Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CptTrips on February 05, 2011, 03:02:14 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=player_embedded#)
Wow. Pretty motivating.
I just started Atkins again a couple of weeks ago. This is the 3rd time in about 10 years. It is always really successful for me but I always start back sliding to bad habits. Our enviroment really works against you in a lot of ways.
Work 10 hour days in a startup, my lifestyle is crap. Too much stress. Too much desk time. No time to prepare good meals. Eat on the run all the time crap I get from fast food. Get home, eat premade crap, self medicate with a few brews and fall asleep on the couch watching a movie. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
If I actually take the time to make all the intersting and varied foods you can find in Atkins recipe books, then I could be perfectly satisfied. I just can't find 3 hours a night to cook and clean.
Someone should start a fast food chain totally dedicated to slow carb, low glycemic load foods. "Low Carb Cabbana"?.... There has to be a market. Doing all that cooking for just one person is very inefficient.
But I gotta do something.
:furious,
Wab
-
Sugar...................... A needed carb.
EDIT: Funny how you leave this sentence below alone:
The bitter part of the truth is really the bitter rationalizing we use to tell ourselves why we want more than we need.
Although I am reading this great little book about the Atkins Diet............. It's called Atkins for Type 1's. :D
Doesn't really make sense though. :headscratch:
-
The bitter part of the truth is really the bitter rationalizing we use to tell ourselves why we want more than we need.
Did you watch the complete material before that comment?
Wab
-
Did you watch the complete material before that comment?
Wab
It's an hour and a half.. :noid
-
It's an hour and a half.. :noid
Control your ADHD and learn something. ;)
I though the same thing but got pulled in. Its worth the investment.
Wab
-
Sorry, not sitting down for a 90 minute video. Reminds me of this story though, http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html.
-
I got 25 minutes into it.
I am a type 1 Diabetic and none of that is news to me.
-
Sugar...................... A needed carb.
Are you refering to Fructose and Sucrose? Or are you refering to Glucose?
Can you link me to research showing that Fructose and Sucrose are needed carbohydrates?
Thanks in advance,
Wab
-
Sorry, not sitting down for a 90 minute video.
Lecture classes in college can last 1.5hr. I'd assume a large percentage of this community could focus for that long. :D
Heck, people will sit and watch "JackAzz: the movie" for 1.5 hours. Maybe thats more your group. :D
Wab
-
Funny..... I wasn't being a wiseguy with you.
What I said is 100% accurate.
Two 12 year old kids with the same exact weight, metabolism and daily activities................... . One kid takes in 400g of glucose per day, the other 400g of high fructose corn syrup per day. Which kid is going to be fatter?
I'm really sorry for your weight problems but the different cellular structures of the various sugars play very little role in anything revolving around your diet.
Are you refering to Fructose and Sucrose? Or are you refering to Glucose?
Can you link me to research showing that Fructose and Sucrose are needed carbohydrates?
Thanks in advance,
Wab
-
Funny..... I wasn't being a wiseguy with you.
What I said is 100% accurate.
Two 12 year old kids with the same exact weight, metabolism and daily activities................... . One kid takes in 400g of glucose per day, the other 400g of high fructose corn syrup per day. Which kid is going to be fatter?
I'm really sorry for your weight problems but the different cellular structures of the various sugars play very little role in anything revolving around your diet.
Yes. It obvious you didn't review the material.
Wab
-
Okay..... And again.... SORRY YOU'RE FAT
Yes. It obvious you didn't review the material.
Wab
-
Okay..... And again.... SORRY YOU'RE FAT
Me too. :D
But I'd rather be fat than stupid. Good luck with that. ;)
Wab
-
Lecture classes in college can last 1.5hr. I'd assume a large percentage of this community could focus for that long. :D
Heck, people will sit and watch "JackAzz: the movie" for 1.5 hours. Maybe thats more your group. :D
Wab
Sorry I'm not interested in the same thing you are. I sit through plenty of lectures throughout the week, and I see no reason to give you the time to sit through another. Just because we have the ability to do something, doesn't mean we are going to. Not to mention the fact that I doubt there will be a heck of a lot information in that is totally new to me. So how about this, chill out and don't worry about me.
:salute
-
So how about this, chill out and don't worry about me.
:salute
Sounds like good advice. Thanks for the twinkie link. That was a good giggle.
:salute,
Wab
-
Since you're so smart.........
