Hi all,

I just registered with this site today and I'm amazed at the amount of knowledge some people have. Trouble is, there seem to be a lot of people pushing their own stuff as well, so it's difficult to tell if something is genuine or not.

I've just read a thread on Michael Thurmond's plan, and it sounds good. Can someone with high reputation confirm or deny that this is worth the money?

A quick Google has also found a couple of others I haven't heard of before: The South Beach Diet and The Density Diet. Does anyone have any experience of these? I don't want to waste my time and money on a useless fad or con?

Thanks in advance,
Annette

how about the "eat healthy food at 500 calories below maintenance per day with a macro split of 40-50% carbs, 20-30% fats and 20-30% protein diet"? and use the money you save on healthy food choices from your bulk supermarket.

Thank you Jynus.

The problem I think most people will have is counting the calories, measuring the right proportion of protein, fat, etc., and knowing exactly what the maintenance level should be.

That is why I need a system, or prescribed rules, to help me when I'm too busy to analyse my food.

I have actually just bought SPAMREMOVED, mainly because it is cheap, and it seems to suit my lifestyle.

I'll post back in a couple of weeks and let you know how I'm doing.

I'm still interested to know if anyone has experience of either of the other two diets in my opening question, or anything else you can recommend.

Thanks,
Annette

the problem with those prescribed diets is that they suck. South beach and atkins puts a negative spin on carbs, saying things like don't eat fruits and veggies, which is stupid any way you look at it. weight waters puts points on everything, but then following it will completely screw your macros due to missing the boat on calories vs nutrition. Healthy fats will almost be ignored when in reality they should be a huge part of your diet. The density diet is 100% BS because 6lbs a week is IMPOSSIBLE unless you're insanely obese, just on the basis of their claims I know it's diet sucks.

This is writing 10min later. I can just about guarantee that the density diet is a starvation diet. Count the calories in it. Bet you anything they come out to 1000-1200. healthy foods starving is just as bad as regular foods starving. You're still shedding muscle mass and slowing your metabolism. That being said howeever, I cannot say for sure. I cannot find anything that goes into further details. Basically what i'm getting the jist of is that the bulk of foods you eat are going to be low density, so like vegetables, fruits, chicken, etc. things that have a lot of size thet are by comparison low calorie. Not a bad idea, but why not just eat healthy foods like that anyway? They do talk about olive oil a bit saying it should also be eaten, which is also good. But I have a hunch that other healthy perfectly fine foods like nuts and peanut butters and oils are going to get the shaft from this diet.

Jynus,

Your assumptions about the Density Diet are basically correct, but it does seem to allow nuts etc as well. The diet shows how the quantity of any food can be varied according to its density. It certainly isn't a starvation diet; there is no restriction on quantity. This is from a quick read through so I might be wrong. I'll read it properly tonight.

Why was my link removed by the way? It wasn't spam - I have no commercial interest in the diet at all. I thought a link would be useful to save people from typing it into Google.

Thanks again,
Annette