 |
 | 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 / March 2005Refeeds
I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to raise leptin levels & keep your metabolism from dropping too much. Although leptin has been mentioned in this ng, I have seen no mention of refeeds, so I googled it & got some info & decided it was probably time to have one myself, I have been dieting since mid-Jan & this past week I'd been hungry all the time, looking forward to next morning's b/fast at bedtime & even waking up @ 5am ready for b/fast. Yesterday I also felt a little dizzy & so desperate for carbs I could have killed for a piece of bread! I followed the guidelines from http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/history/topic/25250-1.html although they seem to be addressing bodybuilders, I'd have thought you'd eat more fat on a refeed but I stuck mostly to pasta, bread, rice & cereal as indicated, eating around 30% above maintenace, 15% cals from fat (as low as I could get), 70% from carbs. I'm not sure if this advice is good for anyone or just for bodybulders but I didn't think it would hurt to try it. This is the first time I overeat whilst logging what I eat, usually you only log when you're on a diet & it was revealing to see how easy it was to eat 30% in excess of requirements, although I did feel stuffed at times, because I had got used to a much lower amount of food over the past few weeks. I avoided fat all along (didn't add cheese or butter to the pasta, just meat sauce to increase protein). I chose the lowest-fat filled pasta too. If I hadn't been avoiding fat I could easily have gone over 50% above. Frankly, now I'm surprised I didn't gain more weight between Aug 2004 & Jan 2005, eating at 'refeed levels' on most days, only with more fat & sugar! The refeed seems to have done the trick since this morning I don't feel hungry at all. I know the site advises not to step on the scale the day after but I just couldn't resist. The weight 'gain' was just a pound, not bad considering most of that food is still waiting its turn to get out of my digestive system, not to mention the water retention & glycogen replenishment they talk about. Any comments, links, tips, etc. on refeeds? > I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to raise > leptin levels & keep your metabolism from dropping too much. > Any comments, links, tips, etc. on refeeds? No refeeds back in 1998 when I lost 70 pounds in seven months on the original Weight Watchers program. We were also advised not to exercise beyond walking until reaching goal!.  SignatureDiva ***** The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman >> I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to raise >> leptin levels & keep your metabolism from dropping too much. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >original Weight Watchers program. We were also advised not to exercise >beyond walking until reaching goal!. Whatever for??? This sounds idiotic to me, honestly. Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 > >> I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to raise > >> leptin levels & keep your metabolism from dropping too much. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 262/130s/130s > started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 I've been a WW lifetime member since 1984 and I've never heard the suggestion to not exercise beyond walking until you've reached your goal. Several of the leaders encouraged some type of weight training in addition to walking. If your weight had stalled they always suggested you use all your regular and extra points for a few days - sort of a mini refeed. Many members felt they could lose weight quicker if they stayed at the lower level of points. Increasing to the maximum allowed often ended the stall. I guess I've always been fortunate to have good WW leaders<g> Beverly 177/142/~140 > > >> I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to > raise [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Beverly > 177/142/~140 That was the case in 1968. > > > >> I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to > > raise [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > That was the case in 1968. That makes more sense. You original post indicated 1998. >> >No refeeds back in 1998 when I lost 70 pounds in seven months on the >> >original Weight Watchers program. We were also advised not to >exercise >> >beyond walking until reaching goal!. >I've been a WW lifetime member since 1984 and I've never heard the >suggestion to not exercise beyond walking until you've reached your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I guess I've always been fortunate to have good WW leaders<g> I think maybe Carol meant to say 1968? I was in WW in 1969 and some fo the rules then were what we'd regard as strange nowadays, to say the least, although I don't remember this specific one about exercise. They certainly didn't promote exercise as the othe strand to dieting, but I also lost very fast for as long as I stuck to the programme. janice >> >> I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to > raise [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Beverly > 177/142/~140 I've heard this too. You need the walking because it's aerobic and you can't be fit without aerobic conditioning, but AFAIK the resistance work is better for preventing/reversing osteoporosis. > >> I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to raise > >> leptin levels & keep your metabolism from dropping too much. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Whatever for??? This sounds idiotic to me, honestly. We were cautiined at that time against building muscle until we lost the fat. > > >> I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to raise > > >> leptin levels & keep your metabolism from dropping too much. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > We were cautiined at that time against building muscle until we lost > the fat. No doubt that was done to stave-off disappointment at no weight loss (although fat loss was occurring). Also, you do not want the beginning enthusiasm to lead to burnout in trying too hard. The latter is wise, the former is misguided at best. I hope that they have amended that ridiculous (and counter productive) rational. SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick > I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed them to raise > leptin levels & keep your metabolism from dropping too much. Although leptin [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Any comments, links, tips, etc. on refeeds? Refeeds are good to keep the body from responding to starvation mode (metabolic slowdown, etc.); and as such can be very useful. I would say though that I think they are more for dieting to a goal. That is, you need to get to a certain weight for a meet, a wedding, a reunion, etc. After which you can relax your dietary restriction somewhat. I am eating for a healthier life, my goal is to live as long and be as productive as I can during that time. I do not think that I could spend the rest of my life scheduling refeeds and sever restriction in between. I prefer to eat as healthy as I can, watch how much I eat, and enjoy. Of course, if a cyclical diet structure is appealing to you, hey! Who the heck am I say anything. I tend to eat almost no variety, it's what works for me ;-) For a lot of info on refeeds, try Googling "Lyle McDonald." The king of CKD (and dieting guru in general). SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick > For a lot of info on refeeds, try Googling "Lyle McDonald." The king of > CKD > (and dieting guru in general). And ill-tempered egomaniac. Mary > > For a lot of info on refeeds, try Googling "Lyle McDonald." The king of > > CKD [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mary You are correct, but I admire his wisdom (sometimes the best things are not packaged with the nicest wrapping). SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick >> > For a lot of info on refeeds, try Googling "Lyle McDonald." The king >> > of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not > packaged with the nicest wrapping). And I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bath water. But I've never benefited from anything he's written, so I remain unimpressed. Mary 325-167-150 > >> > For a lot of info on refeeds, try Googling "Lyle McDonald." The king > >> > of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Mary > 325-167-150 Not even increasing Anglo-Saxon epithets? > >> > For a lot of info on refeeds, try Googling "Lyle McDonald." The king > >> > of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Mary > 325-167-150 Mostly applicable to serious weight lifters or body builders, but the man does consume and understand a HUGE volume of scientific research (I wish I had the time!!). SignatureDr. Dickie Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438 Poking kooks with a pointy stick > Refeeds are good to keep the body from responding to starvation mode > (metabolic slowdown, etc.); and as such can be very useful. I would say [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > healthier life, my goal is to live as long and be as productive as I can > during that time. It's not for health reasons, I'm in good health & I doubt my current weight (5'2", 131lbs) is high enough to put it at risk. I'd like to drop at least 10 lbs before the summer, so in a way you can call it a 'goal', although it's not as specific as the ones you mention. But it's good to have goals in life, isn't it? I mean other than just keeping your health... >I do not think that I could spend the rest of my life > scheduling refeeds and sever restriction in between. Neither could I, I didn't say I want to do this for the rest of my life. Basically I need to do restriction whilst losing (like most people), then switch to maintenance. > I prefer to eat as healthy as I can, watch how much I eat, and enjoy. Of > course, if a cyclical diet structure is appealing to you, hey! Who the > heck > am I say anything. As I said in reply to another post, I'm trying to find out what works best both in terms of weight loss & feeling well, I was wondering if there's a scientific basis for refeeds, if they're just cheating like some people here are saying, then I'll just cheat my way, not necessarily avoiding fat & sugar as indicated... >I tend to eat almost no variety, it's what works for me > ;-) No variety? that wouldn't work for me! Variety is the spice of life... > For a lot of info on refeeds, try Googling "Lyle McDonald." The king of > CKD > (and dieting guru in general). Thanks, I'm looking at some websites now, only they're asking me to excercise bits I don't wish to excercise: my credit cards. But I'll keep looking at the info that's available online. I sounds like a convoluted rationalization for cheating. I = It Damn typos. I hate it when my typos pass the spelling checker. People go to great efforts to find logical reasons to eat more food. I think it is a natural reaction to calorie restriction. > I sounds like a convoluted rationalization for cheating. >I = It > > Damn typos. I hate it when my typos pass the spelling checker. No worries, I'm used 2 rdng txt msgs :-) > People go to great efforts to find logical reasons to eat more food. I > think it is a natural reaction to calorie restriction. >I sounds like a convoluted rationalization for cheating. May well be, but it's highly structured cheating, given all the guidelines mentioned. If I was just going to cheat I'd have had butter & parmesan on my pasta (i'm not crazy about tomato & meat sauce), but I was supposed to avoid fat. I'd have had chocolate but I was supposed to avoid fat'n'sugar 'coz sugar has fructose & you have to avoid eating much fructose too. Sounds like a lot of restrictions for merely cheating, which I'd have done in my own way. I'm trying to figure out what works best both in terms of weight loss & well being (energy levels, no hunger). Although I know restrictive low-carb is not for me, I'm now trying a lower carb, higher protein balance to see how it works. I was also thinking about spreading the extra calories of the re-feed over a two week period, thus eating a bit more calories every day & having no refeed in a couple of weeks time. But I don't know whether this would have the same effect, it all depends on whether there's a real scientifc base for refeeds or they are, like you say, just cheating. Guess I won't know till I've tried it.... >>I = It >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Guess I won't know till I've tried it.... Well, I've had periodic occasions of extra eating -- whatever one wishes to call them -- throughout weight loss and maintenance. I don't worry about rationalizing it physiologically, but psychologically and pragmatically it works for me. I want such occasions to be part of my life -- just in controlled amounts -- and have built them into my WOE. I tend to call them "splurges" more than anything else. In fact, I'm heading off to one in about an hour :-) : http://www.pearmundcellars.com/menus/Dinner_050308.shtml Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 > Well, I've had periodic occasions of extra eating -- whatever one > wishes to call them -- throughout weight loss and maintenance. I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 262/130s/130s > started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 What is it really like eating oysters? Does it feel as horrid as it looks? I guess it can't...... ?! :o)) Rachael 176/121/119-124 >> Well, I've had periodic occasions of extra eating -- whatever one >> wishes to call them -- throughout weight loss and maintenance. I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >What is it really like eating oysters? Does it feel as horrid as it looks? >I guess it can't...... ?! :o)) Well, I like them, as do lots of people. The texture is probably kind of what it looks like; the taste is sort of bland, and sort of fishy, but good. In this case, the oysters were in a sort of creamy garlic sauce in a pastry shell. If you weren't told, you probably wouldn't know that there were oysters in it, vs. something like mushrooms. I'm just back from dinner -- too much to drink to feel like doing "Food & Exercise" stuff tonight -- will do it tomorrow sometime. Dinner was excellent! >Rachael >176/121/119-124 Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 >What is it really like eating oysters? Does it feel as horrid as it looks? >I guess it can't...... ?! :o)) Oh, I think it can:( It's a question of texture for me. I can't do mussels either or anything similar. janice > >What is it really like eating oysters? Does it feel as horrid as it looks? > >I guess it can't...... ?! :o)) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > janice I haven't had oysters in years. The only time I ate them was when my mother made oyster dressing for the holidays. Once they were cut up and baked you could hardly detect them in the dressing. I just never had the desire to eat them any other way. Beverly > In fact, I'm heading off to one in about an hour :-) : > > http://www.pearmundcellars.com/menus/Dinner_050308.shtml Oh, I'm sooo jealous. :-) Tell me what the flan was like? (please taste the crust<g>) SignatureSnowshoeing . . . Laurie in Maine 207/115 New Scale Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 >> In fact, I'm heading off to one in about an hour :-) : >> >> http://www.pearmundcellars.com/menus/Dinner_050308.shtml > >Oh, I'm sooo jealous. :-) Tell me what the flan was like? (please taste >the crust<g>) "Persimmon Flan with Cornmeal-Pignolia Crust and Pearmund Vin de Sol Gelée" Okay -- the persimmon flan was more what I'd call custard. It didn't have the caramelized sugar topping that I associate with flan. It was lightly fruit flavored. I'm not sure I recognize the taste of persimmons; I might have guessed this was orange. It was nice and creamy, though. The "crust" was really a sort of cookie that the flan was sitting on top of. It reminded me in texture of a kind of cookie called a "digestive biscuit" -- which I think is primarily an English thing. It was very crunch and tasty, and you could taste the pignolia nuts. The coolest thing was the Vin de Sol Gelée. This is a wine Chris (my winemaker friend) makes from his dessert wine (a late harvest vidal) by putting it on the roof in the sun. It becomes very nutty and sherry-like, though it's not fortified like sherry is. They made this into little threads of gelatin -- very cool. In general I'd rather drink it than eat it, but it was fun. Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 > Okay -- the persimmon flan was more what I'd call custard. It didn't > have the caramelized sugar topping that I associate with flan. It was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > made this into little threads of gelatin -- very cool. In general I'd > rather drink it than eat it, but it was fun. Oh yum thanks! <enjoying vicariously> SignatureWalking on . . . fresh snow tomorrow! Laurie in Maine 207/115 New Scale Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > I had heard about refeeds a few years ago, that you needed > them to raise leptin levels & keep your metabolism from > dropping too much. Although leptin has been mentioned in > this ng I've discussed leptin on and off over time, but mostly on ASDLC. The leptin/T3-thyroid feedback loop explains many common events among low carbers. > I have seen no mention of refeeds I've also discussed refeeds on and off, again on ASDLC. I know the hormonal mechanisms for low carb, but I don't know the hormonal mechanisms for low fat. > so I googled it & got some info & decided it was probably > time to have one myself Cubit posted a good point - It is VERY tempting to see the idea of a refeed as an excuse to cheat. Worse, if you do it as a cheat and the resulting whoosh happens that sets up a *terrible* negative feedback loop. It is extremely important to chose your refeed menu carefully. Pick the items you consider the most dull. If you've been low carbing refeed on whatever high carb food you find the least tempting not the most tempting. If you've been low fatting refeed on whatever high fat food you find the least tempting not the most tempting. > I followed the guidelines from > http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/history/topic/25250-1.html > although they seem to be addressing bodybuilders Nearly all leptin write-ups have a hidden assumption: They assume you're already in starvation mode and you need to cure that problem. This leads to a very different strategy: Whenever possible avoid starvation mode in the first place. If you never get into starvation mode you could go all the way down to the last 10-20 pounds before a refeed becomes theraputic. As a result I regularly preach moderate courses to stay out of starvation mode in the first place. I get called names for doing so, by people who like and want more extreme programs. Shrug, immoderate approaches have high drop-out rates for more reasons than just triggering starvation modes but immoderate approaches as sure tempting. > I'd have thought you'd eat more fat on a refeed but I > stuck mostly to pasta, bread, rice & cereal as indicated Leptin is released by 1) excess stored body fat (this is why folks with a lot to lose drop pounds quickly and also why they don't get stall problems at the drop of a hat) and by 2) the liver based on the highest carb intake in the last long period of time (at least 2 weeks but can be more than 2 months). So the way to increase leptin quickly is that second point and thus high carb. > I chose the lowest-fat filled pasta too. If I hadn't been > avoiding fat I could easily have gone over 50% above. Another important consideration - Go high carb and it is trivial to add fat and overeat by a wide margin. It's fat-plus-carbs that's the killer for weight gain and such. > Any comments, links, tips, etc. on refeeds? My