2023 6:33:02 GMT -5
As I stated on the other thread, my primary concern was and is high blood glucose levels, known from testing fasting blood glucose levels, after at least an 8 hour fast (from all food). So I've been exploring ways to keep my blood glucose levels down, because this leads to type 2 diabetes. So everything I've posted on both threads centers around this issue. I have not been primarily concerned, previously, with weight loss, or I would not be 50 pounds overweight. I've tried to convey this, I will continue to. I mentioned the book I started reading this week, Why We Get Sick by Benjamin Bikman, PhD, 2020. I'll get to quotes from it, but this video is a short cut. I found it just now after watching lolly's newly posted video. (I linked to a video that popped after after finishing, and then that video led to this video). This video gives in 17 minutes what I'm leaning from the new book. High blood glucose levels is not the problem, it's the symptom. The problem is high insulin levels in the blood, this in turn causes high blood glucose levels. Sadly, most doctors treat high blood glucose, which doesn't solve the problem. So I'm going to stay focused my issue, which 50%-70% of Americans have. If you are fat, you most assuredly have insulin resistance. The lady in the video recommends a paleo diet over fasting and over a keto diet, so I'm not promoting a certain idea, other than repairing the problem. This is most excellent science. lolly's guy said there are NO additional isolated benefits to fasting (and a keto diet) other than weight loss, and this is equal to just reducing calories. This video, and the Bikman book, which I'll get to, prove that wrong. I learned just yesterday, reading the book, that you can have high blood glucose, insulin resistance, for 20 years before it shows up as high blood glucose. Fasting reduces blood glucose levels, because it reduces blood insulin levels. Again, high insulin blood levels is the actual problem that leads to type 2 diabetes. Even lolly's earlier video says fasting reduces these levels, significantly. I thought the video was good, for what it was, but a discourse on diabetes that doesn't say a caloric deficit is essential for fat loss is still off track.
The solution is valid because she recommends a Mediteranian diet coupled with IF in addition to both cardio and strength training. Thus 'empty calories' are omitted, the feeding window is reduced, and 'junk' foods are reduced/replaced with nutritious food or removed. Thus the client is better fed, is in a calorie deficit and exercises regularly, and of course, the reversal in insulin resistance corresponds with weight loss only made possible by a calorie deficit. In this case clients did strength training to mitigate muscle loss and outcomes were thus optimised. The only difference is I explain how and why it works, and she has one size fits all 'magic diet'.
I can be be nearly certain that the vast majority of her clients do not sustain that diet just from the general statistics that we have on dieting, and because the clients don't understand the whole premise of calorie balance based priorities, they don't know what to do other wise, and have no recourse.
Lastly, she can't talk about gaining muscle without discussing protein, but she's stuck on that point because protein spikes insulin, and she can't risk the contradiction that undermines her fundamental premise.
The underlying premise is actually invalid, but the irony is, I agree with her, and I also advise the 3 r (replace/reduce/remove) approach. Using zuchini spaghetti to replace normal spag is good example of that. Generally speaking there's nothing better than a Mediteranian diet, or did she say Paleo? (no real difference anyway). Likewise, IF with Keto (though protein, I have no qualms at all. Nor do I have any qualms with 3 meals and 2 snacks - because I have priorities in order and if a person can't sustain the keto and wanted to go vegetarian instead, no problem, provided:
1) Appropriate calories 2) Macros (adequate protein, enough fat, carbs make up any caloric shortfall)
3) Ample micro nutrients
4) Mealtimes 5) Supplements
^That's the key ^
Notice how carbs are the least important macro. If you are getting say 0.8g protein per pound of body-weight and all the right fats, there's not a lot of room left for carbs, especially when eating for fat loss. In addition, carbs are found in many veges and fruit, which come into the picture with micro-nutrients. The remaining calorie allocation, if there is any remaining, to be filled rice and bread etc is quite low. We find when we optimise a diet so that all the nutrients come form food, it's hard to find room within ones calorie budget for 'treats' (including alcohol). IOW, if you get the priorities right, everything works itself out.
The other benefit is you don't have to stick to the diet. If you have a day that's out of control, then you can at least remain roughly within your calorie quota and call that 'good'. If you can also meet your protein requirement, even better. If you can get a wide range of colourful veg and greens, great! You can have good, better, great and fantastic days - which all average out to being just fine.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with what the lady said. It's just her recommendations will not work for most people because very few people can sustain med diet with IF and do cardio and strength training. That's like a perfect person, and it works perfectly in theory. On paper it's perfect, so I'm like, yes Yes YES to that! I can't agree more, but if applied to real clients with real lives in the real world, outcomes will be absolutely dismal, simple because the percentage of people who sustain it will be sigma diverges on zero in proportion to time.
The reason I'm not against all these people with their different diets is my order of priorities applies to any way of eating. It suits everyone because it's adaptable and flexible. In fact, it makes no difference which diet you favour. You can switch diets whenever you want. You can go low carb to high-carb-vegan (vegan is necessarily higher carb) if that's your fancy. You can go off the diet and back on. None of this matters much if you simply follow the priorities.
ZD has a thing that works. Invalin has another thing, Zenziac yet another and mine is different again, but they all work fine. Yours will be different and it can change over time. It's just having priorities and stop sweating the small stuff. Low carb is fine. IF is fine - 'It's fine' is my new mantra - but I'm pretty sure you'll have no 'spare calories' for refined carbs anyway if you just get the priorities right, and you'll focus on what matters most. I'm concerned that obsessing with insulin is developing negativity in your relationship with food, and the way in which you are fasting seems to hint relational disfunction just a tiny bit, so I want you to do like Invalan sez - look at being healthy as opposed to not getting sick.
This reflects on one my themes - that food is entwined in family, relationships and everything in an individual's life. Your family became ill and runs risks, so there's an emotional component of concern along with a natural aversion, 'I don't want that for me'. It's all within your own relationship with food, and I think there is a positive relationship to be had.
Now I've been writing this a long time, but there's a slice of cheese cake with my name on it and I'll have that with a sweet cup of coffee... break all my own little rules... but they are not bad foods. in the big picture, they are part of a 'good' diet. I had a roughish day, out on a job site with provided food, a can of Jim Beam and Coke and a Corona beer, and a neigbour dropped off some pasta and cheeze cake. It's far from ideal, but I got about the right calories at a rough guess going by my hunger levels, so it's 'good'. Not bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 30, 2023 18:14:47 GMT -5
The following are questions posed by Bikman to consider if you have insulin resistance. The only way to know, is if you have checked fasting blood insulin levels, fasting after at least 8 hours. (Testing fasting blood glucose levels tells you almost nothing about fasting blood insulin levels). Otherwise, it will show up much later as fasting high blood glucose levels (because the body increasing insulin levels eventually cannot lower blood glucose levels). Why is this important? Because insulin resistance leads to type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, is linked to heart disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and Alzheimer's. But most doctors are never going to check your insulin levels until disease shows up, and most doctors only connect insulin resistance to type 2 diabetes. So Why We Get Sick by Benjamin Bikman PhD, 2020 is a cutting edge book. From the book:
How do I know I have it?
Do you have more fat around your belly than you'd like?
Do you have high blood pressure?
Do you have a family history of heart disease?
Do you have high levels of blood triglycerides?
Do you retain water easily?
Do you have patches of darker-colored skin or little bumps of skin ("skin tags") at your neck, armpits, or other areas?
Do you have a family member with insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes?
Do you have polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS; for women) or erectile dysfunction (for men)?
All these questions reveal some connection to insulin resistance. If you answered "yes" to one question, you likely have insulin resistance. If you answered "yes" to any two questions (or more), you most certainly have insulin resistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 30, 2023 18:49:33 GMT -5
Thanks lolly. I think it boils down for me that I didn't eat properly most of the last 25 years, really most of my life. So I was at the point of paying for my past errors, but caught it in time. I fixed my blood pressure problem, have fixed my on the verge of type 2 diabetes problem. Seeing how my father ended, I knew what was down the road without fixing the problem.
Also, I took my parents to doctor visits, 3 years for my father, 5 years for my mother, one or the other at least once a month, they had lots of specialists. I could write two pages on how you just can't just trust your doctors, period, various reasons. So I'm trying to stay informed to head off problems, and just share. It ends with me sharing.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 1, 2023 5:49:37 GMT -5
Thinking of being healthy, rather than not being unhealthy, is a positive outlook from which inspirational energy comes. If you think of not being unhealthy, the underlying motive is rather dark from the outset, and nothing inspirational or transformative is happening with that. However, a truthful assessment of one's current state of health and risk factors, is a simple if not disturbing reality, and you can still be motivated by being healthy from a standpoint of knowing that's not the current state. The nutritional standpoint only regards quality of life and preventable diseases associated mainly with body composition, and only two aspects concern us: Fat and muscle. I find it impossible to discuss body composition apart from exercise because if you lose weight you only want to lose fat, but a significant %age of weight lost will be muscle if you don't undertake the activity to retain it. People who are untrained are in a fortunate position where they can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Trained individuals are very limited in that regard, but they can still gain mass in muscles they have neglected to train. For example, if a lifter has neglected upper traps, they can do shrugs and gain muscle there to mediate the amount of overall muscle loss during periods of fat loss. Point being - changes in body-weight isn't really the goal. Goals are specific to fat loss and muscle retention/gain specifically.
