-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Liquid Calories VS Solid Calories - Doesnt it matter?
- Thread starter yoshiesque
- Start date
A healthy body has more options than burning immediately or long-term energy store - fat. When liver glycogen storage capacity is good (which I think Peat and Barnes have said depends partly on thyroid function and liver health), it can store quite a lot of glycogen for short term needs - enough to keep us going for a whole day if it is really strong. For many of us here, this is not so strong. I think mine is improving a little, but still not strong.
Peat has said that when glycogen storage is full, sugar/sweet foods stop tasting good.
I've been going on the idea that blood sugar control and glycogen storage may improve with a little exercise - ie pushing the boundaries a bit - but I don't know that this is what Peat would recommend.
Peat has said that when glycogen storage is full, sugar/sweet foods stop tasting good.
This looks like a low calorie diet - I guess you've seen the posts about the Minnesota Semi-starvation Experiment - the young men had calories restricted from a baseline of about 3200 to around 1600 cals (varied a bit from person to person). Gaining weight may be a desirable effect of eating more. If you mean you gain fat when you eat more, that seems quite common, too. It seems that when an underfed body starts to get more food again, it often prioritises its long-term energy stores before restoring other organs and metabolism etc. I don't know if there is a way around that. I doubt that you can fully recover without eating more. It may take your body a while to adapt to eating enough.yoshiesque said:
I've been going on the idea that blood sugar control and glycogen storage may improve with a little exercise - ie pushing the boundaries a bit - but I don't know that this is what Peat would recommend.
narouz said:
Now i do not need sugared milk for sleep but feeling after wake up is much
better with sugared milk compared to apple juice.
I think 7 lb thing has some physical relationships. Maybe body can handle
burning certain amount of fat before reaching a plateau. In last few months
i only lost 2 lbs but has gained a lot of muscles. At my current weight i do not
need to lose any more weight as long as i am gaining more muscle.
OP
yoshiesque
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2014
- Messages
- 367
tara said:
This is the same approach Matt Stone gives, and that gaining weight during this process is fine and it will go back down as metabolism improves. I disagree on this. I already have gained 10kg from the phase where I was eating lots of pure sugars and then again from starches. It really came down to calories being excess. And the weight that i gained was bad. It has resulted in me getting hip/lower back pain (due to fat around lower body) and it also elevated my liver enzymes. Doctor says I would definitely have very mild fatty liver.
I like what Mittir said to me a long time ago, this made perfect sense to me. See below:
Mittir said:
So eating foods that increase metabolism is good, but that doesnt mean I should be eating calories in excess of current metabolism. I guess it seems that you should be adjusting to current metabolism always, and making sure your not under eating. You can never be 100% accurate, but with trial and error you can get to JUST over eating, meaning you wouldnt really gain much weight at all.
But just going all out and eating like Matt Stone even recommends, I find to be a problem. I know there was a study that the Minnesota Semi-starvation Experiment showed otherwise, but I dont believe in starving myself. I believe for fat loss its best to be only slightly under metabolic caloric intake AND maybe doing some light based exercises along the way (nothing intense or long). For example, just moving around more than sitting on the computer all day.
The problem with theories like "eat till you gain, and wait till you lose" is this - how long are we willing to try it for? TIll we gain 10kg? 20kg? 30kg? at some point we have to say "okay maybe im not going to lose weight doing this" rather than blindly saying "im sure weight loss is just around the corner" when you are like lets say 80kg overweight.
10kg for me is a lot, it is already effecting me due to excess weight putting strain on lower back. I am 100% confident I can still lose weight by just cutting back a bit on calories (i currently eat 2000-2500) and then go back to maintaining the right caloric intake WHILE on RP diet, WITHOUT gaining this much weight. So my current plan is switch to more fruit and cut back on honey (i eat 6+ tablespoons a day atm). Then after I have lost that weight, do RP properly, not going all out and checking weight periodically. I think RP diet is great but also requires A LOT of effort, tracking and adjustments.
Hi Yoshiesque,
I was responding to your previous post, which I thought said you were eating 1500-1800 cals. If you are eating 2000-2500, as you say in your later post, I am a lot less concerned, though you may need more at some stage.
I believe that a young man eating 1500-1800 calories would be seriously undereating. This is just a little more than the men in the semi-starvation experiment (around 1600). If this does not feel like starvation, I suspect that would be because metabolism has down-regulated in adaptation to deficiency. Unless a man is unusually short, I doubt if they could maintain a really healthy body and metabolism on so little fuel.
I think there is a difference between Matt Stone's advice, which, IIRC, primarily favoured lots of starches (along with salt, a little sat fat, sunshine, etc), and Peat's, which emphasises adequate protein, generous minerals (esp. calcium) and vitamins, and favours sugar over starch (along with salt, a little sat fat, sunshine, etc). I think Stone was advocating higher calorie intake, too, for a while there. I don't know how those differences play out weight- and fat-wise for people who are increasing calories as part of an effort to restore metabolism and health. If Peat's ideas are right, they should have different outcomes.
I make the distinction between weight gain and fat gain. Peat has talked about his fat-loss clients from way back gaining weight as their muscles rebuilt while their clothes got looser.
If you have been undereating for a long time, there is a good chance that other organs (ie other than adipose), are depleted, and you may benefit from rebuilding them, which would increase their weight.
Maybe Mittir's approach - ie increase your food gradually in step with increasing metabolism - will work for you, without gaining much in the way of fat. That would be great. Certainly worth a try, if you want to and can do it. I know Mittir has said this worked for him. I don't know if he had a history of chronic undereating before he started. I suspect that may make a difference in how people respond.
If you give that approach a good go and it doesn't work for you, then you could consider whether eating more may be part of what your body requires in order to consider it safe to increase metabolism. And next time you could try Peat's nutrition advice, rather than Stone's.
I give no guarantees about fat gain being eventually lost again with this approach - I would expect that it varies from person to person. I guess it may depend on whether one starts out underweight or overweight, too (wrt one's one optimal body weight).
As far as I can tell, I think it is quite unusual for people who eat to appetite of nourishing food to gain 80kg or more of mostly fat. Most people gain till they get to their set point, and then stay there. Unless they keep going back into energy deficiency, and pushing the set point further up with every round. Some people overshoot their set point, and then go down again.
One way to reduce metabolism and push the weight set point up seems to be repeated calorie restriction.
I'm sorry you are having back difficulties. I hope you can find ways to strengthen it.
Switching to less honey and more fruit may help - more minerals - as long as the extra water is OK
Good luck.
I was responding to your previous post, which I thought said you were eating 1500-1800 cals. If you are eating 2000-2500, as you say in your later post, I am a lot less concerned, though you may need more at some stage.
I believe that a young man eating 1500-1800 calories would be seriously undereating. This is just a little more than the men in the semi-starvation experiment (around 1600). If this does not feel like starvation, I suspect that would be because metabolism has down-regulated in adaptation to deficiency. Unless a man is unusually short, I doubt if they could maintain a really healthy body and metabolism on so little fuel.
I think there is a difference between Matt Stone's advice, which, IIRC, primarily favoured lots of starches (along with salt, a little sat fat, sunshine, etc), and Peat's, which emphasises adequate protein, generous minerals (esp. calcium) and vitamins, and favours sugar over starch (along with salt, a little sat fat, sunshine, etc). I think Stone was advocating higher calorie intake, too, for a while there. I don't know how those differences play out weight- and fat-wise for people who are increasing calories as part of an effort to restore metabolism and health. If Peat's ideas are right, they should have different outcomes.
I make the distinction between weight gain and fat gain. Peat has talked about his fat-loss clients from way back gaining weight as their muscles rebuilt while their clothes got looser.
If you have been undereating for a long time, there is a good chance that other organs (ie other than adipose), are depleted, and you may benefit from rebuilding them, which would increase their weight.
Maybe Mittir's approach - ie increase your food gradually in step with increasing metabolism - will work for you, without gaining much in the way of fat. That would be great. Certainly worth a try, if you want to and can do it. I know Mittir has said this worked for him. I don't know if he had a history of chronic undereating before he started. I suspect that may make a difference in how people respond.
If you give that approach a good go and it doesn't work for you, then you could consider whether eating more may be part of what your body requires in order to consider it safe to increase metabolism. And next time you could try Peat's nutrition advice, rather than Stone's.
I give no guarantees about fat gain being eventually lost again with this approach - I would expect that it varies from person to person. I guess it may depend on whether one starts out underweight or overweight, too (wrt one's one optimal body weight).
As far as I can tell, I think it is quite unusual for people who eat to appetite of nourishing food to gain 80kg or more of mostly fat. Most people gain till they get to their set point, and then stay there. Unless they keep going back into energy deficiency, and pushing the set point further up with every round. Some people overshoot their set point, and then go down again.
One way to reduce metabolism and push the weight set point up seems to be repeated calorie restriction.
I'm sorry you are having back difficulties. I hope you can find ways to strengthen it.
Switching to less honey and more fruit may help - more minerals - as long as the extra water is OK
Good luck.
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
