A Unique Weight Loss Living Style Pattern

[Jericho]

Ok, you still haven't actually said more about the plan.

Skip everything else and say the pattern

 

[ChefChiTown]

I think he's a spammer in the making.

Ironic - SPAM that doesn't contain any fat?

 

[caiqipp]

Here is translation from Mr. Liu's book. The sequence among points are refined. There are some slight changes to make translation easy. This is a summary. In the book he doesn't give exact amount of food intake. I follow about 70% of what suggested by Mr. Liu. I'll post what I do everyday, including the amount of each food category.
=============
1. Drink the broth mentioned above. Do not eat any meat made in other ways. Avoid any fat intake if possible (except the fat in fruits or staple food mentioned bellow).
2. Do not eat any staple food made by rise or wheat (including whole grain flour). You can eat what is made by corn meal or bean meal, fresh corn, potato, sweet potato, oat, buckwheat, barley, millet, beans, etc., as long as it’s not rise- or wheat-made.
3. Eat vegetable dish only, without any meat. Use water or the broth to cook, do not use any oil to fly or cook vegetable dishes.
4. Drink about 1 litter of juice squeezed by you everyday, using 3 to 5 lbs of fresh fruits. Do not drink juice bought from market. An alternative is to eat 3 to 5 lbs of fresh fruits everyday if you have no condition to make juice.
5. Drink at least 4 litters of water everyday. The volume of broth and juice you drink can be counted into the 4-litter daily volume.
6. Eat enough in breakfast and lunch, do not eat dinner (no staple food). But you can eat fruits, etc.
7. Take a walk after lunch for about 30 minutes.
8. Take a 30-minute to 1-hour nap after lunch or after taking a walk, if possible.
9. Take exercise everyday, if your body can bear. Weight-bearing exercise has better effect.
10. Open your bedroom window at least 20 minutes everyday.

Suggested food and living pattern:

1. Everyday morning, the first thing after getting up is to drink 1 litter of water.
2. After some time, for instance, 30 minutes, take breakfast. Drink 0.5 litter of the broth first. Then eat staple food and some vegetable dish.
3. Drink 0.5 litter of water every two hours, except while you are drinking lunch broth or juice. You can follow other water-drinking pattern, as long as you drink >= 4 litters of water, broth, and juice each day.
4. At noon lunch time, drink 0.5 litter of broth first. Then eat staple food and vegetable dish.
5. After lunch, take a walk for 30 minutes. Then take a nap for 30 minutes to 1 hour, if possible.
6. After waking up from nap, drink the 1 litter juice or eat 3 to 5 lbs of fruits.
7. Take exercise 4 PM.
8. Drink the remaining broth at 6 PM. You may eat some fruits too. Alternative is to use the broth to make gruel, such as corn meal gruel, etc. Do not eat staple food and/or meat evening.

 

[Jericho]

Ok, now we have something to work with.

1. Drink the broth mentioned above. Do not eat any meat made in other ways. Avoid any fat intake if possible (except the fat in fruits or staple food mentioned bellow).

Broth is ok but as a staple to your diet, it's not advised. Liquid diets should be medically supervised. I know you add other things but this is the foundation.

2. Do not eat any staple food made by rise or wheat (including whole grain flour). You can eat what is made by corn meal or bean meal, fresh corn, potato, sweet potato, oat, buckwheat, barley, millet, beans, etc., as long as it’s not rise- or wheat-made.

I can point to entire nations who's main staple of food is wheat or rice. It's the amounts that matters in all of this.

3. Eat vegetable dish only, without any meat. Use water or the broth to cook, do not use any oil to fly or cook vegetable dishes.

The method of cooking is wise but there is no science proving that you can't have meat and vegetables together. Then again, this whole pattern is mainly an offshoot of a vegetarian diet.

4. Drink about 1 litter of juice squeezed by you everyday, using 3 to 5 lbs of fresh fruits. Do not drink juice bought from market. An alternative is to eat 3 to 5 lbs of fresh fruits everyday if you have no condition to make juice.

3 to 5 POUNDS????????? Holy scurvy proof batman. First off, juice is hidden calories that you really don't need. The eating fresh fruit is great but 3 to 5 pounds a day is a bit excessive I think.

5. Drink at least 4 litters of water everyday. The volume of broth and juice you drink can be counted into the 4-litter daily volume.

Drink plenty is wise and often sited but the amount is different for everyone. Want to be sure you are getting enough liquids then check your urine color. You are aiming for pale yellow to clear. Anything darker means you need more liquids.

6. Eat enough in breakfast and lunch, do not eat dinner (no staple food). But you can eat fruits, etc.

Yes yes..don't know about the last. It comes down to total calories during the day. Not eating after a certain time or number of meals is alot more a personal choice than science.

7. Take a walk after lunch for about 30 minutes.

Exercise is good.

8. Take a 30-minute to 1-hour nap after lunch or after taking a walk, if possible.

The nap..don't know but getting plenty of sleep is much needed for healthy. It's said also that if you are sleep deprived that your weight loss will suffer. Personally, it seems to be true but I don't have case studies on hand saying one way or another.

9. Take exercise everyday, if your body can bear. Weight-bearing exercise has better effect.

This one is good.

10. Open your bedroom window at least 20 minutes everyday.

Fresh air is good but not to sure about the amount of time and stuff. Sounds more wives tale than science.

 

[caiqipp]

Ok, now we have something to work with.

...

Thank you for pointing out. Yes, if anyone has disease(s) that may prevent from performing any DOs or DONTs suggested or required by the pattern, please consult physician first.

Did you hear any vegetable diet plan with that much animal protein or broth intake? I didn’t. So it’s not a vegetable diet plan. It’s not important anyway, you can name it in your own way.

Looks like you are using the golden rule in weight loss world to judge the point 2 (no rice/wheat intake), 4 (3 – 5 lb fruits daily), and 6 (no staple food in dinner). We all know the golden rule:

To lose weight, daily calories intake must be less than the daily calories consumed by one's body. (Rule A)

In fact, I think a more exact representation of this rule should be:

The calories your body absorbs daily must be less than the calories consumed by your body daily. (Rule B)

What does it mean? Let's do a simple math first:

Daily calories Intake = Calories Your Body Absorbs from Foods + Calories Your Body is Unable to Absorb from Foods

If Calories Your Body is Unable to Absorb from Foods is always zero (Assumption A, meaning that our body can absorb all calories in any foods we eat), then the Rule B is the same as Rule A. But is this Assumption A true? Is there any explicit, scientific proof(s) to support this assumption? Please show the reference to such proof(s) if you have one. As what I know, it has not been proved true yet, and not proved false either, meaning that:

Our body might not be able to absorb all calories in some foods. (Assumption B)

This is an assumption too before scientists prove it is true. As an indirect proof, I did see fish, dogs, and pigs eat human stool. It may be assumed that there are unabsorbed calories in our stool, otherwise animals should not eat it.

If different foods have different absorption rate, then eating foods with less absorption rate has different weight loss effect, is it right? And the good think could be that we could eat to full and still could lose weight if just taking foods with less absorption rate. It could ease our weight loss process, because insisting on such plan(s) could be easier. And your judgment to point 2, 4, and 6 could be incorrect for some foods if the Assumption B is true.

Any comments?

 

[Kayshiz]

This is an assumption too before scientists prove it is true. As an indirect proof, I did see fish, dogs, and pigs eat human stool. It may be assumed that there are unabsorbed calories in our stool, otherwise animals should not eat it.

This strangely makes some sort of sense and I don't like it. Will someone please comment or look this up? I am so not typing that into google while I am at work...

 

[Jericho]

Many animals eat poop on a regular basis. These include rabbits, rodents, gorillas, many insects such as dung beetles and flies, and yes...even dogs. (Keep that in mind the next time a dog wants to lick you!) Herbivores such as rabbits and rodents eat their own poop because their diet of plants is hard to digest efficiently, and they have to make two passes at it to get everything out of the meal. This is equivalent to a cow chewing its cud, only cows are able to re-eat their food without having to poop it out first. Another reason why animals eat poop is that poop contains vitamins produced by their intestinal bacteria. The animal is unable to absorb the vitamins through the intestinal wall, but can get at them by eating the poop. Poop also contains a certain amount of protein.

A dog’s guts have a powerful immune response to bacteria. The modern dog’s diet can be so sterile that they may even seek out bacteria in order to address the balance and keep their immune system working effectively. So, it is important to point out that your dog will not suffer many ill effects as a result of eating poop; at least not in the way that humans would. Dogs are particularly fond of cat poop because cat poop is high in protein. So don’t be surprised – as an owner of a cat and a dog - if you never have to clean the kitty litter!


---------------

yes, I went and looked it up. As to the idea that we don't digest everything we eat, that is true but I guess I really don't see the connection from this stuff you are stating and weight loss. Are you stating that we should focus on foods we can't digest fully?


I'm actually wondering why the hell am I still responding to this. Judging by the response, it will die off on its own.

 

[Jeanette401]

Supposedly raw food is generally less thoroughly digested than cooked and I think there's an assumption that humans on average get about 95% of available calories from their food (this is from memory, don't have a cite on hand). However, this is as true of animal as it is plant, and it's more true from 'whole' foods, so broth and juice have a higher digested capacity. Which means that the whole 'take in lots of broth & juice' is somewhat contradictory to the idea of eating foods that are harder to digest. Raw foods generally have the lowest digestibility, although it depends. Bananas are very easy to make the most of

Due diligence - I am getting most of my info from memory of the book "Catching Fire - How Cooking Made us Human" plus some research I did after. Since the book wasn't a scientific study it'd be good to look more of this up rather than just taking my word on it Either way, the above diet seems to be the opposite of making it harder to absorb all your calories.

 

[caiqipp]

Supposedly raw food is generally less thoroughly digested than cooked and I think there's an assumption that humans on average get about 95% of available calories from their food (this is from memory, don't have a cite on hand). However, this is as true of animal as it is plant, and it's more true from 'whole' foods, so broth and juice have a higher digested capacity. Which means that the whole 'take in lots of broth & juice' is somewhat contradictory to the idea of eating foods that are harder to digest. Raw foods generally have the lowest digestibility, although it depends. Bananas are very easy to make the most of

Due diligence - I am getting most of my info from memory of the book "Catching Fire - How Cooking Made us Human" plus some research I did after. Since the book wasn't a scientific study it'd be good to look more of this up rather than just taking my word on it Either way, the above diet seems to be the opposite of making it harder to absorb all your calories.

Thank you for your objective discussion, and you just brought next meaningful topic in.

What are the ideal foods to eat? Does it matter? I think the nutrition in any foods can fall into 3 categories for a specific person:

Category 1: they are in short in one’s body.
Category 2: they are just balanced in one’s body.
Category 3: they are over in one’s body.

Obviously, ideal food pattern of a diet plan should let our body absort more Category 1 nutrition than daily needs; absorb less Category 3 than daily needs; absorb Category 2 equal to daily needs.

To answer your question, protein may be in short for may people, while calories and fats are over. So this food pattern includes more protein and less fats, which is reasonable. This food pattern contains more total calories in the foods, but based on the discussion above, if the calories in food pattern can be absorbed less than rice- or wheat-made foods, then it's reasonable too.

Do foods made by the rice and wheat have high absorption rate and the foods allowed by the plan have low absorption rate? I have not found scientific answer to confirm or negative this. But from my practice, it is true, at least for me. Mr. Liu’s answer to this question is yes, but he didn’t give exact reference and I can’t verify.

Why many fruits? For enough necessary vitamins. Why not vitamin pills? I’ll show Mr. Liu’s explanation later.

 

[caiqipp]

Many animals eat poop on a regular basis. These include rabbits, rodents, gorillas, many insects such as dung beetles and flies, and yes...even dogs. (Keep that in mind the next time a dog wants to lick you!) Herbivores such as rabbits and rodents eat their own poop because their diet of plants is hard to digest efficiently, and they have to make two passes at it to get everything out of the meal. This is equivalent to a cow chewing its cud, only cows are able to re-eat their food without having to poop it out first. Another reason why animals eat poop is that poop contains vitamins produced by their intestinal bacteria. The animal is unable to absorb the vitamins through the intestinal wall, but can get at them by eating the poop. Poop also contains a certain amount of protein.

A dog’s guts have a powerful immune response to bacteria. The modern dog’s diet can be so sterile that they may even seek out bacteria in order to address the balance and keep their immune system working effectively. So, it is important to point out that your dog will not suffer many ill effects as a result of eating poop; at least not in the way that humans would. Dogs are particularly fond of cat poop because cat poop is high in protein. So don’t be surprised – as an owner of a cat and a dog - if you never have to clean the kitty litter!


---------------

yes, I went and looked it up. As to the idea that we don't digest everything we eat, that is true but I guess I really don't see the connection from this stuff you are stating and weight loss. Are you stating that we should focus on foods we can't digest fully?


I'm actually wondering why the ... am I still responding to this. Judging by the response, it will die off on its own.

Looks like the Assumption B is neither confirmed nor negatived, because there is no strong support for either side. I think we can leave it there, waiting for scientists' further investigation.

Thanks you for your comments and points.

 

[ChefChiTown]

This is an assumption too before scientists prove it is true. As an indirect proof, I did see fish, dogs, and pigs eat human stool. It may be assumed that there are unabsorbed calories in our stool, otherwise animals should not eat it.

This strangely makes some sort of sense and I don't like it. Will someone please comment or look this up? I am so not typing that into google while I am at work...

I just took a fairly large bowel movement and I sampled a small tasting of it. And, I have to say, although it was foul and unpleasant, it was chock full of calories...and also pieces of undigested walnuts. So, now that the mystery of the poop calories is solved, the question at hand is...when in the HELL did I have walnuts?

 

[Jeanette401]

Just for the record, it is known and measurable that people don't absorb 100% of their food. There are studies that use nitrogen analysis, stool analysis, even ileal stints to see what's left in the small intention. Although google is not very helpful for finding these studies, it is something that is studied. In fact, it's not even new as there was a study in the 1800s involving a man with a hole in his stomach... Alexis St. Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, there are several things to be aware of with this - first, none of the studies that have been done show a significant difference in absorption efficiency. It's hard to quantify exact figures, and in general it doesn't seem to matter much - although anecdotally, many women on 100% raw food diets can't maintain enough weight to even have their menses.

Second, the amount of processing done to food before eating it makes it easier to absorb & digest. One of the studies cited in Catching Fire (my book is at home so I can't look up the cite) gave rats chow pellets that were identical calorically, however one had been air puffed and was lighter and fluffier, and the other was the standard density. The rats with the air puffed pellets gained weight, the others stayed the same despite the same caloric value. Fruit juice and broth are also far easily absorbed & digested when compared to meat and fruit.

Third - there's another component, sometimes called the Thermogenic Effect of Food (TEF), or Diet Induced Thermogenisis (DIT) which is basically how many calories you burn to digest and get new calories from your food. According to this study, Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Diet induced thermogenesis - going from a 2000 calorie diet with 20% protein to one with 40% protein burns about 95 more calories. Of course, if you look at the "Easiest Diet Tip Ever" you'll see that its easy to underestimate by way way more than 95 calories.

In terms of the diet you posted - it seems like it's biggest perk is really cutting out a class of food - rice & bread. By cutting out a whole class of foods and one that can lead to a hunger response from blood sugar rebound, it would probably help control hunger - at least to the extent that you're not drinking fruit juice which is nearly pure sugar, and that you're not just replacing it with bread and other grains which are processed to taste virtually the same.

So, while I believe your diet works for you, I don't really think that food absorption is the reason. To me it seems that eating an actual steak would be much better in terms of inefficient digestion than broth, and given that protein causes you to burn more calories than fat or carbs, there would be a definite benefit of adding more. Eating the 3lbs of fruit whole would fill you up a lot more than juice, would provide you with a lot more fiber, and it would be harder to digest/absorb!

Meanwhile, Chef, you probably ate them all while looking at prOn. Don't worry about it.

 

[Jericho]

Judging by the plan, I can promise you it isn't cause of the plan as much as you are taking in much lower calories than you burn.

 

[caiqipp]

Just for the record, it is known and measurable that people don't absorb 100% of their food. There are studies that use nitrogen analysis, stool analysis, even ileal stints to see what's left in the small intention. Although google is not very helpful for finding these studies, it is something that is studied. In fact, it's not even new as there was a study in the 1800s involving a man with a hole in his stomach... Alexis St. Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, there are several things to be aware of with this - first, none of the studies that have been done show a significant difference in absorption efficiency. It's hard to quantify exact figures, and in general it doesn't seem to matter much - although anecdotally, many women on 100% raw food diets can't maintain enough weight to even have their menses.

Second, the amount of processing done to food before eating it makes it easier to absorb & digest. One of the studies cited in Catching Fire (my book is at home so I can't look up the cite) gave rats chow pellets that were identical calorically, however one had been air puffed and was lighter and fluffier, and the other was the standard density. The rats with the air puffed pellets gained weight, the others stayed the same despite the same caloric value. Fruit juice and broth are also far easily absorbed & digested when compared to meat and fruit.

Third - there's another component, sometimes called the Thermogenic Effect of Food (TEF), or Diet Induced Thermogenisis (DIT) which is basically how many calories you burn to digest and get new calories from your food. According to this study, Nutrition & Metabolism | Full text | Diet induced thermogenesis - going from a 2000 calorie diet with 20% protein to one with 40% protein burns about 95 more calories. Of course, if you look at the "Easiest Diet Tip Ever" you'll see that its easy to underestimate by way way more than 95 calories.

In terms of the diet you posted - it seems like it's biggest perk is really cutting out a class of food - rice & bread. By cutting out a whole class of foods and one that can lead to a hunger response from blood sugar rebound, it would probably help control hunger - at least to the extent that you're not drinking fruit juice which is nearly pure sugar, and that you're not just replacing it with bread and other grains which are processed to taste virtually the same.

So, while I believe your diet works for you, I don't really think that food absorption is the reason. To me it seems that eating an actual steak would be much better in terms of inefficient digestion than broth, and given that protein causes you to burn more calories than fat or carbs, there would be a definite benefit of adding more. Eating the 3lbs of fruit whole would fill you up a lot more than juice, would provide you with a lot more fiber, and it would be harder to digest/absorb!

Meanwhile, Chef, you probably ate them all while looking at prOn. Don't worry about it.

You misunderstood the pattern or plan, and you didn't get the point in my previous post. The plan is not to make all nutrition be absorbed less. It is to make the nutrition in short be absorbed easier, but the nutrition being too much harder. You are shooting wrong target. You might want to reorganize your points.

 

[Jericho]

So you want the nutrition absorbed easier..by making them liquid? I'm unsure exactly what science you have about how this plan helps you get nutrients better. Is it the liquid that makes it better or is it that you made a broth or what? Please, do like they say in math class and show your work. Right now, it sounds as medically sound and proven as pixie dust.

And don't say they might find out in the future cause they could find out that smoking actually cures some cancers. You can always say something could be true. We want what actually is proven to be true.

 

[caiqipp]

So you want the nutrition absorbed easier..by making them liquid? I'm unsure exactly what science you have about how this plan helps you get nutrients better. Is it the liquid that makes it better or is it that you made a broth or what? Please, do like they say in math class and show your work. Right now, it sounds as medically sound and proven as pixie dust.

And don't say they might find out in the future cause they could find out that smoking actually cures some cancers. You can always say something could be true. We want what actually is proven to be true.

Before posting my daily intake list, I would like to answer your confusion first.

Did you hear that doctors let patients with digestive system disease eat fluids? Does it mean the foods in liquid form is easier to be absorbed?

In fact, I believe in truth. The knowledge we have now, including Live Science, its branch medicine and diet knowledge, may have some parts that are incorrect or inaccurate. How to judge? Practice. The result of practice can negative a piece of knowledge, if the knowledge can't explain the result.

Science is dynamic, it's in development. New knowledge is added everyday. Scientists work hard everyday, to discover what we didn't know before, to correct what we thought of being correct but actually not. Otherwise what they are doing? Current diet knowledge can't explain my practice result, but I know what is happening on my body is true. What I posted is my assumption. I don't like assumption either, but this is not my fault, not anyone else fault. This is where we are.

"smoking actually cures some cancers"? I didn't say that.

 

[Jeanette401]

You misunderstood the pattern or plan, and you didn't get the point in my previous post. The plan is not to make all nutrition be absorbed less. It is to make the nutrition in short be absorbed easier, but the nutrition being too much harder. You are shooting wrong target. You might want to reorganize your points.

I confess that I have no idea what you're saying here. Nutrition being too much harder?

Earlier you said that Assumption B was that "Our body might not be able to absorb all calories in some foods." but that "Assumption B is neither confirmed nor negatived, because there is no strong support for either side. I think we can leave it there, waiting for scientists' further investigation."

My response was to let people know that the scientists have actually been investigating it and have found that there is some lack of absorption but it's not a large difference, and that there are other factors such as DIT that factor into the energy balance equation.

So eating 100 calories of potatoes and 100 calories of chicken might have slightly different results in your calories eaten minus calories burned value. However, from what I've seen, the advantage (in terms of losing/maintaining weight) seems to favor unprocessed food over processed, and protein over carbs & fats.

Now, as far as 'feeling hungry' goes, if you eat a 4 cups of food with 100 calories in it, you'll feel more fill than eating 1 cup of food with 100 calories. But that's volumetrics and isn't the same as absorption. It's quite possible that drinking all that liquid helps you feel more full on fewer calories. But if you're looking for a scientific explanation for why your proposed plan works, assumption B is not the reason.

 

[caiqipp]

I confess that I have no idea what you're saying here. Nutrition being too much harder?

Earlier you said that Assumption B was that "Our body might not be able to absorb all calories in some foods." but that "Assumption B is neither confirmed nor negatived, because there is no strong support for either side. I think we can leave it there, waiting for scientists' further investigation."

My response was to let people know that the scientists have actually been investigating it and have found that there is some lack of absorption but it's not a large difference, and that there are other factors such as DIT that factor into the energy balance equation.

So eating 100 calories of potatoes and 100 calories of chicken might have slightly different results in your calories eaten minus calories burned value. However, from what I've seen, the advantage (in terms of losing/maintaining weight) seems to favor unprocessed food over processed, and protein over carbs & fats.

Now, as far as 'feeling hungry' goes, if you eat a 4 cups of food with 100 calories in it, you'll feel more fill than eating 1 cup of food with 100 calories. But that's volumetrics and isn't the same as absorption. It's quite possible that drinking all that liquid helps you feel more full on fewer calories. But if you're looking for a scientific explanation for why your proposed plan works, assumption B is not the reason.

Sorry, my English is not very good. What I want say is:

The plan is to let the nutrition, that is in short in one's body (such as protein and vitamins), be absorbed easier, and the plan is to let the nutrition, that is to much in one's body (such as fats and calories), be absorbed harder.

If it is still not understandable, see this:

For nutrients which our body is lack of, they plan makes their absorption easier; and for nutrients that is excess in our body, the plan makes their absorption harder.

But looks like you think the plan makes all nutrients' absorption harder. This is not true.

OK, I'll post my daily intake, and may response to your posts tomorrow.

 

[Jeanette401]

Actually I was saying that it seems like your plan makes calorie absorption easier

I think I get the gist of what you're saying now - that you take broth and juice to try to make it easier to get them in the system.

I think the drawback to what you're proposing is that it doesn't really seem to address quantity. Say that eating protein as a broth helps you absorb 5% more protein than eating it as a steak. If you eat a steak with 100g of protein you still get more protein than if you eat 50g of protein from broth.

Again, I'm not arguing that your plan works for you. I just don't think absorption is the reason it works. I think it works because you eat lots of calorie spare, nutrient dense foods. Which helps you feel more full on fewer calories. And I don't think the juice is really necessary for that, especially since the fiber in fruit is good for you.

 

[douknowjello]

I've found this whole topic very interesting but the fact that ChefChiTown chimes in here and there with the most hilarious comments has me rolling. And the topic just keeps goin like he's not said a word, just in the background, lol.