Do you know why sugar is NEEDED?
Do you know what your body does with multicell sugars?
Do you know what ATP is?
Do you know what muscles use for energy? (calorie burning)
Do you know the differences between any of these sugar structures?
Or, and this is the real hardcore question, why are you looking for excuses?
This guy just continues to make excuses for people to use. Or maybe he lost a bunch of money on Coca-Cola stock? At the end of the day, he says NOTHING that shouldn't be known already to anybody. AND HE SAYS THIS AT 28:59.
And he is bending all kinds of small facts with one another to sound really strong.
SUGAR, in any form, is NEEDED by the body to continue living. There is no way to move away from this statement. And just like the first thing I said..........."The bitter part of the truth is really the bitter rationalizing we use to tell ourselves why we want more than we need." None of this has to do with any part of science, it is simply common sense. It is simply ourselves not wanting to care about what is good.
Now stop making excuses for yourself and go drink some diet coke for goodness sake! The next time you want that Twinkie, think about eating 24 Twinkies all in a row. I know that would make me a little sick to my stomach. :D
But since you ain't all bad, I've got two bits of advice for you......... Do not eat whole grain/wheat breads.... Eat only Sprouted Grain Breads. Eat acai berries or get yourself an acai supplement.
Do those two things, and you'll still be allowed to eat ice cream twice a week! :cheers:
-
Since you're so smart.........
I never said I was smart. I said I wasn't stupid. And I said I at least had viewed the vid this thread is about.
You blabbered that all sugars are the same.
That only makes it painfully obvious you didn't bother to view the vid this thread is about.
The entire point of the lecture was to demonstrate exactly why fructose is NOT the same as glucose. That was the whole freakin point. He broke down the step-by-step biochemical metabalization to demonstrate why.
Please. You're only embarrassing yourself.
(Oh, and this doesn't really concern your type I. That is a very different situation.)
:bhead,
Wab
-
Do all fat people ignore words they don't want to hear?
I made it bigger for you.
He also said the main ingredient of alcohol is a poison........... Another half-truth.
And just so you understand....... I watched the rest of it. And stand by what I said.
-
I my experience there are 3 kinds of people:
1. There are people who hide their ignorance in shame.
2. There are people who correct their ignorance through learning.
3. There are people who prance around and wear their ignorance like a crown.
Wab
-
So are you a 3 pretending to be a 2? Cause you're awful loud right now. Probably getting all pissy too. DON'T DO IT..... Don't go for that cupcake, Cupcake.
EDIT: Funny how you leave this sentence below alone:
The bitter part of the truth is really the bitter rationalizing we use to tell ourselves why we want more than we need.
-
Anyone notice that nearly NOTHING has good old honest to goodness sugar anymore? Always 'high fructose corn syrup' Wife refuses to eat or drink ANYthing that has that crap...very hard to find such things.
-
Part of the problem is glucose is very hard to come by in nature, even table sugar is complex sugars. Then add the fact that glucose sugar is hard to cook/bake with, plus it doesn't taste quite "correct."
Anyone notice that nearly NOTHING has good old honest to goodness sugar anymore? Always 'high fructose corn syrup' Wife refuses to eat or drink ANYthing that has that crap...very hard to find such things.
-
Anyone notice that nearly NOTHING has good old honest to goodness sugar anymore? Always 'high fructose corn syrup' Wife refuses to eat or drink ANYthing that has that crap...very hard to find such things.
Its scarey. That crud is in everything now. It's in most all store bought breads. Hambuger patties at fast food. BBQ sauce. Salad dressings. Spagetti sauces.
As the vid explains, a big part of the reason for that is its half the price of real sugar. More profits.
On the other hand, I've recently heard from an esteemed medical expert that ALL sugars are the exact same as natural glucose. And in fact, high-fructose-corn syrup is a vital carbohydrate needed by all living things.
:cool:,
Wab
-
Actually dip____, all I said "Sugar..... A needed carb." Go back and look. :aok
And that's when your big butt got all peeved. But it's ok, tomorrow I'll wake up and still be right..... You.... You'll still be looking for somebody else to give you the reason you're a large man.
On the other hand, I've recently heard from an esteemed medical expert that ALL sugars are the exact same as natural glucose. And in fact, high-fructose-corn syrup is a vital carbohydrate needed by all living things.
Oh crap, where did my pole go?
(http://www.lolpix.com/_pics/Funny_Pictures_291/Funny_Pictures_2918.jpg)
Maybe I ate it!!!
-
Actually dip____, all I said "Sugar..... A needed carb." Go back and look. :aok
And that's when your big butt got all peeved. But it's ok, tomorrow I'll wake up and still be right..... You.... You'll still be looking for somebody else to give you the reason you're a large man.
Are you saying fructose and sucrose are need for life?
Keep prancing.
-
Are you saying sugar is not needed for life?
Are you saying fructose and sucrose are need for life?
Sugar...................... A needed carb.
EDIT: Funny how you leave this sentence below alone:
The bitter part of the truth is really the bitter rationalizing we use to tell ourselves why we want more than we need.
Although I am reading this great little book about the Atkins Diet............. It's called Atkins for Type 1's. :D
Doesn't really make sense though. :headscratch:
Keep prancing.
ACTUALLY.... Let me get this straight.... You're saying it has nothing to do with you eating too much that makes you fat? It is all the sugar makers fault? Go find a lawyer with that one dookie.
-
Are you saying sugar is not needed for life?
Keep prancing.
A small amount if glucose is still needed. However the body can largely function just fine on ketones. If my understanding is correct.
(And I noticed you edited out your earlier statement that all sugars where the same and the shape of their molocule didn't matter. You must have done that after actually WATCHING the video that completely proved that not true. Your learning. You don't want to admit it, but you are slowing learning something.)(Never mind I found it. I guess you are not learning after all
the different cellular structures of the various sugars play very little role in anything revolving around your diet.
If you stick with that, you obviously didn't watch the vid. Or are just stupid.)
Now are you saying that fructose and sucrose are needed for life?
-
I dunno bout anyone else but I'd pay good money to see a diabetic guy and a fat guy in a boxing match about now
Maybe you guys could shout 'Sugar sucks' or 'Sugar rocks' as you hit each other? And we need a midget as the referee.
:D
-
Now you're just lying...... SEE BELOW, you first mentioned the F word. :rock
Ketones:
Ketosis and ketogenic diets (Atkins) only work if you keep your fat levels high. So, after about 3 to 4 weeks of ketosis, those people not taking enough fat into themselves will start to suffer bad metabolic changes. At the same time, high fat intake usually revolves around multiple fat types. The "good" fat is monounsaturated (found in olive oil, butter, almonds), than polyunsaturated, and the rest get bad bad bad and fast. So with a high fat diet, your probably only getting 20% "good" fat. So now you're losing weight, but your bad cholesterol is shooting through the roof, and you are still dead!!!
A small amount if glucose is still needed. However the body can largely function just fine on ketones. If my understanding is correct.
(And I noticed you edited out your earlier statement that all sugars where the same and the shape of their molocule didn't matter. You must have done that after actually WATCHING the video that completely proved that not true. Your learning. You don't want to admit it, but you are slowing learning something.)
Are you refering to Fructose and Sucrose? Or are you refering to Glucose?
Can you link me to research showing that Fructose and Sucrose are needed carbohydrates?
Now are you saying that fructose and sucrose are needed for life? No dip____, but you seemingly are.
And if I actually said what you are lying about, why would you ask this question below it?
-
I dunno bout anyone else but I'd pay good money to see a diabetic guy and a fat guy in a boxing match about now
Maybe you guys could shout 'Sugar sucks' or 'Sugar rocks' as you hit each other? And we need a midget as the referee.
:D
LoL.
"Lard vs Tard"
If only Howard Cosell were still alive!
(http://thedailyblonde.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/c1.jpg)
:aok
Wab
-
It wouldn't be fair...... I have all that sugar energy!!! And I am athletic so the HFCS is just what I need!!!
I dunno bout anyone else but I'd pay good money to see a diabetic guy and a fat guy in a boxing match about now
Maybe you guys could shout 'Sugar sucks' or 'Sugar rocks' as you hit each other? And we need a midget as the referee.
:D
:headscratch: Just gotta remember to shoot up first!
-
:rofl nice one guys
-
meh.i eat oatmeal or cereal in the morning maybe a sandwich or something in the afternoon. eat an apple here and there with cereal at night. and have completely cut off soda replacing it with about 5-6 bottles of water a day with some soccer on the weekends. doin' fine for me :aok i just look the other way when i pass by mcd's or burgerking lol
-
I got 25 minutes into it.
