It's Not What You Eat It Is The Way You Eat.

[tropo]

If you think there is too much talk about eating slowly, go visit another forum chum.

It is a major side effect of taking steroids... aggression and if you don't think you are being aggressive look back at all your postings..

You're the aggressive one on here chum... and then you continue with your insults.

I think it is high time you found somewhere else to post. If you think I'm going away, you've got another thing coming (check my post count and how long I've been posting on here).

... now to address some of your naive comments.... I'll get back to them after gym.

Cheers

[AllanB]

If you think there is too much talk about eating slowly, go visit another forum chum.

It is a major side effect of taking steroids... aggression and if you don't think you are being aggressive look back at all your postings..

You're the aggressive one on here chum... and then you continue with your insults.

I think it is high time you found somewhere else to post. If you think I'm going away, you've got another thing coming (check my post count and how long I've been posting on here).

... now to address some of your naive comments.... I'll get back to them after gym.

Cheers

Don't shy, be specific, where have I shown aggression, other than in retaliation?

You are the one telling everyone they should do this you way, ordering people to become "disciplined", telling people they must exercise, don't allow excuses calling people lazy if they are overweight. Telling me you have heard enough of my theories, which I have patiently and methodically tried to explain to you.

Now you tell me you have been here longer than me and that I should leave the tread I initiated, what kind of argument is that?.

I, on the other hand, have been promoting tolerance, understanding, empathy and improving self esteem, hardly aggressive, but I won't be silenced by the likes of you.

I started this thread for a purpose, to put my (Paul McKenna's) calculated and practised theory forward for consideration by those interested in the subject. If you don't agree with it, even though you haven't tried it, or even researched it, fine, that is you choice. But instead of leaving to find a subject that you are interested in, you decide, along with others, to become the "fly in the ointment" and just irritate everyone.

I looked at a number of other threads on this subject, none of them particularly interested me so I left them to those who are interested, an adult thing to do.

I think you guys have said all the is to be said, you believe in the forceful approach, I believe that alienates a lot of people and that coercion, and positive psychology works better. We can agree to differ.

[tropo]

Don't shy, be specific, where have I shown aggression, other than in retaliation?

You are the one telling everyone they should do this you way, ordering people to become "disciplined", telling people they must exercise, don't allow excuses calling people lazy if they are overweight. Telling me you have heard enough of my theories, which I have patiently and methodically tried to explain to you.

Now you tell me you have been here longer than me and that I should leave the tread I initiated, what kind of argument is that?.

I, on the other hand, have been promoting tolerance, understanding, empathy and improving self esteem, hardly aggressive, but I won't be silenced by the likes of you.

I started this thread for a purpose, to put my (Paul McKenna's) calculated and practised theory forward for consideration by those interested in the subject. If you don't agree with it, even though you haven't tried it, or even researched it, fine, that is you choice. But instead of leaving to find a subject that you are interested in, you decide, along with others, to become the "fly in the ointment" and just irritate everyone.

I looked at a number of other threads on this subject, none of them particularly interested me so I left them to those who are interested, an adult thing to do.

I think you guys have said all the is to be said, you believe in the forceful approach, I believe that alienates a lot of people and that coercion, and positive psychology works better. We can agree to differ.

I'm back, but I don't have time to address this new gem and your others just yet.

Don't worry, I'm not shy - but instead of attacking you personally (which is what are constantly doing), I'm going to address the nonsense you post.

While you have time, why don't you give us some stats so we can get an idea of how accomplished you have been at staying lean. How much do you weight? What is your bodyfat percentage? Have you ever had it tested? Do you know how to test it?

Do you know about the effect of low testosterone and high estrogen on fat levels in ageing males? Do you have a clue about how insulin resistance affects fat accumulation - something that is extremely common in older people?

... and lastly, if I eat chocolate, cakes and ice cream slowly will I lose weight? What if I drink beer slowly instead of quickly - will that work?

[Tolley]

Don't shy, be specific, where have I shown aggression, other than in retaliation?

You are the one telling everyone they should do this you way, ordering people to become "disciplined", telling people they must exercise, don't allow excuses calling people lazy if they are overweight. Telling me you have heard enough of my theories, which I have patiently and methodically tried to explain to you.

Now you tell me you have been here longer than me and that I should leave the tread I initiated, what kind of argument is that?.

I, on the other hand, have been promoting tolerance, understanding, empathy and improving self esteem, hardly aggressive, but I won't be silenced by the likes of you.

I started this thread for a purpose, to put my (Paul McKenna's) calculated and practised theory forward for consideration by those interested in the subject. If you don't agree with it, even though you haven't tried it, or even researched it, fine, that is you choice. But instead of leaving to find a subject that you are interested in, you decide, along with others, to become the "fly in the ointment" and just irritate everyone.

I looked at a number of other threads on this subject, none of them particularly interested me so I left them to those who are interested, an adult thing to do.

I think you guys have said all the is to be said, you believe in the forceful approach, I believe that alienates a lot of people and that coercion, and positive psychology works better. We can agree to differ.

I'm back, but I don't have time to address this new gem and your others just yet.

Don't worry, I'm not shy - but instead of attacking you personally (which is what are constantly doing), I'm going to address the nonsense you post.

While you have time, why don't you give us some stats so we can get an idea of how accomplished you have been at staying lean. How much do you weight? What is your bodyfat percentage? Have you ever had it tested? Do you know how to test it?

Do you know about the effect of low testosterone and high estrogen on fat levels in ageing males? Do you have a clue about how insulin resistance affects fat accumulation - something that is extremely common in older people?

... and lastly, if I eat chocolate, cakes and ice cream slowly will I lose weight? What if I drink beer slowly instead of quickly - will that work?

Some good points raised here especially

" Do you know about the effect of low testosterone and high estrogen on fat levels in ageing males? Do you have a clue about how insulin resistance affects fat accumulation - something that is extremely common in older people?"

That is why it is important to look at each persons individual circumstances before deciding on a course of action to lose weight.

There are a host of other variables out there as well.

One size doesnt fit all.

As for the theory of slow and fast eating it is just another theory. My father ate very slowly and was always very lean and I ate very quickly and have always been lean. Too many other factors to consider like the type and quantity of food eaten and the level of activity of the person etc

Simple theories like AllanB is putting forward are dangerous and not really conducive to any sort of serious discussion.

The best advice I could give anyone is to first off go and find a good naturopath who have a lot of knowledge of diet and an wholistic approach to health. Then when you get some idea of how your body is working you start making your own adjustments based on experience and a bit of trial and error.

[AllanB]

Don't shy, be specific, where have I shown aggression, other than in retaliation?

You are the one telling everyone they should do this you way, ordering people to become "disciplined", telling people they must exercise, don't allow excuses calling people lazy if they are overweight. Telling me you have heard enough of my theories, which I have patiently and methodically tried to explain to you.

Now you tell me you have been here longer than me and that I should leave the tread I initiated, what kind of argument is that?.

I, on the other hand, have been promoting tolerance, understanding, empathy and improving self esteem, hardly aggressive, but I won't be silenced by the likes of you.

I started this thread for a purpose, to put my (Paul McKenna's) calculated and practised theory forward for consideration by those interested in the subject. If you don't agree with it, even though you haven't tried it, or even researched it, fine, that is you choice. But instead of leaving to find a subject that you are interested in, you decide, along with others, to become the "fly in the ointment" and just irritate everyone.

I looked at a number of other threads on this subject, none of them particularly interested me so I left them to those who are interested, an adult thing to do.

I think you guys have said all the is to be said, you believe in the forceful approach, I believe that alienates a lot of people and that coercion, and positive psychology works better. We can agree to differ.

I'm back, but I don't have time to address this new gem and your others just yet.

Don't worry, I'm not shy - but instead of attacking you personally (which is what are constantly doing), I'm going to address the nonsense you post.

While you have time, why don't you give us some stats so we can get an idea of how accomplished you have been at staying lean. How much do you weight? What is your bodyfat percentage? Have you ever had it tested? Do you know how to test it?

Do you know about the effect of low testosterone and high estrogen on fat levels in ageing males? Do you have a clue about how insulin resistance affects fat accumulation - something that is extremely common in older people?

... and lastly, if I eat chocolate, cakes and ice cream slowly will I lose weight? What if I drink beer slowly instead of quickly - will that work?

Part 1. I think that comes under the title "off topic".

Part 2. I am tired on having an intellectual battle with an unarmed enemy.....go figure it out for yourself.

[AllanB]

Don't shy, be specific, where have I shown aggression, other than in retaliation?

You are the one telling everyone they should do this you way, ordering people to become "disciplined", telling people they must exercise, don't allow excuses calling people lazy if they are overweight. Telling me you have heard enough of my theories, which I have patiently and methodically tried to explain to you.

Now you tell me you have been here longer than me and that I should leave the tread I initiated, what kind of argument is that?.

I, on the other hand, have been promoting tolerance, understanding, empathy and improving self esteem, hardly aggressive, but I won't be silenced by the likes of you.

I started this thread for a purpose, to put my (Paul McKenna's) calculated and practised theory forward for consideration by those interested in the subject. If you don't agree with it, even though you haven't tried it, or even researched it, fine, that is you choice. But instead of leaving to find a subject that you are interested in, you decide, along with others, to become the "fly in the ointment" and just irritate everyone.

I looked at a number of other threads on this subject, none of them particularly interested me so I left them to those who are interested, an adult thing to do.

I think you guys have said all the is to be said, you believe in the forceful approach, I believe that alienates a lot of people and that coercion, and positive psychology works better. We can agree to differ.

I'm back, but I don't have time to address this new gem and your others just yet.

Don't worry, I'm not shy - but instead of attacking you personally (which is what are constantly doing), I'm going to address the nonsense you post.

While you have time, why don't you give us some stats so we can get an idea of how accomplished you have been at staying lean. How much do you weight? What is your bodyfat percentage? Have you ever had it tested? Do you know how to test it?

Do you know about the effect of low testosterone and high estrogen on fat levels in ageing males? Do you have a clue about how insulin resistance affects fat accumulation - something that is extremely common in older people?

... and lastly, if I eat chocolate, cakes and ice cream slowly will I lose weight? What if I drink beer slowly instead of quickly - will that work?

Some good points raised here especially

" Do you know about the effect of low testosterone and high estrogen on fat levels in ageing males? Do you have a clue about how insulin resistance affects fat accumulation - something that is extremely common in older people?"

That is why it is important to look at each persons individual circumstances before deciding on a course of action to lose weight.

There are a host of other variables out there as well.

One size doesnt fit all.

As for the theory of slow and fast eating it is just another theory. My father ate very slowly and was always very lean and I ate very quickly and have always been lean. Too many other factors to consider like the type and quantity of food eaten and the level of activity of the person etc

Simple theories like AllanB is putting forward are dangerous and not really conducive to any sort of serious discussion.

The best advice I could give anyone is to first off go and find a good naturopath who have a lot of knowledge of diet and an wholistic approach to health. Then when you get some idea of how your body is working you start making your own adjustments based on experience and a bit of trial and error.

I agree many variables, it is true that some can eat any way they wish and stay thin, genetics are certainly a factor, where did I say one size fits all, quite the contrary.

Not just a theory, practised a lot. These go some way to explain, but doesn't tell the whole story. http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011-10-05/Eating-slowly-may-help-you-lose-weight/50671686/1 and http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/lose-weight-by-eating-slowly/

Dangerous, how?

[tropo]

Part 1. I think that comes under the title "off topic".

Part 2. I am tired on having an intellectual battle with an unarmed enemy.....go figure it out for yourself.

LOL. If you can add something intelligent, that would really help.

It a simple question. You have 2 suggestions for people wanting to lose weight:

1. Eat slowly.

2. Eat what you want.

I want to eat cakes, chocolates and ice cream as I'm tiring of chicken breasts and vegetables - Can I lose weight eating them slowly?

..

[tropo]

Dangerous, how?

Because going by your diet plan a person could end up weighing 200kg.

[tominbkk]

All this talk about slow and fast eating seems off the point to me. It is all about only eating when you are truly hungry and not eating more once your hunger is gone. Eating a bit slower or waiting after having your first plate to see if there is still hunger is a way to do this.

This is much easier for me to do when my food choices are focused on meat, eggs, veggies, and some dairy. Starches and sugars set off an insulin response that makes you feel like you are hungry even after eating a big meal (ever feel that way after a big greasy plate of fried rice?). Keeping on a keto diet puts me closely in touch with my true hunger.

[tropo]

All this talk about slow and fast eating seems off the point to me. It is all about only eating when you are truly hungry and not eating more once your hunger is gone. Eating a bit slower or waiting after having your first plate to see if there is still hunger is a way to do this.

This is much easier for me to do when my food choices are focused on meat, eggs, veggies, and some dairy. Starches and sugars set off an insulin response that makes you feel like you are hungry even after eating a big meal (ever feel that way after a big greasy plate of fried rice?). Keeping on a keto diet puts me closely in touch with my true hunger.

Robblok sent me a BBC Horizon video which has some very interesting information. I can't find a link, but it is BBC Horizon Season 5, Episode 11.

Obese people don't ever feel full no matter how much they eat. There's 2 hormones which control eating - one makes you feel hungry (ghrelin) and another hormone which makes you feel full. These don't work properly in obese people and that's the reason why they always think of food.

They found by testing the blood for these 2 hormones over a 24 hour period that fat people never get very hungry. Ghrelin sits around the middle, between high and low, all day and the "full hormone" does the same. Normal people have a spike and trough with these 2 hormones, switching their hunger on and off.

How fast or slowly they eat is inconsequential. These people are fighting major hormonal disturbances.

[AllanB]

As with all things one must exercise some common sense.

1. The reasoning behind eating slowly is explained in http://yourlife.usat...ight/50671686/1 and http://www.rd.com/he...-eating-slowly/

2. The reasoning behind eating what you want, is that if you deny yourself all the things you really like, you will crave them and that craving may cause you to just give up and binge, a common thing for dieters. If you have a little of what you fancy, it will help in the willpower battle. It is unlikely that an intelligent person would convert their entire diet to chocolate, but if they do it is more likely to make them sick, than put on a lot of weight..

3. Stopping when you are full, whether or not there is food left on the plate, is self explanatory.

4. The reasoning behind eating when you are hungry, is that if you starve your body, it will revert to a form of starvation mode, slowing the metabolism and when eating resumes it will store fat, ready for the next famine.

This eating technique/philosophy, whatever you choose to call it, is deigned to help you lose weight without the huge discomfort demanded from other rigid programmes. Such programmes invariably fail because they are difficult and then the very damaging yoyo loss/gain effect begins.

If you avoid this, your weight loss attempts are more likely to succeed.

[tropo]

As with all things one must exercise some common sense.

1. The reasoning behind eating slowly is explained in http://yourlife.usat...ight/50671686/1 and http://www.rd.com/he...-eating-slowly/

2. The reasoning behind eating what you want, is that if you deny yourself all the things you really like, you will crave them and that craving may cause you to just give up and binge, a common thing for dieters. If you have a little of what you fancy, it will help in the willpower battle. It is unlikely that an intelligent person would convert their entire diet to chocolate, but if they do it is more likely to make them sick, than put on a lot of weight..

3. Stopping when you are full, whether or not there is food left on the plate, is self explanatory.

4. The reasoning behind eating when you are hungry, is that if you starve your body, it will revert to a form of starvation mode, slowing the metabolism and when eating resumes it will store fat, ready for the next famine.

This eating technique/philosophy, whatever you choose to call it, is deigned to help you lose weight without the huge discomfort demanded from other rigid programmes. Such programmes invariably fail because they are difficult and then the very damaging yoyo loss/gain effect begins.

If you avoid this, your weight loss attempts are more likely to succeed.

The big problem here is that fat people don't feel full. The hormones which makes normal people feel full - cholecystokinin and leptin - don't do their job.

They're fighting strong hormonal urges.

Eating something bad which you like is a recipe for disaster and you claim this will stop cravings. I think most people would agree that if you start ingesting bad food it increases the cravings thereof.

Chocolate is a good example. Most people find it difficult to stop once they have their first bite.

Seriously, your suggestions just won't work.

[robblok]

As with all things one must exercise some common sense.

1. The reasoning behind eating slowly is explained in http://yourlife.usat...ight/50671686/1 and http://www.rd.com/he...-eating-slowly/

2. The reasoning behind eating what you want, is that if you deny yourself all the things you really like, you will crave them and that craving may cause you to just give up and binge, a common thing for dieters. If you have a little of what you fancy, it will help in the willpower battle. It is unlikely that an intelligent person would convert their entire diet to chocolate, but if they do it is more likely to make them sick, than put on a lot of weight..

3. Stopping when you are full, whether or not there is food left on the plate, is self explanatory.

4. The reasoning behind eating when you are hungry, is that if you starve your body, it will revert to a form of starvation mode, slowing the metabolism and when eating resumes it will store fat, ready for the next famine.

This eating technique/philosophy, whatever you choose to call it, is deigned to help you lose weight without the huge discomfort demanded from other rigid programmes. Such programmes invariably fail because they are difficult and then the very damaging yoyo loss/gain effect begins.

If you avoid this, your weight loss attempts are more likely to succeed.

I don't agree with 2 points one point is good other is half good depending on the situation

1) ill give the benefit of the doubt because it does take a while for the body to signal its full. So slow eating might be helpful combating hunger. But not in everyone, as stated with obese people and hormone problems

2 all nice and fine for someone with half a brain who knows what he can eat. Like i said study first on what you can eat else this wont work. That big Mac that you can have is 1/3 if not more of your daily caloric expenditure. So you have to eat less on other meals. Its simply not true you can eat what you like and still loose weight. Not with fast food and sweets available.

3) of course logical

4) starvation mode does not work that fast it will take days before it starts and it does not start easy. Only if you go real low and are severely depleting yourself. We are talking extremes here otherwise it just wont happen. I have read loads and loads into this because i worried about this a lot. All the serious research claim it just does not happen that easy.

[tropo]

4) starvation mode does not work that fast it will take days before it starts and it does not start easy. Only if you go real low and are severely depleting yourself. We are talking extremes here otherwise it just wont happen. I have read loads and loads into this because i worried about this a lot. All the serious research claim it just does not happen that easy.

This "starvation mode" idea doesn't make any sense anyway. If you don't eat for awhile and then eat again, the excess calories over what you need to replenish your muscles and liver glycogen stores is stored as fat. If you eat regularly it does the same. What's the difference? Any protective drop in metabolic rate would soon be restored if you're active.

A healthy body is constantly recycling fat. There isn't much place for glycogen to be stored - all the rest is stored as fat until needed.

I think we need to know more about visceral fat. It seems that it is a different type of fat not easily accessed for energy use.

[robblok]

4) starvation mode does not work that fast it will take days before it starts and it does not start easy. Only if you go real low and are severely depleting yourself. We are talking extremes here otherwise it just wont happen. I have read loads and loads into this because i worried about this a lot. All the serious research claim it just does not happen that easy.

This "starvation mode" idea doesn't make any sense anyway. If you don't eat for awhile and then eat again, the excess calories over what you need to replenish your muscles and liver glycogen stores is stored as fat. If you eat regularly it does the same. What's the difference? Any protective drop in metabolic rate would soon be restored if you're active.

A healthy body is constantly recycling fat. There isn't much place for glycogen to be stored - all the rest is stored as fat until needed.

I think we need to know more about visceral fat. It seems that it is a different type of fat not easily accessed for energy use.

The starvation idea is real, but its not as bad as people make us believe. I have seen some studies on it because i was concerned about it. But in reality it usually does not kick in easy and when it kicks in you are really in trouble. (and i dont mean from slowing your MBR) but your really starving then.

But yes i do believe in the starving reflex but not that you get in it easy. Like i said read a lot about it. They even did some test in US armed forced (they can push ppl there harder then in civilian studies) and it took a long time before this reflex kicked in.

I am more interested in the normal differences in MBR because guys like us would have to have a real high MBR because of the muscle. Unfortunately my MRB is not super high.

[tominbkk]

That's why the state of ketosis is so good....it reduces the appetite, and your body, once it uses up the glycogen in the liver, starts using your fat as fuel. This can be achieved while still having a good 4-5 servings of green and colourful veggies every day.

[tominbkk]

They found by testing the blood for these 2 hormones over a 24 hour period that fat people never get very hungry. Ghrelin sits around the middle, between high and low, all day and the "full hormone" does the same. Normal people have a spike and trough with these 2 hormones, switching their hunger on and off.

How fast or slowly they eat is inconsequential. These people are fighting major hormonal disturbances.

I believe if you can get your body into ketosis for a couple weeks your body rapidly starts to realign all the hormones at work. I know when I used to eat milled or processed carbs, or sugar or sweet, highly cultivated fruit, that I never knew if I was hungry or not.

[tominbkk]

2. The reasoning behind eating what you want, is that if you deny yourself all the things you really like, you will crave them and that craving may cause you to just give up and binge, a common thing for dieters. If you have a little of what you fancy, it will help in the willpower battle. It is unlikely that an intelligent person would convert their entire diet to chocolate, but if they do it is more likely to make them sick, than put on a lot of weight..

Not sure about this one, the others I agree with. Sugar and processed carbs are highly addictive, and I believe in a way a true alcoholic can't have even one sip of alcohol, some some people just as well have to avoid white carbs (and maybe even dark ones), or they will binge.

[AllanB]

Okay the two we seem to be left with:-

Starvation Mode

The state of semi-starvation I refer too, does cause a change in metabolic rate as has been found in almost every study, as has the storage ofr fat, it is one of the body's natural defence mechanisms, to preserve life. Just like confining blood flow during low temperature conditions, which leads to frost bite in the body's extremities. One example I found http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/291/1/E23.full

Eat what you like

What we are suggesting is to eat healthily,(cutting out processed foods) but do not deny yourself at the expense of an overwhelming craving, which essentially can become an addiction, so facing another problem. If you can slowly reduce the amounts of these unhealthy foods to a reasonable level, but the old saying of "a little of what you fancy does you good" is true.

I have really struggled with this, finding what I want, in the time available, but http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12616815 and in laymen terms http://www.rehabclinic.org.uk/dangers-of-cravings-and-preventing-relapse

Off to play snooker now..........maybe I should add that at number 5, as we have a lot of fun, thus avoiding depression, another cause of overeating.

Only kidding should be out throwing 200kg weights around and sweating buckets.....sod that for a game of soldiers.

[robblok]

They found by testing the blood for these 2 hormones over a 24 hour period that fat people never get very hungry. Ghrelin sits around the middle, between high and low, all day and the "full hormone" does the same. Normal people have a spike and trough with these 2 hormones, switching their hunger on and off.

How fast or slowly they eat is inconsequential. These people are fighting major hormonal disturbances.

I believe if you can get your body into ketosis for a couple weeks your body rapidly starts to realign all the hormones at work. I know when I used to eat milled or processed carbs, or sugar or sweet, highly cultivated fruit, that I never knew if I was hungry or not.

I havent seen research to support this, do you have any links. I am curious about this. Right now im low in my carbs (no ketosis i think) but i would not mind trying ketosis though its hard as there are carbs in almost anything.

[robblok]

starvation mode and an experiment

Brad and John mainly look at a military experiment done by Karl Friedl. They point out that the military has less restrictions and can push people much harder than they can in a typical university study. There is no way this stuff would get approved by a university, but no problem for the military. In their words…To find limits to what the body is capable of, you need to dip into military research.

Step 1 to Get Into Starvation Mode—> Start Out Lean

Karl Friedl used fit and athletic soldiers with an average body fat of 14%. This is what John Barban calls "4 pack lean". There were guys as low as 6% body fat and as high as 18% body fat. Think along the lines of a fit and muscular soldier to get an idea of the participants of this study.

Karl Pretty Much Tortured These Guys for 8+ Weeks!

Karl had these guys eat between 1,000-1,200 calories…but burn upwards of 6,000 calories per day with crazy activity levels and sleep deprivation. So deficits in the 3,000-4,000 range on some days. Average deficit was 1,200 calories per day. They trained like mad and also went through extreme sleep deprivation.

Here's what happened during the 8 weeks (avg height 5'9"):

At Start… 167 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.4

2 Weeks…156 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.44

4 Weeks…152 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.45

6 Weeks…146 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.50

8 Weeks…140 lbs & Adonis Index of 1.52

Note: Adonis Index refers to the shoulder circumference divided by the waist circumference. As an example, my shoulder measurement is 50 inches and my waist is 33 inches. If I divide my shoulder by my waist I get 1.51. The ideal Adonis Index is 1.61. The video below explains why a 1.61 ratio is pleasing to the eye in not just body proportions…but in art, architecture, etc.

[it is interesting to note that so many things follow the Golden Mean or Golden Ratio. This video claims that even many cereal boxes are made with these proportions to be more pleasing to the eye...so the cereal companies can sell more cereal.]

In This Experiment, They Were NOT Trying to Preserve Muscle

The important thing to remember in this study was that they were trying their best to beat these guys down. They weren't doing things that normal people would do while dieting, like proper resistance training. Here are some of the tactics they used to try to get into starvation mode.

Severe Caloric Restriction

Severe Amount of Exercise

Severe Amount of Mental Stress

Extreme Sleep Deprivation

Began to Lose Lean Body Mass Between Weeks 6 and 8

At around the 8 week mark a lot of guys who were in the 5%-6% range could not drop any more body fat. This is when they began to lose lean muscle. The guys who started out the leanest, reached their limits at week 6. These were the guys who lost the most amount of lean body mass.

They Didn't Lose Muscle Just Because They Were at 5%-6%

They lost muscle because they were still having days where they were running at a 3,000 calorie deficit. Once someone reaches their lower limits of body fat percentage it makes sense to eat close to maintenance levels. This strong calorie deficit at this low body fat level also caused extreme hormone disruptions: Testosterone dropped, thyroid issues, mood changes <---this is true "starvation mode".

Why People Think Their Metabolism is Slowing Down

People with more fat available to oxidize…can oxidize more body fat per minute. The less body fat you have, the less you can oxidize per minute. So as you get closer to your lower limits of body fat, the slower you will burn what body fat you have. This is why those last 4-5 pounds come off slowly, NOT because you are wrecking your metabolism with an aggressive diet.

Most People Never Need to Worry About Starvation Mode

Most likely, starvation mode isn't happening to anybody reading this. The average person thinks starvation mode happens between meals. It isn't about not having enough calories. It isn't about not having enough protein. It only effects people at their critical low body fat mass. You have to be in a massive deficit and already at your critical low body fat level. You are "6 pack ripped" before ever getting to starvation mode.

Summary: John Barban and Brad Pilon have tons of posts and phenomenal recordings over on these two blogs they run…

source bodybuilding.com

From bodybuilding.com they did not do the research you can look the reseach up and you will find references. So its valid research and show why the starving response is not much of a worry and certainly not as much or to the points Alan is saying.

[AllanB]

"Sugar and processed carbs are highly addictive," Where on earth did you get that from? We all consume both on a daily basis, repeated use of heroine can be described as "highly addictive". Some of the statements you guys make, all very dramatic, but total nonsense.

[tominbkk]

They found by testing the blood for these 2 hormones over a 24 hour period that fat people never get very hungry. Ghrelin sits around the middle, between high and low, all day and the "full hormone" does the same. Normal people have a spike and trough with these 2 hormones, switching their hunger on and off.

How fast or slowly they eat is inconsequential. These people are fighting major hormonal disturbances.

I believe if you can get your body into ketosis for a couple weeks your body rapidly starts to realign all the hormones at work. I know when I used to eat milled or processed carbs, or sugar or sweet, highly cultivated fruit, that I never knew if I was hungry or not.

I havent seen research to support this, do you have any links. I am curious about this. Right now im low in my carbs (no ketosis i think) but i would not mind trying ketosis though its hard as there are carbs in almost anything.

If you type "Kalli's Leptin Reset Experiment page" it takes you to Mark's Daily Apple, where he has been experimenting with low carb and IF to reset hormones. I believe Dr. Jack Kruze is the originator of this particular LC diet.

Low carb is not difficult, esp. if you can cook for yourself. I eat way less street food now because it all seems to have too much MSG in it. I have a slow cooker, you can get one and Central for about 800 Baht. Put some beef or pork or chicken in it with LC veggies, and a little bit of water, and go to work or bed. When you come home or wake up, you have beautiful fall off the bone meat. I'll let it cool down then partition it off, freeze some and use it throughout the week.

These days I'm subsisting on meats, eggs, good oils, and all kinds of green veg (broccoli, lettuce, cucumbers, green peppers, and cauliflower - I know, it's not green). I use very little dairy except for butter (I buy grated cheddar in packs from foodland, and sprinkle a little over a salad just for fun and extra fat. Definitely no grain, sugar, starch or other carb stuff. My Fat/Protein/Carb ratio is pretty consistently 70/25/5 or so. I drink 3-4 liters of water, and only occasionally have a vodka and soda if I want some alcohol.

You'll find that cutting out the carbs and depleting your glycogen is a little rough for the first 3-5 days, after that you feel really good, have lots of energy, and the best thing of all is you stop thinking about eating, but recognise true hunger when it hits.

I used to be so bloated, and my feet were always puffy and I even started getting gout. Since I have been keto, I feel like a new man, and have lost an enormous amount of weight.

[tominbkk]

"Sugar and processed carbs are highly addictive," Where on earth did you get that from? We all consume both on a daily basis, repeated use of heroine can be described as "highly addictive". Some of the statements you guys make, all very dramatic, but total nonsense.

Researcher says sugar is as addictive as cocaine

LINDSAY GOLDWERT

Monday, April 02, 2012

Dr. Robert Lustig thinks America needs to go to rehab for sugar addiction.

According to brain scans, sugar is as addictive as cocaine, the California-based endocrinologist told CBS News’ “60 Minutes.”

It causes a euphoric effect that triggers dopamine, the chemical that controls pleasure in the brain.

The average America eats a third of a pound of sugar every day — 130 pounds a year.

Lustig says his research proves that the sweet stuff causes heart disease and cancer, as well as Type 2 diabetes and obesity.

And its not just the added sweeteners we add to our foods, like table sugar, or the desserts we eat.

Sugar is everywhere in foods where we least suspect it, including breads, yogurt, peanut butter and sauces.

Sugar consumption is down 40% since the 1970s but high fructose corn syrup consumption is way up.

Kimber Stanhope, a nutrional biologist at the University of California Davis, believes that a calorie isn’t just a calorie and that overconsumption of high-fructose corn syrup increases risk for heart attack and stroke.

According to her research, when a person consumes too much sugary food and drink, the liver begins to convert some of that fructose to fat. This fat can lead to an increase in dangerous LDL cholesterol that can form plaque in the arteries.

Too much sugar is also linked to many kinds of cancers, including breast and colon cancer.

Some tumors have insulin receptors which feed on glucose, according to Lewis Cantley, a Harvard professor and the head of the Beth Israel Deaconess Cancer Center.

There is some irony in America’s rising sugar intake. Since the 1970s, we’ve been told that too much fat is unhealthy. Food manufacturers responded but the results have backfired on our health.

“Take the fat out of food, it tastes like cardboard,” said Lustig. “And the food industry knew that. So they replaced it with sugar.”

CBS News talked with Jim Simon of the Sugar Association, who voiced doubts as whether sugar is root of all dietary evil.

“To say that the American consuming public is going to completely omit, eliminate, sweeteners out of their diet I don't think gets us there,” he said.

All the experts agreed that quitting sugary drinks and added sugar to foods is a good place to start.

Lustig has co-authored a report with the American Heart Association recommending men should consume no more than 150 calories of added sugars a day. And women, just 100 calories.

[watcharacters]

I ws always amazed t how fast my former wife ate. Her twin brothers were even faster than her. On those occasions when we ate with them in a restaurant they were always finishing their main course as I was finishing my salad. i wondered how they could enjoy their meal.

[Tolley]

I know plenty of people who have been successful on the atkins diet in the short term ie they lost a lot of weight quickly but none of them could sustain it over the long term and all of them ended up overweight again.

So while the ketosis theory is sound most people cant stick it out for too long.

I eat plenty of carbs and am not concerned as the carbs i eat are things like oats, brown rice and wholemeal bread. Of course if you have a gluten problem which many people do then you would have to adjust your carb intake.

I dont eat fatty meats and dont cook food in fatty oils, and I dont eat any dairy. and especially steer clear of cheese and milk and try to eat smaller meals regularly and most importantly keep up a high level of protein consumption to keep away hunger pains.

Agree about the sugar being a real evil in the diet but this is where most western kids start their food addiction problems as they are given lollies chocolates and ice creams when they are young and develop bad eating habits early. Sugary drinks are especially bad as there are hidden calories in many drinks.

[watcharacters]

I ws always amazed t how fast my former wife ate. Her twin brothers were even faster than her. On those occasions when we ate with them in a restaurant they were always finishing their main course as I was finishing my salad. i wondered how they could enjoy their meal.

[JSixpack]

I know plenty of people who have been successful on the atkins diet in the short term ie they lost a lot of weight quickly but none of them could sustain it over the long term and all of them ended up overweight again.

So while the ketosis theory is sound most people cant stick it out for too long.

Most people can't stay on any diet. All the overweight people you see in the USA and UK have tried to diet at one time or another. So the problem is hardly unique to Atkins.

I find Atkins easy to sustain (though I don't follow it strictly, alcohol being a notable exception), because you can eat all you like, don't have to worry much about calories, and can have fat, cheese, cream, Greek yoghurt, etc.

I eat plenty of carbs and am not concerned as the carbs i eat are things like oats, brown rice and wholemeal bread.

But those are precisely the carbs you should also be concerned about besides those in sugar in its various forms. The carbs you don't need to be concerned about come from non-starchy vegetables, broccoli and kale for example. Compare the glycemic indexes and you'll see what I mean. I was surprised oatmeal is as high as it is. I used to love oatmeal. When I stopped eating it (and the raisins on it), I lost a kilo or two I'd gained over the past few years. (Often weight gain happens gradually, year on year--as it did w/ me, when I followed a diet that seems similar to your own.) Now I eat eggs and bacon for breakfast (which I confess I like much, much better!) and am sustaining nicely.

[Tolley]

I know plenty of people who have been successful on the atkins diet in the short term ie they lost a lot of weight quickly but none of them could sustain it over the long term and all of them ended up overweight again.

So while the ketosis theory is sound most people cant stick it out for too long.

Most people can't stay on any diet. All the overweight people you see in the USA and UK have tried to diet at one time or another. So the problem is hardly unique to Atkins.

I find Atkins easy to sustain (though I don't follow it strictly, alcohol being a notable exception), because you can eat all you like, don't have to worry much about calories, and can have fat, cheese, cream, Greek yoghurt, etc.

I eat plenty of carbs and am not concerned as the carbs i eat are things like oats, brown rice and wholemeal bread.

But those are precisely the carbs you should also be concerned about besides those in sugar in its various forms. The carbs you don't need to be concerned about come from non-starchy vegetables, broccoli and kale for example. Compare the glycemic indexes and you'll see what I mean. I was surprised oatmeal is as high as it is. I used to love oatmeal. When I stopped eating it (and the raisins on it), I lost a kilo or two I'd gained over the past few years. (Often weight gain happens gradually, year on year--as it did w/ me, when I followed a diet that seems similar to your own.) Now I eat eggs and bacon for breakfast (which I confess I like much, much better!) and am sustaining nicely.

I have never been on a diet and dont have a weight problem.

I believe in a lifestyle approach to food. So it is you who are on the diet not me when you start spruiking the benefits of ketosis as a means to losing weight.

Oats and wholegrain foods have other benefits like the vitamins and minerals they add to your diet and also the benefit to the colon.

The sort of diet you are proposing is too limiting for most people and I also question eating so much protein without sufficient roughage "you can eat all you like, don't have to worry much about calories, and can have fat, cheese, cream, Greek yoghurt, etc". I think it could lead to colon and bowel issues. Further eating as much as you like in the short term could lead to longer term problems if you fall off the wagon as most people do when following restrictive food regimes in so far as you have developed a habit of eating more than you really need to eat.

[JSixpack]

I have never been on a diet and dont have a weight problem.

That's lucky. All metabolisms are different.

But then why would you choose brown rice over white? Whole wheat bread over white? Could that be dieting or just "tastes better?"

I believe in a lifestyle approach to food.

Most fat people do too. My obese friend who died early considered Reese's Peanut Butter cups part of her lifestyle.

Oats and wholegrain foods have other benefits like the vitamins and minerals they add to your diet and also the benefit to the colon.

The sort of diet you are proposing is too limiting for most people and I also question eating so much protein without any roughage. I think it could lead to colon and bowel issues.

Oats and wholegrain foods don't contain anything you can't get from veggies.

And you don't really understand the Atkins diet or its variants at all and so are just spouting nonsense. It's not actually a high protein diet, does include plenty of fiber in low-glycemic veggies, and has never led to colon/bowel issues of significance.

It's not what you "believe" or 'think"--emotional, religious, or spiritual matters. Glad you got out your "beliefs" and "thoughts" for your own satisfaction, but we aren't going to go by those. We're going by what the science says.