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?
High intesity interval training. It basically involves alternating training 90% MHR and then a lower intensity and repeating for 'sets'. It's hard on the body and you need to be careful. I think it would be a great for 80/10/10 as it seems to use mostly glycogen for fuel, and for that reason it's not a great way to lose weight as the body tends to draw more from these stores then from fat.
I just wanted to point out that during the workout, HIIT does draw from glycogen, but research has actually shown it to be more effective in burning fat AFTER the workout than long cardio sessions. From the same article you quoted: (Lots of other examples of the research out there, for anyone who wants to know more).
"Long aerobic workouts have been promoted as the best method to reduce fat, as fatty acid utilization usually occurs after at least 30 minutes of training. HIIT is somewhat counterintuitive in this regard, but has nonetheless been shown to burn fat more effectively. There may be a number of factors that contribute to this, including an increase in resting metabolic rate. HIIT also significantly lowers insulin resistance and causes skeletal muscle adaptations that result in enhanced skeletal muscle fat oxidation and improved glucose tolerance."
HIIT is almost PURE glycogen which is why I laugh when low carb advocates pretend they are doing it lol!
I guess when one is in ketosis jogging to the letterbox to pick up Mark Sisson's primal whey protein powder catalogue would feel pretty hard and therefore classify as HIIT. ;)
Very helpful video!
40% of your cals burnt via physical activity? I think someone has made a typo there. Freelee and I NEVER maintain that. Then again, banging out 10 hours a day on the net sure does chew thru the glycogen.
The last 7 years Ive only averaged around 60mins of light activity per day. Yesterday I won a 5k running race out of 110 people. It only took me 17:15. ;)
Sounds like you just gotta get in shape Kate if your eating right, focus on building your fitness. Get your 5k time down to Freelee's pb of 20:20 and you will look the same relative to your own bone structure etc. ALL the girls running that fast look relatively the same.
I think you are right DR, I need to get fitter. I spent 20 years thinking I was fit cos I taught so many classes; truth is, i relied heavily on sports drinks and pills to get me through, was undercarbed and underslept, frequently ill. A typical studio instructor! Now I teach only around 2 classes per day, and not all at an intensity where I feel worked enough. The change is due to relocation.
You are so right - runners are skinny, and many studio instructors I know are quite chunky! I will work on the running, it's an aspect I neglect.
40% is the figure Doug gives as minimum to be truly 811 - no typo. But while it's encouraging to think it could work with less, not an excuse to slack on fitness. I'm very happy for you both that you have such well-deserved business success you need to put in a 10-hour day.
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.
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)."