
interesting. A colleague at work went on a wheat free diet, and the same happened to her.
I have found it very good, that little video. But there are lots of things in it when I said to myself 'well, that can be explained, possibly through evolution and such'. such as the distribution of fat between males and females. And carbs are well know for being bad for you, and wheat free diets tend to work. But if you go wheat (carb) free for too long, your body can reject them when you do eat them again. and when you try and do a carb free diet again, you body goes 'NO WAY!!!' and is harder to do so.
This colleague of mine was basiscally anorexic doing that, now she is overweight again, and finds it hard to shed the pounds long term.
My diet is very cal determined, but I also limit fats and carbs. But dont cut them out completely, believe me. You will still lose weight :-)
( , Sun 27 Jun 2010, 11:37, Reply)

3 rashers, 2 sausages, 2 fried eggs and a tomato. All done with extra virgin olive oil.
( , Sun 27 Jun 2010, 11:49, Reply)

I'm not carb free though. I've just limited them. I don't want to feel like I'm on a diet because people fall of diets. Also the problem with reducing calories is that your body will lower your metabolism when you do and will also raise your insulin sensitivity permanently so you're doubley screwed. This is most likely what happened to your colleague - she cut grain but did she replace the lost calories with protein or fat, I doubt it.
I don't agree that it's well known that carbs are bad for you. I still hear about low-fat more than anything else when it comes to public health although I believe the screw is starting to turn on that one.
I'm glad you have something that works for you, but the evidence is compelling when there are obese people living on bread and coffee that there is more to the equation than calories in vs calories out.
( , Sun 27 Jun 2010, 11:47, Reply)

is that it is harder to burn. Calories are easier, but it you dont burn they turn into fat.
I shall take what this guy says on board, but I will have to research more before I go head on into it :-)
edit: the thing with his compelling evidence, is there is no counter evidence, really. There can be two sides to it also.
( , Sun 27 Jun 2010, 11:53, Reply)

And that's not because the trials aren't being done. It's because the lipid hypothesis is wrong but they still flog it to this day.
( , Sun 27 Jun 2010, 11:57, Reply)

Saying that calories are harder to burn than fat is like saying that brass bands are easier to hear than decibels.
( , Sun 27 Jun 2010, 13:56, Reply)

my diet has not changed but my exercise level has. I am now quite sedentary and have gone from a lifelong lanky git into a tubby bastard.
Stephen Fry recently lost loads of weight by simply putting an audio book onto his mp3 player and going out for long walks.
( , Sun 27 Jun 2010, 12:01, Reply)

Having constantly high blood sugar will keep your insulin levels elevated which will eventually render you insulin resistant, or, will knacker your pancreas.
That's how people get Type II diabetes.
EDIT: I'm sure if Stephen Fry is putting effort into going for long walks he has probably altered his diet too. Another problem with calorie restricted diets is that you lose weight in the ratio of 60/40 fat/muscle but because they raise your insulin sensitivity you become more likely to put the weight back on. It has been found that the weight usually goes back on 80/20 fat/muscle. This is why people yo-yo diet.
( , Sun 27 Jun 2010, 12:11, Reply)