 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> In article . net>, Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >> >>>In article .net>, Jonathan Ball wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange >>>>>>juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume >>>>>>way too many calories. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>>>trivial, and uninteresting. >>>>> >>>>>The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >>>> >>>>That question has been long answered: >>>> >>>> lack of discipline >>>> lack of self respect >>>> immaturity >>> >>> >>>Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim >>>people? >> >>Of course. >> >> >>>If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity, such people >>>would not exist. But, I see loads of such people. >> >>Bad logic, pal; very much akin to the "all dogs are >>poodles" variety. Lack of discipline, lack of self >>respect and immaturity don't necessarily lead to >>grotesque obesity, but examine a grotesquely obese >>person and you will always find lack of discipline, >>lack of self respect and immaturity in appreciable >>concentration. The three emotional pathologies might >>lead to lots of bad outcomes; grotesque obesity is just >>one of the many. > > > Then how come those obese people sometimes lose weight. If they lose it by a change in "lifestyle" and keep it off, it's because they acquired the necessary self discipline, self respect and emotional maturity. > > I was not "grotesquely obese", but I was obese, and then I lost > weight, and I assure you that no changes in my self respect or my self > discipline level occurred. I bet there *were* such changes, if you lost the weight and have kept it off. > > http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ > > What did change is that I decided that it was irrational to be fat and > unhealthy. In other words, you began taking responsibility for yourself, rather than seeing yourself as some kind of "victim". That IS a change in self respect and a result of growing into an emotionally more mature person. How can you fail to see this? > So I made some changes. I have not eaten a single piece of > junk food or candy in almost a year, for example. Why?Because I > _lack_self discipline. No, you *gained* the self discipline to enable you to refrain from the stuff. > I know that eating "a little bit of candy" > would set _me_ on a slippery slope. > > And yet, even though I lost weight, I still remain an overeater who has to > struggle to not overeat and to not get too many calories. But due to having acquired some self discipline, you manage to resist. > > Why? Because something is screwed up in me in a way that is not screwed > up in "naturally slim" people. I already eat "clean" and "healthy". > > That is the real cause of my obesity, not some emotional bullshit. I > am a very unemotional person who tried to rationally assess every > situation. > > >>You need to learn to distinguish between necessity and >>sufficiency. Lack of discipline, lack of self respect >>and immaturity are necessary for grotesque obesity, but >>not sufficient, which means that if you observe the >>obesity you'll always observe the emotional >>pathologies, but if you observe the emotional >>pathologies you won't necessarily observe the obseity. >> >>If you have truly got a grip on the weight problem, I >>imagine you have begun to acquire discipline and self >>respect, which will propel you on the road to maturity. > > > bullshit, I have no more discipline than before, and no more self > respect. You're wrong. This goes to show that you still have a considerable distance to travel on the road to emotional maturity, but you're on your way; don't look back. > I just changed the way I eat. I had enough discipline to get > good grades in college, finish my MBA degree at a prestigious > university etc, and yet I was fat. There's self discipline, and then there's TOTAL self discipline. Few if any people are so totally self disciplined that they never make any mistakes. > > >> I don't consider the emotional pathologies to be >>permanent handicaps. > > > I think that your theory is not based on quantifiable evidence. Very little of psycho-social observation is. That doesn't make it wrong. > > >>>>>For example, I am a slim person at normal weight (I am saying so just >>>>>so that you would not dismiss what I say as self excuses of a fat >>>>>person). I used to be fat but lost weight by eating less and eating >>>>>better and exercising. >>>> >>>>No great mystery to it, is there? >>> >>> >>>No great mystery, no. >>> >>>What I would really like is, to remain slim and not be hungry >>>after I ate enough for the day. Just like the "naturally slim" >>>people. >> >>I don't know how long you've had a grip on your weight, >>but I would imagine that over time, you'll get there. > > > Is there some evidence for that? I would really like to know if I would > ever have normal appetite. > > I have been maintaining my weight with great success for 8 months, > meaning that it was relativey stable. (with a slight downward trend > this year as I am working on losing 10 more pounds in 2004). I have my > complete weight history on my weight loss page. > > And yet, as I said, not overeating is always a struggle. Almost every > day I want to overeat. Not by much, I am sure that I would be > satisfied if I ate 20% more food. But, 20% more food would cause me to > gain almost a pound per week. > > I lost 50 lbs, from 223 to 173. > > If somehow, you know from somewhere that people's appetites notmalize > after a few years in maintenance, I would like you to post your > sources. I don't know it. It's a hunch. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Bob in CT wrote:
>> <...> >> >>>>> I love it when people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking >>>>> about >>>> >>>> >>>> I do know what I'm talking about. There is no great mystery to >>>> weight loss. A cheeseburger of a given size provides the same >>>> number of calories to me as it does to you; moving your 120kg >>>> laterally for 4 miles on foot - that's called "walking", fatso - >>>> burns even *more* calories for you than it does for me (68kg). >>> >>> Well, considering that you apparently have no understanding of the >>> Glycemic Index >> >> Apparently, neither do you -- at least its complete insignificance in >> choosing healthy foods. Why don't you eat carrots or drink orange >> juice? "Oh, because they cause an insulin spike." Well so does your >> cottage cheese, chubby. So does that butter-fried steak with melted >> cheese. So do your fried pork skins. > > Actually, butter-fried steak with melted cheese would not cause much of > an insulin increase, Ipse dixit. Any dietary intake (other than water) in a normal person will result in serum glucose increase followed by a rise in insulin. That's nature. Too bad Dr Atkins never really grasped it. > as insulin is primarily caused by carbs. Ipse dixit and an overly-simplistic explanation. First, you should distinguish between simple and complex carbohydrates. Second, you need to note that each of those causes a different surge in serum glucose levels and hence a different reaction in insulin response. Third, you're ignoring the fact that the body evolved to secrete insulin in response to food -- period. Etc. > I don't > eat carrots because they make my stomach upset and juices are the spawn > of Satan -- there is nothing whatsoever good about juices. Juices usually contain vitamins and minerals (apple juice excluded). They can be part of a healthy diet in moderation. > Eat fruit. One should eat fruit. It's high in fiber and contains (egads!) carbs which help the body function properly. >> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too >> much orange juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise >> and because you consume way too many calories. >> >>> or the difference in how insulin resistant/diabetic >>> people metabolize carbohydrates, >> >> Most people who use GI to determine what they can or cannot eat are >> not diabetic or anywhere near being insulin resistant. GI is one of >> the least scientific "tools" developed. Which baseline or list are you >> using anyway? > > What does GI have to do with insulin resistance? Ask Dawn. I disabused her of the error she made. > One becomes insulin > resistant for a variety of reasons, including the low fat, high carb > diet I was on for many years. According to GI, al dente pasta has a low > GI, but it causes my blood sugar to go through the roof. So does > grapefruit, another supposedly low GI. These are totally separate > things. Insulin resistance is problematic, and it has nothing to do > with GI. You supported my point in a roundabout way, dummy. Now go eat some carbs so you can think straight. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
>>Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange >>juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume >>way too many calories. > > That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, > trivial, and uninteresting. > > The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness. > For example, I am a slim person at normal weight (I am saying so just > so that you would not dismiss what I say as self excuses of a fat > person). I used to be fat but lost weight by eating less and eating > better and exercising. > > And yet, I am an overeater and have to apply a lot of efforts to not > overeat. I limit my portions, even though at each meal I would like to > eat more, I eat a lot of low calorie vegetables, keep down carbs, do > not eat sugar etc. Your inclination to overeat is a moral weakness. > That's why I call myself a "naturally fat" person. I would call you an emotionally immature person or a person with flaws, but that would be politically incorrect. > There is no particular emotional reason for my overeating, At least that you've established. > and I am > sure that I overeat becaus some metabolic function or another is not > working right in my body. I'm sure that's a very convenient excuse for you (like so many others); talk about trivial and uninteresting, not to mention so common. > Whereas some people eat all they want, but fortunately they do not > want all that much. > > So, saying that the only difference between fat people and slim people > is "gluttony"and immorality is stupid and inhelpful in really > understanding anything. I'm sure it ruffles your feathers. Just remember that the truth may hurt, but lies hurt more. > I do realize that you get off by thinking that you are upsetting fat > people, I encourage you to go to Google and review some of my responses in aaev and afv encouraging those trying to lose weight. I'm honest, but I'm also positive. > so the complexity of what I say may be lost on you, No, and it wasn't complex at all (it was quite simple, really). > but > hopefully some other people can identify with what I am describing. I'm sure they will since misery loves company. It's quite common to pass the buck from oneself to "nature." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Bob in CT wrote:
<...> > Personally, I got > fat due to injury (shoulder and ankle) and by eating the same amount I > did when I was riding my bike. Then insulin resistance developed and > carbs caused me to become depressed, leading to a viscious cycle. Vicious. Are you willing to explain the connection between your depression and carbohydrates for us? I'm quite curious to hear about it. > I > have tremendous discipline, a tremendous amount of self respect and am > very mature. I'm sure you're a very interesting fellow. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> No, I did not. I simply made weight loss a priority. But I always had a > more or less same amount of discipline. Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you did not before. You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control? Every day, you are aware that the ball is in your court and use it is a day you've exercised control. -- The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion and experience. Please interpret accordingly. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> In article .net>, Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >> >> >>>Okay, consider me then. I was fat. According to you, it means that I >>>was immature, lacked self respect and self discipline. >>> >>>But then I lost weight! I assue you that I did not become more mature, >>>self disciplined and I always had a lot of self respect. >> >>If you lost the weight and kept it off through your own >>change of habits, rather than through surgery or some >>other externally-imposed method, then you undoubtedly >>DID gain self discipline, self respect and emotional >>maturity. > > > No, I did not. I simply made weight loss a priority. You twit: it took an increase in self respect and maturity in order to do that, and an increase in self discipline in order to stay with it. > But I always had a > more or less same amount of discipline. Evidently not. > > And even so, good chances are that inb a few years I will regain > weight again. Why?Because I am an overeater with a broken sense of > fullness. Ipse dixit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355
> wrote: > In article >, usual suspect wrote: >> Ignoramus20355 wrote: >>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too >>>> much orange >>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because >>>> you consume >>>> way too many calories. >>> >>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>> trivial, and uninteresting. >>> >>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >> >> Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness. Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low fat = terrible. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> In article . net>, Jonathan Ball wrote: > >>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >> >> >>>In article . net>, Jonathan Ball wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article .net>, Jonathan Ball wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange >>>>>>>>juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume >>>>>>>>way too many calories. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>>>>>trivial, and uninteresting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >>>>>> >>>>>>That question has been long answered: >>>>>> >>>>>> lack of discipline >>>>>> lack of self respect >>>>>> immaturity >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim >>>>>people? >>>> >>>>Of course. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity, such people >>>>>would not exist. But, I see loads of such people. >>>> >>>>Bad logic, pal; very much akin to the "all dogs are >>>>poodles" variety. Lack of discipline, lack of self >>>>respect and immaturity don't necessarily lead to >>>>grotesque obesity, but examine a grotesquely obese >>>>person and you will always find lack of discipline, >>>>lack of self respect and immaturity in appreciable >>>>concentration. The three emotional pathologies might >>>>lead to lots of bad outcomes; grotesque obesity is just >>>>one of the many. >>> >>> >>>Then how come those obese people sometimes lose weight. >> >>If they lose it by a change in "lifestyle" and keep it >>off, it's because they acquired the necessary self >>discipline, self respect and emotional maturity. > > > we start to repeat ourselvees. > > >>>I was not "grotesquely obese", but I was obese, and then I lost >>>weight, and I assure you that no changes in my self respect or my self >>>discipline level occurred. >> >>I bet there *were* such changes, if you lost the weight >>and have kept it off. > > > I bet you have no special information about me, Ignoramus20355, > whereas I do. > > >>>http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/ >>> >>>What did change is that I decided that it was irrational to be fat and >>>unhealthy. >> >>In other words, you began taking responsibility for >>yourself, rather than seeing yourself as some kind of >>"victim". That IS a change in self respect and a >>result of growing into an emotionally more mature >>person. How can you fail to see this? > > > No, I am a victim of my appetite, You still have a long way to travel. People who see themselves as "victims" in that sense are still emotionally immature. You've made some progress, but still have a lot of ground to cover. > but what can I do? Learn that you are not a victim. That will require further emotional growth. > I can only deal > with the cards that I have been dealt. Right. I am much shorter than I would have liked: about 5'6". I don't consider myself a "victim" of anything (well, maybe of my mom's cocaine/alcohol/nicotine habits in 1952; just kidding.) I don't let it bother me. It's an annoyance, but I have enough self confidence and actual ability that no one who knows me either needles me about it or thinks of me as having a "little guy" complex. By contrast, my younger brother, who in fact is a couple of inches *taller* than I, has a decided "little guy" complex. He's also an emotional cripple, for plenty of reasons. > > >>>So I made some changes. I have not eaten a single piece of >>>junk food or candy in almost a year, for example. Why?Because I >>>_lack_self discipline. >> >>No, you *gained* the self discipline to enable you to >>refrain from the stuff. > > > I always had some self discipline, I just did not apply it to my weight > rationally. Operative word, "some". You acquired more. > > Besides, it is very easy for me to avoid something altogether, rather > than deal with fuzzy concepts like "eating just a little bit of > candy". It still requires self discipline, and you lacked it in your previous attempts. > > >>>bullshit, I have no more discipline than before, and no more self >>>respect. >> >>You're wrong. This goes to show that you still have a >>considerable distance to travel on the road to >>emotional maturity, but you're on your way; don't look >>back. > > > I love it when some SSFA poster who does not know me, is giving me > insights about my spiritual condition. You reveal things about yourself that support the insights. > > >>>I just changed the way I eat. I had enough discipline to get >>>good grades in college, finish my MBA degree at a prestigious >>>university etc, and yet I was fat. >> >>There's self discipline, and then there's TOTAL self >>discipline. Few if any people are so totally self >>disciplined that they never make any mistakes. > > > And I am not one of them! I don't know anyone who is. > > >>>I think that your theory is not based on quantifiable evidence. >> >>Very little of psycho-social observation is. That >>doesn't make it wrong. > > > No, but it does not make it believable. No, I didn't suggest that a *lack* of quantifiable evidence "made" anything believable. It may be, and is, believable despite the lack of such evidence. > I am very skeptical of > "psycho-social observations"not supported by evidence. That's nice. > > >>>>I don't know how long you've had a grip on your weight, >>>>but I would imagine that over time, you'll get there. >>> >>> >>>Is there some evidence for that? I would really like to know if I would >>>ever have normal appetite. >>> >>>I have been maintaining my weight with great success for 8 months, >>>meaning that it was relativey stable. (with a slight downward trend >>>this year as I am working on losing 10 more pounds in 2004). I have my >>>complete weight history on my weight loss page. >>> >>>And yet, as I said, not overeating is always a struggle. Almost every >>>day I want to overeat. Not by much, I am sure that I would be >>>satisfied if I ate 20% more food. But, 20% more food would cause me to >>>gain almost a pound per week. >>> >>>I lost 50 lbs, from 223 to 173. >>> >>>If somehow, you know from somewhere that people's appetites notmalize >>>after a few years in maintenance, I would like you to post your >>>sources. >> >>I don't know it. It's a hunch. >> > > > okay, so you don't know... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> In article >, usual suspect wrote: > >>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >> >>>>Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange >>>>juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume >>>>way too many calories. >>> >>>That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>trivial, and uninteresting. >>> >>>The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >> >>Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness. > > > Why is it that numerous morally weak, ignorant and undisciplined > people are slim them? Are you blind, illiterate, or both? I explained it to you already: lack of discipline, lack of self respect, lack of knowledge and moral weakness MAY, but do not always, lead one to become obese; but if you look into the life of an obese person, you will always find them. Put another way, all obese people lack self discipline, self respect, knowledge and moral fiber, but not all people who lack those become obese; sometimes the bad outcome is something else. > Why is it that they do not want to eat after they > ate enough? Beats me. Their moral failures show up in something other than obesity, that's all. > >>>and I am >>>sure that I overeat becaus some metabolic function or another is not >>>working right in my body. >> >>I'm sure that's a very convenient excuse for you (like so many others); talk >>about trivial and uninteresting, not to mention so common. > > > Well, I am slim and fit, how can my appetite problem be an "excuse" > for anything? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}"; main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} > "It's never too late to have a happy childhood." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Bob in CT wrote:
> On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355 > > wrote: > >> In article >, usual suspect wrote: >> >>> Ignoramus20355 wrote: >>> >>>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank >>>>> too much orange >>>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because >>>>> you consume >>>>> way too many calories. >>>> >>>> >>>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>> trivial, and uninteresting. >>>> >>>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >>> >>> >>> Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness. > > > Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with > being overweight. At some point, it does. > And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as > the common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that > low fat = terrible. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> In article >, Crafting Mom wrote: > >>Ignoramus20355 wrote: >> >> >>>No, I did not. I simply made weight loss a priority. But I always had a >>>more or less same amount of discipline. >> >>Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you did >>not before. > > > of course. That required emotional and intellectual growth on your part. In other words, more maturity. > > >>You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise >>the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had >>said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by >>exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control? > > > Nothing wrong with it, but the veggy freaks and fat taunters allege > that I did not have that discipline. I am not a veggie freak - lifelong omnivore - and I am not a "fat taunter". What I refuse to do is accept any bullshit excuses about fat: "victimology", one-in-two-billion metabolic dysfunction, etc. > I did have it. Perhaps in some areas of your life, but not in this one. I doubt you LOST self discipline in those other areas as you learned to acquire/apply it in diet. > But, somehow, ....due to immaturity... > I did not apply it. Also, some people can stay slim without any > discipline, they somehow simply do not want anymore food after they > ate enough. > > >>Every day, you are aware that the ball is in your court and use it is a day >>you've exercised control. > > > That's right. I was just hoping that somehow, I could find some way > to not be hungry after I ate enough to maintain weight. There are no silver bullets. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
usual suspect wrote:
> Ipse dixit. Any dietary intake (other than water) in a normal person > will result in serum glucose increase followed by a rise in insulin. > That's nature. Too bad Dr Atkins never really grasped it. You're both wrong. Protein and carbs raise insulin and blood sugar. For Type 1 diabetics who inject, one has to take into account both protein and carb amounts to determine the necessary amount of insulin. Protein causes much smaller spikes that carb, but it has an effect. Fat has almost no effect itself. Fat slows the absorption of carbs and protein, resulting in a slower rise, but the same amount of rise occurs. But pre fat has little effect on either blood sugar or insulin production, it's just not relevant itself. > Ipse dixit and an overly-simplistic explanation. First, you should > distinguish between simple and complex carbohydrates. Second, you need > to note that each of those causes a different surge in serum glucose > levels and hence a different reaction in insulin response. For diabetics, complex carbohydrate doesn't help much, it's the same amount of sugar, unless you're talking fiber which isn't processed by humans at all. My husband is not diabetic nor insulin resistant. He can eat several oversized pieces of chocolate cake and his blood sugar does not rise... though of course insulin levels do. But since he is not insulin resistant, he doesn't need insane levels of insulin to handle the sugar. His bg doesn't ever go over 100 no matter whether he eates well or eats crap. A small plate of pasta causes my blood glucose to rise to nearly 400. A candy bar does the same. A couple slices of whole wheat bread, made from freshly ground grain at home and a healthy as it can be, does the same. There's a difference in how long it takes for my blood glucose to go to insane levels, but it does regardless of whether the carbs are "complex" or not. By the time it hits my blood stream, it's glucose no matter how complex it starts out. Since I'm extremely insulin resistant, any large dose of carbs causes insane levels of insulin to be secreted - which don't work effectively due to the IR - and therefore my blood sugar goes crazy. There are no "good" carbs for *me* except fiber. > Third, you're > ignoring the fact that the body evolved to secrete insulin in response > to food -- period. Etc. You're ignoring the fact that the majority of our evolution occured pre-agriculture, when the defacto diet for the human race was a low-carb diet. Agriculture has not existed long in evolutionary terms - we did not evolve to eat hundreds and hundreds of grams of carb daily all year round. Approximately 25% of the populaiton is estimated to be insulin resistant. Throughout evolution, this was a good thing... these were the people who stored fat in summer when carbs were more available and therefore most likely to survive winter. But given that the grocery store is now available 365 days per year, the same ability to store fat effectively is no longer a positive survival trait. Evolution has not yet caught up with agriculture. > Juices usually contain vitamins and minerals (apple juice excluded). > They can be part of a healthy diet in moderation. On low-carb, I eat about three times as much vegetables as I did all produce (including fruits and juices) before, so I doubt I'm getting less vitamins and minerals by skipping juice. Unless you consider destroying the pancreas, ruining my cholesterol levels, damaging my kidneys, increasing my risk of heart disease, potential blindness, increased infections, risk of amputation and an early death to be part of your definition of "healthy" - juice cannot be part of a healthy diet for *me*, unless your idea of "moderation" is measured in micrograms. Juices raise blood sugar much more than fruits, and you lose the benefit of fiber. Juice can be a reasonable food choice for those whom are not insulin-resistant, sure beats choices like junk food, but even for those without insulin resistance, it's not as good a food choice as whole fruit. >> Eat fruit. > > One should eat fruit. It's high in fiber and contains (egads!) carbs > which help the body function properly. There's plenty of fiber in vegetables and in low-carb fruits (such as some berries and melons). No one has to risk amputation, impotence or blindness to get fiber. There is *nothing* provided by non-fiber carbs to the body that cannot be provided with protein and/or fat. The notion that a low-carb diet is unhealthy is just ridiculous. I eat about the same amount of meat as before and much more vegetables, in place of starches and sweets. About the only "unhealthy" bit of my diet is I could probably improve things by decreasing my dairy intake a bit, I tend to go a bit overboard with yogurt and cheese and such. But there's nothing inherently unhealthy about limiting carbohydrate. -- As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value. Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets. -- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in
this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when dealing with nutrition.. :-) Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie, most people, on the other had, are very intimidated by reading these types of journals, (ie. Put to sleep after about 5 mins of reading. Can you really blame them?? :-) I will try to break it down a little for anyone else that did not choose to read the journal study pearl referenced: Basically, it goes like this. Researches noticed that obesity was a rarity in the typical Chinese individual in rural areas. Furthermore, even though they did notice that the typical Chinese in these rural areas did in fact have a more active lifestyle, they didn't feel that this contributed to the overall picture. Even though the author of this study, like many early onset studies, was quick to point out that more investigation needs to be done to know for sure, lets just assume for this case he is correct and that he was just trying to cover his butt!! :-) I am very appreciative that you sent this journal, pearl, because it really does help me to further show the rest of the people reading this posting something that it seems that you already know very well, which is that the "Power of balancing diets" is very effective! It should be noted, though, that I really wish this author would have been a little more specific on the food ratios involved, but lets just make some quick assessments to the approx. diet ratios he provided and assume an approx. 30/55/15 ratio. This means that 30% of the individuals diet is coming from protein sources, 55% is coming from carbohydrate sources, and about 15% from fat. No to bad balancing... Also, the majority of all of their carbs and proteins are coming from rich vegetables (ie. Very Low GI carb sources)... Even better!!! :-) OK. Now, where is the "magic" here? Well, as my father used to say, there is dozens of ways to skin a cat. In this case, they are doing it in two ways. Why is the rural chinese carb sources so good? (ie. low GI) =========================================== Well, this journal does a wonderful job in explaining this. Basically, for the rural Chinese, all their diet revolves around non-refined carbohydrates, which they also use as their primary protein source, and it all comes from rich plants. (ie. Think about "dark" vegetables, such as spinach, broccoli, etc... great stuff!!) As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is where the "basic thermo laws" cannot be really be applied, because it would only disregard how complex the human body is anyway. Don't believe it?? Well consider this… Lets just say that I ate 2000 kcal of broccoli at one time, which I might add is about 3 1/2 pounds, but hey, lets say I am really hungry!! :-) Would my digestive system uptake 2000 kcal?? Nope... Why?? Well, its because your body only has a limited "window" so to speak when it can extract energy from food, which is no more than 3 hours to 4 hours for most people. After this time, the food has past on lower in the intestines and is no longer assessable for extracting nutrients. For broccoli, it takes the body a long time to extract energy from it, so it would not be able to get even 1/8th of the glucose out of that broccoli that I ate.. Have no fear, though, as the bacteria in your colon will have a party when they see the extra carbs coming their way, and unfortunately, it will come at your personal expense in the way of excess gas release!! Opps, sorry..… Also, it should be noted that this 3 hour to 4 hour digestion "window" is the whole reason why nutritionists want you to eat 5 to 6 meals a day. Basically they are trying to get you to eat every 3 hours so that that body has consistent levels of energy... Also, for most people, the typical standing energy requirement is only about 300 calories over a 3 hour period. This varies per person, though, due to what is known a a persons Lean Body Mass indicator, which is the amount of fat you are carrying minus your total weight. This is the main reason why nutritionists when to do a BF% test on you when you come in. So, then am I trying to say that when given 2000 kcal at one time your body cannot take it all in? Nope. It just depends on the type of food that it is getting…. For instance, lets just say that instead of getting my 2000 kcal from broccoli, I instead choose to get it from a high quality candy, which we are going to say is straight dextrose/glucose. (ie. Lets think pixie sticks/smarties here). In the case of the candy, your body would in fact VERY quickly absorb that 2000 kcal. (ie. In about 20 mins assuming an empty stomach) Unfortunately, though, because your system has no use for 2000 kcal at one time, so much hits the blood stream so fast, when your pancreas responds with in huge insulin spike to allow the new found energy to be used, and then you fat cells would just have a party gobbling it up!!! :-) =========================================== Is there anyway I can slow absorption of high GI foods? =========================================== Its funny you say ask that.. Yes it is very possible... :-) Have you ever wondered why in the old days people would eat cookies and milk? Well, even if they did not realize it at the time, what they were actually doing was using the milk, which will turn to a medium GI (ie. < 32/100 in fact) solid in the stomach, and slow down the absorption of the cookie. No, you certainly are not going to turn the cookie into a broccoli type low GI source, but at least you will not get a dramatic blodd sugar spike as you would without the milk. Milk is really good at helping for slowing carb and protein uptake. This is why body builders will blend their protein shakes with milk if they want a slower protein digestion. Other good sources for slowing nutriet absorbtions are any types of fats.... (NOTE: Obviously unsaturated are best for you, but we will leave this discussion for another day!! :-) =========================================== OK. Then what can I learn from this study? =========================================== Lets say we take that Chinese rural culture and "westernize" them a little bit shall we?? (ie. Way to go McDonalds!! :-) Instead of all of the wonderful rich vegetables they are eating now, how about if we replace a little bit of that with some good old fashion "bleached white breads", instant rice, baked potatoes, candy, ice cream, etc. (ie. All High GI carbe). By picking all high GI sources, you allow the body to dramatically increase that amount of calories it can uptake at one time. Unfortunately, though, all you are going to do is save this extra energy as fat!! NOOOOO.... :-) =========================================== Finally. I like these diet ratios in this study. I want to give them a try. Is there any downsides?? =========================================== Even though a 30/55/15 diet is actually pretty good, especially considering the amounts of rich vegetables, the only real issue you will have deals with the reduced proteins. By reducing your proteins to such low levels, you will establish a much leaner muscular profile and find it considerably more difficult to build additional muscle mass at any real quanity when you are doing any high weight strength exercising. Hence, this would also seem pretty consistent, as the typical rural Chinese is lean and slender. In fact, I think that most Chinese were slender until our western concepts got a hold of them!! ;-) As long as you are OK with the reduced ability for muscle tone / definition, this, then give this diet ratio's a shot and see if you like them!! Just the shear amount of vegetables alone is making me hungry!! :-) =========================================== (NOTE: Basal metabolic rate and metabolic rate are for the most part interchangeable. When a person is referring to Basal rate, they are trying to say the "Resting Metabolic Rate", or another way of putting your "average" rate throughout the day.) Don't know if you were looking for this information, but if so, did this help any Pearl? Got additional questions in reference to this?? Jim Carver "pearl" > wrote in message >... > > > One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is > > > that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that > > > can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? > > > > No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise > > your metabolic rate". > > ... > > Energy Balance: Interpretation of Data from Rural China > T. Colin Campbell, PhD > Division of Nutritional Sciences > Cornell University > .. > Data pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body weight > control obtained in a comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and > disease mortality in 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of > rural China (Chen et al. 1990) were used for the analysis. After > adjusting the food intake data to represent a reference male > adult involved in the least physical activity and representing the > same body weight, total calorie intake (40.6 kcal/kg BW) was > about 30% higher in China when compared with an average > adult American male (30.6% kcal/kg BW), yet the body mass > index for the Chinese male was about 25% lower (20.5 vs. > 25.8 kg BW/m2). Diets in rural China were low in fat (14.5% > of energy), relatively low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in > fiber (33 g/day), representing a diet unusually rich in plant > based foods (e.g., including about 90% of the total protein). > > It is believed that the excess energy intake among the Chinese > is mostly attributed to their greater physical activity, although > some unknown but significant and probably difficult to measure > amount could be due to increased energy expenditure > associated with non-post prandial basal metabolism. ......' > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html > > ... > > J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3. > Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians. > Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T. > Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In > this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and > food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians > and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the > vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores > (60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied > a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian > diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat > was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was > higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower. > The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the > vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the > omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a > higher caloric intake is of considerable interest. > PMID: 3760524 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in
this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when dealing with nutrition.. :-) Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie, most people, on the other had, are very intimidated by reading these types of journals, (ie. Put to sleep after about 5 mins of reading. Can you really blame them?? :-) I will try to break it down a little for anyone else that did not choose to read the journal study pearl referenced: Basically, it goes like this. Researches noticed that obesity was a rarity in the typical Chinese individual in rural areas. Furthermore, even though they did notice that the typical Chinese in these rural areas did in fact have a more active lifestyle, they didn't feel that this contributed to the overall picture. Even though the author of this study, like many early onset studies, was quick to point out that more investigation needs to be done to know for sure, lets just assume for this case he is correct and that he was just trying to cover his butt!! :-) I am very appreciative that you sent this journal, pearl, because it really does help me to further show the rest of the people reading this posting something that it seems that you already know very well, which is that the "Power of balancing diets" is very effective! It should be noted, though, that I really wish this author would have been a little more specific on the food ratios involved, but lets just make some quick assessments to the approx. diet ratios he provided and assume an approx. 30/55/15 ratio. This means that 30% of the individuals diet is coming from protein sources, 55% is coming from carbohydrate sources, and about 15% from fat. No to bad balancing... Also, the majority of all of their carbs and proteins are coming from rich vegetables (ie. Very Low GI carb sources)... Even better!!! :-) OK. Now, where is the "magic" here? Well, as my father used to say, there is dozens of ways to skin a cat. In this case, they are doing it in two ways. Why is the rural chinese carb sources so good? (ie. low GI) =========================================== Well, this journal does a wonderful job in explaining this. Basically, for the rural Chinese, all their diet revolves around non-refined carbohydrates, which they also use as their primary protein source, and it all comes from rich plants. (ie. Think about "dark" vegetables, such as spinach, broccoli, etc... great stuff!!) As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is where the "basic thermo laws" cannot be really be applied, because it would only disregard how complex the human body is anyway. Don't believe it?? Well consider this… Lets just say that I ate 2000 kcal of broccoli at one time, which I might add is about 3 1/2 pounds, but hey, lets say I am really hungry!! :-) Would my digestive system uptake 2000 kcal?? Nope... Why?? Well, its because your body only has a limited "window" so to speak when it can extract energy from food, which is no more than 3 hours to 4 hours for most people. After this time, the food has past on lower in the intestines and is no longer assessable for extracting nutrients. For broccoli, it takes the body a long time to extract energy from it, so it would not be able to get even 1/8th of the glucose out of that broccoli that I ate.. Have no fear, though, as the bacteria in your colon will have a party when they see the extra carbs coming their way, and unfortunately, it will come at your personal expense in the way of excess gas release!! Opps, sorry..… Also, it should be noted that this 3 hour to 4 hour digestion "window" is the whole reason why nutritionists want you to eat 5 to 6 meals a day. Basically they are trying to get you to eat every 3 hours so that that body has consistent levels of energy... Also, for most people, the typical standing energy requirement is only about 300 calories over a 3 hour period. This varies per person, though, due to what is known a a persons Lean Body Mass indicator, which is the amount of fat you are carrying minus your total weight. This is the main reason why nutritionists when to do a BF% test on you when you come in. So, then am I trying to say that when given 2000 kcal at one time your body cannot take it all in? Nope. It just depends on the type of food that it is getting…. For instance, lets just say that instead of getting my 2000 kcal from broccoli, I instead choose to get it from a high quality candy, which we are going to say is straight dextrose/glucose. (ie. Lets think pixie sticks/smarties here). In the case of the candy, your body would in fact VERY quickly absorb that 2000 kcal. (ie. In about 20 mins assuming an empty stomach) Unfortunately, though, because your system has no use for 2000 kcal at one time, so much hits the blood stream so fast, when your pancreas responds with in huge insulin spike to allow the new found energy to be used, and then you fat cells would just have a party gobbling it up!!! :-) =========================================== Is there anyway I can slow absorption of high GI foods? =========================================== Its funny you say ask that.. Yes it is very possible... :-) Have you ever wondered why in the old days people would eat cookies and milk? Well, even if they did not realize it at the time, what they were actually doing was using the milk, which will turn to a medium GI (ie. < 32/100 in fact) solid in the stomach, and slow down the absorption of the cookie. No, you certainly are not going to turn the cookie into a broccoli type low GI source, but at least you will not get a dramatic blodd sugar spike as you would without the milk. Milk is really good at helping for slowing carb and protein uptake. This is why body builders will blend their protein shakes with milk if they want a slower protein digestion. Other good sources for slowing nutriet absorbtions are any types of fats.... (NOTE: Obviously unsaturated are best for you, but we will leave this discussion for another day!! :-) =========================================== OK. Then what can I learn from this study? =========================================== Lets say we take that Chinese rural culture and "westernize" them a little bit shall we?? (ie. Way to go McDonalds!! :-) Instead of all of the wonderful rich vegetables they are eating now, how about if we replace a little bit of that with some good old fashion "bleached white breads", instant rice, baked potatoes, candy, ice cream, etc. (ie. All High GI carbe). By picking all high GI sources, you allow the body to dramatically increase that amount of calories it can uptake at one time. Unfortunately, though, all you are going to do is save this extra energy as fat!! NOOOOO.... :-) =========================================== Finally. I like these diet ratios in this study. I want to give them a try. Is there any downsides?? =========================================== Even though a 30/55/15 diet is actually pretty good, especially considering the amounts of rich vegetables, the only real issue you will have deals with the reduced proteins. By reducing your proteins to such low levels, you will establish a much leaner muscular profile and find it considerably more difficult to build additional muscle mass at any real quanity when you are doing any high weight strength exercising. Hence, this would also seem pretty consistent, as the typical rural Chinese is lean and slender. In fact, I think that most Chinese were slender until our western concepts got a hold of them!! ;-) As long as you are OK with the reduced ability for muscle tone / definition, this, then give this diet ratio's a shot and see if you like them!! Just the shear amount of vegetables alone is making me hungry!! :-) =========================================== (NOTE: Basal metabolic rate and metabolic rate are for the most part interchangeable. When a person is referring to Basal rate, they are trying to say the "Resting Metabolic Rate", or another way of putting your "average" rate throughout the day.) Don't know if you were looking for this information, but if so, did this help any Pearl? Got additional questions in reference to this?? Jim Carver "pearl" > wrote in message >... > > > One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is > > > that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that > > > can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? > > > > No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise > > your metabolic rate". > > ... > > Energy Balance: Interpretation of Data from Rural China > T. Colin Campbell, PhD > Division of Nutritional Sciences > Cornell University > .. > Data pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body weight > control obtained in a comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and > disease mortality in 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of > rural China (Chen et al. 1990) were used for the analysis. After > adjusting the food intake data to represent a reference male > adult involved in the least physical activity and representing the > same body weight, total calorie intake (40.6 kcal/kg BW) was > about 30% higher in China when compared with an average > adult American male (30.6% kcal/kg BW), yet the body mass > index for the Chinese male was about 25% lower (20.5 vs. > 25.8 kg BW/m2). Diets in rural China were low in fat (14.5% > of energy), relatively low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in > fiber (33 g/day), representing a diet unusually rich in plant > based foods (e.g., including about 90% of the total protein). > > It is believed that the excess energy intake among the Chinese > is mostly attributed to their greater physical activity, although > some unknown but significant and probably difficult to measure > amount could be due to increased energy expenditure > associated with non-post prandial basal metabolism. ......' > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html > > ... > > J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3. > Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians. > Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T. > Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In > this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and > food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians > and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the > vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores > (60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied > a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian > diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat > was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was > higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower. > The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the > vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the > omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a > higher caloric intake is of considerable interest. > PMID: 3760524 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Jim Carver wrote:
> Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in > this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when > dealing with nutrition.. :-) > > Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in > health of some sort, She does not. She performs foot massage ("reflexology"), and she renders quack medicine, specifically using a worthless piece of pseudo-medical equipment called a "zapper" (http://www.ess-in.com/index.htm; http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cer/clark.html). She has no legitimate medical training from any accredited institution of any kind, and in fact has never even attended university. She is the very worst kind of fraud and quack. Her real name is Lesley, and the total of any "professional background" is her attendance, for a few months, at some "reflexology" school in London. She does NOT subscribe to PubMed, despite her linking ot the *abstracts* (but not the articles), and she has never read any medical article in her life. She's a QUACK from start to finish, and a reflexive liar. > or just is a pretty smart cookie, She is a liar and a QUACK. > most people, on > the other had, are very intimidated by reading these types of > journals, Lesley has NEVER read an article in one of these journals. > (ie. Put to sleep after about 5 mins of reading. Can you > really blame them?? :-) I will try to break it down a little for > anyone else that did not choose to read the journal study pearl > referenced: The journal article Lesley DID NOT READ, because she has ZERO education that would enable her to read it and make a bit of sense of it. > > Basically, it goes like this. Basically, it goes like this: Lesley doesn't know WTF she's talking about with *any* of this. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:31:15 -0400, Jackie Patti > wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >> Ipse dixit. Any dietary intake (other than water) in a normal person >> will result in serum glucose increase followed by a rise in insulin. >> That's nature. Too bad Dr Atkins never really grasped it. > > You're both wrong. > > Protein and carbs raise insulin and blood sugar. For Type 1 diabetics > who inject, one has to take into account both protein and carb amounts > to determine the necessary amount of insulin. Protein causes much > smaller spikes that carb, but it has an effect. > > Fat has almost no effect itself. Fat slows the absorption of carbs and > protein, resulting in a slower rise, but the same amount of rise occurs. > But pre fat has little effect on either blood sugar or insulin > production, it's just not relevant itself. I never said that anything you eat does not cause an insulin response. Heck, insulin responses have been documented for people who think about food. Nonetheless, insulin response is much less for certain foods like protein and fat. By the way, talk about ipse dixit. The "usual suspect" has said nothing but opinions. And really, all nutritional "science" is nothing but opinions anyway. There's no real "science" involved. It's more along the lines of "who's paying for this study." > >> Ipse dixit and an overly-simplistic explanation. First, you should >> distinguish between simple and complex carbohydrates. Second, you need >> to note that each of those causes a different surge in serum glucose >> levels and hence a different reaction in insulin response. > > For diabetics, complex carbohydrate doesn't help much, it's the same > amount of sugar, unless you're talking fiber which isn't processed by > humans at all. > > My husband is not diabetic nor insulin resistant. He can eat several > oversized pieces of chocolate cake and his blood sugar does not rise... > though of course insulin levels do. But since he is not insulin > resistant, he doesn't need insane levels of insulin to handle the sugar. > His bg doesn't ever go over 100 no matter whether he eates well or > eats crap. > > A small plate of pasta causes my blood glucose to rise to nearly 400. A > candy bar does the same. A couple slices of whole wheat bread, made > from freshly ground grain at home and a healthy as it can be, does the > same. There's a difference in how long it takes for my blood glucose to > go to insane levels, but it does regardless of whether the carbs are > "complex" or not. By the time it hits my blood stream, it's glucose no > matter how complex it starts out. Since I'm extremely insulin > resistant, any large dose of carbs causes insane levels of insulin to be > secreted - which don't work effectively due to the IR - and therefore my > blood sugar goes crazy. There are no "good" carbs for *me* except fiber. I totally agree with this. This is why GI is bogus. > > > Third, you're > > ignoring the fact that the body evolved to secrete insulin in response > > to food -- period. Etc. > > You're ignoring the fact that the majority of our evolution occured > pre-agriculture, when the defacto diet for the human race was a low-carb > diet. Agriculture has not existed long in evolutionary terms - we did > not evolve to eat hundreds and hundreds of grams of carb daily all year > round. > > Approximately 25% of the populaiton is estimated to be insulin > resistant. Throughout evolution, this was a good thing... these were > the people who stored fat in summer when carbs were more available and > therefore most likely to survive winter. But given that the grocery > store is now available 365 days per year, the same ability to store fat > effectively is no longer a positive survival trait. Evolution has not > yet caught up with agriculture. And won't for another thousand years. > >> Juices usually contain vitamins and minerals (apple juice excluded). >> They can be part of a healthy diet in moderation. > > On low-carb, I eat about three times as much vegetables as I did all > produce (including fruits and juices) before, so I doubt I'm getting > less vitamins and minerals by skipping juice. > > Unless you consider destroying the pancreas, ruining my cholesterol > levels, damaging my kidneys, increasing my risk of heart disease, > potential blindness, increased infections, risk of amputation and an > early death to be part of your definition of "healthy" - juice cannot be > part of a healthy diet for *me*, unless your idea of "moderation" is > measured in micrograms. > > Juices raise blood sugar much more than fruits, and you lose the benefit > of fiber. Juice can be a reasonable food choice for those whom are not > insulin-resistant, sure beats choices like junk food, but even for those > without insulin resistance, it's not as good a food choice as whole > fruit. > > >>> Eat fruit. >> >> One should eat fruit. It's high in fiber and contains (egads!) carbs >> which help the body function properly. > > There's plenty of fiber in vegetables and in low-carb fruits (such as > some berries and melons). No one has to risk amputation, impotence or > blindness to get fiber. > > There is *nothing* provided by non-fiber carbs to the body that cannot > be provided with protein and/or fat. > > The notion that a low-carb diet is unhealthy is just ridiculous. I eat > about the same amount of meat as before and much more vegetables, in > place of starches and sweets. About the only "unhealthy" bit of my diet > is I could probably improve things by decreasing my dairy intake a bit, > I tend to go a bit overboard with yogurt and cheese and such. But > there's nothing inherently unhealthy about limiting carbohydrate. > When I said, "Eat fruit," I meant that it's much better to eat fruit than juice. Juice has no redeeming qualities in my mind. I agree with you -- I feel so much better on low carb than I felt on low fat. Low fat sucks. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
>>>That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>trivial, and uninteresting. >>> >>>The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >> >>That question has been long answered: >> >> lack of discipline >> lack of self respect >> immaturity > > Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim > people? If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity , such people > would not exist. But, I see loads of such people. For me, with my blood sugar uncontrolled, it was hunger. When you're severly insulin resistant, your body learns to overproduce insulin, which can result in severely low blood sugar... which feels like ravenous, starving-to-death hunger. When you're severly insulin resistant, the high blood sugar does not enter your cells properly, and they *are* starving. This also causes insane, mind-boggling hunger. This hunger cannot be "cured" by eating, blood glucose levels have to be stabilized before it is cured. Until blood glucose is stabilized, the person suffers severe and painful hunger. Willpower does not work well in the face of pain. I *enjoy* hunger on low-carb. It feels kinda good. I mean, skipping a meal, or going a half day without food, the sorta empty feeling in my stomach, and the weird growls... it's not painful at all. It's an interesting feeling. It's not a strong feeling, it's easy enough to ignore if I'm doing something else or just too lazy to feel like fixing food... because it doesn't *hurt*. The amount of discipline necessary to eat reasonably is much easier when you're not in literal pain from hunger. The willpower involved is minimal. Not that discipline isn't required, I still want a slice when the homemade bread comes out of the oven. But it doesn't physically hurt to deny myself like it did before. My "natural" appetite on low-carb results is such that some days I have difficulty eating as much as 1200 calories. It's just not the same thing as attempting to restrict calories while suffering painful hunger at all. -- As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value. Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets. -- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Crafting Mom wrote:
> Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you did > not before. You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise > the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had > said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by > exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control? > > Every day, you are aware that the ball is in your court and use it is a day > you've exercised control. Yes, but... The amount of discipline required to control food intake with uncontrolled blood sugar is such that I'd have to focus *tons* of energy to do it. I'd not be able to be a productive worker, a good wife and mother, nor get my butt to the gym regularly if I had to use up all that psychic energy just to control food. Food would have to become my life's obsession to control myself while suffering with uncontrolled blood sugar. If I *had* to choose between being slim and being completly dysfunctional in every other area of my life, the only responsible and mature decision would be obesity. There is discipline required on low-carb, but a much lesser amount. I can focus a reasonable amount of discipline to the subject of food and still have plenty leftover for my other responsibilities and chores and such. -- As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value. Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets. -- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Bob in CT wrote:
>>>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank >>>>> too much orange >>>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because >>>>> you consume >>>>> way too many calories. >>>> >>>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, >>>> trivial, and uninteresting. >>>> >>>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. >>> >>> Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness. > > Moral weakness? Yes. > This is ridiculous! Why? > Morality has nothing to do with > being overweight. Why not? > And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, I know, but maybe some day you'll learn better. > as > the common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that > low fat = terrible. Maybe someday you'll learn that dietary extremism of any variety (e.g., low-carb) is terrible. It'll take you some time to fall off this bandwagon, too. Why do you like following dietary fads? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
>>>No, I did not. I simply made weight loss a priority. But I always had a >>>more or less same amount of discipline. >> >>Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you did >>not before. > of course. > >>You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise >>the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had >>said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by >>exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control? > > Nothing wrong with it, but the veggy freaks and fat taunters allege > that I did not have that discipline. I did have it. With the exception of "pearl" and her fruity and irrelevant posts, the veggie freaks haven't responded in this thread. I believe Jon's already agreed with you about discipline. It's your maturity that needs a boost. <...> > That's right. I was just hoping that somehow, I could find some way > to not be hungry after I ate enough to maintain weight. Sounds like you also have some issues which have led you down the path of serial eating disorders. You should try behavioral therapy or counseling. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello again Rubystars!
> So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is > helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them > every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched > over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's > helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the > caffeine part was helping. I thought this question would be coming. This was reason I put in the NOTE statement in the last posting about noting that all stimulants are not the same.... :-) To answer your question. Unfortunately, no... Caffeine, by itself, does not provide much of an elevated metabolic rate increase, but is OK as an appetite suppression substance. To be effective, though, about 100mg (ie A large cup of coffee) is required. With your Diet Coke approach, you are only getting 31mg per 8oz serving. Now, one thing that I got allot of, even from some doctors, is that metabolic raising substances simply do not work. I find this very comical in that metabolic enhancers was whole reason the amphetamine class of stimulants were created. (ie. Remember the 70's when doctors would just prescribe a "wonder pill" to solve any overweight problems?) Amphetamines were so powerful, in fact, and addictive for that matter, that the FDA decided that they were a little too risky for most people to mess with... I certainly see and respect their position on this matter... Just to note, I support the FDA on most of their stances... Just so that you can build some respect for some in the industry in reference to metabolic enhancing products, the lets talk about the most famous of them all, being the ECA stack. (NOTE: Unfortunately, though, the Ephedra part of this stack was banned by the FDA earlier this year, but you will see that knowing its history will be helpful to you in looking at how the next generation products work...) What is an ECA stack, and how/why did it work? ====================================== The ECA stack as most people know it, actually stands for Ephedra/Caffeine/Asprin. This blend was effectively brought to us by the body building community in trying to develop ways for them to "cut down" when preparing for competitions. No, not all body builders are meat heads. Some are actually very intelligent! Did it work?? You betcha it did... Very effective, and here is why.. I don't want to bring the whole "body enzyme" thing into the picture, because I think it probably would just zone out most people, so I will describe the process in a easiest manner possible. If you are looking for a more textbook explanation of exact chemical releases and enzyme blocking involved, let me know, and I can explain further. For now, though, I will just keep it simple to understand... Basically, Ephedrine (which is the active ingredient in Ephedra) stimulates the autonomic nervous system in many ways. In fact, ephedrine is one of main drugs asthma sufferers use everyday. When you blend ephedrine with caffeine, though, the two mimic the effects of true amphetamines, which as you know now are very powerful stimulants. The thing to understand the most, though, is that when adding these two stimulants together, there is an increased release of a body chemical called "nor-ephinephrine". In addition, something called the "beta-2-androgenic receptors" in the body is stimulated. OK other than those two techno jargon words, that isn't too bad is it??... Now lets look at what the Aspirin is for?? Well, the aspirin side of the "ECA stack" has been and continues to be a little controversial. Basically, aspirin was added to the stack about 11 years ago and they were using it to block an additional body enzyme to aid its "effectiveness", so to speak, of the overall process. Once again, if you want a more technical description of why, let me know. Primarily the reason most companies left Aspirin in was due to the fact that it was noticed that it was very effective in going at abdominal fat sections. Why, this is, no one really knew for sure, but the speculation was that it was due to the fact that thinning the blood helps get additional blood supply to abdominal fat section area. I personally think this is a little "magic fluff" for my tastes, but most body builders swear by it, and who am I to disagree with the people that know it best?? :-) ====================================== OK. If Ephedra was effect, why was it banned by the FDA? ====================================== Several reasons. Some of which were political in nature. It seems there is allot of bad blood between the FDA and the largest supplier of ephedra for normal consumers being Metabolife. Historically over the last decade, it seems that the FDA has a track record of not liking the herbal market simply due to the fact that congress never gave them much authority over it. If you don't like this, then I would encourage you to contact your senator and congressmen and state your opinion. This track record is clearly established, and certainly goes against the intent of what congress was trying to do when then pass a bill that essentially created the herbal market... Overall, though, this is still a small reason to the overall pictu Banning Reasons: 1) Ephedra was primarily banned because of abuse by people that would simply use it only and not improve anything else on the nutritional and diet side. Not smart, because an ECA stack is certainly too strong a stimulant blend to use for people who are not used to working out regularly in intense manners. 2) Because of the increased "metabolic rate", its use would hamper your body's ability to regulate body temps. This is normally not an issue, but if you are on high doses and then go out into > 96F weather, you can get into a heat stroke situation very rapidly. Even more frustrating to medical professionals, was the fact that when a person did develop a heat stroke condition and were admitted into the emergency room, they were almost powerless to do much about it other than put the person in a tub of ice and hope for the best. I certainly can understand how frustrating this must have been... 3) Like most good solutions, as soon as one good product comes out, a large number of imitation products also came on the market. They also were making all sorts of bogus claims about their product trying to get an "edge" on the competition. Funny thing was, though, they all were working off the same principles and typically the same dosages... Was Ephedra that dangerous?? ====================================== No.. If used properly it was not.. Most knowledgeable fitness professionals agree to this fact… Interestingly enough, the Chinese has used it for over 4000 years with little to no problems. I must admit that more than one of Chinese immigrant has chuckled at me in discussing Ephedra... "Stupid Americans" as they say it.. :-) ====================================== What is industries "new product" now that Ephedra is gone? ====================================== As of now, the jury is still out on where we go from here. Some companies just increased the caffeine amounts. No smart, as this just give people the shakes and creates a mild case of paranoia at large dosages of caffeine... Some, have replaced Ephedra which its "sister" herb being Green Leaf Extract. Even though so far Green Leaf Extract looks promising, because of the higher dosage required, it has been noticed to show some issues on liver function tests. (ie. Slight liver damage) Not too nice to think about, but remember that the liver is the only organ in the body that can regenerate itself..... That certainly is no excuse to abuse it, though… That's just not nice!! :-) Also, another herb called Bitter Orange Extract is now being tried to replaced ephedra, but it also seems to have allot of the same issues as Green Leaf... Finally, I should bring up Ginseng as another option. When people talk about ginseng, though, they are talking about energy enhancing… Also there are several different forms of ginseng, but the Korean Panax Ginseng is clearly the best from an energy standpoint. ====================================== OK. Should I try a metabolic enhancer right now? ====================================== Personally, I wouldn't. Not until we know a little more about how everything will shake out in the industry. Let some of those "amateur scientists", who I admit are a critical part of science in general, play for a while until some sort of standard principle is agreed upon. If you want to try being one of these "amateur scientists", though, I say go for it!! This risk profile is not too bad… Below is a good link if you are interested. Also, just to let you know, most body builders swear by products from a company called Ergopharm, (ie. Go Patrick A. Go!!… Sorry, inside joke…) so if you do decide to go this route, you might want to try their metabolic enhancer product. I think it is called ErgoLean MC, but I am not sure and I know nothing more about it. Additional Quality herbal link: <http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/goalherbal.htm> ====================================== Jim Carver ====================================== "Rubystars" > wrote in message . com>... > "Jim Carver" > wrote in message > <snip explanation> > >Helpful? > > Yes, thanks.  > > >Got any addition questions on this subject or something > > else? > > So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is > helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them > every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched > over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's > helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the > caffeine part was helping. > > -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Usual Suspect!
> >>No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise > >>your metabolic rate". > > <snip nothing of merit> Easy now Usual Suspect.... ;-) By definition, any food that raises basal metabolic rate in the body (ie. sympathetic nervous response) would be considered a stimulant.. This is what is stimulant is, in fact.... This is why I structured the statement the way that I did. Dont worry, usual suspect, I think before I speak!..... ;-) I typed a response to pearl and Rubystars in earlier postings today that talks allot more on about metabolic definitions, stimulants, diets, and metabolic enhancers. There seems to be allot of confusion around in this regard, where in the professional nutrition industry there is none at all. Please let me know if you have any questions or I can help explain further! Jim Carver usual suspect > wrote in message >... > pearl cut-n-pasted: > >>>One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is > >>>that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that > >>>can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity? > >> > >>No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise > >>your metabolic rate". > > <snip nothing of merit> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Bob!
> Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with > being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the You are correct 100%. Moral weakness, which I am sure he was trying to use as a slang term has nothing to do with loosing. I have worked as a nutritionist with dozens of people, and have found that we basically has the same amount of will power no matter what I walk of life. The trick is trying to understand why are are craving what you are... Education, on the other hand, like every other subject in in life, is exceptionally powerful in dealing with cravings and weight control. The only problem is that there is so much miss-information out there that it is just sickening... > common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low > fat = terrible. And you would be right again in this regard. Fat consumption in a diet is used by the body in its ability to metabolize testosterone, among other things of course. If you reduce to a low level of fat in you diet, the biggest thing you will notice the most is a lethargic feeling and a lack sex drive. This is due to your test.numbers falling to the floor... Now that sucks, doesn't it?? Also, Please do not think that fat intake = fat absorbed. This is a classic fallacy that many people fall for. Carbohydrates have a considerably more amount of energy in the respect of body glucose uptake, and is always preferred by the body. Once again, people do not get fat from Low GI carb sources, but rather from high insulin responses from eating high GI carb sources. Think about it this way, on a ketonic diet (ie. Atkins, inc), the approach is to force the body to convert fat to energy as its primary source. Weight will just shoot off people when doing this…. No, I did no say it was healthy, though… :-) Take a look if you are interested in several postings that I have up on the big.folks and fat.acceptance groups. I think you might be interested in some of the factual information about how the body metabolizes foods. Jim Carver Bob in CT > wrote in message >... > On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355 > > wrote: > > > In article >, usual suspect wrote: > >> Ignoramus20355 wrote: > >>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too > >>>> much orange > >>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because > >>>> you consume > >>>> way too many calories. > >>> > >>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, > >>> trivial, and uninteresting. > >>> > >>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. > >> > >> Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness. > > Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with > being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the > common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low > fat = terrible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Hello Bob!
> Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with > being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the You are correct 100%. Moral weakness, which I am sure he was trying to use as a slang term has nothing to do with loosing. I have worked as a nutritionist with dozens of people, and have found that we basically has the same amount of will power no matter what I walk of life. The trick is trying to understand why are are craving what you are... Education, on the other hand, like every other subject in in life, is exceptionally powerful in dealing with cravings and weight control. The only problem is that there is so much miss-information out there that it is just sickening... > common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low > fat = terrible. And you would be right again in this regard. Fat consumption in a diet is used by the body in its ability to metabolize testosterone, among other things of course. If you reduce to a low level of fat in you diet, the biggest thing you will notice the most is a lethargic feeling and a lack sex drive. This is due to your test.numbers falling to the floor... Now that sucks, doesn't it?? Also, Please do not think that fat intake = fat absorbed. This is a classic fallacy that many people fall for. Carbohydrates have a considerably more amount of energy in the respect of body glucose uptake, and is always preferred by the body. Once again, people do not get fat from Low GI carb sources, but rather from high insulin responses from eating high GI carb sources. Think about it this way, on a ketonic diet (ie. Atkins, inc), the approach is to force the body to convert fat to energy as its primary source. Weight will just shoot off people when doing this…. No, I did no say it was healthy, though… :-) Take a look if you are interested in several postings that I have up on the big.folks and fat.acceptance groups. I think you might be interested in some of the factual information about how the body metabolizes foods. Jim Carver Bob in CT > wrote in message >... > On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355 > > wrote: > > > In article >, usual suspect wrote: > >> Ignoramus20355 wrote: > >>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too > >>>> much orange > >>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because > >>>> you consume > >>>> way too many calories. > >>> > >>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious, > >>> trivial, and uninteresting. > >>> > >>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories. > >> > >> Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness. > > Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with > being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the > common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low > fat = terrible. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"usual suspect" > wrote in message <snip> > Please stop giving Lesley more kooky sites to link. Sorry. *L* -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Rubystars wrote: > <...> > > I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. This can be > > seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every > > member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a friend > > whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), even though > > they were all trying very hard. > > Were they working out, and had they always been active? The ones who could did. > > It could have been a gland problem that ran > > in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid issues. > > Some thyroid issues are organic (even genetic), but it's often a case of a gland > responding to diet and exercise factors of an individual. > Regular exercise and a high-fiber diet can help maintain thyroid > function and prevent constipation. > http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/h/hypothyroidism.htm That's good to know. > Studies have also shown that more intense exercise relates to greater > improvement in thyroid function than moderate exercise. > <...> > >>Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if > >>you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you > >>burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you > >>take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical > >>NECESSITY. > > > > That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I > > think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people, and so > > there is a different range available for different people. > > It fluctuates depending on age, physical activity level, etc. Someone who > becomes more active later in life may have a higher BMR than when he or she was > a sedentary young person. Again, exercise is the key to improving BMR and > keeping weight off. Yup. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jim Carver" > wrote in message om... > Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in > this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when > dealing with nutrition.. :-) > > Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in > health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie, Oh boy, are you way off base! She's a self-deluded pseudoscientist at best, at worst, a deliberate fraud. She practices "reflexology" for a variety of ailments. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jim Carver" > wrote in message om... > Hello again Rubystars! > > > So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is > > helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them > > every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched > > over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's > > helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the > > caffeine part was helping. > > I thought this question would be coming. This was reason I put in the > NOTE statement in the last posting about noting that all stimulants > are not the same.... :-) > > To answer your question. Unfortunately, no... Caffeine, by itself, > does not provide much of an elevated metabolic rate increase, but is > OK as an appetite suppression substance. To be effective, though, > about 100mg (ie A large cup of coffee) is required. With your Diet > Coke approach, you are only getting 31mg per 8oz serving. Ok. Thanks for the info. > Now, one thing that I got allot of, even from some doctors, is that > metabolic raising substances simply do not work. I find this very > comical in that metabolic enhancers was whole reason the amphetamine > class of stimulants were created. (ie. Remember the 70's when doctors > would just prescribe a "wonder pill" to solve any overweight > problems?) I was born in 78, so memories of the 70s are pretty much non-existent for me. *L* I do remember all the dexatrim commercials I saw growing up though. I also remember this thing that was being advertized and came in a packet that people were supposed to sprinkle over their food before they ate it. It was probably the same kind of thing. >Amphetamines were so powerful, in fact, and addictive for > that matter, that the FDA decided that they were a little too risky > for most people to mess with... I certainly see and respect their > position on this matter... Just to note, I support the FDA on most of > their stances... > > Just so that you can build some respect for some in the industry in > reference to metabolic enhancing products, the lets talk about the > most famous of them all, being the ECA stack. > > (NOTE: Unfortunately, though, the Ephedra part of this stack was > banned by the FDA earlier this year, but you will see that knowing its > history will be helpful to you in looking at how the next generation > products work...) > > What is an ECA stack, and how/why did it work? > ====================================== > The ECA stack as most people know it, actually stands for > Ephedra/Caffeine/Asprin. This blend was effectively brought to us by > the body building community in trying to develop ways for them to "cut > down" when preparing for competitions. No, not all body builders are > meat heads. Some are actually very intelligent! Did it work?? You > betcha it did... Very effective, and here is why.. > > I don't want to bring the whole "body enzyme" thing into the picture, > because I think it probably would just zone out most people, so I will > describe the process in a easiest manner possible. If you are looking > for a more textbook explanation of exact chemical releases and enzyme > blocking involved, let me know, and I can explain further. For now, > though, I will just keep it simple to understand... > > Basically, Ephedrine (which is the active ingredient in Ephedra) > stimulates the autonomic nervous system in many ways. In fact, > ephedrine is one of main drugs asthma sufferers use everyday. When > you blend ephedrine with caffeine, though, the two mimic the effects > of true amphetamines, which as you know now are very powerful > stimulants. Sounds like it would be dangerous for ephedra users who gave into the occasional craving for a piece of chocolate cake or a candy bar (Almost Everyone!) or drank coffee in the morning. So could that explain some of the health problems. >The thing to understand the most, though, is that when > adding these two stimulants together, there is an increased release of > a body chemical called "nor-ephinephrine". Isn't epinephrine the same as adrenalin, or is that something different? >In addition, something > called the "beta-2-androgenic receptors" in the body is stimulated. > OK other than those two techno jargon words, that isn't too bad is > it??... Now lets look at what the Aspirin is for?? > > Well, the aspirin side of the "ECA stack" has been and continues to be > a little controversial. Basically, aspirin was added to the stack > about 11 years ago and they were using it to block an additional body > enzyme to aid its "effectiveness", so to speak, of the overall > process. Once again, if you want a more technical description of why, > let me know. Primarily the reason most companies left Aspirin in was > due to the fact that it was noticed that it was very effective in > going at abdominal fat sections. Why, this is, no one really knew for > sure, but the speculation was that it was due to the fact that > thinning the blood helps get additional blood supply to abdominal fat > section area. >I personally think this is a little "magic fluff" for > my tastes, but most body builders swear by it, and who am I to > disagree with the people that know it best?? :-) I'd rather trust objective results than subjective observations, personally. > ====================================== > > OK. If Ephedra was effect, why was it banned by the FDA? > ====================================== > Several reasons. Some of which were political in nature. It seems > there is allot of bad blood between the FDA and the largest supplier > of ephedra for normal consumers being Metabolife. Historically over > the last decade, it seems that the FDA has a track record of not > liking the herbal market simply due to the fact that congress never > gave them much authority over it. The herbal market is also overrun with pseudoscientists making all kinds of claims for herbs that can't be substantiated. I believe there really are benefits to be gained from some herbal remedies, but there's so much bad information that it's very hard to filter the truth from the "traditions." and even things that pill pushers made up. >If you don't like this, then I > would encourage you to contact your senator and congressmen and state > your opinion. This track record is clearly established, and certainly > goes against the intent of what congress was trying to do when then > pass a bill that essentially created the herbal market... Overall, > though, this is still a small reason to the overall pictu > > Banning Reasons: > 1) Ephedra was primarily banned because of abuse by people that would > simply use it only and not improve anything else on the nutritional > and diet side. Not smart, because an ECA stack is certainly too > strong a stimulant blend to use for people who are not used to working > out regularly in intense manners. Yeah, I think a lot of people who use Ephedra like substances think it's a *substitute* for self control and regular exercise. > 2) Because of the increased "metabolic rate", its use would hamper > your body's ability to regulate body temps. This is normally not an > issue, but if you are on high doses and then go out into > 96F > weather, you can get into a heat stroke situation very rapidly. Sounds pretty dangerous in a place like Texas or Florida. >Even > more frustrating to medical professionals, was the fact that when a > person did develop a heat stroke condition and were admitted into the > emergency room, they were almost powerless to do much about it other > than put the person in a tub of ice and hope for the best. I > certainly can understand how frustrating this must have been... Yeah  > 3) Like most good solutions, as soon as one good product comes out, a > large number of imitation products also came on the market. They also > were making all sorts of bogus claims about their product trying to > get an "edge" on the competition. Funny thing was, though, they all > were working off the same principles and typically the same dosages... Well that's how things like that go. Heck, there's even a large "homeopathic" market in which the pills might not even contain one molecule of the so-called therapeutic substance because of heavy dilution beyond what Avogadro's number allows. > Was Ephedra that dangerous?? > ====================================== > No.. If used properly it was not.. Most knowledgeable fitness > professionals agree to this fact. Interestingly enough, the Chinese > has used it for over 4000 years with little to no problems. I must > admit that more than one of Chinese immigrant has chuckled at me in > discussing Ephedra... "Stupid Americans" as they say it.. :-) > ====================================== The problem is people want a pill to do their work for them rather than with them. They thought Ephedra was that pill. > What is industries "new product" now that Ephedra is gone? > ====================================== > As of now, the jury is still out on where we go from here. Some > companies just increased the caffeine amounts. No smart, as this just > give people the shakes and creates a mild case of paranoia at large > dosages of caffeine... Yeah too much caffeine at once is no fun. > Some, have replaced Ephedra which its "sister" herb being Green Leaf > Extract. Even though so far Green Leaf Extract looks promising, > because of the higher dosage required, it has been noticed to show > some issues on liver function tests. (ie. Slight liver damage) Yuck. > Not too nice to think about, but remember that the liver is the only > organ in the body that can regenerate itself..... That certainly is > no excuse to abuse it, though. That's just not nice!! :-) Bones can regenerate, but I guess they're not considered organs. I've heard of hearts growing blood vessels to compensate for blockages, etc. > Also, another herb called Bitter Orange Extract is now being tried to > replaced ephedra, but it also seems to have allot of the same issues > as Green Leaf... Thanks for the warning. I'm not planning to get any chemical aids right now, but it's good to know about the risks at any rate. > Finally, I should bring up Ginseng as another option. When people > talk about ginseng, though, they are talking about energy enhancing. > Also there are several different forms of ginseng, but the Korean > Panax Ginseng is clearly the best from an energy standpoint. Have there been legit peer reviewed studies on it? <snip> -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
<nothing of merit> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Jim Carver wrote:
> Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in > this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when > dealing with nutrition.. :-) That foot-rubbing skank is among the most clueless people on our planet. Indeed, she thinks our planet is hollow and inhabited by "Lemurians" who are channeled by overweight housewives from Marin County. One of her most comprehensive posts on the matter can be found at: http://snipurl.com/516b BTW, the Gardner "patent" to which she refers was for an illuminated globe. But then again she also believes in chemtrails, UFOs, leprechauns (to be fair, she's agnostic -- can't decide either way), etc. She's a flake. Her other nyms are Lotus and lilweed. Search the latter at Google and you'll find her ex's posts, too. He's a skinhead, and so is she. > Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in > health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie, Neither, lol! Review her posts at AAEV on feed:beef ratios. Note how many revisions her math endured -- none of which ever accounted for birth weight or weight from grazing. Feed:beef-related threads: http://snipurl.com/6cmm > most people, on > the other had, are very intimidated by reading these types of > journals, She doesn't read those types of journals. She searches the web for stuff that reinforces her kooky beliefs, like foot massage as a cure-all. > (ie. Put to sleep after about 5 mins of reading. Can you > really blame them?? :-) I will try to break it down a little for > anyone else that did not choose to read the journal study pearl > referenced: She referenced an abstract. She lacks the educational background to comprehend even the abstracts, much less studies. BTW, you're coming across as a nitwit for using the words "journal study" together. Journals don't usually *run* studies; they publish them for peer review. <...> > I am very appreciative that you sent this journal, Abstract. It's not an article, it's not the study report. She doesn't know anything about medical science. Her training was not at university; she learned to rub feet from New Agers. <snip of weird and pedantic sophistry> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Jackie Fatti wrote:
>> Ipse dixit. Any dietary intake (other than water) in a normal person >> will result in serum glucose increase followed by a rise in insulin. >> That's nature. Too bad Dr Atkins never really grasped it. > > You're both wrong. No, I'm correct. > Protein and carbs raise insulin and blood sugar. Which is consistent with what I wrote. Maybe you should try reading it sometime. > For Type 1 diabetics > who inject, one has to take into account both protein and carb amounts > to determine the necessary amount of insulin. Protein causes much > smaller spikes that carb, but it has an effect. If you're going to "correct" me, perhaps you should write without your own errors of generalization. First, you have not distinguished between complex and simple carbohydrate "spikes" (more on that below). Second, your claim about protein spikes being "much smaller" is dubious because it doesn't take amounts consumed into consideration. > Fat has almost no effect itself. It has one, which is why you qualified it. > Fat slows the absorption of carbs and > protein, resulting in a slower rise, but the same amount of rise occurs. Glucose "spikes" (and I use the term in the more medically-accepted manner: referring to an excessive rise rather than just a rise in glucose) vary among individuals and even within individuals. I know this from dealing with diabetics in my own family. One day this food (pasta, whatever) causes a spike, another day it doesn't. > But pre fat has little effect on either blood sugar or insulin > production, it's just not relevant itself. Bullshit. >> Ipse dixit and an overly-simplistic explanation. First, you should >> distinguish between simple and complex carbohydrates. Second, you need >> to note that each of those causes a different surge in serum glucose >> levels and hence a different reaction in insulin response. > > For diabetics, complex carbohydrate doesn't help much, it's the same > amount of sugar, Bullshit. You're languishing under a false claim made by proponents of low-carb junk science that all polysaccharides are broken down into monosaccharides and absorbed into the bloodstream. Neither is the case. Simply put (and on average), sugars are absorbed at a rate of about thirty calories per minute while polysaccharides enter at about two calories per minute. > unless you're talking fiber which isn't processed by > humans at all. Like fat, fiber slows down absorption of carbohydrates. Whole grains can be part of a healthy diet even for diabetics. > My husband is not diabetic nor insulin resistant. He can eat several > oversized pieces of chocolate cake and his blood sugar does not rise... > though of course insulin levels do. But since he is not insulin > resistant, he doesn't need insane levels of insulin to handle the sugar. > His bg doesn't ever go over 100 no matter whether he eates well or eats > crap. > > A small plate of pasta causes my blood glucose to rise to nearly 400. How much pasta (by weight or cup measure)? <...> >> Juices usually contain vitamins and minerals (apple juice excluded). >> They can be part of a healthy diet in moderation. > > On low-carb, I eat about three times as much vegetables as I did all > produce (including fruits and juices) before, so I doubt I'm getting > less vitamins and minerals by skipping juice. It's about time you started eating your vegetables. > Unless you consider destroying the pancreas, ruining my cholesterol > levels, damaging my kidneys, increasing my risk of heart disease, > potential blindness, increased infections, risk of amputation and an > early death to be part of your definition of "healthy" - juice cannot be > part of a healthy diet for *me*, unless your idea of "moderation" is > measured in micrograms. See the very first sentence I wrote which you quoted above, you extremist with an eating disorder: I said NORMAL PEOPLE. Most people on low-carb are normal and they've been deluded into these fad diets on the assumption that what's good for diabetics is good for everyone. In a few years, we'll learn from studies that weaning our bodies off certain macronutrients (carbs) and then suddenly again consuming those nutrients causes worse spikes than if we'd eaten sensibly from the start. WTF do you expect your body to do if you deny it proper nutrition for so long and then suddenly start eating properly? Glucose spikes, insulin spikes, etc. > Juices raise blood sugar much more than fruits, and you lose the benefit > of fiber. I noted the importance of the fiber below, silly. > Juice can be a reasonable food choice for those whom are not > insulin-resistant, And golly gee whiz, did I not qualify my remarks by basing them upon what's acceptable and/or "good" for NORMAL people? Read above, nitwit. Not everyone has your malady, not everyone should follow your diet. > sure beats choices like junk food, but even for those > without insulin resistance, it's not as good a food choice as whole fruit. Thank goodness most of us are healthy and normal, huh. >>> Eat fruit. >> >> One should eat fruit. It's high in fiber and contains (egads!) carbs >> which help the body function properly. > > There's plenty of fiber in vegetables and in low-carb fruits (such as > some berries and melons). No one has to risk amputation, impotence or > blindness to get fiber. Stop with the extremism. It's not good if you have diabetes, but most people don't. > There is *nothing* provided by non-fiber carbs to the body that cannot > be provided with protein and/or fat. Vitamins and minerals are found in the foods which provide "non-fiber carbs," some of which are not found in meat or dairy products. I still like reading all the studies that show reduced cognitive performance on carb-restricted diets. Your post shows (anecdotally) that such studies appear to have merit. > The notion that a low-carb diet is unhealthy is just ridiculous. I eat > about the same amount of meat as before and much more vegetables, in > place of starches and sweets. About the only "unhealthy" bit of my diet > is I could probably improve things by decreasing my dairy intake a bit, > I tend to go a bit overboard with yogurt and cheese and such. But > there's nothing inherently unhealthy about limiting carbohydrate. Ipse dixit. I bet you've been low-carb for two or more years and your body now compensates for any carb intake with much greatly increased spikes in insulin. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Dreck the Fat **** wrote: <..> > > You should 've paid more attention to Pearl's message .. > > Nobody with a sound mind should heed that loony crank's message about anything. That'd be *you* then, foolish kook .. <restore> ""Such slanderous remarks win you no respect. You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt." -'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03 "Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me. ... the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue." -'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03 "Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the issues rather than attack the character of others." -'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03 "Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03 What a hypocrite." [end] |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
<Ad hominem> "Such slanderous remarks win you no respect. You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt." -'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03 "Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me. ... the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue." -'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03 "Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the issues rather than attack the character of others." -'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03 "Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net... <..> Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Jim Carver wrote:
> Hello Usual Suspect! Hello, Carver. >>>>No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise >>>>your metabolic rate". >> >><snip nothing of merit> > > Easy now Usual Suspect.... ;-) Lesley's (or "pearl's" if you prefer her nym) pasting of abstracts did not address anything of merit. > By definition, any food that raises basal metabolic rate in the body > (ie. sympathetic nervous response) would be considered a stimulant.. > This is what is stimulant is, in fact.... This is why I structured the > statement the way that I did. Dont worry, usual suspect, I think > before I speak!..... ;-) You sure fooled me. > I typed a response to pearl and Rubystars in earlier postings today > that talks allot more on about metabolic definitions, stimulants, > diets, and metabolic enhancers. There seems to be allot of confusion > around in this regard, where in the professional nutrition industry > there is none at all. Please let me know if you have any questions or > I can help explain further! Thanks, but I'm sure I'll survive. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Rubystars" > wrote in message om...
> > "Jim Carver" > wrote in message > om... > > Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in > > this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when > > dealing with nutrition.. :-) > > > > Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in > > health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie, > > Oh boy, are you way off base! She's a self-deluded pseudoscientist at best, > at worst, a deliberate fraud. Extremely ignorant remarks, based on foolish, wilfully ignorant opinion. > She practices "reflexology" for a variety of > ailments. http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
"Jim Carver" > wrote in message
om... > Way to go Pearl! Cheers Jim. . |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
Read and digested.
 . Many thanks for the information, Jim.A couple of points I'd like to comment on... "Jim Carver" > wrote in message om... <..> > Basically, it goes like this. Researches noticed that obesity was a > rarity in the typical Chinese individual in rural areas. Furthermore, > even though they did notice that the typical Chinese in these rural > areas did in fact have a more active lifestyle, they didn't feel that > this contributed to the overall picture. Even though the author of > this study, like many early onset studies, was quick to point out that > more investigation needs to be done to know for sure, lets just assume > for this case he is correct and that he was just trying to cover his > butt!! :-) 'In short, decreased intake of dietary casein in both of these well studied experimental animal models is analogous to decreased intake of animal based foods by rural Chinese. Moreover, the interpretation of these findings is essentially the same for both species. A low protein diet, especially one low in the more efficiently utilized animal based protein, is associated with lower efficiency of energy retention to form the excess body weight, that is, more energy is dispensed either through an increase in thermogenesis or through enhanced physical activity. And most importantly, the shift of energy expenditure away from deposition as body fat toward body heat is much too small to be reliably measured, yet this amount is more than enough to spare significant gains in body weight. Moreover, the possibility that adaptation to new steady states of thermogenesis (Waterlow 1986) can be prolonged makes even more difficult its detection.' http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html > I am very appreciative that you sent this journal, pearl, because it > really does help me to further show the rest of the people reading > this posting something that it seems that you already know very well, > which is that the "Power of balancing diets" is very effective! Correct balancing! .> It should be noted, though, that I really wish this author would have > been a little more specific on the food ratios involved, but lets just > make some quick assessments to the approx. diet ratios he provided and > assume an approx. 30/55/15 ratio. This means that 30% of the > individuals diet is coming from protein sources, 55% is coming from > carbohydrate sources, and about 15% from fat. No to bad balancing... > Also, the majority of all of their carbs and proteins are coming from > rich vegetables (ie. Very Low GI carb sources)... Even better!!! :-) *Right*. > OK. Now, where is the "magic" here? Well, as my father used to say, > there is dozens of ways to skin a cat. In this case, they are doing > it in two ways. > > Why is the rural chinese carb sources so good? (ie. low GI) > =========================================== > Well, this journal does a wonderful job in explaining this. > Basically, for the rural Chinese, all their diet revolves around > non-refined carbohydrates, which they also use as their primary > protein source, and it all comes from rich plants. (ie. Think about > "dark" vegetables, such as spinach, broccoli, etc... great stuff!!) > As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is where the "basic thermo > laws" cannot be really be applied, because it would only disregard how > complex the human body is anyway. Don't believe it?? Well consider > this. > > Lets just say that I ate 2000 kcal of broccoli at one time, which I > might add is about 3 1/2 pounds, but hey, lets say I am really > hungry!! :-) Would my digestive system uptake 2000 kcal?? Nope... > Why?? Well, its because your body only has a limited "window" so to > speak when it can extract energy from food, which is no more than 3 > hours to 4 hours for most people. After this time, the food has past > on lower in the intestines and is no longer assessable for extracting > nutrients. For broccoli, it takes the body a long time to extract > energy from it, so it would not be able to get even 1/8th of the > glucose out of that broccoli that I ate.. Have no fear, though, as > the bacteria in your colon will have a party when they see the extra > carbs coming their way, and unfortunately, it will come at your > personal expense in the way of excess gas release!! Opps, sorry... But mostly those carbs are enclosed within a tough cellulose wall. And plant protein is thus also unavailable to putrefactive bacteria.. ''According to Harper's Biochemistry, the putrefaction bacteria in the large intestine convert amino acids from undigested protein into toxic amines or ptomaines, such as cadaverine (from lysine), agmatine (from arginine), tyramine (from tyroseine), putrescine (from orithine) and histamine (from histidine). And these amines are "powerful vasopressor substances". Tryptophan undergoes a series of reactions to form indole and methylindole (skatole), which produces the distinctive putrefying faecal smell of a high protein diet. The sulphur-containing amino acids (cysteine and methionine) are transformed into mercaptans such as ethyl and methyl mercaptan as well as hydrogen sulphide (H2S). All these compounds are very poisonous and unpleasant. Phosphatidylcholine, only found in meats, breaks down into choline and the related toxic amines such as neurine. This is evidence that meat is not well digested. Herbivores do not produce putrid excrement, but "dung" instead, some still contains sufficient nutrients to warrant eating again, as with rabbits. However, a meal of fruit with similar food energy value would yield about 2.6 g of protein of which 0.4 g would be wasted. A high protein food at least doubles the quantity of protein that is potentially subject to putrefication in the bowels. Worse still, the reason that plant protein is less digestible is because it is found in the tough cellulose walls of plant cells which pass through the gut undigested if not sufficiently masticated. These proteins are not available as soil for putrefying bacteria in the bowel. Animal protein wastes are highly bioavailable to putrefying bowel bacteria since they have no cellulose cell wall. It seems that only putrefying bacteria benefit from the "highly digestible" animal proteins.' http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm > Also, it should be noted that this 3 hour to 4 hour digestion "window" > is the whole reason why nutritionists want you to eat 5 to 6 meals a > day. Basically they are trying to get you to eat every 3 hours so > that that body has consistent levels of energy... Also, for most > people, the typical standing energy requirement is only about 300 > calories over a 3 hour period. This varies per person, though, due to > what is known a a persons Lean Body Mass indicator, which is the > amount of fat you are carrying minus your total weight. This is the > main reason why nutritionists when to do a BF% test on you when you > come in. > > So, then am I trying to say that when given 2000 kcal at one time your > body cannot take it all in? Nope. It just depends on the type of > food that it is getting.. For instance, lets just say that instead of > getting my 2000 kcal from broccoli, I instead choose to get it from a > high quality candy, which we are going to say is straight > dextrose/glucose. (ie. Lets think pixie sticks/smarties here). In > the case of the candy, your body would in fact VERY quickly absorb > that 2000 kcal. (ie. In about 20 mins assuming an empty stomach) > Unfortunately, though, because your system has no use for 2000 kcal at > one time, so much hits the blood stream so fast, when your pancreas > responds with in huge insulin spike to allow the new found energy to > be used, and then you fat cells would just have a party gobbling it > up!!! :-) > =========================================== > > Is there anyway I can slow absorption of high GI foods? > =========================================== > Its funny you say ask that.. Yes it is very possible... :-) > > Have you ever wondered why in the old days people would eat cookies > and milk? Well, even if they did not realize it at the time, what > they were actually doing was using the milk, which will turn to a > medium GI (ie. < 32/100 in fact) solid in the stomach, and slow down > the absorption of the cookie. No, you certainly are not going to turn > the cookie into a broccoli type low GI source, but at least you will > not get a dramatic blodd sugar spike as you would without the milk. > Milk is really good at helping for slowing carb and protein uptake. > This is why body builders will blend their protein shakes with milk if > they want a slower protein digestion. Other good sources for slowing > nutriet absorbtions are any types of fats.... (NOTE: Obviously > unsaturated are best for you, but we will leave this discussion for > another day!! :-) > =========================================== > > OK. Then what can I learn from this study? > =========================================== > Lets say we take that Chinese rural culture and "westernize" them a > little bit shall we?? (ie. Way to go McDonalds!! :-) Instead of all > of the wonderful rich vegetables they are eating now, how about if we > replace a little bit of that with some good old fashion "bleached > white breads", instant rice, baked potatoes, candy, ice cream, etc. > (ie. All High GI carbe). By picking all high GI sources, you allow > the body to dramatically increase that amount of calories it can > uptake at one time. Unfortunately, though, all you are going to do is > save this extra energy as fat!! NOOOOO.... :-) > =========================================== > > Finally. I like these diet ratios in this study. I want to give them > a try. Is there any downsides?? > =========================================== > Even though a 30/55/15 diet is actually pretty good, especially > considering the amounts of rich vegetables, the only real issue you > will have deals with the reduced proteins. By reducing your proteins > to such low levels, you will establish a much leaner muscular profile > and find it considerably more difficult to build additional muscle > mass at any real quanity when you are doing any high weight strength > exercising. > > Hence, this would also seem pretty consistent, as the typical rural > Chinese is lean and slender. In fact, I think that most Chinese were > slender until our western concepts got a hold of them!! ;-) As long as > you are OK with the reduced ability for muscle tone / definition, > this, then give this diet ratio's a shot and see if you like them!! Vegetarians Possess Greater Strength and Endurance http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v.../4095924b36626 "An athlete should have no meat, fish, poultry or eggs." http://www.kaleo.org/vnews/display.v.../4095924b36626 > Just the shear amount of vegetables alone is making me hungry!! :-) Eat, drink (the right things), and be merry, for tomorrow we live!! .> =========================================== > > (NOTE: Basal metabolic rate and metabolic rate are for the most part > interchangeable. When a person is referring to Basal rate, they are > trying to say the "Resting Metabolic Rate", or another way of putting > your "average" rate throughout the day.) > > Don't know if you were looking for this information, but if so, did > this help any Pearl? Got additional questions in reference to this?? Thanks, Jim. I'm sure we've all learned something very worthwhile. Just another comment or two.. It makes eminent sense that healthy people would generally have a higher metabolic rate, and be more disposed to leading an active life (as indicated by studies referenced in the journal article), than sick people with compromised circulation. <..> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
usual suspect wrote:
> Jackie Fatti wrote: > >>> Ipse dixit. Any dietary intake (other than water) in a normal person >>> will result in serum glucose increase followed by a rise in insulin. >>> That's nature. Too bad Dr Atkins never really grasped it. >> >> You're both wrong. > > No, I'm correct. > >> Protein and carbs raise insulin and blood sugar. > > > Which is consistent with what I wrote. Maybe you should try reading it > sometime. You said *any* food resulted in insulin release, short of water. Fat does not. Last I checked, fat was considered a macronutrient and hence food. >> For Type 1 diabetics who inject, one has to take into account both >> protein and carb amounts to determine the necessary amount of >> insulin. Protein causes much smaller spikes that carb, but it has an >> effect. > > If you're going to "correct" me, perhaps you should write without your > own errors of generalization. First, you have not distinguished between > complex and simple carbohydrate "spikes" (more on that below). Second, > your claim about protein spikes being "much smaller" is dubious because > it doesn't take amounts consumed into consideration. For the same amount, obviously. If I were injecting insulin, I'd have to calculate the amount of protein and carb in each meal to cover the meal. The math for protein has a smaller multiplicaiton factor than for carbs. All this ignores basal requirements, of course. >> Fat has almost no effect itself. > > It has one, which is why you qualified it. Not by itself. If you eat a stick of butter, you're not going to raise insulin or bg. It's effect is to slow down the effect of other foods. >> Fat slows the absorption of carbs and protein, resulting in a slower >> rise, but the same amount of rise occurs. > > Glucose "spikes" (and I use the term in the more medically-accepted > manner: referring to an excessive rise rather than just a rise in > glucose) vary among individuals and even within individuals. I know this > from dealing with diabetics in my own family. One day this food (pasta, > whatever) causes a spike, another day it doesn't. In my book, 400 mg/dL is an excessive blood sugar, whether it happens fast or slowly. Pasta does this consistently to me, though at a slower rate than something like candy. >> But pre fat has little effect on either blood sugar or insulin >> production, it's just not relevant itself. > > Bullshit. Cite? I've seen the research, d00d. Pure fat does not raise bg or insulin levels. Since few people eat pure fat, it's not terribly relevant in the real world that this is so, except when calculating insulin dosages... where fat is ignored entirely and only protein and carbs are counted. >> For diabetics, complex carbohydrate doesn't help much, it's the same >> amount of sugar, > > Bullshit. You're languishing under a false claim made by proponents of > low-carb junk science that all polysaccharides are broken down into > monosaccharides and absorbed into the bloodstream. Neither is the case. > Simply put (and on average), sugars are absorbed at a rate of about > thirty calories per minute while polysaccharides enter at about two > calories per minute. How *fast* they're produced makes no difference - the rise is slower, but it gets to the same place eventually. 400 mg/dL is a bad blood glucose reading whether it happens a half hour after eating or 3 hours afterwards. And no, all polysaccharides are *not* broken down, I've excluded fiber from my comments throughout. But *starch* is pretty much identical to sugar on my blood meter, except for the speed. I don't have to languish under junk science; I was a biochemist before I became a programmer. And even without that background, I have a meter. Whole wheat bread and pasta raise my bg just a much as plain sugar... for the equivalent amount of carb, excluding fiber. This is not brainwashing or a matter of faith, it's a measurable effect, unless you have some idea how my meter has been brainwashed? >> unless you're talking fiber which isn't processed by humans at all. > > Like fat, fiber slows down absorption of carbohydrates. Whole grains can > be part of a healthy diet even for diabetics. 400 mg/dL is not healthy. It causes damage to the pancrease, exacberating diabetes itself... as well as raising blood cholesterol, causing heart damage, kidney damage, reduced resistance to infection, and all the other complicaitons of diabetes. I'm not opposed to whole grains, I buy whole grains for my family. I grind wheat and bake good homemade bread. I make cereals out of whole oats, I cook brown rice to go with stir-fries. I grow corn in my garden, and other high-carb veggies like winter squash. These *are* fine foods... for those without impaired glucose metabolism. But *I* am not anymore likely to eat them than I am to eat the cat food. They are not good foods for *me*. I got severely ill last time I made fruit and whole grains a part of my diet. In fact, the food that particularly precipitated the illness was *tangerines* - which are not "unhealthy" in any normal understanding of the word. It took a week, in bed, sick, cramping, in pain and fasting, for my bg to come back down under 200. >> My husband is not diabetic nor insulin resistant. He can eat several >> oversized pieces of chocolate cake and his blood sugar does not >> rise... though of course insulin levels do. But since he is not >> insulin resistant, he doesn't need insane levels of insulin to handle >> the sugar. His bg doesn't ever go over 100 no matter whether he eates >> well or eats crap. >> >> A small plate of pasta causes my blood glucose to rise to nearly 400. > > How much pasta (by weight or cup measure)? A half cup. I can't eat that stuff. And... I am talking homemade pasta made from freshly ground whole wheat and eggs. I just can't eat that stuff. >> On low-carb, I eat about three times as much vegetables as I did all >> produce (including fruits and juices) before, so I doubt I'm getting >> less vitamins and minerals by skipping juice. > > It's about time you started eating your vegetables. I always did... I've always been the biggest vegetable eater in the family. I love veggies. I grow them, I eat them, I love them. Salads and stir-fries are two of my favorite foods. Just... on low-carb I eat much more of them, as they take the place of bread or potatoes or pasta on my plate. So my veggie consumption has increased a lot. >> Unless you consider destroying the pancreas, ruining my cholesterol >> levels, damaging my kidneys, increasing my risk of heart disease, >> potential blindness, increased infections, risk of amputation and an >> early death to be part of your definition of "healthy" - juice cannot >> be part of a healthy diet for *me*, unless your idea of "moderation" >> is measured in micrograms. > > See the very first sentence I wrote which you quoted above, you > extremist with an eating disorder: I said NORMAL PEOPLE. Most people on > low-carb are normal and they've been deluded into these fad diets on the > assumption that what's good for diabetics is good for everyone. 25% of the population is insulin resistant. While not a majority, it's not that unusual or rare to have difficulty with carbohydrate metabolism. > In a few > years, we'll learn from studies that weaning our bodies off certain > macronutrients (carbs) and then suddenly again consuming those nutrients > causes worse spikes than if we'd eaten sensibly from the start. WTF do > you expect your body to do if you deny it proper nutrition for so long > and then suddenly start eating properly? Glucose spikes, insulin spikes, > etc. I agree that low-carb for a time, followed by a return to the same old habits, is a worse choice than just staying fat. We don't need that type of research, we already have it... people who yo-yo in their weight are much less healthy than those who just stay fat. That's already known. But... having impaired carbohydrate metabolism is a permanent condition and low-carb eating is a permanent solution. Insulin resistance is improved by both weight loss and exercise, but even if a person can maintain normal blood glucose without meds after improving their health, they're still diabetic and will lose that ability if they start piling the carbs back on. >> Juice can be a reasonable food choice for those whom are not >> insulin-resistant, > > And golly gee whiz, did I not qualify my remarks by basing them upon > what's acceptable and/or "good" for NORMAL people? Read above, nitwit. > Not everyone has your malady, not everyone should follow your diet. Which *I* made clear in pointing out that my family eats foods I do not, foods I grow and prepare for them. I mean, I grow *corn* for crying out loud. I bake bread! I have never stated that carbs are *evil* - just that for *some* people, they're poison. I am one of those people. 25% of the population is in this category as well. For some unknown reason, you've decided to argue with a newsgroup composed of these people that carbs are *good*. I presume you *know* you're cross-posting to alt.support.diet.low-carb? A group of people who *know* that low-carb is the appropriate diet for them? So what's your point? >> There's plenty of fiber in vegetables and in low-carb fruits (such as >> some berries and melons). No one has to risk amputation, impotence or >> blindness to get fiber. > > Stop with the extremism. It's not good if you have diabetes, but most > people don't. There's nothing *extremist* about it. It wouldn't *hurt* my non-diabetic husband to eat more salads and less fruit, more dairy and less bread, more stirfry with less rice. It *would* hurt me to do the opposite. This is not an "extremist" diet - protein and veggies are good foods. >> There is *nothing* provided by non-fiber carbs to the body that cannot >> be provided with protein and/or fat. > > Vitamins and minerals are found in the foods which provide "non-fiber > carbs," some of which are not found in meat or dairy products. I still > like reading all the studies that show reduced cognitive performance on > carb-restricted diets. Your post shows (anecdotally) that such studies > appear to have merit. Meat and dairy are not the primary constituents of a low-carb diet. By volume and mass (though not by calories), I eat more veggies than dairy or meat. Your argument here is bogus as no one has suggested an all meat-and-dairy diet as healthy for anyone. I've never seen the suggestion made anywhere, though I see it argued against regularly. It's a complete straw man. Vitamins and minerals are found quite abundantly in mustard greens, for example, which have virtually no non-fiber carbs. There's scores and scores of examples of good, healthy low-carb foods. Non-fiber carbs are simply not necessary. > Ipse dixit. I bet you've been low-carb for two or more years and your > body now compensates for any carb intake with much greatly increased > spikes in insulin. Overall, I've low-carbed for more than 2 years, but not this time. I restarted in January. I had been eating basically all natural and home-prepared foods the two years previously, on the theory that sticking to whole grains and a balanced diet would be good for me in the long run. We moved to the country and decided to get healthy and all that. My husband's health improved tremendously, but while I lost weight, I got very seriously ill... and caused enough damage that low-carb and exercise no longer controls my bg as it has in the past and I've ahd to go on meds. And that is my only point... for diabetics and pre-diabetics - all those with impaired glucose metabolism, even "good" carbs like whole grains and fruit cause serious damage. Given that a *good* low-carb diet can provide all the nutrients necessary for health, there's no point risking further damage by eating carbs. As for *bad* low-carb diets composed of junk food and other kinds of crap, the problem with that is junk food itself... IMO, low-carb candy is crap same as sugar-laden candy is crap. For the insulin-resistant, it may cause less damage than real candy, but it's still crap. Normal people without impaired glucose metabolism are not the primary posters in asdlc, where I am participating in this thread. If they are the primary audience for your arguments, you're cross-posting to the wrong newsgroup. -- As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value. Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets. -- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)
On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:14:43 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>ipse dixit wrote: >>><...> >>> >>>>My only replacement is aniseed balls. I use them >>>>as a substitute for the fags, but I must admit I do >>>>eat more during mealtimes >>> >>>That's because you lack discipline, fatso. >> >> I've incredible discipline, > >No, you've none. More than average, I'd say. >> and my smoking quit goes >> some way in demonstrating that. > >Some way? Partly, yes. >How many times have you tried before but failed because you lack >*discipline*? That question contains the presupposition that I lack discipline, so I cannot answer it directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that I deny, namely that I lack discipline. The proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject it on the basis that it is specious. >>>>>I've also heard that smoking can help people to be >>>>>thin (maybe it just keeps the mouth busy) >>>> >>>>I'm hoping the quit will make me more active >>> >>>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More active than what -- what >>>you were before you crippled yourself trying to lift engine blocks in front of >>>the lads? >> >> Yes. I live in a wheelchair during the day. > >*playing my violin for you* Rosin up that bow and play me a slow gypsy air. >>>>and >>>>feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet. I've never >>>>really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before. >>> >>>No kidding, slacker. Your existence is meaningless. >>> >>><...> >>> >>>>My mum's a pink puffer :-( >>> >>>You're a blue-foot and a blue bloater. >> >> You should 've paid more attention to Pearl's message > >Nobody with a sound mind should heed that loony crank's message about anything. Erm, you wrote those messages she showed you, don't forget. Here, let's refresh; ""Such slanderous remarks win you no respect. You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt." -'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03 "Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me. ... the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue." -'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03 "Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the issues rather than attack the character of others." -'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03 "Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03 What a hypocrite." [end] There we are. >> to you this afternoon before making a fool of yourself >> here. Why do attack disabled people like myself? > >I've never attacked your self-inflicted disabilities, just how you got them. Oh, that's all right then. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Supersize me brother | General Cooking | |||
| I once gave my gf's brother a BJ | General Cooking | |||
| My kid brother | Diabetic | |||
| Material for making spring roll summer roll | General Cooking | |||
| Banh Trang Vietnam for making spring roll / summer roll | Asian Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
