http://gamingtrend.com
April 18, 2014, 08:41:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [Lifestyle] Breaking my addiction to white powders (sugar, flour).  (Read 5778 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 04, 2011, 01:49:23 AM »

Aw crap I didn't quote Crux' post in time. He edited out his nice little insults, calling me a fucking moron and all. Geez. As I said earlier, it's like R&P when talking about this. Even when you say "whatever works for me might not work for you," you still get people going insane.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8836


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 04, 2011, 02:14:36 AM »

I love Cheeba's posts.  They always start off with thinly veiled to outright insults towards a poster, then turn to genuine surprise and eventual indignation when he's met with the same kind of vitriol.   icon_lol
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10992


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 04, 2011, 02:58:10 AM »

I think I figured out what's wrong with this thread.

Spoiler for Hiden:
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: September 04, 2011, 05:18:30 AM »

Quote from: hepcat on September 04, 2011, 02:14:36 AM

I love Cheeba's posts.  They always start off with thinly veiled to outright insults towards a poster, then turn to genuine surprise and eventual indignation when he's met with the same kind of vitriol.   icon_lol
Care to point out where I insulted Crux before he insulted me? Or are you just continuing your pattern of stalking me with posts disguised as humor?
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71767


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: September 04, 2011, 06:18:24 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 04, 2011, 01:49:23 AM

Aw crap I didn't quote Crux' post in time. He edited out his nice little insults, calling me a fucking moron and all. Geez. As I said earlier, it's like R&P when talking about this. Even when you say "whatever works for me might not work for you," you still get people going insane.

must have been so shocking it took you almost an hour to quote him   icon_lol


Quote from: Crux on September 03, 2011, 10:24:35 PM

Quote from: cheeba on September 03, 2011, 09:52:43 PM

Quote from: Crux on September 03, 2011, 07:30:51 PM

Have you stopped for a moment and considered that perhaps exercise is so critical to your personal weight-loss experience because of your diet? That perhaps if you changed the way you ate you wouldn't need so much exercise in order to experience results? Because I've worked with multiple people on this, and none have ever *needed* exercise the way you rave about it. The only thing you're living proof of is that the way you do it you need to exercise.

You don't get it, which is not surprising since you are so hostile all the time, which is downright creepy, btw.

I don't *need* exercise to lose weight. I lose weight without exercise, just not as much. I exercise because that's what the human machine is supposed to do and because health is about so much more than just weight. My diet changed gradually to suit my newly active lifestyle.

So now here I am, 120+ lbs lighter, eating any carbs I want, albeit sensibly. I'm able to run up hills I used to have trouble walking. I ran my first 5k. I'm currently training for a triathlon... all because I started out by going for a walk and getting the machine working again.

I'm not saying people can't lose weight by just dieting. That's dumb, of course people can lose weight with a diet. I'm just saying if you're not exercising, even if it's not to lose weight, then you are living life wrong. It's about being healthy, and diet, while a huge part of it, is only a part.

Quote from: cheeba on September 03, 2011, 09:52:43 PM

Third of all, I'm living proof that the above quote is bullshit. I've lost fricking 122 lbs and it all began with exercise and exercise has been absolutely integral to my weight loss throughout my 16 months of losing weight.

You have a funny way of saying that.

And I'm hostile to you because you come into these threads being aggressive to other people with regards to diet, and generally act like an asshole. You're a formerly obese man. I'm someone who has been extremely fit, healthy and at a healthy weight his entire life who also happens to train athletes and advise them on diet for a living. I see the results of this stuff on both ends with my very own eyes day in, day out. And yet you continuously spew bullshit as though you have a fucking clue what you're talking about. It's irritating. It probably shouldn't be because you're so obviously clueless, but it irritates me that your hyper-aggressive posting about this stuff probably serves to dissuade people from considering dietary options that could change their life irrevocably for the better. The simple fact is cheeba, you don't know what you're on about. You have never tried paleo and you're also not remotely educated on it. So try just shutting the fuck up about it until you either educate yourself or give it a try. And with that, I'm done. A good night to all, and to all a good night.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 06:31:08 PM by Crux »

Quote from: cheeba on September 03, 2011, 11:15:56 PM

Quote from: Crux on September 03, 2011, 10:24:35 PM

You have a funny way of saying that.

And I'm hostile to you because you come into these threads being aggressive to other people with regards to diet, and generally act like an asshole. You're a formerly obese man. I'm someone who has been extremely fit, healthy and at a healthy weight his entire life who also happens to train athletes and advise them on diet for a living. I see the results of this stuff on both ends with my very own eyes day in, day out. And yet you continuously spew bullshit as though you have a fucking clue what you're talking about. It's irritating. It probably shouldn't be because you're so obviously clueless, but it irritates me that your hyper-aggressive posting about this stuff probably serves to dissuade people from considering dietary options that could change their life irrevocably for the better. The simple fact is cheeba, you don't know what you're on about. You have never tried paleo and you're also not remotely educated on it. So try just shutting the fuck up about it until you either educate yourself or give it a try. And with that, I'm done. A good night to all, and to all a good night.

Quoting this so you can't delete it. Holy shit dude.

(btw, how do you change size of an image through the forum?)

And you're right, I totally have no idea wtf I'm talking about. I've only lost 120+ lbs and I'm telling people what works for me might not work for them. Jesus Christ dude, you have problems.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 07:17:52 PM by cheeba »
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1536



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2011, 11:54:57 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 04, 2011, 01:49:23 AM

Aw crap I didn't quote Crux' post in time. He edited out his nice little insults, calling me a fucking moron and all. Geez. As I said earlier, it's like R&P when talking about this. Even when you say "whatever works for me might not work for you," you still get people going insane.

Wow. You've stooped to lying now? The only edit I made was I originally called you a formerly obese and now very overweight man. Then I realized that was in error so I fixed it.

And cheeba, don't play dumb. You have aggressively ridiculed and criticized other diets in other threads, without any personal experience of them, nor the knowledge or qualifications to do so. It's been an ongoing pattern. For you to pretend otherwise and act all innocent is really disingenuous, but given your bald-faced fucking lie I just quoted above this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. You may not be a fucking moron, but you are a fucking liar.
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10992


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: September 04, 2011, 11:57:59 AM »

Can you guys take the foreplay to PMs, please?
Logged
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4502



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: September 04, 2011, 01:03:36 PM »

please don't waste my 4 day weekend.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8836


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2011, 02:56:32 PM »

Quote from: naednek on September 04, 2011, 01:03:36 PM

please don't waste my 4 day weekend.

ken, i love ya, but if you're spending your 4 day weekend perusing forums, I'm going to drive to your place and nut punch you.   Tongue
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2011, 03:21:19 PM »

Basically, it all comes down to inputs and outputs.  There are a few things here. 

1.  Outputs:  We've become more sedentary as time has gone on...our outputs are reduced as to where we were back in the day.  There's a lot more sitting on the couch and TV/computer, than even 20 years ago.

2.  Inputs:

First, carbs in and of themselves aren't evil; it's just our foods tend to have a LOT of them.  I have a kid with type 1 diabetes, so we have to carefully measure carbs in all foods he consumes and you'd be surprised.  For example, a medium sized bagel has about 60 grams of carbs in it; whereas a 9 ounce filet has about 50 grams of protein in it.  Per unit size, a lot more calories are packed into the bagel than the steak...and I'd say only the steak is a solid dinner by itself.  So it makes sense to eat a low carb diet, because you can eat what you're used to eating (i.e., too much), but you get less calories per bite.

But the basic problem isn't carbs...or whatever.  It's simply that we eat a lot more than we used to.  Our portion size in modern America is completely out of control. From this link:

Quote
Portion sizes in 1960 compared to 2000
• Bagel: Then 2-3 oz.; now 4-6 oz.
• Muffin: Then 2-3 oz.; now 5-7 oz.
• Coca-Cola bottle: Then 6.5 fl.oz.; now 20 fl.oz.
• Chocolate bar: Then 1 oz.; now 1.5-5 oz.
• Potato chips bag: Then 1 oz.; now 2-4 oz.
• McDonald’s hamburger: Then 1.5 oz.; now 1.5-8 oz.
• McDonald’s soda: Then 7oz.; now 12-42 oz.
• McDonald’s French fries: Then 2.4 oz.; now 2.4-7.1 oz.
• Pasta entrée: Then 1.5 cups; now 3 cups
• Beer can: Then 12 fl.oz.; now 12-24 fl.oz.

Of note is that the large fast food size back in 1960 is the smallest size (i.e., kid size) we can get today.  Heck, some Panera sandwiches are 1,000 calories by themselves.  Add 240 calories for a medium (20 ounce) Coke, and then chips, and you're looking at 1,500 calories just for a lunch, which is what's recommended for a full day (60% carbs on a 1,500 calorie diet is what the AMA recommends...you missed that caloric restriction in your AMA-damning post, Purge).  Even if you believe we expend the same amount of calories we did in 1960 (which we don't), we eat so much more that the input:output ratio is completely out of whack. 

Essentially, we're eating more, and we have less energy output.  There's a reason why 33% of the adults in the US are obese, after all, with commensurate levels of childhood obesity, explosion of type 2 diabetes in both adults (and now, scarily, incredible growth of type 2 diabetes in children).

Go overseas to Europe.  Even to Rome, where Italians tend to eat a higher carb diet than the Scandanavians (pasta and breads), you'll see that they are thin.  Europeans eat much smaller portion sizes, walk around a lot, and by and large, are far thinner than Americans.  It's not because they're on a low carb diet...it's because they eat a balanced diet, eat reasonable portion sizes, and expend calories.

But never fear.  As we export our lifestyle overseas, they're getting fatter as they eat more, too (check out England's obesity rates...they're quickly approaching ours).
Logged
EngineNo9
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10642


I said good day, sir!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2011, 03:36:49 PM »



smile
Logged

Sandwiches do fix everything.
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8913


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2011, 03:43:30 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on September 04, 2011, 03:21:19 PM

Basically, it all comes down to inputs and outputs.  There are a few things here. 

1.  Outputs:  We've become more sedentary as time has gone on...our outputs are reduced as to where we were back in the day.  There's a lot more sitting on the couch and TV/computer, than even 20 years ago.

2.  Inputs:

First, carbs in and of themselves aren't evil; it's just our foods tend to have a LOT of them.  I have a kid with type 1 diabetes, so we have to carefully measure carbs in all foods he consumes and you'd be surprised.  For example, a medium sized bagel has about 60 grams of carbs in it; whereas a 9 ounce filet has about 50 grams of protein in it.  Per unit size, a lot more calories are packed into the bagel than the steak...and I'd say only the steak is a solid dinner by itself.  So it makes sense to eat a low carb diet, because you can eat what you're used to eating (i.e., too much), but you get less calories per bite.

But the basic problem isn't carbs...or whatever.  It's simply that we eat a lot more than we used to.  Our portion size in modern America is completely out of control. From this link:

Quote
Portion sizes in 1960 compared to 2000
• Bagel: Then 2-3 oz.; now 4-6 oz.
• Muffin: Then 2-3 oz.; now 5-7 oz.
• Coca-Cola bottle: Then 6.5 fl.oz.; now 20 fl.oz.
• Chocolate bar: Then 1 oz.; now 1.5-5 oz.
• Potato chips bag: Then 1 oz.; now 2-4 oz.
• McDonald’s hamburger: Then 1.5 oz.; now 1.5-8 oz.
• McDonald’s soda: Then 7oz.; now 12-42 oz.
• McDonald’s French fries: Then 2.4 oz.; now 2.4-7.1 oz.
• Pasta entrée: Then 1.5 cups; now 3 cups
• Beer can: Then 12 fl.oz.; now 12-24 fl.oz.

Of note is that the large fast food size back in 1960 is the smallest size (i.e., kid size) we can get today.  Heck, some Panera sandwiches are 1,000 calories by themselves.  Add 240 calories for a medium (20 ounce) Coke, and then chips, and you're looking at 1,500 calories just for a lunch, which is what's recommended for a full day (60% carbs on a 1,500 calorie diet is what the AMA recommends...you missed that caloric restriction in your AMA-damning post, Purge).  Even if you believe we expend the same amount of calories we did in 1960 (which we don't), we eat so much more that the input:output ratio is completely out of whack. 

Essentially, we're eating more, and we have less energy output.  There's a reason why 33% of the adults in the US are obese, after all, with commensurate levels of childhood obesity, explosion of type 2 diabetes in both adults (and now, scarily, incredible growth of type 2 diabetes in children).

Go overseas to Europe.  Even to Rome, where Italians tend to eat a higher carb diet than the Scandanavians (pasta and breads), you'll see that they are thin.  Europeans eat much smaller portion sizes, walk around a lot, and by and large, are far thinner than Americans.  It's not because they're on a low carb diet...it's because they eat a balanced diet, eat reasonable portion sizes, and expend calories.

But never fear.  As we export our lifestyle overseas, they're getting fatter as they eat more, too (check out England's obesity rates...they're quickly approaching ours).

Really well put.
Logged
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2011, 03:57:42 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on September 04, 2011, 03:21:19 PM


...

Quote
Portion sizes in 1960 compared to 2000
• Beer can: Then 12 fl.oz.; now 12-24 fl.oz.

...


Wait, this is supposed to be a bad thing?   icon_confused

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call hooey on that one.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 04:03:01 PM by PeteRock » Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10992


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2011, 04:11:36 PM »

What I hate most about today's enormous portion sizes is that it pits my desire to eat properly directly against my desire to not waste food.  It's not always feasible to take home leftovers, and even splitting a dish can get a bit silly when one restaurant meal order is often enough to satisfy three or four people.
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4683


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2011, 06:41:40 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on September 04, 2011, 04:11:36 PM

What I hate most about today's enormous portion sizes is that it pits my desire to eat properly directly against my desire to not waste food.  It's not always feasible to take home leftovers, and even splitting a dish can get a bit silly when one restaurant meal order is often enough to satisfy three or four people.

Agreed, though I am encouraged that restaurant portion sizes seem to be contracting a bit.  I'm sure it's a response to the poor economy more than a conscious effort to be more healthy, but the net result is still positive.
Logged
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3306



View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2011, 07:32:57 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on September 04, 2011, 04:11:36 PM

What I hate most about today's enormous portion sizes is that it pits my desire to eat properly directly against my desire to not waste food.  It's not always feasible to take home leftovers, and even splitting a dish can get a bit silly when one restaurant meal order is often enough to satisfy three or four people.

In some restaurants I ask for a to-go box when I order my meal, then immediately put half of it away when they bring it out. At Unos, I only eat half of the Firecracker Chicken Sandwich (and all of the farro salad)...at the U-Brew, I only eat half of my turkey wings...at Hingham Beer Works, I only eat half of the jambalaya. This works best when you're ordering a known quantity at a familiar restaurant, and when you order things that are easily split and reheated (or eaten cold). I could be satisfied with half a calzone from Jamies, for instance, but they don't reheat well at all...so I stuff down the whole thing.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Biyobi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 716


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2011, 08:49:15 PM »

Quote from: PeteRock on September 04, 2011, 03:57:42 PM

Quote from: Eightball on September 04, 2011, 03:21:19 PM


...

Quote
Portion sizes in 1960 compared to 2000
• Beer can: Then 12 fl.oz.; now 12-24 fl.oz.

...

Wait, this is supposed to be a bad thing?   icon_confused

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call hooey on that one.

It's not a bad thing due to calories, it's bad in that it takes longer to drink a 24oz can/bottle and the beer will naturally get warmer.  Sticking with 12oz, you can keep the second one in the cooler longer. icon_wink
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5349


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2011, 10:35:04 PM »

Quote from: PeteRock on September 04, 2011, 03:57:42 PM

Quote from: Eightball on September 04, 2011, 03:21:19 PM


...

Quote
Portion sizes in 1960 compared to 2000
• Beer can: Then 12 fl.oz.; now 12-24 fl.oz.

...


Wait, this is supposed to be a bad thing?   icon_confused

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call hooey on that one.

When it comes to caloric content, yes, it's a bad thing.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2011, 10:39:55 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on September 04, 2011, 10:35:04 PM

Quote from: PeteRock on September 04, 2011, 03:57:42 PM

Quote from: Eightball on September 04, 2011, 03:21:19 PM


...

Quote
Portion sizes in 1960 compared to 2000
• Beer can: Then 12 fl.oz.; now 12-24 fl.oz.

...


Wait, this is supposed to be a bad thing?   icon_confused

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call hooey on that one.

When it comes to caloric content, yes, it's a bad thing.

Is it really necessary to have to indicate a tone of jest?   icon_confused
Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10992


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: September 05, 2011, 12:43:12 AM »

Pete, you really shouldn't call hooey on such important issues.  I don't know where you've done your research on issues of health and human consumption, but to doubt whether that bullet point is a bad thing demonstrates your extreme lack of understanding on how offensive that data point is:


Beer should not be drunk out of cans.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8836


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2011, 03:04:16 AM »

Quote from: Eightball on September 04, 2011, 03:21:19 PM

Go overseas to Europe.  Even to Rome, where Italians tend to eat a higher carb diet than the Scandanavians (pasta and breads), you'll see that they are thin.  Europeans eat much smaller portion sizes, walk around a lot, and by and large, are far thinner than Americans. 

If being chubby means one lives in a country that has mastered the secrets of the combustible engine, then give me seconds, damn it! 
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
PeteRock
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6798


Fabulous is a state of being. For me, anyways.


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: September 05, 2011, 05:45:51 AM »

Quote from: wonderpug on September 05, 2011, 12:43:12 AM

Pete, you really shouldn't call hooey on such important issues.  I don't know where you've done your research on issues of health and human consumption, but to doubt whether that bullet point is a bad thing demonstrates your extreme lack of understanding on how offensive that data point is:


Beer should not be drunk out of cans.

I used to think in such absolutes.  Until I learned that it can be consumed from cans if out of necessity.  Or when required, such as at the pool or boating on the lake.  While glass is preferable, it isn't always permitted.
Logged

Beauty is only skin deep.  Which is why I take very good care of my skin.
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1536



View Profile
« Reply #62 on: September 05, 2011, 12:11:44 PM »

Great post Eightball. Carbs are most definitely not in and of themselves evil. I eat carbs every day in the form of vegetables smile It's just the more refined the carbohydrate is, generally speaking that means the more chances the food industry has had to add some form of sugar to it. It is perfectly feasible to maintain a healthy body weight while eating bread, pasta etc etc. I did it for the majority of my adult life. So I really hope nobody thinks I'm saying it is impossible, or that nobody should have a diet with grains. It's a choice. Every indication I have ever seen just shows me that losing weight, and maintaining a healthy body weight are simply easier on a paleo diet.

In a very real sense the analogy I would draw is swimming. You can swim breaststroke, and get where you want to go eventually. Freestyle is a hell of a lot faster - but it is also harder. It takes more work than breaststroke does - the extra speed you get from it requires sacrifice. To me that's the difference between dieting with grains, and dieting without them.
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 05, 2011, 03:21:23 PM »

First of all, I'm going to address the Raven question. My oldest son Logan was diagnosed with Asthma, and he is obese. His mother used the Asthma arguement to stall overnight visits and claimed I was uninformed. I took classes and courses on this, including a seminar being run by the Health Sciences Centre here in Winnipeg, which (according to them) were forerunners in Asthma research.

There has been a link made to Lipitor, a drug used to control high cholesterol. It inhibits a protein produced during the breakdown of triglycerides (IIRC). They found that in Asthma patients who were taking it that the triggers causing restriction, mucus production and inflammation were impeded by the drug. They are/were going to try to isolate that element and produce yet another drug. This is all within the realm of the body's balance of energy (to which insulin is the primary control mechanism).

Gary references Asthma in his book, and while I don't have links ATM, the argument has to do with observed exposure to high-carb diets in cultures that historically consume little carbs vs. the ones that do. If you aren't being snide and are actually interested, I would suggest reading Good Calories, Bad Calories.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: September 05, 2011, 03:38:10 PM »

Quote from: ravenvii on September 04, 2011, 12:58:08 AM

The arguing here is weird.

Fact: weight loss = consuming less calories than you use.
Fact: sitting on your ass and consuming 1,000 calories a day, but consuming 700 = weight loss.
Fact: exercising and consuming 3,000 calories a day, but consuming 2,700 = weight loss.

It's all the same.
However...

Fact: consume more than what you use without exercising: you become a fatass.  
Fact: consume more than what you use while exercising like hell: you get big.
Fact: consume less than what you use while sitting on your ass: you become a skinny weak-ass bastard.
Fact: consume less than what you use while exercising: you become lean and ripped.
Fact: diet and exercise achieve different aims.
Fact: diet and exercise are deeply interwined with each other.

Simple.

Ideal result: you consume what you use, stay at a healthy weight, and exercise to stay fit.
Further details worth arguing about: diets and exercise programs. Not the above.

Personal note: I wholly support the paleo diet, and second the experiences above. How I feel before and while on the diet is like day and night.

Your facts are questionable at best - to spout out common knowledge is to continue going down the same path without questioning it.

FACT: Exercise is good for the body.
FACT: We have a system capable of managing energy levels.
FACT: All growth is controlled by hormones
FACT: Ask any pubescent child - the mind has a hard time overriding hormones.
FACT: Exercise is not a major contributor to weight loss.
FACT: Diets fail because they require cognitive control to maintain. Some can do it, most cannot.
 

Here's something to think about:

If you hold back 500 calories a day from a child (who is eating 1500), will it reduce their rate of growth by 1/3?
Can you, using your mind alone, think yourself thin?
What to you define as starvation?
Why do people gain some, in some cases more, weight back?
What purpose is hunger, if you cannot trust its indicators?
Do you believe in evolution?


Quote from: cheeba on September 03, 2011, 09:53:50 PM

Quote from: PeteRock on September 03, 2011, 09:49:38 PM

While diet is important, and exercise is not the only factor leading to weight loss, there seems to be an underlying idea that exercise is not entirely important to a healthier lifestyle.  If you want to lose weight, adjust your diet, but if you want to be healthier, which is often associated with fitter, diet alone isn't completely sufficient.
And for once I and PeteRock agree.

Cognitive dissonance for the win. Shall I go through my previous posts and highlight the statements that have already stated as much? The damage the AMA, and those following and regurgitating their blanket statements in the medical community is making Eat Less, Move More the fix for weight issues. It has ingrained it that you can walk into ANY doctors office, and get a solemn agreement without having any medical trials to prove it. They have taken obesity on by dealing with the symptoms, and not the problem.

Overeating is a SYMPTOM. Lack of movement is a SYMPTOM. It isn't the cause, and while trying to treat the symptom may help (Cheeba has done well for himself in that regard), just as cough medicine does nothing to the flu virus, neither does moving more or eating less FIX obesity.

Cheeba, since you so strongly hold onto your opinion, try eating until you're no longer full. Let go of calorie counting, and pull yourself from exercise. What will happen to you? How much of your energy is going into balancing your own body, when mighty hunters such as lions can maintain their physical form while at rest for 14+ hours a day. Have you ever seen them go"Hrrrm, I'm watching my weight. I'll let that one go."? Did you know that hibernating animals will get "fat" regardless of whether they can find sufficient foods, and the storage of energy happens regardless and will pull from normal functions to do so?

Energy management is not something that we think about - it is an involuntary system which we have, for the past half-century, have put on the shoulders of peoples guilt for sloth and glut. It is a system that functions to maintain the body the same way you don't have to think about sperm production, or growth during childhood. Would you suggest that babies need to think about being hungry to eat?

Hunger, the compulsion to eat, is that switch, and it is a hormonal response rather than a psychological one. We eat the wrong things and f#$@ that up. Problem is, we are now being told that that wrong thing is a health requirement due to the lower caloric value, and misapply the laws of thermal dynamics (energy in, energy out). That fundamental belief coupled with such a penetration into our "common knowledge" puts us right in the middle of the extinction crosshairs. That may sound drastic, but what would happen if you were to feed any other animal the wrong kinds of food over extended periods? For some it will be immediately toxic, whereas others it may take generations as evolution tries to compensate.

I said there needs to be a separation of the concept that weight loss has anything to do with exercise, just as starvation is not a healthy means of shedding pounds. Name a mammal that is naturally obese, and don't think that elephants and blue whales are going to win your argument as both USE their fat stores.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 03:46:40 PM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: September 05, 2011, 04:48:45 PM »

Quote from: Purge on September 05, 2011, 03:38:10 PM

Cheeba, since you so strongly hold onto your opinion, try eating until you're no longer full. Let go of calorie counting, and pull yourself from exercise. What will happen to you?

I do eat until I'm no longer full. I eat a lot of food. I don't count calories, though I did for a while to see what I was putting into my body. Now I have a good idea that I'm eating anywhere between 1600-2400 calories a day, depending on exercise (exercise makes me less hungry but I do consume more calories to keep my body recovering and building).

Why would I ever pull myself from exercise? I know exactly what would happen to me if I did that - I would become less healthy. I might still lose weight, but I really like the fact that I'm still way overweight (currently around 245 lbs at 6') but I can run farther than most skinny people. I can do more push ups. My blood pressure averages around 108/63. I have not had a single headache in a year and a half. Since the Spring of 2010 I have taken 4 tylenol - 2 were for DOMS (didn't work) and 2 were when I broke my foot.

And that's only the health benefits of exercise. I've also met several new friends while running. I get to experience the sheer joy of accomplishing a physical goal I was previously incapable of completing. You ever have a hundred or so people cheer for you as you cross the finish line, even though you were slow as hell and last in your age group? I did and it was something I will never forget.

Physical activity is joy, for the mind, body and spirit, as corny as it sounds.

Quote
Hunger, the compulsion to eat, is that switch, and it is a hormonal response rather than a psychological one.

I disagree there as well. It may be hormonal, but there is most definitely a psychological aspect. I've always been bad about eating late at night. I'll do it even if I'm not hungry. It's a comfort, it's a habit, it's purely psychological.
Quote
I said there needs to be a separation of the concept that weight loss has anything to do with exercise, just as starvation is not a healthy means of shedding pounds. Name a mammal that is naturally obese, and don't think that elephants and blue whales are going to win your argument as both USE their fat stores.

As I've said, you can lose weight without exercise. I even agree that diet is much more important to weight loss than exercise. You're just missing out on a huge health factor if you don't exercise. And, in my opinion, there's not much point being skinny if you're not also fit.
Logged
ravenvii
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2012



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: September 05, 2011, 05:04:02 PM »

Quote from: Purge on September 05, 2011, 03:21:23 PM

First of all, I'm going to address the Raven question. My oldest son Logan was diagnosed with Asthma, and he is obese. His mother used the Asthma arguement to stall overnight visits and claimed I was uninformed. I took classes and courses on this, including a seminar being run by the Health Sciences Centre here in Winnipeg, which (according to them) were forerunners in Asthma research.

There has been a link made to Lipitor, a drug used to control high cholesterol. It inhibits a protein produced during the breakdown of triglycerides (IIRC). They found that in Asthma patients who were taking it that the triggers causing restriction, mucus production and inflammation were impeded by the drug. They are/were going to try to isolate that element and produce yet another drug. This is all within the realm of the body's balance of energy (to which insulin is the primary control mechanism).

Gary references Asthma in his book, and while I don't have links ATM, the argument has to do with observed exposure to high-carb diets in cultures that historically consume little carbs vs. the ones that do. If you aren't being snide and are actually interested, I would suggest reading Good Calories, Bad Calories.


This post seems to be addressed to me, since I'm the only raven around here (other than Chaosraven, but he didn't post in this thread), but I'm not sure what question you're answering?

Quote from: Purge on September 05, 2011, 03:38:10 PM

Your facts are questionable at best - to spout out common knowledge is to continue going down the same path without questioning it.

FACT: Exercise is good for the body.
FACT: We have a system capable of managing energy levels.
FACT: All growth is controlled by hormones
FACT: Ask any pubescent child - the mind has a hard time overriding hormones.
FACT: Exercise is not a major contributor to weight loss.
FACT: Diets fail because they require cognitive control to maintain. Some can do it, most cannot.
 

Here's something to think about:

If you hold back 500 calories a day from a child (who is eating 1500), will it reduce their rate of growth by 1/3?
Can you, using your mind alone, think yourself thin?
What to you define as starvation?
Why do people gain some, in some cases more, weight back?
What purpose is hunger, if you cannot trust its indicators?
Do you believe in evolution?

None of the above contradicts what I said.

And when I talked about "big/fat and thin/lean", I was clearly talking about fully-grown adults. Big as in muscular (body builder and so forth). It's impossible to get big if you don't consume enough building blocks (protein), and it's impossible to exercise in the first place if you don't consume enough energy (carbs, and long-term, fats). I saw this first-hand when I overslept and stupidly rushed to exercise without eating anything - I passed out, literally.

What does the mind have to do with the facts I listed above? There are a million variations and nuances to the physiology of muscle building and fat loss (and vice-versa), which affects how much you gain/lose, but that doesn't change the fact that the very fundamental fact of it all is energy consumed and energy spent.

That leads to why people gain back weight so quickly after an incorrect dieting attempt (aka starvation). It's purely survival - the body goes into starvation mode, and attempts to store as much as it can when food is available, in the event that there's another episode of scarcity.

It's not that hunger can't be trusted. It's that hunger is designed around how we evolved for millions of years. Hunger is not designed for the modern diet. Case in point: you get full quicker with a salad than with a few cookies, even though the cookies are many times more calorie-dense than salad.

Once you eat as your body was designed to, you will find that hunger will become a much more accurate indicator of your body's needs.

Again, none of this contradicts with what I said. Actually, with that post I took your side - the argument that you don't *need* to exercise to lose weight, which is true.

Quote from: cheeba on September 05, 2011, 04:48:45 PM


As I've said, you can lose weight without exercise. I even agree that diet is much more important to weight loss than exercise. You're just missing out on a huge health factor if you don't exercise. And, in my opinion, there's not much point being skinny if you're not also fit.

I disagree - it's *usually* much better to be skinny and unfit than to be fat and unfit.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 05:10:01 PM by ravenvii » Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2045


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: September 05, 2011, 06:30:16 PM »

Quote from: ravenvii on September 05, 2011, 05:04:02 PM

I disagree - it's *usually* much better to be skinny and unfit than to be fat and unfit.

Yeah, true, I agree. But unfit is still bad smile.
Logged
kathode
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2469



View Profile
« Reply #68 on: September 05, 2011, 08:49:32 PM »

Quote from: Pharaoh on September 03, 2011, 12:26:04 AM

Kath, how hard you rate the recipes in that book? I'm a terrible chef, and my wife isn't much better, but those amazon reviews have my interest peeked. 1-10, what'd you guess to execute properly?

Sorry I missed this.  So far I'm a big fan.  They're all pretty much 8-10 out of 10.  There's only one I made that I didn't really like which was a cold chicken, radish, carrot, and tahini salad.  Just not for me - I am not a radish fan, it turns out.

Everything else I've made so far has been very tasty.  The first recipe in the book is for "protein balls" that you make by combining macadamia nuts, walnuts, dates, and coconut oil, and then rolling that into balls along with blueberries and shredded coconut.  I eat this daily as a portion of breakfast and have to force myself not to eat the entire bowl of "dough" in one sitting.  Other stuff I've made that I really like are an egg and bacon souffle (super easy, nothing like a normal souffle), a "fried rice" dish that uses grated cauliflower instead of rice and tastes great, "primal hot cereal" which is another breakfast using mashed-up nuts, and a sausage, pepper, zucchini, and sauerkraut saute.  Just back from the store and I'm making that last one again tonight actually.

Most of the dishes are very simple although so far they've all taken longer than the times listed in the book.  I am not a pro chef by any means but nothing has been a disaster.  If you have a small food processor, a skillet and a couple pans, and have chopped vegetables before, that's pretty much all the skills you need.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2011, 08:51:23 PM by kathode » Logged
ericb
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1647



View Profile
« Reply #69 on: September 05, 2011, 09:16:25 PM »

I have read the book and agree with most of what's in it.  He does a very good job of illustrating the studies about carbs (some big study results being flat out lies) and goes into the history of high protein/fat + low carb diets dating back to the 1930s.  You can be pro-carb, get up on the soapbox about how carbs saved your life, etc but the simple fact is that there are plenty of long term medical studies proving a high protein low carb diet results in fat + weight loss, lower BP and better cholesterol in the majority of people in this era.

And for the people who haven't read the book...it's not against all carbs, just the processed and high carb ones.  There's plenty of green veggies and other fiber recommended along with the high protein.  And admit it...if french fries, HFCS and potato chips went away tomorrow the whole world would be far better off health wise (and I love them to a fault).  And no, the book doesn't claim it will stop heart attacks, cure cancer, abolish asthma or bring about world peace.  It was actually a very well researched (and documented) journalistic book that talked about the history of low carb in the past 100 years, the more recent results and really didn't even go into a "diet" until the last 10%.  Did you know one of the biggest profile carb studies (that Atkins came out on top of) was done by a well known high profile vegetarian hoping to promote a high carb, no meat diet.

But really...can't we keep the personal attacks (from both sides) to PMs or even skip them altogether.  We could actually talk about the topic and the book?
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #70 on: September 06, 2011, 02:56:06 AM »

Cheeba,

I think you should re-read my OP. I never said I was going to stop exercising - I simply said I'm done with taking the stairs at work as part of a weight loss regime. It's hard on my knees, and while I tend to beat the elevator up (24x4 flights of stairs) it is simply training my body to take the stairs, rather than achieving any weight loss. I still walk my dogs, I still go to the gym as I enjoy weight training (including pliometrics) and I still love cycling to work. Has nothing to do with weight loss though - these are lifestyle choices I'm making based on my desire to do things I like rather than things I do to lose weight.

RavenVII, I'll read your response later and reply - mine may have come off snarky - I was working with 3 hours sleep when I responded this morning.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 02:57:39 AM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #71 on: September 06, 2011, 03:00:39 AM »

Ericb, I totally agree with you. He does talk about the major factor of our health, and draws parallels to health related concerns in cancer, asthma, etc ... because he wants the medical community to start including low-carb in any clinical trials, even as a "control group". But that will take years, and this works.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Misguided
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4850


Semi-acquatic egg-laying mammal of action


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: September 06, 2011, 03:40:40 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 02, 2011, 06:43:42 PM

2) Carbs are fuel.
6) Fat does not make you fat. Fat does, however, have a lot of calories.

You're missing the important part. The way we've been taught since we were kids is so screwed up it isn't funny.

As you said, carbs are fuel. Fats are NOT. Fats are a long-storage medium. Metabolically speaking, fat taken in is not a fuel source because the energy that can be gotten out of it is equal to the energy that must be expended to convert it into a usable form.

If you ate butter, you would starve to death, because your body can not derive any energy from dietary fat. This is scientific fact, not my opinion. So what does it even mean to say that fats are high in calories?

The problem comes in when fats and carbs are taken in at the same time. Let's say you eat a nice plate full of pasta. When your body has taken in enough carbohydrates to replenish short term energy stores, a signal from your body says to convert it to long-term storage, I.e. Fat.

You can get fat with zero fat in your diet, by eating excess carbs. People don't understand this. What is worse is that the energy from those excess carbs can also be used to convert dietary fat into long-term storage form, so eating excess carbs WITH fats is doubly bad.

Research on low-carb dieting goes back to the 60s and is very positive, but there is so much misinformation out there. Yes, your cholesterol will go up, however your ratio of HDLs to LDLs will improve, so assuming that this is a problem is a mistake.

My only problem with low-carb is that I hit a wall I was never able to get past.
Logged

Ruining language with my terrible words.
Misguided
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4850


Semi-acquatic egg-laying mammal of action


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: September 06, 2011, 03:48:02 AM »

Quote from: Crux on September 05, 2011, 12:11:44 PM

Great post Eightball. Carbs are most definitely not in and of themselves evil. I eat carbs every day in the form of vegetables smile It's just the more refined the carbohydrate is, generally speaking that means the more chances the food industry has had to add some form of sugar to it.

All carbs can be broken down into sugars and converted into fats. To me the processed vs non-processed argument is kind of silly, like the HFCS vs cane sugar debate. It's all sugar. It can all be converted into fat. Is one a little better? Maybe, but in the long run it doesn't matter.

The real problem is we (as a society) eat more food than our bodies need. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, I love to eat. This is the beauty of low-carb eating because you can eat stupid amounts of food and still lose weight.
Logged

Ruining language with my terrible words.
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 on: September 06, 2011, 03:58:04 AM »

Misguided, where has it been proven that dietary fat is not energy?

Fat is a fuel that is stored in triglycerides, and is broken down to fatty acids which get used as fuel. That may be oversimplified, however your LPL receptors use fat - this is how muscle "burns" fat. Trick is, you need your body to release them by breaking them down, meaning you need to drop your overinflated insulin levels (which is driven up by the presence of simple carbs).

Your body is maintained overnight by fat stores. The connection of dietary fat <--> obesity has yet to be proven. They used caloric value to draw assumptions, nothing more. This is where the AMA fell down in doing their job.

Otherwise hunter-gatherers who ingested a ton of fat (including non-modernized Inuit tribes who sustain themselves on whale and seal blubber) would be ridiculously fat and die of heart attacks before puberty.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18512


Thirty. Minutes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #75 on: September 06, 2011, 04:05:15 AM »

Quote from: Misguided on September 06, 2011, 03:48:02 AM

Quote from: Crux on September 05, 2011, 12:11:44 PM

Great post Eightball. Carbs are most definitely not in and of themselves evil. I eat carbs every day in the form of vegetables smile It's just the more refined the carbohydrate is, generally speaking that means the more chances the food industry has had to add some form of sugar to it.

All carbs can be broken down into sugars and converted into fats. To me the processed vs non-processed argument is kind of silly, like the HFCS vs cane sugar debate. It's all sugar. It can all be converted into fat. Is one a little better? Maybe, but in the long run it doesn't matter.

The real problem is we (as a society) eat more food than our bodies need. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, I love to eat. This is the beauty of low-carb eating because you can eat stupid amounts of food and still lose weight.

Incorrect. Fibre (fiber for you non-Canadians) is an example of a carb that cannot be broken down by the human body. Furthermore, complex carb strings also do not hit your bloodstream as quickly as a simple carb, which means it doesn't cause a glycemic spike forcing your body to counter it with insulin. I recall an example from a decade ago where a small potato was, to your bloodstream, effectively the same as a 1/4 cup of sugar.

HFCS is your fructose additive that creates a much higher sweetness, but it has its own health risks. Fructose isn't something your body can naturally process (unlike glycose) so instead it is processed in your liver, much like alchohol. This is where they believe fatty liver stems from. Also, it isn't all fructose; only 55% of it is, 42% is glucose and the remainder are other sugars. So you're still getting glycose, but now half of it is being tossed at your liver to convert.

I really think you checking out that book would open up your understanding of how this has nothing to do with your "guilt", your "willpower" or your lifestyle. Obesity isn't a natural thing, and looking at our diet is the most logical thing since it is the most drastic change in our culture.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2011, 04:06:49 AM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Misguided
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4850


Semi-acquatic egg-laying mammal of action


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: September 06, 2011, 05:30:15 AM »

Quote from: Purge on September 06, 2011, 03:58:04 AM

Misguided, where has it been proven that dietary fat is not energy?

Any Biochemistry text. Dietary fat is not an energy source. Again, the amount of ATP required to convert it into a usable form is equal to the amount gained back by burning it. There is zero net gain in energy.
Logged

Ruining language with my terrible words.
Ironrod
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3306



View Profile WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 06, 2011, 05:36:25 AM »

Quote from: Purge on September 06, 2011, 03:58:04 AM

Your body is maintained overnight by fat stores.

The potential to sleep yourself thin is sadly underreported.
Logged

Curio City Online - Weird stuff you can buy
Curious Business - The Curio City Blog
Misguided
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4850


Semi-acquatic egg-laying mammal of action


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: September 06, 2011, 06:13:06 AM »

Fine fine. I amend the previous statement to any digestible carbohydrate. Fiber shouldn't even be listed as a carb on food products.
Logged

Ruining language with my terrible words.
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1536



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: September 06, 2011, 12:25:14 PM »

Quote from: Misguided on September 06, 2011, 03:48:02 AM

Quote from: Crux on September 05, 2011, 12:11:44 PM

Great post Eightball. Carbs are most definitely not in and of themselves evil. I eat carbs every day in the form of vegetables smile It's just the more refined the carbohydrate is, generally speaking that means the more chances the food industry has had to add some form of sugar to it.

All carbs can be broken down into sugars and converted into fats. To me the processed vs non-processed argument is kind of silly, like the HFCS vs cane sugar debate. It's all sugar. It can all be converted into fat. Is one a little better? Maybe, but in the long run it doesn't matter.

The real problem is we (as a society) eat more food than our bodies need. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, I love to eat. This is the beauty of low-carb eating because you can eat stupid amounts of food and still lose weight.

It isn't silly at all, Misguided. People eat because they are hungry. Generally speaking, absent psychological problems that cause overeating, they stop when they either are no longer hungry or when they feel full. Processed carbs are absurdly more calorie dense than unprocessed carbs. Like I said, every layer of processing gives the food industry another opportunity to add sugar and salt. And they never pass up an opportunity (after all they have to put all that corn somewhere). If you eat unprocessed carbs you can eat until you feel full while intaking significantly fewer calories. That's a win.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.267 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.1s, 2q)