Media that popularise weight loss, such as the Biggest Loser, combine calorie reduction with physical exertion, so it seems like a sound principle, but the calorie reduction is way too severe, so contestants lose significant muscle mass despite training so hard. That can be avoided by ensuring the highest priority, calories, are actually appropriate.
No one should lose more than 1% of their body-weight in a week, so if 250lbs, a max target should be about a kilo a week from a calorie deficit of about 1000 cals a day. For an average male bear of that weight, that'd being the vicinity of 2000-2200 cals a day. My maintenance calories is about 2800, so I usually cut fat by targeting 2300 a day to lose a kilo a month.
Unless a person is very overweight or in dire circumstances such as they need to lose a lot of weight before undergoing an urgent surgery or something, starvation diets are generally a bad idea. BL contestants were targeting 1000 cals a day for 30 weeks while training like crazy. That's why several of them ended up with metabolic disfunction after the show ended.
One problem with the 'not being unhealthy' premise is it creates a sense of urgency that engenders a rash approach to weight loss. The motive to be healthy, on the other hand, inspires a measured approach. People will say fasting has all these benefits, and I don't necessarily disagree. But that falls under meal timing, which isn't a high priority. If a person says their weight loss depends on a fasting strategy, I'll say fasting doesn't make a difference to weight loss unless it causes a calorie deficit.
Since fasting does nothing to preserve muscle mass (fasting diets show slightly higher muscle loss than regular meals), a plan to eat for fuel to energise activity is the proper motive for a positive outlook. That can include fasting, but if you are fasting before getting adequate protein, let alone including some sort of resistance exercise, the priorities are such that you'll lose good muscle unnecessarily and that is the primary detriment that can come from losing weight. Because one thinks like 'prevent diabetes' rather than 'be healthy', priorities are askew form the start.
When 'get healthy' is the motive, priorities are different and both insulin resistance and unnecessary muscle loss can be avoided. The latter is critical to the former, afterall. Maybe a fast is a good way of resetting psycho-physically, but it could be melodrama that affirms 'insulin fear'. in any case, I hope this conversation influences the reset with a positive attitude and renders a clearer a vision of the road ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2023 6:10:34 GMT -5
I was up early just now reading about the role of fat storage in the body. Suddenly it hit me the perfect analogy, Raccoon Mountain. I learned about Raccoon Mountain almost forty years ago, 1984. My then wife's favorite aunt lived in Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, near Chattanooga, Tenn. Her husband Sam was an electrician at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. We visited them for a week in 1984, cheap vacation. Sam told me about Raccoon Mountain. There is a reservoir at the top of the mountain. During peak electricity production hours, when the excess electricity is not needed, there are turbines, run by the electricity, which pump water to the reservoir at the top of the mountain. During high demand for electricity, the water is allowed to flow down the mountain, and the same turbines which pumped the water up, now turn in reverse and generate electricity, and the electricity generated in added to the Tennessee Valley Authority energy grid. So the whole system sort of works as a storage battery. I always wanted to visit Raccoon Mountain, never did, I'll add that to by bucket list (it's about five hours away from me). Sam later became the head of his department, he said he hated hanging up his tools, he liked working with tools better than management. Their kids are about 15 years older than our kids, so Sam is I'm sure north of 80. In the same manner, fat acts as a kind of storage battery. In times of a surplus of energy (taking in excess calories by eating more than the body can use right then for energy needs), the excess fuel is converted to fat. And like at Raccoon Mountain, when the body needs more energy than it is taking in by food, the fat is ~let down the mountain~ and is used as fuel by the body. The whole metabolic process is not as simple as the Raccoon Mountain setup, the water at Raccoon Mountain does not equate exactly to fat, a lot of conversion takes place, but Raccoon Mountain works as an analogy. If you skip all the conversion, the water of Raccoon Mountain essentially = fat stores in the body. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2023 6:59:32 GMT -5
When 'get healthy' is the motive, priorities are different and both insulin resistance and unnecessary muscle loss can be avoided. The latter is critical to the former, afterall. Maybe a fast is a good way of resetting psycho-physically, but it could be melodrama that affirms 'insulin fear'. in any case, I hope this conversation influences the reset with a positive attitude and renders a clearer a vision of the road ahead.
We're back to writing for the healthy, you, versus writing about the unhealthy, me. I already had-have insulin resistance, so I'm in the process of repairing it, and maintaining. From Bikman's account, I've probably had insulin resistance for at least 20 years. (All those years my Mother had me check my blood sugar once a year, would NEVER have discovered high levels of insulin in the blood, which is basically what insulin resistance is. Already discussed several times). But, wanted to share another past weight loss strategy. I called it: Don't Feed the Fat. If you're overweight (and over 50% of us are), part of what you eat goes merely to maintain the fat. So, I came up with the plan to eat the number of calories to maintain the weight you want to be. Thus, don't feed the fat. So, for me now, that would mean to eat to maintain 176 pounds. I never got past that much, just knew I had to eat less calories than I then-was eating. But, just on the fly. Say 2,400 calories a day now maintains 226 pounds. Just set up an equation: 226/176 is to 2400/?x. x = 1,869 calories a day. But I'd rather do inavalan's 1,400 calorie a day. How does that sound to you lolly? I could even figure how long it would take to lose that weight. That would be 2 pounds a week, approximately. That would be six months, approximately. I've proved, 1974-1975, I can easily lose 40 pounds in 8 months (but I'm not 22 now). I'll just lower my goal of 14 months to one year, so, one pound a week. I will give a monthly update, mostly just as a way of keeping myself accountable. One pound a week would put me nearly at the = 1,869 calories a day. So 1,400 would be a daily goal to shoot at. I think I trade mark "Don't Feed the Fat". The new DFTF diet. But, question, from your experience, what would be the daily calories to maintain 176 pounds? Maintaining average muscle mass. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Oct 1, 2023 7:35:04 GMT -5
When 'get healthy' is the motive, priorities are different and both insulin resistance and unnecessary muscle loss can be avoided. The latter is critical to the former, afterall. Maybe a fast is a good way of resetting psycho-physically, but it could be melodrama that affirms 'insulin fear'. in any case, I hope this conversation influences the reset with a positive attitude and renders a clearer a vision of the road ahead.
We're back to writing for the healthy, you, versus writing about the unhealthy, me. I already had-have insulin resistance, so I'm in the process of repairing it, and maintaining. From Bikman's account, I've probably had insulin resistance for at least 20 years. (All those years my Mother had me check my blood sugar once a year, would NEVER have discovered high levels of insulin in the blood, which is basically what insulin resistance is. Already discussed several times). But, wanted to share another past weight loss strategy. I called it: Don't Feed the Fat. If you're overweight (and over 50% of us are), part of what you eat goes merely to maintain the fat. So, I came up with the plan to eat the number of calories to maintain the weight you want to be. Thus, don't feed the fat. So, for me now, that would mean to eat to maintain 176 pounds. I never got past that much, just knew I had to eat less calories than I then-was eating. But, just on the fly. Say 2,400 calories a day now maintains 226 pounds. Just set up an equation: 226/176 is to 2400/?x. x = 1,869 calories a day. But I'd rather do inavalan's 1,400 calorie a day. How does that sound to you lolly? I could even figure how long it would take to lose that weight. That would be 2 pounds a week, approximately. That would be six months, approximately. I've proved, 1974-1975, I can easily lose 40 pounds in 8 months (but I'm not 22 now). I'll just lower my goal of 14 months to one year, so, one pound a week. I will give a monthly update, mostly just as a way of keeping myself accountable. One pound a week would put me nearly at the = 1,869 calories a day. So 1,400 would be a daily goal to shoot at. I think I trade mark "Don't Feed the Fat". The new DFTF diet. But, question, from your experience, what would be the daily calories to maintain 176 pounds? Maintaining average muscle mass. You do what works for you. It doesn't matter what others say. You're the only one who can make it happen. Just remember that you don't exist and everything I say is from God regardless of its accuracy. Hahaha. Though I will say increasing muscle mass speeds up metabolism, but you won't necessarily lose weight. To me losing weight or a target weight is a self defeating proposition. It's like staring at a heart monitor display and trying to reduce your heart rate. It doesn't work. But who am I to say. I don't live in your skin. So take it with a grain of salt. We'll still love you and think you're cool whether you're 226 or 176. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2023 9:40:40 GMT -5
We're back to writing for the healthy, you, versus writing about the unhealthy, me. I already had-have insulin resistance, so I'm in the process of repairing it, and maintaining. From Bikman's account, I've probably had insulin resistance for at least 20 years. (All those years my Mother had me check my blood sugar once a year, would NEVER have discovered high levels of insulin in the blood, which is basically what insulin resistance is. Already discussed several times). But, wanted to share another past weight loss strategy. I called it: Don't Feed the Fat. If you're overweight (and over 50% of us are), part of what you eat goes merely to maintain the fat. So, I came up with the plan to eat the number of calories to maintain the weight you want to be. Thus, don't feed the fat. So, for me now, that would mean to eat to maintain 176 pounds. I never got past that much, just knew I had to eat less calories than I then-was eating. But, just on the fly. Say 2,400 calories a day now maintains 226 pounds. Just set up an equation: 226/176 is to 2400/?x. x = 1,869 calories a day. But I'd rather do inavalan's 1,400 calorie a day. How does that sound to you lolly? I could even figure how long it would take to lose that weight. That would be 2 pounds a week, approximately. That would be six months, approximately. I've proved, 1974-1975, I can easily lose 40 pounds in 8 months (but I'm not 22 now). I'll just lower my goal of 14 months to one year, so, one pound a week. I will give a monthly update, mostly just as a way of keeping myself accountable. One pound a week would put me nearly at the = 1,869 calories a day. So 1,400 would be a daily goal to shoot at. I think I trade mark "Don't Feed the Fat". The new DFTF diet. But, question, from your experience, what would be the daily calories to maintain 176 pounds? Maintaining average muscle mass. You do what works for you. It doesn't matter what others say. You're the only one who can make it happen. Just remember that you don't exist and everything I say is from God regardless of its accuracy. Hahaha. Though I will say increasing muscle mass speeds up metabolism, but you won't necessarily lose weight. To me losing weight or a target weight is a self defeating proposition. It's like staring at a heart monitor display and trying to reduce your heart rate. It doesn't work. But who am I to say. I don't live in your skin. So take it with a grain of salt. We'll still love you and think you're cool whether you're 226 or 176. Welp, I learned in 10th grade I put on muscle easily. I played JV football in 10th grade. I lifted weights with the football team in the winter even though I knew I was going to play soccer the next year, instead of football (of course i didn't tell the football coach this). I don't like a muscular appearance on myself. I gain muscle even at lower weights and more reps. Taking all that into consideration, and having been down to 160 in 1995, that's why I'm shooting for 176. I understand BMI is a general goal. And I got a surprise about three years ago. I was 5'10" in tenth grade, I always assumed I was still 5'10", but never even measured again. About 3 years ago the nurse before my yearly Medicare wellness visit (it's not an actual physical, Medicare doesn't pay for an actual physical, and Medicare pays for minimal bloodwork) asked how tall I was, 5"10" I said. She said, you're not 5'10", let me measure you. She said your 5'8". I later measured myself, 5'8". So even 176 is above my BMI weight. We'll see. For about eight years I've walked with one pound weights. I decided to combine walking with a little weight lifting, saving time. I bought two one pound lead fishing weights, wrapped them in plastic and taped. Then, I walked 2-3 miles a day. (I used my arms all day as an electrician, in a raised position a lot of the time, lifting stuff. I noticed after retiring I was getting somewhat arm-flabby. I'm not sure they even make one pound weights, the least I've found is 2 pound weights). First day I couldn't even carry one pound the whole time, I shifted one weight to the other arm part of the time. So next day I carried one weight and shifted from arm to arm. When I was comfortable I then carried one pound in each hand. Sometimes I shift both weights to one hand. They help maintain some strength in my hands also. I'll make my weights my avatar for a while (I don't know how to put my own pictures here). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 1, 2023 10:37:15 GMT -5
 Jenn loves American pudding. Pudding in the UK is a little different to America. We have delights like 'syrup sponge pudding', 'sticky toffee pudding', 'chocolate sponge pudding'. They basically constitute a light sponge smothered in sticky sauce. Eaten hot, and ideal with thick custard, though some prefer cream/ice-cream. I have been considering asking my sister to send me a parcel which includes some. I eat pretty healthily in general, but absolutely require sweetness in my diet.  I'm a breatherian. I can fast for 30 hours and gain half a pound.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 1, 2023 13:42:53 GMT -5
Jenn loves American pudding. Pudding in the UK is a little different to America. We have delights like 'syrup sponge pudding', 'sticky toffee pudding', 'chocolate sponge pudding'. They basically constitute a light sponge smothered in sticky sauce. Eaten hot, and ideal with thick custard, though some prefer cream/ice-cream. I have been considering asking my sister to send me a parcel which includes some. I eat pretty healthily in general, but absolutely require sweetness in my diet. I'm a breatherian. I can fast for 30 hours and gain half a pound. Maybe you are bringing balance to the force after Life produced all those waif like Indian gurus! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 2, 2023 10:58:18 GMT -5
I want to thank lolly, he put up very good objections which kept driving me for the right answers. So I've learned Fung and partners don't go far enough. I had learned from Richard K Bernstein, Diabetes Solutions, about 4 years ago that insulin processing in the body is very complicated. So I found another doctor-writer last week, on Amazon. I'm pretty wary of self-publishing, have gotten bitten in the past. But he seemed very knowledgeable, so decided to give him a shot. Kelly Gregg MD.
On the back of the book: This is part of my series on Diet and Health. Part of normal homeostasis is occasional fasting. Not for a month but for maybe a day. Autophagy is the basis for the renewal of the cells of the body. I will give you the basics of metabolism (he does) and what happens during the fasting state (he does). At the end, you will know more about the subject than all of your health care providers. (I'm sure that's true, already, just on page 54). I will get almost everyone to fast just a little. This is part of your maintenance diet for life and I am trying to prevent disease, not necessarily treat it. I am a retired physician and no longer practice, hence nothing in this book is medical advice. (The necessary disclaimer). It is however good advice. The back of Fasting and Autophagy for the Common Man, 2021.
I picked this book, among his others, as it is specifically about fasting. So what's different about Gregg? I will just be very brief. Gregg says intermittent fasting is not fasting, it's just a form of calorie restriction. Gregg says: "A reduced-calorie state is one in which you are taking in fewer calories that your body is demanding to make energy. It is completely different from fasting and your body's reactions are different. Intermittent fasting has become popular, but you must take in no calories to get the benefits of fasting". Gregg specifically defines several different processes in how the body deals with eating and not eating. Most everybody I've encountered have simply defined fasting as when you're not eating. Gregg says it takes the body 36-48 hours to go into fasting, properly, and to begin getting the actual benefits of fasting (he gives specific names for different metabolic processes). And most of the guys I've read allow up to 500 calories on 24 hour fasting days. But Gregg says fasting means eating zero calories, zero. But Gregg answers questions I didn't even ask lolly about (that is, for me, Gregg could answer any objection by lolly).
Gregg has explained some things I didn't know, and some things I didn't know I didn't know.
There's no way to describe briefly how the body breaks down food to the minute molecular structure, for use, he does this.
I'll probably not post any more about the book until I've finished it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 2, 2023 16:59:52 GMT -5
I listened to his Book Summary and he said a calorie deficit is ineffective for weight loss. Since a negative calorie balance is essential for losing weight he will back his fallacy with magical thinking. He'll dress it all in scientific drab. He pushed a keto diet and fasting, which I'm not against, but seeing that a very small percentage of people who start a keto-styled diet don't adhere for long, his recommendations won't be effective.
If people want to fast 2 days a month, I'm all for it, and you'll notice in my narrative that I'm not against any sorts of diets. I merely try to find an improved way of eating that a person can sustain, which is flexible enough to adapt to anyone's changing circumstance. Hence, go keto and fast is fine, and when that's over, also fine. Just apply the priorities as I describe them and everything will be fine.
Fasting falls under meal timing, so I don't prioritise it highly. It just means if people want to fast within their nutritional approach, it's fine, but not to the neglect of higher priorities.
Gregg is yet another one size fits all diet guru - Keto+fasting. I could accommodate his approach to eating, or veganism, or higher carbs, lower fat. Regular meals, IF, 3 days no calories a month or whatever. I apply the same priorities to any approach an individual finds sustainable. If my clients believe in a 'magic diet', I apply the priorities and encourage them even though I know it's going to fail. When it fails (they can't adhere to it anymore) I apply the same priorities to something more sustainable.
Hence I'm not against Gregg's approach. Its fine. But, what isn't fine is him misleading people into thinking he has the 'one true way'. I don't know why you're going from one clown show to the next but I've outlined a way which is principled rather than prescriptive. Apply it Gregg's prescription and it'll work, but Gregg's prescription will not work unless the priorities apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 2, 2023 18:39:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 2, 2023 22:16:37 GMT -5
When 'get healthy' is the motive, priorities are different and both insulin resistance and unnecessary muscle loss can be avoided. The latter is critical to the former, afterall. Maybe a fast is a good way of resetting psycho-physically, but it could be melodrama that affirms 'insulin fear'. in any case, I hope this conversation influences the reset with a positive attitude and renders a clearer a vision of the road ahead.
