eff this dieting crap!
09 Jan 2011, 9:50 pm
Please actually read my posts.
The fact of the matter is, that if you eat a balanced diet of fats, carbs, and proteins, you will eat fewer calories because you'll be hungry less. If it's unbalanced, on the other hand, you'll consume more. It doesn't matter if you're getting a lot of carbs, a lot of protein, or a lot of protein and carbs. If you're eating too little of any single one of those, you're going to put more calories in.
So. Here's how to GET FEWER CALORIES IN: If you're on a 2800 calorie diet and getting 17-20 grams of fat (180 calories coming from fat) and a lot of carbs: REPLACE SOME CARB CALORIES WITH FAT CALORIES. This is the FOURTH time I've said that, and you insist on using red herring fallacies. I didn't tell him to just tack on 400 calories worth of fat. I told him that he needs to get what his body needs. It needs fewer carbs and more fats. I figure that somewhere around 1/4-1/6th of calories should come from fat (it's best to go for 1/5th-1/6th). He's getting about 1/17th. The rest would depend on whether you work out and what kind of workouts.
As I've been saying, but perhaps more specific here: Allocate somewhere between 470-560 calories for fat (52-62 grams, try not to go over 66 grams, or 600 calories). The rest of the 2240-2330 should come from carbs and proteins. Remember to balance these out. Don't go for 2000 calories worth of carbs and 240 calories of protein. I think going for (Edit: 1000 carb calories and 600 protein calories would probably be better) and 500 for fat (55 grams) should allow you to do well and the rest (700 calories) can be distributed as your body needs it. Learn to feel when your body needs protein, carbs, or fats. Also: If you don't exercise much, don't consume many carbs before bedtime. This is VERY important. Loading up on carbs before going to sleep is what sumo wrestlers do to pack on extra weight.
Edit: Also, your doctor won't know enough about nutrition to speak knowledgeably about the subject. He might be able to refer you to someone that can, but advice that he gives isn't that much better than advice you get from people here.
_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.
Last edited by MrLoony on 14 Jan 2011, 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
09 Jan 2011, 11:17 pm
honey, I read what you wrote. I just don't necessarily agree with it all. Especially the idea that you know as much as, or more than, a doctor about nutrition.
edit:
what I mean is that a lot of people are going to look at the command, 'eat more fat,' and not see the subscript, 'in moderation.' In addition, there are a lot of people who have physiologial reactions akin to addiction to fat and sugar, and eating fat just to eat a certain amount of fat is intrinsically immoderate for their physiologies; based on his previous statemetns, I suspect that Jedi is like me in falling into that category.
09 Jan 2011, 11:56 pm
I have said, many times, that it needs to be balanced. If you read what Jedi posted, you'd realize that none of the stuff he's been eating lately has had much fat in it. He's been craving it because his body needs it, not because he's addicted to it. You obviously didn't read what I wrote, since you're still claiming that I told him to load up on fat. You, on the other hand, told him to keep cutting it out. He needs more fat, not less.
As far as doctors? Read the fourth paragraph.
Asking a cardiologist about a neurological problem or a urologist about an endocrine problem isn't going to help you. Doctors have specialties because, while they have some knowledge of other specialties, they do NOT have enough to consider them as experts. When you go to a random doctor to get dietary advice, they can usually refer you to someone that can help out, but random doctors aren't going to be able to advise you much better than people here are.
I will say it again: The body needs fats, protein, and carbs. I never said otherwise, and if you knew enough about the body to advise someone about nutrition, you'd look at the things he's eating and realize he's not eating enough fat. Instead, you told him to eat less. Bad advice is MUCH worse than no advice. STOP giving bad advice based on "common knowledge" or your own experiences.
Edit: I'm really sick of arguing this, so I will just say this: Jedi, and those reading this thread looking for similar advice: Make sure you balance your intake of carbs, proteins, and fats. You may find that a lot of your issues stem from an imbalance in that area. Effective weight loss does NOT come from just cutting out fat. Consider the calories you consume that come from fat, protein, and carbs as well as if/how you exercise. Exercises that tear the muscles a lot require a diet that focuses more on protein than other diets.
