[Momto2cs]

I'm curious-what do you notice? I cut out the ip bars as the sugar alcohols caused me great gi distress! But I use a simply bar most days instead.

[sonyainva]

For me the diet is restricted, the curls are a treat.

[maezy1]

I think the restricteds are part of the balance of the program to give us the carbs we need for health but not too much. I eat my restricted daily and have been ok with weight loss

[wuv2bloved]

Originally Posted by maezy1

I think the restricteds are part of the balance of the program to give us the carbs we need for health but not too much. I eat my restricted daily and have been ok with weight loss

CORRECT!!!!!!

[starsandrockets]

I didn't find cutting out the restricted helped me lose anymore weight. The week I tried it, I actually lost less. So now I continue to eat 1 usually every day

[patns]

Originally Posted by starsandrockets

I didn't find cutting out the restricted helped me lose anymore weight. The week I tried it, I actually lost less. So now I continue to eat 1 usually every day

That is right. the plan is carefully balanced. I am super carb sensitive but did include the daily restricted. I saw a video somewhere online early on that was official IP, it was on someone else's blog, I don't remember where now.


But it said the program was carefully balanced and it was important for the brain to have some carbs each day.
It also said they found people who had the restricted as a daily treat did much better over the long term because you train yourself to have one treat a day.
I found this to be so helpful in maintenance; I didn't find that the carb monster "woke up" again at all. Mentally I know I will have a cup of coffee and a treat late afternoon, it is often a piece of fruit now but the routine has really held.

But as some mentioned there are things in the bars etc that don't agree with some individuals. I have a strong aftertaste with most bars so had to try several different types of resitricteds.

The important thing is training yourself for how you are going to eat for the rest of your life, not about the quick weightloss.

There is another series of videos that people were watching a lot several months ago. those were not the type I saw. Those ones were made by a doctor for his clinic and then sold to other clinics. They really focused on cutting out pretty well all carbs.
I knew from many years of low carb plans that wouldn't work for me in the long run; I had to learn to handle a moderate amount of carbs for long term maintenance.
On other plans as soon as I finished and added carbs back the weight was back in the blink of an eye. In this plan the careful watching of protein/carbs and fat has helped to know what works in my individual case so far in
the "real world".

Pat

[JohnP]

Fat loss is an equation of energy. Energy is measured in calories. If you think you're losing fat for any reason other than a caloric deficit you're 100% wrong. The answer to the original question is slightly more complicated because if all other variables were to stay the same than not eating any restricted items would indeed speed up fat loss.

Originally Posted by maezy1

I think the restricteds are part of the balance of the program to give us the carbs we need for health but not too much.

Carbs are not needed for health.

[patns]

Originally Posted by JohnP

Fat loss is an equation of energy. Energy is measured in calories. If you think you're losing fat for any reason other than a caloric deficit you're 100% wrong. The answer to the original question is slightly more complicated because if all other variables were to stay the same than not eating any restricted items would indeed speed up fat loss.



Carbs are not needed for health.

John you keep posting this info over and over which is the current medical opinion.

If it were true for everyone I would have weighed 130 pounds in my 30s instead of finally making it at age 65. I weighed 204 pounds at 5'1" at age 45.

In they following 20 years I consistently kept my calories under 1200 a day and walked miles and miles.

But it wasn't until I learned the correct balance of fat/protein and carbs for my particular body that I lost the weight. For females hormones play a tremendous part in weight management and current research is working on that.

I don't expect you to agree on this and that is fine. But the mindset of calories in/ calories out has caused me much stress for many years in trying to figure out why such a obvious concept didn't work for me.

It wasn't until I read the emerging studies based on females that things clicked into place for weight loss.

So I will continue with the concept which finally worked for me even if it doesn't have the pure logic of calories in/calories out.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by patns

But it wasn't until I learned the correct balance of fat/protein and carbs for my particular body that I lost the weight. For females hormones play a tremendous part in weight management and current research is working on that.

I don't expect you to agree on this and that is fine. But the mindset of calories in/ calories out has caused me much stress for many years in trying to figure out why such a obvious concept didn't work for me.

I actually do agree with you. Different macro nutrients affect the balance of energy by how the output side of the energy equation is effected. That doesn't change the fact that for every single human calories dictate fat loss or gain.

There are some incredibly unusual and complicated cases but the vast majority it very simple. Doesn't make it easy, especially for females for whom their TOM can play havoc with a number of things, primarily the number they see on the scale and how they look in the mirror.

One thing that several studies have shown is that many people chronically under report the amount of food they ingest. I'm not saying that you did - you might be one of those vary rare incredibly complicated cases. However the research shows that most people are terrible at counting calories and even worse at estimating calories.

I'm only pointing out that calories always matter. This is quite obvious to many but at the same time most people I've talked to online and in person don't understand this simple fact. The IP diet "educational materials" don't talk about this at all so unsophisticated dieters think they're losing fat because of ketosis and a pancreas on vacation.

[patns]

I guess we do agree on the concept calories matter because I did watch calories carefully until it just became second nature to me. What was equally important was which nutrients were in these calories . That is why a Weight Watchers type of diet doesn't work for me.

I am not a rare and unusual case. Just a short chubby child who grew to be a short overweight woman who had to learn to deal with all that my individual hormone combination handed me. From TOM to pregnancies to all of the stages leaning up to menopause and beyond. It all complicated but necessary to figure out what works for each of our bodies and stop relying on the "experts" what works for all.

[JohnP]

Thank you Lolo for your post your kind of logical approach is most welcome and speaking for myself I always enjoy learning new things. I'm sure you've read it but a great read if you've not yet read it is "Why Zebra's don't get ulcers".

In my opinion based on anecdotal evidence and the research done in ward studies this can be an incredibly complex topic but the fundamentals will take care of 99+% of all cases. The cases it won't from what I've seen are because of some medical condition and/or medication that confounds efforts that otherwise might be successful. The real challenge is the ease of getting solid information and most people need ongoing accountablity and support. Of course, that is only dealing with the physical aspects of fat loss ... as you well know there is a whole other emotional side to this which I don't understand very well at this point so you'll notice I don't talk about it other than the need for one to establish good dietary habits they can successfully maintain for their lifetime.

Regarding ketosis I bring it up often because the IP diet liturature suggests that ketosis is critical for weight loss. It isn't. If you've done even the slightest research into ketosis you will know that fat loss is not a function of ketosis. You can maintain your current fat stores and even gain weight while being in ketosis. Ketosis doesn't change the energy equation other than how the heavy reduction in carbs might affect someone who is insulin resistant. Bottom line? People shouldn't be concerned about what color their keto stix are. Total waste of time and money not to mention an added area of stress.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by Lolo70

As a basic researcher, I have my own strong opinions on studies on weight loss and nutrition. I am sure, we are not in agreement here, so I won't go into it. When I have formed a more sophisticated opinion on IP, I will report back.

You're welcome to post up a thread somewhere on this board - general chatter perhaps - and bring my attention to it. You might be surprised how much we would agree on. If we don't agree and you are right it would mean I would learn something new. This would be wonderful. I'm not emotionally locked into my point of view and I love to learn new things.

[Momto2cs]

The difference in calories and carbs with or without a restricted is small enough to be moot.