Anyone NOT lost weight on this 30 day program??

[Michele Tourville]

I'm asking because prior to working out I had to remove fruit on my Paleo diet in order to lose weight.

Everytime I try to go back to the gym and workout I completely flag out and almost feel sick and faint afterwards. I have been told time and time again that that is because I am not eating enough carbohydrates.

I am scared to add fruit back in and was just wondering if anyone else had had success when they did add fruit back into their diet?

I am soo used to being on a ketogenic diet.

Thanks guys!!!

[Summer]

I am sure that is why you are feeling that way at the gym is the lack of carbs, especially depending on your intensity levels and what exactly you are doing. I am struggling with all of this too. I just can't seem to figure out where to be at with my carb intake when I am still trying to completely lean out but yet I am doing crossfit 5 x per week. I know I need the carbs. I don't want to disrupt my gym performance by lowering my carbs to an unhealthy/non-beneficial point. What I am still trying to understand is, can your gym performance be great even still while trying to lean out (and lowering carbs)? I am thinking the answer is no, that there is a point where while still trying to lean out, your gym performance may not be all that stellar?

I have felt pretty good at the gym with not many carbs, but who knows, maybe I can feel better with more. To me this is hard to tweak, for others it may seem simple.

Sorry Michele, I didn't mean to crash your party. I just thought my concerns were in line with your question.

[Michele Tourville]

That's really helpful. Yeah I haven't worked out in 2 weeks because every time I do crash!!! I was losing soo nicely before I tried adding the gym back in LOL. I"m trying to do the Body for Life challenge. 6 days per week.

Summer what are your carbs like?? Do you eat fruit???

[CaseyD]

The scale isn't everything. If you weren't working out (or not doing much in the way of lifting) and then you start up again, you're going to start gaining muscle. Muscle is heavier than fat, so you may not like the number that appears on the scale.

I've dropped two sizes but not a single pound in the past. I'm pretty much done with looking at the scale because it is a meaningless number. I guess you have to decide if it is more important to look a particular way or be healthy, because it sounds like you're making yourself unhealthy (getting sick and fainting) in order to achieve a look. Eat some fruit, and be healthy.

[Michele Tourville]

Sigh thanks!!!!!! Your right.

[Summer]

Michele - aside from certain vegetables that have carbs, I really don't eat fruit much at all. I do occasionally eat sweet potatoes/sweet potatoe baby food, but only just to get a little carb load here and there. I don't want to fail myself and reach a point where my body is starving for more carbs because of my activity, but I also want to continue to lean out (completely) naturally. I am in no rush and I just want to do this the right way, I just find it difficult to know, and I feel like I know and can listen to my body well. I don't even own a scale and could care-less about how much I weigh, so thankfully I don't have that obsession to contend with (my obsession is more along the lines of eating napoleons and Reeses - ha!)

I am not trying to make anything more difficult than it needs to be, my concern is trying to prevent any complete crashes in energy or stress my body in ways that I could prevent.

[Anna Howard]

My first Whole 30 was an absolute failure. I never felt tired or weak, and I followed the program to a T, but at the end I had gained just about 2 inches to every part of my body. I was so disappointed, all that hard work for even less than nothing. I'd done this with a group of friends and I was the only person who had actually put on weight. I was miserable, to be honest I'm still pretty miserable, nobody likes to be fat.

My partner and I are trying it again this July, hopefully with more favorable results. Any suggestions before we get started?

[alm613]

Anna, though I'm only on Day 5, I worry that I'm going to have the same results. I haven't felt even the smallest negative side effect, and though my friends who are also doing Whole30 have lost noticeable weight already, I'm still exactly the same. Can anyone else speak to this, and how they made changes to fix it?

[NLK]

I'm not sure if this will help or not but I'll share. I used to be a competitive body builder - read competitive dieter ;-)

Over the years I tried numerous dieting styles or macro combinations to get lean - protein was always moderate to high but carbs ranged from ultra low to decently high to cycled. What I found was personally I felt the best and looked the best (in body building terms was the leanest while retaining muscle) when my carbs were moderate to high. Every time I dieted VLC I lost energy and looked bad and ultimately didn't get as lean. My point? Don't assume keeping carbs low to loose weight is always the right answer. For some people it works great for others starchier carbs are really important and actual aid in fat loss.

[Robin Strathdee]

I know this topic's been quiet for awhile, but I'm reading it for the first time and thought I'd jump in with some observations:

1) Carb intake is HIGHLY individual and really depends on the factors of your life. But, if you're concerned about getting more of them in and still avoiding fruit, you can always add sweet potato, squash or pumpkin puree to other foods to increase their carb load.

2) While weight loss is often a benefit of a Whole30 problem, you may find yourself disappointed if it's your end goal. The purpose of a Whole30 program is to create awareness of how food interacts with your body and (for repeaters) to help you regain control if you've taken to some bad habits. Once you're done with your program, there's plenty of time for tweaking for results. But this is not a weight loss program, it's a self-improvement program.

3) There are many other factors in the weight loss equation than food and exercise. If you've got a high stress load, if you're lacking sleep, if you're over training (Summer, 5x CrossFit workouts might be a bit much if you're looking to lean out on a lower carb load), if you've got ongoing metabolic issues... you're going to have a hard time leaning out.

I hope you ladies are getting things worked out!

[karacooks]

What Robin said.

Also I'd like to point out that it is entirely possible to still eat too much food on Whole30. In fact, if you're really upping your fat intake and you eat a lot of fruit, it's very possible to eat enough to not lose or even to gain on this plan.

A couple of cups of coffee w/ coconut cream, foods cooked in olive oil and coconut oil and ghee, high calorie fruits like bananas ... it doesn't take much for those calories to start adding up.

People sometimes think that eating "healthy" or "clean" will solve all the problems, but it won't. Especially if you're someone who has emotional/mental eating issues like so many overweight people do. Many people have the habit of eating ... eating because they want to eat, or because it's habitual, or because it satisfies an emotional need and not because they're really truly hungry. It's also possible to just simply overeat on portion sizes if you've never managed your portions of real food before. It's entirely possible to do all of that on Whole30 as it is to do it with junk.

Really look at when you're eating and how much you're eating if you're not seeing either a decrease in size or scale.

[Derval]

But this is not a weight loss program, it's a self-improvement program.

Love this Robin.

[Adagio]

Losing weight is really an individual thing and what works for one person may not work for another. You really have to find what works for you. Reading Good Calories Bad Calories was an eye-opener. The calories-in, calories-out theory is debatable, and I would not rely on it. Metabolism can be damaged when eating lowfat, lowcal foods, or being a vegetarian for years.

When we switch to a better way of eating, we expect to see results sooner than the body can sometimes produce.

I've struggled with weight issues all of my adult life. When I first went Primal, I lost 12 pounds, then my weight loss stalled. Not because of the diet, but because I got lazy and the carbs started to creep in. For some folks, the lower end of the carb curve works better. After a while, you will know which foods prevent you from losing weight, and which foods are optimal. My body works this way: The higher the fat intake, the lower the carb intake = success. Your body may work differently.

If you are sensitive/allergic to certain foods but have still been eating them for a while, that may prevent you from losing weight.

It's a real trial-and-error journey, and there is no one-size-fits-all eating plan. That's why I like Mark Sisson's Carb Curve graphic.

Paleo-style eating is undoubtedly the healthiest way of eating.

You just have to learn to tweak the starch intake to suit your individual needs.

It takes more than thirty days to heal the body. Thirty days is only the beginning.

[karacooks]

The calories-in, calories-out theory is debatable,

Nope sorry. That's like saying "gravity is debatable". It's simply not true.

Some people process certain nutrients better. That doesn't mean calories are broken it means that their body uses those calories more or less efficiently than someone else. It's virtually impossible to permanently "damage" your metabolism in a way that stops weight loss (read the Minnesota Starvation Experiment information for proof of that).

Yes, everyone is individual. Everyone handles different foods differently. But at the end of the day if you eat too much you gain weight. And it is possible to eat too much healthy (even Whole30) food.

[Emily]

I think Adagio (through Calories In Calories Out and I would also point to Why We Get Fat) is making the point that the calories-in, calories out diet is oversimplifying things and often doesn't work because of other factors. I can see that you are also saying something similar, but, as Taubes shows, the body doesn't necessarily gain weight if you eat too many calories; it depends on what types of foods those calories are and the state the body is in to receive them (constant high blood sugar, etc).

Understanding (and seeing this in action with my own body) has changed how I eat, what I eat (I now eat much greater volumes and am much happier) and my weight (since the beginning of 2012 I've lost 20lbs and kept it off.

[Adagio]

We can discuss the calories-in-calories-out hypothesis, and whether one can damage their metabolism, all day long and not come to a resolution. There is compelling evidence to support both sides of the argument.

BTW, I don't gain weight when I eat a lot of calories if the calories come from fat and protein.

[karacooks]

'BTW, I don't gain weight when I eat a lot of calories if the calories come from fat and protein.

Then you're not eating more than your maintenance calories, no matter how you define "a lot".

Fat and protein take more effort to metabolise plus if you have more energy and are more active when you stick with that diet, then you are probably naturally increasing your calorie burn. That still doesn't mean you're able to eat all you want and not gain weight just because what you're eating is fat and protein.

I'm sorry but there is NOT "compelling evidence to support both sides". It's basic thermodynamics. There is no way you can get around the laws of thermodynamics just as there's no way you can decide that the "hypothesis" of gravity is up for debate and therefore you can flap your arms and fly if you believe hard enough.

Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is selling you a lie.

[Adagio]

I really enjoyed reading Gary Taubes books and they shed quite a bit of light on the topic of calories. I highly recommend them.

I tend to quickly extricate myself from lengthy forum debates on controversial topics. Learned that the hard way.

[karacooks]

Gary Taubes'methods have been questioned and criticized quite a bit. He publishes some good information, but he is not the be-all-and -end-all of weight loss and healthy eating as some want to position him. He has a tendency to quote the studies that support his point of view and ignore the ones that don't.

I strongly encourage people to do research on their own from a variety of sources rather than taking the word of one self-proclaimed nutrition expert.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/05/16/thin-body-of-evidence-why-i-have-doubts-about-gary-taubess-why-we-get-fat/

[Adagio]

Then you're not eating more than your maintenance calories, no matter how you define "a lot".

Fat and protein take more effort to metabolise plus if you have more energy and are more active when you stick with that diet, then you are probably naturally increasing your calorie burn. That still doesn't mean you're able to eat all you want and not gain weight just because what you're eating is fat and protein.

I'm sorry but there is NOT "compelling evidence to support both sides". It's basic thermodynamics. There is no way you can get around the laws of thermodynamics just as there's no way you can decide that the "hypothesis" of gravity is up for debate and therefore you can flap your arms and fly if you believe hard enough.

Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is selling you a lie.

For me, untrue regarding maintenance calories and being more active.

[Adagio]

Gary Taubes'methods have been questioned and criticized quite a bit. He publishes some good information, but he is not the be-all-and -end-all of weight loss and healthy eating as some want to position him. He has a tendency to quote the studies that support his point of view and ignore the ones that don't.

I strongly encourage people to do research on their own from a variety of sources rather than taking the word of one self-proclaimed nutrition expert.

http://blogs.scienti...why-we-get-fat/

Yes everyone should do their research from a variety of sources. I could not agree more. That is how we learn and form our opinions.

[missmary]

Nope sorry. That's like saying "gravity is debatable". It's simply not true.

I'm a bit surprised to see such a black and white statement on the Whole30 board, considering the information in ISWF would make it clear that metabolism is very much more complicated than a simple "calories in/calories out" equation.

Mel Joulwan just posted a link to a fascinating article on the topic if you are interested: http://blog.metaboli...tabolism-broken

[karacooks]

Imetabolism is very much more complicated than a simple "calories in/calories out" equation.

Metabolism and calories in/calories out are linked, yes. But people are confusing the idea that metabolism is complex and affects the burning or non-burning of calories with the idea that calories in/calories out doesn't mean anything. That's false logic.

If you burn more calories than you eat you will lose weight.

If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight.

Those are two factual statements that cannot be argued by any logic. Anyone who tries to say they're not true does not understand basic thermodynamics

That doesn't mean that there are a thousand and one factors that affect your metabolism - i.e. how many calories you burn. And what you eat and how often you eat it are definitely included in those factors. If you eat more protein and more fat, it requires more energy for your body to metabolize them ... therefore eating more protein will raise your metabolism and cause you to burn more calories. So you can conceiveably eat MORE calories of protein than you can calories of carbs, and still lose weight. That doesn't mean you can eat as much protein as you like and never gain weight.

Also, the way macros are apportioned and how they affect metabolism is highly individual. Some people are perfectly capable of burning off carbs in a burst of energy because for some reason their bodies react well to carbs. Other people are not. Other people might become lethargic and see a reduction of energy because of carbs, and therefore those people will struggle to lose weight on a 1300 calorie diet of all carbs becuase their body doesn't process those calories efficiently. But that is *still* a calories in/calories out equation. It's just "calories out" is negatively impacted by the type of calories and the ability of the person to process them.

People don't want to believe that. They want to believe that there's a magic combination of foods or a quick fix where you can eat "as much as you want" and lose weight anyway because you're eating "the right foods". Now if you have a normal, healthy relationship with food, then "as much as you want" might be fine. For many people "as much as you want" is the amount that their body naturally needs.

However, for other people, people who have damaged hunger cues, who don't have sufficient education about nutrition, who have been brainwashed by 20 or 30 or more years of "supersize" advertising and large restaurant portions and the idea that you have to "clean your plate" ... for those people "as much as you want" could be far too much. Those people don't have the same satiety cues and hunger cues that (for want of a better word) "normal" people do. For them, it doesn't matter if you eat a strict Whole30 or whatever other magic plan diet ... they will eat TOO MUCH FOOD.

So when someone says "I've stuck strictly to the plan and I haven't lost any weight" ... that's a good sign that it's time for them to examine not just what they eat, but how much of it they eat. (If fat loss is their goal, of course. For some people fat loss might not be their goal - it might be to become healthier or to break a craving or simply to see how their body reacts to the different way of eating.)

But for people to say "calories in/calories out is immaterial" is equally as ignorant as saying "the only thing that matters is calories in/calories out". Neither one is true.

[missmary]

Sigh. I didn't say "calories in/calories out is immaterial" I said it was much more complex than that. it is.

I'm happy to talk through the details of this complexity, in fact, that is a lot of the reason I'm here, but I'm not feeling respected in the debate so I will withdraw.

Understanding the "basic law of thermodynamics" AND understanding the body as a much more complex system that can not be understood simply by that basic law is not a contradiction.

[karacooks]

I did not say that YOU said calories are immaterial. You said you were surprised to see a black & white statement as the one I made and I was explaining WHY I made that statement, based on things other people had said in the thread ... things like:

The calories-in, calories-out theory is debatable, and I would not rely on it.

and

We can discuss the calories-in-calories-out hypothesis, and whether one can damage their metabolism, all day long and not come to a resolution. There is compelling evidence to support both sides of the argument.

I am sorry that you're feeling disrespected by a healthy debate, but I do not feel that anything I said was disrespectful or rude. In fact I agreed with you wholeheartedly that the correlation between metabolism and calories is an extremely complex one and not one that can be easily summarized. However I have edited my post to make it more clear that I was in no way ever quoting you.

However I am now walking away from this conversation. I feel that the "sigh" at the beginning of your post was unnecessarily provoking and I just don't need to get sucked into that kind of discussion.