weight loss

[Guest guest]

> Also I'm a single parent and don't have time to prep a lot of the

> foods in Nourishing Traditions, is there somewhere I can learn about

> easy to prepare meals that aren't so time consuming?

I lost 5 pounds in a week doing a raw milk fast a couple weeks ago. I

started out drinking 2 quarts of milk a day, and then switched to

drinking about 36 - 48 oz. raw kefir (I'm only 5'4 " ). It had the

added advantage of reorganizing my perspective on how *much* I need to

eat (my appetite is decidedly smaller), and which foods I need to eat.

I felt wonderful and had a lot of energy on the " fast. "

If you have access to some raw cheese from pastured cows, that is a

wonderful " convenience " food. Salami, Ham and Jerky are helpful, too.

Salmon or fish salad with homemade mayonnaise from NT, or some

oysters, kipper snacks, or sardines. And if you can learn to make a

20-second omelette a la Child, that is like the most liberating

thing for a low-carb diet! I pack mine with different stuff every

time -- onions, bell peppers, mushrooms, cheese, cultured cream,

breakfast sausage, ham, salmon, crab -- use your imagination!

I make lots of smoothies with some combination of raw milk, cream,

eggs, whey protein powder (Jarrow sweetened with lo han guo or Source

Naturals sweetened with Stevia -- both low-temperature processed --

but Dr. Mercola has some " raw " whey powders available), cocoa powder

or blueberries.

I've been doing weight-bearing exercise for the past week, and that is

helping my strength. I wish I could say I'm dumping tons of weight,

but I am breastfeeding and it's the end of my cycle...

My DH is probably a better control (since he's not nursing or having a

menstrual cycle) -- he's lost about 15 pounds eating low-carb, since

mid-December. He also just started weight-bearing exercise last week.

I don't know how much you're trying to lose. Of course the more one

has to move, the more impact something like this is going to make. DH

probably has about 10-15 pounds to go, but I really need to lose about

20 pounds (and it hasn't been very long since I started doing this --

just 5 or 6 weeks).

Amy

[Guest guest]

On 2/16/08, Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...> wrote:

> This is interesting, and I've seen it elsewhere: -- Go 11-13 hours between

> dinner and breakfast.

> What is the rationale behind this? Like many of my other newly developed

> eating habits, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

To put it simply, it provides " exercise " to your body with respect to

dig into its fat reserves. The more " exercise " it gets in this

regard, the better it becomes, as with training any other muscle group

or performance type. There is more to it than that but that is the

gist.

You have a fed/fast cycle that needs 5 or 6 hours to complete, and if

you eat within 4 hours, you are running the " fed " part of the cycle

constantly, never giving it a break, and never giving the " fast " part

of the cycle any work to do.

> The other source that I saw it from said to drink a quart of water before

> you eat anything.

You want to be hydrated but don't want the water in your stomach while

you're eating. Best to drink it 20 minutes or a half hour before I

think.

> Something else that I would add to Chris' list is to not eat 3 hours before

> bed time. The Chinese believe that whatever you eat 3 hours before bedtime,

> your body keeps. If I MUST eat, I try to drink a glass of milk, or

> preferably kefir, or eat a piece of fruit.

Actually, that is one of the essential components of Mastering Leptin

that I forgot to add. Absolutely no eating within 3 hours of bed

time.

He says if you need to eat to fall asleep, this is a symptom of

disturbed leptin. I was always like this and since doing Mastering

Leptin (even though I follow it much less religiously now), I have had

no such problem.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 2/17/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> > The other source that I saw it from said to drink a quart of water before

> > you eat anything.

>

> You want to be hydrated but don't want the water in your stomach while

> you're eating. Best to drink it 20 minutes or a half hour before I

> think.

Also I really doubt a whole quart is necessary to hydrate you. Maybe a glass.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Go 11-13 hours between dinner and breakfast.

i would not recommend going more than about 5 hours between feeding

your body.