I am a type 1 Diabetic and none of that is news to me.
How did you get 25 mins into it you posted 7 minutes later?
Hax/Time Machine Skillz
-
Squaddies I'd like to kill:
Curry1
Your intel is wrong...... It was 23 minutes. RichardNixonHead.
How did you get 25 mins into it you posted 7 minutes later?
Hax/Time Machine Skillz
-
Anyone notice that nearly NOTHING has good old honest to goodness sugar anymore? Always 'high fructose corn syrup' Wife refuses to eat or drink ANYthing that has that crap...very hard to find such things.
Yeah I get margi mix from the PriceClub <costco> now :D all sugar.... Go Kirkland :x
-
You do not need to consume any of the simple sugars (glucose, maltose, dextrose, sucrose) as long as you consume more complex molecules which can be broken down into those sugars. These sugars are what your cells use to respire.
Cell Respiration:
Step 1.) Glycolisis: 1 Glucose molecule is broken down into two Pyruuvic Acid Molecules
Step 2.) Krebs Cycle: The Pyruvic acid Molecules are further broken down
Step 3.) ETS (Electron Transport System): Through a series of electron carriers, the energy from the complex molecules is converted into Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP)
To say that no glucose is needed in your body period, is a lie. If your blood sugar drops too low, you die. You need carbohydrates to survive, there is no way around it. The number of carbs you consume, however, is the problem for most.
The entire problem revolves around energy density per gram and cubic centimeter (cc) of food. Let's say you consumed a pill with a mass of one gram, a volume of one cc, and which contained 100 calories. If you ate 20 of these, you'd be 'full'. However, your stomach relies on volume and weight, not energy density, to determine that point.
Thus, you could eat 20 of these each and every meal, and over the course of a day consume 6,000 calories (20 pills per meal x 100 calories per pill x 3 meals = 6,000 calories per day). To say the least, you'd become enourmous very quickly. Most foods (apart from MREs) are far less dense, thankfully.
Thus, if you eat energy dense foods, you'll have to feel 'hungry' all the time. If you consume foods with a good energy density, you'll feel 'full' and consume the correct number of calories.
Don't believe me? Try this experiment at home.
Eat 6,000 calories as quickly as possible, with a minimum of weight and volume of food. Then try to not eat for the next three days- the hunger pangs will be fierce, even though you have enough 'fuel' and will not starve.
-Penguin
-
-Snip-
How long did it take you to google all of that?
-
How long did it take you to google all of that?
We "smart" folks hide that information in books. Some of us read those books and can actually remember what we read.
Cell respiration is, oh, maybe 8th grade biology. I guess, when most of the country still isn't smarter than a fifth grader....then it might be over your head entirely!
On the flip side,
Seriously, what is wrong with Llogan? Every thread he's in... same bark, no bite.
-
We "smart" folks hide that information in books. Some of us read those books and can actually remember what we read.
Cell respiration is, oh, maybe 8th grade biology. I guess, when most of the country still isn't smarter than a fifth grader....then it might be over your head entirely!
Quite honestly, that is uncalled for.
Oh yes, of course because I posted something like I did, I am an uneducated person. And think about what you said because it just proves that you are a judgemental...... Nevermind. I'll just leave you be. You're honestly not worth losing my posting privileges.
You must be dynamite with the ladies. "Your lips are beautiful... I see you have a cold sore, you must have Herpes."
-
Now back to the thread.
-
That jerk trolls in the evenings.
Seriously, what is wrong with Llogan? Every thread he's in... same bark, no bite.
-
To say that no glucose is needed in your body period, is a lie.
I don't think you were accusing ME of saying that. But just to be sure its clear what my position is I'll quote myself:
A small amount if glucose is still needed. However the body can largely function just fine on ketones. If my understanding is correct.
Just look at the diet of the Inuit (the ones still in their traditional environment not the townies). There is a small amount of root and grasses in their diet, but the vast majority of their calories come from animal products.
Think of the diet of the Amerinds of the Central Plains.
I suspect for most of our evolutionary history, our diet was very high in animal flesh, with a smaller portion of very high fiber roots and grasses and some occasional nuts and berries.
In my opinion, when we started "towning up" and switching our diet to what could be produced through more dependable agriculture, that was the beginning of the industrialization of our food supply. Sure, it allowed us to massively expand our populations (a good thing?), but from there the road to high-fructose-corn syrup was an inevitability.
:salute,
Wab
-
I don't think you were accusing ME of saying that. But just to be sure its clear what my position is I'll quote myself:
Just look at the diet of the Inuit (the ones still in their traditional environment not the townies). There is a small amount of root and grasses in their diet, but the vast majority of their calories come from animal products.
Think of the diet of the Amerinds of the Central Plains.
I suspect for most of our evolutionary history, our diet was very high in animal flesh, with a smaller portion of very high fiber roots and grasses and some occasional nuts and berries.
In my opinion, when we started "towning up" and switching our diet to what could be produced through more dependable agriculture, that was the beginning of the industrialization of our food supply. Sure, it allowed us to massively expand our populations (a good thing?), but from there the road to high-fructose-corn syrup was an inevitability.
:salute,
Wab
Yah....but have ya seen their teeth? You could cut keys with those things :eek:
-
Wab-
I'm a bottom line guy. And my problem with the Adkins diet is that - bottom line - it doesn't work very well at keeping weight off. And after all, THAT is the point of working on weight!
I'm a doc, and I'm board certified in Adult Internal Medicine, Pediatric Medicine, and Sleep Disorders Medicine. (My wife has officially forbidden me from taking any more specialties!) Since SO much of the most common sleep disorder, sleep apnea, depends on weight I spend a great deal of my day trying to help people get their weight down. I've read a lot of research, and I also pay close attention to waht people do to try to get their weight down, and how well it works. On the other hand, what I DO NOT DO is run a weight loss business on the side - I don't sell books, hold seminars, sell food, or sell supplements. I'd rather be objective and honest than make an extra buck.
And it should be obvious that Atkins, his heirs and employees HAVE made a few bucks from their program.
OK - research - best studies I've seen look at multiple diet approaches head to head, with patients randomized to one diet or another. The best study I remember found that the Adkins group lost weight fastest, and lost the most weight, but by the end of 6 months they had regained most of it. In my book thats a failure. The best outcome came with the Weight Watchers approach, which lost weight mroe slowly but KEPT it off at 6 months and a year/.
I don't wnat to make this a megapost, so I'll say just one more thing. FAR more important than the KIND f food is the quantity, both in research and in my practice experience. You mentioned the evolutionary side of thigns, and I'll use that same approach in pointing out that people whose systems made them eat more were more likely to survive famines - so those genes have an selection advantage that is the promary problem we face today. For the first time in human history, food is both cheap and freely available to a large portion of the world's population. Wihtout scarcity to limit us, humanity is forced to use self restriction to prevent obesity for the first time - and we;'re not very good at it.
If you are serious about learning the scientific basis of weight gain, you might want to check out this article in Scientific American; http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=8DFF8662-E7F2-99DF-38E67664ABFF1D05 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=8DFF8662-E7F2-99DF-38E67664ABFF1D05)
EDIT: Just realizdthis is a lik to an interview with the author, but he covers most of the same poinst hes dose in he actual article, There is a link to the article at the bottom of the page referenced.
SciAm is deliberately written so that a person with interest in an area but without scientific background in it can understand what the authors are saying.
-
Wab-
I'm a bottom line guy. And my problem with the Adkins diet is that - bottom line - it doesn't work very well at keeping weight off. And after all, THAT is the point of working on weight!
Simaril,
Hi. Thanks for posting. I was hoping for at least one intelligent conversation in this thread. ;)
I'm reading that article now.
Did you happen to view the vid I linked in the first post? I was sorta interested in if you saw any obvious flaws in his argument.
Wab
-
Quite honestly, that is uncalled for.
Oh yes, of course because I posted something like I did, I am an uneducated person. And think about what you said because it just proves that you are a judgemental...... Nevermind. I'll just leave you be. You're honestly not worth losing my posting privileges.
You must be dynamite with the ladies. "Your lips are beautiful... I see you have a cold sore, you must have Herpes."
No, you cut on Penguin, for posting something that is taught in Junior High Biology. HAR HAR... "how long did it take to google all that?"
Apparently, the norm... you can dish it, but not take it.
-
Gotta admit I didn't. But I've been pretty familiar with the argument for and rationale behind the Atkins approach, and the "Zone" diet before that. Both put lots of emphasis on sugar intake and (especially for the Zone) insulin levels.
There's no doubt that higher insulin levels are associated with obesity and weight gain, and insulin resistance is a major risk factor for secondary disease. However, most of these diet programs make the logical error of confusing Correlation ("these things occur together") with Causation ("this factor causes that"). And in most every case, the metabolic changes the latest diet thing talks about are clearly correlated with weight gain, but are just as likely to be THE RESULT of overweight instead of the CAUSE.
Honestly, I find it downright tragic how many people get pulled off the tracks that are likely to succeed by things that seem easier. Some diet and supplement programs are "stone soup" - they use smoke and mirrors to get people to eat less by thinking that the magic supplement is causing the weight loss.
Worst of all are the truly morbidly obese people who look to major bariatric surgery not as a tool to help them lose, but as the final answer to their appetites. I've seen SO many lose 100lbs, but gain it all back a year or two later because the core problem (usually their drive to eat for non-hunger reasons) never gets changed.
And what most folks don't realize is that even after having major internal rerouting to help with weight loss, the average person who keeps weight off after bariatric surgery takes in only 1500 calories per day.
Thats right - even after having your guts rebuilt, to keep weight off you have to keep calories down.
-
Wab-
I'm a bottom line guy. And my problem with the Adkins diet is that - bottom line - it doesn't work very well at keeping weight off. And after all, THAT is the point of working on weight!
This.
-
No, you cut on Penguin, for posting something that is taught in Junior High Biology.
Yep, and the material is nice and fresh in his adolescent brain. :)
I used to know that stuff, but I always hated biology so I have purged all things related.
-
I'm a proponent in the strategy of keeping your Calories In Less Than Your Burn Rate if you are trying to lose a few pounds. It's the simplest concept ever, and easy to track, since every food lists its calories, and you can easily find your estimated metabolism online based on age, height and weight. Or, if you want to find your exact metabolism, you can track your weight and calories and back into your metabolism based on net burn rates. It's pretty simple stuff, but difficult to will power away from things you enjoy.
-
Gotta admit I didn't. But I've been pretty familiar with the argument for and rationale behind the Atkins approach, and the "Zone" diet before that. Both put lots of emphasis on sugar intake and (especially for the Zone) insulin levels.
Actually you should.
This guys by the way is NOT an Atkins/ low carb diet fan. This lecture is strickly about the special metabalic properties of fructose and how it meets the definition of "poison" and how high-fructose-corn syrup has been insinuated into nearly every aspect of our daily lives.
There was a lot I found very interesting. Enough that I sat thru an hour and a half of biochemistry! :lol
One, the fact that we now have a scary incidence of obese 6 months olds. Are these 6 month olds just not jogging as much as they used to? (HFC has become a large ingredient in modern baby formula.)
I also was amazed at how much more of the calories from fructose go straight to fat production than the EXACT same amount of calories of glucose.
I was also shocked at how close ethenol metabalized like fructose. I guess I should giveup my Ultra until I get back down to weight. :mad:
:salute,
Wab
-
I'm a proponent in the strategy of keeping your Calories In Less Than Your Burn Rate if you are trying to lose a few pounds. It's the simplest concept ever, and easy to track, since every food lists its calories, and you can easily find your estimated metabolism online based on age, height and weight. Or, if you want to find your exact metabolism, you can track your weight and calories and back into your metabolism based on net burn rates. It's pretty simple stuff, but difficult to will power away from things you enjoy.
Certainly common sense.
However just counting calories may not be enough. Note the study where the EXACT number of calories of fructose produced more more fat gain than the same number of calories of glucose.
Appearently, All calories are NOT equal.
-Wab
-
Grizz -
Losing weight always boils down to taking in less than you burn. Just conservation of energy, plain old physics tells us that. And 25 years ago, that's all we thought was going on....skinny people don't eat too much, fat people do. But we're finding that it isn't quite that simple.
Now, there are MANY people in the US whose primary problem is that they eat more than they should; and MANY of those don't think they take in as many calories as they do. For those folks, well, it's time to cut out the appetizers, reduce calorie containing drinks, and have smaller servings.
But - There are clear cut genetic influences here, so some folks find it far easier to gain weight than others. I see a number of people who genuinely are taking average to below average calories and still find it hard to lose weight. I've had some who are obese despite taking in 1200 - 1400 calories per day, and some who swear they can't lose weight despite carefully counting out 1000 calories daily.
Remember that the system is designed to avoid starvation, and that up until the last 20 -30 years most of us couldn't afford supersized servings. So when the body sees extra calories, it wants to hold on to them in case there's a famine this winter. And once it has the extra fat, it wants to keep it "just in case."
We are just beginning to understand an entire system of weight and metabolism control hormones that center on the gut, rather being triggered from the brain. Grehlin and Leptin are two of these, and the experts are just beginning to work out how they interact with appetite, "weight set points", and metabolism.
So anyway, the equation "weight change = (calories in - calories burned) x (a constant)" is true - but not the same constant for everyone.
-
Certainly common sense.
However just counting calories may not be enough. Note the study where the EXACT number of calories of fructose produced more more fat gain than the same number of calories of glucose.
Appearently, All calories are NOT equal.
-Wab
"All calories are not equal" could be the mantra for the Atkins approach.
The idea that fructose calories are distributed differently than other calories is controversial. Many experts - including some very big guns in the field, with tons of research to their credit - strongly believe that all calories are indeed created equal.
Also an aside
-
"All calories are not equal" could be the mantra for the Atkins approach.
The idea that fructose calories are distributed differently than other calories is controversial. Many experts - including some very big guns in the field, with tons of research to their credit - strongly believe that all calories are indeed created equal.
Also an aside
Well he goes through the metabalic process in pretty high detail in the vid. Hence why I was asking if you could point out any exact flaw or misstatement based on your training.
Nevermind. Forget I mentioned it. :lol
:salute,
Wab
-
It seems to me that the biggest issue with high fructose corn syrup is not its metabolic effects, but its powerful ability to trigger our sweetness sensors.
From a natural selection standpoint, those individuals who are particularly driven to consume important but hard to obtain nutritional substances are more likely to survive. Or, to phrase it more clearly in the reverse - if you don't crave what keeps you alive, you're more likely to be dead.
And what are the most common triggers for these cravings in our diet? saltiness, sweetness, and moistness (associated with fats and oils).
Without salt sources, we die. That's why salt deposits had strategic implications in ancient history. Sugary and fatty foods are high in calories, so we're more likely to avoid starvation if we eat them (as opposed to, I dunno, black bread). And vitamins are most rich in fruits and vegetables, which are high in fructose.
So it seems to me that rather than create artificial metabolic problems, fructose containing products are just better at triggering our appetite - and our tendency to overindulge.
-
"All calories are not equal" could be the mantra for the Atkins approach.
What are your thoughts on the Low Glycemic Diet? The goal being to lean towards slow burning carbs that don't chronocally spike insulin.
Wab
-
So anyway, the equation "weight change = (calories in - calories burned) x (a constant)" is true - but not the same constant for everyone.
Yep, and that constant can be calculated if you track your Calories eaten for say, a month to get a good sample size, and track your weight change. You can calculate your metabolism.
Wabbit, it doesn't matter what you eat, if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight. As for fat storage and body composition that is another issue, but as far as net weight is concerned, it's pretty simple stuff.
-
Well he goes through the metabalic process in pretty high detail in the vid. Hence why I was asking if you could point out any exact flaw or misstatement based on your training.
Nevermind. Forget I mentioned it. :lol
:salute,
Wab
No problem, Wab. But honestly, I'm not up to investing 90 minutes to watch the pitch.
Unfortunately, the biggest thing that my training shows me is that there is NOT going to be an easy answer to such complex problems as overweight. I mean, if there was a magic bullet diet approach out there, wouldn't it work so well that all the other ones would go out of business, and there wouldn't be any need for this years' crop of diet books?
So anything that promises to be a quick fix is probably a lie, or based on exaggerations.
Hard data shows that the best way to get and keep weight off is to eat smaller portions, and take in fewer calories - day in and day out for the long haul.
-
No problem, Wab. But honestly, I'm not up to investing 90 minutes to watch the pitch.
Unfortunately, the biggest thing that my training shows me is that there is NOT going to be an easy answer to such complex problems as overweight. I mean, if there was a magic bullet diet approach out there, wouldn't it work so well that all the other ones would go out of business, and there wouldn't be any need for this years' crop of diet books?
So anything that promises to be a quick fix is probably a lie, or based on exaggerations.
Hard data shows that the best way to get and keep weight off is to eat smaller portions, and take in fewer calories - day in and day out for the long haul.
Lol. There really isn't a "Pitch" in the vid. He is NOT selling a diet book.
He is merely trying the point out the possiblity of a toxin being introduced into the food supply.
Nevermind.
Thanks for your input.
Wab
-
WEIGHT LOSS MISCONCEPTIONS
1.Eating healthy is the most important thing
Calories actually depend more on quantity than quality of food. For example:
there are fewer calories in two slices of pepperoni pizza than in four slices of low fat cheese pizza
If you eat less, you can still have the things you enjoy.
2. I can't lose weight because I can't exercise
Weight loss depends much more on intake than on workouts. ONE SLICE of pepperoni pizza takes 3.25 miles of walking to burn off
I can't tell you how many people get frustrated that they aren't losing weight when they exercise - but it turns out they're walking a mile three times a week!
3. Losing weight fast is best because its most satisfying
Fast weight loss usually means two things - most importantly, it means you're doing something radically different than your usual lifestyle, but it also means you're going to fool your system into thinking that you're in a famine situation. And if you think about what that means to a body that is programmed to survive, you won't be surprised to find that your appetite will increase and your metabolism will start to slow down.
Studies show that the best way to lose weight is to cut the calories enough that you are losing between 1/2 lb and 1 lb per week. Faster than that, and you'll likely have an early plateau and a rebound weight gain.
4. If I hit a plateau, that means the diet has stopped working
I tell people to expect plateaus, almost as if the body were pausing the weight loss to make sure the organism isn't starving. As long as you keep at it, at some point the body will realize its ok and will start losing again.
5. I just need to find the right program (or book or diet plan or whatever)
Again, THERE IS NO MAGIC FORMULA.
I tell people to start with their normal diet, the things they like to eat. It works best over the long term if your diet is based on YOU.
First, work on smaller portions - same stuff on a smaller plate. Have a burger if you like it, but don't have two!
Second, look for wasted calories - things you eat that you don't really want that much (or that have more calories than they are worth to you). My daughter would skip french fries (which she didn't have strong feelings for), but then go home and bake brownies.
Third, reduce higher calorie options. (Skip the mayo, don't have the cheese slice, go with diet pop, etc)
Fourth, find smaller ways to enjoy your special treats. If you like steak, get a 4-6 oz top quality Filet Mignon instead of a 12 ounce porterhouse. Get an imported chocolate bar instead of a bag of "fun sized" snickers. Buy a half pint of Ben and Jerry's or Hagen Daz instead of a half gallon of regular ice cream
Fifth, educate yourself about what you eat. Realize that some salads have more calories than a Big Mac, even before the dressing! Learn that a Big Mac has fewer calories than a Whopper, and that grilled chicken sandwiches are even better. Etc
-
He is merely trying the point out the possiblity of a toxin being introduced into the food supply.
Okay - I would have known if I watched the thing.
After dealing with one "answer" after another for so many years (20 years in practice, I can hardly believe it!!), and seeing so many come and go, I don't have a lot of patience with the next big thing. Maybe I'm getting closeminded and cranky, but I think the thing that frustrates me is this:
Most of my patients spend more energy looking for the cool new thing than they do on the fundamentals.
So while the effects of fructose - which is a natural product, by the way - may be negative, their magnitude is very likely to be much smaller than the effects of plain old "skip the appetizer"
-
We "smart" folks hide that information in books. Some of us read those books and can actually remember what we read.
Cell respiration is, oh, maybe 8th grade biology. I guess, when most of the country still isn't smarter than a fifth grader....then it might be over your head entirely!
On the flip side,
Seriously, what is wrong with Llogan? Every thread he's in... same bark, no bite.
I've learned that in 9th grade. :uhoh
-Penguin
-
Re: my maybe getting closed minded....
(http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=3aad7c8931a59fa691956ce8ff8d870a)
-
Okay - I would have known if I watched the thing.
No, the fault is mine. I inadvertently mentioned that I was starting the Atkins diet which has now appearently become the topic. That was a mistake.
I simply ran across this while researching the mechanics of metabilism.
The intent of this thread was to discuss the logic and accuracy of the information in this particular video, not of the Atkin diet or diets in general.
I was just wondering if any medi or chemi types could find an obvious flaw in his data.
Regards,
Wab
-
Re: my maybe getting closed minded....
(http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=3aad7c8931a59fa691956ce8ff8d870a)
I love Calvin and Hobbes :banana:
Terribly sorry for my outburst earlier, I didn't mean to add to the level of numpty. :o
:cheers: