Once Again, Scientific Evidence Supports Bulletproof/paleo/high-Fat

1356

Comments

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    So...where did Obama say he wants to take away people's air conditioners and cars?


     


    My political stance is neither liberal nor fascist, and I provided clarity via the words of the man himself which is the opposite of deception. I didn't assume you hadn't watched it, I saw that your paraphrased quote (whether intentionally or not) was completely incorrect so I provided the actual quote. Advocating for alternative energy for developing countries is not fearmongering, it's a rational approach to a global sustainability issue. Every country should be trying to develop sustainable energy in order to thrive in the future.




     


    I just flatly disagree with your interpretation of the statement. It was a gaff, tipping his hand at what he really feels. The common (meme) interpretation of it is absolutely correct, and unfortunately for you, your contextual spin is not going to fly with the true researchers. 


    'Sustainable' is a buzz word. Try not to buy into it too much, especially when it's coming from Obama, Hillary, or Michael Moore (from whence there will never be a targetted removal of truly harmful substances like petrochemicals (plastics), pesticides, aldehydes, heavy metals, and dozens more from being manufactured and pumped into our failing ecosystem). 

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Tomorrow, I will move this thread to Gangster Banter.  If you want to locate this thread, please look for it there.




     


    I blame sparefilms for this degeneration. Thanks, though, I agree.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Global population is increasing. Developed countries have a natural downward trend in population due to healthcare and a change in societal focus, while developing and third-world countries have an upward population trend due in part to a high childhood mortality rate and lack of modern healthcare. 


     


    The Georgia Guidestones do not say "reduce" the population. They say:


    1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

     




    Man, you just prove to whom your allegiances lie with every single sycophantic (towards the CFR) post you put up. Let me ask you something: What is the population right now, sparefilms?


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    MLS have you ever thought to track your calories/activity level and see for yourself as to whats up? 


    I have tracked my food through various phases of my health consciousness and have drawn my own conclusions about calories in calories out and macronutrient ratios. Which I don't really care to discuss.


     


    Why do you have to have such an agenda? I know most forums are good for confirmation bias, and it seems to be what your after, really what gives? You just look silly. Not to say that sparefilms doesn't look as silly if not more silly than you. As far as I can tell your both trolling each other in some really bizarre way...




    Haha, I swear he's trolling me, man. I just refuse to back down. Yes, I realize that puts me in the 'silly' category, sure. But honestly, a large part of me is just amazed that people like him really exist—those completely sold out to the agenda of world government and fake progress. I guess he truly is a "post-human construct." I'm sure his head truly does resemble that guy from the cover of City of Lost Children.


    Ah, but my agenda? I have the best agenda: to alleviate those who struggle with weight of years and years of calorie counting. This is whom my posts target. Sadly, this thread will be relocated to the Gangster Banter section, where people will be less likely to view it. (Somehow, I think this is part of sparefilms' agenda to discredit me.) Yes, telling people they don't have to count calories, as Dave Asprey has done with his wonderful, extremely effective, simple, and for me life-changing diet. I am so sold out to this approach for those who are truly suffering, that I will take any opportunity to share things that reinforce the effectiveness of this one bit of advice in particular. 


    Sadly, Jason Miller also derails my efforts, because he is always trying to convince me that calorie-counting is better for athletic performance and biohacking. He refuses to see that I'm simply advocating avoidance of calorie-counting for chronic dieters. The cycle (and the cycling) of eating and purging through overexercise needs to be stopped. That's why I'm also on a huge bender against chronic cardio. It is a legacy of hurt and pain, especially for people like Dave and myself who were gaining weight on extremely low-calorie and rigorous cardio. Those behaviors also make people so sick! I am a downright activist about this. Do you understand better now after this explanation?




  • Sadly, Jason Miller also derails my efforts, because he is always trying to convince me that calorie-counting is better for athletic performance and biohacking. He refuses to see that I'm simply advocating avoidance of calorie-counting for chronic dieters. The cycle (and the cycling) of eating and purging through overexercise needs to be stopped. That's why I'm also on a huge bender against chronic cardio. It is a legacy of hurt and pain, especially for people like Dave and myself who were gaining weight on extremely low-calorie and rigorous cardio. Those behaviors also make people so sick! I am a downright activist about this. Do you understand better now after this explanation?




    You should have said so, then. Avoiding calorie-counting is totally reasonable; magically assimilating body mass from no food is not so reasonable, and the burden of some serious evidence is on you.


    It's also a matter of low-calorie = unhealthy, weight-loss or not. Again, that's different from the (in)validity of CICO.


    How did you gain weight on a VLC diet that wasn't water weight? Did you actually produce matter from nothing? If so, then there goes CICO right out the window. Otherwise, you consumed something one way or another.


    Answer my original question: If calories aren't going INTO you, and they aren't going OUT of you, where do they go?


    Ahhh, good to be back on topic.

  • I met Alex Jones one evening after a Joe Rogan show in Austin. Talked to him for a few minutes. He had already had a few drinks in him. He was very friendly and not over-the-top at all. It was a nice encounter.
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    I met Alex Jones one evening after a Joe Rogan show in Austin. Talked to him for a few minutes. He had already had a few drinks in him. He was very friendly and not over-the-top at all. It was a nice encounter.




    Back off topic! Now I'm going to act like a star-struck idiot for a second! That's supercool man! Thanks for sharing. Could you introduce me? (I know, doesn't make sense).

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited July 2016


    You should have said so, then. Avoiding calorie-counting is totally reasonable; magically assimilating body mass from no food is not so reasonable, and the burden of some serious evidence is on you.


    It's also a matter of low-calorie = unhealthy, weight-loss or not. Again, that's different from the (in)validity of CICO.


    How did you gain weight on a VLC diet that wasn't water weight? Did you actually produce matter from nothing? If so, then there goes CICO right out the window. Otherwise, you consumed something one way or another.


    Answer my original question: If calories aren't going INTO you, and they aren't going OUT of you, where do they go?


    Ahhh, good to be back on topic.




     


    Hmmm, now that I think about it, I wasn't really tracking calories. It just always seemed like an endless struggle to lower calories, but I would always be hungry after meals. And then I was supposed to go and burn it off, but the treadmill would always say like I had burned 200 calories after the recommended 45 minutes. I would say to myself, "that's like a quarter of lunch. OH and I'm supposed to eat 3500 calories (RDA)?" Just a bunch of bull.


    Okay okay, there was this one diet I did (back in like 2009) called the Every Other Day Diet that produced a serious caloric deficit I'm sure. But it was built around this ineffective leptin reset (though they didn't use that term) mechanism of having "cheat" meals every other day (hence the name). I don't think I got over 2000 calories avg even with the cheat meals. So on non-cheat days you would "SNAPP:"


    -Shake (usually a ton of fruit and some whey)


    -Nuts (about 12 almonds/walnuts)


    -Apples (3 or as many as you could eat up to 3)


    -Protein (fist-sized Chicken Breast—gross)


    -Produce (celery and a tbsp of ranch dressing before bed)


     


    Yeah, it was awful. I had no concept of what to eat back then. But I did lose 10 lbs. off the bat, and then within about a week of leveling off (down to about 185), I started gaining back, still strictly adhering to the diet. It was probably all the fructose making me insulin resistant.


    I have also heard accounts of people eating only a pack of M&M's a day and still gaining weight. It's insulin resistance. Just from a random google, here's some poor soul complaining on caloriecount.com. Seems to be happening to a lot of misguided individuals who mean well but just need to start eating moar butter




  • Hmmm, now that I think about it, I wasn't really tracking calories. 


     


    Yeah, it was awful. I had no concept of what to eat back then. 



    I have also heard accounts of  




     


    So, probably at least half of your posts have been about exposing how useless calorie-counting is for manipulating body composition because one time you starved yourself? And because you "heard accounts"? That's like smashing your hand with a hammer then going to the hardware store asking if they have any sharper nails, and trying weird tricks like soaking the board in mct oil, then going on forums claiming that hammers were designed by the illuminati to make people injure themselves. 

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    As far as I can tell your both trolling each other in some really bizarre way...




    I answered Modern Life Survivalist's question to Skeletor asking for examples of people who lie on the internet for personal gain. It went down this crazy conspiracy road, and now I have to point out the irrationality and lack of critical thinking that is going on by giving accurate quotes (and video clips of the person actually saying it himself) since I don't want to put a biased interpretation over what [insert public figure here] has said. 


     


    At this point I am completely fascinated with learning my political position and my motivations from someone else. Looks like we have a genuine mind-reader! I am not responsible for anything you see in my head, read my mind at your own risk!


     


     




    I just flatly disagree with your interpretation of the statement. It was a gaff, tipping his hand at what he really feels. The common (meme) interpretation of it is absolutely correct, and unfortunately for you, your contextual spin is not going to fly with the true researchers. 




    I choose not to "interpret" Obama's statement. I let it stand on it's own merit, and the only contextual "spin" I provided is a clip of Obama actually saying the words himself. Nothing he said was anywhere close to "I want to take American's air conditioners and cars away." He also only has a few months left as president to take them from us, he better get busy!


     


     




    Man, you just prove to whom your allegiances lie with every single sycophantic (towards the CFR) post you put up. Let me ask you something: What is the population right now, sparefilms?




    When have I posted anything about the Code of Federal Regulations, and why would I have an allegiance to them? 


     


    Global population is at 7,434,473,278 as of 1:23PM. It increases by the second, so follow the link below for a more accurate number:


    http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/


     


     


     


    On topic: I think there is some conflation going on with the whole "counting calories" thing. Focusing solely on counting calories is not a great idea. Focusing solely on types of food while ignoring calories may work, but is ignoring a fairly large set of variables. Doing both would be best. Why purposefully ignore useful data? There should be some subtlety in the method. Counting calories may even be detrimental to obsessive personality types who focus on the counting rather than the bigger picture, absolutely. It seems like Jason has a method down that he uses successfully with hundreds (er..thousands? lots) of people. I'm an advocate for systems that work and have hard evidence backing them up far more than anecdotal accounts of people on diet websites, but burying a thread because the information is wrong or anecdotal is a horrible idea. It is much better to keep such a thread (or a thread with a wild pseudo-scientific or conspiratorial idea) visible with corrections, verified by data, for everyone to see. That way people can have accurate information and can clearly see the missteps so they avoid making those mistakes in the future.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Those are the good aspects of calorie counting, you just have to know what you are doing as most people don't, just the fact that you said you tried very low calorie and lots of exercise means exactly that you don't know how to use the information.  If a very tall person like Dave for instance decides to eat 1600 calories he is already eating a very large deficit even before any exercise, add exercise to the mix and you're going to have big problems, he just didn't have the slightest clue what he was doing, more calories is what he needed.  You need to find out roughly what your caloric expenditure is on rest and active days, and find caloric intake that creates the deficit level that works best for you without causing a stress response, or a maintenance level, or a surplus level, depending on what your goals are.  As you can see in the following example every time my deficit gets too small or too large weight ticks upward, the perfect spot is between 400 and 750 deficit from expenditure, it's custom taylored dieting! and dieting all the time is not a good idea, just for short periods.


     


    attachicon.gifIMG_0182.PNG




     


    Cool. I do agree with you in some aspects, Jason, but I'm trying to cater to the lowest common denominator who has struggled for years, and I simply think the right approach for most people (not all, because some really like math), is to just tell them to eat this, not that. Maybe I'm just trying to help people like myself, and you're better for these brainwashed, methodical types. But I really think your approach is best for performance.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    So, probably at least half of your posts have been about exposing how useless calorie-counting is for manipulating body composition because one time you starved yourself? And because you "heard accounts"? That's like smashing your hand with a hammer then going to the hardware store asking if they have any sharper nails, and trying weird tricks like soaking the board in mct oil, then going on forums claiming that hammers were designed by the illuminati to make people injure themselves. 




    Come on now, ouch.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    I answered Modern Life Survivalist's question to Skeletor asking for examples of people who lie on the internet for personal gain. It went down this crazy conspiracy road, and now I have to point out the irrationality and lack of critical thinking that is going on by giving accurate quotes (and video clips of the person actually saying it himself) since I don't want to put a biased interpretation over what [insert public figure here] has said. 


     


    At this point I am completely fascinated with learning my political position and my motivations from someone else. Looks like we have a genuine mind-reader! I am not responsible for anything you see in my head, read my mind at your own risk!


     


     


    I choose not to "interpret" Obama's statement. I let it stand on it's own merit, and the only contextual "spin" I provided is a clip of Obama actually saying the words himself. Nothing he said was anywhere close to "I want to take American's air conditioners and cars away." He also only has a few months left as president to take them from us, he better get busy!


     


     


    When have I posted anything about the Code of Federal Regulations, and why would I have an allegiance to them? 


     


    Global population is at 7,434,473,278 as of 1:23PM. It increases by the second, so follow the link below for a more accurate number:


    http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/


     


     


     


    On topic: I think there is some conflation going on with the whole "counting calories" thing. Focusing solely on counting calories is not a great idea. Focusing solely on types of food while ignoring calories may work, but is ignoring a fairly large set of variables. Doing both would be best. Why purposefully ignore useful data? There should be some subtlety in the method. Counting calories may even be detrimental to obsessive personality types who focus on the counting rather than the bigger picture, absolutely. It seems like Jason has a method down that he uses successfully with hundreds (er..thousands? lots) of people. I'm an advocate for systems that work and have hard evidence backing them up far more than anecdotal accounts of people on diet websites, but burying a thread because the information is wrong or anecdotal is a horrible idea. It is much better to keep such a thread (or a thread with a wild pseudo-scientific or conspiratorial idea) visible with corrections, verified by data, for everyone to see. That way people can have accurate information and can clearly see the missteps so they avoid making those mistakes in the future.




     


    Council on Foreign Relations, bruh.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭

    The thread started with actual scientific data that came to light recently showing that calorie-counting was not effective. You could also take a gander at the Biggest Loser study to see how cardio paired with calorie-counting speaks for itself. So when you say I'm just going on personal experience, you're lying through your teeth. Again, this thread was based on a study that recently was published. Please review for yourself. Thought it might provide you with some info that matched my opinions. I won't address him directly this time because of his dismissive and frankly rude last comment, but in response to the hammer smashing allegory: When Bull of Heaven politely requested I provide the reason behind my "agenda," I was just explaining that I had personally been hurt by and observed a ton of people who'd also had poor success with cardio/calorie-counting. Why is that a bad motive? That's a great motive!


     


    Observation is the most important part of science. You notice connections through casual observation. WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS OR NOT CARE ABOUT IT? WHY CAN'T I THINK?


    "I am not allowed to think." -John Linnel, They Might Be Giants 


  • in·flex·i·ble


    inˈfleksəb(ə)l/


    adjective

     



    1. 1.



      unwilling to change or compromise.

      "once she had made up her mind, she was inflexible"






     


     


    There are two ways to approach life (and nutrition):


     


    1) An inflexible mindset based on a belief that your way is the best and only way.


     


    2) A flexible mindset which allows a person to better explore as many options as possible.


     


    Choose one. 


     


     


    With that out of the way, what is the cost for any person anywhere in the world to track calories in/calories out? Nothing.


     


    How inconvenient is it to track for a week? As compared to what, getting shot at in a foreign land, sleeping on the street, not owning shoes, stuck in jail for a crime you didn't commit?


     


    What can be learned by tracking CICO for a week? A lot more than never tracking CICO.


     


    How often do you have to track CICO to learn more about yourself? Once in your life. Or once a year. Or once a month.


     


    What's stopping a person from tracking CICO?


     


     


    Tracking CICO for a week doesn't make you stupider, it doesn't make you a traitor, it doesn't change whether you like hats or not. It's free, easy, informative and can be used to further your progress in life... 


  • yeah, that comment came off as a little rude maybe, but it still makes sense doesn't it? my point is that you've been spending all this energy denouncing something that has been proven time and again to be the most effective tool for the job when used properly. 


     


    have you ever checked out the intermittent fasting group on facebook? its got a pretty large amount of people, they share anything and everything having to do with IFing. just about everyday people are posting before/after photos showing how well it works for them. anytime someone is confused as to why it isn't working for them everyone is like "wtf? aren't you counting calories?!", because they know that it isn't the magic of meal timing, it's that its a convenient way to create a deficit. That's what every successful weight loss hack is, another way of creating a deficit. 


  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    This. Order of operations from greatest to least magnitude impact on body composition: calories>macros>timing>constituents>supplements and it is bracketed by consistency, so far this order can not and has not been reordered.  You can have the perfect macro split but if the cals are wrong there's no point, you can have the perfect meal timing but if the cals and macros are out to lunch good luck, you can have the most perfect pristine foods from the holy grail of clean eating but if your timing, macros, and cals are bad then eat your sad face meal with no results, you can have the latest hot trend in supplements but it will have 0 effect if your type, timing, macros, and cals are shit.  




    Do you have a link to anything like an outline of the protocol you work with? Maybe previous threads from somewhere on the Bulletproof (ha!) forum? It'd be great to see it written out, or even as an infographic. Maybe a PDF infographic with hyperlinks to more in-depth articles, that would be rad.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited July 2016


    With that out of the way, what is the cost for any person anywhere in the world to track calories in/calories out? Nothing.




     


    Wrong wrong wrong. So many things wrong with this. First and foremost, it is a waste of time, and it causes people great obsession, neurosis, and most importantly soul-crushing disappointment when it inevitably fails as a weight-loss method. If not the first, then the second or third time it fails for an everyday fat guy/girl, its ineffectiveness often will eventually lead to binging and relinquishing all dietary intervention whatsoever. Or—OR—oh willfully blind ones, we have people giving up eating altogether or severely reducing calories.


     


    Gaining weight and becoming morbidly obese to the point of not being able to get out of bed/off the couch makes one quite inflexible.


     


    in·flex·i·ble

    inˈfleksəb(ə)l/

    adjective


    2.

    not able to be bent; stiff.

    "the heavy inflexible armor of the beetles"

    synonyms: rigid, stiff, unyielding, unbending, unbendable; More

     


     


    Could someone who actually understands and adheres to the Bulletproof mentality please come and provide some sense? I am sick of the same naysayers always showing up. I feel like I'm talking to the same wall and it just shouts the same things back at me. Would this be called an Echo Chamber? Maybe it's the opposite?


  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Could someone who actually understands and adheres to the Bulletproof mentality please come and provide some sense?




    Just want to note that most of the people in this thread who are arguing in support of CICO were once bulletproof diehards who-- through experience and research-- learned how things actually work. Even if, somehow, they're all dead wrong, at least we have massive post histories to look at to prove how they're open to new ideas and allow their opinions to evolve based on new information/perspectives. That's healthy, not at all dogmatic.


     


    The same cannot be said for you, MLS.


     


    Anyhow, this thread is a dumpster fire. We should just let it die.


    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • Dave has said on multiple occasions that if you eat too much fat, you will gain weight.  When he did his experiment where he ate 4,500kcals/day, he gained weight, just not as much as he predicted.  The thought that you can eat an unlimited amount of kcals and not gain weight goes against the laws of thermal dynamics.


     


    Counting calories and ignoring everything else is probably not the best metric.  If you determine that you burn 2,200 kcals per day and eat 550g of skittles, you are going to get a different result than if you eat 550g of egg whites, or 245g of mayonnaise.  I don't think anyone here would argue against that.  Consuming simple carbohydrates and protein immediately following a workout is going to have a much different result than if you ate the same thing before bed.  Also, polyunsaturated fats have less energy than saturated fats, sleep values, mineral content, micronutrients, and so on.  But, if you were going to prioritize all of these factors to facilitate the type of performance/body composition that you want, which of these should you pay attention to?  All of them.  Which ones are the most important, and which ones can you fudge on?  You'll never know until you track it.


     


    C'mon.  Track your data.  Biohacking is as entertaining as it is useful.  Do it.

  • sparefilmssparefilms Post-human Construct ✭✭✭


    Anyhow, this thread is a dumpster fire. We should just let it die.




    I blame you and your PBS video clips Skeletor. Enabler, that's what you are!

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    yeah, that comment came off as a little rude maybe, but it still makes sense doesn't it? my point is that you've been spending all this energy denouncing something that has been proven time and again to be the most effective tool for the job when used properly. 


     


    have you ever checked out the intermittent fasting group on facebook? its got a pretty large amount of people, they share anything and everything having to do with IFing. just about everyday people are posting before/after photos showing how well it works for them. anytime someone is confused as to why it isn't working for them everyone is like "wtf? aren't you counting calories?!", because they know that it isn't the magic of meal timing, it's that its a convenient way to create a deficit. That's what every successful weight loss hack is, another way of creating a deficit. 




     


    IFing isn't about starving yourself creatively. It's about creating a hormonal response that leads to more efficient use of nutrients that you take in. It's also about giving the gut a break from food, strategically starving the bacteria for a bit. It's about the fact that humans generally hunt/gather on an empty stomach. We don't need to bring ink and paper or apps into this.


    Forget about calories when it comes to weight loss, please, unless you're just curious or you're trying to eat an excessive caloric diet to gain muscle and get in shape by remaking your body composition.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited July 2016


    Dave has said on multiple occasions that if you eat too much fat, you will gain weight.  When he did his experiment where he ate 4,500kcals/day, he gained weight, just not as much as he predicted.  The thought that you can eat an unlimited amount of kcals and not gain weight goes against the laws of thermal dynamics.


     


    Counting calories and ignoring everything else is probably not the best metric.  If you determine that you burn 2,200 kcals per day and eat 550g of skittles, you are going to get a different result than if you eat 550g of egg whites, or 245g of mayonnaise.  I don't think anyone here would argue against that.  Consuming simple carbohydrates and protein immediately following a workout is going to have a much different result than if you ate the same thing before bed.  Also, polyunsaturated fats have less energy than saturated fats, sleep values, mineral content, micronutrients, and so on.  But, if you were going to prioritize all of these factors to facilitate the type of performance/body composition that you want, which of these should you pay attention to?  All of them.  Which ones are the most important, and which ones can you fudge on?  You'll never know until you track it.


     


    C'mon.  Track your data.  Biohacking is as entertaining as it is useful.  Do it.




     


    We're not really debating whether it's fun or helpful for advanced cases. I'm simply trying to get people to admit that it's simpler to lose/control weight by eating as much as you want of the right things. You can lose weight by doing this


     


    Dude, I have a lot more things to worry about than tracking data. I don't even work out anymore. I have an 8-month-old, a raging case of multiple chemical sensitivity, and I'm currently battling moisture and mold in the basement. I'm constantly on the brink of having to sleep outside. I also have to make money—I guess I'm wasting my time talking to this brick wall of a forum.


     


    All this stress, and I'm not gaining/losing weight, because I have my diet down to a science:


    -No carbs first meal (mostly coffee and butter and a fat/protein shake)


    -burger, veggie, lots of butter/olive oil, and a starchy veggie for lunch, avocado if I can hunt one down


    -various handfuls of nuts (until I get bored of them)


    -veggie with tons of butter (or a salad with tons of olive oil and egg), avocado again if I can find one, as much sweet potato/rice as I can stand, with equal parts of matching butter in every bite


    -all meats all day are cooked in liberal quantities of tallow. 2 or 3 slices of bacon is added to meat on a regular basis. Big pieces of sausage or 3 hot dogs often substituted for burgers.


     


    Some mornings I don't do the shake, some I do. The amount of everything varies all the time, probably within a spread of 1000 calories per day (so don't try to calculate using estimates). I just eat until I'm satisfied, and life is great (at least on the food side of things). It's a great feeling just eating when you're hungry and not thinking about how much you ate and how much you want to eat later based on what you ate before. Just going on hunger is so freeing. I know you're all cringing right now ("ewwwwww")


    The eat less, workout more mentality is at least partially to blame for what got me in these waters of chronic inflammation. The last thing I would do is add anything resembling that lifestyle back into my already difficult life. My care-free diet is one of the only things I can count on (and even that's annoying because of the food allergies I have to avoid), but QUANTITY is something I'll never think about again (unless I"m hungry and need some more).


  • RekaReka ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016

    For that link at Davis's blog: it is obvious that water moves along with carbs, when he reduced them he lost a ton of water, and when he increased them he regained it. So what? What does that few pounds of water weight prove? He loaded up on water by eating high sugar, no wonder he lost so much when he cut it... What else does this prove than what people already know: that cutting carbs is a very efficient way to lose water weight?


     


    My other point is that is it really more freeing to count every tiny macro and micronutrient, look for the tiniest traces of mould, gluten, FOS, GMO and all the other things people obsess about here, I could continue with the list endlessly, then track sleep, HRV, put a great effort into sourcing supplements, different forms of magnesium, folate, PQQ, I could go on with the list for chapters... Please. Track all this, practically more than a human being can keep in their mind, but do not track calories, is this the way to freedom?


    Either way, whichever works for you, I gained fat on eating clean BP high fat low carb, and the only reason I can think for that was the increase in calories. Whenever I pay attention to how much I eat, my body composition improves, and to reach that, I mostly have to cut my fat intake, which is the hardest part, after getting used to eating too much of it... I know this forum is not the place to advocate for that approach, but too many people come here frustrated with how their body composition goes.


    If someone is completely sedentary and has been eating tons of carbs, of course, this helps them lose fat. Just consider, if someone ate junk food, how much fat that contains? It's not just carbs that they cut but also a ton of fat and calories.


    Either way, if it works for you, great. 


    It doesn't get easier... It's you who gets better.

     

    Is your social worker in that horse?

     

    Success has a price, not a secret.

  • Back off topic! Now I'm going to act like a star-struck idiot for a second! That's supercool man! Thanks for sharing. Could you introduce me? (I know, doesn't make sense).


    Had to make sure this topic actually got moved to the Banter section. :wink:

    I don't actually know Alex Jones. It was a chance encounter in Austin after a Joe Rogan show. :smile:
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    For that link at Davis's blog: it is obvious that water moves along with carbs, when he reduced them he lost a ton of water, and when he increased them he regained it. So what? What does that few pounds of water weight prove? He loaded up on water by eating high sugar, no wonder he lost so much when he cut it... What else does this prove than what people already know: that cutting carbs is a very efficient way to lose water weight?


     


    My other point is that is it really more freeing to count every tiny macro and micronutrient, look for the tiniest traces of mould, gluten, FOS, GMO and all the other things people obsess about here, I could continue with the list endlessly, then track sleep, HRV, put a great effort into sourcing supplements, different forms of magnesium, folate, PQQ, I could go on with the list for chapters... Please. Track all this, practically more than a human being can keep in their mind, but do not track calories, is this the way to freedom?


    Either way, whichever works for you, I gained fat on eating clean BP high fat low carb, and the only reason I can think for that was the increase in calories. Whenever I pay attention to how much I eat, my body composition improves, and to reach that, I mostly have to cut my fat intake, which is the hardest part, after getting used to eating too much of it... I know this forum is not the place to advocate for that approach, but too many people come here frustrated with how their body composition goes.


    If someone is completely sedentary and has been eating tons of carbs, of course, this helps them lose fat. Just consider, if someone ate junk food, how much fat that contains? It's not just carbs that they cut but also a ton of fat and calories.


    Either way, if it works for you, great. 




     


    Ketogenic diets are known to make you specifically lose FAT and improve body composition. No, it is not water and muscle that gets lost, like Jason Miller is claiming. It is specifically geared towards and effective for loss of fat. 


     


    Here is Dave's article about ketosis. It says nothing about water weight. Those on this forum who are saying that low-carb diets make you lose only water weight are either terribly misinformed, or they are lying through their teeth. 


    Reka, if you gained weight on high-fat, low carb, you probably ate too low carb for too long and became insulin resistant. This is a known effect. The BP diet addresses this and has built-in parameters to avoid this problem. Did you make sure you got your carb refeeds in?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited July 2016

    A great excerpt from that article, in Dave's own words:


     


    "Why Calorie Counting Is So Ineffective


    One of the reasons old-fashioned, calorie-restricted diets tend to fail is because these diets make you really hungry and cause food cravings.

    Cutting calories to lose excess weight changes your hormones that control hunger and satiety so that after you starve yourself enough to lose some weight, your brain and gut start making your hormones work against you.[1],[2]

    Your hormones scream, “eat more and gain that weight back!” So you do. And so begins a lifetime of yo-yo dieting, the one I used to live.

    But it doesn’t have to go that way for you.

    As tons of Bulletproof success stories have shown, it’s actually easy to lose weight, regain normal hormone levels and control your appetite through Bulletproof Dieting. If you eat the higher amount of healthy fats recommended on the Bulletproof Diet, get your carbs mostly from nutrient-rich vegetables, and use Bulletproof Intermittent Fasting, then you’ll be doing your hunger-and-weight-control system a favor by dipping often into the fat-burning state of ketosis.

    Studies consistently show that when you combine ketosis with a low-calorie diet, you will likely experience an increase in appetite in the first days of your diet, and then a decrease in appetite and a return to normal appetite control in just a few days but you have to achieve ketosis for it to work.[3]

    Or, you can skip the whole calorie-restriction, hungry-all-the-time thing, and just use ketosis to its full advantage without making yourself hungry."


     


    I hate to say it, but I don't understand why you hang out on the Bulletproof forum and give advice, if you don't believe in and follow the advice of its curator.


  • Jason HooperJason Hooper ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016

    Look at Jason's post count.  That's 6,700+ reasons why.  


     




     


    I hate to say it, but I don't understand why you hang out on the Bulletproof forum and give advice, if you don't believe in and follow the advice of its curator.




     


    It's not that the higher carb eaters on this forum don't believe the stuff Dave says, it's just that they have different goals and objectives.  They have modified the diet to fit their needs instead of taking a one size fits all approach.  I don't see anything wrong with that, and I know Dave wouldn't either because Bulletproof is "The state of high performance" and teaches you to be mindful and aware of the choices you make and how it affects your outcome.


     


    Dave does not recommend low carb for everyone and has stated time and time again that athletes and active people need to eat more carbs.  Look, Jason eats a lot of carbs, but guess what?  He burns them.  I bet you a thousand dollars that if you monitored his beta-hydroxybutyrate throughout the day, his values would be a lot higher than most people on a "ketogenic" diet who are largely sedentary.


  • drumminangoleirodrumminangoleiro ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    One of the reasons old-fashioned, calorie-restricted diets tend to fail is because these diets make you really hungry and cause food cravings.

    Your hormones scream, “eat more and gain that weight back!” So you do. And so begins a lifetime of yo-yo dieting, the one I used to live.



     


    I think part of losing fat almost always means experiencing some hunger. I don't think a little bit of hunger is the psychological crisis that Dave makes it out to be for most people. The times when i've intentionally put myself at a small deficit, the hunger didn't bother me at all, it was almost kind of energizing at times (like ketosis?). And if you track and plan your intake you don't have to worry about gaining it all back. 


     


     


     


    As tons of Bulletproof success stories have shown, it’s actually easy to lose weight, regain normal hormone levels and control your appetite through Bulletproof Dieting.

     


    Tons of bulletproof success stories? I've frequented this forum for over 3 years and i think i can count on one hand the amount of people who have come here posting their "success stories". I didn't think much about that until i saw that places like the IFing group on facebook where people post before/after photos regularly, and all of these people attribute it to a caloric deficit. I think this is like when Scientology started claiming to have millions of followers. Meanwhile, just about every newcomer who posts here is like "i'm trying all of dave's weird tricks and it's not working!". 


     


     


     


    Studies consistently show that when you combine ketosis with a low-calorie diet,

     


    Wait, what? a low-calorie diet? But, if ketosis is the secret then why would calories matter?! Wait, are we talking about fat loss here? No mention of that actually...


     


     


     


    Or, you can skip the whole calorie-restriction, hungry-all-the-time thing, and just use ketosis to its full advantage without making yourself hungry."

     


    Oh. So it's all about hunger manipulation, not fat loss or maintenance or building of lean mass. This is for people who have psychological issues surrounding food. Or maybe Dave thinks everybody is aspiring to look like this? 


     


    jimmy+block+of+butter.png


     


     


     


    I hate to say it, but I don't understand why you hang out on the Bulletproof forum and give advice, if you don't believe in and follow the advice of its curator.

     


    I think everyone here is consciously trying to find ways to dial in our best health, physical/mental performance, longevity, lifestyle etc. for ourselves and others. Most of us have more of a science-based approach of experimenting and dialing in what works for us rather than a faith-based approach of looking to an authority to tell us like it is. We look to experts, studies, and other high performers for ideas but personal experience is the ultimate deciding factor. I keep coming back because there's occasionally interesting posts from folks who are on this same path, and having followed this stuff for a long time it's a good place to share my own experiences. It's more of a horizontal community than a pyramid structure with Dave at the top. And of course, what better place to call Dave out on his BS than on his own forum, that he still refers his listeners to even though we contradict most of his dogma? 

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Dave does not recommend low carb for everyone and has stated time and time again that athletes and active people need to eat more carbs.  Look, Jason eats a lot of carbs, but guess what?  He burns them.  I bet you a thousand dollars that if you monitored his beta-hydroxybutyrate throughout the day, his values would be a lot higher than most people on a "ketogenic" diet who are largely sedentary.




    Again, again, again—I am talking about for weight loss in the average person. Not for performance. Tired of repeating myself.

Sign In or Register to comment.