Low-Fat Diet, Hypocaloric Diet, Weight Loss, Metabolism

[Dean]

LOL, sweetpeat. no problem. I don't mind being a guinea pig at this point, so I'll keep you posted on how I proceed, one way or another.

 

[Peata]

I have similarities to TBP in that I'm a 40 something woman with hormonal issues and 35# to lose. I started RP with maybe 5 - 8# to lose, no big deal, but proceeded to put on all the rest of my pounds last year. And the gain recently started again. So I feel that while some people can lose by lowering fat and eating carbs over their calorie needs, I better try what worked for someone else in my situation, like TBP.

I don't want to get into my whole background on this thread, but I have had issues with PCOS and insulin resistance, have been on medications, but only Rx I take now is cyproheptadine, rest is supplements.

I tried everything I could think of to try to get some weight loss going from the time the weight started piling on. I was afraid to lower calories too much because of things I'd read here - was afraid to mess up my metabolism even more by going too low calorie. I would go below my maintenance calories and get a terrible reaction (more than just stressful feeling of lower calories, I've detailed the symptoms before but have recently found that higher protein made it go away). I tried changing around macros, liquids, starch, fat, salt, supplements, and everything plus lowering the calories. But not lowering enough or for long enough it sounds. So now I'm just going to do what used to work before RP stuff, and that was lower calories more. And I think if I lose anything it should go better for my health because I'm going to keep nutrition up as much as I can.

That's probably a big difference in how I used to lose weight in the past, before RP. In the past, I wouldn't try to keep protein up or worry about nutrients at all, really. Just focused on those calories. Probably a mistake back then. I will be focusing on nutritious low calorie, low fat foods, but I will also be supplementing to fill in the rest.

Adding that I also tried lowering fat and eating above maintenance with carbs to see if that could work for me. I think I have really tried it all except lowering my calories a lot more.

I'm just really glad this issue is being talked about so much here, finally. There still seems to be a lot of confusion in RPWorld about losing weight. I hope to lose some so that I can come back here and tell about how I did it. Like TBP, I want to be healthy with good metabolism at some not-too distant point.

 

[Zachs]

This thread is starting to remind me of the arguments over at TPB on CICO vs low carb. People are getting quite defensive about their diet choices.

To clarify, I don't care what anyone chooses do try experiment with. I have done a ton of experimenting myself. I'm only saying that in the context of this thread, calories are not the biggest equation to fat lose and has little to nothing to do with PUFA reduction. In general, I don't believe calorie deficits to be a healthy or sustainable way of losing fat, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of dieters who do so with negative repercussions, usually losing muscle mass, reducing metabolism and regaining the same or more than the orginal fat loss. I'm aware that eating a Ray Peat inspired diet while restrictions calories is world's better than a SAD inspire diet or some sort of fast/cleanse, but still, catabolism is very big stressor and certainly inferior to the way I advocated doing this approach but like others are saying, it may not work for all. Although to the ones thinking of restricting, or that have already done it, have you tried eating a surplus of calories while eating a fat deficient diet? Until you have, I would suggest not getting so riled up on the subject.

Btw, yes I have tried both, I did lose fat on a lower caloriesl, vhc diet but I also atrophied muscle, became lethargic and cold.

 

[Dean]

Although to the ones thinking of restricting, or that have already done it, have you tried eating a surplus of calories while eating a fat deficient diet? Until you have, I would suggest not getting so riled up on the subject.

How would you recommend a person determining what their surplus of calories should be (in terms of a starting point)? What about fat intake %? protein?

 

[Jennifer]

In terms of calorie restriction being stressful on the body...being overweight is stressful on the body, having a low metabolism is stressful on the body, poor digestion is stressful on the body, eating more and more difficult calories than your poor digestion can handle is stressful on the body, eating period is stressful on the body, fasting is stressful on the body, being hypothyroid is stressful on the body, being in the dark is stressful on the body, etc. Is a nutrient dense, anti-nutrient free, low calorie diet really the worst stressor of them all?

If a low calorie diet doesn't cause you headaches, starving to the point of obsessively thinking about food and your next meal or having to use sheer willpower to avoid eating anything beyond your daily targeted calories, if it doesn't cause digestive disturbances, a loss of sex drive, feeling cold, moody, depressed, isolated or fatigued, then no, I can't say it's anymore stressful than the other stressors you mentioned. I was inquiring about the 1000 calorie people and how they can get even a sustainable amount of nutrients on such little calories. My comment was never directed at you personally, Dean. I trust you're the best judge of what your limits are.

I'm sorry if you feel you'll get attacked from others on here who don't agree with calorie restriction, but in the context of this thread, those who don't agree with you have a right to state their opinions just as much as you have a right to state yours so they inevitably are going to. But I would hope that if you logged your journey, that people would be supportive and if they can't be, then I hope they just don't say anything. There's no need for people to go attacking each other. Debating is one thing and should be left to these kinds of threads, not your log which I believe is where you should feel safe to be vulnerable and your feelings heard without negative critism.

Jennifer: great quotes and all that.

And also LOOK AT WHAT RP SAID HERE

"Q: Victor Lindlahr then came up with the paper on a catabolic diet - the opposite of anabolism, which is to build muscle, and catabolism is to break it down with the production of heat.

RP: In the 50's and 60's people were experimenting with what kind of diet is efficient for losing fat and still maintain your health. They did experiments in which people would just have pure water for 10 days or 14 days, and then they would analyze what happened to their bodies, and they found that they lost pure protein during that time - very little fat. If they ate maybe 600-800 calories per day during that same 10-14 days, they would lose mostly fat and very little protein.

So from fasting to only consuming 600-800 calories mostly from protein and prob little carb and fat they lost ALMOST ONLY FAT. 600-800 that is some serious calorie deficit.


The number 1 reason so many women struggle the most is that they are beeing fed the biggest lies from all the bull**** gossip hollywood magazines on how to loose weight.

These are the usual recipes in those bull**** articles and books:
1. tons of cardio
2. liquid cleansing bull**** juicing stuff.
3. super low calories, and most coming from just some sugar from juice, and maybe little oil. very little protein

If women just did what guys do. Eat enough protein, lift weights, walk and be in a calorie deficit. I think we would not have this disussion.
And no women wil not be big and bulky from lifting weights, most guys dont do either exept if they juice :P

Like I said, it was a study done for 10 - 14 days. I want a study that is longer than two weeks before I'll even consider it valid. Two weeks is nothing if we care about long term effects. How many of us tried diets and saw immediate positive results and started declaring to all our friends and family how great the diet was only to have that sentiment ripped from us after the honeymoon period was over? I think most can say the honeymoon lasted much longer than two weeks so a two week study is a stay in the Bahamas. Poor analogy I know, but you get the gist.

I responded to your other points, but decided there's no need to post them. I'm in agreement with what Zach said above, but I can respect everyone is going to have their own idea of what is healthy for them. My only hope is that people's motivation for what they choose is in their best interest and not from a place of fear or a lack of self respect and love.

Oh and I LOL at the juice comment, but don't worry, I don't think I'll look like China Doll just from lifting something heavy. I don't lift because I refuse to break a nail. :P

 

[Zachs]

Although to the ones thinking of restricting, or that have already done it, have you tried eating a surplus of calories while eating a fat deficient diet? Until you have, I would suggest not getting so riled up on the subject.

How would you recommend a person determining what their surplus of calories should be (in terms of a starting point)? What about fat intake %? protein?

I think for this experiment, a generic number of say, 500g carbs and 100-150g protein is a good start. this could very well be a deficit for an active male but it at least covers basic needs in terms of protein synthesis and glycogen storage. From there, go by hunger and keep going up till satisfied, just never go below. I chose 3k as my base number. as far as fat goes, the point is to eat as little pufa as possible, so no fat is a great start. :) if you can live on ff dairy and fruit, try it. If not, stick to leanest animal products possible, shellfish would be best. coconut oil is kind of a gray area here because it gets metabolized more like a carb, if you want to use some for cooking, that should be ok.

 

[Dean]

LOL...This is getting more than a little bizarre. I'm not feeling attacked in this thread; I'm just a little bewildered by it. Since this is the "Ray Peat forum", I don't think it's being defensive to inquire why the prevailing wisdom on the Ray Peat forum has moved into diametric disagreement with Ray Peat on something as integral to any nutritional theory as what causes weight gain/inhibits weight loss.

I'll ask again...why in the world would Ray Peat be telling a person to be careful of the extra calories in grape juice as opposed to orange juice when trying to lose weight if he, in fact, felt that calorie restriction was what, or at least part of what, inhibited weight loss? How in the world is Ray Peat saying "not getting enough nutrients is stressful for the body", the equivalent of saying any type of calorie restriction/deficit is extremely detrimental? What in the world do the recommended nutrient intakes on cron-o-meter, taken from government standards based on their corrupt food pyramid, have to do with someone following a nutrient-dense diet, devoid of the anti-nutrients prevalent not only in the standard American diet, but the so-called optimal diet recommended by those who set the nutritional standards?

I'm not opposed to disagreeing with Peat. I don't agree with him that a sterile gut is ideal--especially for living in the real world, for example. I think though that if you are going to part with Peat, you should just say so (and be willing to explain why), instead of trying to parse his words to fit your own conclusions.

I apologize in advance if my words offend anyone. I'm honestly not trying to stir up trouble. I just think this is a pretty fundamental disagreement that goes straight to the heart of the validity of this way of eating. I've admitted before that I don't have a science background or the most scientific mind, so I try to stay close to what Ray Peat's words are and take them as close to face value as I can/am able to. It isn't out of some blind adherence to Peat as all-knowing. It's just that I acknowledge overall that he is far smarter, better educated and more highly functioning than I. I think it is more incumbent on those who diverge in some way from what he says to own it and produce their own justifications/explanations/observations (personal or anecdotal).

 

[Dean]

Zachs, thanks for your reply. I'm curious about where your 500g of carbs baseline comes from. I'd be willing to try it, but right now I just can't afford 2500+ calories in fruit. I wish I lived on some tropical island. What about getting the second half of the calories from sucrose? It seems like I'm starting to understand your argument as a calorie, any calorie, is a nutrient. I don't think Peat would agree with that. But, if I were to take it as true, wouldn't 1500 calories of sucrose be exponentially better than not having those 1500 calories at all or getting them from fat (with weight loss as a goal) or getting them from calories that throw off the calcium to phosphorus ratio?

 

[narouz]

I'll ask again...why in the world would Ray Peat be telling a person to be careful of the extra calories in grape juice as opposed to orange juice when trying to lose weight if he, in fact, felt that calorie restriction was what, or at least part of what, inhibited weight loss?

Just a note on the grape juice thing.
In a Peat radio interview--
I don't remember which one
but I may have it in my notes--
I'm pretty sure I heard Peat say
that grape juice is all glucose.

Now...I'm pretty certain that is not true.
But...I'm also pretty certain that is what Peat said.

So, a weird little bit of info there, I know.
But it might answer the question you pose.

 

[narouz]

Thought I'd post this in the thread
as a general principle of Peat's
that is important when speculating about how he thinks about weight gain/loss:

From the KMUD interview of February 15th.
KMUD: Weight Gain, Foamy Urine, Fats, Light Therapy, Dreams, -- 2-15-2013
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/download/file.php?id=312

The questioner is the KMUD co-host, Sarah Murray.
Go to the 48 minute mark of the interview:

SM: "I guess what you're saying is 400 calories from orange juice
is not comparative to 400 calories from potatoes or rice."

Ray Peat: "...uh, definitely not. It [the orange juice] stimulates your metabolism and suppresses
the stress hormones."

SM: "Whereas 400 calories from baked potato and rice would increase your stress hormones
and suppress your metabolism?"

RP: "Yeah. And then there's the matter of the starch particles, that if you don't have some saturated fat
with them some of the starch particles can set up a whole pattern of stress and injury by entering
the blood stream."

 

[Zachs]

Zachs, thanks for your reply. I'm curious about where your 500g of carbs baseline comes from. I'd be willing to try it, but right now I just can't afford 2500+ calories in fruit. I wish I lived on some tropical island. What about getting the second half of the calories from sucrose? It seems like I'm starting to understand your argument as a calorie, any calorie, is a nutrient. I don't think Peat would agree with that. But, if I were to take it as true, wouldn't 1500 calories of sucrose be exponentially better than not having those 1500 calories at all or getting them from fat (with weight loss as a goal) or getting them from calories that throw off the calcium to phosphorus ratio?

Fat free dairy contains quite a bit of sugar too so it wouldn't need to come entirely from fruit but if you stick to orange juice, ripe bananas and some frozen fruit or a few mangos, it really isn't that expensive. Yes, sucrose, honey or maple syrup would be great additions to get extra calories in. They just don't contain much in the way of vitamins/minerals so you got to be careful to get enough elsewhere.

500g is roughly an optimal level of glycogen storage of muscles and liver. Keeping them topped up is key in keeping stress hormones low and being insulin sensituve.

 

[Jennifer]

LOL...This is getting more than a little bizarre. I'm not feeling attacked in this thread; I'm just a little bewildered by it. Since this is the "Ray Peat forum", I don't think it's being defensive to inquire why the prevailing wisdom on the Ray Peat forum has moved into diametric disagreement with Ray Peat on something as integral to any nutritional theory as what causes weight gain/inhibits weight loss.

Err...okay!? My comment was in response to what you wrote here:

As far as logging it, I don't know. I wouldn't want to set off a firestorm of disapproval (or increase my stress by having to be on the defensive justifying myself throughout.) We'll see.

I'm sorry if my choice of the word "feeling attacked" wasn't a good description of your statement above. My bad!

I'll ask again...why in the world would Ray Peat be telling a person to be careful of the extra calories in grape juice as opposed to orange juice when trying to lose weight if he, in fact, felt that calorie restriction was what, or at least part of what, inhibited weight loss?

I apologize in advance if the rest of your comments aren't directed toward me, but you never stated so I'm just going to answer them.

Where does being careful of the "extra" calories in grape juice mean Ray advocates calorie restriction? Extra calories from grape juice could be 1000 extra calories for all I know. I don't know what any person's body deems as beyond necessary, just my own.

How in the world is Ray Peat saying "not getting enough nutrients is stressful for the body", the equivalent of saying any type of calorie restriction/deficit is extremely detrimental? What in the world do the recommended nutrient intakes on cron-o-meter, taken from government standards based on their corrupt food pyramid, have to do with someone following a nutrient-dense diet, devoid of the anti-nutrients prevalent not only in the standard American diet, but the so-called optimal diet recommended by those who set the nutritional standards?

Ray constantly makes mention of getting all the essential nutrients met so I don't think my question is without validity. In fact, I even emailed him this past February and he made mention of the essential nutrients when I asked if the diet I was doing was safe. He brought up that it has all the essential nutrients.

You can go read his articles and see where he repeatedly makes mention of getting all the essential nutrients, but just so you don't think I'm parsing his words to fit my own conclusions, here's just one example, a quote from his Sugar Issues article:

"A daily diet that includes two quarts of milk and a quart of orange juice provides enough fructose and other sugars for general resistance to stress, but larger amounts of fruit juice, honey, or other sugars can protect against increased stress, and can reverse some of the established degenerative conditions.
Refined granulated sugar is extremely pure, but it lacks all of the essential nutrients, so it should be considered as a temporary therapeutic material, or as an occasional substitute when good fruit isn't available, or when available honey is allergenic."

I think though that if you are going to part with Peat, you should just say so (and be willing to explain why), instead of trying to parse his words to fit your own conclusions.

I'm not parting with Ray in this context, but when I do, I have never had an issue in saying so. I don't claim that Ray is for eating beyond what your body deems necessary, but I also don't believe a huge calorie deficit that's devoid of all the essential nutrients for daily maintenance and regeneration is what Ray advises either.

And I'm not assuming you're trying to stir up trouble. You have a right to say if you disagree about something just as much as I do. It's all good!

 

[narouz]

I too have wrestled with gaining weight while eating a Peat diet.
I've been doing so for 3 years now.

Here is an assortment of loosely related notions related to Peat and weight.
I know the stated topic of this thread is PUFA,
but the thread took an interesting turn into weight, so...mods do whatever.

1. Peat has said that protein consumption
is not something that can be reliably be intuited.
He says the appetite for sugars can be handled by intuition.
But not for protein.
When my metabolism isn't working well, for whatever reason,
I have found it very hard to force myself to march up to
that 120 gram recommended level
(I'm an average size guy).
Or sometimes even to the 80 gram level.
Talking Peat recommended kinds of protein here.
Maybe this is part of my problem with metabolism and my weight gain.
I've been trying to improve my Peat performance in this regard.
Just putting it out there as an issue I have.