We're back to writing for the healthy, you, versus writing about the unhealthy, me. I already had-have insulin resistance, so I'm in the process of repairing it, and maintaining. From Bikman's account, I've probably had insulin resistance for at least 20 years. (All those years my Mother had me check my blood sugar once a year, would NEVER have discovered high levels of insulin in the blood, which is basically what insulin resistance is. Already discussed several times). But, wanted to share another past weight loss strategy. I called it: Don't Feed the Fat. If you're overweight (and over 50% of us are), part of what you eat goes merely to maintain the fat. So, I came up with the plan to eat the number of calories to maintain the weight you want to be. Thus, don't feed the fat. So, for me now, that would mean to eat to maintain 176 pounds. I never got past that much, just knew I had to eat less calories than I then-was eating. But, just on the fly. Say 2,400 calories a day now maintains 226 pounds. Just set up an equation: 226/176 is to 2400/?x. x = 1,869 calories a day. But I'd rather do inavalan's 1,400 calorie a day. How does that sound to you lolly? I could even figure how long it would take to lose that weight. That would be 2 pounds a week, approximately. That would be six months, approximately. I've proved, 1974-1975, I can easily lose 40 pounds in 8 months (but I'm not 22 now). I'll just lower my goal of 14 months to one year, so, one pound a week. I will give a monthly update, mostly just as a way of keeping myself accountable. One pound a week would put me nearly at the = 1,869 calories a day. So 1,400 would be a daily goal to shoot at. I think I trade mark "Don't Feed the Fat". The new DFTF diet. But, question, from your experience, what would be the daily calories to maintain 176 pounds? Maintaining average muscle mass. I keep saying I don't advise special medical diets. It's just that losing-fat will have positive effects on insulin resistance. Eating to the weight you want to be is probably a good idea. 1800 cals sounds reasonable if a little low. It's be around about basal metabolic rate for an average sized male. As I said before, employing a large calorie deficit will result in a high percentage of muscle loss and ideally, if you cut to between 10-20% below maintenance calories, you lose weight more gradually but a higher percentage of that weight is fat.
There is a large variance between individual's maintenance calories so it's hard to throw out numbers. When I take on a client with weight loss goals, I don't tell them, but I don't worry about that goal for a few months. I just say weigh yourself 3 times a week naked after ablutions and before eating in the morning, and take the average weekly. Apart from that I just start a resistance training program that progresses from simple isolation movements to heavy barbell exercises. I call the program General Physical Preparation, and it takes at least 4 months to get through it, older people take longer, but once a person completes GPP, they have the exercise skill and knowledge to achieve any fitness goal they want.
Toward the end of GPP I usually find people are happy with their improved physique, but that's when I really start talking about food. It's very rare that a client will weigh portions and track calories, but if feasible that's the best way to do it. It is a good way of learning what is in the food you already eat, and there's no point adjusting the things that are already on track. A person can also see for themselves where the excessive calories are coming from. For example, if ZD tracked nuts he'd see that his intake waslike 700 cals a day or whatever. Weighing portions is the best learning tool.
Most won't do it so during training we just talk about food and employ ideas like keeping things simple and reducing/replacing/removing useless calories, which naturally ups nutrients. For example, if Andrew has a sweet tooth, then sweet thing with a fruit base like apple pie might be a better option than a slab of chocolate mud cake. I have a fruit smoothie with oats and protein powder which is very sweet, but a right powerhouse of nutrients. That's better than a sweet breakfast cereal for example. I mean that's the sort of thing we talk about.
The person does their training and starts to change a few things just through talking about it. I have a fair idea of what's going on number-wise and might say, "is it possible to get some protein into your breakfast?" or something like that, They'll have an idea, and I think 'better' - that's good enough. We talk a lot about how hungry or satisfied they feel and try to make meals more sartisfing. EG, liquid calories like my smoothie aren't very filling, and if hunger was a problem, something solid might be a better idea.
We want to restore a person's response to their hunger cues. People lose touch with that and eat for a lot of different reasons - apart from being hungry - and they learn that losing say 700g in a week on average they have to feel 'this hungry'. Some of the highly processed foods interfere with that sense. The manufacturers research and constantly make that food more and more palatable, and the flavour rush becomes a strong desire on its own. They sometimes add caffeine to make it more addictive.
I've never had to worry about that because once a person realises that nutritional balance leaves very little room for 'empty calories', they automatically reduce food, or replace it more nutritious alternatives.