Edit2: LKL, stop arguing just to win. This is peoples' health we're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about, so shut up. Seriously. That's all you have to do to be helpful: Don't say anything.
_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.
10 Jan 2011, 2:31 am
I thought the switch to no calorie soda alone would have been enough.
I'm still at 297.
I've been eating the same stuff as my wife who's lost 130 lbs!
No more. So long as they keep my BP in check, I should be fine. Next time we go shopping, I'm getting full fat PORK bacon and a Ben and Jerry's AND two frozen pizzas!
Oh, and the quack of my doctor says my thyroid is fine.
Are you eating food that says 100% whole wheat? Anything that says it's whole wheat but doesn't say 100% isn't really what you think it is and the company is just trying to trick you. They also use some color in the food to make it look whole wheat.
Also diet soda still isn't good for you. It may be zero calories but it's still not good for you.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.
10 Jan 2011, 2:43 am
the fact that a GP might not have more knowledge than a dietician does not mean that a GP isn't likely to have more knowledge than the average Loony on an Asperger's forum. From your own citation, quote:
Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
I said that Jedi should have a LPP done and consult his physician, and that he should trust his physician more than you (or me). Not that his GP is infalliable or immune to criticism.
We are arguing in the context of a discussion that had veered towards advocating the Atkins diet, which cuts out all fruits, grains, and legumes if done as Atkins advocated, and allowed for the consumption of huge amounts of fat. High-fat, low-carbohydrate diets are associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality when compared to more balanced diets, unless the fat is from vegetable rather than animal sources (note that I allowed that 17 g of fat would not be enough, but commented that nuts would be a better source than pork bacon, which you advocated).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20826627
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20820038
Low carbohydrate diets are associated with some decreases in vasuclar endothelial function:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20141567
Your claim was that consumption of fat makes one less hungry; I posted links earlier (which you apparently did not read) that show that some people can become acclimated to fat consumption within a few days of eating a high-fat diet and stop responding to leptin. If fat always made one less hungry, then Jedi woudln't be having a problem in the first place. If the body instinctively balances its own diet, then Jedi would not be craving nothing but fat. in fact, Jedi is in the same position that most overweight and obese people are in: our species evolved in famine conditions, and our bodies reward us when we consume high-energy foods like sugar and fat even though we are now in the opposite of famine conditions. Jedi's initial post said that he had tried to go off of a high-fat diet, but was not seeing the results he wished and so was going back onto it. His subsequent posts did not say, 'I am going back to a low fat diet.' They said, 'I want lots of fat,' and 'what do you think about this day's menu?' Not
'This is what I ate today.'
You also warned about unspecified 'health problems' that can result from 'not enough fat,' without specifying that health problems from lack of fat are statistically almost nonexistant in the U.S, generally occurr in very thin, very active people, or those with eating disorders with pretty much NO fat in their diet, or a problem for pregnant and lactating women. You used, in other words, a scare tactic with problems that DO NOT apply to Jedi.
You did all of this without providing citations to back yourself up, except for one out-of-context wikipedia article used to claim that I was arguing from authority when I suggested that Jedi consult his doctor instead of you, whose expertise seems to hinge on the fact that you "seem" to have lost a little weight.
I lost 55lbs last year.
I did it without stressing, and without feeling hungry, and without loading on meat and fat.
Also, telling your opponent to 'quite arguing to win' and to 'stop being selfish' by arguing?
Firstly, there were several things that I flat-out agreed with you on.
I agreed that fruit juices are bad news.
I agreed that 17g of fat probably isn't enough for him.
Frankly disingenuous. You're a little bit like a politician telling another politician to stop 'playing politics.' So, Mr.Loony: stop arguing just to win. This is peoples' health we're talking about. You don't know what you're talking about, so shut up. Seriously. That's all you have to do to be helpful: Don't say anything.
edited for spelling.
10 Jan 2011, 5:06 pm
I'll definitely agree with this. Its significantly better to eat an orange than to drink orange juice, because you're getting the fiber from the orange that helps offset and slow down the fructose you're eating. Even with a full pulp OJ, you're missing a great deal of fiber.
You're getting saturated fats and proteins in those things you list. There are small amounts of saturated fat in a number of vegetables too, notably avocados (yum!). You don't have to slaughter a cow to get these things, but you DO need them in sufficient quantities on a vegetarian diet or else you will feel awful and could potentially die.
True, dietary cholesterol has little bearing on total cholesterol levels in your blood (there is some effect, but it's miniscule). Your liver produces what you need, mostly while you sleep (which is why eating a lot of fat before bedtime isn't a great idea, a leaner meal is a better idea).
It's generally a good idea to get blood levels checked and re-checked so you can see progress. I'm not sure where I started years ago, but I know that after getting way down in weight and going back to a regular diet, my levels were still very good.
Hard to say what this proves, but I'd wander a guess that he didn't get enough veggies (many don't) and/or was gorging himself on bad meats (you DO have to watch out for processed meats cured in sugar and nitrates like sausage and bacon, which can still mess you up if eaten in excess). Eating nothing but meat is a horrifically bad idea, and it is NOT THE ATKINS DIET! You MUST eat a great deal of vegetables (notably leafy salad greens) every day. Also, you MUST cut out margarine and foods with trans fats in them too.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 135 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 61 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
10 Jan 2011, 5:27 pm
This isn't true, and the theory has been crumbling since it was first stated over a hundred years ago, at least in regard to food consumption. The human body isn't an oven that burns food to an ashy crisp like a calorimeter does.
from http://www.heart1.com/news/mainstory_pf ... rticle=155
Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.
"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."
Actually, no it doesn't, as I noted - we aren't ovens. There are many biological and hormonal processes going on when we eat, and these processes are what determine what happens with the vitamins and minerals we extract from our food. Back to the laws of thermodynamics, what's typically stated is the First Law, but generally without consideration of the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
from http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9
[..]
CONCLUSIONS: A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true "miraculous metabolic effect" – but it is subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle.
The analysis above might be said to be over-kill although it is important, intellectually, not to invoke the laws of thermodynamics inappropriately. There are also, however, practical consequences. The seriousness of the obesity epidemic suggests that we attack it with all the means at our disposal. Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature. It does not always occur but the important point is that it can occur. To ignore its possibilities and to not investigate the precise conditions under which it appears would be cutting ourselves off from potential benefit. The extent to which metabolic advantage will have significant impact in treating obesity is unknown and it is widely said in studies of low carbohydrate diets that "more work needs to be done."However, if the misconception is perpetuated that there is a violation of physical laws, that work will not be done, and if done, will go unpublished due to editorial resistance. Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 135 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 61 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
10 Jan 2011, 8:51 pm
I don't think that's where this was headed, but what you posted is flat out wrong. The first phase is indeed very restrictive (and typically only lasts 2 weeks), but the second and third phases gradually add back in more and more foods, notably fruits, starchy veggies, nuts/legumes, etc.
It is the middle two phases where you find out what carbs effect your weight loss and trigger cravings - not all carbs effect everyone the same, so the diet is tailored to your specific needs, and not an "all meat all the time" diet. Once you know what your level of carb tolerance is, you can continue staying within that range for the rest of your life, without gaining weight. If you sampled any of the range of Phase 4 meals that one could make, you wouldn't even know they were made for an Atkins diet.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 135 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 61 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
10 Jan 2011, 9:14 pm
LKL:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fat+deficiency
As far as not providing any citations? Again, if you read my posts, you'd notice that I posted a link to a video about pretty much everything I've been talking about. On the other hand, you keep insisting that I'm arguing for him to eat a high fat diet. If you had glanced at my suggestion for calorie consumption or clicked the link to the video, or, y'know, noticed that I said balance of fats, carbs, and proteins, you'd notice that I never suggested anything of the kind.
_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.
MasterJedi
Veteran
Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,160
Location: in an open field west of a white house
11 Jan 2011, 12:25 am
I wish I could adopt the "my body is a temple" attitude and mentality where nothing processed or artificial enters my body.
_________________
That is my spot, in an ever changing world, it is a single point of consistency. If my life were expressed as a function on a four dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, that spot, from the moment I first sat on it, would be 0-0-0-0.