> You want to be hydrated but don't want the water in your stomach

while you're eating. Best to drink it 20 minutes or a half hour

before I think.

i wholeheartedly agree. too much water (though it is a wonderful thing

in itself) in the stomach only dilutes the acids that are essential in

degesting your food (ESPECIALLY if you are high fat/protein like many

of us here)

> Absolutely no eating within 3 hours of bed time. He says if you

need to eat to fall asleep, this is a symptom of disturbed leptin. I

was always like this and since doing Mastering Leptin (even though I

follow it much less religiously now), I have had no such problem.

i always eat about two hours before sleeping. never had a problem. i

am 100% NT (high protein, high coconut oil, fermented veg). i have

never had a weight problem. try not to eat any carbohydrates before

bed (although you probably arent eating that many to begin with). a

little nutbutter before bed as a snack even seems to serve me well.

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi-I am wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction

> towards learning about Weight Loss through a traditional diet. I had

> lost 35 pounds doing the Atkins diet but I hated it and don't want to

> do it again. While I like meat/chicken/fish as much as anyone I dont

> want to eat it 24/7.

>

> Also I'm a single parent and don't have time to prep a lot of the

> foods in Nourishing Traditions, is there somewhere I can learn about

> easy to prepare meals that aren't so time consuming?

>

> ,

To lose weight you need to consume fewer calories than you burn.

You an eat anything you like on a diet as long as you operate at a

caloric deficit. You can create a caloric deficit by reducing food

intake, adding physical activity, or better, both.

The benefits to losing weight on a low carb diet:

* better satiety, so less prone to *cheating*

* slightly improved rate of muscle retention, thus, hopefully,

improved body composition by the end of your diet

* improved health markers, ie, blood sugar, insulin sensitivity, blood

lipids

Eating only at certain times, avoidance of certain foods, eating only

special foods, forget it. It's calories and you'd best know how to

use them wisely.

Colpo's forum is helpful and no cost: lowcarbmuscle.com

His book is about the best fat loss resource I've read. You won't

find recipes, though. You want recipes and an exacting food plan with

a higher carb count, maybe go with Berardi's Precision Nutrition

and adjust for more saturated fats wherever needed. Warning: there's

plenty of food prep involved, but only once a week, I think.

I'm not sure why you distastefully associate an Atkins diet with an

excess of meat/chicken/fish? Is there something I missed on the Atkins

Diet? Is there so much protein? I've not read the book.

Besides, these are excellent foods for fat loss and if you want to

diet with traditional foods you'd do well to reconsider.

tb

[Guest guest]

--- tb " downwardog7 " <illneverbecool@...> wrote:

> Colpo's forum is helpful and no cost: lowcarbmuscle.com

> His book is about the best fat loss resource I've read.

, can you tell us any more about 's " Fat Loss Bible " ?

It's on my wish list but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I really

liked his " The Great Cholesterol Con " .

[Guest guest]

> i would not recommend going more than about 5 hours between feeding

> your body.

s is talking about the difference between night (sleeping) and

day (active). Do you eat every 5 hours 24x7?

> i always eat about two hours before sleeping. never had a problem. i

> am 100% NT (high protein, high coconut oil, fermented veg). i have

> never had a weight problem. try not to eat any carbohydrates before

> bed (although you probably arent eating that many to begin with). a

> little nutbutter before bed as a snack even seems to serve me well.

s' books are for people with leptin problems, but he also says

people can go decades violating the " leptin rules " and then if things

go south, they don't connect the dots.

I love the 5-6 hour cycles of eat, use, eat, use, eat, use, sleep. It

feels wonderful.

I've also heard that heavy exercisers can eat before bed just to get

all the calories in.

>

[Guest guest]

I disagree. Especially since the release of Taubes' book, " Good Calories,

Bad Calories. " In my experience, simply eliminating sugars and grain-based carbs

(without including exercise) has helped my husband and I lose weight. The ONLY

factor that drives fat storage is INSULIN, and the only foods that trigger

insulin are grains and sugars (carbs). These are a couple great links to 's

ideas in the form of a lecture at Berkeley:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216

and a shorter interview:

www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2007-2008/mp3/qq-2007-11-17_01.mp3 Enjoy!!!

" Eating only at certain times, avoidance of certain foods, eating only

special foods, forget it. It's calories and you'd best know how to

use them wisely. "

[Guest guest]

i say this every time weight loss comes up, but a little thyroid

nutrition in the form of iodine and mucho selenium made me lose quite a

bit of weight, and changed my energy level. coupled with good fats, of

course.

desh

[Guest guest]

>

> I disagree. Especially since the release of Taubes' book, " Good

Calories, Bad Calories. " In my experience, simply eliminating sugars

and grain-based carbs (without including exercise) has helped my

husband and I lose weight. The ONLY factor that drives fat storage is

INSULIN, and the only foods that trigger insulin are grains and sugars

(carbs)...

