Ok I read the FAQ and also read a ton of other articles about "cutting diets" or losing body fat, etc.

Rather than some complex system it seems to be the basic tenants of all of them can be reduced to something very simple.

Meat
Green Veggies
Water

That's it, that's all you eat, if it isn't meat, or a green vegetable, or water, you simple don't eat/drink it.

Is there something majorly off with this as a temporary (2-3 month) fat loss diet?

I've yet to see a single person on tv complaining they got fat from eating too many carrots. Here's a complex diet for you:

Eat less calories than what your body consumes.

Well DUH...

But under that system only eating 1,000 calories of cotten candy would be fine, because you take in less than you consume. Ya you'd lose weight, but this diet would also destroy your health and body.

Yes this will likely work very well. Add some fruit though imo.

EDIT: total calories still need to be under maintenance to lose weight.

what have you got against vegetables that aren't green, you some sort of bigot?

Leigh Peele writes something on her blog about how ****ing ******ed this type of stuff is. I'd suggest reading it (the post and her blog). She likes Warren G, so she's back in my good graces after whatever asinine **** she said before that made me declare jihad.

I have found my future wife.
ty

You can add a good mix of nuts too, and you can drink green tea. Also don't be a vegetable racist.

No processed foods, that's it. From the FAQs:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/85...ferrerid=59859

Isn't this basically PSMF?

meats (no fatty stuff like ham though), vegetables, fruits, water, sometimes (skim) milk, some whole grains (but not much), and spoil yourself with a greasy hamburger or something once a week

I'd highly recommend reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" by Gary Taubes

There's a lot of bad nutritional science out there. The reason is, conducting studies costs a lot of money, and most of them are funded by organizations that are not impartial. They want studies they pay for to have a certain outcome. AHA for example will cut funding on any study that indicates dietary cholesterol isn't the devil, because if it gets out that reducing dietary cholesterol is unlikely to have any effect on blood cholesterol and definitely won't increase your life expectancy, they'll lose all their Cheerio money and have to completely change the direction of their whole organization and admit that they've been wrong for decades

Taubes sort of compiles all the studies and history of nutritional science in this book and analyzes them in an impartial way, with the focus above all being on good science rather than bad

But, cliff notes:

The body evolved on a certain diet, during the paleolithic era, a 2 million year period during which 99% of our evolutionary history occured. Then all of a sudden, agriculture came around, and the human diet changed dramatically and suddenly, without allowing enough time for any significant further evolution to occur

So good scientists believe any change to this paleolithic diet can be considered "unnatural factors" and shouldn't be prescribed as a public health recommendation

During the paleolithic era humans were all hunter-gatherers. We ate a lot of meat, a lot of vegetation, and not much else. So the calories were coming mostly from fat and protein, and contained very few carbohydrates. That's the diet that our bodies are most likely evolved to eat right now

Looking just at obesity, and what causes it, Taubes puts together a very very convincing argument against refined carbohydrates. Flour, sugar, corn, etc. There's a mountain of evidence to read through in his book

Taubes also lays out this whole thing about calories in, calories out

Everyone says calories out must exceed calories in

So the equation looks like

a - b = c

A is in, B is out, C is the energy level your body chemistry naturally strives for without you even thinking about it

Taubes suggests that people trying to lose weight only by reducing A, will also naturally reduce their B, because their body's chemistry wants to keep C at the same level.

Likewise for people trying to lose weight by increasing B, they also tend to unwittingly increase their A, again because everybody's body naturally wants to keep their C at a stable level

So Taubes looks at what's effecting C and not surprisingly he thinks it's refined carbohydrates. Which is supported by the fact that when people eat refined carbohydrates, it stimulates their pancreas to produce insulin, which makes you hungrier and more lethargic

So he seems to have found a direct connection between carbohydrates (especially the omgwtf levels of carbohydrates in refined carbohydrates like flour and sugar) and the inflation of your body's natural C (which is what makes you fat)

I imagine if you were wanting a non counting calories system you could do a lot worse than what you propose. Few bits and peices of fruit wouldn't do a great deal of harm either. Compared to the average diet you couldn't help but reduce calories.
I think Lyle says that in one of his books. Part of the success of lowcarb diets can be put down to the fact that it's basically reducing calories by stealth.

Might have issues with stuff like getting calcium and other minerals unless there's some wonder foods out there.

What you're describing isn't far off the paleo diet.

Check out http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ - basically the paleo diet with lots of fat.

Worked for me. Also eggs and nuts in addition to meat and veggies and some fruit. Went from 215 to 199 in a couple of months. After a couple of weeks I allowed myself a small amount of carbs every couple of days. Good luck.

Taubes has been shredded quite a few times by a variety of actual scientists and not random journalists.

The reason low-carb diets work is because you are taking away the energy source of your body, and fat cells store energy. This causes entropy. Once you re-introduce carbs, your fat cells absorb it all back, causing you to be fat.

This little factoid was know long before the AHA was ever cocieved and needs no studies to back it up. There are funky processes called disection and chemistry. In a disection, they scrape the cholesterol build-up off the arterial walls and then they analyze the stuff with chemistry, finding... CHOLESTORAL! Cholesterol build-up is not exclusive to blood vessels, gall stones are cholesterol.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f15/go...o-carb-925504/

Read this guy's log he has pretty good results he only eats proteins, and takes multivitimans. He seems to have decent energy levels because he doesn't lift. No way zero carbs could ever work if you are working out or lifting any heavy amount of weight.

lol

It doesn't sound like many of these so-called dietitions know basic anatomy and physiology. Rather than believe all the bull**** you read from these guys, and traverse from book to book and idea to idea, try picking up a college level anatomy book and then decide if carb dropping is a good idea. There is no short-cut to losing weight that is maintainable.

Also, unless you believe the Bible, you should know that 99% of our human history, our expectation was less than 50 years, so paleo diets are obviously not optimal.

Eh. Card dropping is a virtual necessity to achieve positive macronutrient breakdowns (IE high protein).

A lot of the stuff DaveT says is 1) weird 2) of uncertain background. Given his past history of rampant idiocy. I'd just assume he's ****ing ******ed. I'd like some confirmation from Smiley or AB, before I actually bother wasting a month of my life reading AARR.

None of your claims have passed the test of time. Those on restrictive diets and no exercise look like this.