11 Jan 2011, 2:53 am
I was basing my statement from a quote by Atkins himself, but you may be right that it was supposed to be specific to the first 2 weeks only. You may also be right about my co-worker: he definitely was eating lots of processed meats, and if the Atkins diet disallows that then kudos to it.
edit: based on your descriptions I'm beginning to believe that I have been in error about what the 'Atkins diet' is.
off the Atkins topic, here's another good source for discussions about obesity and health:
http://blogs.plos.org/obesitypanacea/
Last edited by LKL on 11 Jan 2011, 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
11 Jan 2011, 4:53 am
Funny, I was thinking that it's your responsibility to actually know what you're talking about before you give people seriously bad health advice. If you don't, either shut up or do the research. You're willing to do neither. If I was arguing this with someone who knew what they were talking about, I wouldn't need to be citing because it would be clear what I was referencing. Since you don't, I'm having to do things like this:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=food+craving+deficiency
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fatty+acid+deficiency+hunger
Further, it's been proven - many times - that you don't know what you're talking about. So, instead of arguing, you could actually, y'know, do the research.
_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.
12 Jan 2011, 3:25 am
If you had any citations to back up your claims - note that google searches are not citations, merely potential sources of citations - then maybe you would have a point. Note also that repeating over and over that the person you are arguing with is wrong, doesn't know what they're talking about, etc. does not actually show them to be wrong and does nothing to support your point.
12 Jan 2011, 3:55 am
LKL, you told a person that was not consuming anywhere near the fat they needed to eat less fat. You clearly have no place giving advice. You seem confused about this argument.
This. Is. Not. About. You.
This is about the fact that someone reading this might actually take your advice. Advice that can kill them. You have no qualifications or knowledge. Your advice is more dangerous than none at all.
I couldn't care less about convincing you or not. Feel free to go ahead and cut out as much fat as you want. Your health issues due to your stubborness are your own. If you want to educate yourself, feel free. I've provided links, since you apparently have no understanding of Google. In fact, here's another one:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... a=N&tab=ws
Took two clicks. Not that difficult.
I've shown quite clearly, on every point, that not only do you not know, but you don't WANT to know. As such, my work here is done.
_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.
12 Jan 2011, 4:57 pm
This. Is. Not. About. You.
And yet you keep on harping on your disagreements with me.
Lack of fat is extremely unlikely to kill someone who weighs 297 lbs, whatever their height. Serious problems from lack of fat generally affect anorexics, vegans, and over-obsessed athletes, not general dieters or the clinically obese.
internal fat regulation and obesity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21041808
In addition, you have failed to distinguish between types of fat - not only between saturated and unsaturated fats, but between Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids. All fats are not equal. Saturated fats from animal sources (ie, bacon) are about the worst type you can eat. Fats from fish and unsaturated vegetable sources are good for you. You, unfortunately, lump them all together and advocate eating more bacon.
I have a BSc in general biology, with focuses on evolutionary biology and biochemistry/microbiology. I have had formal coursework in nutrition and weight loss. I have worked in a clinical laboratory in a hospital for 11 years. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I don't know what I"m talking about.
What are your qualifications? Besides, that is, that you "seem" to have lost some weight and that you watch youtube videos.
Once again, a google search is not a citation. It is a possible source of citations. Furthermore, your google search is not even on a subject that bolsters your claim that there are 'serious consequences' to lack of fat in the diet (note that 'cravings' are not medically serious consequences) that could even "kill" Jedi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_state
quote:
Serious (Yellow)
Vital signs may be unstable and not within normal limits. Patient is acutely ill. Indicators are questionable.
The first link on your page, for example, is about pica - a condition usually thought to be related to lack of calcium or iron (neither of which is fat soluble), or with dietary toxins. Pica, since you probably don't know, is the craving of ice, chalk, clay, or some other substance not usually considered to be 'food.'
All you've shown is your own blind stubbornness and inability to find data to back your claims.
For the record, the common truly serious consequences that result from lack of fat in the diet include lack of vitamins D and K, both of which can be taken as supplements.
Here is one REAL examples of fat or fatty acid defficiency. Note that it doesn't apply to Jedi.
http://www.merckmanuals.com/professiona ... h002d.html
more on the need for a lipid work-up before starting a high saturated fat/high cholesterol diet:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21076725
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 1203372102
