I too have been a grumblie about the lack of results on the diet. I have neither gained nor lost weight, but at 35%+ fat percentile, exact same height and similar build to Freelee, I need and want to!
So I read Dr Graham's book again after 3 years. Reading it is something we agree to in joining as a member...remember? Most of it I am well versed in, but this passage jumped out at me - p239 (slightly abbreviated))
Why didn't the 80/10/10 work for me?
I Less than 2% of your calories come from vegetables and leafy greens. eg on a 2000 calorie diet, 1lb greens minimum.
2) Caloric intake is insufficient to maintain desired bodyweight.
3) YOU BURN LESS THAN 40% OF YOUR CALORIES IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. ON 2000 CAL/DAY, A MINIMUM OF 800 CALORIES.
4) Habitual sleep pattern is insufficient. (You can fail to gain muscle, or fail to lose fat, if underslept).
5) You eat all day long, rather tha 1-4 meals per day.
6) You lack emotional poise (your adrenals are overexerted, which causes the body to hold on to fat stores).
7) You expose your unclothed skin to sunlight less than 30 mins a day.
This was something I had forgotten since first reading. Although I work out 2 hrs/day, I am then sedentary at work. I clearly need to work out more intensely, or be more active outside workout hours. The minimum recommendation here is 2500 - which means1100+ burned, every day we eat.
Do you need to re-read The 18/10/10 Diet, or read for the first time?
Peter, I did not suggest she cut down 100 cals a day. I merely questioned why someone would advise a 30-day fast, which is obviously a much more massive calorie restriction than an incremental reduction.
Warning: I'm replying to another 2-month old post I must be crazy:
An incremental reduction is just as insane a suggestion as a 30-day fast. Both would be completely useless. An incremental reduction wouldn't help with weight loss, in fact, from what we know about metabolism from SCIENCE(!!!), it would do the opposite. And a 30-day fast is an emergency measure that helps if you're REALLY REALLY SICK, not if you have the "10 pounds that just won't go away."
The book says it's best to burn 20% of our daily calories through exercise, not 40%. At least that's what my copy says. So 20% of 2500 calories is only 500 calories -- roughly two hours of exercise -- easy enough.
I am looking at pp239-240:
"you are not 80/10/10 if...you burn less than 40% of your total calories through physical activity (at least 800 calories per day if you average 2000 calories)."
great post -- thanks for putting this together. i started a similar thread without reading this one first. thanks for gathering this information so nicely. i hope people with the problem actually read (AND IMPLEMENT) this!
Kate, Thank you for this post. We need more like this, as it is good to be reminded of the basics. I'm just now re-reading Doug's book for the quillioneth time. I am renewed every time I read it. Something new jumps off the pages each time!
(I don't know why so many people here are trying to critique / analyze what you're doing, cuz I don't get a sense that that's why you posted.)
Please post whatever else you find worth reminding us of. It's great. .......ana xoxo
I hate to say this, but I think she looks fabulous in both photos.
what was Freelees weight in the older pic?
and I've been wondering for quite some time: what's her body fat percentage now?
I lose weight, (when I keep my fat intake very low) despite not working out much. I only cycle 5 hours or so a week. I was 50 lbs overweight, now I have 20 lbs. of blubber to shed. When I eat 9/5/5, I can easily lose a pound or more a day. I eat 2800-3200 calories daily and way more on cycle days.
Thanks. It has been fun.