first opinion: The most important and most missed factor is figuring out how to avoid stavation mode metabolism drop in the first place so refeeeds are needed. If you don' have the "disease" of a dropped metabolism from starvation mode, you don't need the risky "cure" or a refeed. My second opinion: Pick the most boring foods you can imagine to refeed on, to reduce the chance of turning it into a cheat and ending up off-plan for years. My third opinion: Are refeeds ever discussed by low fat folks? Eating low-fat/high-carb leptin should never become a problem. I suspect there are other hormonal feedback mechanisms in place for them. > Cubit posted a good point - It is VERY tempting to see the > idea of a refeed as an excuse to cheat. Worse, if you do it > as a cheat and the resulting whoosh happens that sets up a > *terrible* negative feedback loop. I don't understand this 'negative feedback loop'. I had the 'refeed day' on Monday and it did the trick. Tuesday the scale showed I'd gained 1lb, today (Thursday) I'm 2lbs down, it all evened out. The hunger & cravings of the past few days (before the refeed) have gone & I'm now back on track. The only negative aspect was that my system wasn't used to processing so many carbs (or so much food) & it took longer than normal to get it all through the intestinal tract, resulting in a bit of discomfort 24 to 36 hrs later. I'm fine now. > It is extremely important > to chose your refeed menu carefully. Pick the items you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whatever high fat food you find the least tempting not the > most tempting. All the websites I found on the subject advised to concentrate on carbs & avoid fat as much as possible. The only discrepancy was on fructose, some places said you should eat lots of it & others said to restrict fructose. > Nearly all leptin write-ups have a hidden assumption: > They assume you're already in starvation mode and you need > to cure that problem. I probably was, it certainly felt like it. > This leads to a very different strategy: Whenever possible > avoid starvation mode in the first place. If you never get > into starvation mode you could go all the way down to the > last 10-20 pounds before a refeed becomes theraputic. 10-20 lbs is all I need to lose, I'm not obese, just a little on the high side of 'healthy'. > As a result I regularly preach moderate courses to stay out > of starvation mode in the first place. I get called names > for doing so, by people who like and want more extreme > programs. Shrug, immoderate approaches have high drop-out > rates for more reasons than just triggering starvation > modes but immoderate approaches as sure tempting. A small woman like me without too much excess weight has to limit calories further than bigger people & there's less margin to avoid 'starvation mode' & still lose weight. > Leptin is released by 1) excess stored body fat (this is > why folks with a lot to lose drop pounds quickly and also [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more than 2 months). So the way to increase leptin > quickly is that second point and thus high carb. OK, just like all the notes I read. > Another important consideration - Go high carb and it is > trivial to add fat and overeat by a wide margin. It's > fat-plus-carbs that's the killer for weight gain and such. They all said to avoid fat. As I said above, there was no net weight gain after the refeed, on the contrary. > My first opinion: The most important and most missed > factor is figuring out how to avoid stavation mode > metabolism drop in the first place so refeeeds are needed. > If you don' have the "disease" of a dropped metabolism > from starvation mode, you don't need the risky "cure" > or a refeed. Why is it 'risky'? Other than a bit of indigestion, it worked really well. > My second opinion: Pick the most boring foods you can > imagine to refeed on, to reduce the chance of turning it > into a cheat and ending up off-plan for years. Years? It was only one day & I'm back 'on plan' now! > My third opinion: Are refeeds ever discussed by low fat > folks? Eating low-fat/high-carb leptin should never > become a problem. I suspect there are other hormonal > feedback mechanisms in place for them. I'm not a scientist but I know there's always been diet plans with 'days off'. I also suspect different things apply to different groups of people, like those with 10-20lbs to lose & those who are 100lbs overweight... > > Cubit posted a good point - It is VERY tempting to see the > > idea of a refeed as an excuse to cheat. Worse, if you do it > > as a cheat and the resulting whoosh happens that sets up a > > *terrible* negative feedback loop. > > I don't understand this 'negative feedback loop'. Good for you. I remember far too many posts by people who noticed that a cheat triggers a whoosh, so they do it again, and again, and then they stop posting. I remember far too many posts by people who cheated, fell off their plan, and didn't come back until 2-3 years later. Someone who wants to do things to an extreme will tend to end up in starvation mode. Then they will need a refeed to "cure" the "disease" their extreme approach created in the first place. Have a person doing this discover that a cheat often leads to a whoosh and you have a recipe for a crash. After all, a cheat is an extreme approach that will appeal. Going rail to rail leads to a crash. > I had the 'refeed day' on > Monday and it did the trick. Tuesday the scale showed I'd gained 1lb, today > (Thursday) I'm 2lbs down, it all evened out. The hunger & cravings of the > past few days (before the refeed) have gone & I'm now back on track. Wonderfull. I bet you didn't use hard candy or cake. > > It is extremely important > > to chose your refeed menu carefully. Pick the items you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > All the websites I found on the subject advised to concentrate on carbs & > avoid fat as much as possible. And what cheat is low fat? Check. > > This leads to a very different strategy: Whenever possible > > avoid starvation mode in the first place. If you never get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 10-20 lbs is all I need to lose, I'm not obese, just a little on the high > side of 'healthy'. Then you're a prime candidate for the weight lifter write-ups being a good tool. > > My first opinion: The most important and most missed > > factor is figuring out how to avoid stavation mode [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why is it 'risky'? Other than a bit of indigestion, it worked really well. Because many people crash and burn when they try it. Folks in ketosis are particularly at risk, because a refeed will recharge their stored carbs and they will have to go through the initial carb cravings again to get back on their plan. > I also suspect different things apply to different groups of people, > like those with 10-20lbs to lose & those who are 100lbs overweight... That bears repeating. >> I don't understand this 'negative feedback loop'. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > far too many posts by people who cheated, fell off their > plan, and didn't come back until 2-3 years later. It's got a lot to do with your frame of mind. Many people seem to think that once they've "broken the diet", they might as well go the whole hog, like saying <diet_mode:OFF> <binge_mode:ON> > Someone who wants to do things to an extreme will tend to > end up in starvation mode. Then they will need a refeed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for a crash. After all, a cheat is an extreme approach > that will appeal. Going rail to rail leads to a crash. It's Friday today & so far I've stayed on plan Tue, Wed, Thur & Fri morning. >> I had the 'refeed day' on >> Monday and it did the trick. Tuesday the scale showed I'd gained 1lb, >> today >> (Thursday) I'm 2lbs down, it all evened out. The hunger & cravings of the >> past few days (before the refeed) have gone & I'm now back on track. > Wonderfull. I bet you didn't use hard candy or cake. No, lots of bread, ravioli with meat sauce, pancakes (without butter), rice, beans, custardy desserts >> All the websites I found on the subject advised to concentrate on carbs & >> avoid fat as much as possible. > And what cheat is low fat? Check. All the stuff I mentioned above. Log for the day shows 47g of fat consumed, 16% of total calories. Lower than on most low cal days where fat is 18%-25%, you really can't go much lower than that. >> > This leads to a very different strategy: Whenever possible >> > avoid starvation mode in the first place. If you never get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> 10-20 lbs is all I need to lose, I'm not obese, just a little on the high >> side of 'healthy'. > Then you're a prime candidate for the weight lifter > write-ups being a good tool. May be a good one for some people... The reason there are so many diet plans around is because there isn't a single one that works for everyone in the world... >> > My first opinion: The most important and most missed >> > factor is figuring out how to avoid stavation mode [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have to go through the initial carb cravings again to > get back on their plan. Ah, now I know where you're coming from. It takes a lot less than 450g carbs to kick you out of ketosis & it takes several days to get back onto that state. I tried going that route before but found it just wasn't for me. For one thing I didn't have any energy at all. I also didn't like the range of foods you have to eat on a keto diet, some people rave about being able to eat bacon & mayo on a diet, I could spend the rest of my life without bacon & mayo but not without cereal, rice or pasta. >> I also suspect different things apply to different groups of people, >> like those with 10-20lbs to lose & those who are 100lbs overweight... > > That bears repeating. Well, one size seldom fits all... |
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.