Thermodynamics? Not really...

52 PAGES
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 next ... last
previous topic · next topic
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 19:01
Thermodynamics does not describe the human metabolism.

[Note: This post is a bit harsh. I know a lot of people 'believe' in thermodynamics so I've edited the post to substantially tone it down out of deference to civility. The original post in all its glory is at the link below. I've noted where I've cut something with [snip] and I had to add {you don't} in one spot so the sentence would make sense. Otherwise, there are no changes to the original text. The image is the post that generated this person's response.]

http://thisisthinprivilege.tumblr.com/post/31058807326/fat-haters-thermodynamics-a-troll-ask

[begin quote without italics]

[end of quote]


[begin edited quote without italics]
I’m a physicist, and you’re [snip] wrong. Sorry. The metabolism is a complex system with many variables. Efficiency of the system varies not only from person to person, but throughout someone’s life. That’s the second law of thermodynamics, the one that governs chemical reactions. You’re hung up on the first law, which is just a conservation law (bookkeeping).

Humans aren’t lawnmowers. [snip] Do you really think a teenager has the same metabolic efficiency and rate as a 70 year-old man? A pregnant person as a non-pregnant person? Someone with a healing wound as someone whose body is enduring the depths of famine (or is dieting)?

The metabolism isn’t perfectly understood, [snip], and even by researchers. There are theories out there about a bodyweight setpoint around which a body fluctuates, but towards which a bodies tends, mostly programmed by genetics and partially by history and environment. This means the metabolism resists weight loss below a certain point, and it also resists weight GAIN above a certain point.

Also, fat people haven’t been shown to, in general, eat any differently than thinner people. Which mean’s they’re not consuming a giant amount of food to make their bodies bigger. And 95% of diets fail long-term, which means your little “it’s easy, eat less move more!” prescription doesn’t work, which, if you’re a scientist (please I hope you’re NOT), points to some kind of fatal flaw in your theory.

Here’s a list of resources compiled by Michelle at the Fat Nutritionist. Which you probably won’t read, if [snip] {you don't} understand how the laws of thermodynamics apply to chemical reactions and human metabolic systems. But my readers are sharp and reflective folks (not literally, freshman!), [snip].
[end of edited quote]
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,029

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 19:37
don't expect a reply from you know who.... he's been banned! Smile

I may not be a "Ward, or Scientific study" but i've proven that this theory doesn't work, for me anyway. It's what i eat, not how much that makes a difference to my weight.
I'm now eating almost 200 calories less than 6 months ago, (more salads, it's summer!) and haven't lost a lb.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 19:41
I saw that before I posted this but it is such a common club used by people I thought it was still an excellent topic to bring up.

Wait, I've got another quote from another site that is a lot less harsh so I can quote the original text (excerpted).

Smile
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 19:42
And I saw that Dr. Eades had responded to Copola's scathing post about the LC metabolic advantage too.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 19:42
Another explanation of why bumper sticker thermodynamics does not describe the human metabolism.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html

[begin quote without italics]
As is often the case when science is dummied down into soundbytes, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”

While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.

The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.

The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a checkbook, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.

Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.

In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.

Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.
[end of quote]
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,029

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 19:52
Great post. thanks.. I only hope a few others who preach this theory read it and at least keep an open mind and think about it.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 20:23
mummydee wrote:
Great post. thanks.. I only hope a few others who preach this theory read it and at least keep an open mind and think about it.


Most of them won't. But I posted it for people that can see that there is a disconnect between 'eat less move more' and reality in their own lives and the people around them.

The people that are the biggest proponents of eat less move more are the people that are successful with it. While the rest of us are scratching our heads trying to understand why it doesn't work for us.

With great sacrifice and constant agony it can work for most people, no doubt.

But, I think, most of the people it does work for really do not understand and have never experienced what we go through trying to follow that very straight forward and very simple way to be healthy. I mean, I'm sure they experience some level of discomfort but nothing like the rest of us.

Before LC (and wheat-free), since that is what worked for me, I literally could not control my appetite. I tried who knows how many times and failed completely. I gave up and just figured I was getting old and being fat was going to be just the way it was. In short, eat less move more simply did not work for me.

Smile
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 804

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 21:28
reddarin wrote:
Before LC (and wheat-free), since that is what worked for me, I literally could not control my appetite. I tried who knows how many times and failed completely. I gave up and just figured I was getting old and being fat was going to be just the way it was. In short, eat less move more simply did not work for me.

Smile


At the risk of becoming a new target, isn't this just a way of saying that a LC/wheat-free way of eating is merely how you've managed to control your appetite, hence creating a caloric deficit for weight loss? Maybe it wasn't the fact that the carby/wheat food was making you fat, it was that it was triggering cravings and overeating for you? I feel like that's a pretty good possibility. If you ate your LC/wheat-free foods, but ate 3000 calories of them each day, do you think you'd gain weight?


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
Create10

Joined: May 13
Posts: 5

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 22:19
I've lost 12 lbs on Atkins - eating an average of 800 to a 1000 more calories than I was previously eating. Just because a scientific theory has a big following and the appearance of airtight logic, doesn't make it accurate. Just ask Galileo.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 804

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 23:06
Create10 wrote:
I've lost 12 lbs on Atkins - eating an average of 800 to a 1000 more calories than I was previously eating. Just because a scientific theory has a big following and the appearance of airtight logic, doesn't make it accurate. Just ask Galileo.


Your diet calendar says that you are averaging around 2000 calories a day. So that means you were only eating 1000-1200 calories a day previously.. but you also said in other posts that you had just been "eyeballing" your calories and macronutrient counts, so I struggle to believe that you knew exactly what your daily intake was before you joined this site or started Atkins. So it's tough to really say that you're now eating that many more calories on Atkins.

You also said in a different post that you had "actually started adding weight back. In one day [you] found out that [you were] way too high on calories."

So you were too high on calories and you gained weight. You reduced the calories and lost weight because you then monitored your fat content as well..

Edited to add an afterthought:

In any case, I stand firmly in the belief that when someone finds something that works for them and is keeping them healthy, that's awesome, and they should keep it up and rock it out!

I just can't stand the back and forth arguments about what the one and only way of getting healthy is - some people run, some people go vegan, some people go LC, some people go with moderations, some are primal...... Whatever makes you happy and healthy, get after it!!


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 23:12
erika2633 wrote:
At the risk of becoming a new target, isn't this just a way of saying that a LC/wheat-free way of eating is merely how you've managed to control your appetite, hence creating a caloric deficit for weight loss? It wasn't the fact that the carby/wheat food was making you fat, it was that it was triggering cravings and overeating for you? I feel like that's a pretty good possibility. If you ate your LC/wheat-free foods, but ate 2500 calories of them each day, do you think you'd gain weight?


I'm wounded. Did you read the posts he was making? Have you seen me treat anyone but him like that? Even when I was making fun of him I still wasn't saying anything like the level of plain nasty vitriolic stuff he was saying to me and everyone that disagreed with him. Did you see what he was saying to those females?

Anyway. No worries.

Actually, as the two documents I posted point out it isn't about CICO. It is about the human metabolism being an open (not closed) complex system with a lot of variables that interact.

But, more importantly, neither document is about LC.

My reflection about my personal experience with eat less move more and LC was about the impossibility and possibility of each plan for me personally and for people like me that simply cannot make eat less move more work for all practical purposes.

I know that some people refuse to believe that there was an insulin response to food but it is not like that is a made up fantasy - it is real and every human has an insulin reaction to carbs. Every human. But some humans have an abnormal reaction to carbs. That is how diabetes comes about - insulin not responding to food (carbs in particular) the way it should. I happen to be one of those people that had insulin that didn't respond to carbs correctly although thank God I didn't develop diabetes.

Quote:
It wasn't the fact that the carby/wheat food was making you fat


Yeah, it was. Because it was keeping my insulin levels high I couldn't access the fat stored in my ample supply of fat. So I'd get hungry again after a couple of hours. And if I didn't eat I'd get a headache that would only get worse until I ate and if I went too long eating wouldn't make the headache subside which was terrible when it happened.

So, right there, at that point, is where the CICO ELMM folks would say 'You can do it!' and I should muscle through and I'd have lost weight. But for all practical purposes that was impossible for me and for anyone else with sufficient metabolic derangement.

Here is something very interesting. While I was fat I was a serious pest about getting time for lunch when I was at work. I was a real pita sometimes and I knew it. The thing was, I could not believe, could not imagine, that everyone else wasn't hungry the way I was at least a little. I really thought that anyone that acted disinterested was just acting that way out of machismo or even messing with me (for a dash of paranoia). Part of it was the fear of the headache I'd get if I didn't eat but the other part was genuine belief that I was normal lol.

Doug McGuff describes it in this video. The whole talk is very interesting if a bit crude at times. Needlessly and annoyingly so. Anyway. He starts talking about cellular metabolism at 1:08:30. The part where he describes my experience is right at 1:14:32.

This link should start at 1:14:32:
http://youtu.be/2PdJFbjWHEU?t=1h14m32s

The point is that LC actually returns insulin to normality, either quickly or over time, and keeps it there since the stimulate of carbs is greatly minimized. Fat does not produce an insulin response. Protein can be insulinogenic but usually you have to over eat protein for that to happen and it is nothing like carbs along those lines.

What that means is that in the absence of abnormal insulin levels body fat becomes available for use.

Was I eating at a deficit because with LC I could? Yes and no. I mean, I have for sure been at a deficit at times by any standard. On the other hand, for the last 14 days my average calories have been about 2350. I work out every other day but my workouts take about 25 minutes so ~75 minutes a week. I am otherwise very sedentary. Using the lightly active modifier with a BMR calculator my maintenance calories should be about 2450. But I lost 5 pounds during that two week period.

Using moderately active as the modifier the level goes up to 2750 for about a 400 calorie deficit. But I am not sure that 75 minutes of exercise a week while completely sedentary otherwise qualifies for moderately active.

Another thing and I am mostly an outlier in this regard even in the LC community, maybe especially in the LC community, I keep my calories up. I don't allow appetite suppression to set my calorie level. Typically I range from 2200 to 3000 calories a day. As I said, except for my every other day 25 minute workouts I am sedentary sitting around most of the time. Fat is usually 70%+ of my calories and protein is 20-30%. I keep my total carbs under 50g. I've been actively keeping my calories at 2000+ since February. [Before that but I spent about 3 months off plan while I failed to quit smoking but that is another story]. I log everything I eat.

Smile
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 23:22
By the way, Peter Atilla documented his metabolism's response to LC and his resting metabolism increased with LC. I'll check my browser history for the link if you'd like to see the video.

I'm inclined to think that is why I am able to stay relatively high calorie and still lose weight - I always maintain a deficit because of a higher resting metabolism despite my very sedentary lifestyle.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 804

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 23:24
reddarin wrote:
I'm wounded. Did you read the posts he was making? Have you seen me treat anyone but him like that? Even when I was making fun of him I still wasn't saying anything like the level of plain nasty vitriolic stuff he was saying to me and everyone that disagreed with him. Did you see what he was saying to those females?


That came across wrong - I had just been reading post after post on multiple threads all day about the LC battle.. I wasn't even touching all the rest of that stuff that went on - I didn't mean that you were targeting him as a bully, I was merely referring to the fact that I was going to potentially go against the pro-LC-is-the-only-way camp..... Sorry about that...

I am floored by the fact that you can eat 2200-3000 calories a day and be losing weight.. But then again, I don't know anything about you - I don't even know if you are a guy or a girl, or your age, or your height, etc... But I'm pretty much ready to go look at your diet calendar and copy your daily intake exactly, because that many calories would be great! Smile


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 804

      quote  
Posted: 09 Jul 2013, 23:26
reddarin wrote:
Typically I range from 2200 to 3000 calories a day. As I said, except for my every other day 25 minute workouts I am sedentary sitting around most of the time. Fat is usually 70%+ of my calories and protein is 20-30%. I keep my total carbs under 50g. I've been actively keeping my calories at 2000+ since February. [Before that but I spent about 3 months off plan while I failed to quit smoking but that is another story]. I log everything I eat.

Smile


Hey! Where's your diet calendar? I was all excited to go peek and nothing's there.. Sad


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 797

      quote  
Posted: 10 Jul 2013, 00:11
reddarin wrote:

Before LC (and wheat-free), since that is what worked for me, I literally could not control my appetite. I tried who knows how many times and failed completely. I gave up and just figured I was getting old and being fat was going to be just the way it was. In short, eat less move more simply did not work for me.

Smile


So, there we have it, low carb works for you because it helps with calorie restriction adherance, nothing more...

The numbers part of it IS simple, the journey can vary greatly in difficulty. Find your calorie maintenance through trial and error, eat less calories than your maintenance. Yes, our metabolisms vary(nowhere near as much as people seem to think however). Follow whichever method will give you the greatest likelihood of success. If certain foods make you eat uncontrollably avoid them. If a certain form of cardio is dreaded try to find one that you can maintain. In the end consistency is needed for long term success.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 10 Jul 2013, 00:12
erika2633 wrote:
That came across wrong - I had just been reading post after post on multiple threads all day about the LC battle.. I wasn't even touching all the rest of that stuff that went on - I didn't mean that you were targeting him as a bully, I was merely referring to the fact that I was going to potentially go against the pro-LC-is-the-only-way camp..... Sorry about that...

I am floored by the fact that you can eat 2200-3000 calories a day and be losing weight.. But then again, I don't know anything about you - I don't even know if you are a guy or a girl, or your age, or your height, etc... But I'm pretty much ready to go look at your diet calendar and copy your daily intake exactly, because that many calories would be great! Smile


Yeah, tensions are high for sure heh. No worries!

I'm not LC is the only way. I know it is the best way in all possible respects but I don't allow my passion for it demand that everyone else follow LC. I try hard to stay pragmatical about weight loss. I was so miserable when I was fat I wouldn't deny the joy of skinny to anyone over how they go about it except for going very low calorie which I think is dangerous. So I might brow beat someone about that Razz

Male, 6 foot tall, extremely sedentary, I work out for 25 minutes every other day, and I am 47 years old. I have been logging my food at FitDay since October 2011 but there are long gaps because I was stalled at 205 from late January 2012 till August 2012 when I started NK (Nutritional Ketosis).

When I first started NK I did keep my calories pretty low - around 1500. But in October I pushed them up to 2000 and generally kept them at least at that level ever since. The book I read to start NK was The Art & Science of Low Carbohydrate Living. It describes NK but it isn't a diet book so figuring out how to actually live NK was a learning process. I don't, and never have, tested blood ketones which is very, very popular with NK. I've never tested urine either because that is gawd awful gross and those stix are not very informative anyway.

At any rate, while trying to figure out how to be NK I also came to realize that the crucial issue to lose weight was not absolute calories but the relative caloric deficit. When I came to that conclusion in October I pushed my calories up and my trend down became fairly steady. It was counter-intuitive because I really am super duper sedentary and I've only started working out, modest as my routine is, in the last six to eight weeks. And at the time, on the forum I was on, everyone and their brother fervently believed that lowering calories was the answer to every question. Some people followed me. Some people thought I was dangerous lol. At all times I was very funny though Smile

I also came to realize that the popular way of allowing LC's appetite suppression set daily calorie levels was not a very sound decision. For one thing, I think the root of that thinking is based on CICO and, as you know, I know that not to be the case where humans are concerned. So it is a flawed strategy right out of the gate. Secondly, LC's appetite suppression is brought about by the quasi starvation mode that is trigger with greatly restricted carbs. So the other argument about 'listening to my body' also goes by the board because your body is not speaking the same language as you. I mean, sure, you'll get hungry at times even with really good appetite suppression from LC. But you won't get hungry often enough and that will let your calories drop too low. Then corisol rushes out to flood the system and mucks everything up. Your thyroid down regulates because of the low calories. It all cascades into you not losing weight. Thirdly, allowing your calories to drop to low sets you up to be caught out in the carby world and a sudden appetite blows your hard earned progress. Forthily, if you are careful to eat enough protein you will lose LBM even though LC is ordinarily the best way to preserve LBM. Fifthily, if you throw exercise on top of all of that other stuff, and my God that is pushed to no end by everyone but me and Cheryl, you further stress your already low calorie stressed body.

But I bet no one eating the well balanced way would ever consider eating 2200 to 3000 calories, with my age and activity level even being a man and expect to lose weight.

The thing is, and one of the reasons I am fearless about calories, Dr. Phinney said a male 5'8" typically burns about 2700 calories a day. Actually, he said a lot more than that. He said that in his clinical obesity practice an obese person normally burns 30kcal per kg of body weight and a moderately active adult at reference weight burns about 35kCal per kg a day. For me that is about 2900 calories at 184 (were I moderately active).

Interesting, no?

There are a couple of qualifiers to having calories that high but number one has to be no health issues. The next must is to carefully pay attention to what you are doing. I know exactly how much protein grams and total carb grams I eat every day. Another probably key qualifier is you'd need to have been on a consistent LC way of eating for some period of time so that your body becomes fat adapted (or keto-adapted).

But that is the complicated version. I do it because I love doing it. LC doesn't demand that level of detail unless you want to do that or need to do that same as any other way of eating.

Smile
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 10 Jul 2013, 00:19
Diablo360x wrote:
So, there we have it, low carb works for you because it helps with calorie restriction adherance, nothing more...


No, not really. LC works because it allows insulin levels to remain steady when they otherwise wouldn't.

LC did something else though that the well balanced eat less move more never could have done for me - allow me to actually control my appetite. It is hard to overstate how important that facet of LC is compared to what the mainstream proposes to be the answer to everything.

I've averaged 2600 calories the last 6 days and dropped 2 pounds.

/shrug
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 797

      quote  
Posted: 10 Jul 2013, 00:23
reddarin wrote:
Diablo360x wrote:
So, there we have it, low carb works for you because it helps with calorie restriction adherance, nothing more...


No, not really. LC works because it allows insulin levels to remain steady when they otherwise wouldn't.

LC did something else though that the well balanced eat less move more never could have done for me - allow me to actually control my appetite. It is hard to overstate how important that facet of LC is compared to what the mainstream proposes to be the answer to everything.

I've averaged 2600 calories the last 6 days and dropped 2 pounds.

/shrug


It helped with your individual appetite. Nothing more. Also, please reference a scientific peer reviewed study that shows that the glycemic index of foods matters when it comes to weight loss.

I averaged 2600 last month too and lost 3 lbs., what is your point? With 52% carbs as well including much ice cream, quarter pounders and the like.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 797

      quote  
Posted: 10 Jul 2013, 00:37
"Insulin helps regulate the storage of carbohydrate, fat, and protein in your body
A high carbohydrate diet does not inherently lead to chronically high insulin levels, if calorie intake doesn't exceed caloric expenditure
The body can store fat even when insulin isn't elevated
Insulin suppresses appetite
Protein can stimulate insulin just as much as carbohydrates
Insulin is one of the reasons why protein suppresses appetite"

"...fat will also suppress HSL even when insulin levels are low."

"Carbohydrates get a bad rap because of their effect on insulin, but protein stimulates insulin secretion as well."

"The fact is that protein is a potent stimulator of insulin secretion, and this insulin secretion is not related to changes in blood sugar or gluconeogenesis from the protein."

"Amino acids (the building blocks of protein) can directly stimulate your pancreas to produce insulin, without having to be converted to glucose first."

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
kingkeld

Joined: Sep 09
Posts: 1,995

      quote  
Posted: 10 Jul 2013, 03:51
I need to pitch in on this one.

I see that eating less and moving more works. In everyone. No exceptions. The article is right about the metabolism being different in a 17 year old boy and a 70 year old woman, for example. Surely they also get a different RDI if they were to lose weight. The reason they have a different RDI is because they burn different amounts of calories.
I currently teach 15 people to lose weight. They all lose weight. Fast. Efficiently. Guess how they do it? They count their calories, eat less, move more. I have a client with chron's disease, I have diabetics. I have menopausing ladies. I have young men. They all lose weight at pretty much the same pace. Even the one lady who can't get around to count her calories still have more focus on her food simply because she is going to the meetings, and she is still losing weight.

If anything, I will say that you can probably optimize your weight loss, if you choose to look at all the fine prints on your food intake. I see that in the clients I have who like to "nerd out" on weight loss. However, they only lose weight marginally faster than the rest.

To me, it's important to have a fun, relaxed and efficient weight loss journey. If you lose weight by simply eating less and moving more, then why go nuts on things that will ultimately just confuse and make things harder?

Just sayin'... Smile

Also, for the record, as I lost my 170 lbs, I did the math. I dropped about 1 lb for every 3500 calories I "saved". Give or take a few hundred. Mind blown. Smile

Visit my website: www.tabdig.info

"Losing weight is never about eating as little as possible"
- Kingkeld.
"You wouldn't worry so much about what others think of you if you realized how seldom they do.
― Eleanor Roosevelt
"Do. Or do not. There is no trying."
- Master Yoda.

I went from morbidly obese to being the owner of TABDIG - a weight loss coaching service that helps people worldwide losing weight. It's been an amazing journey. From October 4th 2010 to April 3rd 2012 I lost half my body weight - 80 kilos/170 lbs. Since then, I have had two cosmetic surgeries to remove excess skin. I have now quadrupled my strength, gained several kilos in muscle mass, and today I focus on building muscle, optimizing my diet, living healthy and helping people to reach the very same goals. I am stronger, healthier, thinner, happier! If you feel that you need help losing weight, don't hesitate to send me an inbox message.



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

Day 1 - My Low Carb Dietary Journey
I was quite apprehensive starting this diet full force today. I know that this is the right thing to do if I want to be healthy. I have spent a long time pondering when I will take the bold step and ...
by Princess Mola on 22 Jul 14 06:27 AM
Hello all
I made a bit of a mistake, I noticed I was getting very close to my carb limit as shown on my food diary, so I reduced the amount of broccoli to keep it at or under 20. I however noticed food diary isnt ...
by Andy1999 on 22 Jul 14 06:07 AM
Food Diary - show g instead of servings?
Hey there, today i wanted to print my Food Diary, unfortunately it shows servings instead of weight of the Items i've added via the app (in gram). Is there any possibility to change the unit? Thanks ...
by SparkOne on 22 Jul 14 04:31 AM
Can we change settings or see net carbs?
Hit MY FATSECRET top tool bar, over to the right will be MY TOOLBOX, under that MY SETTINGS, That where you choose the 6 settings to go into your food journal, including 'net carbs'. d
by mummydee on 21 Jul 14 10:31 PM
How to eat enough calories on a high protein high fat diet?
Avocados can push up your calories quite a bit as they pack in over 300 calories each. They are also quite filling. To increase your diet with some healthy fats, try adding coconut butter to your coffee. ...
by 2ManyCurves on 21 Jul 14 06:24 PM