And on a related note, Dr. Robert Atkins—diet guru of low-carb, high-protein fame—has died from injuries he sustained in a fall earlier this month: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030415-043648-2411r
More smoke-blowing from the nutritional pseudo-scientists in an attempt to distract attention away from all the health problems their decades of bad advice has caused.
Of course they neglect to mention that fat and protein makes one feel "full" much more then carbohydrates, so low-carb diets are much easier to maintain.
Of course they neglect to mention that fat and protein makes one feel "full" much more then carbohydrates, so low-carb diets are much easier to maintain.
Guest
Unregistered
G
It has always amazed me the mental flips and twists people put themselves through to avoid the common sense answer to losing weight.
EAT LESS! EXERCISE!
Maybe if we thought in terms of losing mass instead of weight, it would be more obvious than it already is.
EAT LESS! EXERCISE!
Maybe if we thought in terms of losing mass instead of weight, it would be more obvious than it already is.
Guest
Unregistered
G
garys_2k said:
People don't look at their food as "weight," but they look at themselves that way. If you look at things in terms of mass, then it is easy to figure out food mass = body mass.
The less food mass you cram in your mouth, the less body mass you can have. Your body can't just "gain weight," which more accurately is mass, just by you sitting there with a low metabolism in front of the TV. Unless you have acquired so much mass you have your own gravitational field sucking in space dust.
A low metabolism is a poor excuse, and actually means you don't need to eat as much as everyone else to maintain your weight. That's should be a good thing. Less input mass needed to stay alive.
If your output is less than your input, then you gain mass. You can increase your output in the form of heat by exercising, or decrease your input by cramming less mass in your mouth.
I don't know if science has proven it, but my personal experience has shown that when I exercise REG-U-LAR-LY (!!!), my metabolism speeds up. My appetite gets tremendous.
Some people's perspective is all screwed up. They think that a low metabolism is a disadvantage, when in terms of survival efficiency, it is a good thing. The more I think about the human body and how it responds to its situational environment, the more awed I get.
Some people also think that the fact it takes forty-eight thousand situps to burn off one Reese's peanut butter cup is a bad thing. But, man, that is incredible efficiency!
I don't look at those charts that say it takes forty-eight thousand situps to burn off a Reese's peanut butter cup. I am exaggerting about the 48,000 situps on purpose because I don't think they are correct by a long shot anyway.
The reason being what I said about increasing my metabolism. Sure, I may only burn a small number of calories during the actual time I am exercising, which again is a good thing, not a bad thing, if you think in terms of survival efficiency. But if I exercise regularly, and my metabolism increases, then I am burning that Reese's peanut butter cup even when I am sitting at rest more quickly than if I never exercised at all and was sitting at rest.
That's the problem. As Luke mentioned, having a faster metabolism increases the appetite, while a slower one decreases it. But in either case the drive seems to be to add some fat for the times when the hunting-gathering will be unsuccessful.BillyJoe said:Interesting slant Luke.
I just hope those with a "low metabolism" have a sensitive "satiety center" to compliment it.
In the late 80s, pasta was king. Everybody was carbo-loading, and fat- and protein-avoiding. Now Atkins is back. Everybody is protein-loading and carbo-avoiding.
I've had the same friends who told me, in the 80s, to load up on pasta, tell me, in the 90s, why they avoid it like the plague.
Bad food. Good food. Good food. Bad food. They just keep swapping the labels and hoping nobody notices the change.
Bad science.
Cheers,
I've had the same friends who told me, in the 80s, to load up on pasta, tell me, in the 90s, why they avoid it like the plague.
Bad food. Good food. Good food. Bad food. They just keep swapping the labels and hoping nobody notices the change.
Bad science.
Cheers,
JeffR
Unregistered
J
LukeT said:
Here's some advice of about the same usefulness (though much more smart-alecky
) on how to play scratch golf :Hit the ball in the cup in an average of 4 strokes per hole.
Given this common sense approach, anybody should be able to play par golf. Just go out and do it.
A lot of people figure out the common sense stuff after a few failures with gimmicks, but even then it is very hard to be successful.
My university of life thesis on dieting:-
1. In my twenties, I ate like a horse, drank like a fish and stayed between 160 and 166 pounds.
2.In my thirties, I ran four miles a day, ate like a small horse and drank like a thirsty dog. 166-170
3. In my forties, I have eaten sensibly, quit running because of the knees, drunk like a 40 year old and gone from 170 to 189 (currently 183).
My conclusions.
1. Diet fads vary with the age of the currently favoured diet guru.
2. Being twenty beats pushing fifty.
Did I miss anything important?
1. In my twenties, I ate like a horse, drank like a fish and stayed between 160 and 166 pounds.
2.In my thirties, I ran four miles a day, ate like a small horse and drank like a thirsty dog. 166-170
3. In my forties, I have eaten sensibly, quit running because of the knees, drunk like a 40 year old and gone from 170 to 189 (currently 183).
My conclusions.
1. Diet fads vary with the age of the currently favoured diet guru.
2. Being twenty beats pushing fifty.
Did I miss anything important?
Soapy Sam said:
I realize you were being funny, but yeah, the important thing you missed was the way your body changes with age. As you get older, your metabolism slows down, so you need to do more to hold even.
Here's an easy way to drop pounds, but I realize not everyone can do it. Buy a bike and ride it to work. It sounds really easy, it actually is really easy, it's good for your mind and body, but you wouldn't believe the reasons people come up with for not doing it.
Although having said that, I'm ashamed to admit I won't ride my bike to commute because I don't live in a very....nice neighborhood, but as soon as I move, just watch out!
Phaycops said:
Yep, yep, yep. On the head you have stricken the nail.
I spent a few weeks in China, and probably saw ~10,000 different people . . . and not a single one of them was even chunky. Contrary to what your mother told you, the kids in China aren't starving. In fact, I've never seen a more food-oriented culture, with a MASSIVE focus on carbohydrates and meat. But, each and every one of them walks about 8 miles a day, to and from work and other business.
I reiterate: Not one single vaguely overweight person did I see. By American standards, I should have seen 2,000 morbidly obese people, and 2,000 more obese people, with the remainder half-thin, half-chunky. It's all about the exercise.
H.
LukeT said:
I heartily agree!
I should clarify I am not the norm, I have a condition that makes it nearly impossible for me to exercise and I have found that eating less high impact carbs has helped tremendously. Not just with maintaining a decent weight but in the way I feel as well.
It's all about moderation. Basically white things are bad; rice, potatoes, white flour, sugar.
As far as sugar substitutes I have found Splenda to be great tasting and allows me to get my monthly dose of chocolate.
