Quote:
Originally posted by Mila
the main differences between the plan(s) you are on and the fat flush is that the fat flush is not a ketogenic diet and that the fat flush targets nearly all hormones at once, not just insulin.
.....
there is no 40:30:30 ratio to pursue on this diet, although Gittleman mentions once in her book that by the end of the day the breakdown of the macronutrients will be approximately that.
|
Ummm, this is more like a marketing slogan. Low-carb, "none-ketogenic" plans work in the same way, they just acheive a higher carbs percentage (to appear healthier for the masses) by lowering their calories.
The Zone seems to work, Montignac too, Schwarzbein, Protein Power, Atkins etc. They are all based on the simple low-carb idea. Each has it's own flavour to it, some tweaks here, extra supplements there, etc.. What works for you, and appear best suited for your taste, and livable for the rest of your life as maintenance, should work.
Some authors may denounce other LC plans for the sake of marketing. Dr Sears has a strong biochemical background, and uses it quite well. However, he made some compromises (possibly due to publishers recommendations) by making some un-scientific claims.
Example, he claims eating more protein cause muscle loss (very funny for athletes), and all high-protein low-carb plans represent water-loss (I lost 110 lbs of water
). While the good Dr. offer extensive references throughout his book, he fails to give a reference for this claim. Why? Because there isn't, or he'd add that.
Another claim (targeted to distinguish his plan from other LC plans) is that ketones are "abnormal", and the body has "no use for them", all are bogus claims, that he couldn't substantiate with any single reference to a scientific study. It also contradicts his claims that even bad eicosanoids have use, bad cholesterol (LDL) has use, but ketone have no use and are abnormal! Even LC critics couldn't go that far
No I'm not saying 40/30/30 is bad, or it won't work, I'm simply trying to point out the marketing ploys used to scare people from other LC plans. This leads none-critical readers to assume all these claims are true, and generates a zealousy towards 40/30/30 as the only LC way, and all others are unhealthy.
Quote:
|
so this gives about 40:30:30. then he reasons that the major spurt in human evolution happened when ....
|
All good and dandy. Same for all low-carb plans, they all use the hunter-gatherer argument to support their plan. And for the next to come low-carb plan, 50/30/20, or 34/33/33, that would be a valid argument as well.
Quote:
|
the terms fat flush and cleanse are pretty accurate, if you spend a week on that diet, you'll know why, lol. the "fat' in our bodies, Gittleman points out, is not only white fat, but 'false fat' as well. false fat is waterlogging, old crap in our intestines, and some other sources of excess of weight that we need not have. her diet 'melts' white fat because of the food choices and the way of eating, and gets rid of the 'false fat' because of it being lowsalt diet with gut cleansing and lymphatic system shaking measures recommended as well.
|
Sounds good, we all detest water retention, affectionately known as bloating.
Quote:
Wa'il, in terms of metabolism, 'fast' doesn't always mean 'better' in terms of bodyfat loss.
|
That's exactly my point. I'd even say it's worst. Didn't Dr. Sears say in "Enter the Zone" that you cannot lose more than 1.5 lbs of fat per week?
With plans claiming faster rates, through low-calories, you are losing more than fat, you lose muscles. So you might drop from 200 to 150, yet remain at 40% body fat, if you lose your muscles.
Again, this is not denounciation of the Zone or Fat Flush, just pointing out some issues that fuels diet wars due to marketing, unfortunately LC authors are getting into it as well, and their marketing efforts may mislead the average reader who just wants the facts.
Wa'il