Anyone have any experience doing this? I plan to start on Monday.
I have researched it quite a bit and am willing to give it a try. I will probably do the 16:8 plan. Sixteen hours fasting, eight hour window to eat. My plan, and it will probably change, is to eat two meals totaling around 1600 calories between 11 AM-7PM. I plan on drinking a shit ton of water to help and possible supplement an occasional caffeine pill in the morning. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I believe in eating based on blood type and Atkins does not suit me or others well at all. There is no one size fits diet. Sorry disagree.
This.
I'm a huge fan of low carb/keto eating but not everyone can do it. Some people have medical conditions that prevent them from trying it. Keto doesn't cure everything (despite what advocates say.)
I did do a 10 day "water fast." (I ate nothing for 10 days - only took in fiber capsules, two multivitamins a day, and drank 0 calorie powerade for magnesium/potassium/salt.) I lost 20 lbs, I've kept it off for almost 6 months now, and was amazed how much better I felt. [Reply]
I'm a huge fan of low carb/keto eating but not everyone can do it. Some people have medical conditions that prevent them from trying it. Keto doesn't cure everything (despite what advocates say.)
I did do a 10 day "water fast." (I ate nothing for 10 days - only took in fiber capsules, two multivitamins a day, and drank 0 calorie powerade for magnesium/potassium/salt.) I lost 20 lbs, I've kept it off for almost 6 months now, and was amazed how much better I felt.
Fiber capsules? I never heard of those. Do they make your belly feel full enough so you feel somewhat satiated? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Fiber capsules? I never heard of those. Do they make your belly feel full enough so you feel somewhat satiated?
That's a side effect, yes. More importantly it keeps you from getting constipated at first (first 3 days while food is still in your system) and other fates worse than watching a Chiefs home playoff game...
Originally Posted by Rausch:
That's a side effect, yes. More importantly it keeps you from getting constipated at first (first 3 days while food is still in your system) and other fates worse than watching a Chiefs home playoff game...
These are what I take (around $10.)
Interesting. I would think psyllium husks would do the same. [Reply]
I'm a huge fan of low carb/keto eating but not everyone can do it. Some people have medical conditions that prevent them from trying it. Keto doesn't cure everything (despite what advocates say.)
I did do a 10 day "water fast." (I ate nothing for 10 days - only took in fiber capsules, two multivitamins a day, and drank 0 calorie powerade for magnesium/potassium/salt.) I lost 20 lbs, I've kept it off for almost 6 months now, and was amazed how much better I felt.
I know of some men that ate one of those hi-carb lo-fat diets who still had heart attacks. Turned out they improved with a more hi-fat paleo diet, including allowing cream and butter instead. Cholesterol plunged, blood pressure improved etc. Sugar can create a problem for that and it also increased inflammation.
Inflammation is a factor that is being looked at more.
I've a cousin, who was slim her whole life, yet she ate lots of butter, actually her whole family, never dieted and pretty much ate what she wanted and still has never gained weight. She is always trying to stay up to 105 pounds at what I think is 5'2" or just under that. She just can't gain weight. It's her metabolism as well as the rest of them in that family. [Reply]
That's bullshit, dude. Her metabolism might be a little higher than the average but if she "just can't gain weight" she simply isn't eating enough or she's too active for the amount she is eating. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lewdog:
There’s many ways to skin a cat.
It’s mostly about daily caloric intake vs what you’re burning. Accomplish that in any way you want and you’ll have success. The stuff that was incorrect was that eating every few hours kept your metabolism high. It really doesn’t matter. It’s just accomplishing calories in vs calories out. Don’t need to get cute with how you do it. Fasting shortens my feeding window and I take in less calories.
There is no truth that by eating larger meals you spike insulin levels causing more fat storage? [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
That's bullshit, dude. Her metabolism might be a little higher than the average but if she "just can't gain weight" she simply isn't eating enough or she's too active for the amount she is eating.
Nope. Her whole family is skinny. I think it's genetics but that's jmo.
If I ate what she ate, I'd gain 5-10 pounds easily. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rausch:
That's a side effect, yes. More importantly it keeps you from getting constipated at first (first 3 days while food is still in your system) and other fates worse than watching a Chiefs home playoff game...
These are what I take (around $10.)
Just make you up some good kale smoothies in the nutribullet you will be shitting a pile , kickin it over and starting a new one in no time at all
Kale
Unsweetened Almond Milk
5 blueberries
and a little stevia or xylitol
add a couple of ice cubes if you want it thicker [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I know of some men that ate one of those hi-carb lo-fat diets who still had heart attacks. Turned out they improved with a more hi-fat paleo diet, including allowing cream and butter instead. Cholesterol plunged, blood pressure improved etc. Sugar can create a problem for that and it also increased inflammation.
Inflammation is a factor that is being looked at more.
I've a cousin, who was slim her whole life, yet she ate lots of butter, actually her whole family, never dieted and pretty much ate what she wanted and still has never gained weight. She is always trying to stay up to 105 pounds at what I think is 5'2" or just under that. She just can't gain weight. It's her metabolism as well as the rest of them in that family.
My blood glucose numbers are very close to someone who is not Diabetic since I have been on this keto stuff [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Ah, the ole' you don't know science ad hom/ logical fallacy. That's odd, usually vegans criticize that book. My niece is a registered dietician. I don't have to go reading reams of scientific research. There's all kinds anyway, when it comes to food and nutrition and plenty of it contradicts other studies. There's lo fat, paleo such as Atkins, the Zone, Macro and on and on and on.
What I know is the list for my blood type, matches the list from my blood work by my allergy doctor. I don't rely on the book for one profile but as part of more factors including genetics. Plus, I feel better.
BTW your beloved NIH turned out to be wrong about parabens now that they're being removed from products for being found in biopsies of folks with skin and breast cancer. There was an article in the WSJ about it. Your trusted sources are still on the ole' saturated fat is dangerous for you, when inflammation is now considered more of a health factor for heart issues. They're not always right either. And doctors barely study nutrition—if at all.
If your registered dietician niece is prescribing diets based on blood type, I’d like her name so I can turn her in to the state board for malpractice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Ah, the ole' you don't know science ad hom/ logical fallacy. That's odd, usually vegans criticize that book.
Speaking of logical fallacies... let's go over a couple...
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
My niece is a registered dietician. I don't have to go reading reams of scientific research. There's all kinds anyway, when it comes to food and nutrition and plenty of it contradicts other studies. There's lo fat, paleo such as Atkins, the Zone, Macro and on and on and on.
This one is called appeal to authority. You're ignoring reams of scientific research to satisfy your confirmation bias. You ignore the totality of scientific knowledge of the subject in favor of the outlying opinion of one person who's opinion you agree with.
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
What I know is the list for my blood type, matches the list from my blood work by my allergy doctor. I don't rely on the book for one profile but as part of more factors including genetics. Plus, I feel better.
This fallacy is called False Cause.
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
BTW your beloved NIH turned out to be wrong about parabens now that they're being removed from products for being found in biopsies of folks with skin and breast cancer. There was an article in the WSJ about it. Your trusted sources are still on the ole' saturated fat is dangerous for you, when inflammation is now considered more of a health factor for heart issues. They're not always right either. And doctors barely study nutrition—if at all.
This one is a bit of Gambler's Fallacy and a bit of Ad Hominem. You think that because science was wrong about parabens(which itself is an incorrect statement), or saturated fat (also wrong), that they will be wrong about everything.
You are a poor critical thinker, convinced that you're the opposite. It's really a shame. Entertaining though.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Nope. Her whole family is skinny. I think it's genetics but that's jmo.
If I ate what she ate, I'd gain 5-10 pounds easily.
Genetics play a role in literally everything, I wouldn't dispute that. But saying "she can eat whatever she wants and never get fat" is just shit fat people say to make themselves feel better about being fat.
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
In fact, Virus, this article seems to confirm what I have observed.
You realize this proved nothing, right? Without recording every bit of information down to starting body composition and on to calories in/calories out there's no way to come to any legitimate conclusion that would bolster your argument. [Reply]
