Weight Loss: Starch And Trytophan Are What Are Stopping You

[redsun]

Wow! What a unique background! Just for science sake, what is your take-away from never have eaten vegetables in your life?

Technically potatoes are a vegetable, but its not really a vegetable because it actually tastes good and I ate plenty of those. But never leafy green or any other starchy vegetable. Also detest salads.

I was never convinced vegetables were good as a kid, hated them as most kids do. But eventually everyone starts eating them as they get older, not me. I was the strongest kid in my age group, healthy, good height, lean, etc... My doctors when I was a kid would always be in shock how yearly all my health markers were perfect. So that completely throws idea of the necessity of vegetables out the window. Technically the main thing I would have lacked is folate but potatoes, eggs, and grains(folic acid) provided enough Im sure. I didnt eat liver so that wasnt a folate source. Fat solubles are highest in animal fat.

Takeaway is you dont need them, just a lot of propaganda we are taught on television, in our schools, reinforced by everyone around us that vegetables make you big and strong, that they contain important nutrients that you cant get anywhere else etc... Literal nonsense, I never had any and I am bigger than anyone in my age group since I was a teen to even present day.

 

[Kelj]

Maybe your thyroid isn't funtioning optimally. A low carb diet reliably lowers the production of the active hormone T3 from the inactive hormone T4. The conversion requires liver glycogen, so a low intake of carbs will cause low levels of T3. And because the free fatty acids in the blood are always elevated, both due to the low carb diet and to the fasting, cells don't respond well to the T3. If thyroid hormone is low, the stress hormones take over: adrenaline, cortisol, serotonin, etc. These hormones bascially are survival hormones. They sacrifice muscle tissue as well as organ tissue( skin, for example) to provide glucose for parts of the body that don't use fat or ketones, and at the same time, they preserve fat mass, especially in the belly. Also, the thymus gland, which is a very importante part of the imune system, degenerates when exposed to cortiol or low glucose. The metabolism really slows down when fat is used as fuel and the lower amounts of CO2 generated from fat oxidation could contribute to lower bone mass and soft tissue calcifications.

Many people lose weight on a ketogenic diet, but in the process they really break their metabolism. When they notice it, they have chronic fatigue, constant adrenaline rushes, bad sleep, bad memory, poor verbal fluidity, and lack of well-being and calmness. Ray cited a study where it was shown that the difference between old cells and young cells is that, although both can burn fat at the same rate, the old ones couldn't burn glucose efficiently, even when they were given large amounts of glucose. Also, one of the ways that things like niacinamide can heal kidney diseases is by reducing the amount of fat in the blood. This strongly indicates that fat oxidation isn't the way to health.

Cortisol and adrenaline often cause a feeling that looks a lot like an intense well-being, but it's not well-being that your cells are feeling. Chronically elevated levels of stress hormones will cause degenerative diseases eventually. Caffeine without carbs will increase these hormones and will accelerate the degeneration.

Losing weight isn't necessarily a sign of health. Cancer patients and people with type one diabetes lose weight like crazy and they surely feel terrible. It's possible to eat a lot of food and be lean and healthy. Caloric restriction, especially carbohydrate restriction, is bad for most, if not all, people.

If you don't feel like eating carbs, then it may mean that your carb burning capacity is greatly reduced from long periods of fat burning. Using things like niacinamide and thiamine and biotin and increasing the amount of carbs you eat will increase your metabolism and, after you recover, you will be able to maintain lean mass and much more easily lose fat.

Lastly, there was a study where they managed to maintain the weight of some women with just around 700 kcals a day. This goes to show that the body will lower the metabolism as much as it needs to stay alive. The more you lower the caloric intake, the lower the amount of calories you will burn. Fixing the carb burning capacity will, IMO, get your to where you want it to be.

Absolutely! In my opinion, too!

 

[Cirion]

I don't understand why you say you "don't want another fruitless argument with me" when I wasn't even addressing you. Nor do you seem understand what I have written. I don't think people should just randomly slash calories, nor do I think that "a calorie is just a calorie." You are defeating strawman arguments that I never made.

I do think calories are absolutely an important factor in weight loss, and from most of the metabolic ward studies I have seen, the most important. Anthony Colpo cited 28 metabolic ward studies in the Fat Loss Bible where they varied macros, but found weight loss to be consistent with calories. You say you "believe" that hormones are the number one driver of weight gain or loss above everyone else. Well, okay, but what evidence do you have to back that up? Or, how are you going to prove this through experimentation? From your own posts over the past few months, whatever you are doing in your own life is causing serious weight gain. So, whatever you are attempting to do for weight loss, it certainly isn't working.

I also don't understand why you are so opposed to tracking (not even cutting, mind you) calories. You tracking all sorts of other things, so why not add calories to the list?

That's where we fundamentally disagree then. You say it is the most important, I say it's the least important. Let me make it simple so we can truly see what you think.

1. You can get fat on 1,000 calories yes or no?
2. You can lose weight on 4,000 calories yes or no?

These questions are leading, but they're meant to be. The answer to these questions, should make it apparent that calories aren't the most important factor.

What evidence do I have to back it up? My experiences & even more importantly Read Ray Peat's articles which often have dozens or even a hundred scientific articles linked. You claim you have but if you are seriously asking that in earnest and not as a troll question, then I suggest re-reading them. I am pretty sure RP himself said in one article that a woman gained weight on 700 calories a day because it was a horrible PUFA laden diet and whatnot. (Refer back to question #1). Finally, if calories is the most important, then why bother caring about the minutae? I know I wouldn't, might as well just eat PUFA, and all the other "bad" stuff is adjusting calories can make up for them.

Dude, I've literally told you 10 times in this thread why I gained weight, so I'm not going to re-cover why. And I AM tracking calories dude! And I told you this much already too. That's why I wonder if you actually read my posts lol. It just isn't a useful plot, for reasons I stated in my very last post, which you conveniently seemed to have glossed over. Even though I gave about 10 reasons why lol. At this point this is just comical lol, I think this has turned into a D*** measuring contest at this point between us lol. Look I get it, I get the impression from your posts that you are rather analytical like me and also you clearly hate to admit when being wrong, but I actually understand, I also hate to admit I'm wrong. But you aren't seeing things clearly here, that you can absolutely gain weight on 1,000 calories and lose it on 4,000 or even more.

 

[Cirion]

Weight Loss, KMUD Herb Doctors, 2013

RP: There was a study about 30 or 40 years ago in which doctors use to follow the textbook standard that everyone can lose weight, if they eat less than 1700 calories a day because that was a study done in the 20s or 30s on healthy people and so they put a group of women who claimed that they were gaining weight on a thousand calories and put them in a closed ward and actually counted how much food they were eating and some of them could maintain their weight on 700 calories a day especially those who had dieted a lot because several adaption happen on chronic dieting. The thyroid slows down and the muscle tissues atrophy from the stress of dieting and if you think of the stress metabolism as very similar to the diabetic metabolism, basically you shift over to burning fat rather than sugar. At rest your brain and red blood cells needs sugar and they will keep burning sugar regardless of where they get it. If you do not eat enough of the necessary nutrients your body will convert your muscles to sugar to keep feeding the brain what it needs and if you are eating enough sugar or things that will turn into sugar your body doesn’t have to break down its own tissues to make the necessary glucose for your blood cells and brains and in that condition, your muscles at rest don’t require practically any glucose and they will do fine on a pure fat diet but that’s the resting muscle. If your muscles are under stress, very intense exercise the muscles will begin burning almost pure sugar so it is the massive muscle at rest that will burn fat calories and leave the protein for the functioning tissues and the sugar to sustain your essential brain and immune systems and such…

 

[LuMonty]

Are you in the USA? If so, thyroid is legal to buy. You do likely need a prescription at most pharmacies, but some companies (including idealabs) sell it without a prescription. It's not listed as a controlled substance.

Well, I appreciate that because I've been lied to by my wonderful doctors. Today I learned! I do have some Tyromix and no longer feel anxiety over having and using it. Thanks!

 

[YourUniverse]

Trust me bro you aren't telling me anything I don't already know. You have to remember that I used to champion CICO for over 5 years when I thought I knew everything and was a bodybuilding/powerlifting "Expert" for almost half a decade. I still don't know everything (In fact I am well aware that there is lots I DON'T know now) but what I DO know is that CICO just doesn't cut it at all, not when there are dozens of confounding factors that just counting calories will make you miss (Like my example I talk about further below where I gained 2 lb on 3000 calories but lost 0.6 lb on 4200 calories). NOW, since I am an engineer and it would be intellectually dishonest for me NOT to mention that the energy does indeed have to go somewhere, I'll note that the VERY basic premise of CICO has some merit. However, it's simply not reliable for any sort of tool for effective and healthy weight loss because the calories that result in weight gain or loss are EXTREMELY volatile (3000 calories can make you lose 2 lb and 3000 calories can make you gain 2 lb, if that's not volatile I dunno what is) and not stable and extremely dependent on so many other factors, and following a path such as this inevitable makes someone end up restricting themselves and ruining their metabolism.

Water: swelling, tension, pain, fatigue, aging

Like I said, Ray Peat and myself champion the idea that water swelling often (Admittedly, not always) means increase of stress (Except perhaps in scenarios where you are glycogen depleted, and suddenly become glycogen replete). So yes, you can use water weight gain or loss as a rough estimate of stress loss or gain in the whole body IMO. Also, stress tends to result in FAT gain, and so you can use water weight gain as a middle-man/correlating parameter because increasing estrogen and water weight usually also results in fat gain.

In my data, I am already seeing there are many days I lost weight on +4000 calories, so I already know for a fact I can do it. It's not that high in calories. @MatheusPN said he has lost weight on 8,000 calories a day (Not sure if he is sedentary or not tho)

Also, now that I know it is Fernstrom ratio that drives weight gain or loss, and not so much Protein per-se, and today I've realized I'm ravenously hungry (A good sign IMO) following all the rules I now know to follow, I'm actually going to increase my protein intake and see what happens- but in such a fashion that Fernstrom ratio remains low (Beef, Gelatin mostly). No cheese, no milk, no whey, etcetera. Previously, every time I increased protein intake, I ended up with a high fernstrom ratio too and I believe that was my downfall, not the increased protein intake. But, I'll be tracking data, and we shall see. Beef is possibly the perfect protein, even more than gelatin. Not only does beef have a very low fernstrom ratio, but on top of that, beef fat, according to CLASH, is the best fat you can eat for metabolism and fat loss next to cocoa butter.

I likely read that Lyle Mcdonald post before anyone else here has (I'm not new to this health thing... Been doing it for a decade now) and well aware of what he has to say. But Lyle and others miss the finer details, which I'm in the process of ironing out now. I am happy he did mention hormones though, but he doesn't go into the detail that Ray Peat and others do and mention things like SFA/PUFA ratios, sugar/starches, and so on.

You'll note I have opted not to show a plot of calories vs. weight gain because it's not actually that interesting and the data is all over the map (Days where I lost 2 lbs on 3000 calories and days I gained 2 lbs on 3000 calories for instance). Yes it does crossover at about 4000-4200 calories, but it has like 100 variables, and most of the cases of >4000 calories also have high fernstrom ratio, high pufa, and so I don't think it is the calories causing the weight gain. BTW I had one day I lost 0.6 lb on 4200 calories, so contrast that with the 2 lb gain on 3000 calories. The 3000 calorie day was high tryptophan, high pufa, and the 4200 calorie day was lwo tryptophan low pufa.

In fact, I'm gonna say it, just because I kind of enjoy the controversy this entails LOL - you can eat virtually infinite calories and not get fat. If you follow all the rules - high sfa/pufa, low low fernstrom ratio, high sugar to starch ratio. I am extremely aware this is an extremely bold claim and one I intend to prove or at least attempt to prove. But no major discoveries were made by people not willing to push the limits

An old forum member visionofstrength kind of came to similar conclusions I'm coming to as well. His goal was also eat to make metabolism insanely fast, and eat MORE to lose weight not less. The simple fact is this: If you don't always wake up with 98.6F temp and ideally 85 pulse, with zero grogginess, and perfect mood, energy, motivation, libido, outlook on life - then your metabolism is at least partially broken. Period. And a large reason it is broken, is probably chronic insufficient energy intake due to chronic obsession with "CICO". Ray Peat said it best - we should be like the kid who is excited to wake up for Christmas - and every day should have this excitement to it. If not, something is wrong. This is the goal we should all strive for at the end of the day... no? Once I achieve this goal, I will rest easy. I'll probably still research things, but I'll be busy enjoying life at that point finally.

I applaud your gusto. I hope you find the connections you're looking for, and we can all benefit from it.

I have to note a few examples in my own life. Ive been spending time with a few "naturally lean" people and cant help but observe them. These people eat sparingly. They dont eat sparingly because theyre counting calories or trying to stay slim. They eat sparingly because thats what their bodies tell them to. They have no real observance of "health" let alone macros. Sometimes they eat what I would consider really weird foods, like chopped carrots with lemon juice and salt. Sometimes its chips and salsa. Sometimes its a burger with cheese.

Basically, I fear that you are simply looking for a way to eat a lot of calories using the excuse of "high metabolism". I dont think naturally slim people have slow metabolisms, especially those I was thinking about in the above paragraph, and I certainly dont think they are restricting themselves. They just eat. I really think the endgame is so eat/live in such a way that natural appetite takes over, and where orthorexia is overcome, maybe with a few central tenets like low PUFA or minimal starch.

Anyway, as I said, I hope you find what you're looking for

 

[tankasnowgod]

That's where we fundamentally disagree then. You say it is the most important, I say it's the least important. Let me make it simple so we can truly see what you think.

1. You can get fat on 1,000 calories yes or no?
2. You can lose weight on 4,000 calories yes or no?

1. No, you can not get fat eating only 1,000 calories a day, unless you are a small child. Gain weight? Sure, but it's likely water weight. I don't think you can produce any single adult human who is overweight who only ate 1,000 calories a day every day for all their life and got fat. Those are anorexics.

2. Absolutely. Athletes in the Tour De France routinely have to eat 6,000-7,000 calories a day to keep weight on. Although the majority of people would likely gain weight eating at this level.

 

[Cirion]

I applaud your gusto. I hope you find the connections you're looking for, and we can all benefit from it.

I have to note a few examples in my own life. Ive been spending time with a few "naturally lean" people and cant help but observe them. These people eat sparingly. They dont eat sparingly because theyre counting calories or trying to stay slim. They eat sparingly because thats what their bodies tell them to. They have no real observance of "health" let alone macros. Sometimes they eat what I would consider really weird foods, like chopped carrots with lemon juice and salt. Sometimes its chips and salsa. Sometimes its a burger with cheese.

Basically, I fear that you are simply looking for a way to eat a lot of calories using the excuse of "high metabolism". I dont think naturally slim people have slow metabolisms, especially those I was thinking about in the above paragraph, and I certainly dont think they are restricting themselves. They just eat. I really think the endgame is so eat/live in such a way that natural appetite takes over, and where orthorexia is overcome, maybe with a few central tenets like low PUFA or minimal starch.

Anyway, as I said, I hope you find what you're looking for

Mmm, fair points, but keep in mind some points, and once again it boils down to hormones and not calories per-se. A healthy lean person will have balanced hormones, and balanced insulin sensitivity. This means they need less glucose because it has better utility than someone insulin resistance. Leptin sensitivity will be appropriate, so that hunger is appropriate. However leptin sensitvity is strong related to other things like micro nutrient sufficiency, CO2 sufficiency, whole body energy sufficiency etc.

When you are sick, you need more calories generally speaking. Because when you're sick, in simple terms, is because your body has energy insufficiency. This might seem counter-intuitive if you look at things in the lens of calories, because "He ate too much and got fat", and so the answer is eat less logically no? That's what most people indeed say. But you can indeed be in a state of metabolic insufficiency despite eating enough calories, due to hormonal imbalances and eating less *when in this current state* is not helpful because then you eat even less in a state of already energy insufficiency.

"Natural Appetite" is different when you are sick. When you are sick you need more energy, often a LOT more (many refeeding studies have shown people need as much as 10,000 calories a day in recovery scenarios). This isn't to say you'll be eating 10,000 calories forever, but until you get well.

But you're right, appetite can and generally should be the main gauge, as well as the central tenants like low PUFA. So I pretty much agree with the post you wrote. The idea with what i'm trying to do, is work out the kinks in the "central tenants". If you get the tenants right, the appetite SHOULD start to normalize eventually. But until then, if you're hungry, you should eat. Even if it's above some arbitrary "calorie maintenance" value. I actually have an extremely high appetite. Contrary to some belief, I'm not just mowing down 4-5k cal just because I can, I actually have an appetite for it. The appetite is not your enemy, you need to work with it (eat the right foods) not against it (caloric restriction).

 

[Cirion]

1. No, you can not get fat eating only 1,000 calories a day, unless you are a small child. Gain weight? Sure, but it's likely water weight. I don't think you can produce any single adult human who is overweight who only ate 1,000 calories a day every day for all their life and got fat. Those are anorexics.

So clearly you disagree with Ray peat then... Now we finally are getting to the root of your beliefs, that's progress. Lots of fat people eat 1000-2000 calories and stay fat.

RP: There was a study about 30 or 40 years ago in which doctors use to follow the textbook standard that everyone can lose weight, if they eat less than 1700 calories a day because that was a study done in the 20s or 30s on healthy people and so they put a group of women who claimed that they were gaining weight on a thousand calories and put them in a closed ward and actually counted how much food they were eating and some of them could maintain their weight on 700 calories a day especially those who had dieted a lot because several adaption happen on chronic dieting. The thyroid slows down and the muscle tissues atrophy from the stress of dieting and if you think of the stress metabolism as very similar to the diabetic metabolism, basically you shift over to burning fat rather than sugar. At rest your brain and red blood cells needs sugar and they will keep burning sugar regardless of where they get it. If you do not eat enough of the necessary nutrients your body will convert your muscles to sugar to keep feeding the brain what it needs and if you are eating enough sugar or things that will turn into sugar your body doesn’t have to break down its own tissues to make the necessary glucose for your blood cells and brains and in that condition, your muscles at rest don’t require practically any glucose and they will do fine on a pure fat diet but that’s the resting muscle. If your muscles are under stress, very intense exercise the muscles will begin burning almost pure sugar so it is the massive muscle at rest that will burn fat calories and leave the protein for the functioning tissues and the sugar to sustain your essential brain and immune systems and such…

Water weight is very correlated to fat weight, especially if it is stomach bloat. Stomach water weight bloat means increased estrogens, stress, all of which absolutely WILL lead to fat gain.

 

[tankasnowgod]

So clearly you disagree with Ray peat then... Now we finally are getting to the root of your beliefs, that's progress. Lots of fat people eat 1000-2000 calories and stay fat.

RP: There was a study about 30 or 40 years ago in which doctors use to follow the textbook standard that everyone can lose weight, if they eat less than 1700 calories a day because that was a study done in the 20s or 30s on healthy people and so they put a group of women who claimed that they were gaining weight on a thousand calories and put them in a closed ward and actually counted how much food they were eating and some of them could maintain their weight on 700 calories a day especially those who had dieted a lot because several adaption happen on chronic dieting. The thyroid slows down and the muscle tissues atrophy from the stress of dieting and if you think of the stress metabolism as very similar to the diabetic metabolism, basically you shift over to burning fat rather than sugar. At rest your brain and red blood cells needs sugar and they will keep burning sugar regardless of where they get it. If you do not eat enough of the necessary nutrients your body will convert your muscles to sugar to keep feeding the brain what it needs and if you are eating enough sugar or things that will turn into sugar your body doesn’t have to break down its own tissues to make the necessary glucose for your blood cells and brains and in that condition, your muscles at rest don’t require practically any glucose and they will do fine on a pure fat diet but that’s the resting muscle. If your muscles are under stress, very intense exercise the muscles will begin burning almost pure sugar so it is the massive muscle at rest that will burn fat calories and leave the protein for the functioning tissues and the sugar to sustain your essential brain and immune systems and such…

You just changed the question to "stay fat." You didn't ask that. And the quote you cite only references women who could maintain their weight on 700 calories, not "get fat" on that amount, so even in this case, I am not in disagreement with Ray Peat. No context about the weight of these women is given in this quote. I know about this study, and two thirds of the women in this study did lose weight when put on a seriously low calorie diet.

Peat has also stated in the email exchange, when someone asked him about weight loss, that it might be wise to limit the diet to milk, orange juice, fruit, and maybe a carrot or two, because "the extra calories wouldn't be needed."

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

So clearly you disagree with Ray peat then... Now we finally are getting to the root of your beliefs, that's progress. Lots of fat people eat 1000-2000 calories and stay fat.

RP: There was a study about 30 or 40 years ago in which doctors use to follow the textbook standard that everyone can lose weight, if they eat less than 1700 calories a day because that was a study done in the 20s or 30s on healthy people and so they put a group of women who claimed that they were gaining weight on a thousand calories and put them in a closed ward and actually counted how much food they were eating and some of them could maintain their weight on 700 calories a day especially those who had dieted a lot because several adaption happen on chronic dieting. The thyroid slows down and the muscle tissues atrophy from the stress of dieting and if you think of the stress metabolism as very similar to the diabetic metabolism, basically you shift over to burning fat rather than sugar. At rest your brain and red blood cells needs sugar and they will keep burning sugar regardless of where they get it. If you do not eat enough of the necessary nutrients your body will convert your muscles to sugar to keep feeding the brain what it needs and if you are eating enough sugar or things that will turn into sugar your body doesn’t have to break down its own tissues to make the necessary glucose for your blood cells and brains and in that condition, your muscles at rest don’t require practically any glucose and they will do fine on a pure fat diet but that’s the resting muscle. If your muscles are under stress, very intense exercise the muscles will begin burning almost pure sugar so it is the massive muscle at rest that will burn fat calories and leave the protein for the functioning tissues and the sugar to sustain your essential brain and immune systems and such…

Yeah, I have a friend who is clearly obese and he only drinks diet coke instead of regular coke and only eats salads and chicken breasts. For snacks, he eats a very small sandwich of whole wheat with turkey and some leaves. I doubt he even gets to 1500 calories per day. More like 1000 calories. I've known him for almost 2 years now and he, as far as I know, has been dieting for quite a long time even before I met him. He mentioned something very interesting. When he was younger, he used to be really thin, but then all the sudden, he started getting more and more fat very fast. That clearly means something is up with his thyroid. I notice from time to time he can't control his hunger and makes a bad food choice, which is normally a PUFA-fried pastry. In my mind I'm like "dude, don't ingest that sh*t!".

 

[Cirion]

Seriously bro, did you even read the quote... I think I'm done lol

It clearly said "gaining weight on 1000 calories" sigh. I even bolded it for you

"Not gain weight on 700 calories" and "Gain weight on 1000 calories" OK sure, you win... they didn't get fat on 700 but they DID on 1000+. Potato, Pot-tat-o, as they say. Same thing lol

 

[Cirion]

Let me ask a different question then. Can you increase the threshold or decrease the threshold of the point at which calories make you fat via exclusively dietary manipulation and no exercise or other types of changes yes or no? It sounds like you think the answer is no.

OK GUYS, CASE CLOSED, let's close this forum down, everything Ray Peat doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter what we eat since we can stay lean with PUFA, processed foods on the exact same caloric intake so let's eat drink and be merry

Allright, with that I'm done with this discussion lol. Sorry all for diluting the thread with ridiculous argument, I should have been the better man and not let it bother me. I just gotta accept some folk don't share my viewpoint and that's honestly OK. Carry on folks

 

[tankasnowgod]

Let me ask a different question then. Can you increase the threshold or decrease the threshold of the point at which calories make you fat via exclusively dietary manipulation and no exercise or other types of changes yes or no? It sounds like you think the answer is no.

OK GUYS, CASE CLOSED, let's close this forum down, everything Ray Peat doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter what we eat since we can stay lean with PUFA, processed foods on the exact same caloric intake so let's eat drink and be merry

Allright, with that I'm done with this discussion lol. Sorry all for diluting the thread with ridiculous argument, I should have been the better man and not let it bother me. I just gotta accept some folk don't share my viewpoint and that's honestly OK. Carry on folks

Stop making assumptions. In answer to that first question, I do think it's possible. With protein being a prime example. It has a high thermic effect of food, and over time, builds muscle, which will increase your metabolic rate. Fructose is another component that will also improve your metabolism over time. And these effects do fit in to the CICO equation over time.

Also, when you read Ray Peat's work, it's not primarily focused on weight loss. Neither is this forum. People can and do lose weight on crash diets all the time. But I don't think anyone here is trying to do that, nor is anyone suggesting it's healthy, or in any way beneficial in the long term.

 

[Beefcake]

Small women with slow metabolism could easily maintain weight or gain weight on 1000 calories. My girlfriend gains weight on 1500 calories and she has great thyroid health and metabolism. And at that point shes like exercising 3-4 times a week. It can be very individual and I really think that some people with a crappy thyroid can gain weight on really low calorie diet. specially if they don’t move much either or have much stress response.
Me myself only gain weight eating 3000+. I find it hard to believe 4000 calories and losing weight but if you’re a big guy, work, exercise fairly and maybe eat in a certain way it might be possible. Obviously high sugar diet eaten little throught the day feels like something that would let you burn a lot of calories without gaining. Think when @Cirion says 4000 calories is mainly carbs. And I think that is very important for it to work.

 

[Cirion]

Small women with slow metabolism could easily maintain weight or gain weight on 1000 calories. My girlfriend gains weight on 1500 calories and she has great thyroid health and metabolism. And at that point shes like exercising 3-4 times a week. It can be very individual and I really think that some people with a crappy thyroid can gain weight on really low calorie diet. specially if they don’t move much either or have much stress response.
Me myself only gain weight eating 3000+. I find it hard to believe 4000 calories and losing weight but if you’re a big guy, work, exercise fairly and maybe eat in a certain way it might be possible. Obviously high sugar diet eaten little throught the day feels like something that would let you burn a lot of calories without gaining. Think when @Cirion says 4000 calories is mainly carbs. And I think that is very important for it to work.

Yes, I eat very high carb at the moment. I am sure that is a big factor. Sugar is arguably the least fattening of all foods on a per calorie basis. Context absolutely does matter.

 

[Captain_Coconut]

Eating very high calorie and not gaining weight implies that one is not assimilating the food. Look at competitive eaters for example, some gain no weight despite eating 10k plus calories daily. So does this mean that they are in great metabolic health? I doubt it. I think overeating to the point one is not assimilating is a stressor, I think a healthy metabolism does not require more than 2500 calories for an avg weight avg activity adult male. If you are very physically active then the requirement goes up. Sedentary and eating 4k even without weight gain is an unecessary stress on the digestetive system. If one has an appetite for 4k daily calories, this is a sign of malnutrition, being hungry because certain nutrients are not being absorbed.

 

[Cirion]

Eating very high calorie and not gaining weight implies that one is not assimilating the food. Look at competitive eaters for example, some gain no weight despite eating 10k plus calories daily. So does this mean that they are in great metabolic health? I doubt it. I think overeating to the point one is not assimilating is a stressor, I think a healthy metabolism does not require more than 2500 calories for an avg weight avg activity adult male. If you are very physically active then the requirement goes up. Sedentary and eating 4k even without weight gain is an unecessary stress on the digestetive system. If one has an appetite for 4k daily calories, this is a sign of malnutrition, being hungry because certain nutrients are not being absorbed.

The only digestive stress occurs when you eat bad foods like pufa, starch, tryptophan. Fruit and sugars are rapidly and easily digested and do not cause digestive distress typically. On a per calorie basis, the former list of foods are significantly more distressing to your body even with way less calories. Also, nothing is more stressful than your cells being in depleted energy state. Again, calories are a HIGHLY simplistic way of looking at how things function in the body. Why is everyone obsessed with calories? Tomorrow I will post my calories plot and hopefully put this dead horse to rest. I guess I should have expected such a hot topic as calories to spur a lot of debate though but I suppose I'm not surprised. I would agree that someone healthy probably wouldn't need as many calories though because they are highly insulin sensitive and mostly replete of nutrients, and have a positive hormonal environment. However, you absolutely can and should and need to eat more calories when you're sick. Your body gives you an increased appetite because it needs the food! Again, because when you're insulin resistant, it takes more carbs compared to someone healthy to keep glucose stores up. If you don't keep glucose stores up, you will continue to burn FFA's/PUFA's, and continue to be insulin resistant even in a "calorie deficit" and is not the correct way to restore health and it is this fat-burning mode that increases estrogen/stress/serotonin and makes it very difficult to continue to lose weight and regain insulin sensitivity even in a "calorie deficit" and the metabolism quickly dials down as appropriate and if you are extremely full of PUFA (someone obese) this can quickly overwhelm your body to a significant degree, such as being now able to maintain on 700 calories like the woman RP mentions. That's an extreme case to be sure, but eventually I myself got to a point of maintaining on 1,500 calories a day as a male (insanely low considering my activity level, probably equal to 1,000 or less sedentary) when I did a harsh cut one time. The one and only "calorie deficit" that is truly healthy to be in, is one that allows you to keep glucose stores topped off at all times, always avoid the stress response resulting from such, and minimizing/mitigating the effects of FFA's/PUFA's in your bloodstream at all times. This isn't possible while forcefully counting calories and can only be achieved while eating the correct foods and eating these foods to appetite and enough so that you don't wake up repeatedly at night (Every time you wake up at night means you are starting to burn PUFA's/FFA's). Now I agree an endless appetite should start to improve over time as you heal. But you won't heal until you remove offending foods (PUFA,tryptophan,etc) and so this can be why you might get an "insatiable appetite" that never ends ever like for me. I kept adding grievances to my body by eating offensive foods so I was never able to restore cellular energy appropriately to my system, so my body kept crying out for energy but just wasn't getting it, due to the interference from the poor choice of foods like dairy.

 

[YourUniverse]

When you are sick, you need more calories generally speaking. Because when you're sick, in simple terms, is because your body has energy insufficiency. This might seem counter-intuitive if you look at things in the lens of calories, because "He ate too much and got fat", and so the answer is eat less logically no? That's what most people indeed say. But you can indeed be in a state of metabolic insufficiency despite eating enough calories, due to hormonal imbalances and eating less *when in this current state* is not helpful because then you eat even less in a state of already energy insufficiency.

"Natural Appetite" is different when you are sick. When you are sick you need more energy, often a LOT more (many refeeding studies have shown people need as much as 10,000 calories a day in recovery scenarios). This isn't to say you'll be eating 10,000 calories forever, but until you get well.

There is evidence that animals self-medicate in many ways. Dogs eat grass, humans gravitate toward addictive substances (alcohol, tobacco) that seem to provide needed stability, and tend to fast when sick/unwell, etc.

If a sick person followed their gut, and "just ate", wouldnt that way of instinctive eating lead them back to health..?

If I'm reading you right, it appears that you are attempting to document and schedule a sick person's road back to health, which would be valuable to a person out of touch with their senses (and probably health paranoid). To me, that seems like attempting to solve the problem on the level from which it was created (shoutout to Dr. Einstein)

 

[Cirion]

There is evidence that animals self-medicate in many ways. Dogs eat grass, humans gravitate toward addictive substances (alcohol, tobacco) that seem to provide needed stability, and tend to fast when sick/unwell, etc.

If a sick person followed their gut, and "just ate", wouldnt that way of instinctive eating lead them back to health..?

If I'm reading you right, it appears that you are attempting to document and schedule a sick person's road back to health, which would be valuable to a person out of touch with their senses (and probably health paranoid). To me, that seems like attempting to solve the problem on the level from which it was created (shoutout to Dr. Einstein)

Yes, the most ideal path is if you could get in touch with your sub-conscious and actually know what to eat. Almost no one can do this though, and I certainly can't. Rather than complain about it though, I do what I can do, is monitor how my body responds to different food choices and act accordingly. I know there is literally zero chance I can ever fix my intuition, so there's no point trying. That's not fatalistic, it's reality. If it were possible I certainly would have accomplished it the first 25 years on thie earth where I didn't care what I ate. And again, orthorexia was NOT what destroyed my health. It was in fact not having orthorexia that destroyed my health! So no, I'm not using the path that destroyed my health to try to cure it. Because yeah - that would mean not caring about what I ate, and that indeed would be foolish because it never worked for 25 years!