I don't either- but only because I am lazy. Maybe after I lose more weight. I am down 35# in a bit less than 3 months. I am quite heavy tho, and could probably not make the same claim if I was closer to goal. We will see when we get there.

I sat on my butt for my entire weight loss of 85lbs in 18 months.

First 43 on VLC/HF in 5.5 months

The last 42 on ZC in 6 months

My hubby does not work out either and everyone wants to know how he got so buff without going to the gym or doing anything physical.

Thanks, SLN, for posting that research. It's very interesting. I studied human paleontology in grad school, and fully understood the negative impact that agriculture brought to the human body.

I guess the carbs were fogging my brain back then, because I didn't put 2 and 2 together. It took reading Protein Power before the light bulb came on and I finally understood why the low-fat, low-protein, high-pasta diet I had been on was only making me gain more and more weight.

I did not exercise when I was losing either, I went back to the gym when Andrew was 3 1/2 cause I wanted something to do when he was at pre-school. But, stopped all workouts this summer. A very good move.

I'd suggest not thinking about day to day weight loss. An overnight "gain" of 1.5 lbs is some combination of the following:
1. Muscle growth
2. Fat gain
3. Water retention
4. Measurement error--your scale will give you varying readings (at least mine does).

Realistically, it's mostly #3 and #4. Don't worry about how much water you'll have to drink and how it will make the scale will go up two days in a row. Gain from water retention is unimportant, and does not change fat loss (to the best of my knowledge)--that part you really care about.

If you start focusing on day to day scale changes as a progress monitor, you can start doing things like not drinking enough water since you know it will make you weigh more. Been there, done that. Bleah.

joe

Well, I'd think of it this way: let's look for ways to test the theory and its implications. Consider the Intuit, who due to lack of carbs would be predicted to be a frail people ill-adapted to arctic life. Then Europeans came and introduced trading posts. Invigorated by the new carbs in their diet the Inuit became strong of stature. History already tested that hypothesis and found it wanting.

The idea just sounds odd, and if humans had that drawback in the past it seems like something that would have been bred out during the ice age.

In terms of Osteoporosis, there are modern hunter-gatherers who have been "discovered" at various points in (well-recorded) history. If frail bones were an issue, it would have been noticed.

joe

I agree. That's why I'm so curious as to why Dr. Mike would have posted it.

Suzanne, if I may ask, why did you eliminate these? Was it necessary for continued weight loss?
Thanks.

NO! I was very happy with my weight and had no desire to lose more. I dropped eggs cause I met Charles and he did not eat eggs, so I tried life without them and did not miss them. No other reason.
Salt. I had to drop the salt due to sudden leg cramps. I LOVED salt. That was a rough one. But, the leg cramps went away when I dropped salt. I just lost my taste for other spices as well, but that happened naturally.
Coffee. I worked hard to reduce myself to one cup a day, but wa sin no hurry to lose my last cup. I woke up one morning and decided to not have coffee. I had tried to eliminate coffee two times in the past, but failed. This last time my body was ready I guess.

Can i ask you guys a question:

i'm having a really hard time with nausea.

first it was with steak. i moved to ground beef 80/20 for a couple days and its really bad.

it happens about an hour or two after i eat. but the thought of eating for the rest of the day is terrible. even after i haven't eaten for 8-10 hours

lately i've been eating at 8-9 am (i wake at 5-6am) and then feel like i really need to eat by 4-5pm but the nausea is just terrible

should i try chicken(less fat) for a couple days?

is my body detoxing? is this normal?

Thank you so much. That is exactly the kind of thing I was concerned about.

Yes, I'd try less fat for a day or two, lovebeing. You kinda sorta have to go from one side to the other (more fat, less fat), to see what your body needs.

Yes, all that is true, but I have no idea of the minutiae of their diet. Sin88 posted information about certain Inuit who ate bones, others who did not and that is helpful. Did they eat fish? Fish bones? I'm starting to believe (hoping!) that it's not a cause for concern but you must admit this is rather uncharted dietary territory for modern people.

LOL at the bolded part of your quote - that's my dream!

ETA: That should say "chewed bones", not ate them!

Re: Dr Mike and the question on bone health. I asked him this-



His answer:



Re: people asking questions.

I hope no one feels they can't ask a question here. There are folks that are new to this coming in all the time, and they have questions. Not a damn thing wrong with that, or in having those questions answered.

Is ZC the best way to eat? I believe so.

Is ZC a cure-all? No, no such thing exists. But the best thing to do, is give it an honest try. Realize that there will be bumps in the road. Realize that you may see things that will cause you to question its validity, but that others have seen the same things, and rode out the rough patch, and seen ZC overcome their issues and doubts.

Just give it a chance.

And on bone health and ZC: Lex Rooker, ZC for 5 or 6 years now, just had tests done on his bones, and they were very healthy, in the upper statistical limits.