 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / January 2007Another low-calorie diet
I'm looking at magazine that has an article entitled, "Activate your skinny gene" with the caption, "Try the underground diet scientists are raving about!". Underground? James B. Johnson, M.D., researcher at the Louisianna State University basically advices us to eat as usually -meaning no restriction- one day, and eat between 1000 to 1200 calories the next day. The diet has been dubbed, "up-day, down-day dieting". It's all about alternating. He claims that this alternating triggers the skinny gene known as SIRT1. He ventures to the point of saying, "You can't store fat if your SIRT1 is activated". For me, that's a low-calorie diet. Instead of going at 1500 calories EVERY day, you go at 2000 calories one day, 1000 calories the next day, 2500 calories the day after, and 500 calories the day after that one, which balances out to 1500 calories a day. Whatever health magazine I open all the diets I've seen suggest to eat an average of about 1500 calories. Not just a few magazines, but EVERY ONE OF THEM! What do we know about SIRT1? > I'm looking at magazine that has an article entitled, "Activate your > skinny gene" with the caption, "Try the underground diet scientists [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > What do we know about SIRT1? It's just another name for a diet we've called the "zig zag" diet. By zig zagging calories, your body doesn't get "used" to a set calorie level, plus it gives you the benefit of having some opportunity to eat those things not usually allowed during a diet. It worked for me, but moreso because I know that if I could just "tough it out" for a few more days, I'd get my "refeed day". But I only had a refeed once a week. > <mikesmith9...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169912986.393585.114400@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that if I could just "tough it out" for a few more days, I'd get my "refeed > day". But I only had a refeed once a week.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Thanks for the info. That diet is not a bad idea at all. Some days I don't feel to eat that much, so I should not force myself to eat. A few snacks throughout the day would be enough. As I want to keep an average of 1600 calorie a day, the strategy would be for me to eat 1000 calories one day, and eat the "unused" 600 calories on a day when I have a good appetite which would give me a good 2100 calories that day. 1500 calories a day is hard for me, but I could live with strategy with more ease. > That diet is not a bad idea at all. Some days I > don't feel to eat that much, so I should not force myself to eat. A > few snacks throughout the day would be enough. As I want to keep an > average of 1600 calorie a day, Got your bomb calorimeter portable? > the strategy would be for me to eat > 1000 calories one day, and eat the "unused" 600 calories on a day when > I have a good appetite which would give me a good 2100 calories that > day. 1500 calories a day is hard for me, but I could live with > strategy with more ease. Screw strategy. Buy a $10 scale, weigh everything you eat except water, you'll actually, then, have a strategy. Are you the Asian doctor who promoted a 2-pound-a-day diet? The one who was banned from working in a certain hospital? Is it you??? > > That diet is not a bad idea at all. Some days I > > don't feel to eat that much, so I should not force myself to eat. A [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- > Are you the Asian doctor who promoted a 2-pound-a-day diet? The one > who was banned from working in a certain hospital? Is it you??? Yeah, that's Mu, you caught Mu, you're no match for MuChung. How was it that you found out? Teach of where dozens have failed. >> For me, that's a low-calorie diet. Instead of going at 1500 calories >> EVERY day, you go at 2000 calories one day, 1000 calories the next [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> What do we know about SIRT1? > It's just another name for a diet we've called the "zig zag" diet. We who? "We" as if you are part of the scientific community of weight loss researchers? "You're" a poster on Usenet, don't delude yourself. > By zig > zagging calories, your body doesn't get "used" to a set calorie level, When does it? It never does, nearly everyone's intake is cyclical. > plus > it gives you the benefit of having some opportunity to eat those things not > usually allowed during a diet. Diets that specifically call for counting and restrict caloric intake fail, the history is there, the studies are there, 95% rescission in less that two years. > It worked for me, but moreso because I know > that if I could just "tough it out" for a few more days, I'd get my "refeed > day". But I only had a refeed once a week. This isn't a "diet", it's volume restriction and if you added the mass of the food you ate, using a $10 scale instead of $1,000s in wasted time, books, posts and effort, you would have come out the same. Assuming your not lying and are actually at weighted loss. > <mikesmith9...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's just another name for a diet we've called the "zig zag" diet. By zig > zagging calories, your body doesn't get "used" to a set calorie level, plus There are studies that show T3 thyroid output dropping after 2+ weeks of extremely low carb intake. There are studies that show that leptin drops after a couple of months of extremely low car intake. Since low fat dieting is also driven by a few hormone feedback loops I figure those have time spans of weeks or months as well. The "get used to" comment isn't a mystical idea but an observation that's backed up by specific studies as long as it's used specifically enough. > it gives you the benefit of having some opportunity to eat those things not > usually allowed during a diet. It worked for me, but moreso because I know > that if I could just "tough it out" for a few more days, I'd get my "refeed > day". But I only had a refeed once a week. Alternating is harder work than low carbing. I don't know if it's harder work than low fatting. But it does work very well combined with either. > I'm looking at magazine that has an article entitled, "Activate your > skinny gene" with the caption, "Try the underground diet scientists [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > SIRT1. He ventures to the point of saying, "You can't store fat if > your SIRT1 is activated". He's full of sh.t. > For me, that's a low-calorie diet. Instead of going at 1500 calories > EVERY day, you go at 2000 calories one day, 1000 calories the next > day, 2500 calories the day after, and 500 calories the day after that > one, which balances out to 1500 calories a day. Eat two pounds or less a day, on balance, guess what, over time you have a low calorie mean intake. > Whatever health > magazine I open all the diets I've seen suggest to eat an average of > about 1500 calories. Not just a few magazines, but EVERY ONE OF THEM! What does that tell you? That they sell fluff, use them for what they are, entertainment pieces. > What do we know about SIRT1? Nothing that you or I need to care about. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.