Some of you may find this an interesting read




https://www.spectator.co.uk/article...-to-try-instead

Their answer is " diet breaks".

Is this another word for "cycling".

1. If calories are restricted, the BMR will decrease to accommodate. = Stall

2. Fast weight loss = fast rebound

"High fat" diet, slow loss of adipose, and fasting (IF and 24-36hr) ,circumvents these issues.

A benefit of slow loss is the skin can try to snap back into place. And fasting is helpful, too, over a very long time.


I'm hesitant to say eating carbs is safe for a carbaholic. Cause I know they ain't. That's like, hey, an alcoholic can have just one. Oh, h e l l nooooooooooooo. I'm off Atkins months at a time due to those hiccups. One bite, and I'm hooked.

Maybe others can have a good outcome on this. I'm sceptical it working well long term.

I went on a ketogenic diet decades ago. Lost 40 pounds the first year, over 20 pounds more after that, and never gained it back.

Contrary to that article, it took will power.

No thank you, became important when someone offered that doughnut, cake, pie, or serving of rice, potato, bread and other former foods.

Personally I think it's the diet you choose, how it works with your personal system, and how faithful you are sticking to it.

I tried a few different diets that didn't work for me before I found keto (It was Atkins Introduction or Ketogenic back then). This one works, and I'm very heathy for my age, so as long as it works and keeps me in good health, I'm sticking to this diet.

With time it got a lot easier to say, "No thank you" and if they insist, I say, "Doctor's Orders", that ends it. (They don't have to know it's Dr. Atkins)

Bob

Hmmmm. There's that ugly word "diet" again. As Dr. Atkins was fond of saying, a "diet" is something you "go on" temporarily and then abandon when you get to what you consider your goal weight.

I don't consider a low-carb way of eating restrictive anymore. Perhaps I'd use the word "selective." There are certain foods I don't eat anymore. Note "don't" eat, not "can't" eat. I've learned over time not to think of being selective as being deprived. However, that isn't exactly easy or even natural.

When I let my habitual low-carb pattern slip by even small increments over time (for various reasons) I regain weight. Not quickly, because I don't dive headfirst into tubs of ice cream. But inevitably. Failing to monitor and restrict carbohydrates causes fat accumulation on me.

That's it in a nutshell.

There are all kinds of health conditions that must be managed with a selective diet: diabetes, gluten sensitivity, certain allergies, alcoholism if you will, and for some, addiction to sugar. My condition: hereditary tendency towards fat accumulation. A "normal diet" for me is the one that acknowledges and acts on that fact.

I think that's an excellent way of putting it.

Simply not impressed by the article with so many problematical statements in it.

Like here, where it starts strong, and then runs into a ditch:



For many, carbs, fruit and dairy are problems. While I get along with dairy and selected fruits, not everyone does. And "carbs" are not nutritious: the wrapper might be.



Those recommended portions are marketing campaigns.



There we go again with the exercise! It's good for us. It has nothing to do with our weight, though.

And it ends with:



He's selling diet breaks. Which explains the contradictions. If diet cycling puts on the pounds, who will get the blame?

I've done this for years! I'm currently doing a carnivore approach and when in restaurants I always say that for medical reasons I can't have fiber, grains, or sugar. They accept that and don't question it.

Great attitude!

I've always been a picky eater, so not eating a certain food doesn't bother me.

For things like ice cream, bread, cookies, there are keto substituted that admittedly aren't as great tasting as their namesakes, but good enough considering I'm watching my health. I don't eat them all the time, but occasionally it's nice to have a basic comfort food treat.

BTW, I found a good macaroni substitute at Netririon. (Great Low Carb Pasta 7g carbs). Once in a great while I'll have that for half my carbs for the day. Brought up in an Italian/American family, it's good to do that, even if it's rarely.

I can eat keto, enjoy a lot of foods that weren't available for keto people years ago, and my DW (also keto) has collected a number of good recipes. Aldi has good hamburger buns and OK bread, it's easier to find almond flour in normal grocery stores now, even erythritol, and other LC ingredients.

I weigh myself every morning, and watch for trends. I know if I eat bacon I'll gain a pound and lose it the next day (I guess water weight due to the salt). That doesn't bother me. But if I am gaining continuously, I know I must be doing something wrong and analyze/correct.

I do go off my diet on my annual vacation. If I'm in a foreign country, I want to taste what the locals eat. I try for small portions, and am selective on what I try.

Yes, I gain, but when I get back home, I lose it quickly. I don't know if that would work for anyone else, but it works for me.

My ketogenic diet/plan/WOE or whatever you want to call it works for me. I'm the only person in my family under 300 pounds (and at one time I was headed there myself).

If calling it anything other than a diet works for you, by all means do that. To me I don't care what I call it, I'm looking for results.

Bob

I don't care what words people use, I care about what they mean when they use them.

Sounds to me like this guy is just pushing yet another diet book and looking to justify his schtick.

Statements like "studies show..." are meaningless and often used as a way to prevent disagreement by making the reader feel like it is their responsibility to disprove the claim. But it isn't. It's the author's responsibility to back up their claim. If they can't, then they are probably selling snake oil.

Well said. There is nothing worth paying attention to in this article. It offers proof of nothing.