Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
Fats were the boogeyman 20ish years ago. No doubt they will be again soon enough...(because as you know it's so much easier to blame a type of food instead of one's consumption of total caloric quantity of it).0 -
-
madrose0715 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I'm 42 and I can say with all certainty that it's a lot harder to lose weight now then it was when I was in my twenties!
I lost the weight after both my pregnancies and my body bounced back and looked like it did before babies. Now I've lost weight again and body does not look the same as it did back then!!
I find it easier...I have more knowledge and patience and discipline now.
Agrees with it being easier now. At 45 years of age and almost 95 pounds lost in under 3 years, I have utilized the power of informed decision making as my daily tool in remaining fit and getting fitter every day.
No doubt. I'm arguably* in the best condition of my adult life...(I'm certainly stronger than I've ever been)...my weight is precisely where I want it at the moment and my health markers are excellent.
I also eat a lot of "processed" foods...so I don't know why I would call them the "enemy".
(*"arguably" because I can't currently run as fast/far as I could a few years ago.)0 -
I'm pretty
I'm pretty sure that without processed crap, no crops would grow.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SonicDeathMonkey80 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
I'm 34 and eat whatever I please, and I'm in the best shape of my life. I'm an anomaly too I guess?
Well, good for you! You are not a post-menopausal, obese women.
I am 52 years old. I have been going through menopause. I lost over 125 pounds following CI/CO and it worked fine for me.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
Which is a factor, but please do not assume that everyone else has your issues.
I do not. But many women do and I have compassion for those who are suffering because of a lack of information. When they have problems that are similar to mine, I try to give them advice that may help them to be successful.
Are you insinuating that I do not?
*peeks into the Eat, Train, Progress group*
hmmm. I hope not, because...
0 -
Processed crap is the enemy. It also wastes a lot of money! Make sure you get your protein somehow though. Without that, you'll be weak and hungry.
Ramen and Mac 'n Cheese are less than a dollar. Just putting that out there.
But I honestly have no clue how any food is a waste of money if you are eating it and fueling your body.
0 -
Thanks! I'm going to watch this doco now 0
-
SizeSixat100 wrote: »I just watched the Fed Up Documentary 2013 produced by Katie Couric in 2013. I don't know how I missed it? But it hit the nail on the head with my weight loss (and gain) issues starting in 1994/1995. At age 36, I weighed 129, then suddenly I went to 143, 164, 177, 199, then up to 200 plus, my highest being 217. What did I do to make this happen? I changed my diet and became what I thought was a vegetarian. I replaced meat with non meat boxed, bagged, frozen, canned substitutes. I started to gain weight...then I was pitched the "calories in/out" song by the local gym and diet guru's on television. (Richard Simmons come to mind) and after joining a gym, and starting to "exercise" I jumped from 143. to 217 in a few years. Bigger and fatter, and more out of shape, on a "vegetarian" "exercise" several hours a day plan. The ONLY time I seemed to drop weight was when I wasn't eating at all for whatever reason, sometimes a much as 4 pounds a day. I followed the Susan Powter No Fat rules, and they did help, but those replacements for meat are just as bad and any processed foods. I realize now, we the public have been 'worlded and twirled" by the truly wealthy 10% in the world, and the governments they control to control us the masses of white lab rats.
Well, this white lab rat is going on the Fed Up Challenge on December 6th, 2014 for the 10 days of no sugars, and processed foods, and in my case no meats or dairy or eggs either. Lets see what happens.
Woooooooow you're incredibly ignorant and also extremely gullible
That's uncalled for...0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
Ok, going to address these one at a time.
I lost more than that, doing the same thing (except meat). And has been noted - I am 47. I lost the weight when I was 45/46.
But, no doubt you recognize that metabolism slows significantly with each decade of life?
Except that it doesn't.
A reanalysis of the factors influencing basal metabolic rate in normal adults.
J J Cunningham
Abstract
A multiple regression analysis of several factors influencing basal metabolic rate (BMR) was performed using data for 223 subjects from the classic metabolism studies published by Harris and Benedict in 1919. These data had previously been analyzed by Kleiber using metabolic body size, the three-fourths power of body mass, as a predictor of BMR. His prediction equations were separated by sex and each contained components for age and height. Factors in the present analysis included sex, age, height, body mass, and estimated lean body mass (LBM). Lean body mass was found to be the single predictor of BMR. A best estimate prediction equation: BMR(cal/day) = 500 + 22 (LBM) is proposed. The previously presumed influences of sex and age are shown to add little to this estimation.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/33/11/2372.short
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
The "rules" of "calories in-calories out" work well for the majority of people in their youth (and who exercise). HOWEVER, it just doesn't work very well for the typical post-menopausal woman, because the reduced number of calories she needs to shrink her fat deposits results in malnutrition,
Funny, this 5 years post menopausal woman is doing just fine losing weight and fat deposits and I am healthier than I have been in years. I follow CICO with a touch of IIFYM to help me find the best way to distribute the calories in part of the equation.
