Why It Might Be Better To Temporarily Gain Weight After Diet Improvement

mbachiu

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
124
Let me just reassure you that if for some reason this doesn’t go according to plan, you can do IF and get the weight off fast. I weighed in at 208.8 last February 28 when I went to have my baby (9 lbs), and am now back down to 140 through intermittent fasting and peating.
I urge you to go to Kalli Youngstom’s Instagram & watch her story today. She talks exactly about what we are discussing here. She does keto, which I can’t get down with, but she talks about how your body will rebound when forcing it into places it does not go.

As @Kelj mentioned, Stephanie Buttermore is another person to look into. She has been almost like a recovery buddy, because we are going through pretty much the same journey. I believe everyone’s journey is different & I may in a year, decide that this road is too long & arduous. And, I’m not saying you have to agree with what is being proposed here, but I do think it’s worth educating yourself about what is being presented in this thread. We are constantly educated & told about IF. Might be worth looking into alternative points of view...
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
Who's been talking about non-stop junk food eating? There have been two views expressed here:

1. You should never eat si-called junk food.

2. You can eat so-called junk food when you feel like it.

Why these exagerations?

I have worked as a personal chef. I cook for my family every day. I enjoy making homemade food and eating it. I eat anything I want. I don't gain weight. I am completely well, even though I eat so-called junk food when I feel like it.

I have shared the science for everyone to see.

Kayla Rose Kotecki is a good example of what I have been talking about.

Strawman arguments.

Its great that it worked for you but your limited anecdotal experience means relatively little overall. The only person with video evidence presented, that actually appears to be healthy is kayla kotecki and she stands to make a profit it seems. Stephanie buttermore is currently fat and/or bloated, well see what happens.

You act like the research is settled on this matter and that your application of the research is the final say, both of which are not reality. Post as many quotes from articles that you extract off the eating institute website as you want, it isn't the final answer and there are more components to the picture overall that are sorely missing from the picture. The view you present, in regards to food volume and calories is myopic at best. Calories in and of themselves are an abstraction at best. They tell the value of a food as much as money tells the value of an object. Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps this "healing crisis" may not be neccesary to restore health? That becoming fat, bloated, having this list of extensive symptoms may not be neccesary to achieve "healing"? I'd guess no, because your tone alludes to the science being clear; but to anyone who reads science, the science is never that clear, especially when conducting research looking at abstracted modifiers like calories. Its like looking at diabetes status by testing blood sugar, its a minor pixel of the overall picture. Thus, while the articles are helpful and interesting, they are not a final say; in this instance they are functioning to inhibit the conversation especially with the element of authority with which you wield them.

Here is the argument overall, so we can all avoid going in depth into the strawmen:

1) eating enough calories is neccesary, I think there is agreement here

2) to get enough calories after coming off a huge deficit eating calories dense foods is probably helpful, I think there is agreement here

3) too many calories in general isn't what neccesarily makes people fat, I think there is agreement here

4) now here's where we differ, while the above is true, it does not then mean that eating whatever you want is ideal, healthy, and neccesary or even conducive to achieve health. There are certain foods, that definitely cause weight gain regardless of calories. Some of these foods include refined starches, PUFA's, dairy and processed foods in general. The effects of these foods are beyond the realm of calories, and have numerous scientifically supported components for inducing weight gain irrespective of their total calories. Thus, restriction of type of certain foods is entirely neccesary. This is not neccesarily an eating disorder, its called foresight, understanding and an intelligent approach to understanding food. Cultures around the world since time immemorial have been practicing this i.e. seeking out and prizing certain food sources over others and subsequently developing those food sources. Its even known amongst farmers that if you want to fatten cattle or livestock you feed them grain and PUFA.

5) With the above said, the argument is, that eating enough calories of the CORRECT foods is ideal to reaching a health state, while simultaneously avoiding problematic foods.
 

Blossom

Moderator
Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
11,032
Location
Indiana USA
I believe everyone’s journey is different
This 100%.

It’s also very important to respect others who have recovered even if their methods may differ from our own. Recovery is hard and a very personal experience. Suggesting someone else’s difficulty in recovery is always due to them not eating enough is quite short sighted. Some have had troubles due to forcing food above and beyond what their body needs and repeatedly ignoring their appetite. While it is important to eat on a regular schedule the goal should be to reconnect with our appetite not constantly override it in either direction.
 

mbachiu

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
124
This 100%.

It’s also very important to respect others who have recovered even if their methods may differ from our own. Recovery is hard and a very personal experience. Suggesting someone else’s difficulty in recovery is always due to them not eating enough is quite short sighted. Some have had troubles due to forcing food above and beyond what their body needs and repeatedly ignoring their appetite. While it is important to eat on a regular schedule the goal should be to reconnect with our appetite not constantly override it in either direction.
100% this
 

YamnayaMommy

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
343
I urge you to go to Kalli Youngstom’s Instagram & watch her story today. She talks exactly about what we are discussing here. She does keto, which I can’t get down with, but she talks about how your body will rebound when forcing it into places it does not go.

As @Kelj mentioned, Stephanie Buttermore is another person to look into. She has been almost like a recovery buddy, because we are going through pretty much the same journey. I believe everyone’s journey is different & I may in a year, decide that this road is too long & arduous. And, I’m not saying you have to agree with what is being proposed here, but I do think it’s worth educating yourself about what is being presented in this thread. We are constantly educated & told about IF. Might be worth looking into alternative points of view...
I totally agree that tolerating alternative points of view is very valuable.

Won’t agree to check out YouTube videos only because I have limited time and prefer reading written material to video.

I’ve read some of the arguments that kelj has copied and pasted but honestly it’s too psychobabbley and tedious. If some more skeptical and rigorous writer would concisely summarize the supposed science behind it, I’d read it.
 

YamnayaMommy

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
343
Strawman arguments.

Its great that it worked for you but your limited anecdotal experience means relatively little overall. The only person with video evidence presented, that actually appears to be healthy is kayla kotecki and she stands to make a profit it seems. Stephanie buttermore is currently fat and/or bloated, well see what happens.

You act like the research is settled on this matter and that your application of the research is the final say, both of which are not reality. Post as many quotes from articles that you extract off the eating institute website as you want, it isn't the final answer and there are more components to the picture overall that are sorely missing from the picture. The view you present, in regards to food volume and calories is myopic at best. Calories in and of themselves are an abstraction at best. They tell the value of a food as much as money tells the value of an object. Has it ever dawned on you that perhaps this "healing crisis" may not be neccesary to restore health? That becoming fat, bloated, having this list of extensive symptoms may not be neccesary to achieve "healing"? I'd guess no, because your tone alludes to the science being clear; but to anyone who reads science, the science is never that clear, especially when conducting research looking at abstracted modifiers like calories. Its like looking at diabetes status by testing blood sugar, its a minor pixel of the overall picture. Thus, while the articles are helpful and interesting, they are not a final say; in this instance they are functioning to inhibit the conversation especially with the element of authority with which you wield them.

Here is the argument overall, so we can all avoid going in depth into the strawmen:

1) eating enough calories is neccesary, I think there is agreement here

2) to get enough calories after coming off a huge deficit eating calories dense foods is probably helpful, I think there is agreement here

3) too many calories in general isn't what neccesarily makes people fat, I think there is agreement here

4) now here's where we differ, while the above is true, it does not then mean that eating whatever you want is ideal, healthy, and neccesary or even conducive to achieve health. There are certain foods, that definitely cause weight gain regardless of calories. Some of these foods include refined starches, PUFA's, dairy and processed foods in general. The effects of these foods are beyond the realm of calories, and have numerous scientifically supported components for inducing weight gain irrespective of their total calories. Thus, restriction of type of certain foods is entirely neccesary. This is not neccesarily an eating disorder, its called foresight, understanding and an intelligent approach to understanding food. Cultures around the world since time immemorial have been practicing this i.e. seeking out and prizing certain food sources over others and subsequently developing those food sources. Its even known amongst farmers that if you want to fatten cattle or livestock you feed them grain and PUFA.

5) With the above said, the argument is, that eating enough calories of the CORRECT foods is ideal to reaching a health state, while simultaneously avoiding problematic foods.

There are a lot of people who disagree with the position that excess calorie intake doesn’t make people fat. And I’ve heard ray Peat say “calorie realist” things ...like needing to do skim or 1% milk instead of whole, if you’re trying to lean out, and, in another example, cautioning that grape juice should be limited because it is very caloric
 
OP
Kelj

Kelj

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
299
All I am pointing out is, I used to restrict PUFA, dairy, starches and processed foods 100%. I became very I'll doing that. When I lifted the restrictions and ate what I wanted, with enough calories, I became completely well. I am not the only person I have observed doing this. Some never restricted, ever. Some like me, came from sickness. This is the truth. To try to suppress my message is not allowing others to hear the full scope of information. Others have their personal story to tell.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
@YamnayaMommy
The idea of excess caloric intake doesnt even make sense. The definition of a calorie as the amount of energy needed to raise 1gm of water, by 1 degree celsius is a gross abstraction of how food is actually processed. I think the issue people are having here is because of the idea of the "calorie" in and of itself.

There is no such thing as a calorie. It is an abstract measure used to provide energy equivalents amongst foods that arent equivalent, in order to assess quantity. The idea of a calorie is relatively useful for food quantity, and even so it is slightly limited at that. The idea of a calorie doesnt take into consideration the different aspects of the foods and thier very specific effects on the bodies metabolism. Thus, to talk about the idea of "excess calories" is foolish. It doesnt say anything specific in reality, especially for human physiology. For example are the calories from canola oil processed in the same way as the calories in a steak? No, not even close. The comparison is just stupid on a physiologic level. This is why i think Kelj's idea of eat as much as you want to get enough calories, of basically whatever foods you want is stupid. Its even worse than "If it fits your macros". The only valuable information coming out of this in my mind is that people have to eat enough food, but we already knew that. Also, the idea of illogical restrictions has some merit as well.

With that said, the people talking about "calories in, calories out" are in the same boat as kelj from the context of the idea of the calorie, just with the antithetical premise. Both ideas are based on an abstraction, and even more so the ideas in and of themselves are simplifications of the abstraction. argueing about these simplifications of abstractions leads us to absolutely nowhere.

Again the basic principle is simple:

eat enough food

The nuance is in what food do you eat. This is the more important question, because it has more bearing on metabolism, and food requirement than some obscure measurement such as calories.

For example does the measurement of 1 square foot of space tell you whats actually in that space? is it a cement floor? is it a field? is it gold bars? is it an area on the sun?

I think It's good to listen to alternate ideas and find thier merits but after that you throw out the trash. The entire ideology espoused in this thread by @Kelj isnt valid in my opinion, only some parts are, time the throw out the trash...

EDIT:

@Kelj
No one is suppressing your message, you have pages and pages of your message. People are disagreeing with your message, thats what happens when you put your message out there. Your not crusading your message to give the natives jesus, your sharing your message on a forum where people are going to question it and disagree with parts of it or even all of it.
 
Last edited:
OP
Kelj

Kelj

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
299
It is important to remember in all this abstract talk about theoretical science, that everything I am talking about is not theoretical. It is a practice being used in facilities and programs that help people overcome the effects of restricted eating, every day. And people do get better when they follow the program. It is clear that not everyone knows what enough food is. The calorie is a useful measure when the problem is not enough energy intake to fuel the body.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
It is important to remember in all this abstract talk about theoretical science, that everything I am talking about is not theoretical. It is a practice being used in facilities and programs that help people overcome the effects of restricted eating, every day. And people do get better when they follow the program. It is clear that not everyone knows what enough food is. The calorie is a useful measure when the problem is not enough energy intake to fuel the body.

Lol Your entire premise is based on the theoretical. I'm removing it from the theoretical Idea of the calorie, while you base your premise on the theoretical idea of the calorie. You are using the abstraction, I'm trying to recognize the abstraction for what it is to avoid the pitfalls of using the abstraction.

Radiation, surgery, statins, chemo, birth control, fractional reserve banking, fiat currencies, prescription opiates and many other practices are in place across the entire world, in more institutions than this one, and quite frankly they are garbage practices; it doesnt mean too much that its in practice from a justification point of view.

Where is the large scale verifiable proof? Could they get even better, without all the complications, eating enough while also avoiding problematic foods? If a cow is starving, will eating enough calories of steak and granulated sugar save the cow lol?

Yes, we already agree that to determine total energy intake the calorie is useful, this doesnt add to the argument of eating any food you want in as much quantity as you want as a way to rectify the situation.

Has it occured to you that these practices can actually hurt people as well? How many people come to the ray peat forum and eat as much food as they want of milk, orange juice, granulated sugar, ice cream, chocolate etc. and become obese or overweight?
 
Last edited:
OP
Kelj

Kelj

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
299
But, they do rectify the problem. My criterion for good practice is it makes someone as well as they can be. If restriction has done some damage, it may not be fixable, but Dr. Gaudiani says that only applies to bone density. Her job is working with these formerly restrictive eaters to get well. Of course, I agree with you that not everything done by institutions is the right thing. Some things make people worse. But, people do get better from this practice. What I mean by theoretical is, its come out of the realm of guesswork into the realm of being done.

I'm not as bothered as you are by what people want to eat, but I used to be. That is how I accidentally got into calorie restriction followed by many food intolerances. I think that people can recover from an energy deficit eating bananas and grapefruit, provided they eat enough of them. They might become deficient in some nutrients, however. I like my way best. I eat a wide variety of things that give me excellent nutrition status and plenty of energy to keep my body healthy and excess fat proof. If someone has celiac disease, they will have to avoid gluten. If someone has an inherited inability to produce lactate, they will have to avoid milk, but can eat many cheeses and yogurt.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
my plan is to increase calories a bit and take more T3 and maintain temperatures and see if I can't get my metabolism higher. I have no plan to gain 50 pounds doing this. It is an experiment for a few weeks for me to see what happens to my metabolism if I modestly over eat and maintain good body temperatures.

I never felt I had an "eating disorder" and that term is kind of a label that I don't care for. I have noticed that I was eating less and gaining weight. Maybe if I eat more I will lose weight. Who knows.
 
OP
Kelj

Kelj

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
299
Not everyone undereating for some period of time has an eating disorder. It might just be a diet or many diets which they quickly give up because it makes them cranky. Dr. Gaudiani makes it clear, though, the physical results of restriction are the same.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
@Kelj
What about:
-seed oils
-fish oils
-fortified iron products
-endotoxin inducing fast food products
-synthetic gums
-additives
-nutrient poor food
-goitrogenic foods
-anti-nutrient heavy foods
-hormone laden foods

For example if a young man starts eating wheat based products on this so called recovery and starts to develop man boobs, low testosterone and constipation, is this just "recovery"? or is it high prolactin from the opiates in wheat, causing lowered androgens, low testosterone and constipation, which these two things are known to do?

And say this young man says "geez the wheat is messing me up, let me restrict it". Then he does, yet continues to eat enough and recover, without the aforementioned symptoms, what then?

Eating as much as you crave when coming from starvation is neccesary, no one doubts that. However, eating whatever you want while you do that is a terrible idea, especially in todays food climate. What the food is, matters.
 
Last edited:

YamnayaMommy

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
343
Lol Your entire premise is based on the theoretical. I'm removing it from the theoretical Idea of the calorie, while you base your premise on the theoretical idea of the calorie. You are using the abstraction, I'm trying to recognize the abstraction for what it is to avoid the pitfalls of using the abstraction.

Radiation, surgery, statins, chemo, birth control, fractional reserve banking, fiat currencies, prescription opiates and many other practices are in place across the entire world, in more institutions than this one, and quite frankly they are garbage practices; it doesnt mean too much that its in practice from a justification point of view.

Where is the large scale verifiable proof? Could they get even better, without all the complications, eating enough while also avoiding problematic foods? If a cow is starving, will eating enough calories of steak and granulated sugar save the cow lol?

Yes, we already agree that to determine total energy intake the calorie is useful, this doesnt add to the argument of eating any food you want in as much quantity as you want as a way to rectify the situation.

Has it occured to you that these practices can actually hurt people as well? How many people come to the ray peat forum and eat as much food as they want of milk, orange juice, granulated sugar, ice cream, chocolate etc. and become obese or overweight?
@YamnayaMommy
The idea of excess caloric intake doesnt even make sense. The definition of a calorie as the amount of energy needed to raise 1gm of water, by 1 degree celsius is a gross abstraction of how food is actually processed. I think the issue people are having here is because of the idea of the "calorie" in and of itself.

There is no such thing as a calorie. It is an abstract measure used to provide energy equivalents amongst foods that arent equivalent, in order to assess quantity. The idea of a calorie is relatively useful for food quantity, and even so it is slightly limited at that. The idea of a calorie doesnt take into consideration the different aspects of the foods and thier very specific effects on the bodies metabolism. Thus, to talk about the idea of "excess calories" is foolish. It doesnt say anything specific in reality, especially for human physiology. For example are the calories from canola oil processed in the same way as the calories in a steak? No, not even close. The comparison is just stupid on a physiologic level. This is why i think Kelj's idea of eat as much as you want to get enough calories, of basically whatever foods you want is stupid. Its even worse than "If it fits your macros". The only valuable information coming out of this in my mind is that people have to eat enough food, but we already knew that. Also, the idea of illogical restrictions has some merit as well.

With that said, the people talking about "calories in, calories out" are in the same boat as kelj from the context of the idea of the calorie, just with the antithetical premise. Both ideas are based on an abstraction, and even more so the ideas in and of themselves are simplifications of the abstraction. argueing about these simplifications of abstractions leads us to absolutely nowhere.

Again the basic principle is simple:

eat enough food

The nuance is in what food do you eat. This is the more important question, because it has more bearing on metabolism, and food requirement than some obscure measurement such as calories.

For example does the measurement of 1 square foot of space tell you whats actually in that space? is it a cement floor? is it a field? is it gold bars? is it an area on the sun?

I think It's good to listen to alternate ideas and find thier merits but after that you throw out the trash. The entire ideology espoused in this thread by @Kelj isnt valid in my opinion, only some parts are, time the throw out the trash...

EDIT:

@Kelj
No one is suppressing your message, you have pages and pages of your message. People are disagreeing with your message, thats what happens when you put your message out there. Your not crusading your message to give the natives jesus, your sharing your message on a forum where people are going to question it and disagree with parts of it or even all of it.

Ok, say “energy” instead of “calorie” then if you want to signal your anti-CICO virtue. But it doesn’t matter because everyone knows that calories do matter, even if the whole story of how they matter for an individual and his metabolism is more complex. the average person will get fat eating a lot of high calorie foods.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
at the end of the day it’s stress. those restricting every food under the sun have been under eating and stressed for years, and need a lot of food to turn off the cortisol. obviously, a lot of things can stress, so for some more food isn’t the answer. but for almost all of those people who have been subconsciously underrating, they will never get well, no matter how many supplements they take, until they let go and eat anything they crave and after a while of eating enough calories and the stress levels have stabilized, they can start to focus on other things and start “intuitive” eating, which ultimately should be the goal for everyone because there’s a lot more to focus on in life then food
 
OP
Kelj

Kelj

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
299
First, someone might not eat any number of things just because they don't like them. Of course, that doesn't prevent them from eating enough of everything they do eat.

The slippery slope for genuinely eating disordered people is food is threatening. Obviously, like with any phobia, getting rid of the fear involves eliminating the fear of food.

Also, hormones are very much negatively affected in malnutrition and gut integrity is compromised when the body doesn't have the energy to spare for non-vital repair work. Food intolerances are the result. It has been found that when enough energy is brought into the system, hormones normalize and gut integrity is restored. Foods that were once not tolerated can be eaten with no problems. I was allergic to dairy and wheat, but I can eat them now.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
Ok, say “energy” instead of “calorie” then if you want to signal your anti-CICO virtue. But it doesn’t matter because everyone knows that calories do matter, even if the whole story of how they matter for an individual and his metabolism is more complex. the average person will get fat eating a lot of high calorie foods.

Lol I see I may have triggered you, this wasnt the intention.

Its not semantics as you imply, I think rereading what I said again would be helpful.

It does matter, the fact that you think it doesnt, exemplifies that you didnt understand what I said.

@Kammas
I appreciate your attempt to diffuse the situation but I disagree with a few of the points you brought up.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
First, someone might not eat any number of things just because they don't like them. Of course, that doesn't prevent them from eating enough of everything they do eat.

The slippery slope for genuinely eating disordered people is food is threatening. Obviously, like with any phobia, getting rid of the fear involves eliminating the fear of food.

Also, hormones are very much negatively affected in malnutrition and gut integrity is compromised when the body doesn't have the energy to spare for non-vital repair work. Food intolerances are the result. It has been found that when enough energy is brought into the system, hormones normalize and gut integrity is restored. Foods that were once not tolerated can be eaten with no problems. I was allergic to dairy and wheat, but I can eat them now.

Good another point we agree upon.

I already mentioned I agree with some of the points you brought up in regards to restricting illogically as with phobia.

Theres a difference between a food allergy and physiologic effect of food. I'm sure once the body heals some food intolerances may go away. What I discussed above is not an intolerance, it is a physiologic effect of wheat. Same thing with milk, some people develop acne from it, this is not an intolerance this is a physiologic effect from the hormones in the milk.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom