Thank you. I don't believe in telling someone who is hungry to cut their calories even more.
If there's no freedom in Fast-5, then why do it?
From: Barnaby Walker <barnabywalker@gmail.com>
To: fast5@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:29 PM
Subject: [fast5] Re: Having trouble after a year!
To: fast5@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 12:29 PM
Subject: [fast5] Re: Having trouble after a year!
And those of us in the Low Insulin school, don't follow Calorie In Calorie Out.
The Body doesn't boil down to a simple Physics problem of fueling a furnace. The Hormone Insulin enters the picture, and affects Fat loss.
Fasting places the body in a low insulin state.
Low Carb diets work for the same reason.
http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/calories-fat-or-carbohydrates/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akz9B-zMS-4
Barnaby
--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, David Nyman <david@...> wrote:
>
> I would certainly endorse what Phil says about calories-in, calories-out.
> Despite observations others have made about "good" or "bad" food categories
> - and I won't dispute that these concerns may be relevant to other health
> issues - when it comes to weight loss energy balance is by far the most
> important factor. If weight is not going down over a reasonable period,
> then either less food must go in, more energy must be expended, or both.
> All the properly controlled research studies (crucially, those not
> dependent on self-reporting) have confirmed an almost straight-line
> relationship between energy balance and weight. Of course, this shouldn't
> really surprise anybody, as the converse would violate basic laws of physics
> (like perpetual motion!). So as Phil says, "whatever you want" doesn't
> translate to "as much as you want". To put it another way, if you are both
> wise and fortunate, you can have anything you want, but not everything you
> want.
>
> Fast 5 isn't a magic bullet that robs food of its calorific value. Rather
> it's a strategy for limiting calorie intake based on the observation that
> the fewer opportunities we have to eat, the less often we can fall prey to
> temptation. But a five-hour eating window (or even less) is no barrier to
> the capacities of a dedicated glutton (speaking as one myself) and hence a
> degree of control is still necessary, especially when there is still weight
> to be shed. Don't forget - unfair though it may feel - that as we lose
> weight we need fewer calories than before to maintain our slimmed-down
> bodies. Even now, when I have been at my target weight for years, and
> exercising typically for an hour a day, if I lapse into eating as much as I
> (sometimes) want, the pounds begin to creep back. But, even though I still
> have to practice a degree of limitation, IF still works for me because my
> daily four or five-hour window still feels more satisfyingly like a "feast"
> than a larger number of calories spread over the whole day.
>
> David
>
> On 21 September 2011 16:06, Beth <beth@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > My husband has been doing fast 5 for about a year now, primarily to lose
> > weight (he is in good health otherwise). Weight loss has stopped completely.
> > He lost 30 pounds over the first 6 months, then nothing. Now he has actually
> > gained back 5 pounds. he needs to lose another 50 pounds.
> >
> > He has eaten outside his window maybe 3 to 5 times the entire year, that's
> > it. His window is early in the day, he has tried to change it but been
> > unsuccessful due to business lunches etc, and whereas it used to be easy, he
> > now finds himself hungry in the evenings, although he doesn't give in and
> > eat. He doesn't eat particularly healthy, but one of the things that
> > attracted him to this lifestyle was that he could eat whatever he wants. He
> > gets very little exercise also, but I can guarantee you that would be the
> > most diffcult thing for him to change.
> >
> > He is so frustrated with hunger and lack of weight loss, I told him I would
> > ask you guys for any ideas.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Beth
> >
> >
> >
>
The Body doesn't boil down to a simple Physics problem of fueling a furnace. The Hormone Insulin enters the picture, and affects Fat loss.
Fasting places the body in a low insulin state.
Low Carb diets work for the same reason.
http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/calories-fat-or-carbohydrates/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akz9B-zMS-4
Barnaby
--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, David Nyman <david@...> wrote:
>
> I would certainly endorse what Phil says about calories-in, calories-out.
> Despite observations others have made about "good" or "bad" food categories
> - and I won't dispute that these concerns may be relevant to other health
> issues - when it comes to weight loss energy balance is by far the most
> important factor. If weight is not going down over a reasonable period,
> then either less food must go in, more energy must be expended, or both.
> All the properly controlled research studies (crucially, those not
> dependent on self-reporting) have confirmed an almost straight-line
> relationship between energy balance and weight. Of course, this shouldn't
> really surprise anybody, as the converse would violate basic laws of physics
> (like perpetual motion!). So as Phil says, "whatever you want" doesn't
> translate to "as much as you want". To put it another way, if you are both
> wise and fortunate, you can have anything you want, but not everything you
> want.
>
> Fast 5 isn't a magic bullet that robs food of its calorific value. Rather
> it's a strategy for limiting calorie intake based on the observation that
> the fewer opportunities we have to eat, the less often we can fall prey to
> temptation. But a five-hour eating window (or even less) is no barrier to
> the capacities of a dedicated glutton (speaking as one myself) and hence a
> degree of control is still necessary, especially when there is still weight
> to be shed. Don't forget - unfair though it may feel - that as we lose
> weight we need fewer calories than before to maintain our slimmed-down
> bodies. Even now, when I have been at my target weight for years, and
> exercising typically for an hour a day, if I lapse into eating as much as I
> (sometimes) want, the pounds begin to creep back. But, even though I still
> have to practice a degree of limitation, IF still works for me because my
> daily four or five-hour window still feels more satisfyingly like a "feast"
> than a larger number of calories spread over the whole day.
>
> David
>
> On 21 September 2011 16:06, Beth <beth@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > My husband has been doing fast 5 for about a year now, primarily to lose
> > weight (he is in good health otherwise). Weight loss has stopped completely.
> > He lost 30 pounds over the first 6 months, then nothing. Now he has actually
> > gained back 5 pounds. he needs to lose another 50 pounds.
> >
> > He has eaten outside his window maybe 3 to 5 times the entire year, that's
> > it. His window is early in the day, he has tried to change it but been
> > unsuccessful due to business lunches etc, and whereas it used to be easy, he
> > now finds himself hungry in the evenings, although he doesn't give in and
> > eat. He doesn't eat particularly healthy, but one of the things that
> > attracted him to this lifestyle was that he could eat whatever he wants. He
> > gets very little exercise also, but I can guarantee you that would be the
> > most diffcult thing for him to change.
> >
> > He is so frustrated with hunger and lack of weight loss, I told him I would
> > ask you guys for any ideas.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Beth
> >
> >
> >
>
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment