| Poster and Date |
Post |
jefgodesky
Sun Jun 6th, 2004 at 01:04 AM |
I just posted a blog entry that includes my review of Supersize Me. Some parts of particular interest:
Last night, I started writing the Anthropik Manifesto; I was quite proud of myself for my analogy of civilization to a disease, and how nature would lead us to expect a single problem with many symptoms. It is the same principle that has allowed medicine to make such strides; applied to societies, it helps us to diagnose the root of all our ills with agriculture. And yet, for all that wonderful insight, I never applied that idea to myself. Until now. (Most of the entry excerpted) Quinn痴 work highlighted the essential connection between food production and society for me, and so I made a study of food production and the anthropology of food. So my knowledge of nutrition is generally much better than average; I know how to do it. I just lacked the proper motivation. Until now. The last piece has clicked into place, and I now see that everything I dislike in my life comes down to just one problem: my weight. So I知 going to do something about that. I started tonight, cold turkey. The next week will be a caffeine and carbohydrate detox as I start a regular exercise regimen. The biggest hurdle will be commitment, of course. Which is why I知 posting it here. Not only to record my inevitable success story for posterity, and not just because I figure it値l make a good read (though, I think it just might). I am most committed to those things where I perceive there to be an audience depending on me to pull through, expecting to see me do it. That has always been my best motivation, and so I知 putting it to use here. By laying bare my biggest, darkest problems publicly before the entire Web to mock and shame, I知 providing myself the best motivation I致e ever had: not letting down all my fans.
So there you have it; I'm posting it here to spread my shame around a little more, and weight the consequences a little more heavily around me. I'm going to need to keep myself motivated, and I know not disappointing all of you will be all the motivation I need.
All I really need to do to make sure it works is tell you all about. :wink: |
lakelia
Sun Jun 6th, 2004 at 08:15 PM |
All right, I'm officially counting on you. Don't let me down. ;) |
Bongcart
Sun Jun 6th, 2004 at 09:26 PM |
Hey, I just thought Id come in and give you some mock and shame ! Haha, no as a matter of fact, I have a similar problem, just that Im a skinny little fella with a dry chin and chicken neck! So, Im gonna join the spirit and go to the gym! |
phusion
Mon Jun 7th, 2004 at 11:54 AM |
Good luck, Jason! I'll be keeping an eye on your progress... :twisted: |
Moni
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 12:29 PM |
I wish you luck as well, Jason. Your review of 'Super-size Me' makes it sound very interesting. I have been anticipating seeing this movie for a while now, although it hasn't come to my town yet. I didn't realize that the movie covered Morgan's psychological aftermath as well as his physiological symptoms. I'm really interested in hearing more about the depression and addictive aspects of the experience. |
jefgodesky
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 12:39 PM |
Wasn't an aftermath, it was during: he would feel depressed, and then he would eat, and he would feel better. Classic addictive behavior.
When you eat carbohydrates, tryptophan is released into your blood stream. Tryptophan is a seditive, and quite possibly addictive. So, by the wonders of Pavlovian conditioning, carbohydrates are addictive.
To let y'all know, I'm now on day 4 and carb/caffeine free. Day 2 was the roughest for me, but I'm through the worst of it now and on the fast track. I'll be posting more about the past four days, with some of the research I've done, as well as some ruminations on the social implications thereof, in my blog in about 7 hours. :lol: |
phusion
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 12:53 PM |
Jason,
You are a brave man for going caffeine-free. If it was the sugar content of sodas you were worried about, I would have switched to black coffee. But that's just me and my addiction speaking.:) |
jefgodesky
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 01:21 PM |
Hey, if you're going to detox on one addiction, why not two for just double the price? :lol: |
Moni
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 04:55 PM |
I think black coffee has more caffeine than soda. After I drink one cup of coffee, I feel I have drunk the equivalent to 5 cans of soda. However, I think I have a pretty low caffeine tolerance. One time I had a latte that kept me up for 2 days! 8O |
jefgodesky
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 08:06 PM |
Most people don't know this, but in sufficient quantities, caffeine causes hallucinations. |
Moni
Wed Jun 9th, 2004 at 08:13 PM |
Most people don't know this, but in sufficient quantities, caffeine causes hallucinations. AAAAAAnd it's legal!!! :idea: |
ice-nine
Thu Jun 10th, 2004 at 12:54 AM |
Most people don't know this, but in sufficient quantities, caffeine causes hallucinations. Wowzers! What "sufficient quantities" would those be, exactly? :wink:
:lol: |
Moni
Fri Jun 11th, 2004 at 11:42 AM |
Caffeine intoxication is an Axis I disorder in the DSM-IV. In regards to how much it would take to make you hallucinate, it probably depends on many factors, such as your tolerance level, body mass, lifestyle, etc. |
ice-nine
Fri Jun 11th, 2004 at 08:31 PM |
This explains so much... I was listening to this bizarre They Might Be Giants song, "Hovering Sombrero," (lyrics here) and I thought to myself, "Now this HAS to have something to do with drugs." But my friend Meagan assured me that TMBG didn't do drugs. But they ARE addicted to coffee. So now I'm thinking: caffiene hallucination. It's the only explanation, really. |
odb_fan_1
Mon Jun 14th, 2004 at 01:30 AM |
man in a preview for this flick i could've swore i saw john "mf" robbins. i hope they dont clown him. |
odb_fan_1
Mon Jun 14th, 2004 at 01:35 AM |
I started tonight, cold turkey. The next week will be a caffeine and carbohydrate detox as I start a regular exercise regimen.
get healthy 'n all, but i'm not sure the anti-carbohydrate-philosophy is the way to go. good luck with quitting caffeine cold-turkey. (holy SHIIIIIT that'll be tough.)
i have an addiction to caffeinated sodas. i get migraines to the maxxx without it. i get so bad (ie: nauseous) i can vomit. i'm trying to ween off. cold-turkey is NOT the way for me. |
Ghost
Mon Jun 14th, 2004 at 10:31 PM |
I saw Supersize Me.
It was nauseating.
McDonald's, not the movie.
I haven't eaten McDonalds in five years. I've been a vegan for 1.5 - 2 years. I'm now making the switch to Raw Food Veganism.
Jusst thought I'd share. There's tons of food to eat other than crap.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
odb_fan_1
Wed Jun 30th, 2004 at 12:13 AM |
"One rarely falls into a single error. Falling into the first one, one always does too much. So one usually perpetrates another one--and now one does too little."
Nietzsche
And Jason, eating no carbohydrates is going to take you to Ketosis Central.
on edit: mcdonalds has one semi-semi-saving grace, and it is their sweet and sour sauce. if i could get a lifetime supply i would be a nicer person. |
Ghost
Wed Jun 30th, 2004 at 09:34 AM |
on edit: mcdonalds has one semi-semi-saving grace, and it is their sweet and sour sauce. if i could get a lifetime supply i would be a nicer person.
8O
I need a bagijizillion CCs of McFaeces sweet and sour sauce STAT!
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
Moni
Fri Jul 9th, 2004 at 10:05 PM |
Supersize Me FINALLY just opened in Fargo today, and I FINALLY was just able to see it. The movie made me feel so gross, and I don't even eat fast-food! Even so. . . it makes you want to eat better overall. Thinking of all the sugar, fat, calories, and preservatives that businesses pump into most so-called "snack foods," it just scares me. And how we've all been targeted in their marketing starting from a very young age, so that we fall in love with the food and become addicted to it before we even realize what it does to us. Not just fast-foods and junk foods targeting kids. . . but cereals. Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, Count Chocula, Cookie Crisp? Packed with sugar and aimed at young kids. |
jadjad
Sat Jul 10th, 2004 at 01:33 AM |
How have mcdonalds reacted tot he movie over in the USA and Canada? Here in Australia they have made an add campaign on tv about it, and they have posters up in each of their stores disputing some claims they say the movie makes, a lot of hype about nothing i reckon! Cant wait to see movie tho! |
odb_fan_1
Sun Jul 11th, 2004 at 04:41 AM |
oh god i miss count chocula and boo-berry. god damned gelatin.
how could you do that to me Count? |
Moni
Mon Jul 12th, 2004 at 01:21 AM |
What the Count forgot to tell you, is that he developed colon cancer from years and years of eating sugar-coated chocolate crap (with marshmellows). |
arkface
Mon Jul 12th, 2004 at 03:09 AM |
What the Count forgot to tell you, is that he developed colon cancer from years and years of eating sugar-coated chocolate crap (with marshmellows).
you've ruined the fun. |
odb_fan_1
Mon Jul 12th, 2004 at 02:43 PM |
actually i doubt the sugar would give you colon cancer. the milk and steak you put on top of it would though. |
anfro
Mon Jul 12th, 2004 at 02:53 PM |
This explains so much... I was listening to this bizarre They Might Be Giants song, "Hovering Sombrero," (lyrics here) and I thought to myself, "Now this HAS to have something to do with drugs." But my friend Meagan assured me that TMBG didn't do drugs. But they ARE addicted to coffee. So now I'm thinking: caffiene hallucination. It's the only explanation, really.
I listen to "They Might Be Giants" (Flood) too!
They do have some weird lyrics |
jadjad
Mon Jul 12th, 2004 at 09:07 PM |
actually the sugar couldve been a culprit... The glycemic load of a food has now been linked to colon cancer... Glycemic load = carb content per serve multiplied by its glycemic index.. Any high sugar foods have a high glycemic load.. |
odb_fan_1
Tue Jul 13th, 2004 at 12:20 AM |
has now been linked? how many time has this been clinically tested? |
jadjad
Wed Jul 14th, 2004 at 10:54 PM |
Glycemic load and glycemic index are relatively new concepts in the nutritional world, in so far as to their role in disease. A clinical study into the role of GL on colon cancer would be unethical, therefore only certain research design types are suitable for examining the links between Gi, GL and disease. A few of these studies are hinting at a link. Notice i didnt mention a cause of colon cancer. here are some links if you are interested... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12828192
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12050095
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11300319
More studies can be found doing a search on www.pubmed.org A few of them accounted for variables such as BMI, weight, smoking, alcohol, fat and fibre intake to make sure these werent influencing the link.. But your right it is just a link, not a cause. The causes of cancer are multifactorial. |
odb_fan_1
Thu Jul 15th, 2004 at 02:33 PM |
sick, thanks. i've read john robbins "diet for a new america" and "food revolution" now, and neither one of those has talked about glycemic index. i talked to some jerko dietician once and she acted like glycemic index was everything. |
jadjad
Fri Jul 16th, 2004 at 07:36 AM |
There are so many shit dieticians out there! I havent read diet for a new america, just flipped through the pages, from what i remmeber some of the info seemed a bit dated, but many good points. Glycemic index certainly isnt everything. I work ina health food store and the other sereved a very obese, near death, diabetic man, who told me he could eat as much white sugar as he pleased because it had a low glycemic index. Ive also had arguments with old men with heart disease who thinkt hey can eat as much margarine as they like because it has a heart foundation tick of approval on it. There are so many gimics out there people get carried away with..anyway im straying way off topic.. :-) |
Nene
Fri Jul 16th, 2004 at 08:34 AM |
Hey --
The Feb 2004 Discover Magazine had an article that I have really been touting. A Harvard MD named Willett spent the last 25 years doing a nutrician study involving 500,000. What he has come up with seems to be a moderate balanced view relative to all the diet crazes out there.
He introduced the term 'Glycemic Load' to express not only the amount of sugar entering the bloodstream -- but the amount of sugar released relative to the amount of food overall. Just an example... parsnips have a GI of 97 -- sounds bad. But they only have a GL of 12 (<10 Low, 11-19 Med 20+ High).
He also created his own food pyramid including a bottom row of exercise, Whole grains and plant oils at most meals, Vegetables, 'in abundance', Fruit 2-3/day, Nuts & Legumes 1-3/day, Fish, Poultry, Eggs, 0-2/day, Dairy or Calcium supp 1-2 Day, and then red meat, butter, white rice, pasta, potatoes, white bread, sweets all listed as 'use sparingly.'
The whole thing just seems to be a very reasonable application of what we know as opposed to the (oh so common) 'one factor' diet fads.
Janene |
odb_fan_1
Mon Jul 26th, 2004 at 01:54 AM |
He introduced the term 'Glycemic Load' to express not only the amount of sugar entering the bloodstream -- but the amount of sugar released relative to the amount of food overall. Just an example... parsnips have a GI of 97 -- sounds bad. But they only have a GL of 12 (<10 Low, 11-19 Med 20+ High).
you rule.
He also created his own food pyramid including a bottom row of exercise, Whole grains and plant oils at most meals, Vegetables, 'in abundance', Fruit 2-3/day, Nuts & Legumes 1-3/day, Fish, Poultry, Eggs, 0-2/day, Dairy or Calcium supp 1-2 Day, and then red meat, butter, white rice, pasta, potatoes, white bread, sweets all listed as 'use sparingly.'
sounds similar to the food pyramid revision i've heard. of course meat was completely off of it. and if you factor in toxicity, we should probably take fish off this one too....
The whole thing just seems to be a very reasonable application of what we know as opposed to the (oh so common) 'one factor' diet fads.
yeah i agree. of course sensibility doesn't sell. the masses want their fucking bread and circus. except now it's low-carb wraps and reality tv.
on a more thread-oriented note:
i finally saw SUPERSIZE ME. it was pretty excellent. it's definitely putting the fear of diabetes in me. i drink soooooooooooooo much pop... :?
i loved that they put in john robbins. i'd like to find more about mr. 9000 big macs. i wish that guy wouldn't have clowned his vegan girlfriend.
it was sort of like a movie adaptation of Fast-Food Nation |
phusion
Thu Aug 19th, 2004 at 04:48 PM |
OK, Jason, as promised I ask: how's the diet coming? 8) 8) |
Corrina
Thu Aug 19th, 2004 at 06:06 PM |
Yea, Jay, how's it going? |
jefgodesky
Mon Sep 6th, 2004 at 09:02 PM |
And Jason, eating no carbohydrates is going to take you to Ketosis Central.
That's the idea. Ketosis isn't any sort of life-threatening condition; you enter it every night when you sleep. Ketoacidosis (sp?) is a serious matter; but that's a different thing from ketosis.
A no-carb diet is not sustainable. It's a weight loss regimen, so it's inherently unsustainable. :lol:
actually i doubt the sugar would give you colon cancer. the milk and steak you put on top of it would though.
No, steak gives you cholesterol, not cancer. There's a difference. :lol:
Seriously, though, a no-carb diet sustained for years will run you into the ground and turn your blood into toxic goop. But it will also make you very thin. I was quite overweight, and had good blood, so I could afford to run up my cholesterol a bit to lose some weight. That's what I did.
More studies can be found doing a search on www.pubmed.org
Excellent resource, but better is ClusterMed. :lol:
sounds similar to the food pyramid revision i've heard. of course meat was completely off of it. and if you factor in toxicity, we should probably take fish off this one too....
Granted, my ideas about nutrition are based on human evolution, but this seems like total bullshit to me. Of course grains are bad for you; the only time that humanoids ate grains was Australopithecus robustus, and they're not even related to us. But fish and meat? That's, on average, 50%-75% of the forager diet by weight. 60 year old !Kung men have ripped muscles all over; and it's not as if their lifestyle is so amazingly more active, either. Foraging generally consists of walking two hours a day. So, this seems like the same kind of bullshit Hobbes came up with: that is, a great idea, one that works really well as a theory, but is totally blown to hell and back by the evidence.
Yea, Jay, how's it going?
As you saw earleir today (I missed this thread, sorry), I've lost 30 pounds. And since I'm walking everywhere now, I'm pretty much off the diet. Still less carbs than before, but I'm no longer racking up quite the cholesterol I once was. |
Ghost
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 11:50 AM |
Hey, Jason.
30 pounds eh? Pretty impressive. It's hard to debate such results. I just want to point out some pitfalls, not necessarily for you, but for anyone reading this thread.
The Atkins diet is bunk. Check this out: http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/09/03/diets040903.html
No, steak gives you cholesterol, not cancer. There's a difference.
It totally gives you cholesterol, but there are studies (primarily from vegetarian, vegan and raw food researchers) that point to the possibility that red meat can be carcinogenic. No studies to point to, just pointing out that it's possible.
Seriously, though, a no-carb diet sustained for years will run you into the ground and turn your blood into toxic goop. But it will also make you very thin. I was quite overweight, and had good blood, so I could afford to run up my cholesterol a bit to lose some weight. That's what I did.
Herein lies the biggest pitfall to low carb diets.
Metabolism. It is the single most important body function in regards to weight loss. It is your body's ability to process and burn calories. The higher your metabolism, the more efficiently your body can turn calories into energy by burning it as fuel. Weight loss is a simple mathematical equation. 1 pound of fat = 3 500 calories. Burn 3 500 calories more than you take in, say over the course of 1-2 weeks, and you lose a pound of fat. That simple.
So if you manipulate your calorie intake, you can create weight loss. This is the idea behind starvation diets. The problem being that your body needs food to function and starving yourself usually leads to deficiencies and various systems begin to malfunction and or break down.
So eating properly isn't about not eating enough, but eating well. Ie, don't eat McDonald's every day because it's a lot of calories for not much nutritional value. Whole foods are best because it's hard to hide calories in them and they usually retain their full nutritional value.
I'll get to low carb in a round about way.
Your body's metabolism is determined by 2 factors: -Genetics -Muscle Mass
Your metabolic rate is determined genetically. Skinny people are born with very high metabolisms while morbidly obese people are born with very low metabolisms. This is not something that can be helped. THERE IS NO WAY TO CHANGE THIS. Some people can burn calories easier than others. There is no one right way to store fat.
My brother and I look alike, we are the same height, same hair, same eye colour, but we're slowly balding is different places and he's 150lbs and I'm 240lbs.
The way that you CAN manipulate your metabolic rate is to increase or decrease your muscle mass. Your mucsles are like your car's engine. It is where fuel is burned and power is generated. Your skeletal muscular sysem has no real purpose outside of moving joints and causing movement. Like a car, the bigger the engine, the more fuel is burnt. Unlike a car, muscle mass is living tissue and must contantly be replenished. The more muscle, the more calories required to replenish it.
Simple equation: -More muscle mass = higher metabolism -Less muscle mass = lower metabolism
So what's the point?
When one is on a low carb diet, a starvation diet or most diets for that matter, one is typically losing muscle mass as they lose fat weight. This is typically a result of ketosis, as Jason pointed out, not the same as the life threatening ketoacidosis, but a condition with it's own problems.
From: http://www.dietitian.com/faddiet.html
In diets that contain fewer than 900 calories, all food eaten including protein and fat is broken down into glucose to provide fuel for the body. Protein and fat are very expensive fuels for your body. You can only convert 70 percent of the protein and 30 percent of the fat you eat to glucose. The nitrogen from the protein is excreted in the urine. This leaves no protein for repair or maintenance of muscles and organs. Also, in diets containing fewer than 130 grams of carbohydrates, ketosis occurs and your body starts breaking down muscle and lean tissue to provide glucose for brain and nerve fuel. Your body's first need is for fuel. Your body's use of dietary fuels cannot be changed drastically by altering your diet.
Your body can and does take stored fat (as triglycerides) and incompletely breaks it down into ketones, which can be used as a fuel source for muscles and organs. To completely breakdown body fat, you need glucose and oxygen. If glucose is not available for fuel by your limiting dietary carbohydrates, your body learns to run on ketones, but your brain doesn't. Your brain gets sluggish because it only runs on glucose. Your body starts breaking down muscle and organ tissue to provide the needed glucose for brain tissue. Protein contains glucose in its structure and it can be scavenged for use by the brain and nerves. Quick weight loss diets claim they spare muscle protein, but they don't. A diet high in protein and low in carbohydrates does not spare muscle protein from being broken down, unless you eat enough carbohydrate. As you continue on a high protein, low carbohydrate diet, the amount of ketones increases and ketosis occurs. Ketones are very irritating to your kidneys and the kidneys try to get rid of the ketones through the urine.
As a consequence of losing muscle mass through ketosis, one's metabolic rate goes down. A low cab diet, along with most diets, are impossible to maintain over the long term. Eventually, one must revert to eating "normally": whatever that means for the individual it usually means reverting to old habitual eating habits that although unhealthy, are at least sustainable. When that day happens, the muscle that used to regulate your body weight is gone and you have a lower metabolism to deal with the new influx of calories. As a result, one usually re-gains ALL of the fat weight lost, IN ADDITION to new fat weight as the body stores calories it simply can no longer process.
Ketosis is a natual process that evolved to allow us to live off of fat stores during times of famine. It is, in essence, an incase-of-emergency-break-glass sort of process and is not meant to be used on a daily basis. It is designed to keep us alive in a time of no food, not as a system for optimal body functioning. It is a system of last resort.
All of this is to say that dieting alone is usually a bad idea. Like anything, weight loss is best achieved slowly through eating well and in a sustainable manner, healthy doses of activity, cardiovascular exercise and some form of resistance training to increase or at least maintain muscle mass. This is the most sustainable form of weight loss and it as well subjects the body to the least amount of negative side effects.
The !Kung typically have ripped bodies because of their genetic predisposition coupled with daily activity and rounded off with a healthy diet. 2 hours of walking is a significant amount of cardiovascular exercise. They are also more active than us, ie, there are no !Kung couch potatos.
So, like I said Jason, if you're enjoying the results of your diet, I'm glad, I just wanted to throw out another viewpoint for people's general edification.
Weight loss, like a lot of other things, in the end, is a very personal thing. I know a guy who stapled his stomach and lost about 200 pounds. He's a different man. Is it necessarily healthy? I don't know. I would suspect no. But he's a much happier man today.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
jefgodesky
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 12:02 PM |
My cousin got her stomach stapled recently ... it doesn't seem to be going well.
You're totally right, muscle mass and metabolism are key. Which is why I exercised more as I did the no carb thing. Your body can only form fat out of leftover carbs, and if you're exercising and have no carbs to burn, you can't gain weight from kicking into "siege mode" (which usually happened to me with exercise regimens in the past), and your body is forced to start dipping into its fat reserves a lot quicker.
But yeah, totally, diet by itself goes nowhere, and no carbs will never work as a sustainable diet.
As far as fad diets go, there are just as many studies that say Atkins does work, as those you highlight that say otherwise. It's a debate that should be hashed out in journals, not in popular magazines. I personally think there's some points where Atkins is a little nuts, myself; that's why I didn't really follow his rules, just my own, concocted from my understanding of human evolution and physiology. I'm now into a more subtle swing on the graph; still losing, but relying more on exercise and less on diet now. Worked for me, at any rate; your mileage may vary. :lol: |
JCamasto
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 01:15 PM |
It happened, again, at IshCon - I lost weight without effort.
Upon relaying this tidbit to Kath, she replied: "I'm definitely going next time!"
-Jim |
mag
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 01:51 PM |
I'm not exactly the nutrionist that Jason is, but it seems to me that the problem with the Atkins diet or Atkins derivatives is not that they don't work. It's that Americans seem to have this idea that there is one right diet for everybody to be on, and if we could just figure out what that diet is then everybody would be healthy. But there is no diet that's meant for everybody. It depends on what your particular needs are. Atkins is very good for losing weight. That's its purpose. People who are already thin probably shouldn't be on it. Diet is a very individual thing.
mag |
jefgodesky
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 02:05 PM |
Wait a minute, you mean there's No One Right Way to Lose Weight?
Holy shit!
Beautiful way to bring it all around again, though; admirably done. |
jadjad
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 08:03 PM |
Low carb diets arnet ecologically sustainable, but neither are very high carb diets. Low carb diets can be kept up for a long period of time, the Eskimo/Inuit are nearly always in a state of ketosis. So long as you consume enough calories and keep the fat intake high you wont lose muscle mass. I know PLENTY of natural body builders who look pretty huge on low carbs. And if an Atkins style approach is done properly your cholesterol should go down, as it does on most low calorie plans (except interestingly enough on ones with a high glycemic carbohydrate intake). Higher muscle mass does increase resting metabolism, but so does a diet with a higher percentage of calories as protein. If a mans diet has less then 30% of calories as fat (good fats) his testosterone production can lower as well. Which is bad news for muscle mass and energy. This is not to say Im a big fa of the Atkins approach. For one he recomends a lot of processed unnatural foods, which is not a good thing. And he recomends a diet high in cheeses etc. The milk proteins in dairy foods have been found to raise insulin irresepctive of their effect on blood glucose. So essentially this dampens down the ketosis you are trying to achieve. I personally think a Paleo style diet is the best approach www.thepaleodiet.com
Theres defintely no one right diet, I know people that have lost weight, cholesterol triglycerides etc on a low carb plan, yet others who get fatter, bad breath and depressed. Likewise for a high carb approach. Most important characteristics of all primitive diets and diets been shown to benefit long term health are a ratio of omega 3 to 6 of 1:3 or greater in omega 3. a diet low in starch and sugar - but high vegetables and antioxidants. a diet low in saturated fats AS A PERCENTAGE of TOTAL calories. a diet low in dairy based protein, but a moderate to high inatke of plant/fish or lean meat proteins. a diet with some raw food component (vegie or meat) a diet very low in salt. a diet free of trans fats, and highly processed grains. and more exercise the better. :-) p.s. congratulations Jason on your efforts... |
jadjad
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 08:11 PM |
Oh and on topic of exercise..the !Kung men are estimated to walk around an avg of 14.9 kms a day and the Ache men 19.2kms a day. For the women its 9.1 and 9.2 respectively. A fair bit more than the average American.
Cordain, L., Gotshall, R.W. and Eaton, S.B. Physical activity, energy expenditure and fitness: an evolutionary perspective. International Journal of Sports Medicine 1998; 19:328-335. |
jefgodesky
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 09:10 PM |
Actual, I usually characterize my diet as "Atkins" only because I don't expect people to know Paleo; but really, it was more taken from forager diets than anything any Western nutritionist ever cooked up. It had more in common with the Inuit than South Beach. :lol: |
Ghost
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 11:21 PM |
Your body can only form fat out of leftover carbs, and if you're exercising and have no carbs to burn, you can't gain weight from kicking into "siege mode" (which usually happened to me with exercise regimens in the past), and your body is forced to start dipping into its fat reserves a lot quicker.
Go eat 5 pounds of butter and tell me if you can't store fat from anything other than carbs.
Calories are calories. End of story. Carbs and protein are 5 calories per gram and fat is 9 calories per gram.
Dipping into fat stores is not the problem, it's running your body on the proper fuel that is the concern. You need carbs to properly metabolise stored fat. Also, if you're relying on stored fat with a zero carb intake, your body needs to canibalise itself in order to continue functioning.
I paid my way through Theatre school by being a fitness instructor. We ALL UNIVERSALLY despised Atkins.
Here's the lithmus test. Is the person giving you diet advice doing so out of concern for your well being, or because they're trying to sell a product?
If the answer is number 2, smile, nod and walk away.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
jefgodesky
Tue Sep 7th, 2004 at 11:25 PM |
I'm the only one giving me diet advice, so I certainly hope it's not #2. :lol:
But, how can protein be stored as fat? I mean, chemically? I was under the impression that it was impossible. We associate butter with weight loss because it's always served with even larger helpings of carbs--like buttered bread. I'm not saying it's good for you by any means--I'm saying it wrecks your body in a different way. |
Nene
Wed Sep 8th, 2004 at 09:12 AM |
Hay Jason --
A Calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It doesn't matter where it comes from EXCEPT... protien and complex carbohydrates take more energy to process than simple carbs and fats.(EAt a pound of steak and see how long it takes to pass through your system as compared with a pound of, say, white bread!)
So yes, anything can be stored as fat... it wasn't THAT many years ago that the fad diets were claiming that carbs could not be stored as fat -- only fat could. Its all hoey.
Janene |
Ghost
Wed Sep 8th, 2004 at 10:16 AM |
Hey, Jason.
I can't find a single site to reference, so this is what I remember from my studies.
Your body is a chemical dynamo. It can build just about anything from anything. The only things that it cannot make are anything called ESSENTIAL. 7 of the 20 amino acids are essential. B-12 is essential. Anyhoo...
Your body takes CARBOHYDRATES and converts it into GLYCOGEN . This is your body's favourite fuel and it floats in solution in your blood. When your body wants to store GLYCOGEN then it converts it into GLYCOL and stores it in the body. When needed, the body will convert the GLYCOL back into GLYCOGEN and use it.
This is your body's preferred energy source. But it will do other things.
When there is not enough carbs comming in, your body will break muscle and organ tissue (protein) into GLUCOSE (which I would assume it then converts into GLYCOGEN).
Your body uses protein to replenish tissue. Think of this logically. If your body used only what it needed and then disposed of the rest, then you could eat an unlimited amount of steak and not gain a pound. Does that jive with your common sense? Same thing with fat. Drink a litre of animal fat and lets see if you don't gain weight.
From what I understand, the body will convert fat and protein not used into fat and store it in the body. The problem with this is that it is not your body's favourite fuel and so will not be accessed until the GLYCOL stores are depleted. So it's actually harder to burn off.
What I do know is that 3 500 calories = 1 lbs of fat. Carbs and protein are 1 calorie per gram and fat is 9 calories per gram.
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
Nene
Wed Sep 8th, 2004 at 10:20 AM |
carbs and protien have FOUR calories per gram, people! 8O
Janene |
jadjad
Wed Sep 8th, 2004 at 10:02 PM |
I dont have time to write much but a 'calorie is a calorie' belief is outdated, innacurate and wayyyy too linear. When the body goes into ketosis it MAY burn a small amount of muscle tissue if calorie intake is inadequate (as it may do on any calorie restricted diet, muscle is expensive tissue), but in the process of converting fats to ketones energy is lost, its a very ineffecient process, hence you lose more calories burning fat than carbs. Also carbs just provide fuel for the body, nothing else essentially. Whereas proteins and fats prvide structural compounds, immune compounds etc etc, so not all fats and proteins can really be counted in your total calorie content because they may be used for other purposes. Heres a good article on way the 'calorie is a calorie' approach is too simplistic http://www.evfit.com/calories.htm
Its kinda like the old argument a vitamin is a vitamin - yet if you put someone on a liquid diet of pure proteins/carbs/fats and vitamins in the right ratio's they dont live verylong or very well..
Also when you eat less calories your body adjusts by slowing down the metabolic rate. When you eat a higher protein diet, food protein increases the metabolic rate for 3 hours post ingestion. There are also some saturated fats that (in low calorie conditions) can increase metabolism.
As I mentioned earlier there are cultures that spend huge amounts of their life in a state of ketosis yet dont suffer any of the side effects claimed for these sort of diets. Most nutrition groups receive heavy funding from grain and dairy companies and suprise suprise they seem to massively push these two foods. Naturally these groups are going to fund more research into dairy and grains than it will into fresh fruits/vegies and lean meats.
Im not trying to push an idea too much either, just providing a balanced perspective on these things. I hate seeing low carb diets getting bashed when the evidence is inconclusive, even though i personally eat quite a high carb diet (Im a vegetarian/vegeaquarian). |
jadjad
Wed Sep 8th, 2004 at 10:05 PM |
Oh and the bodies preferred fuel source is glucose, and its stored as glycogen in skeletal muscle tissue, not the other way round :) |
odb_fan_1
Sun Sep 12th, 2004 at 03:16 AM |
carbs and protien have FOUR calories per gram, people! 8O
Janene
i knew it! i was wondering about that. bless you www.howstuffworks.com
(Im a vegetarian/vegeaquarian).
what does that mean? |
Ghost
Sun Sep 12th, 2004 at 06:58 PM |
carbs and protien have FOUR calories per gram, people!
Oh and the bodies preferred fuel source is glucose, and its stored as glycogen in skeletal muscle tissue, not the other way round
I should be flogged! I should be beaten! I should be purged from the Earth! I am not worthy to eat your filth!
Did I mention I studied this stuff like 4 years ago 8)
See, I can admit when I'm wrong :wink:
Peace and Love and Empathy,
Matt |
jadjad
Mon Sep 13th, 2004 at 02:14 AM |
vegeaquarian : veggo who eats little fishies, otherwise known as a fish'n'chipocrite... then theres freegan : vegans who eat meat if they steal it or get it outta bin.. |
odb_fan_1
Fri Sep 17th, 2004 at 03:19 PM |
i hate people who call themselves vegetarian and eat fish/chicken. |
Corrina
Fri Sep 17th, 2004 at 04:01 PM |
Why waste your time hating someone for a reason like that?
Who cares what someone calls themselves? What difference does a label like that make to you? |
tonyz
Fri Feb 18th, 2005 at 05:19 PM |
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/02/18/934774-sun.html |
Corrina
Fri Feb 18th, 2005 at 05:52 PM |
I see the proferssors reasons for going on that diet but for him to actually say that its not Mcdonalds food thats unhealthy but the lifestyle is just rediculous. Obviously its both. His excessive exercising counteracts the effects of the food, but he would undoubtably be in much better shape if he were to stick to that excersize regimen AND incorporate a healthy diet.
C |
odb_fan_1
Wed Mar 2nd, 2005 at 12:35 AM |
whoa, sorry I didn't respond a couple of months sooner:
Why waste your time hating someone for a reason like that?
Who cares what someone calls themselves? What difference does a label like that make to you?
1) at the very least it's INCREDIBLY annoying.
2) it dilutes the meaning of "vegetarian"
3) it's an incredible disservice to chickens' and fishs' reputations. the only word i can use that captures the overal meaning/affect is "dehumanize." it "dehumanizes" chickens and fish. that's right. |
|