And do you eat a lot of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food? If that's the case, then think of how much better you would do with a better diet. Since you indicate on your ticker that you still have about 75 pounds to go, you were likely a lot bigger than OP to start with.
That;s a lot of assumptions. And again, I did/do very well with IIFYM.
Now, I am not disagreeing that post-menopausal women often do better on higher fat/higher protein and low'ish carbs. But you are making a very big leap there - the poster is losing weight and it is rather presumptuous to infer that she would do better using a different methodology. The biggest key to weight loss is adherence.
I'm sincerely happy for those who have had the luxury of eating whatever they chose IIFYM. I have many, many years of dieting behind me--losing, regaining, losing, regaining even more, etc. I never found calorie counting ALONE to be successful for any length of time. (Why do you think there is such a huge failure rate in keeping the body fat off?) For those like me, a multi-factorial approach is often the most successful and, with my current plan, I have avoided regain for the longest period in my adult life (four years) and my program is one that has yielded tremendous health benefits for me as well. I will be able to stay on this program for the rest of my life. I think the regain threads in the forums to be pretty sad and I just attempt to show people that there really is a different and better way FOR SOME PEOPLE who are experiencing a lot of failure. You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
In my nearing 3 year journey of weight loss, following CICO and IIFYM, I never ONCE considered myself to be following a low calorie plan. That is a huge misunderstanding if I have ever read one on these forums!0 -
Processed crap is the enemy. It also wastes a lot of money! Make sure you get your protein somehow though. Without that, you'll be weak and hungry.
The nutrients in my canned pumpkin puree would beg to differ. Pretty cheap too.
Also, without enough food in general, especially satiating food (which includes fats and carbs) you will be hungry.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
Which is a factor, but please do not assume that everyone else has your issues.
I do not. But many women do and I have compassion for those who are suffering because of a lack of information. When they have problems that are similar to mine, I try to give them advice that may help them to be successful.
Are you insinuating that I do not?
I have no idea. Why would I "insinuate" anything? I believe that you said that you did not have the issues that I have (arthritis, metabolic syndrome, etc.)
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I'm 42 and I can say with all certainty that it's a lot harder to lose weight now then it was when I was in my twenties!
I lost the weight after both my pregnancies and my body bounced back and looked like it did before babies. Now I've lost weight again and body does not look the same as it did back then!!
I find it easier...I have more knowledge and patience and discipline now.
Agrees with it being easier now. At 45 years of age and almost 95 pounds lost in under 3 years, I have utilized the power of informed decision making as my daily tool in remaining fit and getting fitter every day.
No doubt. I'm arguably* in the best condition of my adult life...(I'm certainly stronger than I've ever been)...my weight is precisely where I want it at the moment and my health markers are excellent.
I also eat a lot of "processed" foods...so I don't know why I would call them the "enemy".
(*"arguably" because I can't currently run as fast/far as I could a few years ago.)
lol - I eat a 3 Musketeers daily. Didn't have the heart to share that with the sugar hater poster on this thread, lol.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
Which is a factor, but please do not assume that everyone else has your issues.
I do not. But many women do and I have compassion for those who are suffering because of a lack of information. When they have problems that are similar to mine, I try to give them advice that may help them to be successful.
Are you insinuating that I do not?
I have no idea. Why would I "insinuate" anything? I believe that you said that you did not have the issues that I have (arthritis, metabolic syndrome, etc.)
I meant insinuating that I do not have compassion and that I do not try to give them advice that may be helpful.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
Where are you getting your information from?0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
so after 60 the laws of math and physics cease to apply?
at the end of the day it is still CICO; however, you just may have to adjust the out side of the equation ….
I would disagree with the first statement and would agree with the second. I have always held that position. Some of you apparently have trouble interpreting what I have said.
I think the main issue (and this is just my opinion based on reading many of your posts) is that you tend to make what appear to be blanket statements and dismiss people who do not fit into a criteria, and in fact look to find ways that people who do not have issues do not.
While I may not agree with a lot of your more acute level advice/conclusions, your general premise is not the issue - being, you need to be in a deficit, your maintenance calories tend to be lower the older you are, tweaks to macros may help certain groups of people. I have already stated earlier, that, for example, post menopausal women may do better on higher protein and fats and lowish carbs. However, when I was brought up as an example of someone who does well and can lose weight on more 'standard', for want of a better word, macros, and based on the questions you were asking, you seemed to be doing your best to exclude me from the 'norm'. I am not a special snowflake. I am a 'normal' woman with a desk job in her late 40's whose only additional activity is lifting weights. I do not have anything special about my metabolism and I have been quite overweight at one point.
I suppose the point of this post is to point out that, if you were less prone to make what look like blanket statements and generalization, I doubt you would get as much debate.
Note: not trying to be patronizing or anything - not sure if it reads that way but it is not my intent.
Yeah--I would agree that one can always find exceptions to blanket statements. That is why I will often say, "In general..." "Often" etc. But I see so many women who insist that they can "eat everything in moderation as long as it fits in your macros" who "fall off the wagon" over and over and over. I certainly did. Until I cut the crap out of my diet (and increased exercise, of course). I really strongly believe that the success I have experienced is first due to dietary changes.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
so after 60 the laws of math and physics cease to apply?
at the end of the day it is still CICO; however, you just may have to adjust the out side of the equation ….
I would disagree with the first statement and would agree with the second. I have always held that position. Some of you apparently have trouble interpreting what I have said.
I think the main issue (and this is just my opinion based on reading many of your posts) is that you tend to make what appear to be blanket statements and dismiss people who do not fit into a criteria, and in fact look to find ways that people who do not have issues do not.
While I may not agree with a lot of your more acute level advice/conclusions, your general premise is not the issue - being, you need to be in a deficit, your maintenance calories tend to be lower the older you are, tweaks to macros may help certain groups of people. I have already stated earlier, that, for example, post menopausal women may do better on higher protein and fats and lowish carbs. However, when I was brought up as an example of someone who does well and can lose weight on more 'standard', for want of a better word, macros, and based on the questions you were asking, you seemed to be doing your best to exclude me from the 'norm'. I am not a special snowflake. I am a 'normal' woman with a desk job in her late 40's whose only additional activity is lifting weights. I do not have anything special about my metabolism and I have been quite overweight at one point.
I suppose the point of this post is to point out that, if you were less prone to make what look like blanket statements and generalization, I doubt you would get as much debate.
Note: not trying to be patronizing or anything - not sure if it reads that way but it is not my intent.
Yeah--I would agree that one can always find exceptions to blanket statements. That is why I will often say, "In general..." "Often" etc. But I see so many women who insist that they can "eat everything in moderation as long as it fits in your macros" who "fall off the wagon" over and over and over. I certainly did. Until I cut the crap out of my diet (and increased exercise, of course). I really strongly believe that the success I have experienced is first due to dietary changes.
It is not always the case that there are exceptions to blanket statements - often it is the blanket statement that is the exception, or only applies to a minority of the population.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »It just occurred to me that it's very troubling that you have over 3,000 posts on the forums. It doesn't seem like you really know what you're talking about at all and to think you've spread that much misinformation is kind of scary...
Now, I have the information that it took to make me successful. You can argue with it but it makes little sense to argue with my success and what I attribute it to. Many of you are apparently incensed for some reason that I cannot fathom. Is it because I don't adhere to your religion?
Pictures or it didn't happen.
Check with one of my MFP friends--they have been with me every step of the way.
I can't see your friends because your profile is only viewable by your friends. Try again.
I'll give you the names of some of them tomorrow--I have to leave now.
Why don't you just ask them to come onto this thread and plead your case for you?
Most of my MFP friends eschew the general forums because there are so many aggressive people here. I find it amusing to venture in here when I am bored.
They will sometimes peek in here when I am here and report laughing at some of the interchanges.
Glad we keep you amused and it's a mutual thing I can see. Cheers!0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
The "rules" of "calories in-calories out" work well for the majority of people in their youth (and who exercise). HOWEVER, it just doesn't work very well for the typical post-menopausal woman, because the reduced number of calories she needs to shrink her fat deposits results in malnutrition,
Funny, this 5 years post menopausal woman is doing just fine losing weight and fat deposits and I am healthier than I have been in years. I follow CICO with a touch of IIFYM to help me find the best way to distribute the calories in part of the equation.
And do you eat a lot of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food? If that's the case, then think of how much better you would do with a better diet. Since you indicate on your ticker that you still have about 75 pounds to go, you were likely a lot bigger than OP to start with.
That;s a lot of assumptions. And again, I did/do very well with IIFYM.
Now, I am not disagreeing that post-menopausal women often do better on higher fat/higher protein and low'ish carbs. But you are making a very big leap there - the poster is losing weight and it is rather presumptuous to infer that she would do better using a different methodology. The biggest key to weight loss is adherence.
I'm sincerely happy for those who have had the luxury of eating whatever they chose IIFYM. I have many, many years of dieting behind me--losing, regaining, losing, regaining even more, etc. I never found calorie counting ALONE to be successful for any length of time. (Why do you think there is such a huge failure rate in keeping the body fat off?) For those like me, a multi-factorial approach is often the most successful and, with my current plan, I have avoided regain for the longest period in my adult life (four years) and my program is one that has yielded tremendous health benefits for me as well. I will be able to stay on this program for the rest of my life. I think the regain threads in the forums to be pretty sad and I just attempt to show people that there really is a different and better way FOR SOME PEOPLE who are experiencing a lot of failure. You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
Excuse me for pointing this out, but you talk about giving advice but you seem to have a lot of trouble doing anything with long-term results that would indicate that you have any special sort of knowledge. However, judging by your past and the general failure of about 90% of people to maintain weight loss for even 2 years it seems unlikely that you will not rejoin this weight gain cycle. Not only this but you seem to be one of those who is always looking for the silver bullet and I don't see how you can foresee any continued success, but I wish you the best in any event.0 -
tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
It's more about inactivity plus increased calories and not just one or the other.0 -
Also true. In 1909, 90% of the US population were farmers. Today, 2% farm. The majority of Americans work desk jobs. It's a huge difference in physical activity. Lower physical activity (moving less) plus increased caloric intake (eating more) is the cause of this problem.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
It's more about inactivity plus increased calories and not just one or the other.
With that in mind, the solution seems rather obvious.0 -
Quite stunned still to have read this comment and not seeing others respond to the fallacies it presents to the readers:
You can't count it successful, if you quickly regain what was lost as soon as you leave the low calorie plan. And the reason why many people leave the low calorie plan is because they are malnourished from only paying attention to "calories in - calories out".
It is so annoying to see people spout opinions based on their own misinformed collection of thoughts and try to present themselves as informed.
Firstly, CICO does not equal low calorie. Secondly, people do not quickly regain because they were malnourished from only paying attention to CICO. One can be entirely well-nourished, following a moderate deficit, CICO and IIFYM and still regain once they hit their magical goal because they are not eating at maintenance - they are eating in surplus. What causes them to eat at a suprlus? A whole list of things that are entirely individual and one could spend days discussing them.
You want to eat a certain way because it works for you? Great. You want to share what works for you? Awesome. But please - stop demonizing and misinforming others with your incorrect conclusions and opinions and trying to present them as factual. The use of words like 'generally' and 'often' does not actually make your statements any less wrong.
0 -
tigersword wrote: »
Also true. In 1909, 90% of the US population were farmers. Today, 2% farm. The majority of Americans work desk jobs. It's a huge difference in physical activity. Lower physical activity (moving less) plus increased caloric intake (eating more) is the cause of this problem.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
We don't eat significantly more sugar and starch, either. In fact, intake of both have decreased over the last decade and a half, while the obesity problem continued to increase. Imagine that. Going back to 1970 (before obesity crisis kicked in) to today, we are eating about 7 grams of sugar more per day. About 25 grams of starch more per day. 27 grams more of fat per day. All of which equals about 400 calories per day more now then we ate in 1970. Hmm, certainly sounds like overconsumption is the problem, not sugar and starch, especially since fat made the biggest contribution to the caloric surplus.
Now, for historical perspective, we'll go back to 1909 (again, using data directly from the USDA website.) A 56 gram per day increase in fat consumption from 1909 to now (from 122 grams per day, to 178.) The chart doesn't separate carbs into categories, so I can't pull exact sugar and starch numbers, but in 1909 the US Food supply was 502 grams of carbohydrates per capita per day. Today it's 474 grams. So we are eating 500 more fat calories per day, and 112 LESS carb calories per day today compared to 100 years ago.
Sorry to tell you this, but empirical data trumps your anecdotes every single time.
It's more about inactivity plus increased calories and not just one or the other.
With that in mind, the solution seems rather obvious.
Unfortunately, people love to complicate things and then there are those who intentionally complicate things in order to sell you something.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
Pretty sure the heavy manual labor was a very large factor in their 'slimness'.
No doubt true. But the analysis of their diet and the standard Western diet today is that we eat a lot more carbohydrate than they did and THEY could afford it because of their heavy manual labour--we cannot.
We also eat more fats.
The information that I have is that we don't eat a significant amount more of fat. Possibly 5%--but fat, for some reason (maybe digestive issues?) does not seem to appeal beyond a certain point. Not so with sugar and starch--I have heard from a number of people that they would eat sugary/starchy treats until they were sick and do it again the next day. Granted, many sugary/starchy treats carry a fat load as well but, in general, sugar and starch are much more "addictive" because we like the blood sugar highs that we get from them--stimulates dopamine production in the brain.
Where are you getting your information from?
She makes it up as she goes. 0 -
WHEW!!!
I read all 18, entertaining pages; is there a prize for that?
0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions