Posts by jay_breaze

The human body can reduce its desire for carbs to about 130 grams. Anything under that sends you into a ketogenic state (Which is the point of a Low Carb diet).  Alot of times it suggested when you first start to shoot for 20 grams or less.

Low Carb is more concerning the amount of carbs you eat per day as opposed to the percentage of carbs. This doesnt change much from a small woman to a large male. Make sure to eat a decent amount of protein and especially at first you might want to add a Multi-Vitamin.

It's great for weight loss. It'll take you a couple days to adjust and then after that you should be fine. Good luck! 

gi-jane - Anytime a diet is discussed here - specifically Low Carb anything - it is argued vehemently that you need fruits and that you're doing something wrong if you don't have it in you diet. Texture, flavor, etc is not a necessity.  Someone hasn't done something wrong to give up a texture or flavor. The idea of this site, I thought, was healthy lifestyle and weight-loss. I ask the question (Because it wasn't initially an argument, it was a genuine question) because if there isn't a reason then people shouldn't just throw that out there.  Don't tell somone something is bad when it can't be said WHY its bad.

mperic81 -  Thats the thing, I'm not trying to start a fight. A debate? Perhaps. The demand for fruits is an often quoted statement. I've done research on it. Funny enough? I can't find anything. That's why I brought it to fellow Calorie Count'ers. Since its such a popular sentiment, obviously SOMEONE had some information here that would break it down.

Sorry if a discussion or trying to pool information from multiple people upsets you.

I WANT people to post. What I don't want is your attitude for no apparent reason. Claims of my childishness isn't really appreciated when you start with an argument that I haven't made at all. Obviously I don't want a bubble hence my posting HERE. The only persons panties in a bunch seems to be you. Seriously, go have some tea or something.

floggingsully - I don't have the energy to go look up every time someone starts spouting about how low carbing bad because you need fruits. Its happened quite a few times.  And  I'm going to have to argue that it is NOT common sense that "correlation doesn't equal causation." Its a scientific/statistical phrase. I was using the same logic that was used against low carbing. 

neanderthin  - I can absolutely see that argument (i.e. whether you can get enough in 30 to 50 grams of carbs) That would be very interesting. I believe in supplementing. But that kind of thought is what I was hoping for in the thread. That's something I hadn't thought about but again, I supplement and suggest that anyone who does low carb supplement. I question the nutritional value simply because I see it used as a flaw in the Low Carb diet and I wanted to know absolutely was that the case.

gi-jane - I'm not trying to solve America's weight crisis, I was making a small point about common sense. Alot of things are sometimes thought of as common sense but may not be supported by science or are flat out disproved. Common sense also can't be used for one argument and then not another.

dkenworthy - So you're saying that someone who ate the way I outlined earlier would still be UNHEALTHY? I'm not saying they would be the epitome of all things health related, but unhealthy is a pretty strong title. If the body isn't lacking for anything, then where does the lack of health come in.  I imagine its like a car. Yes, the premium gas would make it run the best, but you aren't NOT taking care of it if its getting the normal stuff. You still get tune ups and change the tires and all that good stuff.

I don't know anything about cars so I have no clue why I decided to use that analogy.

mperic81 - Who said it was necessary to lose weight?  Who said I don't like any fruit? I like fruit just fine. My question is about the necessity of it and whether or not it is IN FACT unhealthy. Just saying "Its unhealthy" doesn't make it so.

And that is why I posed this question. I no longer want to go with the "This is what the answer is so there" mentality. I want to know WHY. The Mothers Milk argument is reasonable to a degree. But the fact is I know plenty of healthy babies that weren't breast fed. We aren't talking about nutrition in the 1800's, we're talking about right now, in the year 2009. We have a myriad of ways of dealing with things and my goal really is to have a clear and defined rational for "Not eating fruit is bad".

So far it hasn't been shown. Once the classification of what a fruit is or isn't was dropped in, the necessity of fruit REALLY becomes questionable. Especially when vegetables are in the diet! At that point it feels as if people just really can't allow their mind to say "Perhaps fruits aren't necessary." Someone else pointed out they are grouped in the same category on the Pyramid!

Name a fruit that has something that a vegetable DOESN'T have. Can it even be done?

jlv7 This seems specific.

This doesn't seem like something you HAVE  to do in order to go from Low Carb to Carb. This seems like something that allowed YOU to deal better during maintenance. The way everyone speaks of "Reintroducing Carbs" it seems as if its a necessity when really I can't see a scientific reason why it would be. 

I have days where i eat what I please. No special type of carb. Just the carb that i craved that day. The only thing I pay attention to is my glucose readings (I'm a diabetic) but if I didn't have that concern, my only issue would be where my metabolism is and whats the amount of calories that im about to drop in to my system.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel as if when giving advice on this stuff we should seperate what worked for us specifically and whats actually science. CCers have a habit of doing the former. (I'm not picking at you at all jlv7, It's just something I've noticed on the site)

Okay, everyone keeps saying "slowly introduce carbs". 

Can anyone say why?

Metabolism can be kept fairly high sir while being low carb. You can easily eat 2400 calories then drop down to 1700 to keep your metabolism buzzing.

You can re-introduce carbs after a low carb diet almost immediately. If you're aware of your caloric intake you would be fine. The only weight gain that SHOULD happen is the natural water gain that comes with the refueling of glycogen into your muscles.

Low Carbing isn't a magical situation that you need to outsmart. Its science. Long as your metabolism isnt shot when you up your calories you'll be fine.

I can't disagree with gi-jane more.

You don't have to reintroduce these things AT ALL. As with any diet you should probably be taking a multivitamin and fishoil for good measure. You should also be eating some veggies anyway since tons are low carb. Carbs are unnecessary unless you plan to start doing some serious athletic feats. If you're abuot losing weight, you're fine.

As for your question, no you can't continue losing weight like this forever. What happens is at first your body dumps all the water thats associated with the carbs that your body has stored. This causes the initial weight dump. You can't continue losing like that because you just dont have that much more water that you CAN dump if you're eating the induction way (less than 20 grams of carbs a day). Now how much you can lose per week is really determined by how much fat you have in the first place. Someone with 100 pounds of fat can lose more than someone with 40 pounds of fat.

At the same time, if your calories are in fact too low your metabolism will slow and hence slow your weight loss. It won't STOP, but it can drop a great deal. I say all this to say enjoy induction. It's an exciting time. Make sure you're in ketosis and try to get your body fat percentages. This will make the whole process easier. You'll have a better idea of exactly what you're losing.

Thanks Airee and Editorpredator.

I do NOT go straight to the plus size department at all. As of late I've been going to clothing stores JUST to see where I am size wise.  Like today I bought my first 36 waist pants (i knew they fit but i was scared to commit ;) ) and i tried on nothing but medium and small shirts. I feel like im playing dress up with a ken doll or something cause i keep thinking this can't be MY body.

I disagree with the whole concept of the BMI.

Fat percentage is one thing, but BMI's are very strange.  I have a friend who i can literally switch clothes with. Im 206, he's 176.  He has a better BMI than me but my fat muscle percentage kicks his ass. 

What I've come to realize that is that its easier to follow what you're told than to come up with healthy asumptions on your own. If they say you should have "A" BMI and i have "C" bmi, then i should change to A or better. To stop and question your make up, and even the very rules of BMI is to step out of a comfortable box.

Alas this is the way life in general works.

wow, okay i just tried to post a picbut it took it out when i posted. I'll just put a link.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3633/358625892 4_981e096c53_o.jpg

As I typed in the original post a friend thinks i can play my own dad in the movie. ha.

Hey MusicalFishMich,

I've read the site for almost the entire time I've tried to lose weight so I know how it goes sometimes. I've been told I show signs of "dangerous tendancies"and such because I threw out things like IF, Ketosis, Low Carbing and such.

At first I was very upset because I felt like I had given reasonable arguments about what I was bringing up and people seem to shut it down immediately. Hence I've learned to arm myself with vital information before I make a decision or discuss it here ;) . 

And in that reguard I thank Calorie Count a lot. When I'd read up on something in the back of my mind I would think "Could I reasonably argue this on CC?" which would make me research the flonk out of it. And i've reaped the benifits of it. I actually plan to type a quick synopsis of the 4 months and where i feel it has left me now.

So that long winded response was just to says "No Problem!"

Hey Beir,

I am not in the care of a dietitian, but PSMF can be used with out one(not to mention I'm not a big fan of them most times) AND its not strictly for the MORBIDLY obese.  Yes, it has been used successfully with the morbidly obese but there are versions of the diet for people of lesser sizes (although I believe if you're under 20 percent body fat, its not suggested.)

Which brings me to another thought. Is this a "Fad" diet? If its used in the medical community (it seems for YEARS) and actually was the basis of Dr. Eades first book on weight loss, then is it really a Fad? If science backs how it works and they're aren't any actual dangers then isn't it just considered another weight loss route?

GI JANE - Thank you for the link! I would agree that the weight could easily be gained back if someone were to use it as a quick out with out any modified eating habits afterwards. But isn't that true of any diet? Yes, in a perfect world everyone would start eating carrots and steamed fish then go run 2 miles. But we all know people diet. Dieting isn't bad. Its the way you diet that can be bad. It's returning to the habits that lead you to your weight problem in the first place that's bad.

For me, I have already changed my eating habits completely. I've moved over to a low carb lifestyle that has numerous benefits for me.  And through various studies its shown to allow people to maintain a weight very, very easily. But there are hiccups sometimes in weight loss after you drop down a bit. Hence my research into PSMF.

I thank you guys a great deal for discussing it with me. Civilians (i.e. people who aren't trying to lose weight) look at me like i have 3 heads. ;)

I have a friend who is a fairly thin dude and wanted to get on an exercise/diet regimen so he could attempt to get a 6 pack. I gave him a few ideas and alerted him of the body fat level he'd need to have those. He went and had his percentage calculated and found out he was virtually overweight according to his fat levels.

BMI can only show so much. But if I remember correctly girls have a range up to 31 percent. You are pretty darn close. After this challenge you'll be very comfortably in the "Healthy" percentage. Good Luck!

I just tried the fettuccine versions. Holy crap, I'm in love.

The portions I bought were small. I thought i needed to use 2 bags (although i have plenty left) but 2 bags were 80 Calories, 4 Net Carbs.  Are you kidding?!!?!?!

I decided to go Alfredo with them. It would have easy to create a sick cheese sauce and drench them to make it awesome, but i decided to try to limit the calorie and carb number on it. I used Laughing Cow Lite (35 calories 1 carb per serving) I used 3 of them, sour cream (4 table Spoons, 120 calories No Carbs) 1 table spoon of heavy cream (100 Cals No carbs) and a pat of butter (100 cals No Carbs). Then mix some good ol' seasoning in to really make it pop(Basil, Garlic, salt, pepper and BOOM. you have 2 servings (3 perhaps if people eat very reasonable portions) of Fettuccine Alfredo and the whole dish is 505 calories. divide it by 3?

168 calories.

I only made this for myself. I coooould eat more. But I'm actually terrified.  My brain cant accept that the math on the cals and carbs is right. I'm 80 percent sure that these noodles were created via dark magic. It's the only thing that can explain this. It took about a second and a half to get used to the slightly different texture of the noodles.(The hell fires of Hades must have SOME sort of effect) Its a quick adjustment because pasta can be cooked at all sorts of different levels. Soft, hard, whatever. 

This is my first crack at a recipe for these things. In 2 weeks I should have all sorts of craziness with these babies incorporated.