There is discussion about acellerating average metabolic rate, but that's 90% sleeping well. I also have tricks up my sleeve to prevent or ameliorate metabolic adaptation to fewer calories, but it's usually not necessary because they seem to happen by themselves.
In my mind it's all numbers. A client is losing 500g a week on average so I know they are in a deficit of about 500 cals a day. The client only knows how hungry they have to feel to sustain that rate, but as their nutrition improves, they don't feel as hungry as they once would have, and because they realise they don't really a have 'spare calories' for junk, they reduce/replace/remove without even thinking about it. Whereas they might have a couple of glasses of wine, they become conscious and 1/2 a glass is good enough.
Generally speaking the more-informed client just feels their way along and that seems to work just fine. My success rate with clients is very high because I don't have a magic diet, and my basic principle is to restore their sensitivity to their sensations of hunger and specific nutrients. Since it's principled, clients often change things up a bit, changingtheir diet while still adhering to the principles. That flexibility is essential for positive improvement
I don't even come close to special medical diets. I defer to a proper dietitian for that (not an MD), but I never had a client with metabolic/blood pressure issues that didn't reduce their meds or go off them (doctor approved). It's just the outcomes you are looking for depend on a set of priorities and do not depend on diet guru magic. That doesn't mean their diet is bad, so I encourage any good diet or even the slightest improvement.
Go for 1800 cals and see what happens. Don't go for 1400 because a higher percentage of weight lost will be muscle mass andyou risk metabolic maladaption. A regular sized male should have a BMR around 1800 and a maintenance of maybe 2500. It varies considerably between individuals. Don't reduce calories by more than 20% below maintenance.
There is a trainer like on You Tube. She's a very simplistic girl, very easy to grok, but it's obvious to me she has a good scientific foundation.
No time to edit today soz
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Oct 2, 2023 23:14:24 GMT -5
When 'get healthy' is the motive, priorities are different and both insulin resistance and unnecessary muscle loss can be avoided. The latter is critical to the former, afterall. Maybe a fast is a good way of resetting psycho-physically, but it could be melodrama that affirms 'insulin fear'. in any case, I hope this conversation influences the reset with a positive attitude and renders a clearer a vision of the road ahead.
We're back to writing for the healthy, you, versus writing about the unhealthy, me. I already had-have insulin resistance, so I'm in the process of repairing it, and maintaining. From Bikman's account, I've probably had insulin resistance for at least 20 years. (All those years my Mother had me check my blood sugar once a year, would NEVER have discovered high levels of insulin in the blood, which is basically what insulin resistance is. Already discussed several times). But, wanted to share another past weight loss strategy. I called it: Don't Feed the Fat. If you're overweight (and over 50% of us are), part of what you eat goes merely to maintain the fat. So, I came up with the plan to eat the number of calories to maintain the weight you want to be. Thus, don't feed the fat. So, for me now, that would mean to eat to maintain 176 pounds. I never got past that much, just knew I had to eat less calories than I then-was eating. But, just on the fly. Say 2,400 calories a day now maintains 226 pounds. Just set up an equation: 226/176 is to 2400/?x. x = 1,869 calories a day. But I'd rather do inavalan's 1,400 calorie a day. How does that sound to you lolly? I could even figure how long it would take to lose that weight. That would be 2 pounds a week, approximately. That would be six months, approximately. I've proved, 1974-1975, I can easily lose 40 pounds in 8 months (but I'm not 22 now). I'll just lower my goal of 14 months to one year, so, one pound a week. I will give a monthly update, mostly just as a way of keeping myself accountable. One pound a week would put me nearly at the = 1,869 calories a day. So 1,400 would be a daily goal to shoot at. I think I trade mark "Don't Feed the Fat". The new DFTF diet. But, question, from your experience, what would be the daily calories to maintain 176 pounds? Maintaining average muscle mass. It doesn't work that way. And this is good news. The formula is 3,500 calories ~= 1 lb of fat, calories out vs. calories in. In my experience, as illustrated by the graph I posted, over the 13 months in which I dropped from 295 lbs. to 165 lbs, while maintaining the same lifestyle (activity), and taking in the same number of calories daily, my weight-loss drop was almost linear. This suggests that the intake of calories needed to maintain weight was about the same at 295, and 165 lbs. It is likely that one explanation is that (for the same kind of activity) when you're heavier you spend more calories, so as you slim down, your difference calories out vs. calories in decreases, when you intake the same amount of calories. I said good news, because all this means that you need to significantly restrict calories only to loose weight, and after that, if you maintain the same lifestyle (activity), you return to about the same number of calories needed to maintain your weight, as you do now. |
|
