Calorie Smasher Feltham Says “Hi” to His Swedish LCHF Fans

Sam Feltham continues to kill the outdated idea that a calorie is always a calorie. He gained five times more weight (!) on junk food carbohydrates than on the exact same amount of calories on an LCHF diet.

Feltham is now doing a fake food rehab challenge. He’s consuming 3,600 calories daily on an LCHF diet. According to over-simplistic calorie counting á la Weight Watchers, he should maintain his weight on this amount of calories. But after eight days reality once again shows something different: he has lost almost 10 lbs (4.3 kilos).

On day 5, Feltham also offered a greeting in Swedish. Why is that? Watch the video above for an explanation.

Feltham’s blog: Day 8 Of The 21 Day FAKE FOOD REHAB Challenge

More

A Calorie is Not a Calorie

Are Beer Bellies a Myth?

Why Calorie Counters are Confused

Is Overeating Carbs Worse Than Overeating on an LCHF Diet?

54 comments

  1. Dave
    The only criticism I have about this n=1 experiment is:

    He should had maintained the same protein level in both diets. His protein level is a higher on the low-carb diet than on the high-carb diet.

    Reply: #2
  2. FrankG
    Why? Surely the point is to demonstrate that the outdated adage "a calorie is a calorie" is wrong?
    Replies: #16, #35
  3. Ondrej
    Hey Sam, the lovely and talented Evelyn aka CarbSane wrote:

    "It's OK to overeat LCHF because you won't have to "pay" for your gluttony. Or is the correct interpretation that overeating LCHF is not to be derided because your body wastes the excesses and you won't gain as much weight. Or is there something just pious about advocating LCHF. Yeah, that's it.

    A calorie is not a calorie. This has already been proven in study after study, but Feltham provides us with a nice real world illustration.

    Yeah, because all of those metabolic ward studies that demonstrate time and again that a calorie is indeed a calorie are no substitute for free-living studies with questionable accountability, or especially the "real world" example of a skinny dude running fatloss bootcamps where we have only his word that he even did what he claims, and he can't even be bothered to verify what his weight maintaining caloric intake is to begin with."

    One more thing, Sam: be a man and respond to her at her website, not to me here. I'm only the messenger.

    Replies: #4, #5
  4. FrankG
    My oh my Ondrej... you really have gotten your panties in a bunch over this one little n=1 experiment!

    What's the matter diddums? Worried that your paradigm is finally being demolished? Too scary for you? ROLFLMAO :-P

  5. Maggan A

    the lovely and talented Evelyn aka CarbSane wrote:<p

    LOL she is playing the loosers game and I dont mean by weight. She is not worth any attention at all!

  6. FrankG
    Seriously (and with no disrespect meant to Sam) but if this really is such a poorly run n=1 "experiment* that proves nothing, with results that cannot be trusted, and the opposing position -- that "a calorie IS a calorie" -- is unassailable, then WHY ALL THE FUSS? What is threatening you Ondrej , Evil-Lyn (AKA Carb-Insane) etc... ???

    As a unit of measure sure, a calorie is a calorie. Same as a mile is a mile.. but in the real world is a mile walked on level ground, on a warm afternoon, the same as a mile biked uphill in a blizzard?

    But hey guys... keep up the fuss. You are just proving how chicken$hit scared this all makes you. And that makes me very happy :-)

  7. Maggan A
    I have always believed in the American idea that one should follow the winners. Sadly it seems Evil-Lyn's (few) followers have missed it.

    Last check she has 292 followers on FB.

    Doc has 38 591 on his English site

    and 33 944 on the Swedish one

    Just sayin ;-)

    Reply: #8
  8. FrankG
    Last time I tried reading her website, I found her still to be just downright nasty and vindictive... as Ondrej is showing himself to be -- despite his previous claims of being a Medical Student and here to "help". Hah!

    I did not find her blog a reliable, or trustworthy source. Even if there are rare gems of insight (and I've no hint that there are) I personally don't feel it worthwhile slogging through the muck and mire over there, to find them.

    Reply: #10
  9. Maggan A
    FrankG

    As we say in Sweden; "Even a blind chicken can accidentally find a corn" - but in her case I havent seen it yet.

    Anyway - if she dont like what doc have to say - why don´t answer here on his site?

    But oh no - she stays comfy on her owne site sending out her Soldiers to do the Dirty work for her. Not very credible in my opinion.

  10. Paul
    Out of curiosity I visited her website few minutes ago for the first time. She abused dr Eenfeldt for saying on his website that some Americans are fat. Well, on my way from work today I did see some fat Americans. Are we to describe people by the size number of clothes they wear?, would this be more politically correct ?.
    Replies: #11, #12
  11. Maggan A

    Out of curiosity I visited her website few minutes ago for the first time. She abused dr Eenfeldt for saying on his website that some Americans are fat. Well, on my way from work today I did see some fat Americans. Are we to describe people by the size number of clothes they wear?, would this be more politically correct ?.

    A lot of Americans ARE fat. In this case Dr Eenfeldt is just the messanger....

  12. Ondrej
    It was a great article. Dr. Eenfeldt proved what everybody in the world knows: Americans are stupid. Who would buy a cruise to be insulted on board.
  13. Maggan A
    And now Evil-lyn has fallen in Love with the "Mediterarian diet" - unheard of in Scandinavia where olivetrees havent got a chance in hell in our Cold Climat.

    Have you ever Heard of the Vikings? They concerd the World on pork ;-)

  14. Martin Levac
    He missed such a great opportunity. He could have used the same LCHF diet he used in his first experiment, also with 5,800 kcals/day, and he would have lost weight anyway. Now with 3,600 kcals/day, opponents can still call foul and argue that his previous TDEE was 5,800, so he is eating less and that's why he's losing the weight. Had he done it with 5,800 kcals/day of LCHF, he'd have lost the weight and really smashed it.

    He would have lost weight anyway because his final weight on LCHF was lower than in the HCLF experiment. The weight gained from HCLF could not have been kept on in spite of the same caloric intake, because the weight gained was obviously not from the _caloric_ intake, but from the _carbohydrate_ intake. He may not have lost all the weight from the difference, but then any weight lost in spite of eating tons of calories is good enough to shut all the naysayers.

    Reply: #21
  15. grinch
    Seems intellectually dishonest not to mention that most of that 10 lbs in 8 days is probably water weight.
  16. grinch

    Why? Surely the point is to demonstrate that the outdated adage "a calorie is a calorie" is wrong?

    Conventional wisdom has already moved on from this. You are arguing a strawman at this point, unless the only people you're trying to prove wrong are the jackass fitness gurus on the internet. No serious researcher actually believes this. That is why researchers find controlling for protein so important, because it is common knowledge that there is a slight metabolic advantage to increased protein.

    Reply: #18
  17. Martin Levac
    @grinch

    Consider that argument of intellectual dishonesty carefully. LCHF is better for weight loss than HCLF, especially for _initial_ weight loss. And you point out that this initial weight loss on LCHF is mostly water. This is true. Consequently, it would be even more intellectually dishonest not to mention that all this means is that HCLF retains more water, and for some reason this is supposed to be a good thing. It also means that HCLF weight _gain_ is initially mostly water, while LCHF weight gain is something else, probably muscle and other useful things like that. What's all that water for anyway?

    On protein. It's possible that quality is more important than quantity. On HCLF, protein comes from things like grains - low-quality protein lacking essential amino acids in most cases. While LCHF protein comes from high-quality sources like meat and fish, containing all essential amino acids abundantly. Also, the difference in quantity alone (from 19% to 21% in the A-TO-Z study for example) cannot explain the relatively more significant difference in weight loss.

    Finally, I find it ironic that one would argue for the effect of protein, in the context of arguing in favor of calories. I don't mean to imply that's what you do, I'm just saying those who do, they start off by saying not all calories are equal. Ironic, wouldn't you agree?

  18. FrankG
    Seriously? Conventional wisdom has moved on from a calorie is a calorie..? In which universe? While I'm gratified to see that you might have accepted the concept that not all food calories are the same... many of your comments make a liar out of you -- claiming metabolic ward studies showing "weight" has nothing to do with macronutrients but everything to do with calories, for example. But in any case you are not the representative of conventional wisdom... talk to those health care professionals who offer advice daily, to those in need of nutritional direction and see what they are saying on the subject. It is not much use that an handful of researchers accept it unless it is being applied. Yes many are waking up to the real world but this is not yet widely accepted -- especially by policy-makers. The fact that Coke can to this day bring out new ads focused on calories only and that these are acceptable adverts makes a mockery of your statement.

    And what the heck do you mean by "there is a slight metabolic advantage to increased protein"??? I'd hate to see Ondrej accusing you of MAD

    I also find it ironic (is that the right term for this?) that those who in one breath are trying to discredits Sam's n=1 experiment as nothing but as scientifically useless then turn around to nit-pick the macronutrient male-up in his methodology.

  19. FrankG
    I also find it ironic (is that the right term for this?) that those who in one breath are trying to discredits Sam's n=1 experiment as scientifically useless then turn around to nit-pick the macronutrient make-up. You say it's not even science then whine about his scientific methodology?!?
  20. gallier2
    I see, Evelyn deployed her sock-puppets. Only a bloated egotistical ego full of herself, could write " the lovely and talented Evelyn aka CarbSane" about her in all seriousness.
    Reply: #22
  21. grinch
    Martin,

    Gotta love your explanation on the water weight issue. Oh and that A to Z study is free-living. Free-living studies are plagued with misreporting. They are simply not reliable when food intake accuracy is important.

    Frank,

    When health professionals prescribe low fat diets, they are indirectly suggesting that all calories are not at the same, and that fat calories are worse then others, hence the need to reduce them. If they thought all calories are the same, they would simply prescribe calorie counting diets without preference to macronutrients at all.

    And all the well-known bloggers / internet gurus on conventional wisdom, James Krieger, Stephan Guyenet, Lyle McDonald, Anthony Colpo, etc. who all believe in the calorie paradigm have stated that protein has a slight metabolic advantage due to its high TEF. Not sure why this is even news to you, since you've done all this individual research verifying the low carb science.

    Reply: #23
  22. grinch

    I see, Evelyn deployed her sock-puppets. Only a bloated egotistical ego full of herself, could write " the lovely and talented Evelyn aka CarbSane" about her in all seriousness.

    Personally I can't stand Evelyn. Her writing style is horrendous and almost incomprehensible. With all that debunking, she doesn't seem to have anything positive to contribute to the community. She's basically left her readers with no other choice but to once again resort to "eat less, move more", which all of us can agree doesn't work because it doesn't address all the obstacles we face when we try to lose weight and sustain it.

  23. FrankG
    OIC so the dieticians are "implying" that not all calories are equal by advocating a calore-restricted low-fat diet? Nothing to do with all that scary "science" about how fat is killing us all due to being bad for the heart then? Phew that's a massive relief! Thanks for clearing that up :-P

    And Anthony Colpo as a purveyor of the "conventional wisdom"??? -- by appointment to the royal family perhaps? Give me a break!

    I'm well aware that protein is metabolised differently than carbs and fat... and that is not even starting on the different types of protein and the fact that in nature they most often come prepackaged with other nutrients; so any talk of them on their own is purely abstract and not "real world" .. but then you evidently don't live in the same real world as me.

    No, what I have trouble reconciling is your dogged unshakeability on the Colpo bible stories about metabolic wards and how the macronutrient make-up of diets makes not a jot a of difference... it is always all about the calories... and yet you can still hold this idea that protein "has a slight metabolic advantage" or that you personally find it more "satiating" -- but of course that has nothing to do with biochemistry and everything to do with the variety or taste or something???

    It can't be both the same as all other calories and yet significantly different at the same time... can it?

    Unless perhaps your paradigm is wrong but you are struggling on with it it regardless, suffering cognitive dissonance, while trying to fit your skewed facts together into some bizarre semblance of reality?

  24. FrankG
    "...what I have trouble reconciling is your dogged unshakeability on the Colpo bible stories about metabolic wards and how the macronutrient make-up of diets makes not a jot a of difference... it is always all about the calories..."

    Just to be clear that I have no difficulty accepting any metabolic ward study showing that: at the end of the day*, all the "ins" equal all the "outs" -- with of course, the clear understanding that the "ins" and "outs" are not simply what is eaten and what is "burned" in physical activity.

    I would have to be a food to question these observations; because that would defy the physical laws, as we currently understand them.

    No, what I question and don't see how you reconcile with your recent statements grinch, is the interpretation of that observation as proof that in terms of "weight" management, all food calories are equal, regardless of macronutrients.

    ---

    * for me the key there is "at the end of the day". Of course it all balances out (it must) but this observation shows us nothing about how to predict weight change based only on calories.

  25. FrankG
    "...but this observation shows us nothing about how to predict weight change based only on calories."

    Which is exactly what Sam's real world experiments have ably demonstrated :-)

  26. Marcy
    I think Sam is wonderful. I think he is proving his point in a really useful, easy to understand and entertaining way. He seems genuinely interested in helping people and he acknowledges every comment.
  27. Martin Levac
    @Marcy

    The voice of wisdom. I agree. Sam is showing us how real people in the real world can do something about our own obesity in real ways. In the end, that's all that matters to me.

  28. grinch
    FrankG sounds like you are willfully misrepresenting my stance.

    What the metabolic ward studies demonstrate is that despite the different metabolic pathways of the macros, the human body is pretty good at not wasting energy when processing one nutrient verses another. Basically that it's futile to construct a diet with the expectation that the calories you consume are irrelevant as long as you eat certain types of foods. What they also demonstrate is that free-living studies are unreliable because dieters grossly underestimate their calorie intake and overestimate physical activity. If this wasn't the case, metabolic ward and free-living studies should show similar results.

    If all the countless stories of people unable to lose weight while starving themselves (ie. calorie restrictive diets) were true, then the metabolic ward studies should be able to verify this. But so far that has never happened. Never in my own life have I been unable to lose weight by lowering my calorie intake, regardless of how much the food was pure junk. Why do calories rule in my body but no for anybody here on this site?

    Reply: #29
  29. FrankG
    How can we possibly trust your word on what you ate when you claim to have lowered your calorie intake -- were you locked in a Metabolic Ward?

    And why are you even visiting this site if you already have an answer to your weight loss problem? Simply lowering calories never fails for you -- even if it is pure junk... right?

    Calories rule! Yay!

  30. FrankG
    Misrepresenting your stance grinch..?

    "And to address FrankG's mega strawman that conventional wisdom says all calories are the same, the metabolic ward studies have almost unanimously shown that when calories are tightly controlled, body fat changes are not significantly affected by macro-nutrient composition, despite the different metabolic pathways of these nutrients."

    http://www.dietdoctor.com/overeating-carbs-worse-overeating-lchf-diet...

    What did I misrepresent?

    Wasn't the point of your comment -- citing metabolic ward studies as your proof -- to show that: despite my claims, all calories are the same?

    And again in your most recent rebuff are you not re-stating your position that calories are all that matter? Even if they are "pure junk"..?

    I think you are deeply confused and need to get your own head straight on the facts before you try to set anyone else right.

  31. FrankG
    "What the metabolic ward studies demonstrate is that despite the different metabolic pathways of the macros, the human body is pretty good at not wasting energy when processing one nutrient verses another"

    Is this your own interpretation (perhaps Stephan thought it for you?) or do you have a source you can cite?

    Seems to me that a big difference between a sealed metabolic ward and free living is exactly that it measures and includes "waste" -- wasted energy as ketones in breath, sweat(?) and urine, plus other energy wasted in faeces.

    Once again I have absolutely no doubt that at the end of the day, all the numbers balance... they MUST... that is the physical law..! I actually don't see the need of a metabolic ward to demonstrate that yet again. But that does not give you free rein to place our own free interpretations and assumptions on what that means.

  32. FrankG
    And no doubt I'll be corrected but I am not aware that a metabolic ward study by itself can tell us anything about body composition? They allow us to accurately measure all energy "in" and "out" -- effectively turning an open system into a closed one -- not so much about how that energy is used, metabolised, or partitioned in the body. Not without some additional CT or MRI imaging to measure changes in fluids, fat and lean tissue, bone etc...

    In addition, I would stress that I think feeding / nourishing the body is about a great deal more than simply energy.

  33. grinch
    "I think you are deeply confused and need to get your own head straight on the facts before you try to set anyone else right."

    Confused about what? I've never said all calories are the same, you're the one who keeps saying that me [and the rest of the world] are saying that.
    -----
    "How can we possibly trust your word on what you ate when you claim to have lowered your calorie intake -- were you locked in a Metabolic Ward?"

    You should not trust my word at all. But the actual point there was that people use their own anecdotes as proof that the scientific literature is wrong, but my own anecdotes seem to support the scientific literature, at least regarding calories. Why would I believe the calorie paradigm is wrong when there is a lot of support for it in the literature and my own body appears to comply with it?
    -----
    "And why are you even visiting this site if you already have an answer to your weight loss problem? Simply lowering calories never fails for you -- even if it is pure junk... right?"

    Because the answer has not been found. If the answer was found, then everybody would lose the weight and keep it off. The fact that ALL diets seem to have abysmal success rates means they are ALL ineffective at solving the problem. Whether we need more knowledge on human behavior, neurology, endocrinology, or changes in public policy I don't know, but simply saying people should be eating LCHF or Paleo, as a solution doesn't work. If people aren't motivated enough to eat the diet and adhere to it forever, then its not a workable solution. To say otherwise you would be blaming the dieter, which is what you are so vehemently against when the mainstream blames the dieter for eating too much.
    -----
    "Once again I have absolutely no doubt that at the end of the day, all the numbers balance... they MUST... that is the physical law..! I actually don't see the need of a metabolic ward to demonstrate that yet again. But that does not give you free rein to place our own free interpretations and assumptions on what that means."

    The one quote was my own interpretation. I don't see how what you are saying refutes any of what I said about metabolic ward studies. Even if you ignore the cals OUT side of the equation completely, the point is when comparing isocaloric diets, the body fat changes aren't much different.

  34. grinch
    Now that I think about it, I think you are confusing metabolic chamber with metabolic ward. I am talking about ward studies where food intake and physical activity are tightly controlled. That means people in white lab coats are feeding you and tracking your food intake as opposed to free-living studies where you self-report your intake and activity.
  35. Dave
    Because the little scientist inside me got annoyed not all the variables are controlled.

    It annoys me the same way vegans point to studies between bowel-cancer and meat-consumption in countries where sodium nitrate-consumption is amongst the highest in the world.

  36. eddie watts
    i agree with dave here.
    also if he'd kept the calories high but switched to LCHF to lose the weight again that would have been great.
    but i can understand why he didn't.

    the other thing he could have done was to clean carb the three weeks, so no sugar but lots of starch.
    i imagine the result would be different, certainly in terms of blood work results, even if weight gain was the same.

  37. Marcy
    I thought the same thing, Eddie, if Sam had not eaten as much sugar but just kept to a healthier version of a vegetarian type diet if the results would have been different. My daughter is vegan but never really eats sugar and only eats whole grains. She, to me, is a bit overweight, but doesn't gain weight like Sam did with his carb experiment, he really did choose lousy sugary carbs.
    Reply: #38
  38. Paul the rat
    Dear Eddie and Marcy, with all due respect you are missing the point. The aim of Sam's exercise was to show that "CALORIE IS A CALORIE or CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE". Pleas read the background and comments on this post, which explain the details.
  39. grinch
    I think it was a mistake for NUSI not to make this (but in a metabolic ward with proper controls) its first experiment. Nobody has ever tested a ketogenic diet in an overfeeding study. This study alone would put to rest much of the debate between the previous studies and the claims made by the low carb masses. If any study is going to change my mind, its this one, but I need the controls in place.
  40. Martin Levac
    @grinch

    That's a good idea. Do the same thing Sam did, but with two groups of 100 people. Measure everything, not just weight. It would be more than just a test of calories and carbohydrates. It would be a test of health as well. The controls would have to be the standard American diet.

  41. eddy
    He ate the same thing everyday for 21 days a look at his diary indicates that the food choices were high in sugar
    when they do lo fat they add more sugar to the product.

    eg low fat strawberry yogurt twice a day
    strawberry jam daily
    2 extra crumpets at breakfast along with the bran flakes
    2 cans of coke daily
    1 chocolate muffin daily
    reduced fat rice pudding

    I would have been more interested to see the results if he repeated this experiment using foods that are not so processed such of whole grains oats, barley that you prepare yourself as well as , starches such as potatoes , sweet potatoes, brown and wild rice and with a very limited amount of sugar, 6 tsp daily the amount Lustig recommends and instead of coke drinking water.

    One coke would account for more than 6 tsp. of sugar.

