Upcoming UDS review

[humilispuer]

Ladies and Gents - Today I finally received my copy of UDS (Ultimate Diet Secrets by Dr. Ellis - The full version) The book is around 600 pages so it will be a while before I post a final review. If anything really hits a note I will post it in this thread. Also, I suck as a writer and a critic so don't expect much :wink:

-Humilis

[David Whitley, RKC]

I also recieved UDS 2 days ago, the light version. I can post a review as well, if'n ya'll want.

look forward to your comments Humi.

[Doug Szolek]

The more the better, Dave :)

The big UDS Hemi ? - better update us before were old

[humilispuer]

Well I am already 80 pages = 4 chapters in to the book. I will probably nail down another four chapters tonight. I should have the book done within the next week. Thus far, the information has been priceless. The beauty of UDS lies within its simplicity. No BS, no magic bullets, the facts and nothing more. Also, I am fascinated with the biographical information as well as the technical information. I, myself, in my short time on earth, have went through changes similar to Ellis - 195 pounds of fat down to 165 pounds of fairly defined muscle down to an emaciated 110 pounds of skin and bones and now back up to a lean 150. I will keep you guys posted :)

[David Whitley, RKC]

I am about halfway thru the lite. I like it a lot, very "no BS". Ellis' writing style vaugely reminds me of Mike Mentzer. Kind of a "It's OK to disagree with me, but you're still wrong". I like that. I still have much respect for Mentzer, even with the flaws in his approach. I don't see flaws like that in Ellis' writing.

Interesting side note............yesterday i was talking to a friend & collegue of mine about fat loss. she is in her forties & probably has 50+lbs to lose. She asked what i have been doing & i told her the whole bit about low carbs & she said she "tried atkins & it didn't work for her". I told her it was because she didn't keep track of calories & she said " does that really matter?"

I told her the facts & she seemed to have a moment of understanding. Let's hope & pray she goes with it.

Great story.

It is amazing what people don't know, or want to beleve about diet. I've always been sort of an Atkins apoligists, saying it wasn't that far from Ellis. I think that's because it was always obvious to me that of course, calories count. So i kind of intuitively added that to atikns and overlooked how key that is to Ellis.

Bill

[aaron]

It is interesting to see that many of us have followed similiar paths. Although Humi and myself are probably two of the youngest guys on the forum we've both have gone through many of the same weight changes.

I was a chunky smaller child. At one point last year I weighed, an emmaciated 137 at around 3% body fat, only 2 pounds more than I weighed four years earlier. Over the summer I shot up to 165-170, most of the weight being in my belly (free chicken patties and apple turnovers :) ) Now I'm back to 150lbs. I will also have a review of UDS, but school work comes first so it'll be awhile.

[humilispuer]

About half way into the book, at this point. The information on metabolic adaptations and the effects of under eating/overeating was fantastic. So far, have not found anything to complain about - solid read thus far.

-Humilis

[Connie Brown]

I am snickering at your story of your lady friend. Why am I not surprised that I relate to her?

Humi were you the one who asked me to keep contributing? LOL you asked for it!

I agree that portions matter, but that whole calories in = calories out thing is SISS. It works if you have healthy LBM and choose healthy foods I guess. Which applies to you young pups.

I should say, every time I tried matching calories-in with calories-out, I failed again. Partly because I did not understand how badly my calorie-burning furnace was broken compared to those lists of "minutes of exercise to burn x calories."

And partly because every time I was on a calorie-counting plan I would spend "justa" few calories on junk food (DOH!!!!!) and be off to the races.

Here's an article reporting people losing similar weight eating variable calories at the same activity level. Makes sense to me but see the researchers scratch their heads:

http://www.gazettenet.com/story.cfm?id_no=10280063


Here's an excerpt from DesMaisons' work that describes a less simple but more accurate model for me:

"
For people with normal biochemistry, losing weight simply requires that they eat less. Their bodies continue to burn at the same rate, but they are eating less than they burn. When the muscles ask for fuel that is not available from current supplies, the system releases extra triglycerides from the fat stores, and it is burned. These are the people for whom a reduced-calorie diet works.

For some sugar-sensitive people, this does not work. Their muscles do not burn properly. The fat-burning mechanism isn't activated because they are not exercising. The longer they maintain their couch potato status, the less efficient their fat burning becomes. Insufficient fat burning coupled with insulin resistance is a double whammy. Not only do the muscles burn inefficiently, but they also have a hard time getting the fuel they need. They are damped down by the insulin resistance. Insulin-resistant couch potatoes are unlikely to lose weight adequately even if they cut calories and exercise moderately.

Some sugar sensitives who cut way down on their food intake and exercise vigorously lose weight initially, but then plateau. The scale will not budge further. They too are inordinately frustrated because they are not getting the results they want. They do not understand that they are not getting enough to eat to match the level of exercise, and so their bodies are holding on to everything they can. Sometimes these people actually need to eat more to jump-start their weight loss.

The answer for all these folks is essentially the same: the weight loss equation must be tailored to your own specific biochemistry. "Eat less, exercise more" is a recommendation for a very small number of sugar-sensitive people. The best option is a new equation that says:

Eat the right amount of the right foods at the right time for your body.

Exercise at the right level of intensity to get the results you want.

"

Connie,

Not to get all Ellis on ya' but as the so-called moderator i feel a Surgeons General Warning should come with that post.

The calories in v. calories out works for the vast majority of people, including quite a few who it doesn't work for because they under report and over eat. If they do lo-carb with it, and exercise, its virtually fool proof.

Ultimately your formula is how I eat, and is the platonic form of De-SISS dieting. But, over the years I have found that "If you give em' enough rope..."

That is why folks new to clubbells can come here and a get a program laid out for them. I have battled a couple guys over at DD who said "I tried a wiffle bat with sand in it and it wasn't so great, so CBs are no big deal. "

Lot's of people diet like that too. It takes a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge to self perscribe - its a great goal but must be kept in perspective.

I think it was me who asked you to keep contributing, and I damn well meant it -I HOPE YOUR WORKING ON THAT ARTICLE TOO.

BILL

[Connie Brown]

Oops point taken. You can go Ellis on me anytime - I like his style anyhoo. I will keep that rope thing in mind. You made me laugh, yes I bet my early attempts at low-carb (pre Ellis) were like a sand-filled bat, eesh. I also didn't have an exercise program devised by the coaches here that was appropriate to my fitness level and goals.

thanks for the heads-up. Now that we do have good resources I agree that the best thing is to come here, do what the coaches say for gosh sake and quit arguing, and ask here if it seems to not be working.

I am working on that article - perhaps I can swing a draft by you in a bit?

Connie

For sure

bill@movingcenterfitness.com

[humilispuer]

Finally finished the book (Nearly 600 pages)!

I really don't have any complaints about the book.

I learned a ton of new information. It was nice to have the facts laid out in front of me - no BS. Two items I really enjoyed were Metabolic Adaptations and the rate versus risk farce.

I would whole heartedly recommend the book to anyone who has the money and of course the time to read through it. You will not be sorry. The book is big - don't let this put you off; it has to be this size because it is so comprehensive (It definitley is an education).

For now, I will continue to follow NHE. It is working far too well to change plans. Once I reach a plateu, however, you can bet I will fall back on everything I learned in UDS.

-Two thumbs up.