Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
tigersword 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".
Sorry, but as usual, you're incorrect. Sugar has been cheap since the 1700s, and wass considered a necessary staple food by the 1800s.
0 -
Still, the average person did not eat a great deal of it here. In addition, it was expensive and very difficult to get in times of war. During the Civil War, it was nearly impossible to get if you lived in the South. In the 19th century, many doctors were starting to notice health effects that their patients had from eating sugar and began to advise against it. Our consumption was simply not that great (and you can check the historical figures on that). It has been estimated to be anywhere from about five pounds to as much as 40 pounds per person, per year, in 1900 and it is now estimated to be as high as 150 to 180 pounds per year per person (with a significant portion of the total "hidden" in processed food.) It may have backed off to 135 pounds in recent years. It is difficult to track because of many factors. Here is an article on sugar consumption by neurobiologist Stephan Guyenet, Ph.D http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2012/02/by-2606-us-diet-will-be-100-percent.html
The fact is, the relative cost of sugar has come down a great deal (compared to other food items). They wealthy actually ate a lot more of it in Britain from the 1100's on (and suffered the health consequences from it). In the days of Elizabeth I, it was mostly just the wealthy who had access to it and Elizabeth herself had totally rotten black teeth (and her breath reeked from the rotten teeth) because of her sugar habit.
Why must you be so insulting? No one (including you) knows everything. There is no truth in the "as usual, you're incorrect..." An ad hominem does not enhance your argument. You have made a number of blanket statements. Tsk, tsk, tsk--do you suppose there should be one set of standards for me and another for you?-1 -
Am I the only one slightly irritated that, in general, the 20s crowd doesn't get a lot of credit for weight loss? I'm 22, my metabolism is sucky, I'm tempted by the high calorie foods all around my college buds, sheesh! Is it really that much harder as you age?
It's harder, if you think having a maintenance level for your calories that is 100, 150, 200 or more calories lower than it was in your 20s makes losing weight harder (assuming same height, weight, activity level, fat %). Also, while I thought I was busy in college, with a full course load and a part time job, I had much more free time that I could have used for exercise than I have now as a middle-aged adult. Of course, I think I have an easier time tracking calories at this point in my life than I would have in college eating from the dining hall for a lot of my meals. And, heck, I wasn't miserable, and I enjoyed scarfing down the pizza and ice cream in the evenings with my friends in college, and those long brunch-time gabfests in the dining hall with whoever had stayed on campus for the weekend, eating doughnuts and spreading cream cheese an inch thick on bagels...Mmmm.
It's seldom easy. If it were easy, everybody would lose the weight they want to lose.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Still, the average person did not eat a great deal of it here. In addition, it was expensive and very difficult to get in times of war. During the Civil War, it was nearly impossible to get if you lived in the South. In the 19th century, many doctors were starting to notice health effects that their patients had from eating sugar and began to advise against it. Our consumption was simply not that great (and you can check the historical figures on that). It has been estimated to be anywhere from about five pounds to as much as 40 pounds per person, per year, in 1900 and it is now estimated to be as high as 150 to 180 pounds per year per person (with a significant portion of the total "hidden" in processed food.) It may have backed off to 135 pounds in recent years. It is difficult to track because of many factors. Here is an article on sugar consumption by neurobiologist Stephan Guyenet, Ph.D http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2012/02/by-2606-us-diet-will-be-100-percent.html
The fact is, the relative cost of sugar has come down a great deal (compared to other food items). They wealthy actually ate a lot more of it in Britain from the 1100's on (and suffered the health consequences from it). In the days of Elizabeth I, it was mostly just the wealthy who had access to it and Elizabeth herself had totally rotten black teeth (and her breath reeked from the rotten teeth) because of her sugar habit.
Why must you be so insulting? No one (including you) knows everything. There is no truth in the "as usual, you're incorrect..." An ad hominem does not enhance your argument. You have made a number of blanket statements. Tsk, tsk, tsk--do you suppose there should be one set of standards for me and another for you?
You state that it was difficult and expensive to get sugar during the Civil War. A lot of things were difficult and expensive to get during the Civil War. Trying to compare health, intake, and even weight during a period which people were a lot more active AND during a freaking war seems a bit reaching.
As for the rotten teeth of Elizabeth I...really. It was just the sugar, was it? I mean, it couldn't possibly have been part genetics or/and overall lack of dental knowledge/care back in those days. No one got rotten teeth as long as they didn't eat sugar - is what you are basically trying to infer with your example which is truly laughable.
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.
I am truly happy for you. CICO did not work for me and it does not work for many others. I have several friends who insist on follow calorie-restricted diets (and they include a fair bit of non-nutritive junk food and even vodka and other forms of alcoholic spirits which contain no nutritional benefit at all). They always quit after a few months, gain back what they lost plus more, go back on the calorie-restricted diet, etc. This does not happen to me anymore. They always tell me that they admire my "iron discipline" and I always tell them that they could do the same if only they would change the composition of their diet. It isn't magic--it's just sensible.
-1 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »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.
I am truly happy for you. CICO did not work for me and it does not work for many others. I have several friends who insist on follow calorie-restricted diets (and they include a fair bit of non-nutritive junk food and even vodka and other forms of alcoholic spirits which contain no nutritional benefit at all). They always quit after a few months, gain back what they lost plus more, go back on the calorie-restricted diet, etc. This does not happen to me anymore. They always tell me that they admire my "iron discipline" and I always tell them that they could do the same if only they would change the composition of their diet. It isn't magic--it's just sensible.
How does CICO not work though? If you are eating less than your maintenance you will lose. Your maintenance may not be as high as the average person, but that doesn't mean CICO flies out the door because your intake isn't the same as others.
So what you are saying is if you eat 6000 calories worth of vegetables (or whatever foods you eat), you won't gain?
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
Not at all. Had you been reading well, you would have seen that I have not gained even one pound in 4 years. This is truly a first for me but it is because I discovered a new way of eating that truly nourishes my body while helping me to lose body fat. I have been on maintenance for about a year. You really ought to read more carefully before you jump to incorrect conclusions.
-1 -
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.
Did you read the article I linked? Since he is a Ph.D. and a scientist, one assumes that he could get his empirical data together before he published.
Argue with him. 0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »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.
I am truly happy for you. CICO did not work for me and it does not work for many others. I have several friends who insist on follow calorie-restricted diets (and they include a fair bit of non-nutritive junk food and even vodka and other forms of alcoholic spirits which contain no nutritional benefit at all). They always quit after a few months, gain back what they lost plus more, go back on the calorie-restricted diet, etc. This does not happen to me anymore. They always tell me that they admire my "iron discipline" and I always tell them that they could do the same if only they would change the composition of their diet. It isn't magic--it's just sensible.
Are you saying that you do not restrict calories?
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.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
0 -
...0
-
This content has been removed.
-
madrose0715 wrote: »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.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
0 -
That some people don't eat sustainable or sensible diets based on CICO doesn't mean CICO doesn't work.
That low fat was or is a bad idea seems to me more of a reason to be skeptical of the new sugar as scapegoat, not less.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »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.
I am truly happy for you. CICO did not work for me and it does not work for many others. I have several friends who insist on follow calorie-restricted diets (and they include a fair bit of non-nutritive junk food and even vodka and other forms of alcoholic spirits which contain no nutritional benefit at all). They always quit after a few months, gain back what they lost plus more, go back on the calorie-restricted diet, etc. This does not happen to me anymore. They always tell me that they admire my "iron discipline" and I always tell them that they could do the same if only they would change the composition of their diet. It isn't magic--it's just sensible.
Are you saying that you do not restrict calories?
Of course I do, but not consciously. I simply eat nutrient-dense food and that does the job for me. I really don't WANT any more food. And my calorie intake is always either at or below my calorie-burn. Don't have to do a lot of planning--just works out that way. But I know that if I allowed much sugar and starch back into my diet, it would put me right back into body fat gain and metabolic syndrome. My mother was a Type II diabetic and my younger brother is an insulin-dependent Type II. He is very ill. I have no desire to go there.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »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.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
The recommendation sounds very similar to IIFYM!
0 -
SanteMulberry 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.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
Okay, if that's where she really is getting her info - all credibility is out the window.
0 -
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Caloric deficit works for everyone. Even you, you just haven't tried hard enough.SanteMulberry wrote: »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.
I am truly happy for you. CICO did not work for me and it does not work for many others. I have several friends who insist on follow calorie-restricted diets (and they include a fair bit of non-nutritive junk food and even vodka and other forms of alcoholic spirits which contain no nutritional benefit at all). They always quit after a few months, gain back what they lost plus more, go back on the calorie-restricted diet, etc. This does not happen to me anymore. They always tell me that they admire my "iron discipline" and I always tell them that they could do the same if only they would change the composition of their diet. It isn't magic--it's just sensible.
Yo-Yoing does not mean caloric deficit does not work. It means they probably had a poorly constructed diet to begin with that wasn't sustainable. You don't seem to grasp the notion that you can't just say one thing is one way because something happened.
Correlation =/= Causation
You need to apply a little bit of critical thinking and analysis before just throwing out theories that have no basis.
No--YOU need to read more closely and THINK. Calories in and out are ALWAYS the basis of gain or loss of body fat. I have NEVER denied this. But the margin of error for a smallish. aging, post-menopausal woman is so small that another approach is needed. It only takes 100 calories extra per day to put on about 100 pounds in a decade. That 100 calories is an extremely small window to hit each and every day. Now I let the composition of my diet do the planning for me.
-1 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »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.
I am truly happy for you. CICO did not work for me and it does not work for many others. I have several friends who insist on follow calorie-restricted diets (and they include a fair bit of non-nutritive junk food and even vodka and other forms of alcoholic spirits which contain no nutritional benefit at all). They always quit after a few months, gain back what they lost plus more, go back on the calorie-restricted diet, etc. This does not happen to me anymore. They always tell me that they admire my "iron discipline" and I always tell them that they could do the same if only they would change the composition of their diet. It isn't magic--it's just sensible.
Are you saying that you do not restrict calories?
Of course I do, but not consciously. I simply eat nutrient-dense food and that does the job for me. I really don't WANT any more food. And my calorie intake is always either at or below my calorie-burn. Don't have to do a lot of planning--just works out that way. But I know that if I allowed much sugar and starch back into my diet, it would put me right back into body fat gain and metabolic syndrome. My mother was a Type II diabetic and my younger brother is an insulin-dependent Type II. He is very ill. I have no desire to go there.
I do the same thing when not logging - and can cut weight that way - its aka mindful eating. Although, I do not worry about sugar and starch per say - just keep it to reasonable amounts due to the calorie content (just as I do fats and any other carbs). I could quite easily go over my calories with fats - peanut butter and cheese specifically, so I try to be mindful of the portions and my diet as a whole for the day.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »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.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
If she is eating a lot of low nutrient high caloric foods and low fats (although 'junk' food does tend to be high in fats so I am not sure how that is done), then I do not think anyone (from any 'camp') is arguing that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.0 -
After all the time Sara dedicated to responding I was hoping for more from SanteMulberry. I'm disappointed. But not really surprised.
I do have other things to do you know--besides participating in the forums. I don't often participate here because it is very time consuming. Why add the "not really surprised"--what is that supposed to mean? I have likely had many more posts than Sara in this thread. What ARE you talking about? Really--many of you here need to learn how to respond to the points that people make without resorting to attacks on the character of the one with whom you disagree. It really gets very tiresome.
-1 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Caloric deficit works for everyone. Even you, you just haven't tried hard enough.SanteMulberry wrote: »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.
I am truly happy for you. CICO did not work for me and it does not work for many others. I have several friends who insist on follow calorie-restricted diets (and they include a fair bit of non-nutritive junk food and even vodka and other forms of alcoholic spirits which contain no nutritional benefit at all). They always quit after a few months, gain back what they lost plus more, go back on the calorie-restricted diet, etc. This does not happen to me anymore. They always tell me that they admire my "iron discipline" and I always tell them that they could do the same if only they would change the composition of their diet. It isn't magic--it's just sensible.
Yo-Yoing does not mean caloric deficit does not work. It means they probably had a poorly constructed diet to begin with that wasn't sustainable. You don't seem to grasp the notion that you can't just say one thing is one way because something happened.
Correlation =/= Causation
You need to apply a little bit of critical thinking and analysis before just throwing out theories that have no basis.
No--YOU need to read more closely and THINK. Calories in and out are ALWAYS the basis of gain or loss of body fat. I have NEVER denied this. But the margin of error for a smallish. aging, post-menopausal woman is so small that another approach is needed. It only takes 100 calories extra per day to put on about 100 pounds in a decade. That 100 calories is an extremely small window to hit each and every day. Now I let the composition of my diet do the planning for me.
But didn't you say exactly that in the bolded part?
0 -
SanteMulberry 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.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
No--I got it directly from a website of a symposium of obesity experts. This is really getting tiresome. Dr. Johnson does leading edge research. Just because Mercola chooses to report on it does nothing to discredit the research of Dr. Johnson and his team.
0 -
Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?0
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »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.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
The recommendation sounds very similar to IIFYM!
No. She has so completely messed up her health and metabolism from eating (and drinking) whatever--"as long as it fits in her macros" that she now gains weight on eating practically nothing (when she is laid up because of an injury). She just recently had to have achilles tendon surgery. She is very flabby and sickly looking and thinks that all she has to do is run more and that will fix everything. It's NOT working.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »madrose0715 wrote: »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.
Yes, it does mean low calorie for some people. And I have evaluated the diet of a great many of my friends on MFP as well as looked at the diets of other people. And it is mostly older women I am speaking of. They tend to be deficient in protein, vitamins, minerals, and even fat. I have one friend who is obsessed with eating low fat. I keep telling her that she needs at least 45 grams of fat per day to stay healthy. She eats a lot of junk (including booze). She runs a lot--until she has an injury. And then she stops and gains weight in spite of eating even less than she was eating before. She has had many health problems and I can't help but feel that she would be healthier if she would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
The recommendation sounds very similar to IIFYM!
No. She has so completely messed up her health and metabolism from eating (and drinking) whatever--"as long as it fits in her macros" that she now gains weight on eating practically nothing (when she is laid up because of an injury). She just recently had to have achilles tendon surgery. She is very flabby and sickly looking and thinks that all she has to do is run more and that will fix everything. It's NOT working.
NO. That is not what IIFYM is. Please learn about IIFYM before you comment. It is NOT about eating whatever you want as long as it fits your macros. The recommendation IS very similar to what IIFYM actually is.
Actually, I am pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry 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.
Again, it has been demonstrated in recent research (by lead researcher, Richard J. Johnson, M.D. head of the renal division at the University of Colorado medical center and by his research team) that sugar consumption causes a rise in the consumption of all kinds of calories because it seems to throw a "fat switch" because of its fructose content (table sugar--i.e. sucrose is 50% fructose, and represents our greatest single exposure to fructose). He says that it is a normal physiological response to fructose. When animals want to fatten up for a period of anticipated food scarcity, they will search out a source of fructose to "fatten up" in advance. Black bears, for example, will eat vast quantities of wild blueberries in late summer to prepare for winter hibernation. Dr. Johnson believes that "metabolic syndrome" is the norm for the "fat stage" in hibernating animals, but that it is gone by spring (in the case of bears). The University of Colorado team discovered that they were able to create metabolic syndrome in normal weight test subjects in TWO WEEKS by the simple addition of a large sugary drink to their normal three meals. The problem with humans is that it is always autumn and never spring.
You must have gotten your information from this nonsense link over at Mercola. No surprise.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/18/fructose-and-the-fat-switch.aspx
I mean the level of fear mongering is insane.
No--I got it directly from a website of a symposium of obesity experts. This is really getting tiresome. Dr. Johnson does leading edge research. Just because Mercola chooses to report on it does nothing to discredit the research of Dr. Johnson and his team.
Would you mind linking it (apologies is you have and I missed it)
0
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