Question for CDC again !!

[szoes]

Sorry to keep posting questions but I dont have a CDC in singapore and I a stuck in a large hole

I cant get back to SSing and I am picking so my weight loss for the last two weeks have been 1.5lb per week

If I changed to 790 would I lose more if I was picking on the Extra cals (but the right food )

 

[SteveM]

I am not a CDC but I can have a stab at this and I am sure that anyone who knows better will correct me ....

My take is that this, and any diet, works based on the calorie defecit you have .... SS you are at a calorie defecit of 2000+ calories. The body finds what it needs from elsewhere - glycogen, body fat.

The more calories you take in, the smaller the defecit, so the less the body has to find elsewhere, so the less you lose - hence the slowing of the weight losses as you step up the levels.

If you are SSing and picking then in the same way you are reducing your calorie defecit, hence slowing your losses.

Simple maths says that if you step upto 790 and still pick, then being on 790 you are on a smaller defecit already, so continuing to pick will just reduce that smaller defecit, and reduce your losses still further.

It could be, however, that if you step up to 790 you may not need to pick at all. I have seen it said many times in this forum that being on 790 properly only slows your losses by a couple of pounds a month.

The bottom line is that picking at any level will have an effect, and slow your losses down, simply by the fact that you are taking in more calories, carbs, etc

Steve

 

[dyingtobeslim]

Hey Zoe, I am in Cape Town and in my third day of ss'ing after countless attempts at trying. You've done well losing 24lb so far, stop picking, try 790 for a week and see how you go. Don't give up though.

 

[SoonToBeGorgeous]

CD doesn't work by Calorie deficit. Think about it this way - how would folks lose 4-7 pounds per week on a regular basis if it were all down to calorie-deficit?

The losses on SS are the same as for the 790 Plan.

Have a read of the Alan Howard books, particularly the first one published in the 1980's which explains the whole thing.

 

[SteveM]

All diets work by calorie deficit. You eat more calories than you use, you gain weight. You eat less calories than you use, you lose weight. Its as simple as that.

CD and LL certainly do - that was how it was explained to me. I was told that an average male required approximately 2500 calories a day to stay where they are weight-wise. The more active you are, the more calories you need, so the bigger the deficit. Whilst I was SSing I was having 4 packs a day which equates to approximately 600 calories a day, putting me at a calorie deficit of 1900 calories a day. Over a week that equates to a deficit of 13300 calories. 1 lb of body fat contains approximately 3400 calories, meaning that over a week my deficit of 13300 calories equates to 3.9 lbs of fat. Are you telling me that it is pure coincidence that my rate of weight loss was 4 lbs week in week out with very little variation at all (apart from week 1) ??

If you move to 790, then you are taking in 190 calories extra a day, or an extra 1330 calories a week. Over a month (averaging out at 4.3333 weeks over a year) this comes out at approximately 5763 calories, or 1.7 lbs of fat. Are you also telling me it is pure coincidence that most folks say that the change in weight loss when moving from SS to 790 is between 1 and 2 lbs a month ??

This is the way it was all explained to me - for both LL and CD. The maths backs it up.

Please explain to me how someone can say that calorie deficit has nothing to do with weight-loss?? If the calories have nothing to do with it, why VLCD ??

I never claimed that the WHOLE thing was down to calorie deficit, but certainly the major contributor is just that.

Please excuse me, I am not getting on my high horse or anything, but what you have just claimed flies in the face of everything I have ever been told about these diets and how they work.

Confusedly,

 

[icemoose]

Hiya all

Just to agree with Steve really.

The reason Cambridge works quickly is the calorie deficiency, the reason you can stick to it is the hunger supressing effect of ketosis.

That's the secret really!

Mike

 

[jacsprat]

Hi Zoe

To answer your original question I think you would definately be better moving to 790.

By picking indiscriminately the cals can really add up and if those cals contain carbs it will be a double whammy- that is weight gain(water) due to glygogen and the chance of coming out of ketosis. If your not in ketosis you will be hungry and likely to pick all the more thus taking in more calories and so it goes on.

On 790 most people remain in ketosis and still lose about a stone a month.

I would advise you to try it for a week and see how it goes. You can split your 790 meal into 2 if you feel the need.

To answer the rest there is a school of thought that believes that all calories are not created equal. For example on Atkins you could consume 2500-3000 cals a day and lose weight as long as those pesky carbs are low enough and your fat to protein ratios are in balance. Something he called metabolic advantage. I'm no expert otherwise I wouldn't be 5 stone overweight.

Hope that helps.

Jac

 

[SteveM]

I know what you mean Jac. This is known as the 4-4-9 rule, which comes from the fact that 1g Carbohydrate contains 4 calories, 1g Protein contains 4 calories, and 1g Fat contain 9 calories. It even gets more complicated because some types of carb are better for you than others because the body has to work harder at breaking them down to get the energy .... likewise for fats, some are better than others (in fact some are essential and named as such). I think protein is, well protein!

Clearly you are best cutting out calories from fat as by cutting out fat you obviously cut out calories quicker. The reason that cutting out carbohydrate calories works better than cutting out protein calories is in the way that the body processes those calories.

CD is so good/quick because is cuts them all out bar essential levels combined with the vits/mins to keep you healthy.

 

[SteveM]

I just spoke to my friend who is a nutritionist about all this, and she started explaining it and it just blew my circuits! It is all so complicated.

Essentially, the body runs on glucose, and the body gets that glucose from the carbohydrates, proteins, and fats that you eat. The body, by design, will always take the easiest route to the fuel that it needs. As such it deals with carbohydrates first, then proteins, and then fats. Apparently most of the protein we eat is used by the body in processes of maintenance such as cell regeneration, digestion blah-di-blah, which is why the calories from protein are "better" than calories from carbs/fats. The difference in "calories" in carbs comes from the fact that with some carbs the body has to work harder to break them down into the glucose molecules that it needs .... that is why all carb calories are not equal.

The reason that fat calories are so bad is that they are digested last, so if the body gets all of what it needs from elsewhere it just will not bother and will store them away for a rainy (or ketosis!!) day. Also, the body avoids fats if it can because they are such hard work for it .....

As you said Jac .... all calories are certainly NOT equal.

My friend started waffling about amino acids, and essential this, and non-essential the other ....... but I was glazed over by then.

 

[canireallydothis!!]

That was actually really good Steve, thanks so much, I am one of those that looks at things inside out, and this has given me loads of info x

 

[szoes]

Thank you so much for all your help !!

Steve = You have blown my circuits now,but think I got it

Thanks again

 

[AmandaJayne]

I thought I would bump this thread up for new members to look at...

AJ