Weight Loss: Starch And Trytophan Are What Are Stopping You

  • Thread starter Deleted member 5487
  • Start date
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
988
Well you are advocating for fasting/IF which do significantly raise cortisol and certain harmful catecholamines and IF is something done daily. IF means a constant daily interval say 16 hours, 20 hours etc. fasted. Large interval of the day running on stress hormones. If you have good liver health you have 8 hours of glycogen storage assuming you arent exerting yourself.

Autophagy is a catabolic process, when we are talking about healing wounds/self-repair of damaged organs autophagy is needed to eliminate dead/damaged cells to make room for new cells. Autophagy is only catabolic by definition though, you need anabolic processes to actually heal. You dont need fasting of any kind to heal wounds or heal damaged organs caused by PUFA, poor diet, elevated FFAs, etc. You need anabolic pathways and healthy thyroid function that can only do their job if you are fed properly, especially carbohydrates and protein. Autophagy is the clean up crew making room for anabolism to repair everything.

Starvation-induced autophagy isn't the same thing though. Yes, damaged cells or cellular junk are preferably targeted first to be destroyed when fasting but soon after even healthy cells will get eaten up, i.e. muscle tissue. If you fast for even 2 days straight, you are losing muscle tissue because you are eating yourself. Ray Peat says you even start losing muscle tissue sooner then that, i recall him saying in one of his interviews but don't know exact timeframes. IF isnt as bad because you wont lose muscle tissue necessarily with IF but you still have the daily chronic cortisol highs + noradrenaline etc.

You also assume protein is inheritantly hard on the kidneys. There is no evidence to suggest this is the case in humans unless you have an existing kidney condition. Weightlifters pound down minimum 150g protein for even the smallest guys and even higher the bigger you are, the more muscle you have. This low protein stuff originated from vegan, plant based crowd to discourage consumption of animal protein. Ray Peat himself recommends a minimum of 80-100g protein daily for thyroid, general health, and estrogen deactivation etc...

Im not being authoritative, you said in your previous post that children enter a fasted state quicker then adults? Uh... I think you got that flipped around.

Adults enter "fasted" states quicker then children because of poor liver glycogen, leading to chronic elevated FFAs. A fasted state by default means elevated FFAs, no liver glycogen. Children as long they eat good before bed, do not end up in a fasted state when sleeping... You are not suppose to be in a fasted state when sleeping if you can help it. You erroneously believe a fasted state is where healing happens.



Yeh, this is rats we are talking about here. If you are suggesting chronic protein restriction, even long term calorie restriction is beneficial for humans, there's literally no point in going with this. Of all the things to restrict the fact that our body is quite literally made of protein from head to toe is nonsensical. Humans have always consumed large quantities of animal protein in their diet when given the choice, there's a reason for that.

My definition for fasted state is simply when the stomach and small intestine is empty. Faster transit time means more autophagy at sleep. Children digest faster and more efficiently, therefore their organs get more time and energy to work on other tasks. I’m not advocating fasting or doing extreme IF. I am merely pointing out that autophagy and the strategies that support it which involve less and not more has value but you seem to hate this idea because you think the body constantly needs more and more, suit yourself.

I am not advocating protein deficiency, I’m advocating avoiding protein excess and intermittent protein fasting, this is superior to traditional or intermittent fasting in that it is very hard to cause stress or start running off adrenaline this way. Nonetheless I am certain that giving our organs a break from the digestive process allows our body to devote more energy to accomplish other important tasks for homeostasis.
 
Last edited:

redsun

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
3,013

1st study: Who has a midday meal consisting of 39% protein? Most never even eat any meal with the protein ratio that high... This is not relevant to how most people's diets are.

2nd study: Again with the ratios. Of course comparing a high protein diet with a high carb diet shows the high carb diet is superior. It is well known high protein diets(specifically a diet focused primarily on eating high amounts of protein without proper ratio of carbs to balance it out) are bad, no one disagrees with this, protein should always be coupled with the right ratio of carbohydrates. The high protein diet in the study was likely not coupled with a proper ratio of carbohydrates.

3rd study: This is my favorite. Feeding people the equivalent of four grams of protein per kg of bodyweight. In my case at 95kg thats equivalent to me eating 380g protein a day. Lol wtf, no ***t its going to increase cortisol literally no one recommends this.

4th study: This is an observational study with a 22 year follow up, no variables controlled for at all, nothing. Means literally nothing to be honest like most observational studies.

My definition for fasted state is simply when the stomach and small intestine is empty. Faster transit time means more autophagy at sleep. I’m not advocating fasting or doing extreme IF. I am merely pointing out that autophagy and that strategies that support it which involve less and not more has value but you seem to hate this idea because you think the body constantly needs more and more, suit yourself.

I am not advocating protein deficiency, I’m advocating avoiding protein excess and intermittent protein fasting, this is superior to traditional or intermittent fasting in that it is very hard to cause stress or start running off adrenaline this way.

I did IF for years in my teens, stupidest thing I ever did. This isnt about what you feel is right or what I feel is right. I hate the idea of people unnecessarily restricting protein or starvation(IF, long-term calorie restriction, fasting) when there is no science that proves it is better or even as good as normal healthy eating.

I agree protein excess should be avoided. Nothing less than 150g is protein excess for the average male as long as you have proper carb ratio. Bigger males may need more, based on BMR and protein requirements. Anything lower than 80g is protein deficiency. You seem to forget also with these intermittent protein fasts if you eat too many carbs without a decent level of protein with it, it will raise serotonin significantly.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
988
1st study: Who has a midday meal consisting of 39% protein? Most never even eat any meal with the protein ratio that high... This is not relevant to how most people's diets are.

2nd study: Again with the ratios. Of course comparing a high protein diet with a high carb diet shows the high carb diet is superior. It is well known high protein diets(specifically a diet focused primarily on eating high amounts of protein without proper ratio of carbs to balance it out) are bad, no one disagrees with this, protein should always be coupled with the right ratio of carbohydrates. The high protein diet in the study was likely not coupled with a proper ratio of carbohydrates.

3rd study: This is my favorite. Feeding people the equivalent of four grams of protein per kg of bodyweight. In my case at 95kg thats equivalent to me eating 380g protein a day. Lol wtf, no ***t its going to increase cortisol literally no one recommends this.

4th study: This is an observational study with a 22 year follow up, no variables controlled for at all, nothing. Means literally nothing to be honest like most observational studies.

The point is to show you protein is not always some anti stress kidney friendly panacea.

BTW, I practice protein fasting, not protein deficiency, it has given me my life back, following the articulate incompetent RP musings did the opposite for me.
 
Last edited:

redsun

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
3,013
The point is to show you protein is not always some anti stress kidney friendly panacea.

BTW, I practice protein fasting, not protein deficiency, it has given me my life back, following the articulate incompetent RP musings did the opposite for me.

Except all that it proved is eating protein without proper carbs or eating ridiculous amounts of protein increases cortisol secretion more then normal. No effect on kidneys, no evidence its inheritantly bad for the kidneys. Never claimed protein is anti-stress, in combination with proper carbs it has incredible anti-stress properties.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
1,790
Yes, I think a good analogy would be ingesting 10 grams of potassium all at once with just water on a empty stomach as soon as you wake up. Obviously, you'll have hypoglycemia and you will stimulate cortisol/adrenalin/ glucagon to bring blood sugar back up. But that doesn't mean a high potassium intake ingested throughout the day will have this effect. Quite the opposite, with proper carbs and other minerals, it increases well-being and muscle tone in my experience.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
988
Anything that works to progressively slow the glomular filtration rate will work towards a diseased state. GFR and health go hand in hand. The extent something like protein will effect your GFR all depends on your state of health. I am not saying protein is bad, I am saying people should be more careful with it and realize if one is sick it may make one sicker.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
988
1st study: Who has a midday meal consisting of 39% protein? Most never even eat any meal with the protein ratio that high... This is not relevant to how most people's diets are.

2nd study: Again with the ratios. Of course comparing a high protein diet with a high carb diet shows the high carb diet is superior. It is well known high protein diets(specifically a diet focused primarily on eating high amounts of protein without proper ratio of carbs to balance it out) are bad, no one disagrees with this, protein should always be coupled with the right ratio of carbohydrates. The high protein diet in the study was likely not coupled with a proper ratio of carbohydrates.

3rd study: This is my favorite. Feeding people the equivalent of four grams of protein per kg of bodyweight. In my case at 95kg thats equivalent to me eating 380g protein a day. Lol wtf, no ***t its going to increase cortisol literally no one recommends this.

4th study: This is an observational study with a 22 year follow up, no variables controlled for at all, nothing. Means literally nothing to be honest like most observational studies.



I did IF for years in my teens, stupidest thing I ever did. This isnt about what you feel is right or what I feel is right. I hate the idea of people unnecessarily restricting protein or starvation(IF, long-term calorie restriction, fasting) when there is no science that proves it is better or even as good as normal healthy eating.

I agree protein excess should be avoided. Nothing less than 150g is protein excess for the average male as long as you have proper carb ratio. Bigger males may need more, based on BMR and protein requirements. Anything lower than 80g is protein deficiency. You seem to forget also with these intermittent protein fasts if you eat too many carbs without a decent level of protein with it, it will raise serotonin significantly.

I did IF combined with low carb for 4 or more years, it was nice at the start and then I took it too far, it is all a matter of balance. It is terrible when taken to an extreme long term though. Flipping around to the opposite side later and getting 33/33/33% of all macros, snacking all day long, and waking up for a midnight snack too, at 3000+ calories was terrible for me too.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
1,790
Anything that works to progressively slow the glomular filtration rate will work towards a diseased state. GFR and health go hand in hand. The extent something like protein will effect your GFR all depends on your state of health. I am not saying protein is bad, I am saying people should be more careful with it and realize if one is sick it may make one sicker.
That explains why I tolerate much more protein than a couple of years ago. Indeed, eating a lot of protein back then would give me some kidney pain, but now that my health is much better, my kidneys feel good. Amino-acids tend to be converted a lot to ammonia if the metabolism is low.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
As promised, the long awaited calories vs. weight loss/gain plot. I added notes that clearly show the high gain days are result of poor food choices, and the loss days associated with good food choices. The plot should speak to itself, but you can see just how volatile weight gain can be not as calories, but as food choices, because the same exact calories, can mean drastic different results with the correct food choices. What does become apparent, is that food choices matter more and more the higher in calories you go, which is why *usually* people do indeed gain weight on higher calories and you'll see on no days did I lose at higher than around 4300 calories, but that's because every point on there I did something wrong, and I pointed out just what was wrong, so I am pretty sure losing at > 4300 is within the realm of possibility. It seems at very high calorie intakes (pushing 5k+) most of those calories better be carbs or you probably will gain weight. High fat and high protein at 5k caloric levels means you will gain weight even if the fernstrom ratio is not too bad. Basically protein and fat requirements level off, and any additional calories can be carbs and carbs only or you will get fat. Carbs can be easily burned, in particular sugars. Protein and fats after a certain threshold... Not as much. So again, key takeaways are these

at 3000 calories, I can lose weight as long as I follow one or two reasonable tenants of RP.
At 4000 calories, I better be following at least 50-75% of RP's tenants to not gain weight.
At 4500 calories, I gotta follow 90% of the tenants.
At 5000 calories plus, I have to be nearly 100% perfect and on point.

So, with that in mind, it does become fairly apparent that around the 4000-4500 calorie mark is the "reasonable cutoff point" at least for me, if I didn't / don't want to become ultra OCD about what foods I eat and still maintain or lose weight. However, it's clear from this that using calories as the only metric is not helpful. But, it does help to point out the holes in your diet, so there is that. And the holes are more readily apparent the higher in calories you go. At this time, I'm not too interested to really play with 5000-6000 and beyond all that much, but theoeretically if you followed all tenants perfectly, didn't exceed a certain protein or fat threshold, didn't eat starch, and only used sugars as the carb source and as the main calorie source, you could probably maintain or even lose weight at 6000+.

An additional note: These are all pretty poor calcium:phosphorus ratio, especially higher protein, and it is POSSIBLE that's why high protein hurts, but also excessive protein tends to turn into ammonia which is no good. Eventually I will play with supplementing calcium, possibly. My definition of high protein is in the 200-250+ range of grams a day.

upload_2019-5-20_15-43-12.png
 
Last edited:

lampofred

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
3,244
To be honest I've seen many "succesful stories" where people claimed IF/fasting/low carbs helped them with thyroid issues. How come?

Fasting will lower endotoxin, low carb will lower serotonin, and high protein stimulates thyroid. But it's only a short term fix because low carb and high protein will elevate cortisol, and high cortisol isn't sustainable in the long-run.
 

lampofred

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
3,244
As promised, the long awaited calories vs. weight loss/gain plot. I added notes that clearly show the high gain days are result of poor food choices, and the loss days associated with good food choices. The plot should speak to itself, but you can see just how volatile weight gain can be not as calories, but as food choices, because the same exact calories, can mean drastic different results with the correct food choices. What does become apparent, is that food choices matter more and more the higher in calories you go, which is why *usually* people do indeed gain weight on higher calories and you'll see on no days did I lose at higher than around 4300 calories, but that's because every point on there I did something wrong, and I pointed out just what was wrong, so I am pretty sure losing at > 4300 is within the realm of possibility. It seems at very high calorie intakes (pushing 5k+) most of those calories better be carbs or you probably will gain weight. High fat and high protein at 5k caloric levels means you will gain weight even if the fernstrom ratio is not too bad. Basically protein and fat requirements level off, and any additional calories can be carbs and carbs only or you will get fat. Carbs can be easily burned, in particular sugars. Protein and fats after a certain threshold... Not as much. So again, key takeaways are these

at 3000 calories, I can lose weight as long as I follow one or two reasonable tenants of RP.
At 4000 calories, I better be following at least 50-75% of RP's tenants to not gain weight.
At 4500 calories, I gotta follow 90% of the tenants.
At 5000 calories plus, I have to be nearly 100% perfect and on point.

So, with that in mind, it does become fairly apparent that around the 4000-4500 calorie mark is the "reasonable cutoff point" at least for me, if I didn't / don't want to become ultra OCD about what foods I eat and still maintain or lose weight. However, it's clear from this that using calories as the only metric is not helpful. But, it does help to point out the holes in your diet, so there is that. And the holes are more readily apparent the higher in calories you go. At this time, I'm not too interested to really play with 5000-6000 and beyond all that much, but theoeretically if you followed all tenants perfectly, didn't exceed a certain protein or fat threshold, didn't eat starch, and only used sugars as the carb source and as the main calorie source, you could probably maintain or even lose weight at 6000+.

An additional note: These are all pretty poor calcium:phosphorus ratio, especially higher protein, and it is POSSIBLE that's why high protein hurts, but also excessive protein tends to turn into ammonia which is no good. Eventually I will play with supplementing calcium, possibly. My definition of high protein is in the 200-250+ range of grams a day.

View attachment 13255

This reminds me of when Dr. Peat said he used to need 8,000 calories a day when he was younger, but when he took thyroid/magnesium, he only needed 4,000 because the thyroid helps the glucose get fully oxidized into CO2 and produce 10 times as much ATP, and magnesium stabilizes the whole system (don't know if those are the exact numbers, but that's the gist).
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
1,790
This reminds me of when Dr. Peat said he used to need 8,000 calories a day when he was younger, but when he took thyroid/magnesium, he only needed 4,000 because the thyroid helps the glucose get fully oxidized into CO2 and produce 10 times as much ATP, and magnesium stabilizes the whole system (don't know if those are the exact numbers, but that's the gist).
I remember reading this. I think it was an answer to an email question sent to Peat. I wonder what he was eating to reach that amount of calories. Probably a lot of fat.
 
Last edited:

Zigzag

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2018
Messages
663
Fasting will lower endotoxin, low carb will lower serotonin, and high protein stimulates thyroid. But it's only a short term fix because low carb and high protein will elevate cortisol, and high cortisol isn't sustainable in the long-run.

So it means it's the superior way to lose weight than those high carb diets, for people who work out and actually build muscle. Most of them do bulk/cut cycles. So if you're able to keep cortisol at bay within the cutting cycle the: if + low carb would still yield the best results.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
So it means it's the superior way to lose weight than those high carb diets, for people who work out and actually build muscle. Most of them do bulk/cut cycles. So if you're able to keep cortisol at bay within the cutting cycle the: if + low carb would still yield the best results.

Actually, high carb is even more effective when you workout hard. The last time I was healthy I was weight training pretty hard and on very high carb virtually zero fat and was making unreal gains, to the point my personal trainer asked me what steroids I was using. High carb is effective while sedentary, but doubly so when not.

Yeah most of them do bulk/cut cycles for a few reasons... short answer is impatience and wanting gains "now". Training too hard is one of the big reasons for getting fat. The typical bodybuilding lifestyle is not healthy so it is not surprising.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2018
Messages
988
As promised, the long awaited calories vs. weight loss/gain plot. I added notes that clearly show the high gain days are result of poor food choices, and the loss days associated with good food choices. The plot should speak to itself, but you can see just how volatile weight gain can be not as calories, but as food choices, because the same exact calories, can mean drastic different results with the correct food choices. What does become apparent, is that food choices matter more and more the higher in calories you go, which is why *usually* people do indeed gain weight on higher calories and you'll see on no days did I lose at higher than around 4300 calories, but that's because every point on there I did something wrong, and I pointed out just what was wrong, so I am pretty sure losing at > 4300 is within the realm of possibility. It seems at very high calorie intakes (pushing 5k+) most of those calories better be carbs or you probably will gain weight. High fat and high protein at 5k caloric levels means you will gain weight even if the fernstrom ratio is not too bad. Basically protein and fat requirements level off, and any additional calories can be carbs and carbs only or you will get fat. Carbs can be easily burned, in particular sugars. Protein and fats after a certain threshold... Not as much. So again, key takeaways are these

at 3000 calories, I can lose weight as long as I follow one or two reasonable tenants of RP.
At 4000 calories, I better be following at least 50-75% of RP's tenants to not gain weight.
At 4500 calories, I gotta follow 90% of the tenants.
At 5000 calories plus, I have to be nearly 100% perfect and on point.

So, with that in mind, it does become fairly apparent that around the 4000-4500 calorie mark is the "reasonable cutoff point" at least for me, if I didn't / don't want to become ultra OCD about what foods I eat and still maintain or lose weight. However, it's clear from this that using calories as the only metric is not helpful. But, it does help to point out the holes in your diet, so there is that. And the holes are more readily apparent the higher in calories you go. At this time, I'm not too interested to really play with 5000-6000 and beyond all that much, but theoeretically if you followed all tenants perfectly, didn't exceed a certain protein or fat threshold, didn't eat starch, and only used sugars as the carb source and as the main calorie source, you could probably maintain or even lose weight at 6000+.

An additional note: These are all pretty poor calcium:phosphorus ratio, especially higher protein, and it is POSSIBLE that's why high protein hurts, but also excessive protein tends to turn into ammonia which is no good. Eventually I will play with supplementing calcium, possibly. My definition of high protein is in the 200-250+ range of grams a day.

View attachment 13255

Too small of a sample size for this chart to mean anything, looks very noisy for sure.

I found that starting on my most recent diet: 75:15:10, carbs:fat:protein, that my daily weight fluctuated by 4 pounds. After several weeks the weight began to decline steadily and now only fluctuates by around 1 pound. I think seeing large daily fluctuations is a sign of poor kidney function.
 
Last edited:

revenant

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
300
CICO...

If I can eat 1,500 kcals of certain foods and not lose weight but eat 2,500 kcals of other foods and lose weight, how useful can this equation be?

Yes, it accurately describes the fact that there is a balance between energy going in and energy going out, but so what? That's like saying x = x and y = y. What does it help to understand? Not much, if the CI part affects the CO part (which it seems to do). It's *how* the CI affects the CO that is interesting. If certain foods increase my BMR and NEAT and other foods decrease them, we should be asking why instead repeating "it's the CICO, stupid!" like some autistic mantra.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
CICO...

If I can eat 1,500 kcals of certain foods and not lose weight but eat 2,500 kcals of other foods and lose weight, how useful can this equation be?

Yes, it accurately describes the fact that there is a balance between energy going in and energy going out, but so what? That's like saying x = x and y = y. What does it help to understand? Not much, if the CI part affects the CO part (which it seems to do). It's *how* the CI affects the CO that is interesting. If certain foods increase my BMR and NEAT and other foods decrease them, we should be asking why instead repeating "it's the CICO, stupid!" like some autistic mantra.

Well, do you have a real life example of someone in your first example that can be documented in anyway? If a T Rex is suddenly discovered, then it will prove that dinosaurs aren't extinct, but it actually needs to be discovered first.

Look, the equation may not have helped you understand anything, but a deeper understanding sure has helped me. If you are having success by ignoring the equation, keep it up. I don't know that there is a certain food that helps to increase NEAT so much as amount. It's funny that you ignore TEF, which is the most direct variable on the CO side that is affected by CI, with protein having the biggest effect. Since it also helps to increase muscle, it has both a short and long term effect on that side.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Actually I am already finding that protein (in excess) especially high fernstrom ratio proteins decrease the metabolic rate ultimately. You don't need that much protein to gain muscle, unless perhaps you're A.) a complete beginner who has never touched a weight in his life or B.) taking roids. As I say, too much protein (even low fernstrom ratio) was causing me ammonia symptoms and I bet is what was driving the inflammation/water weight gain as such. Carbs/sugars on the other hand, are hard to over-do. Fats can also be over-done of course, but I haven't collected enough data yet to be sure of the cut-off mark for fats.

Real example? Am I chopped liver? I don't care if you don't believe it, but I've already proven it to myself. Personal experience to me matters more than any scientific study.

Too small of a sample size for this chart to mean anything, looks very noisy for sure.

I found that starting on my most recent diet: 75:15:10, carbs:fat:protein, that my daily weight fluctuated by 4 pounds. After several weeks the weight began to decline steadily and now only fluctuates by around 1 pound. I think seeing large daily fluctuations is a sign of poor kidney function.

Yes and no. Yes it's noisy, but yes I absolutely can make conclusions. That's why I drew the arrows and made notes. Virtually EVERY point above the line (Especially the ones below 4500 calories), was above the line for a good reason, and had one or more things I did wrong dietarily which I clearly laid out. High fernstrom ratio, low SFA/PUFA, too much starch, for a couple of examples. There is not one point above that line where I followed all the rules perfectly. True, I need more data (and working on it), but so far that's the case.

Your 75-15-10 diet is almost exactly what I recommend now BTW based upon what I am learning, and that's pretty much my macro breakdowns also.
 
Last edited:

revenant

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
300
Well, do you have a real life example of someone in your first example that can be documented in anyway? If a T Rex is suddenly discovered, then it will prove that dinosaurs aren't extinct, but it actually needs to be discovered first.

Look, the equation may not have helped you understand anything, but a deeper understanding sure has helped me. If you are having success by ignoring the equation, keep it up. I don't know that there is a certain food that helps to increase NEAT so much as amount. It's funny that you ignore TEF, which is the most direct variable on the CO side that is affected by CI, with protein having the biggest effect. Since it also helps to increase muscle, it has both a short and long term effect on that side.

I didn't mean to ignore TEF, I just pointed BMR and NEAT out as examples.

I have myself as an example of not losing weight at 1,500 kcal per day after the first few months (coming down from an average of 2,000 kcal per day), and I'm almost 6 feet tall. More worryingly, after a few weeks of eating 2,000 kcal again I immediately gained all of the weight I lost back.

I was very skeptical of this claim (that a calorie is not always a calorie) for more than a decade, but now I'm inclined to believe there is something to it. I now think wrecking your metabolism is entirely possible, and that it will significantly affect the amount of calories you can consume without putting on weight (without any exercise).

Back in the day I could eat whatever I wanted and not gain weight, but I didn't measure calories then, so I don't know if I ever ate 2,500 kcal on average. But I do know I had more energy and was always fidgeting around and quite probably burning calories that way. And I never felt like I needed to take a nap during the day.
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
4
Views
953
Deleted member 5487
D
Back
Top Bottom