    Reply: #45
  42. FrankG
    Sure for a truly scientific piece of research you would need a great deal more than 1 participant, a control group, "blinding" of both researchers and participants etc.... etc...

    You would want to control as many variables as possible -- ideally only ONE thing should be different between the control group and study group

    BUT this ideal is simply not possible with diet studies... if you try to remain isocaloric, while increasing the relative percentage of energy from fat vs. carbs (for example) you have already changed multiple variables: the amount of fat has gone up, the amount of carbs has gone down, the relative energy between all the macronutrients has changed and unless you are feeding your subjects milkshakes only (not real food) the makeup (look, smell, taste, texture, mouth feel etc...) off the food has changed as well. This last makes it even harder to blind the study to the changes.

    So face facts: diet studies are not simple. In humans they also tend to be costly, time consuming and unrealistic -- such as being locked inside for 6 months (although that is not really long enough to test a diet) with all meals prepared for you, while being watched 24/7 to control for variables.

    Sam performed an n=1 with the sole purpose of bringing attention to the fact that not all calories are equal, or put another way: that CICO cannot accurately predict weight gain or loss, in the way that many health care professionals would have still us believe to this day.

    I think it is pointless to nitpick about how he should have done it better.. especially as there will still be those naysayers who, despite every control being in place, would still dismiss it as pointless; simply because they disagree with what he has clearly observed.

  43. Martin Levac
    @FrankG

    I agree, the nature of diet studies poses certain difficulties. I guess we just have to deal with it in a reasonable manner. That was partly my point. He missed an opportunity to stick with as few variables as possible. Now, he's confusing his results by introducing a new element in the form of "fake food rehab".

  44. eddy
    The point is if you look at his fake food rehab diet , it contains all the ingredients of his high fat diet only less calories.

    what he has on his food list are
    eggs
    mackerel
    lamb chops
    macadamia nuts
    cheese
    butter
    olives
    cream
    coffee
    kale
    avocado
    green beans

    this menu is surprisingly similar to his high fat diet where he gained only 3 pounds

    If you compare the menu to his junk food diet the most obvious missing ingredient is sugar,

  45. grinch

    He ate the same thing everyday for 21 days a look at his diary indicates that the food choices were high in sugar when they do lo fat they add more sugar to the product.eg low fat strawberry yogurt twice a day strawberry jam daily 2 extra crumpets at breakfast along with the bran flakes 2 cans of coke daily 1 chocolate muffin daily reduced fat rice puddingI would have been more interested to see the results if he repeated this experiment using foods that are not so processed such of whole grains oats, barley that you prepare yourself as well as , starches such as potatoes , sweet potatoes, brown and wild rice and with a very limited amount of sugar, 6 tsp daily the amount Lustig recommends and instead of coke drinking water.One coke would account for more than 6 tsp. of sugar.

    I think the results are more meaningful when you go from one extreme to another. If the ketogenic and the safe starch diet had similar results then we don't really learn anything because there are authorities already claiming both diets are healthy and optimal (depending on the authority). If the sugar diet and ketogenic have similar results, then we know that a calorie is a calorie (for the purposes of fat derived weight status) as people consider the sugar diet fattening but there is disagreement as to whether its due to calorie intake or the fattening is independent of calories.

  46. Beverly Brown
    Why am I gaining weight on LCHF? I started in Apr 2013 and weighed 148. And I loved the new eating plan. By July I weighed 142. I kept eating the same way. Now in Oct, I weigh 148. For breakfast I eat 2 slices bacon and 1 egg. Lunch is 3 oz cheese. Coffee, 3 cups with 2 tbsp of heavy cream and 2 tbsp coconut oil once a day. Dinner-Salad with 1/4 cup spinach, 1/4 cup romaine, 14 cup celery, 4 grape tomatoes, 2oz cheese, 1/2 avocado, 1/4 cup cucumber, protein varies, tuna 3oz or steak 3oz or 1 egg and 1 glass red wine. What am I doing wrong?
    Reply: #49
  47. Jane
    Hi

    I've been on the Lchf for about 2 months now and after not loosing gaining a bit of weight and even lost muscle? So I've tried to do a fat fast and even cut out cheese and upped my coconut oil and butter intake with limited protein. And gained again,
    I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong?
    Calories average about 100/1200 on fat fast and 1200/1600 normally?

    Many thanks for any help in advance xx

    Reply: #48
  48. Zepp
    Are you a small child?

    Noe its not nomal if one not losing a lot of weight!

    If your not a small child.. take two steps back and eat more food/calories.. to make your BMR get higher.. make it be some more protein/meat!

    Becuse the moste comon is that one have to little muscles.. and then try to use them for more BMR!

  49. Zepp
    Are you realy doing anything wrong.. 148 pounds is normal weight for many.
  50. Jane
    Thank you for the reply zeppelin :)

    No I'm not a small child even though I act like one :)

    I will take your advice and up my protein, but I heard that it it can stall your weight because if you consume too much it can cause an insulin rise through gluconeogenesis creating glucose through a non carbohydrate nutrient.

    Also eating more whilst gaining weight at this level, won't that make me just gain more?

    Sorry for all the questions zepp I know you probably have a million emails a day. I do trust your advice I'm just wary to do it. Because it has not worked so far. And everything Lchf makes sense. I think my body is just broken haha.

    Thanks again for the reply x

    Reply: #51
  51. Zepp
    If you are healty and rise your protein intake it could make you stall weight loss becuse you gain muscles.. thats good.. and healty!

    And protein always rise insulin.. but as a conta measure it altso rise glucagon.. its a zero game.. and it should be so.

    Gluconeogenes never rise elevated blood sugar levels on healty individuals.. it replenice your glycogen depoes.

    The misconception is that if you got enough gluconeogenes your body dont need that same amount of keton buddies.. thats natural and normal.. perticaly after a long time adaption to a ketogenic diet.

    I dont know.. but if one dont lose anything on a starving diet then it must be something wrong?

    Then one have to try other means.. or check ones thyroids.

    Read this advice from the Duke.. se if there are any thing that you can do different.

    http://www.fitintegrity.com/uploads/9/5/1/6/9516119/no_sugar_no_starc...

  52. Jane
    Thanks for the reply again Zepp :)

    So it any micro nutrient raises insulin but protein and days do not raise blood sugar (unlike carbs?) so if my body is in gluconeogenes it will just get rid of my ketone buddies? I will take your advice. And if its still the same I will check my thyroid too.
    Will check out the link link too after work.
    What are your views on intermittent fasting? How many hours is ok?
    Keep up the good work Zepp! Awesome blog your helping loads of people :)
    Jane x

    Reply: #54
  53. Jane
    Sorry I ment protien and fats don't raise BSL.
    *damb auto correct*
    Jane x
  54. Zepp
    First of all.. Im not Andreas Eenfeldt.. his nick is Doc!

    Im only one of his swedish followers.. spaming this and his swedish bloog!

    Mayby I got this "besserwisser" gene or something, but my mission is to correct the moste common wrong thinking about low carb/ketogenic diets for newbies!

    There are no magical diets.. only your magical body, nutrient sciens/biochemestry and common sens/individual variations/preferences!

    Dont be afraid of insulin doing its job.. or other hormones.. if they do what they supose to do.. its healty.

    Its elevated glucose levels over time that get you hyperinsulinemia.. that is the state you can be afraid of!

    High carb/low fat diets can for those sensitive of that cause hyperinsulinemia.. to often offsprings to diabetics/obese persons!

    You know.. whitout any referens.. Im read about people some generations ago.. they eat about 3500 calories a day.. working in the fields/woods/on the sea on mostly a high carb diet.. try this on a office worker to day.!?

    And they was not perticaly obese or diabetic in that times.. they burnt all the calories/carbs/fats!

    Intermitent fasting is for carb lovers.. we dont have a word for this.. becuse it coms natural for us!

    Im only eating twice a day.. and im not on any type of fasting!

    Im only eat when its moste convinent for me or if I get hungry!

    You know.. the majority of your meal is always stored.. then it supose to be takeing frome stores to provide energy and nutrients for your bodily functions betwen meals.

    If one eats low calorie, then one have to supply more often.. its not that difficult to understand!

    And to the topic of IF and eating more seldome.. the benefits of eat few meals is that its dificult to eat to much.. the flaw of it is that it is easy to eat too little!

    The flaw of eating to litle is that one get defincys of essentiall macro and micro nutrients!

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts