Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
PikaKnight 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.
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?
I cannot imagine eating 6,000 calories in nutrient-dense food. Many days, when I have a flair in my arthritis and must rest, I can't even eat up to my TDEE-20%.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Not at all. Essential fatty acids are just that--essential. There is NOTHING essential about table sugar. I don't eat any added sugar at all and I am much healthier for it.
0 -
But you literally said, a few posts ago, that CICO doesn't work for you :huh: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.
0 -
Nightie-night all!
0 -
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.
Age alone does not impact metabolism. Age-related metabolic slowdowns are only an issue insofar as lean body mass is compromised. A sedentary person will lose lean mass, and therefore metabolism slows. But one would have to lose a great deal of muscle to have the impact that you're implying. As long as one remains active and works to protect or build more muscle, this is not an issue.
0 -
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.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
0 -
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.
Repeatedly0 -
Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »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.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
But it's not possible to follow IIFYM that way. You can't meet your protein macros on twinkies, nor could you meet that macro eating only vegetables. So just because THEY don't understand doesn't mean that IIFYM isn't based on or doesn't encourage a sensible diet - which is what you basically have said/keep insinuating.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
Then they are not actually following what IIFYM is supposed to be. Please do not malign IIFYM because some people do not follow it as it was intended.
Also, 'crap' diet is subjective and very individual.
If you saw what I ate you may call much of it 'crap'. However, just looking at someone's diary does not give context. I can eat a pop tart ice cream sammich - because I have the discretionary calories, do not have an issue with carbs and it is actually beneficial to my lifting. Maybe not someone else.
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »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.
Age alone does not impact metabolism. Age-related metabolic slowdowns are only an issue insofar as lean body mass is compromised. A sedentary person will lose lean mass, and therefore metabolism slows. But one would have to lose a great deal of muscle to have the impact that you're implying. As long as one remains active and works to protect or build more muscle, this is not an issue.
Indeed. But unless care is taken to safeguard health in the 30s, 40s and 50s, those metabolic slowdowns WILL occur. My friend who has all of the health problems is 34 (and it is my opinion that a lot of it has to do with her crap diet and drinking too much--she drinks 5 oz, of vodka or the equivalent almost every day).
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
But it's not possible to follow IIFYM that way. You can't meet your protein macros on twinkies, nor could you meet that macro eating only vegetables. So just because THEY don't understand doesn't mean that IIFYM isn't based on or doesn't encourage a sensible diet - which is what you basically have said/keep insinuating.
So then we agree on a few things.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
This is the same thing you find when you review most "clean" eaters' diaries...
...well, the ones who have been doing it for more than six weeks.
Ha, just kidding. As if long-time clean eating proponents actually have open diaries.
Disclaimer: I'm 43 years old and do not have multiple drinks of hard liquor every night, so anything I say may not be applicable to the a vast majority of people. Or at least I think this is how this works...right?0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
Then they are not actually following what IIFYM is supposed to be. Please do not malign IIFYM because some people do not follow it as it was intended.
Also, 'crap' diet is subjective and very individual.
If you saw what I ate you may call much of it 'crap'. However, just looking at someone's diary does not give context. I can eat a pop tart ice cream sammich - because I have the discretionary calories, do not have an issue with carbs and it is actually beneficial to my lifting. Maybe not someone else.
If your basic nutritional needs were met, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My friend follows a 1,400 calorie diet and she sometimes drinks about a third of her calories in alcoholic beverages. She's 34, will she see a healthy 64? I have my doubts that she will even see 64 at all if she doesn't smarten up.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Again, you failed to answer another one of my questions. How do YOU know that you have Metabolic Syndrome?0 -
I think you started out on the wrong foot. One of the great things about MFP is that it works for so many people because it's not in itself a diet plan, it is just a tool and helps connect many different people doing their own thing, allowing us all to learn from each other.
Many people eat fast food several times a week and are still successful at losing weight, others do better eating clean and working out, some follow specific diet plans, others are monitoring their intake for medical reasons, and so on...
I've learned about a lot of different diets, many different motivations for losing/gaining/maintaining their weight. How they get there is their journey and many people just heard you tell them they are controlled lab rats who are manipulated by rich people.
I really hope you are successful with the diet you choose. The one thing I've heard over and over from everyone who has not been successful with their diet choices is that instead of being honest with the fact that they didn't stick to the diet, they made excuses as to why it was too hard or "diets just don't work for them." There is always a reason, and more often then not it's our own fault.
Good luck.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »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.
That's not what Sara was commenting on. THIS is what she was saying sounds familiar to IIFYM -...would follow a more sensible diet and exercise program.
Do you really understand/know what IIFYM is? Please take a read at the following link because I really don't think you get it.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/817188/iifym/p1
Yes, yes--I understand that the THEORY is to take care of your nutritional needs first and then, if you have any calories left over, indulge your appetite. BUT, when I examine the food diaries of many people, I see that THEY interpret IIFIYM to mean that they can eat whatever crap diet they want to eat as long as they fall under on their calories.
Then they are not actually following what IIFYM is supposed to be. Please do not malign IIFYM because some people do not follow it as it was intended.
Also, 'crap' diet is subjective and very individual.
If you saw what I ate you may call much of it 'crap'. However, just looking at someone's diary does not give context. I can eat a pop tart ice cream sammich - because I have the discretionary calories, do not have an issue with carbs and it is actually beneficial to my lifting. Maybe not someone else.
If your basic nutritional needs were met, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My friend follows a 1,400 calorie diet and she sometimes drinks about a third of her calories in alcoholic beverages. She's 34, will she see a healthy 64? I have my doubts that she will even see 64 at all if she doesn't smarten up.
I do not think anyone would argue that her 'diet' is probably not the best (understatement) and that she would do better with a more sensible diet and more exercise. Someone drinking 1/3 of their cals in alcohol on a 1,400 cal diet is not a good example of anything, other than an other than healthy diet. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation at hand however.
One of the points of IIFYM is to ensure your nutritional needs are met. Again, do not malign IIFYM because some people are not following it at all (as I am sure many of the people not eating a balanced diet do not actually hit their macros the majority of the time) or are not following it as it is intended. Its kind of like people saying they are paleo, but then eat potatoes and protein bars on the regular.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Again, you failed to answer another one of my questions. How do YOU know that you have Metabolic Syndrome?
Not that it is any of your business, but I was told that by my physician.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Isn't metabolic syndrome a myth?
No. From the Cleveland Clinic: http://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases_conditions/hic_Metabolic_Syndrome
But, metabolic syndrome hasn't been proven, has it? It's really just a theory? How do YOU know you have Metabolic Syndrome?
So is the Theory of Relativity but nearly everyone accepts it as truth.
Again, you failed to answer another one of my questions. How do YOU know that you have Metabolic Syndrome?
Not that it is any of your business, but I was told that by my physician.
Hmmm, I would be looking for a new physician. Check out these links.
gastricbypasskills.blogspot.com/2014/08/metabolic-syndrome-is-myth.html
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02325.x/full0 -
I'll eat it if cavemen ate it.... I have veggies, eggs, meat, whole grains.... (and sometimes a hot cocoa....) and I've been losing weight just fine. I'm eating at almost maintenance, about 50 calories under normally but I've lost 3 kilos in as many weeks. Time to up the food!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Lol. I'm familiar with his "research" Weird that fructose isn't any more lipogenic than other sugar, when tested using physiological dosages.
His books are basically self validation for weak willed people. It's not your fault you're fat and lazy it's fructose' fault, but not fructose from fruit since that is good fructose. Gfto with that nonsense
This thread is awesome tho0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »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.
Seriously, I've started just ignoring most of what you say because it makes no sense and your posts hobble from one excuse to another. 4 Years? Big deal I went 5 before life circumstances caused me to regain, but you'll find another excuse when you do hit that regain.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Not at all. Essential fatty acids are just that--essential. There is NOTHING essential about table sugar. I don't eat any added sugar at all and I am much healthier for it.
And how much of these EFAs do you really need a day? Not much so it's a joke to centre a diet around something you need so little of and claim moral superiority, which is all you seem to be doing here.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.
Lol. I'm familiar with his "research" Weird that fructose isn't any more lipogenic than other sugar, when tested using physiological dosages.
His books are basically self validation for weak willed people. It's not your fault you're fat and lazy it's fructose' fault, but not fructose from fruit since that is good fructose. Gfto with that nonsense
This thread is awesome tho
I have no idea how this took me so long but I just recently saw your Food porn thread over at BB. It only took my 3 years to find it. Huge fail on my part. It's very nice..
0 -
http://nutritionstudies.org/fed-up-with-fed-up/ ..... dumb documentary and anyone who believes its.... loaded *kitten* is an idiot, period.-1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions