Phoenix wrote:LifeForce24 wrote:carbs-and-plants wrote:From experimenting and researching this, I can tell you that, for the most part, Durianrider is wrong. This idea of "never calorie restrict" is NOT the way the Mcdougall plan works. With the McD we don't count calories BUT we aim for foods that keep us full on low calories, so in the end, it does end up being calorie restriction but starvation free calorie restriction which is very, very different from all the portion control crap out there where you are starving all day long.
When you come across successful weight loss stories it usually ends up:
Men under 6 ft eat under 2,000 calories
Women under 5' 10 eat under 1,700 calories
And, those figures are on the high end, it should be a little lower.
When they gain weight, dr says "its the body fixing it self, give it some years and you will eventually lean out>"...what???? years??? You would not hear that from McDougall, or Neal Barnard or Jeff Novick or Joel Fuhrman. You should be seeing weight loss taking place quite consistently within the first 60 days. If not, you are doing something wrong. That's just how it works out.
So, yes, take control of your calories but do not starve. Get full on low calorie foods that fill you up and when you reach your goal weight, you can then probably eat a higher calorie version of high carb/low fat and stay lean.
Even on high carb/low fat, calories do matter (you just don't need to really count them if you get full on the right foods).
Yes, I totally agree. This is right on the money.
I've looked into most of the high carb gurus and the calories are always low, even though they tout "never count calories" They are being honest, but, it is a low calorie diet, but a healthy filling one.
-Pritikin diet ends up being under 1,600 calories at the center and in his book, he even teaches an 800 calorie version
-Joel Fuhrman says in this book that it IS a low calorie diet (1,400-1600 for most)
-Most women on this forum that lose weight say they are eating under 1,700 calories
-The Kempner rice diet aims to have you on 1200 calories
-I've heard Ornish say you need to take in low enough calories so you can see a drop in weight.
That's just a few examples. Yeah, even on high carb/low fat, you dont' want to just eat unlimited starches. Eventually, you find a menu that works for you and you don't need to count calories but its a low calorie menu nevertheless.
Yeah, fine. Nobody is saying that restricting calories doesn't work. Of course it works. I reached 141 lbs (I'm a 5'11'' male) while eating 1800-1900 kcal a day for A YEAR while exercising ONLY 3x a week.
Restricting calories DO WORK for losing weight in the SHORT RUN. If you want to restrict calories for 1 or 2 months to lose weight, fair enough. Don't restrict for too long (like me) because you're gonna crash hard and mess up your metabolism.
Again, if you want to restrict calories and be a couch potato, that's also fine.
I like to be active and to have energy for exercising. Restricting calories doesn't work for that.
Uh oh, you have obviously been influenced heavily by that durianrider misinformation. DR makes it sound like a man can not be totally happy and healthy and functional on 1700 calories or even less, for life...he is dead wrong. You are making it sound like these calorie reductions I suggested are just temporary measures to deprive yourself in order to lose weight. I am not in agreement with that, at all. What dr is totally missing is that you can design your diet correctly so that you get full on very low calories without any bad effects. dr has created his own religion around calories and some people are unfortunately parroting him on this.
For example, did you know the traditional Okinawans are probably about the healthiest society known of the last 100 years? Did you know that their average caloric intake is up to 40 percent fewer calories than Americans? (well under 1800 calories). One can live a very healthy life and not load up on calories and that is not "anorexia mentality" like dr claims.
If you structure you calories around starches, veggies and salads, your calories just drop very low. It's way better to structure a diet that keeps calories low without any starvation and this is what dr is totally missing. He associates low calories with unhealthy living because he does not comprehend the science of low caloric density eating.
Are you aware of the many, many people that tried to do the 30bad thing (unlimited fruit carbs) and gained a lot of weight and then struggled hard afterwards because they were so used to eating thousands of calories a day and couldn't get their calories under control for many, many months? Maybe check out http://30bananasadaysucks.com/ so you can see for yourself.
I am quite happy eating under 2,000 calories a day and sometimes I go under 1,500 and that's great too. I structure it well so I am not doing some kind of temporary low calorie fix. I would study up on this more my friend.