Prev: Do you know the weight loss secret?!
Next: Other advancements were also being made to improve the durability of the wristwatch. The faces were replace with ones made of synthetic plastic. This made them much more durable and resistant to breaking and cracking. Another advancement was in the d
From: mikesmith9999 on 24 Apr 2008 11:34
I'm not spaming you guys. I just want to know your opinion on that
theory. I don't know about weight-loss, but I think it's basically a
good idea to avoid overeating. Days you don't feel to eat, you eat
let's say 500 calories. For the next two day you're more hungry, and
you eat 2000 calories, and on the fourth day you don't feel to eat,
and you eat only 600 calories. Let's see the calorie intake for those
four day. 1000+2000+2000+1000= 6000/4= 1500 calories a day which is
like a low-calorie diet.

This is taken from Fatlossforidiots.com. I put the link not to attract
you there, but for copyrights reasons.

http://www.fatloss4idiots.com/?hop=wgabie

The Shifting Calories Theory...

Your metabolism doesn't know how much food you'll eat tomorrow or the
next day because those days have not happened yet.

Therefore, your metabolism always burns calories based on your eating
habits during the past few days -- because it assumes that you'll
continue to eat in the same general way.

Guess what? You're about to shock your metabolism by doing something
you've never tried before -- you're going to do the OPPOSITE of what
it expects you to do. You're going to NOT continue eating the same
types of calories and meals for more than a couple days at a time, and
you're going to lose a lot of weight by doing this.

To make this work you need to SHIFT the types of calories eaten as
shown in our diet on the next page, and if you do this then your
metabolism will burn all of the calories eaten. Then, when it
finishes burning those calories it will find the nearest available fat
tissue on your body and burn that too...

From: Doug Freyburger on 24 Apr 2008 16:01
"mikesmith9...(a)hotmail.com" <mikesmith9...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not spaming you guys. I just want to know your opinion on that
> theory. I don't know about weight-loss, but I think it's basically a
> good idea to avoid overeating. Days you don't feel to eat, you eat
> let's say 500 calories. For the next two day you're more hungry, and
> you eat 2000 calories, and on the fourth day you don't feel to eat,
> and you eat only 600 calories. Let's see the calorie intake for those
> four day. 1000+2000+2000+1000= 6000/4=  1500 calories a day which is
> like a low-calorie diet.

I don't know of any good data on the topic but it very
much looks like the average calories eaten in the last
week matters more than the calories eaten in the last
day. That and changes in cal/carb/fat levels either
direction tend to trigger loss. Also folks who stay at
fixed levels of cal/carb/fat seem to stall more often
than folks who bounce them around but I sure wish I
had better data to know if this is something I pulled
from anecdotal evidence or something that is a
traceable trend.

There are low carb studies that show that T3 thyroid
output drops two weeks into staying extremely low in
carbs. It's why popular low carb plans start moving
up in week 3, but it works just as well to say that
constant change works well as long as the time scale
is under 2 weeks.
From: Del Cecchi on 24 Apr 2008 16:06

<mikesmith9999(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7a8cb33-555a-4796-835f-e07be1de9891(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not spaming you guys. I just want to know your opinion on that
> theory. I don't know about weight-loss, but I think it's basically a
> good idea to avoid overeating. Days you don't feel to eat, you eat
> let's say 500 calories. For the next two day you're more hungry, and
> you eat 2000 calories, and on the fourth day you don't feel to eat,
> and you eat only 600 calories. Let's see the calorie intake for those
> four day. 1000+2000+2000+1000= 6000/4= 1500 calories a day which is
> like a low-calorie diet.
>
> This is taken from Fatlossforidiots.com. I put the link not to attract
> you there, but for copyrights reasons.
>
> http://www.fatloss4idiots.com/?hop=wgabie
>
> The Shifting Calories Theory...
>
> Your metabolism doesn't know how much food you'll eat tomorrow or the
> next day because those days have not happened yet.
>
> Therefore, your metabolism always burns calories based on your eating
> habits during the past few days -- because it assumes that you'll
> continue to eat in the same general way.
>
> Guess what? You're about to shock your metabolism by doing something
> you've never tried before -- you're going to do the OPPOSITE of what
> it expects you to do. You're going to NOT continue eating the same
> types of calories and meals for more than a couple days at a time, and
> you're going to lose a lot of weight by doing this.
>
> To make this work you need to SHIFT the types of calories eaten as
> shown in our diet on the next page, and if you do this then your
> metabolism will burn all of the calories eaten. Then, when it
> finishes burning those calories it will find the nearest available fat
> tissue on your body and burn that too...
>

Except your body has no conciousness nor awareness, so all this
trickyness is in vain. One could argue that one's bodies hormone and so
on levels adapt to ones diets so that inefficiencies could be induced by
switching. I would have to see actual evidence rather than a hand waving
argument.

An interesting question to me is how it is that gastric bypass surgery
seems to produce results that are superior in various ways to just
restricting food intake to the same level. This superiority includes
such things as the effect on Diabetes T2 as well as weight loss.


From: Cynthia P on 24 Apr 2008 22:15
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:06:39 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:

> <mikesmith9999(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a7a8cb33-555a-4796-835f-e07be1de9891(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm not spaming you guys. I just want to know your opinion on that
>> theory. I don't know about weight-loss, but I think it's basically a
>> good idea to avoid overeating. Days you don't feel to eat, you eat
>> let's say 500 calories. For the next two day you're more hungry, and
>> you eat 2000 calories, and on the fourth day you don't feel to eat,
>> and you eat only 600 calories. Let's see the calorie intake for those
>> four day. 1000+2000+2000+1000= 6000/4= 1500 calories a day which is
>> like a low-calorie diet.
>>
>> This is taken from Fatlossforidiots.com. I put the link not to attract
>> you there, but for copyrights reasons.
>>
>> http://www.fatloss4idiots.com/?hop=wgabie
>>
>> The Shifting Calories Theory...
>>
>> Your metabolism doesn't know how much food you'll eat tomorrow or the
>> next day because those days have not happened yet.
>>
>> Therefore, your metabolism always burns calories based on your eating
>> habits during the past few days -- because it assumes that you'll
>> continue to eat in the same general way.
>>
>> Guess what? You're about to shock your metabolism by doing something
>> you've never tried before -- you're going to do the OPPOSITE of what
>> it expects you to do. You're going to NOT continue eating the same
>> types of calories and meals for more than a couple days at a time, and
>> you're going to lose a lot of weight by doing this.
>>
>> To make this work you need to SHIFT the types of calories eaten as
>> shown in our diet on the next page, and if you do this then your
>> metabolism will burn all of the calories eaten. Then, when it
>> finishes burning those calories it will find the nearest available fat
>> tissue on your body and burn that too...
>>
>
> Except your body has no conciousness nor awareness, so all this
> trickyness is in vain. One could argue that one's bodies hormone and so
> on levels adapt to ones diets so that inefficiencies could be induced by
> switching. I would have to see actual evidence rather than a hand waving
> argument.
>
> An interesting question to me is how it is that gastric bypass surgery
> seems to produce results that are superior in various ways to just
> restricting food intake to the same level. This superiority includes
> such things as the effect on Diabetes T2 as well as weight loss.

Superiority is all relative. My sister had a friend who had gastric
bypass... and yes, the friend lost loads of weight after the surgery.
Today... all that weight is back again.

Sister-in-law also did gastric bypass surgery. Took her a year to feel
herself again and she was in and out of the hospital much of the year.
Last time I saw her, she had certainly lost a nice percentage of her
weight, but was complaining about how her fingernails were now brittle
and chipping all the time. (Lack of sufficient nutrition, maybe?)

Now, having regained some of the lost weight, she's back doing
low-carb. Fortunately, she is at least doing something about her
regain before it gets serious. Nevertheless... I think unless she
starts to add exercise and rebuild some of her lost muscle mass, she
may have a hard time keeping the weight off.

The moral is that weight loss is not the same thing as maintained
weight loss. And the proponents of the surgery rarely tell about the
folks who have NOT been a long term success.

As for calorie cycling... old news. It does work for many. So does
changing up exercise as the body adapts. However, if one is doing
something and getting steady reasonable progress, then there's really
no reason not to keep doing it until a plateau is reached. At which
point, shifting things around to break the plateau is not a bad idea,
whether it's calories, macros or exercise.

--
Cynthia
262/222.0/150
From: mikesmith9999 on 24 Apr 2008 21:47
On 24 avr, 23:15, Cynthia P <nos...(a)dontwannit.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:06:39 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:
> > <mikesmith9...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:a7a8cb33-555a-4796-835f-e07be1de9891(a)m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >> I'm not spaming you guys. I just want to know your opinion on that
> >> theory. I don't know about weight-loss, but I think it's basically a
> >> good idea to avoid overeating. Days you don't feel to eat, you eat
> >> let's say 500 calories. For the next two day you're more hungry, and
> >> you eat 2000 calories, and on the fourth day you don't feel to eat,
> >> and you eat only 600 calories. Let's see the calorie intake for those
> >> four day. 1000+2000+2000+1000= 6000/4=  1500 calories a day which is
> >> like a low-calorie diet.
>
> >> This is taken from Fatlossforidiots.com. I put the link not to attract
> >> you there, but for copyrights reasons.
>
> >>http://www.fatloss4idiots.com/?hop=wgabie
>
> >> The Shifting Calories Theory...
>
> >> Your metabolism doesn't know how much food you'll eat tomorrow or the
> >> next day because those days have not happened yet.
>
> >> Therefore, your metabolism always burns calories based on your eating
> >> habits during the past few days -- because it assumes that you'll
> >> continue to eat in the same general way.
>
> >> Guess what?  You're about to shock your metabolism by doing something
> >> you've never tried before -- you're going to do the OPPOSITE of what
> >> it expects you to do.   You're going to NOT continue eating the same
> >> types of calories and meals for more than a couple days at a time, and
> >> you're going to lose a lot of weight by doing this.
>
> >> To make this work you need to SHIFT the types of calories eaten as
> >> shown in our diet on the next page, and if you do this then your
> >> metabolism will burn all of the calories eaten.  Then, when it
> >> finishes burning those calories it will find the nearest available fat
> >> tissue on your body and burn that too...
>
> > Except your body has no conciousness nor awareness, so all this
> > trickyness is in vain.  One could argue that one's bodies hormone and so
> > on levels adapt to ones diets so that inefficiencies could be induced by
> > switching.  I would have to see actual evidence rather than a hand waving
> > argument.
>
> > An interesting question to me is how it is that gastric bypass surgery
> > seems to produce results that are superior in various ways to just
> > restricting food intake to the same level.  This superiority includes
> > such things as the effect on Diabetes T2 as well as weight loss.
>
> Superiority is all relative. My sister had a friend who had gastric
> bypass... and yes, the friend lost loads of weight after the surgery.
> Today... all that weight is back again.
>
> Sister-in-law also did gastric bypass surgery. Took her a year to feel
> herself again and she was in and out of the hospital much of the year.
> Last time I saw her, she had certainly lost a nice percentage of her
> weight, but was complaining about how her fingernails were now brittle
> and chipping all the time. (Lack of sufficient nutrition, maybe?)
>
> Now, having regained some of the lost weight, she's back doing
> low-carb. Fortunately, she is at least doing something about her
> regain before it gets serious. Nevertheless... I think unless she
> starts to add exercise and rebuild some of her lost muscle mass, she
> may have a hard time keeping the weight off.
>
> The moral is that weight loss is not the same thing as maintained
> weight loss. And the proponents of the surgery rarely tell about the
> folks who have NOT been a long term success.
>
> As for calorie cycling... old news. It does work for many. So does
> changing up exercise as the body adapts. However, if one is doing
> something and getting steady reasonable progress, then there's really
> no reason not to keep doing it until a plateau is reached. At which
> point, shifting things around to break the plateau is not a bad idea,
> whether it's calories, macros or exercise.
>
> --
> Cynthia
> 262/222.0/150- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

It was not my intention in my original message to promote the theory
that calorie shifting throws off the body. The only intention I had
was to enlight the idea that this calorie shifting is great for
avoiding overeating. Let's take a look at a different scenario. Let's
say I'm not hungry on the first day, but force myself to eat because
I'm told I HAVE to eat minimum 1500 calories a day. On the second day,
I'm more hungry and eat 2000 calories. On the third day I'm hungry
again and eat 2000 calories. And finally, I don't feel to eat that
day, but force myself to eat again 1500. Let's see the average for the
four days: 1500+2000+2000+1500= 7000/4= 1750. So an average of 1750
compared to 1500 in the first scenario. Is 250 calories a big
difference? I'm wondering! :)
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Do you know the weight loss secret?!
Next: Other advancements were also being made to improve the durability of the wristwatch. The faces were replace with ones made of synthetic plastic. This made them much more durable and resistant to breaking and cracking. Another advancement was in the d