4 weeks and nothing at all, decided to stop

[celticbhoy]

Hi,

I'm 35 yrs old, male weighing 80kg.

Did the diet strictly for a month, not even a glass of red wine. meals were mainly 200g meat, tin of beans (kidney, black eyed, etc) and some veg (spinach, broccoli). Drank 2 liters of water per way and eat within 30 mins of waking (4/5 boiled agges) etc.

Studied the book like I was sitting an exam to see where I went wrong and cant see a fault.

No weight loss at all, no inches either.

Decided to stop and eat a balanced diet. Giving up 3 food groups doesn't really make senses, 6 pack or not: Diary, Carbs and Fruit cant all be bad. We are all born and our first 6-12 months drink nothing but milk

A diet where you have to supplement also needs some questioning.

Agreed, OJ and White bread/rice, sweets etc are to be avoided.

Still follow Tim but I think he's off the mark here. Much better to have a 'balanced healthy diet' and increase the exercise; which is what I'm going to do !

Life's too short to stop drinking tea, coffee

Not being negative but I just think your health is too valuable to experiment with and like Tim says, he's not a Dr

Anyone else find the same?

[justhamade]

If you are eating well and not losing body fat (assuming you have a lot to lose) then the issue is usually sleep and cortisol. Unfortunately Tim didn't talk about this much in the book.

Here are a couple good articles
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/ ... S020100505
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/05/magaz ... sleep.html

Decided to stop and eat a balanced diet. Giving up 3 food groups doesn't really make senses, 6 pack or not: Diary, Carbs and Fruit cant all be bad. We are all born and our first 6-12 months drink nothing but milk

This is just a silly comment, I am sorry.
Humans have evolved to eat meat and vegetables and SOME fruit.
Cows milk is for cows.
Human breast milk is for babies. It has evolved over millions of years to help babies develop a proper digestive system so they can eat whole food and to develop their immune system.

Humans digestive system is not designed to eat grains. We are not birds.
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/20 ... -solution/

Life's too short to stop drinking tea, coffee

Tea and coffee are probably much better for you than milk is.

If you take some time to learn some basic biochemistry or endocrinology you will see how you can lose fat pretty easily.

[Michelanjello]

I won't blame you for jumping out of the bandwagon, if you find that your heart isn't in it. But you should shift your focus away from how you feel about the results, and onto how you feel about the diet itself.

I haven't noticed any dramatic changes in my body from dieting, aside from my waste being the color of spinach. I lost five pounds out of the twenty I could stand to lose. I also became a little gassy, probably from the lentils.

Still, I follow the diet. I go heavy on the veggies to avoid supplementation. I'm not expecting to lose weight or anything. I just do it, because it takes so little effort.

The most heartening parts in the book are where Tim says that you should be enjoying yourself, that you should strive to be happy no matter what you do. Sure, you're following the diet correctly, but are you enjoying the process? If not, stop doing it. Better fat and happy, than skinny and miserable.

Were you happier before the diet? Are Tim's guidelines not suiting the way you'd like to live? Then eat potatoes every day. There isn't a hard divide between slow-carb saints and unhealthy heathens. You aren't compelled to follow the diet like a fanatic. If you're replacing grains, juice, and excess sugar with better options, then you're in the spirit of living healthier. You've got my blessing.

[celticbhoy]

Michelanjello:

Thanks for the positive comments. I actually enjoyed the diet, loved eating lots of meat and found that I had no gas problems at all with beans, legumes.

I had a niggling feeling that not eating fruit was just wrong. Don't know, and have never met a fat fruit addict. In the UK it's recommended by government to eat 5 portions per day. Fruits contain so many nturients and Tim just focuses on the Fructose - bit like saying Coke is good for you because the majority of what's in it is water - missing out the 35g of sugar in it!

It took my wife saying "surely cutting 3 major foods groups (dairy, carbs and Fruit) can't be good" for me to actually face up to the fact that it isn't.

Justanmade:

I never posted the comment to argue with anyone, just share my thoughts. You're absolutely right, we have evolved to eat carbs, diary, fruit etc. Just like we evolved to read, speak etc. Just because you read something in a book (btw I think Tim is great) doesn't mean that process of evolution gets turned back - your body needs these things IT HAS EVOLVED OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

The other issue was eating all types of meat, Organic is just too expensive here in the UK ie 2 chicken breasts would be $10-15. So that means realistically in the UK we have to eat processed meat with all sorts of chemicals in it. Not good at all and will probably end up giving you cancer (red meat shown to have a link - not sure re: organic red meat)

I have cut down on carbs and taken elements of the diet, but I've decided to do what no one really wants to - take the hard route and work damn hard in the gym to shift the fat.

I'd rather no one posts a 'your stupid' comment. I respect others and would like the same back. We're not school kids and I posted the comment to a) be constructive and b) see if someone out there could teach me differently.

My family are Dr's and they agree. Carbs, fruit, diary are all required. If you need supplements for a diet ... it's pretty obvious

Like Buddha said: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

As for me, I'm getting myself in the gym and will let everyone know how I got on

Peace and good luck to you all

[tim_1522]

It took my wife saying "surely cutting 3 major foods groups (dairy, carbs and Fruit) can't be good" for me to actually face up to the fact that it isn't.

What exactly is a food group? How many total are there? When did Carbs become a food group? I must have missed that. How many are "necessary" for optimal health? Is it ok to cut 1? or 2? But THREE is too many?

"Food groups" are just an arbitrary designation by various national and world health/governmental type organizations who collectively have a track record of gotten a lot more wrong than they have right. On the watch of these organizations overall wellness has obviously declined in the past 100 years and the diabesity epidemic has spiraled out of control over the past 3 decades.

You say not to believe something just because it's in a book, but then you parrot the "food group" idea espoused by these organizations. "Food groups" have no real scientific basis on health/wellness issues, they were just a way to "make nutrition easy" for people. As with any type of "make it easy" approach, oversimplification in an inevitable result. According to "food groups" corn is freakin' vegetable for goodness sakes!

I had a niggling feeling that not eating fruit was just wrong. Don't know, and have never met a fat fruit addict.

Maybe they aren't "fat" in the classic sense, but that does not always tell the whole story. Well know "fruitarian" Steve Jobs recently died from complications involving the pancreas and the liver -- just the kind of things that a lot of recent research (in actual, factual biochemistry NOT epidemiological studies) points to excessive fructose consumption as a cause. That said, you are correct that TF does NOT do a good job differentiating here. I agree that eating a orange is a lot different than drinking orange juice. But, orange consumption can still be overdone.

I never posted the comment to argue with anyone, just share my thoughts. You're absolutely right, we have evolved to eat carbs, diary, fruit etc. Just like we evolved to read, speak etc. Just because you read something in a book (btw I think Tim is great) doesn't mean that process of evolution gets turned back - your body needs these things IT HAS EVOLVED OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

From an evolutionary stand point, "hundreds of years" is a very small time-frame and likely not enough to assure that the species as a whole has adapted to a type of food, much less "need" it. Case in point, dairy. By most estimation, that's been introduced to the human diet on the order of thousands of years and there are STILL many people that have intolerance issues. From an evolutionary standpoint, all evidence points to humans consuming meat on the order of millions of years. It's not that he's saying evolution is being turned back -- just that it moves slower than you think.

The other issue was eating all types of meat, Organic is just too expensive here in the UK ie 2 chicken breasts would be $10-15. So that means realistically in the UK we have to eat processed meat with all sorts of chemicals in it. Not good at all and will probably end up giving you cancer (red meat shown to have a link - not sure re: organic red meat)

Organic, while preferred, is not necessary. Like TF said, most of the "toxins" in conventionally raised meats end up in the fat (that's a natural defense mechanism for the animal) so eat as low fat as possible if you go conventional and the add fats back from other source. I have yet to see a study that accounts for all the other variables that proves animal meat (even red meat) causes all the ills and evils that mainstream "medicine" says it does. The people in these "studies" are eating processed crap meat (not real, whole, fresh cuts) with 100 different additives -- look at the label of a "Slim Jim", THAT'S the kind of meat these people that "have more risk for cancer" are eating. They are also more likely to smoke, less likely to get a sensible amount of activity, eating their "red meat" with bread and pasta, etc, etc. There's no isolation of anything. The people running these studies blame the "red meat" because that's what they wanted to blame all along. I'm not sure if it's the same study that you mention because you didn't cite it, but the most recent study that causing everyone to scream "Oh, NO! The red meats are going to die us!" if you follow the money back were initiated by two people that are KNOWN shills for the vegetarian movement. Yup, they're going to be subjective about the matter!

Gary Taubes systemically lays out just how LITTLE proof there is that red meat/animal meat causes all the ills that Ancel Keyes and his cohorts claim it does in the first 100 pages of Good Calories, Bad Calories. If you haven't already read that, then I'd recommend it...but be prepared it WILL piss you off at the people involved claiming to be "scientists."

I have cut down on carbs and taken elements of the diet,

Not all carbs are created equal. A piece of wheat bread is a lot different than a sweet potato or summer squash even though they might contain the same amount of carbs. That's the problem with calling "Carbs" a "Food Group."

but I've decided to do what no one really wants to - take the hard route and work damn hard in the gym to shift the fat.

And you will likely fail as you will likely over-train, under-eat, not get enough sleep and cause so much internal stress that your body will be pumping cortisol (a hormone that promotes fat retention/storage) into your bloodstream 24/7 and instead of shifting the fat you will just feel toward, sore, cranky, and still fat -- especially if you are also limiting calories from the "just eat less and exercise more" mentality.

No one here is advocating skipping the gym, rather just recognizing when another trip to the gym will do harm rather than good. It's all about the minimum effective dose -- at some point "another workout" is going to just produce the negative side effects and provide none of the benefits. Doesn't it make sense to stop well before you get to that point? More isn't always better!

I'd rather no one posts a 'your stupid' comment. I respect others and would like the same back. We're not school kids and I posted the comment to a) be constructive and b) see if someone out there could teach me differently.

No one is calling you stupid, and most understand that it takes time to peel away the layers of "What we've always been told" for the past 50 years or so. I'm assuming you are posting here because even though initially you haven't had the success you want, there's part of you that still questions the conventional wisdom that's been shoved people's throats for so long. As far as I can see, people only tried to provide you with information to explore that inner doubt.

My family are Dr's and they agree. Carbs, fruit, diary are all required. If you need supplements for a diet ... it's pretty obvious

On the other hand, if it's SO obvious, then why ARE you posting here?

Doctors are not the end all be all unquestionable authority on matters. They are just a person with a certain education/training -- and the content of that training varies widely from one doctor to the next, by necessity due to the huge amount of sheer information contained in the medical field. Consider that most getting their MD take perhaps ONE introductory course in nutrition. None take advance biochemstry and endocrinology courses unless they are specializing in that. Even then, the courses are all taught from the approach of "what we already KNOW to be true" from the past 50 years.

You don't need supplements on this diet. Other than the occasional Vit. D and/or a Multivitamin, I don't take anything. I know PLENTY of people that pop far more supplements on their "Just eat less, exercise more and get food from all of the food groups" diets. The supplements are for people that want to "hack" and while that's interesting, it's not something I'm interested in. Bottom line, supplements are NOT necessary. If anything I supplement LESS than I did 2 years ago.

Like Buddha said: “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

This is confusing, though. You quote Buddha about "not believing" and then say "Well, my family is a bunch of Doctors, so I believe them."

As for me, I'm getting myself in the gym and will let everyone know how I got on

Good luck with that, but my experiences (along with many others) tell me that it won't work out the way you are hoping...

[justhamade]

Thanks Tim, saved me a lot of time

I do apologize if anyone thought I was calling them stupid. Sometimes my frustration of conventional nutrition information makes me upset and I never mean to take that out on the person. When people say things like "balanced diet" and "everything in moderation" I really get upset at the health care practitioners and policy makers that started such nonsense.

You're absolutely right, we have evolved to eat carbs, diary, fruit etc. Just like we evolved to read, speak etc. Just because you read something in a book (btw I think Tim is great) doesn't mean that process of evolution gets turned back - your body needs these things IT HAS EVOLVED OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Have you looked in to any anthropology or evolutionary biology?

Humans have evolved over millions of years, not hundreds. The agricultural revolution is when modern diseases started to occur. This account for a fraction of a percent of our evolution. If you look at any of the cultures in the past that were agriculturalist, like the egyptians or Hardin Villagers, you can see how unhealthy they were compared to past and current hunter gathers like the kitvans, massi, inuit etc.

I do agree with you for the most part on fruit. For someone that is morbidly obese and has major metabolic issues avoid fruit for a while would probably be very beneficial. But a piece of fruit after a workout is not going to prevent fat loss for most people. That being said, fruit is NOT a requirement for a human diet. If you think about where and more important WHEN fruit grows naturally, we would not have had access to it year round and it would be even more scarce as you get further away from the equator. Case in point the inuit, they have NO fruit, but do not get scurvy and are not deficient in vitamin C.

To reiterate what Tim said, most Doctors have little to no education in nutrition, and the education they do get is very biased to pharmaceutical companies. Doctor job is to 'manage' symptoms. I find it appalling that in north america (not sure about UK) many personal trainers and bodybuilder know more about nutrition than most doctors.

Fat loss is about more than just controlling insulin. It is different for each person as well, but controlling insulin will help most people.

Cortisol affects insulin a lot, and leptin is a major factor as well.

I think Stephan Guyenet and Kurt Harris's recommendations are the most complete and cover everything the best.

And in regards to dairy Dr Harris makes a good point here (my emphasis)

If you are allergic to milk protein or concerned about theoretical risks of casein, you can stick to butter and avoid milk, cream and soft cheeses.

[celticbhoy]

Guys,

We should leave this. Some people sound like fanatical religious people; when you question something - it gets really ugly.

BTW Tim I had a 6 pack before 2/3 years ago. Lots of gym, fight trainin and what I liked to eat

[justhamade]

We should leave this. Some people sound like fanatical religious people; when you question something - it gets really ugly.

I don't disagree with you. But the amount of misconceptions and false 'science' that is being used is frustrating.

I think the issues is that too many people in science state things as fact when really it is just a hypothesis. That happens a lot in forums like these as well, and I am sure that I am probably the worst.

Here is an example of people stating BS. http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-fiv ... 5134.story

Red meat is not the whole picture, but the reduction probably has been a contributor to the reduction in mortality rates that we have today.

Really? You can isolate all variables down to that one?

Not only that but the trend of red meat consumption has INCREASED not reduced in the US and other industrialized nations[1].

Overall meat consumption has continued to rise in the U.S., European Union, and developed world.

Anyway, I think it is good to rant and share info and frustration.

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/

[celticbhoy]

Agreed,

Constructive discussion is definitely welcomed.

Meat has a bad rap, I assume Organic is fine but hate to think what's in other meat.

Very difficult for anyone to isolate just one thing (red meat) and say that's the reason for cancer unless there is a specific chemical that is shown to react with elements in your body.