2. One of our former posters, peatarian...
Well, "former poster" doesn't really do her justice. :)
She is more like a Forum Myth or Legend.
Anyhow...I did value her and her info.
But some of it...I think was maybe a little off.
Once she referred to Coca-Cola
as "such an important part of a Peat diet."
I bring this up not to impugn peatarian's mythic resonance,
because she had a lot of great Peat info and experience.
But the Coca-Cola thing...
When I started having trouble with my metabolism and gaining weight
(after enjoying a period of metabolic success)
it was following a period of drinking a lot of Cokes.
I kinda slipped into it because I liked the Cokes,
and I got away from drinking, instead, a lot of orange juice.
So...another little minor data point.

3. Peat has responded to questions about weight-gain problems
by saying that limiting fat--good Peat fats, not just PUFA--is helpful.
He even said those trying to lose weight shouldn't eat a lot of coconut oil.

4. But he also, generally, has seemed pretty adamant about keeping the foot down
on the "accelerator pedal" when dealing with excess weight.
By accelerator I mean the metabolic fuels of sugars and protein.
Maybe he has recommended limiting those in order to lose weight,
but I haven't heard him do so.
I will be happy to be corrected here.

5. Peat has implicated starch, big-time, in weight gain.
Check here for support along those lines:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=727#p73411

6. When my metabolism isn't operating efficiently,
I have a hell of a time forcing myself to down the recommended levels of milk or cheese
and fruit.
My body kinda rebels and says: "I ain't eatin' all that! I don't want it!"
I'm not saying this is right.
I'm just reporting my experience.

7. I've come to see the health of the gut as increasingly central
in this whole exploration of weight loss/gain in PeatWorld.
My sense is
that if the gut is messed up somehow--
inflamed, irritated, too much bacteria, wrong bacteria, yeast, whatever--
then even eating the correct Peat levels of nutrients won't help.
I'm not saying this is true...just my suspicion at this point.

I'm not trying to be comprehensive here.
Just tossing out some slightly stray thoughts
on the topic (as it has evolved ).

 

[Jennifer]

2. One of our former posters, peatarian...
Well, "former poster" doesn't really do her justice. :)
She is more like a Forum Myth or Legend.
Anyhow...I did value her and her info.
But some of it...I think was maybe a little off.
Once she referred to Coca-Cola
as "such an important part of a Peat diet."
I bring this up not to impugn peatarian's mythic resonance,
because she had a lot of great Peat info and experience.
But the Coca-Cola thing...
When I started having trouble with my metabolism and gaining weight
(after enjoying a period of metabolic success)
it was following a period of drinking a lot of Cokes.
I kinda slipped into it because I liked the Cokes,
and I got away from drinking, instead, a lot of orange juice.
So...another little minor data point.

Yeah, this is something I've been thinking about and I even saved that extensive thread where you asked her about her diet and she stated what she ate. She ate plenty of starch and seemed to think Ray was fine with it yet we know his stance on that one, don't we, narouz?

If you listen to some of the older interviews with Ray, I remember one in particular where Josh asks Ray what he had consumed for the day and he mentioned steak and coke. I'm thinking where there appears to be blatant contradictions, may simply come down to the fact that Ray has changed his stance on certain foods over the years as new information and studies come out. But don't quote me on that because that's just my theory, I don't know for certain. I just wish Ray would make mention when he has changed his opinion and why.

And you bring up a very good point with number seven. Ray's newsletter from February, I think it was, talked all about a germ-free gut and the studies so he clearly is in favor of that. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think his older stance about keeping the bacteria in the right place, the large intestine and having the small intestine relatively sterile makes more logical sense to me given we'd be hard pressed to avoid bacteria in the world we live in. We might as well be living in bubbles at that point.

 

[narouz]

If you listen to some of the older interviews with Ray, I remember one in particular where Josh asks Ray what he had consumed for the day and he mentioned steak and coke.

Yeah.
I don't really see this as contradictory.
My take on these sorts of statements from Peat
is that he kinda enjoys being a bit contrarian,
and/or
he will be honest and self-deprecating.
A steak and coke is not too bad--
just not a model from which to extrapolate an ideal Peat diet.

And you bring up a very good point with number seven. Ray's newsletter from February, I think it was, talked all about a germ-free gut and the studies so he clearly is in favor of that. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I think his older stance about keeping the bacteria in the right place, the large intestine and having the small intestine relatively sterile makes more logical sense to me given we'd be hard pressed to avoid bacteria in the world we live in. We might as well be living in bubbles at that point.

My leaning at this time
is to see Peat's notions about the gut and endotoxin and antibiotics, etc,
as kinda simplistic.
With all the stuff we're learning about the gut biome
and all the connections being made from it to so many diseases and mood and psychology....

...I just don't feel that simply tamping down the bacteria
with carrot salad or occasional antibiotics
really addresses the full complexity of the biome and its effects.
Maybe Peat will turn out to be right about this stuff.
I just don't know.

 

[Dean]

Well Jennifer, I'll start by highlighting our agreement on the sterile gut thing. Unless you have the "luxury"(?) of living in a clinical vacuum, it's hard for me to figure out how life with a sterile gut is workable.

As for your response on the grape juice question...I find your attempt, with all due respect, to turn it back around on me as an answer, to be dubious, at best. But, I'll leave it to other objective readers to draw their own conclusions. I appreciate you at least directly answering one of the questions I've been posing.

Let me try this another way, in terms of essential nutrients. I think (hope) we can all agree that Peat believes 2 liters of milk and a liter of oj, pretty much rings the bell for meeting just about anybody's basic nutritional needs. If you plug just that into cron-o-meter it does do a pretty, darn good job of hitting most of them at, above, or a bit below 100% the daily recommendations. But if you listen to Peat's advice about using 1% milk (if you need to lose weight), you are looking at 1266 calories. What you would need to knock everything else above 100% is pretty negligible in terms of calories (zinc-an oyster or two, B vitamins-a bit of liver). So again, I'm still confused how not getting more than double the number of calories Peat's baseline nutritional recommendations provide is tantamount to juggling a nuclear bomb.

Sure, a little more fruit might be ideal, or "protective" as I believe, narouz, quoted Peat as saying; but it's quite a reach to go from that to it's downright essential to have another 2000 or more calories from fruit (or mostly from fruit) or you are nutritionally deficient and sabotaging your present and long-term health.

I guess I'm beating a dead horse at this point. I've said my piece and taken up (more than) ample space in making my point and will leave it to everyone to make up their own minds. I wish everyone nothing but good health, no matter what or how much they decide to eat.

 

[Peata]

I'm glad you posted all that, it's interesting and useful.

A few thoughts from me:

I am glad to see that protein needs aren't always intuited, because left on my own, I wouldn't eat anywhere near 80+ grams. I've felt improvements though from raising my intake, though haven't lost weight from it.

Limiting all fats has been good for me. I don't know if it's just ADDED fats that are the problem, as in using cooking oils, butter, for cooking and flavoring and so on, or if it's also fattier types of foods like full fat milk or meat that can be a problem. I haven't lost weight from limiting pufa or overall fat so far but it my skin is less inflamed and not breaking out like it was.

Cutting starch and grains hasn't helped me lose weight, but I feel it helped me sleep better (no adrenaline attacks now). I'm OK with eating some, but will avoid it when able and convenient.

Adding that I look forward to seeing how the higher protein and lower fat and starch helps now that I'm cutting the calories more.

Thanks for your input, narouz. Did you find a way to lose any of the weight you gained from Cokes?

 

[narouz]

I'm glad you posted all that, it's interesting and useful.

A few thoughts from me:

I am glad to see that protein needs aren't always intuited, because left on my own, I wouldn't eat anywhere near 80+ grams. I've felt improvements though from raising my intake, though haven't lost weight from it.

Limiting all fats has been good for me. I don't know if it's just ADDED fats that are the problem, as in using cooking oils, butter, for cooking and flavoring and so on, or if it's also fattier types of foods like full fat milk or meat that can be a problem. I haven't lost weight from limiting pufa or overall fat so far but it my skin is less inflamed and not breaking out like it was.

Cutting starch and grains hasn't helped me lose weight, but I feel it helped me sleep better (no adrenaline attacks now). I'm OK with eating some, but will avoid it when able and convenient.

Adding that I look forward to seeing how the higher protein and lower fat and starch helps now that I'm cutting the calories more.

Thanks for your input, narouz. Did you find a way to lose any of the weight you gained from Cokes?

I've been following you and Jennifer's and bigp's exploits
and have been impressed by you gals' protein consumption. :)
I've said to myself, damn, if those girls can do it,
I should get my **** in gear and get the damn protein down!

Actually, the Coke's were only one strand in my perplexing weight-gain scenario.
I'm not sure what part they played.
They were just one thing of many I've considered as possible suspects.
I thought:
well, that orange juice had a lot of magnesium,
and the Coke probably has none, so...

...one of the things that happened when my metabolism when south
was I started getting palpitations.
I had to lower my thyroid supps.
Magnesium seems to be the first thing Peat mentions
when asked about palpitations and thyroid supps.

The whole Peat and weight-gain thing is damn confusing! :)

 

[Jennifer]

Let me try this another way, in terms of essential nutrients. I think (hope) we can all agree that Peat believes 2 liters of milk and a liter of oj, pretty much rings the bell for meeting just about anybody's basic nutritional needs. If you plug just that into cron-o-meter it does do a pretty, darn good job of hitting most of them at, above, or a bit below 100% the daily recommendations. But if you listen to Peat's advice about using 1% milk (if you need to lose weight), you are looking at 1266 calories. What you would need to knock everything else above 100% is pretty negligible in terms of calories (zinc-an oyster or two, B vitamins-a bit of liver). So again, I'm still confused how not getting more than double the number of calories Peat's baseline nutritional recommendations provide is tantamount to juggling a nuclear bomb.

Yep, I agree with you that Ray often mentions the 2 liters of milk and 1 liter of OJ to cover our nutrient requirements and that's one of the reasons I chose the quote I did, but I never said you need to be getting double the amount of calories Ray recommends. I think you may be confusing me with someone else? I did write that the one thing I find interesting about what the MSE study found/concluded is it didn't matter how much extra vitamins and protein they gave the participants after the starvation phase of the experiment was over. If they didn't get at least 4,000 calories daily, they weren't recovering. Was that what you were referring to? If so, that doesn't mean I believe you need to be getting at least 4000 calories. You're not the participants from that study anymore than you're the participants of the 600-800 calorie study I quoted from Ray's interview.

From the beginning, my question was about those who gain weight even on 1000 calories and how they structure a diet that hits all the essential nutrients without going over their allotted daily calories and without having to rely on a ton of potentially allergenic supplements since it's no secret Ray is a fan of getting our nutrients from food. It was a sincere question, not me trying to start a debate.

Anyhow, I don't want to beat a dead horse either so I'll shut up and just wish you the best in your health journey and hope you get the results you're after, Dean. Take care! :)

 

[Jennifer]

I'm glad you posted all that, it's interesting and useful.

A few thoughts from me:

I am glad to see that protein needs aren't always intuited, because left on my own, I wouldn't eat anywhere near 80+ grams. I've felt improvements though from raising my intake, though haven't lost weight from it.

Limiting all fats has been good for me. I don't know if it's just ADDED fats that are the problem, as in using cooking oils, butter, for cooking and flavoring and so on, or if it's also fattier types of foods like full fat milk or meat that can be a problem. I haven't lost weight from limiting pufa or overall fat so far but it my skin is less inflamed and not breaking out like it was.

Cutting starch and grains hasn't helped me lose weight, but I feel it helped me sleep better (no adrenaline attacks now). I'm OK with eating some, but will avoid it when able and convenient.

Adding that I look forward to seeing how the higher protein and lower fat and starch helps now that I'm cutting the calories more.

Thanks for your input, narouz. Did you find a way to lose any of the weight you gained from Cokes?

I've been following you and Jennifer's and bigp's exploits
and have been impressed by you gals' protein consumption. :)
I've said to myself, damn, if those girls can do it,
I should get my **** in gear and get the damn protein down!

Actually, the Coke's were only one strand in my perplexing weight-gain scenario.
I'm not sure what part they played.
They were just one thing of many I've considered as possible suspects.
I thought:
well, that orange juice had a lot of magnesium,
and the Coke probably has none, so...

...one of the things that happened when my metabolism when south
was I started getting palpitations.
I had to lower my thyroid supps.
Magnesium seems to be the first thing Peat mentions
when asked about palpitations and thyroid supps.

The whole Peat and weight-gain thing is damn confusing! :)

LOL Take Minocycline for months on end and you'll be downing the protein like a champ.

Hmm...I wonder if coke or sucrose lacking potassium to aid in its digestion is a possible reason for the weight gain while on it if you were using it as your major source of carbs. Of course, lots of people consume plenty of sugar without gaining weight so that's probably a completely off though. I wouldn't be surprised given my not so stellar commenting today.