1 pound smoked bacon 530 calories.
1 big mac 580 calories.
apparently the Atkins diet has nothing to do with carbs, but in making it impossible to eat as many calories as you can with junk food without throwing up. (note for those about to embark on a bacon diet knowing this, the non smoked bacon, which is much fattier, clocks in at double the calories).
:lulz:, as if it didn't sound like an obscure form of self mutilation before!
Was that your actual consumption for the day?
Wait...
Eating fewer calories helps you lose weight?
GENIUS!
\
:oilpig:
Quote from: Richter on August 27, 2009, 01:04:40 PM
:lulz:, as if it didn't sound like an obscure form of self mutilation before!
Was that your actual consumption for the day?
Oh god no, that much bacon would make me throw up.
Another dark secret of Atkins.
if you instead use the bacon to create a thermal lance (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21986.msg744825#msg744825), you could burn away a lot more fat....
You also have to like a lot of eggs--and mayo, which IS eggs. It's a disgusting diet--I watched my dad on it years ago and it made me gag to watch what he ate. He did lose weight--about 30# give or take in a matter of weeks. But of course once he was OFF the diet, he gained it all back and then some.
Scary thing was that he had been recently diagnosed as hypertensive before starting the diet. Drove my husband nuts.
So what would a diet like this do for your cholesterol?
Atkins died of a heart attack. Draw your own conclusions.
I also did the Atkins Diet.
I avoided that much bacon and supplemented with a lot of vegetables. A LOT OF FUCKING FRESH SALAD.
People who go on that diet don't read the fucking book and think that it's A-OK to just eat steak, eggs, cheese, and bacon the whole time. Does it work? Yeah, kinda, but then you get totally bound up and irritable because of the inherit lack of fiber and citric acid in your diet.
A typical day's food for me looked like this:
Breakfast: Atkins breakfast bar and shake
Lunch: Cold cut rollups- Typically ham or turkey wrapped in swiss cheese. Only about 3-4 of these. Mixed green salad (no tomatoes or carrots) and ranch dressing. Measured out to serving size. Multivitamin and Chromium Picolinate (for metabolism.)
Dinner: Protein serving, typically a lean steak, porkchop, or chicken breast, always grilled and lightly seasoned. Side of green vegetables such as broccoli or asparagus. Sometimes I would melt cheese on EVERYTHING if it was too bland.
Snacks: Cheddar cheese and pepperoni (also great in salads), low-carb snack bar, or celery and peanut butter.
I also chewed a LOT of gum to fight the hunger for the first 2 weeks while I had to withdraw from carbohydrate intake and deal with not being as full. The first 2 weeks SUCK DICK, but if you can balance everything correctly (which I haven't been able to do since I stopped living with my parents and realize food is expensive) the weight does drop. I was also working out constantly between Tae Kwon Do and in the stock room at work. This was before my knee went though.
The most important thing to remember with any low-carb diet is to balance your fiber and protein, and watch your fat intake. Your body does need a bit of fat, or your brain will stop working (See also: ranch dressing and cheese), but aside from that, everything I ate was relatively lean. I went from a size 16 to a size 10 in 6 months and it stayed that way until last year when stress and unemployment made me balloon again, despite trying to juggle the diet. I think it did more harm than good, since I couldn't afford to stick with it easily.
Important notes about ANY diet:
- Always check with a doctor first
- Always work out a budget and do research into how much of a difference the cost of the new food plan will make in your life.
- FUCKING PORTION CONTROL
- Vitamins, good god, take vitamins
Quote from: LMNO on August 27, 2009, 08:21:33 PM
Atkins died of a heart attack. Draw your own conclusions.
He was also considered obese.
Also, STOP DRINKING.
Srsly. For the boozers out there, quitting drinking for a month is a guaranteed 7 pounds.
The simple way of losing weight is:
eat less.
move more.
there, done.
not drinking is harder for many heavy drinkers (if so, seek help or stop whining and accept the consequences) so maybe switch to vodka? (lowest calorie drink there is)
Quote from: LMNO on August 27, 2009, 08:29:33 PM
Also, STOP DRINKING.
Srsly. For the boozers out there, quitting drinking for a month is a guaranteed 7 pounds.
THIS.
Alcohol is the fastest metabolized sugar. That shit packs on the pounds.
Quote from: Regret on August 27, 2009, 08:58:51 PM
The simple way of losing weight is:
eat less.
move more.
there, done.
not drinking is harder for many heavy drinkers (if so, seek help or stop whining and accept the consequences) so maybe switch to vodka? (lowest calorie drink there is)
Not always true. I got fatter by working out and eating less because my body freaked out and started storing fat thinking I was starving. However, this is my metabolism, not yours.
The trick is to balance what you eat, when you eat, in controlled portions, and do a regular amount of exercise. And vitamins, because a loss of calories also equals a loss of vitamins. And you need those to function properly.
I also am a strong advocate of teas. Teas have no calories (unless you add sugar or dairy) and great benefits.
Quote from: LMNO on August 27, 2009, 08:21:33 PM
Atkins died of a heart attack. Draw your own conclusions.
No, he slipped on an icy sidewalk and smacked his head.
Quote from: teh wikipediaOn April 8, 2003, at age 72, a day after a major snowstorm in New York, Dr. Atkins slipped on the ice while walking to work, hitting his head and causing bleeding around his brain. He lost consciousness on the way to the hospital, where he spent two weeks in intensive care. His death certificate states that the cause of death was "blunt impact injury of head with epidural hematoma".
I can't argue whether or not he was obese, though.
Quote from: Suu on August 27, 2009, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 27, 2009, 08:29:33 PM
Also, STOP DRINKING.
Srsly. For the boozers out there, quitting drinking for a month is a guaranteed 7 pounds.
THIS.
Alcohol is the fastest metabolized sugar. That shit packs on the pounds.
Quote from: Regret on August 27, 2009, 08:58:51 PM
The simple way of losing weight is:
eat less.
move more.
there, done.
not drinking is harder for many heavy drinkers (if so, seek help or stop whining and accept the consequences) so maybe switch to vodka? (lowest calorie drink there is)
Not always true. I got fatter by working out and eating less because my body freaked out and started storing fat thinking I was starving. However, this is my metabolism, not yours.
The trick is to balance what you eat, when you eat, in controlled portions, and do a regular amount of exercise. And vitamins, because a loss of calories also equals a loss of vitamins. And you need those to function properly.
I also am a strong advocate of teas. Teas have no calories (unless you add sugar or dairy) and great benefits.
Were you eating breakfast?
Quote from: Squid on August 27, 2009, 06:45:07 PM
So what would a diet like this do for your cholesterol?
Probably horrible things, but I have an advantage in that cholesterol is the one thing i don't need to worry about getting too much of, my 'bad' cholesterol comes in abnormally low. If I actually start losing weight on the bacon and vegetables (edit: and yogurt) thing I'm doing now I'm going to get it tested again to be sure its safe long term though (and in 20 years it'll probably be a different story).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 27, 2009, 10:19:02 PM
Quote from: Suu on August 27, 2009, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 27, 2009, 08:29:33 PM
Also, STOP DRINKING.
Srsly. For the boozers out there, quitting drinking for a month is a guaranteed 7 pounds.
THIS.
Alcohol is the fastest metabolized sugar. That shit packs on the pounds.
Quote from: Regret on August 27, 2009, 08:58:51 PM
The simple way of losing weight is:
eat less.
move more.
there, done.
not drinking is harder for many heavy drinkers (if so, seek help or stop whining and accept the consequences) so maybe switch to vodka? (lowest calorie drink there is)
Not always true. I got fatter by working out and eating less because my body freaked out and started storing fat thinking I was starving. However, this is my metabolism, not yours.
The trick is to balance what you eat, when you eat, in controlled portions, and do a regular amount of exercise. And vitamins, because a loss of calories also equals a loss of vitamins. And you need those to function properly.
I also am a strong advocate of teas. Teas have no calories (unless you add sugar or dairy) and great benefits.
Were you eating breakfast?
Probably not. That's why it failed. I have a very bad habit of skipping breakfast and making lunch my largest meal of the day. This isn't because I want to, it's just how it works out. Which is why when I was very hardcore on the low-carb diet for 3 years, I had the bars and shakes on hand. Yeah, it's not cheap, but for people like me who seldom have time to eat a real breakfast, it was worth it.
Quote from: Suu on August 27, 2009, 10:38:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 27, 2009, 10:19:02 PM
Quote from: Suu on August 27, 2009, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 27, 2009, 08:29:33 PM
Also, STOP DRINKING.
Srsly. For the boozers out there, quitting drinking for a month is a guaranteed 7 pounds.
THIS.
Alcohol is the fastest metabolized sugar. That shit packs on the pounds.
Quote from: Regret on August 27, 2009, 08:58:51 PM
The simple way of losing weight is:
eat less.
move more.
there, done.
not drinking is harder for many heavy drinkers (if so, seek help or stop whining and accept the consequences) so maybe switch to vodka? (lowest calorie drink there is)
Not always true. I got fatter by working out and eating less because my body freaked out and started storing fat thinking I was starving. However, this is my metabolism, not yours.
The trick is to balance what you eat, when you eat, in controlled portions, and do a regular amount of exercise. And vitamins, because a loss of calories also equals a loss of vitamins. And you need those to function properly.
I also am a strong advocate of teas. Teas have no calories (unless you add sugar or dairy) and great benefits.
Were you eating breakfast?
Probably not. That's why it failed. I have a very bad habit of skipping breakfast and making lunch my largest meal of the day. This isn't because I want to, it's just how it works out. Which is why when I was very hardcore on the low-carb diet for 3 years, I had the bars and shakes on hand. Yeah, it's not cheap, but for people like me who seldom have time to eat a real breakfast, it was worth it.
Yep. No breakfast puts you in conservation mode. I slam a slimfast as soon as I wake up, and then I don't bother eating until 10AM or so.
for clarity:
when i say eat less i mean eat less at every meal. (like eat 20% less.) i don't mean eat differently or skip a meal.
Quote from: Regret on August 27, 2009, 11:14:53 PM
for clarity:
when i say eat less i mean eat less at every meal. (like eat 20% less.) i don't mean eat differently or skip a meal.
THIS.
I eat 1800 cal/day, over 5 very small meals. So far, I've lost 30 pounds (no translation for Eurotards, unfortunately) since late April.
Quote from: Regret on August 27, 2009, 08:58:51 PM
The simple way of losing weight is:
eat less.
move more.
The best diet in the world will do you no good if it leaves you unable to sleep and out buying junk food at 1 AM when your willpower is low.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 27, 2009, 11:25:22 PM
Quote from: Regret on August 27, 2009, 08:58:51 PM
The simple way of losing weight is:
eat less.
move more.
The best diet in the world will do you no good if it leaves you unable to sleep and out buying junk food at 1 AM when your willpower is low.
That's a willpower problem, not a diet problem.
Its a monkey problem. If we didn't have those there wouldn't be diets in the first place.
Once I get into the mindset of a diet, my willpower is unbreakable. Just when your meals are coordinated with other housemates and you all share the grocery bill, things are tricky to do your own thing.
We just cut out all fast food, fried food and soda. Cut back on pasta and breads and eat more chicken.
I lost 10 pounds (all I needed really, could sure stand to tone up though) and Mr Squid lost 35 pounds.
i eat what i want and just dont go over daily calorie limit
oh and RUN MOAR
Quote from: Squid on August 28, 2009, 03:42:06 AM
We just cut out all fast food, fried food and soda. Cut back on pasta and breads and eat more chicken.
I lost 10 pounds (all I needed really, could sure stand to tone up though) and Mr Squid lost 35 pounds.
I have done this and been able to maintain my weight, just not lose. I have to move around a lot to get that into any sort of effects of the GOOD sort...and unfortunately, once I STOP moving around a lot, I pile it all back on AND THEN SOME.
But all my family, both sides, battle obesity...so I think I'm lucky to still be on a single-digit for sizes here...by the time my paternal grandmother was my age, she was 5' tall and weighed 350 lbs. No shit.
Wow that's not healthy at all.
I'd love to get more exercise in, but I'm really lazy, forgetful and I manage my time poorly-meaning I sit here on the internet in my free time usually instead of jogging or.... something
I have this humungous fucking hill we have to walk over (uphill both ways, etc.) to get to my kids' schools...so if I walk that 3 times a week, I'm good, and if I want to LOSE weight, I jog the hills. For a half-hour straight. :x
I need to get motivated to gain some healthy weight. Right now, I'm about 110 lbs, which is about 20 lbs underweight, and its having an effect on my sleep, mental processes, and general well being. Eating horrible fatty foods and high sugar foods isn't going to help me; the former will make me sick and the latter will spike and bottom out my blood sugar. I /do/ eat breakfast every day, a good helping of steel cut oats (thanks for suggesting this badge; I haven't had a mid morning crash since I started), and I eat lunch and dinner (usually).
Life weights. Srsly. Muscle weight will make you feel better than gut weight.
I lost about 40lbs when I went vegetarian and I avoided high fructose corn syrup as much as possible. I also walked a lot (the nearest decent coffee shop is blocks from my school) and did yoga, so that was another 10lbs.
Quote from: Kai on August 28, 2009, 07:30:40 PM
I need to get motivated to gain some healthy weight. Right now, I'm about 110 lbs, which is about 20 lbs underweight, and its having an effect on my sleep, mental processes, and general well being. Eating horrible fatty foods and high sugar foods isn't going to help me; the former will make me sick and the latter will spike and bottom out my blood sugar. I /do/ eat breakfast every day, a good helping of steel cut oats (thanks for suggesting this badge; I haven't had a mid morning crash since I started), and I eat lunch and dinner (usually).
Fuck you Kai.
At least you aren't 160 lbs and complaining about wanting to lose weight though. I hate that.
does anyone know how many more calories you burn by thinking really hard? as opposed to staring off into space blankly?
Quote from: rong on August 29, 2009, 01:38:47 AM
does anyone know how many more calories you burn by thinking really hard? as opposed to staring off into space blankly?
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=381608
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on August 29, 2009, 02:13:51 AM
Quote from: rong on August 29, 2009, 01:38:47 AM
does anyone know how many more calories you burn by thinking really hard? as opposed to staring off into space blankly?
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=381608
thanks.
Quote* IQ can effect energy consumption. After learning a task, lower IQ
people have to exert more energy to complete a task than high IQ
people who have learned the same task.
that must be why fat people are so smart
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on August 29, 2009, 02:13:51 AM
Quote from: rong on August 29, 2009, 01:38:47 AM
does anyone know how many more calories you burn by thinking really hard? as opposed to staring off into space blankly?
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=381608
Google answers is officially 10,000 times better than yahoo answers.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 29, 2009, 12:08:15 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 28, 2009, 07:30:40 PM
I need to get motivated to gain some healthy weight. Right now, I'm about 110 lbs, which is about 20 lbs underweight, and its having an effect on my sleep, mental processes, and general well being. Eating horrible fatty foods and high sugar foods isn't going to help me; the former will make me sick and the latter will spike and bottom out my blood sugar. I /do/ eat breakfast every day, a good helping of steel cut oats (thanks for suggesting this badge; I haven't had a mid morning crash since I started), and I eat lunch and dinner (usually).
Fuck you Kai.
At least you aren't 160 lbs and complaining about wanting to lose weight though. I hate that.
If I was 160 and wanting to loose weight I'd probably just change to the diet I have now, eat less and exercise more.
It's one thing to know where you are and not know how to address it. It's another thing entirely to complain about it.
You could try more beans. I just tossed a pack of them back into the freezes cause it came to 500 calories.
I've just been tracking my calories, and it has really helped me lose weight. If I know that half-bagel with cream cheese will put me over my limit, but I can eat as much cucumber salad as I could possibly ever want, it's great incentive to make better food choices. That, and making friends with being kind of hungry all the time. I also eat first thing in the morning, and that's made a big difference. I just keep boiled eggs and sliced cheese and stuff like that on hand.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149# interesting look at carbohydrates and weight
Quote from: Nigel on August 30, 2009, 09:15:13 PM
I've just been tracking my calories, and it has really helped me lose weight. If I know that half-bagel with cream cheese will put me over my limit, but I can eat as much cucumber salad as I could possibly ever want, it's great incentive to make better food choices. That, and making friends with being kind of hungry all the time. I also eat first thing in the morning, and that's made a big difference. I just keep boiled eggs and sliced cheese and stuff like that on hand.
Yep. That's pretty much what I'm doing, and I'm down to 235 pounds from 268.
Right on, TGRR.
I'm pretty sure that if I was able to stop drinking beer, I'd look like Michael Phelps.
Quote from: LMNO on September 21, 2009, 07:50:06 PM
Right on, TGRR.
I'm pretty sure that if I was able to stop drinking beer, I'd look like Michael Phelps.
Yeah, no booze at all. Plus, 8 hours a week at the gym. Good boring stuff like 5 of those hours being on a treadmill.
The payoff, of course, is buying a bit more time on the planet ( :crankey: ) and not having to inject myself with insulin.
What the fuck do you do to keep your mind occupied for five hours at a gym?
Quote from: LMNO on September 21, 2009, 07:55:06 PM
What the fuck do you do to keep your mind occupied for five hours at a gym?
Not all at once. I go for 1.5-2 hours on any given day.
I got myself a Zune, and I can use it to listen to tunes, or set it for FM so I can listen to Fox News, which they have on EVERY TV IN THE JOINT, and drive myself batshit listening to Bill O'Rielly.
TGRR,
Now remembers what the "C" stands for in YMCA.
Quote from: fomenter on September 21, 2009, 06:38:12 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149# interesting look at carbohydrates and weight
Thanks, I'm listening to it right now.
i have been looking for his book but no luck so far on finding a online version.. i will post it if i come across one,
the stuff he says is interesting i need to study it more, there is also a funny/documentary called fat head that is based in part on what he is saying, it is a answer to the super size me funny/documentary that came out a while back. http://fathead-movie.com/ i have it on my movie list so i will see it next week some time..
I bet you can get it at the library.
Quote from: Nigel on September 21, 2009, 09:25:03 PM
I bet you can get it at the library.
Socialist! Why should MY tax dollars support something as useless as a library? Who uses them anyway? All they go is give people
ideas, and that's never done anyone any good.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 21, 2009, 09:26:16 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 21, 2009, 09:25:03 PM
I bet you can get it at the library.
Socialist! Why should MY tax dollars support something as useless as a library? Who uses them anyway? All they go is give people ideas, and that's never done anyone any good.
:lulz:
local library WOW i haven't been there since my internet got connected, you discordians and your out of the box thinking...
i cant figure out how much of what he is saying is right or if its exaggerated, did you watch it all? what did you think?
I watched it all and I think it's sound. The evidence he provided was very compelling... I am going to buy the book, I think. I forwarded the video to a friend who is a public health policymaker and to my doctor friend... I'm curious about what they think of it.
It would absolutely help explain why, although me and two of my friends went on virtually identical calorie-restricting diets and we all work out together, one of us has lost a lot of weight, one has lost some weight, and one has lost none at all. Two of us cut most of our calories from the sugar and starch spectrum because that was easiest and least frustrating for us. I think I drink more beer and wine than Daffodil, so even though I am more active overall and consume fewer calories, I've lost less than she has.
I think I'll see what happens, over the next few weeks, if I cut starches, beer, wine, and refined sugars out of my diet completely, and get carbs strictly from fresh fruits and vegetables. I'll report back.
But carbs keep the brain flukes away. :sad:
Brain flukes! :vom:
Is there really such a thing? I know there are liver flukes, and there are brain worms, but brain flukes? Outside of hippiescum parasite-cleanse websites?
Quote from: Nigel on September 21, 2009, 10:21:15 PM
Brain flukes! :vom:
Is there really such a thing? I know there are liver flukes, and there are brain worms, but brain flukes? Outside of hippiescum parasite-cleanse websites?
Hunter S Thompson warned us about them, and he was a doctor.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 21, 2009, 10:22:48 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 21, 2009, 10:21:15 PM
Brain flukes! :vom:
Is there really such a thing? I know there are liver flukes, and there are brain worms, but brain flukes? Outside of hippiescum parasite-cleanse websites?
Hunter S Thompson warned us about them, and he was a doctor.
:lulz:
I think he recommends treating them with chlorophyll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kN-SafBskM
i started looking it up because i heard about somebody who is experimenting with this, they are on a 6 g of carbs (any source) a day diet and say that the weight is falling off, they report that after a day or two all carb/sweet cravings stop and that sticking with it is zero challenge, they just fill up on meat/protein,
i am tempted to experiment for a couple weeks just to see what happens, not sure i will though till i read the book and get a better feel for the soundness of this type of diet and how you go about reintroducing carbs into what you eat w/o gaining weight
There is no way in hell I'll go on a zero carb diet because that literally means no fruits or vegetables, and not only does that sound massively unhealthy but I would rather die than not get to eat veggies. But zero refined carbs is no problem, and then you really just don't ever reintroduce them except as an occasional treat.
Eating a diet of meat, vegetables, fruit, eggs, occasional whole grains and occasional dairy really doesn't sound like a bad life. Bread and sweets are pretty addicting, but not THAT addicting. Americans eat way too much bread anyway.
its defiantly an extreme diet to to drop weight and i am sure it's not meant to be permanent, i am guessing the reason is to get your body to completely switch to fat burning (no insulin ) mode and to trigger the no cravings effect...
Right, but if you watch that video all the way through, he is not advocating Atkins (although his science definitely backs it up) and simply removing the most processed starches and sugars from your diet, and limiting the rest, should have very nearly the same effect without compromising your vitamin and fiber intake, as well as being sustainable long-term. IMO the most functional goal is to start eating the same way you plan to eat for the rest of your life, rather than eat in some completely unsustainable way to lose the weight and then switch a gaining diet as soon as you reach your goal, which is exactly what most people do.
i cant argue for the zero carb diet (i don't think Atkins was either i think he suggested something along the lines of what you are, a very low carb diet getting them from fruits and veggies) i am curious about the claims i have heard about cravings and being hungry and metabolism, based on his understanding you aren't getting fat because you are hungry you are hungry because you are getting fat.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE&feature=player_embedded#t=13
i don't know that going zero carbs resets your metabolism, i am just curious about this view of how metabolism works..
The science doesn't actually back it up, in clinical trials people lost the same amount of weight on low carb as low fat diets. (for subjects who stuck to the diet)
Low carb is only useful to the extent that its: A) really hard to eat junk food that way, which makes cutting calories easier just by avoiding carbs and b) its easier for some people to stick to low carb than low fat/smaller portions/whatever other gimmick that works for some other people.
Do you mean the studies that showed that the low-carb groups lost weight faster and then leveled out and did not gain it back, while the low-fat groups lost more weight in the second six months, eventually catching up with the low-carb groups, but were more likely gain it back later? Or do you mean different studies?
I am curious whether you watched the lecture all the way through; he was pretty comprehensive about citing his sources in the lecture. I am anticipating that the book will be a lot more thorough.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 22, 2009, 12:16:03 AM
The science doesn't actually back it up, in clinical trials people lost the same amount of weight on low carb as low fat diets. (for subjects who stuck to the diet)
Low carb is only useful to the extent that its: A) really hard to eat junk food that way, which makes cutting calories easier just by avoiding carbs and b) its easier for some people to stick to low carb than low fat/smaller portions/whatever other gimmick that works for some other people.
Okay, everyone Requiem is right, and you're wrong.
There you go, Req. You can fuck off now.
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 01:05:20 AM
Do you mean the studies that showed that the low-carb groups lost weight faster and then leveled out and did not gain it back, while the low-fat groups lost more weight in the second six months, eventually catching up with the low-carb groups, but were more likely gain it back later? Or do you mean different studies?
I am curious whether you watched the lecture all the way through; he was pretty comprehensive about citing his sources in the lecture. I am anticipating that the book will be a lot more thorough.
Did the studies you mention account for how well people stuck to the diets?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 22, 2009, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 01:05:20 AM
Do you mean the studies that showed that the low-carb groups lost weight faster and then leveled out and did not gain it back, while the low-fat groups lost more weight in the second six months, eventually catching up with the low-carb groups, but were more likely gain it back later? Or do you mean different studies?
I am curious whether you watched the lecture all the way through; he was pretty comprehensive about citing his sources in the lecture. I am anticipating that the book will be a lot more thorough.
Did the studies you mention account for how well people stuck to the diets?
I don't know, I'm asking you because you brought them up. Did they? Did you read the studies, or did you hear about them on the news?
And what, scientifically, might it indicate if, under otherwise similar conditions, one group maintained a similar diet after losing weight, and the other didn't?
I'll ask again, also, if you watched the whole lecture, so that you know which scientific evidence you are refuting?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 22, 2009, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 01:05:20 AM
Do you mean the studies that showed that the low-carb groups lost weight faster and then leveled out and did not gain it back, while the low-fat groups lost more weight in the second six months, eventually catching up with the low-carb groups, but were more likely gain it back later? Or do you mean different studies?
I am curious whether you watched the lecture all the way through; he was pretty comprehensive about citing his sources in the lecture. I am anticipating that the book will be a lot more thorough.
Did the studies you mention account for how well people stuck to the diets?
That wasn't a factor for you when you posted your "facts", was it?
Of course not.
Quote from: Broken AI on September 22, 2009, 07:01:09 AM
so is this diet safe or not?>
Depends on how extreme it is.
The diet that worked for me <---stress on that.
1. Eliminate fast food entirely, anything deep fried, and obvious junk food.
2. Anything else is okay, but track your calories and stay 400 under your "break even" point. Ask Nigel for the link to the daily plate, and enter that you wish to maintain your weight. This will give you your break even point.
3. Exercise to fatigue 4 times a week. Replace burned calories, if you can compute them. If not, don't.
Quote from: Broken AI on September 22, 2009, 07:01:09 AM
so is this diet safe or not?>
What diet are you talking about? Atkins? IMO no, not long term, not if you do the extreme version and eat lots of fatty meats and dairy and no vegetables or fruit.
However, eliminating processed carbs, including sugars, and minimizing grains and starches is extremely advisable and healthy IMO.
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 08:13:56 PM
Quote from: Broken AI on September 22, 2009, 07:01:09 AM
so is this diet safe or not?>
What diet are you talking about? Atkins? IMO no, not long term, not if you do the extreme version and eat lots of fatty meats and dairy and no vegetables or fruit.
However, eliminating processed carbs, including sugars, and minimizing grains and starches is extremely advisable and healthy IMO.
Well fucking said, Nigel.
LOL, BAI--just move around more.
I've noticed that for me, it's not necessarily what I'm eating/not eating...it's the fact I have a deskjob. :| So I'm trying harder to move around more, and it makes a helluvalot of difference.
Yeah, so. Fucked my shoulder up at the gym. Ouch.
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 07:43:15 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 22, 2009, 07:40:39 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 01:05:20 AM
Do you mean the studies that showed that the low-carb groups lost weight faster and then leveled out and did not gain it back, while the low-fat groups lost more weight in the second six months, eventually catching up with the low-carb groups, but were more likely gain it back later? Or do you mean different studies?
I am curious whether you watched the lecture all the way through; he was pretty comprehensive about citing his sources in the lecture. I am anticipating that the book will be a lot more thorough.
Did the studies you mention account for how well people stuck to the diets?
I don't know, I'm asking you because you brought them up. Did they? Did you read the studies, or did you hear about them on the news?
And what, scientifically, might it indicate if, under otherwise similar conditions, one group maintained a similar diet after losing weight, and the other didn't?
I'll ask again, also, if you watched the whole lecture, so that you know which scientific evidence you are refuting?
I did not watch the whole lecture no, which is why I'm asking you. I'm not "refuting" anything, just repeating what was in a study I read:
Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ, Smith SR, Ryan DH, Anton SD, McManus K, Champagne CM, Bishop LM, Laranjo N, Leboff MS, Rood JC, de Jonge L, Greenway FL, Loria CM, Obarzanek E, Williamson DA. Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
N Engl J Med. 2009; 360 (9): 859-873.
Quote from: Abstract
BACKGROUND: The possible advantage for weight loss of a diet that emphasizes protein, fat, or carbohydrates has not been established, and there are few studies that extend beyond 1 year. METHODS: We randomly assigned 811 overweight adults to one of four diets; the targeted percentages of energy derived from fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the four diets were 20, 15, and 65%; 20, 25, and 55%; 40, 15, and 45%; and 40, 25, and 35%. The diets consisted of similar foods and met guidelines for cardiovascular health. The participants were offered group and individual instructional sessions for 2 years. The primary outcome was the change in body weight after 2 years in two-by-two factorial comparisons of low fat versus high fat and average protein versus high protein and in the comparison of highest and lowest carbohydrate content. RESULTS: At 6 months, participants assigned to each diet had lost an average of 6 kg, which represented 7% of their initial weight; they began to regain weight after 12 months. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0 and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Among the 80% of participants who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets; attendance was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). The diets improved lipid-related risk factors and fasting insulin levels. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00072995.)
Is the study you mentioned cited in the video? I'd like to look at it and see if I can figure out what accounts for the discrepancy, but from what I did watch, he didn't provide any citations (which is understandable given that it was a lecture and not a paper).
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
Charleston was once the rage, uh huh
History has turned the page, uh huh
The mini skirts the current thing, uh huh
Teenybopper is our newborn king, uh huh
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
The grocery store's the super mart, uh huh
Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh
And men still keep on marching off to war
Electrically they keep a baseball score
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
Grandmas sit in chairs and reminisce
Boys keep chasing girls to get a kiss
The cars keep going faster all the time
Bums still cry "hey buddy, have you got a dime"
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
Requia, I'm not interested in having this conversation with you at all if you haven't even bothered to watch the whole lecture. If you did not notice that he provided citations in his slides, I...
:facepalm:
Quote from: Nigel on September 23, 2009, 05:57:31 PM
Requia, I'm not interested in having this conversation with you at all if you haven't even bothered to watch the whole lecture. If you did not notice that he provided citations in his slides, I...
:facepalm:
All that matters is that Requia is right about everything, on every subject, at all times. She knows more than you and/or any "experts" (hack, patooie!). She can gauge the entire merit of a lecture by the coffee stain on the lecturer's tie.
So let's all just admit that she's right, then she can fuck off to bother someone else, and we can all go back to, you know,
enjoying the conversation.
I'm a do that, because I have to confess I'm completely baffled by anyone wanting to argue about something they haven't actually tried to understand. Not mad, not even irritated... just... :?
Requia, you're right, the researcher giving the lecture is wrong. Moving on.
Quote from: Nigel on September 23, 2009, 05:57:31 PM
Requia, I'm not interested in having this conversation with you at all if you haven't even bothered to watch the whole lecture. If you did not notice that he provided citations in his slides, I...
:facepalm:
And yet you can not name a single citation can you? One second, lets grab some screenshots.
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu338/Requiem-Blog/slide1.jpg)
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu338/Requiem-Blog/slide2.jpg)
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu338/Requiem-Blog/slide3.jpg)
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu338/Requiem-Blog/slide4.jpg)
(http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu338/Requiem-Blog/slide5.jpg)
Please point out to me the citations I can't see on these slides.
Edit: Or not, those are pretty unreadable without the oversizing from the video player. Still, find me a citation, and I'll watch the video, until then I maintain the first 20 minutes are crap, therefore the next 50 minutes is crap.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 23, 2009, 06:17:04 PM
Still, find me a citation, and I'll watch the video, until then I maintain the first 20 minutes are crap, therefore the next 50 minutes is crap.
i read the first few words of your post and they are crap, based on that i will assume all of every post you make is crap, and i will not read them until you can provide me with a citation that proves your posts are not crap filled ...
Requia, we have already determined you are right.
Run along now, we ignoramouses are talking.
Naming the work of researchers Frank Russell and Ales Hrdlicka aren't citations?
:facepalm:
He names his sources continually throughout the lecture. How are you not seeing that? I'm mystified. What do you think a citation is? Is it not enough that he names the researchers and books? What do you WANT in a citation?
If you don't want to watch it, why do you want to argue about it? I... I am completely baffled by this. As in almost all lectures, he begins by introducing his hypothesis, and ends by supporting it. If you don't watch it all the way through, all you get is the introduction and not the support. So why do you want to argue about it, not having bothered to view his supporting evidence? It's like you're a Creationist... you already know he's wrong, so you don't NEED to look at the evidence.
:lulz:
Fuck. I mean, what? Really?
Quote from: Nigel on September 23, 2009, 06:35:29 PM
Naming the work of researchers Frank Russell and Ales Hrdlicka aren't citations?
No, a citation, at the very minimum, needs to have the name of the publication and the page number. (if its a short piece just the name will do). Ideally it has a lot more (see the citation I gave earlier).
What evidence? I'm not sitting through an hour long movie, so tell me the citation that backs up what you're talking about. I'll read that instead.
ATTN, NIGEL: Requia is right, and everyone else is wrong.
Also, thread ruined. BAI, if you want to talk about diets, PM me or something.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 23, 2009, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 23, 2009, 06:35:29 PM
Naming the work of researchers Frank Russell and Ales Hrdlicka aren't citations?
No, a citation, at the very minimum, needs to have the name of the publication and the page number. (if its a short piece just the name will do). Ideally it has a lot more (see the citation I gave earlier).
What evidence? I'm not sitting through an hour long movie, so tell me the citation that backs up what you're talking about. I'll read that instead.
He named the books and gave the publication years in the lecture, which you would know if you watched it.
No. This entire discussion is about a lecture you refuse to watch. If you don't want to watch it, I'm not going to discuss it with you, and I'm certainly not going to watch it again, take notes, and tell you about it so that you can catch up with the rest of class.
You're being completely ridiculous. Seriously, what are you thinking? :?
She doesn't have to watch it. She just KNOWS.
when the local library opens today i am calling to order his book, i may experiment with a low carb/no carb diet depending on what he suggests in the book, i have 15 to 20 pounds i can loose and my general health is strong enough that a few weeks on a extreme diet wouldn't be likely to do me any real harm, i will let you know what i do and how it works.
Quote from: fomenter on September 23, 2009, 07:25:25 PM
when the local library opens today i am calling to order his book, i may experiment with a low carb/no carb diet depending on what he suggests in the book, i have 15 to 20 pounds i can loose and my general health is strong enough that a few weeks on a extreme diet wouldn't be likely to do me any real harm, i will let you know what i do and how it works.
NO. LISTEN TO REQUIA! SHE IS A DOCTOR.
i like getting all my advice from people that don't expose them self's to the material they give advice on .... if she hasn't been to medical school then she is the obvious choice for being my doctor and making my important life and death decisions for me...
Quote from: fomenter on September 23, 2009, 07:32:05 PM
i like getting all my advice from people that don't expose them self's to the material they give advice on .... if she hasn't been to medical school then she is the obvious choice for being my doctor and making my important life and death decisions for me...
She's an expert in all fields. :)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 23, 2009, 06:39:16 PM
What evidence? I'm not sitting through an hour long movie, so tell me the citation that backs up what you're talking about. I'll read that instead.
She wants to argue about it (and be right) but she won't actually watch it. Instead, I'm supposed to watch it and take notes for her. What the hell? :lulz:
Is this how you handle your coursework, too, Requia?
Did you actually read the full text of the study you posted? Just curious, because that doesn't seem to be your MO.
she only needs to see or read a little at the beginning to know if it is crap or true, she has the power of "always rightness"..
Quote from: fomenter on September 23, 2009, 07:58:28 PM
she only needs to see or read a little at the beginning to know if it is crap or true, she has the power of "always rightness"..
She was born knowing all this shit.
Quote from: Nigel on September 23, 2009, 07:54:57 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 23, 2009, 06:39:16 PM
What evidence? I'm not sitting through an hour long movie, so tell me the citation that backs up what you're talking about. I'll read that instead.
She wants to argue about it (and be right) but she won't actually watch it. Instead, I'm supposed to watch it and take notes for her. What the hell? :lulz:
Is this how you handle your coursework, too, Requia?
Did you actually read the full text of the study you posted? Just curious, because that doesn't seem to be your MO.
Do you even know the names of the studies you mentioned?
Nigel, seriously, this is what, the fourth time we've done this, why is it so hard for you to give a source thats not a journalist or somebody who thinks homeopathy is a neat idea?
:roll:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 24, 2009, 12:23:16 AM
Nigel, seriously, this is what, the fourth time we've done this, why is it so hard for you to give a source thats not a journalist or somebody who thinks homeopathy is a neat idea?
Seriously, you keep talking, but all I hear is blah blah blah. You have passed judgement on the lecture without even hearing it through, because it disagrees with your preconceived notions. You're a very poor excuse for a scientific thinker. You should take up a different advocation...like lecturing at the institute for creation science. It's more your speed.
And then she is bizarrely determined to make other people explain it for her so that she can argue with them. It's completely illogical. "I haven't watched that lecture but I disagree with it, and I'm not going to look at the citations but I'm going to post some that are kind of related, which I imagine proves my point. Even though I'm not sure what I'm arguing against."
QuoteLow Carb Diets
In the later stages of a fat loss phase, I will do some carb manipulation/cycling. However, that is very individualized and beyond the scope of this article.
Manipulating carb consumption and cutting carbs all together are two very different things.
Here are some basic facts on carbs:
- The human body is fueled by glucose. All foods must be converted into glucose before they can be used as fuel.
- Carbohydrates are more easily converted into glucose than protein or fat, and are considered to be the body's "preferred" source of energy and the brain's essential source of energy.
- Glucose is stored in blood, muscles and the liver as glycogen
- 1 gram of glycogen holds 2.4 grams of water
Since glycogen holds over double its weight in water, it's no wonder why people who cut carbs lose so much weight so fast. It's more likely that they lost mostly water weight.
This is why just using the scale to gauge your progress is a bad idea.
You burn glycogen throughout the day, and eating carbs simply refuels your tank. If all of a sudden you stop refilling the tank, your body still needs a source of fuel for the brain. So your body will make its own glycogen by breaking down muscle tissue. Again, not good!
Finally, cutting carbs will cause you to go into a state of Ketosis, which is when you have an abnormal amount of ketone bodies in the blood. Ketone bodies help feed the brain.
Most medical resources regard ketosis as a physiological state associated with chronic starvation.
Ketosis is regarded as a crisis reaction of the body due to a lack of carbohydrates in the diet. Ketosis would thus be a dangerous (potentially life-threatening) state which unnecessarily stresses the liver and causes destruction of muscle tissues.
The other issue with cutting carbs is that when you do finally eat carbs, your body has no idea how to process them and will immediately turn them into triglycerides, which is a fatty acid. Put simply, your body forgets how to use carbs and will immediately store them as fat.
This is where Lumberjim thinks we'll all suddenly forget what a backstabbing, hypocritical shitneck he is.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 24, 2009, 01:18:33 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 24, 2009, 12:23:16 AM
Nigel, seriously, this is what, the fourth time we've done this, why is it so hard for you to give a source thats not a journalist or somebody who thinks homeopathy is a neat idea?
Seriously, you keep talking, but all I hear is blah blah blah. You have passed judgement on the lecture without even hearing it through, because it disagrees with your preconceived notions. You're a very poor excuse for a scientific thinker. You should take up a different advocation...like lecturing at the institute for creation science. It's more your speed.
No, i passed judgment on Nigel claiming that science backs up low carb dieting, I watched the lecture long enough to know that according to the man, post industrial farmers are very active, but pre industrial farmers are sedentary.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 24, 2009, 05:57:53 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 24, 2009, 01:18:33 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 24, 2009, 12:23:16 AM
Nigel, seriously, this is what, the fourth time we've done this, why is it so hard for you to give a source thats not a journalist or somebody who thinks homeopathy is a neat idea?
Seriously, you keep talking, but all I hear is blah blah blah. You have passed judgement on the lecture without even hearing it through, because it disagrees with your preconceived notions. You're a very poor excuse for a scientific thinker. You should take up a different advocation...like lecturing at the institute for creation science. It's more your speed.
No, i passed judgment on Nigel
Sorry, you lack the cops for that sort of thing.
A friend of mine is on that "caveman diet" thing where you eat I guess meats, fruits and vegies that were available or some shit, no processed grains and... man I can't keep up with it all, but he's as thin as a rail.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 24, 2009, 05:57:53 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 24, 2009, 01:18:33 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 24, 2009, 12:23:16 AM
Nigel, seriously, this is what, the fourth time we've done this, why is it so hard for you to give a source thats not a journalist or somebody who thinks homeopathy is a neat idea?
Seriously, you keep talking, but all I hear is blah blah blah. You have passed judgement on the lecture without even hearing it through, because it disagrees with your preconceived notions. You're a very poor excuse for a scientific thinker. You should take up a different advocation...like lecturing at the institute for creation science. It's more your speed.
No, i passed judgment on Nigel claiming that science backs up low carb dieting, I watched the lecture long enough to know that according to the man, post industrial farmers are very active, but pre industrial farmers are sedentary.
Noooooooo! Oh my god! He didn't say that at all! And I didn't claim that science backs up low-carb dieting! ZOMG! :horrormirth:
Quote from: Nigel on September 21, 2009, 11:35:41 PM
Right, but if you watch that video all the way through, he is not advocating Atkins (although his science definitely backs it up) and simply removing the most processed starches and sugars from your diet, and limiting the rest, should have very nearly the same effect without compromising your vitamin and fiber intake, as well as being sustainable long-term. IMO the most functional goal is to start eating the same way you plan to eat for the rest of your life, rather than eat in some completely unsustainable way to lose the weight and then switch a gaining diet as soon as you reach your goal, which is exactly what most people do.
Its possible I misinterpreted you here, care to clarify?
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
Charleston was once the rage, uh huh
History has turned the page, uh huh
The mini skirts the current thing, uh huh
Teenybopper is our newborn king, uh huh
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
The grocery store's the super mart, uh huh
Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh
And men still keep on marching off to war
Electrically they keep a baseball score
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
Grandmas sit in chairs and reminisce
Boys keep chasing girls to get a kiss
The cars keep going faster all the time
Bums still cry "hey buddy, have you got a dime"
The beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de, la de da de da
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 25, 2009, 03:04:36 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 21, 2009, 11:35:41 PM
Right, but if you watch that video all the way through, he is not advocating Atkins (although his science definitely backs it up) and simply removing the most processed starches and sugars from your diet, and limiting the rest, should have very nearly the same effect without compromising your vitamin and fiber intake, as well as being sustainable long-term. IMO the most functional goal is to start eating the same way you plan to eat for the rest of your life, rather than eat in some completely unsustainable way to lose the weight and then switch a gaining diet as soon as you reach your goal, which is exactly what most people do.
Its possible I misinterpreted you here, care to clarify?
Did you miss the word HIS up there? In other words, the research he presents, and the way he interprets it (which I think is potentially of value, which is why I've asked three of my friends... a doctor, a medical research librarian, and a public health expert, to give me their opinion on his interpretation) supports the idea that low-carbohydrate diets may be more effective long-term. The only thing this guy seems to be proposing, to be quite clear, is that high-carb diets make people fat because the carbs trigger you to want to eat more and store fat.
The intriguing thing about the data he's presenting is that there do appear to be some significant contradictions between "traditional wisdom" and what research indicates. Studies do show that higher-protein, lower-carbohydrate diets, especially ones nearly devoid of white flour and sugar, have a stabilizing effect on glucose levels... pretty much every diabetic knows that on an intimate level.
Other than that, I already said that I was holding off forming any more of an opinion until after I read his book. Because I don't see the value in arguing for or against a hypothesis based on hearing just a portion of it.
In yer
FACE!
had to. sorry.
Hmm, ok, I misinterpreted you, and actually agreed with what you said in the first place.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on September 25, 2009, 06:53:41 AM
Hmm, ok, I misinterpreted you, and actually agreed with what you said in the first place.
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1358/eekl.jpg)
I'm kind of happy to hear that because I was confused as fuck. Thanks for being stand-up and saying so.
i got to see this movie last night http://fathead-movie.com/ its worth watching it is mostly an answer to super-size me and gives a good explanation of how everyone ended up believing that carbohydrates (breads grains etc) are the basis for a healthy diet, it will come as no surprise to the skeptics that those are also the food stuff sold on the commodity market and government was involved, it follows the same understanding of metabolism presented in the lecture we have been discussing and has some easy to follow animated explanations of how that works.
the movie seems to have some hyperbole in its presentation when it makes fun of "super-size" me and the vegetarians at the "center for science in the public interest" (the use of womping is fun to) but the basic information seems sound..
That looks really interesting... I think I'll try to see it.
edit: I found it on Netflix!
netflix is where i got it from :mrgreen:
i got this book from the library and started reading it today (yes it has good citations)
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/good_bad_070926_mn.jpg)
just starting but so far it's a good read
Cool!
Let me know what you think when you're done.
I don't know if Dietitians back low carbohydrate diets, Requiem, but for people who are overweight and need to loose weight, it seems, from a physiological standpoint, to be the most sensical way to go about, you know, loosing weight. Paired with exercise that is. As, to use up stored food a person must take in less metabolic substances than they use daily. In other words, a person has to burn more than they take in to loose weight. Since the highest contributor to calories tends to be carbohydrates, and since Americans tend to overeat carbohydrates (again, not a Dietitian, but I'm just making an educated guess here) then it would be a good overall diet plan to eat a carbohydrate load that is considered low for most Americans, therefore, a low carbohydrate diet.
But then, what the hell do I know? I'm only a lowly biologist. :)
The scariest diet in the world: EAT LESS, EXCERCISE MORE.
Quote from: LMNO on October 02, 2009, 01:40:46 PM
The scariest diet in the world: EAT LESS, EXCERCISE MORE.
Has worked for Roger. 35 pounds since April 23rd. Nothing amazing, just steady, consistent weight loss.
Quote from: LMNO on October 02, 2009, 01:40:46 PM
The scariest diet in the world: EAT LESS, EXCERCISE MORE.
Right. But WHAT you eat also has tremendous impact on how your body handles that process. Eating foods that make your body feel good, help keep you from feeling like you're starving, and nourish you is going to result in a much higher success rate than eating a 1200-calorie-a-day diet of Ho-Hos and Wonderbread. In addition, if processed carbs disrupt glucose regulation and make your body want to try to retain fat, there's no real reason to swim against the current when you could make it easier on yourself by cutting them out, right?
Not to state the FUCKING OBVIOUS.
Fuck, even my doctor has a flyer on his wall that says "Fat is Good; Bagels are the Enemy". It's not just as simple as "eat less, exercise more" because eating crappy foods on a calorie-restricted diet will make you feel LIKE SHIT and, like the man said, you will end up moving around less, because you're tired and run-down and you go into conservation mode. So you still burn the calories on your daily run, assuming you don't procrastinate it, but burn less in normal daily activity. When you feel good you're up and down dozens of times a day, doing little bustythings that burn calories. When you don't feel good you tend to hunker in one spot like a sick mouse.
It's pretty simple and biological, not some magickal property of carbs or protein.
one of the most interesting things about this "highly disputed" lowcarb diet is that it was fairly common knowledge up until not that long ago.. (there are books from as early as the 1820's) and it remained the main type of weight-loss diet up until the 1980's when no fat low fat became official usda recomendation,
Yeah, I really suspect the grain lobby had a lot to do with that.
Quote from: Nigel on October 02, 2009, 05:52:44 PM
Yeah, I really suspect the grain lobby had a lot to do with that.
Just a bit. The old "food pyramid" they taught in grammar school, way back when I was just a little girl, actually had the farm council's seal at the bottom of the poster.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2009, 08:21:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 02, 2009, 05:52:44 PM
Yeah, I really suspect the grain lobby had a lot to do with that.
Just a bit. The old "food pyramid" they taught in grammar school, way back when I was just a little girl, actually had the farm council's seal at the bottom of the poster.
I remember the food pyramid!
Quote from: Nigel on October 02, 2009, 09:48:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2009, 08:21:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on October 02, 2009, 05:52:44 PM
Yeah, I really suspect the grain lobby had a lot to do with that.
Just a bit. The old "food pyramid" they taught in grammar school, way back when I was just a little girl, actually had the farm council's seal at the bottom of the poster.
I remember the food pyramid!
Corporate sponsorship ITC.
Foods that are high in sugar (especially monosuccarates) and starch should be considered junk food and not really part of *any* diet though, not just weight loss. These days even the government admits that. My objection to low carb dieting is more that most the common interpretation of low carb diets don't distinguish between wonderbread and whole grain bread, or between a Coke and an orange.
Also, I found out why bacon shuts down junk food cravings for me. Apparently most junk food has MSG (even if it says 'no msg' thanks to crappy FDA regs) and while the 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' thing about MSG was completely bogus, MSG has an addictive effect according to one of my textbooks.
However high quality cuts of meat have glutamic acid, the nutrient MSG imitates the taste of, so the bacon satisfies the MSG craving.
Quote from: Nigel on October 02, 2009, 05:06:52 PM
Fuck, even my doctor has a flyer on his wall that says "Fat is Good; Bagels are the Enemy". It's not just as simple as "eat less, exercise more" because eating crappy foods on a calorie-restricted diet will make you feel LIKE SHIT and, like the man said, you will end up moving around less, because you're tired and run-down and you go into conservation mode. So you still burn the calories on your daily run, assuming you don't procrastinate it, but burn less in normal daily activity. When you feel good you're up and down dozens of times a day, doing little bustythings that burn calories. When you don't feel good you tend to hunker in one spot like a sick mouse.
It's pretty simple and biological, not some magickal property of carbs or protein.
In other news, the "exercise more" part doesn't mean math exercises either.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 03, 2009, 05:02:44 AM
Also, I found out why bacon shuts down junk food cravings for me. Apparently most junk food has MSG (even if it says 'no msg' thanks to crappy FDA regs) and while the 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' thing about MSG was completely bogus, MSG has an addictive effect according to one of my textbooks.
However high quality cuts of meat have glutamic acid, the nutrient MSG imitates the taste of, so the bacon satisfies the MSG craving.
In that case, you can also use anchovy, fish sauce or capers.
In fact, you could even just add a pinch of Ve-Tsin (MSG) to your dishes, it's not really that bad for you, in the same sense that table salt technically isn't.
Eating MSG is strongly correlated with obesity, even in places that lack access a lot of junk food (rural china). I'm trying to avoid it until they figure out the exact cause. (correlation does not equal causation and all that, but it still might imply it). But capers? Good to know, I like those.
it enhances flavour so you eat more of it.
besides, getting MSG from natural sources doesn't suddenly magically make that disappear.
capers, and a lot of other things too. you can taste it if you pay attention.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 03, 2009, 05:11:37 PM
Eating MSG is strongly correlated with obesity, even in places that lack access a lot of junk food (rural china). I'm trying to avoid it until they figure out the exact cause. (correlation does not equal causation and all that, but it still might imply it). But capers? Good to know, I like those.
Could it be that MSG is often added to dishes with lots of rice and thick sauces? :eek:
Possibly.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 04, 2009, 05:26:11 AM
Possibly.
Because you're going to have to provide a whole lot of evidence for something as extreme as "msg causes obesity" before I'm willing to accept that glutamate + sodium = obesity. The much more parsimonious and sensible conclusion is that Chinese cooking often has heavy sauces with lots of corn starch thickener, sugar, and white rice.
The concern isn't that MSG causes obesity, the concern is that MSG stimulates overeating. Determining that it's linked to obesity in non junk food cultures is part of that.
However, its very tricky to have somebody increase or decrease MSG intake without also effecting everything else they eat (thus the rural china study being so important, completely different dietary habits are associated with MSG there), so we don't at this point, actually know for sure if it stimulates overeating or if it triggers people to eat more food with MSG (which is usually not good for you).
This is one of those better safe than sorry things.
So wait, on the one hand you want to bring more MSG into your diet because it stops you from craving junk food,
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 03, 2009, 05:02:44 AM
Also, I found out why bacon shuts down junk food cravings for me. Apparently most junk food has MSG (even if it says 'no msg' thanks to crappy FDA regs) and while the 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' thing about MSG was completely bogus, MSG has an addictive effect according to one of my textbooks.
However high quality cuts of meat have glutamic acid, the nutrient MSG imitates the taste of, so the bacon satisfies the MSG craving.
and on the other hand you are worried that it stimulates overeating???
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 04, 2009, 06:37:14 PM
The concern isn't that MSG causes obesity, the concern is that MSG stimulates overeating.
That ... just doesn't make any sense at all.
QuoteHowever, its very tricky to have somebody increase or decrease MSG intake without also effecting everything else they eat (thus the rural china study being so important, completely different dietary habits are associated with MSG there), so we don't at this point, actually know for sure if it stimulates overeating or if it triggers people to eat more food with MSG (which is usually not good for you).
This is one of those better safe than sorry things.
And perhaps this puzzles me more, but, "better safe than sorry", better safe from what than sorry for what exactly?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 03, 2009, 04:32:46 AM
Foods that are high in sugar (especially monosuccarates) and starch should be considered junk food and not really part of *any* diet though, not just weight loss. These days even the government admits that. My objection to low carb dieting is more that most the common interpretation of low carb diets don't distinguish between wonderbread and whole grain bread, or between a Coke and an orange.
That's exactly my problem with it. My ex did Atkins about 12 years ago, and I was astonished that he couldn't eat VEGETABLES. Or brown rice, or whole wheat, or cracked oats... I was like, that's fucking stupid.
Quote from: Kai on October 04, 2009, 02:20:39 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 04, 2009, 05:26:11 AM
Possibly.
Because you're going to have to provide a whole lot of evidence for something as extreme as "msg causes obesity" before I'm willing to accept that glutamate + sodium = obesity. The much more parsimonious and sensible conclusion is that Chinese cooking often has heavy sauces with lots of corn starch thickener, sugar, and white rice.
Kai, she didn't say "msg causes obesity". She said "msg is correlated with obesity" and even went on to state "of course, correlation does not equal causation", and added that she is simply being cautious until more is understood about the correlation.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 04, 2009, 07:09:45 PM
So wait, on the one hand you want to bring more MSG into your diet because it stops you from craving junk food,
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 03, 2009, 05:02:44 AM
Also, I found out why bacon shuts down junk food cravings for me. Apparently most junk food has MSG (even if it says 'no msg' thanks to crappy FDA regs) and while the 'Chinese restaurant syndrome' thing about MSG was completely bogus, MSG has an addictive effect according to one of my textbooks.
However high quality cuts of meat have glutamic acid, the nutrient MSG imitates the taste of, so the bacon satisfies the MSG craving.
and on the other hand you are worried that it stimulates overeating???
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 04, 2009, 06:37:14 PM
The concern isn't that MSG causes obesity, the concern is that MSG stimulates overeating.
That ... just doesn't make any sense at all.
QuoteHowever, its very tricky to have somebody increase or decrease MSG intake without also effecting everything else they eat (thus the rural china study being so important, completely different dietary habits are associated with MSG there), so we don't at this point, actually know for sure if it stimulates overeating or if it triggers people to eat more food with MSG (which is usually not good for you).
This is one of those better safe than sorry things.
And perhaps this puzzles me more, but, "better safe than sorry", better safe from what than sorry for what exactly?
You know, I am the first to jump Requia's shit when she says something that doesn't make sense, but in this case it seems like what she said made perfect sense, and it's being misconstrued for the purposes of jumping her shit.
1. There is a correlation between MSG and obesity.
2. No one is quite sure what that means.
3. It is thought that possibly MSG acts as an appetite stimulant, causing overeating.
4. Overeating is a cause of obesity. It does not make MSG a direct cause of obesity, but a contributing factor.
5. Requia tries to abstain from consuming MSG until the correlation is better understood.
As far as "better safe than sorry", any time there is an avoidable, poorly-understood food product that may or may not have negative effects on the body, not eating it is paying it "safe", whereas eating it anyway and ending up with unforeseen side effects would make you "sorry".
For instance, rather than play it "safe" by avoiding the shit, I went on a diet-soda kick for a few weeks last year. I got the runs something awful and my digestive system took ages to recover, making me "sorry".
Of course, lots of people will say that doesn't happen, even though it's a well-documented potential side effect of the current generations of artificial sweeteners.
Well it's the looking for other sources of MSG bit that I don't understand, then. I mean, if you're rather safe than sorry.
Also in China they add insane amounts of MSG to their food, I wouldnt suggest doing that. I just sometimes add a pinch to a sauce or something.
Er, no, I want to bring more glutamic acid into my diet. Which stimulates the same tastebuds MSG does, but is a real nutrient (a specific amino acid), and lacks the associated addictive effects.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2009, 12:00:20 AM
Er, no, I want to bring more glutamic acid into my diet. Which stimulates the same tastebuds MSG does, but is a real nutrient (a specific amino acid), and lacks the associated addictive effects.
You do realize that mono sodium glutamate is just Na + glutamate aka glutamic acid, right? You can SALT a fresh tomato and end up with MSG, because sodium helps bind the glutamate to your umami receptors. Thats why umami foods tend to be salty. Its the same thing, just part of your food rather than added to it, and in smaller concentrations.
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2009, 01:31:04 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2009, 12:00:20 AM
Er, no, I want to bring more glutamic acid into my diet. Which stimulates the same tastebuds MSG does, but is a real nutrient (a specific amino acid), and lacks the associated addictive effects.
You do realize that mono sodium glutamate is just Na + glutamate aka glutamic acid, right? You can SALT a fresh tomato and end up with MSG, because sodium helps bind the glutamate to your umami receptors. Thats why umami foods tend to be salty. Its the same thing, just part of your food rather than added to it, and in smaller concentrations.
I am geeked out.
That takes some doing.
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2009, 01:31:04 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2009, 12:00:20 AM
Er, no, I want to bring more glutamic acid into my diet. Which stimulates the same tastebuds MSG does, but is a real nutrient (a specific amino acid), and lacks the associated addictive effects.
You do realize that mono sodium glutamate is just Na + glutamate aka glutamic acid, right? You can SALT a fresh tomato and end up with MSG, because sodium helps bind the glutamate to your umami receptors. Thats why umami foods tend to be salty. Its the same thing, just part of your food rather than added to it, and in smaller concentrations.
*checks* Ah, you're right. Scratch that idea then.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2009, 04:05:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on October 05, 2009, 01:31:04 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 05, 2009, 12:00:20 AM
Er, no, I want to bring more glutamic acid into my diet. Which stimulates the same tastebuds MSG does, but is a real nutrient (a specific amino acid), and lacks the associated addictive effects.
You do realize that mono sodium glutamate is just Na + glutamate aka glutamic acid, right? You can SALT a fresh tomato and end up with MSG, because sodium helps bind the glutamate to your umami receptors. Thats why umami foods tend to be salty. Its the same thing, just part of your food rather than added to it, and in smaller concentrations.
*checks* Ah, you're right. Scratch that idea then.
I think you're on the right track though. It comes back to people eating the things not only that they were nurtured to enjoy, but that they are genetically programmed to seek out from the ancestral survival instincts. We're programmed (for the most part) to enjoy fatty foods with lots of carbs, because fat means long term energy and carbs means high energy materials. And glutamate is a sign of proteins, in meat and other substances. We eat it because it feels good and it feels good because, ultimately, it would mean either surviving a winter or dying. Back then, too much was less dangerous than too little. These days it's more equally so.