Very Discouraged

Not sure why. My plan states cheese is to be counted as protein and not towards your dairy intake.

i just do what they say

I would also not have the fruit. The fruit is pure sugar. Our lazy bodies will use free flowing sugar(from the fruit) In our blood streams,for energy BEFORE it will burn off our stored fat. Burning the stored fat is what causes weight loss. 

She only responds to the ones who agree with her but she is the one who posted her food list and when the vets step in and look at it.  Give her advise from years of experience she ignores them. It's very funny that the ones who are saying she is fine, most are still in a honeymoon phase. Ha ha ha ha.  Wait till the loss comes to a grinding halt.  

Fruit is not pure sugar.  It's a combination of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, phytonutrients, and fiber.  It is wildly healthy.  Nobody here got fat because they couldn't put down the apples.

it is pure sugar along with the vitamins and etc. the body recognizes the sugar from the fruit as soon as it hits the mouth.  Too-much sugar gets stored as MOr e fat as well as not burning off the fat already stored. 

It may. Be "wildly" heathy for someone not trying to lose weight,but not for those who are. 

And IMHO,YOu don't have a clue about what caused someone else to gain weight.

Biology is biology.  Calories in, calories out.  Nobody is exempt from the rules.

biology IS biology. The body will use sugar before it uses anything else for fuel,because sugar is easy. 

How do you think that matters in terms of weight loss?  At the end of the day, any calories you eat but don't burn will become fat; and conversely, anything burn but don't eat will come out of your fat reserves.  Nobody gets a free pass on calories because they aren't carbohydrates.

Eat 50 calories of carbs and burn 100 calories.  You immediately burn the carbs and pull the deficit of 50 calories out of fat.  How do you think it works differently for fat and protein calories?

it works differently because sugar carbs are absorbed immediately and at 100%. Non carb foods typically take longer and require more energy to actually burn them?

of course part of it is calories in and calories out. I guess you are next going to say that 100 calories of icecream and 100 calories of beef and the same .

Not exactly.  What you are talking about is called the thermic effect of food, which is the energy your body expends to digest, absorb, and distribute the nutrients you consume.  It is indeed a real thing; however, it's only part of the equation.

It is generally accepted that protein is the hardest to process so you burn 20-35% of protein calories just digesting it.  Next is carbohydrates, which take 5-15%.  At the bottom are fats, the easiest macronutrient to digest, estimated to actually be as low as 0-5%.

So even in their isolated form, not all non-carbs "typically take longer and require more energy to actually burn."  Fats are the worst.

Further complicating the issue is processing.  Processed foods have a much, much lower thermic effect than whole, unprocessed foods.  So for example your classic protein shake might be protein but it's also a highly-processed liquid, whereas a serving of blueberries, with all its tough fiber and other structures, makes your body work hard to digest.

Finally, one must consider the issue of calorie density.  So while different foods might have different thermic effects, they also start off with different numbers of calories per pound (or cup).  A serving of chicken might be harder to digest but 65% of 190 calories (124) is still more than 85% of 85 calories (72) for a severing of blueberries -- and that's a whole cup of blueberries!

Which is just one of dozens of reasons I'm a strong advocate of whole foods, especially plants, over processed products and supplements.