> ,

You disagree, but the exception you make is that cutting out certain

calorie-dense/low-nutrient foods from your diet helped the two of you

lose weight?

That's not a convincing argument. Maybe if you had diet logs with

calorie counts of your pre and post weight loss food intake, but

highly unlikely.

tb

[Guest guest]

>

> i say this every time weight loss comes up, but a little thyroid

> nutrition in the form of iodine and mucho selenium made me lose quite a

> bit of weight, and changed my energy level. coupled with good fats, of

> course.

>

> desh,

It's the same thing, if you supplement iodine, etc., and you get a

basal temp increase, but don't increase your food intake accordingly,

you're burning more calories, thus creating a potential deficit and

consequent weight loss.

For every degree rise in your body temperature, the metabolism

increases by 10%.

tb

[Guest guest]

,

> You disagree, but the exception you make is that cutting out certain

> calorie-dense/low-nutrient foods from your diet helped the two of you

> lose weight?

>

> That's not a convincing argument. Maybe if you had diet logs with

> calorie counts of your pre and post weight loss food intake, but

> highly unlikely.

I haven't read Colpo's book yet, but his apparent position that " a

calorie is a calorie " just doesn't make any sense from a biochemical

perspective. I agree that the main determinant will be calories in

versus calories expended (this, of course, HAS to be true), but the

composition of what you eat affects not only your satiety, but also

what your body does with those calories -- stores them or uses them.

Adipose fat storage is depended on total adipose glucose exposure.

Unlike the liver, which can use the glycerol backbone from

triglyceride hydrolysis to repackage fatty acids as a triglyceride,

adipose tissue can *only* use the glycerol backbone from glycolysis,

no matter how many triglycerides or fatty acids reach it. The

triglycerides can't get in without being broken down, and the fatty

acids from breaking them down can't get repackaged into a triglyceride

without sugar.

This is on top of the fact that insulin shuts down fatty acid

oxidation, turns on fatty acid synthesis, opposes the action of

energy-boosting hormones like adrenaline, etc.

The idea that this fundamental biochemistry is irrelevant strikes me

as extremely unlikely to be true.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> It's the same thing, if you supplement iodine, etc., and you get a

> basal temp increase, but don't increase your food intake accordingly,

> you're burning more calories, thus creating a potential deficit and

> consequent weight loss.

>

> For every degree rise in your body temperature, the metabolism

> increases by 10%.

Then all that is being argued is semantics. You originally said you

could eat " whatever you want " as long as you expend more calories than

you consume. But if you acknowledge that what you eat affects not

only the calories you consume but also the calories you expend even in

the resting state, the statement becomes meaningless, because you can

no longer eat " whatever you want. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I haven't read Colpo's book yet, but his apparent position that " a

> calorie is a calorie " just doesn't make any sense from a biochemical

> perspective. I agree that the main determinant will be calories in

> versus calories expended (this, of course, HAS to be true), but the

> composition of what you eat affects not only your satiety, but also

> what your body does with those calories -- stores them or uses them.

I haven't read Colpo's fat loss book either, but from what I gather

reading on his web site, his main contention is that tightly

controlled metabolic ward studies have failed to show any difference

in *weight loss* on isocaloric diets that have differing amounts of

fat versus carbs. What I'm not sure about is whether these studies,

probably using only people with normal metabolisms, are representative

of what happens with people who have abnormal metabolisms, including

many people with hypothyroid conditions. Maybe can shed some

light on this.

[Guest guest]

tb, explain this one then. For a couple of years I ate nothing but 1

peanut butter sandwich or grilled cheese a day (financial problems).

Drank lots of water and diet soda with Splenda. I did food diaries all

the time to prove this to my doctors and my daily intake was 400 to

1000 calories/day and I GAINED WEIGHT! I'm not in denial, crazy or

anything else, and people who were living with me can vouch for it.

The end of last May I went completely grain and sugar free along with a

lot of other changes. My caloric intake went up to 1200 to 1500cal/day

yet I lost 50lbs in 4 months. I have changed nothing, but haven't lost

an ounce in the past 4 months. It's driving me crazy. I do track my

calories randomly to make sure I'm not going crazy, but I'm not. I'm

totally convinced that all calories are not created equal. I still

have 60lbs to go. I'm wondering if I started eating several

tablespoonfuls of coconut oil a day if I really would start losing

again.

[Guest guest]

I blame the carbs/grain in the bread, plus maybe the stress. A

high-fat, low-carb diet generally works to keep you thinner, and

coconut oil definitely will take off anywhere from 5-20 pounds. Not

eating within 3 hours of bed also helps.

mike

[Guest guest]

,

> I haven't read Colpo's fat loss book either, but from what I gather

> reading on his web site, his main contention is that tightly

> controlled metabolic ward studies have failed to show any difference

> in *weight loss* on isocaloric diets that have differing amounts of

> fat versus carbs. What I'm not sure about is whether these studies,

> probably using only people with normal metabolisms, are representative

> of what happens with people who have abnormal metabolisms, including

> many people with hypothyroid conditions. Maybe can shed some

> light on this.

I am aware that this is his contention, but I haven't seen these

studies, and I would be surprised if they were sufficient to generate

a conclusion that made so little sense as what you eat does not affect

your resting metabolic rate. I guess I will have to read the book

and/or look at the studies in order to understand this.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Just browsing through the pubmed abstracts that come up for

" carbohydrate fat isocaloric weight loss, " here's what I find:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18174038?ordinalpos=3 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn\

trez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This study showed low-carb lost 12 pounds and low-fat lost 10. So the

low-carb group lost 20% more weight over 24 weeks. The p value was

0.17, which basically means there is an 83% likelihood that the

difference was real and the low-carb diet is more effective but a 17%

likelihood that it was due to chance. Usually an effect will only be

conclusive if the p value is 0.05 or less; sometimes the more rigorous

standard of 0.1 is used. However, there are basically two

interpretations of this: either the benefit of low-carb is modest and

the study was not designed with the statisticaly power to detect it

conclusively, or the benefit does not exist. The former is more

likely. Specifically, it is 83% likely whereas the latter is 17%

likely to be true. The correct conclusion from this study is not that

metabolic ward studies show that there is no metabolic advantage, but

that metabolic ward studies have not yet shown conclusively that there

is a metabolic advantage.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17823420?ordinalpos=5 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn\

trez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This one found a statistically significant effect (p<0.04), and a

similar improvement in mental processing speed on the low-carb diet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16403234?ordinalpos=12 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PE\

ntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This one seemed to find no effect but was only done for 8 weeks versus

the first one, which was 3x as long.

And so on. I'm only reading the abstracts and not doing a

comprehensive review and I'm sure Colpo has looked much more carefully

at all of these, but I suspect he is stretching his conclusions a bit

based on his views of how to interpret statistical significance with

respect to thereotical and biological significance.

Chris

[Guest guest]

and i have raynaud's- so the iodine and selenium really just make things

more normal here.

desh

[Guest guest]

Another thing is -- are these studies all using reduced-calorie diets?

The metabolic advantage of low-carb is probably accentuated in the

absence of caloric restriction and diminished in its presence.

Glucose is necessary for fat storage in adipose tissue, but its effect

will primarily be seen when one is consuming too many calories. If

one is only consuming as much glucose as one needs for present energy

use and for replenishing glycogen reserves, the glucose is not likely

to stimulate fat storage.

It might be more true that high-carb diets are more likely to make

people fat than isocaloric low-carb diets are than it is that

isocaloric low-carb diets are more likely to stimulate weight loss

than isocaloric high-carb diets are.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Then all that is being argued is semantics. You originally said you

> could eat " whatever you want " as long as you expend more calories than

> you consume. But if you acknowledge that what you eat affects not

> only the calories you consume but also the calories you expend even in

> the resting state, the statement becomes meaningless, because you can

> no longer eat " whatever you want. "

>

>

I think there's a misunderstanding about what I'm saying. I'm

certainly not suggesting " eat what you want and lose weight, " as if

you shouldn't use everything you know to stack the odds in the favor

of lean body mass retention and hopefully even, gain. Just because

you can lose weight eating Twinkies, doesn't mean you should. All the

same, yes, you could eat Craig meals totaling 1200 cal/day or

eat something more nutritious and lose equal amounts of scale weight.

That metabolic ward studies showed people lost identical amounts of

weight on isocaloric diets of various macronutrient ratios means

exactly that, scale weight.

An informed dieter can still manipulate some factors in order to favor

better muscle retention by, off the top of my head, eating adequate

protein and low carbohydrate, and performing regular and progressive

resistance exercise.

My very first post gave all the reasons why a low carb diet was better

than " eating anything you want " in regards to favoring a slightly

better ratio of fat loss to strictly weight loss. As well as why

resistance exercise was preferable to other forms of activities to

support a weight loss effort. Just as you can lose *weight* by doing

a lot of mid-range cardio exercise, it's not the best choice. The

best choice for improving body composition is resistance exercise.

In desh's post, and my reply, iodine wasn't referred to as something

" eaten " , as say, eating shrimp or goose eggs everyday to lose weight.

I understood desh to mean " iodine " in some sort of concentrated

supplemental form, like Lugol's. A medicinal substance used to

correct a body imbalance. If someone unaware of what to expect from

iodine, who wanted to lose weight, but whose thyroid wasn't sluggish,

followed desh's suggestion after reading the post, that person might

experience some unpleasant effects. Certainly, if someone added

Cytomel to their diet (or Adderall) they would lose weight as well, by

either an enhanced metabolism or depressed appetite, or both, but that

doesn't make it a good, stand alone idea for weight loss.

When dieting, you can--and should--use whatever tools you have in your

toolbox to favor muscle retention, but at the end o' day, in order to

burn fat stores as fuel, and thus lose *weight*, you must operate on a

caloric deficit.

Remember when coconut oil was all the rage and people were adding it

to their diet and wondering why they weren't losing weight so they'd

write to this list and ask? And it would be explained to them that

you can't simply add spoonfuls of oil to your diet and not cut back

elsewhere?

The same with NT eating in general, I used to see it quite often as a

chapter leader: people embrace the healthy fats, then they begin to

gain weight and get upset. When you begin increase calorie-dense

foods, portions need to be re-sized or you will be operating on a

caloric surplus and store fat.

I'm not some Colpo fangrrl ranting, he simply explains it very

well.

I have a second copy of The Fat Loss Bible waiting somewhere on the

interweb to be downloaded. I can send the link to either you or

and you can have it. Actually, given your clout,

oughta send you a comp. I can pm him and make an inquiry on your

behalf, if you like, or better you can do it yourself.

tb

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> Remember when coconut oil was all the rage and people were adding it

> to their diet and wondering why they weren't losing weight so they'd

> write to this list and ask? And it would be explained to them that

> you can't simply add spoonfuls of oil to your diet and not cut back

> elsewhere?

I remember that being some people's experience, and a lot of other

people lost weight without cutting back elsewhere (at least

intentionally). I totally agree that one has to increase caloric

expenditure and/or cut caloric intake in order to lose weight, and I

think we are in large part debating semantics here, though I'm still

skeptical that metabolic ward studies actually show there is no

advantage to low-carb, for reasons stated in my last two posts. I

will read TFLB in time but can't right now. Thanks for the offer,

though. Maybe in a few months.

Chris

[Guest guest]

You're right, I should have clarified:

Yes, we cut carbs drastically, but therefore increased fat intake about

ten-fold. Fats are very high in calories. If anything, we eat way more calories

now, and are thinner.

Here's that interview again:

http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2007-2008/mp3/qq-2007-11-17_01.mp3

[Guest guest]

>

> You're right, I should have clarified:

> Yes, we cut carbs drastically, but therefore increased fat intake

about ten-fold. Fats are very high in calories. If anything, we eat

way more calories now, and are thinner.

> ,

That's terrific, but it doesn't contradict what I'm saying in any way.

Unless you kept a meticulous and accurate food log of your pre and

peri weight loss food intake, no one knows how many calories you both ate.

But I assure you, you are not exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics.

tb

[Guest guest]

....though I'm still

> skeptical that metabolic ward studies actually show there is no

> advantage to low-carb, for reasons stated in my last two posts.

>

>

I'm in over my head, I'm just clarifying something: the metabolic

ward studies showed no advantage to low-carb as far as *scale weight loss*

there was a slight advantage in re: to body composition, ie, muscle

retention.

I already pinged him, so we'll see what the reply is.

I'm happy enough to find some other way of occupying myself at this point.

lalala

tb