Let's be serious about Paleo
Replies
-
Like any diet that is mass marketed and generates revenue based on some restrictive protocol, backed by science of a very circumstantial nature, we can assume Paleo is joke.
It may have not started off that way. The proponents of the diet perhaps took the fat burning aspect of Atkins, enhanced it with considerations to those who suffer Celiac's disease, lactose intolerance, and other digestive sensitivities, and produced a diet on paper that seems to cast a wide net intended to treat all that is ailing man. I get the same vibe from those that start on prolonged juice cleanses. Now, throw in the multitudes of individuals that suffer from sugar ABUSE, diabetics who are not-so-coincidentally obese, and you have the goose that laid the golden egg. Now, to brand it with some license of credibility (what better models than prehistoric man?!), and you now have something that sells on principle as well as it sells on paper.
As with most things, you probably have good intentions in mind, then you see a paycheck and you begin to serve what got you paid. As the arguments against your diet philosophy begin to stack up, and the "science" that fuels it begins to whittle, you attach your diet to something that simultaneously is developing its own cult-like following: Crossfit.
Worry not, friend. Just as quickly as Atkins faded from our awareness, so shall Paleo. The fact that it is attached at the hip to Crossfit makes it a more tenacious brand of nonsense, but I have faith that it will disintegrate into thin air within the next five years.
I think at this point, those that understand performance, nutrition, training should just continue to do their own thing, and not be so distressed that people are jumping on and falling off wagons all around them. Hell, I've been training, dieting, and progressing the same way for 7 years, and I've never done something so foolish as to eat an orange peel dipped in honey or whatever....
^^^^THIS^^^^0 -
I was not ranting. I am educating people the effectiveness of paleo and incorporating the reason it works into a normal diet. Did you even read it?
This wasn't a full out anti-paleo thread.
Just to provide a little unsolicited feedback, while it wasn't an anti-paleo rant, your topic did have a "soapbox" feel to it.
If you wanted to communicate the same point in a less preachy way, I would start with why good diets work (satiety), show how paleo supports satiety, and then point out that it's also needlessly restrictive. Making the point that it's a got some strong points, but goes too far.
What would have been even better - because you have some great content here - is to look at more than one of the more restrictive diets to see how they measure up on satiety and maybe even try to pull stats on their effectiveness. Time consuming, but really valuable to the MFP community.
There are not many diets that follow the route of unprocessed foods that were as successful as paleo. The problem in the end is based off of sustainability and the content I linked were to studies that were published on the effectiveness of nonprocessed foods.
This post was not meant to be a sticky but as a discussion. He was the only person who had a true problem with the post and was talking about me ranting. I was pointing out what was effective on paleo.
Out of all the diets paleo is the one which contained the least processed foods and put it on a near full restriction.
As I said before the following diets do not restrict processed foods
veganism
vegetarianism
atkins
zone diet
IIFYM(they are supposed to consume "healthy" and "unhealthy") but does not have set guidelines.
Raw vegan eliminates processed foods!
well i retract that portion
raw vegan also suffers from b12 deficiency though. it is not a healthy diet0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Because we are interested into nutrition. We like the science behind it and much further than the average person. I don't attack people stating I think liking X hobby and say its stupid.I'm noticing, these days, that there are very intelligent people spending all their time trying to debunk Paleo. I've even seen a TED talk on a lady debunking it. And, all I can think about us why do these people spend all their energy debunking a diet? Who gives a *kitten*?
So, I lose respect every time I see someone doing it. Especially when it's this intense research and they gather all this proof and evidence. It's crazy. It's like an jealous ex-wife that just not stop pestering her ex-husband and drags him back to court every 12 months for more money and hassles him about every little detail of his life. It's ridiculous. Let it go. No one cares what Paleo is or isn't. If it works for someone, then it works. End of story.
I don't think people are so stupid that hey don't understand that food is not the same as it was in the Paleolithic era. We all get it. It's just a healthy way to approach food. Seek out the most healthful meats and veggies you can find and dis the big farms.
Don't take it so seriously.
We pull things and have a discussion about the function.
This is what separates the amateurs from the advanced to the experts of any field regardless if its nutrition or underwater basket weaving.0 -
I don't think people are so stupid that hey don't understand that food is not the same as it was in the Paleolithic era. We all get it. It's just a healthy way to approach food. Seek out the most healthful meats and veggies you can find and dis the big farms.
Except the Paleo diet is not the way we ate in the Paleolithic era. And it might not be the *most* healthy way to approach food.
So, trying to needle out what is effective and ineffective about the strategy of a diet focused on meat and veggies is pretty informative.0 -
agreedI don't think people are so stupid that hey don't understand that food is not the same as it was in the Paleolithic era. We all get it. It's just a healthy way to approach food. Seek out the most healthful meats and veggies you can find and dis the big farms.
Except the Paleo diet is not the way we ate in the Paleolithic era. And it might not be the *most* healthy way to approach food.
So, trying to needle out what is effective and ineffective about the strategy of a diet focused on meat and veggies is pretty informative.
there are 2 type of arguers that promote paleo
1. I just like the diet, no processed foods and it fits my lifestyle, it works for me and I can live the rest of my life off of it(thats fine)
2. We ate meat, veggies, and fruits back the. Sugar, gluten is toxic to the human body etc. Research has said that(this is not fine)
Making claims of it being healthier is the problem with most people in this forum. People want to say "it is healthier" This is not limited to paleo but vegetarians and vegans as well.
If they do not enjoy meat, animal rights, etc and that is based on their belief... That is fine. Respect people's morals.
To believe something is healthy is a little different. Thats like saying I believe 2+2=5 which is not right
When you start attempting to use research as a weapon you better have it handy and be able to interpret it.
There are people who like looking at extra information even though we may not ever use it in the real world. I know most of the crap I look up in regards to nutrition will be overall worthless in nursing. I enjoy it though.0 -
I'm noticing, these days, that there are very intelligent people spending all their time trying to debunk Paleo. I've even seen a TED talk on a lady debunking it. And, all I can think about us why do these people spend all their energy debunking a diet? Who gives a *kitten*?
So, I lose respect every time I see someone doing it. Especially when it's this intense research and they gather all this proof and evidence. It's crazy. It's like an jealous ex-wife that just not stop pestering her ex-husband and drags him back to court every 12 months for more money and hassles him about every little detail of his life. It's ridiculous. Let it go. No one cares what Paleo is or isn't. If it works for someone, then it works. End of story.
I don't think people are so stupid that hey don't understand that food is not the same as it was in the Paleolithic era. We all get it. It's just a healthy way to approach food. Seek out the most healthful meats and veggies you can find and dis the big farms.
Don't take it so seriously.
:flowerforyou:0 -
I for one am paleo and no I don't not occasionally eat processed crap. It is not a diet for me it is a lifestyle , one that I enjoy. There have been numerous studies suggesting that crabs (coming from wheat and grains) have an impact on health. I'm not going to debate this cause firstly you sound like you've already made up your mind on something you don't understand and secondly I don't really care if you like it or not. I do what works for me and what I enjoy, but don't bash one persons decision just because you don't agree with it.0
-
I'm noticing, these days, that there are very intelligent people spending all their time trying to debunk Paleo. I've even seen a TED talk on a lady debunking it. And, all I can think about us why do these people spend all their energy debunking a diet? Who gives a *kitten*?
So, I lose respect every time I see someone doing it. Especially when it's this intense research and they gather all this proof and evidence. It's crazy. It's like an jealous ex-wife that just not stop pestering her ex-husband and drags him back to court every 12 months for more money and hassles him about every little detail of his life. It's ridiculous. Let it go. No one cares what Paleo is or isn't. If it works for someone, then it works. End of story.
I don't think people are so stupid that hey don't understand that food is not the same as it was in the Paleolithic era. We all get it. It's just a healthy way to approach food. Seek out the most healthful meats and veggies you can find and dis the big farms.
Don't take it so seriously.
:flowerforyou:
I agree.. To each their own!0 -
I was not ranting. I am educating people the effectiveness of paleo and incorporating the reason it works into a normal diet. Did you even read it?
This wasn't a full out anti-paleo thread.
Just to provide a little unsolicited feedback, while it wasn't an anti-paleo rant, your topic did have a "soapbox" feel to it.
If you wanted to communicate the same point in a less preachy way, I would start with why good diets work (satiety), show how paleo supports satiety, and then point out that it's also needlessly restrictive. Making the point that it's a got some strong points, but goes too far.
What would have been even better - because you have some great content here - is to look at more than one of the more restrictive diets to see how they measure up on satiety and maybe even try to pull stats on their effectiveness. Time consuming, but really valuable to the MFP community.
There are not many diets that follow the route of unprocessed foods that were as successful as paleo. The problem in the end is based off of sustainability and the content I linked were to studies that were published on the effectiveness of nonprocessed foods.
This post was not meant to be a sticky but as a discussion. He was the only person who had a true problem with the post and was talking about me ranting. I was pointing out what was effective on paleo.
Out of all the diets paleo is the one which contained the least processed foods and put it on a near full restriction.
As I said before the following diets do not restrict processed foods
veganism
vegetarianism
atkins
zone diet
IIFYM(they are supposed to consume "healthy" and "unhealthy") but does not have set guidelines.
Raw vegan eliminates processed foods!
well i retract that portion
raw vegan also suffers from b12 deficiency though. it is not a healthy diet
Agree but b12 is in wheatgrass juice/powder and also in spirulina
0 -
raw vegans can consume that?
Agree but b12 is in wheatgrass juice/powder and also in spirulina0 -
I for one am paleo and no I don't not occasionally eat processed crap. It is not a diet for me it is a lifestyle , one that I enjoy. There have been numerous studies suggesting that crabs (coming from wheat and grains) have an impact on health. I'm not going to debate this cause firstly you sound like you've already made up your mind on something you don't understand and secondly I don't really care if you like it or not. I do what works for me and what I enjoy, but don't bash one persons decision just because you don't agree with it.
good job on being objective. I wasnt talking about processed vs unprocessed. I was talking about the concept of paleo, presentation of basis, what in it actually works and is useful in normal diets etc.
I would be interested in seeing the studies but that was far from the point of this thread0 -
I read The Paleo Solution, I read The Primal Blueprint, I read Mark's Daily Apple, I watched the ancestral health stuff online, I did it for 6 months (pretty strict). I ranted on here about how it was the way forward. I even thought Mark Sisson's "Carbohydrate Curve" had a grain (ha!) of truth in it.
I still like Robb Wolf actually, who has recently done a bit of a back-flip on the whole scene.
Hell, I even bought a Grok t-shirt ... I still like the Grok image but I have a mental age of 12 as most of my posts show.
DatMurse, you are spot on, there is very little scientific foundation for it and as others have said, there was no one Paleo diet.
It was fun getting immersed in the 'community' but ultimately eating less food (but mostly good quality satiating food ... mostly ...) and exercising is what is really doing it for me. And I still counted the calories on Paleo so it wasn't over-consumption causing the lack of _real_ progress.0 -
I read The Paleo Solution, I read The Primal Blueprint, I read Mark's Daily Apple, I watched the ancestral health stuff online, I did it for 6 months (pretty strict). I ranted on here about how it was the way forward. I even thought Mark Sisson's "Carbohydrate Curve" had a grain (ha!) of truth in it.
I still like Robb Wolf actually, who has recently done a bit of a back-flip on the whole scene.
Hell, I even bought a Grok t-shirt ... I still like the Grok image but I have a mental age of 12 as most of my posts show.
DatMurse, you are spot on, there is very little scientific foundation for it and as others have said, there was no one Paleo diet.
It was fun getting immersed in the 'community' but ultimately eating less food (but mostly good quality satiating food ... mostly ...) and exercising is what is really doing it for me. And I still counted the calories on Paleo so it wasn't over-consumption causing the lack of _real_ progress.
I dont like mark because he sells whey and markets it as paleo whey....
you cant have dairy but you can have whey? i dont get it0 -
In.0
-
Thanks for posting0
-
Trying to explain why the diet works so people will understand the effectiveness rather than using the argument of reverting back to the stone age.You seem to be on a mission.
The original basis is wrong
you'd have better luck trying to convince a scientologist that L. Ron Hubbard made that whole thing up on a whim.
i'm not saying paleo is a cult, but i'm also not saying it isn't.0 -
You forgot to mention why the satiety on processed food is so low. Obesity researchers call sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup, the "anti-satiety" element in processed food. It is included in virtually all processed food, and especially restaurant food: it supplies only calories. The reason why a diet that eliminates processed foods and sweets works is that it eliminates the non-satiety foodstuffs while retaining the nourishing foods our bodies crave (even if our minds don't). Being successful includes training our minds to want what our bodies want.
There is no scientific evidence stating about sucrose being the cause of obesity. If you actually look at the index why is it that fruit has a high satiation if the carbohydrate in there is sucrose?
There are a LOT of substances there beside sucrose (which is typically a quite small amount of the whole fruit) and those nutrients are likely what produce the satiety. In any case, (from Livestrong.com):
"...Your cells can either use the sucrose you eat immediately, or store it as fat. Typically, the faster you absorb the monosaccharides from sucrose into the bloodstream, the more likely they are to be stored as fat, note Drs. Garrett and Grisham. As such, sucrose that you obtain from eating whole fruit is less likely to be stored as fat than sucrose you get from less fiber-rich sources, like sweetened foods and beverages. Regardless, overconsuming sucrose from any source -- including fruit -- can lead to excess weight gain..."
We are speaking of volume of absorption over time here. One can of "orange" soda has 44 grams of fructose/glucose and it is very bio-available because there is no fiber. A whole orange has about 9 grams of total sugars and those sugars are encased in fiber where they are released slowly into the body. And because our teeth/mouth were not designed to completely pulverize the fruit, it is likely that a fair bit of the sugar will be unabsorbed and pass out of the body with the fiber. Plus, there are other substances in many fruit (such as an apple) that guard against the precipitous raising of blood sugar and make it less likely the sugars will be stored as fat.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/323696-fruit-and-sucrose/#ixzz2UvLwgHqI0 -
One thing that I've noticed it that my toddlers consistently choose food low in dietary fiber, while I need to pay attention to my consumption of those foods to feel full. I've begun to wonder if that's one of the differences between kid and adult nutritional needs.
IIRC, the American Academy of Pediatrics has judged very high fiber diets to be unsuitable for children. Because of the lower volume of food that they consume, there is apparently concern that the fiber will interfere with the absorption of specific nutrients that children need for growth.0 -
You forgot to mention why the satiety on processed food is so low. Obesity researchers call sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup, the "anti-satiety" element in processed food. It is included in virtually all processed food, and especially restaurant food: it supplies only calories. The reason why a diet that eliminates processed foods and sweets works is that it eliminates the non-satiety foodstuffs while retaining the nourishing foods our bodies crave (even if our minds don't). Being successful includes training our minds to want what our bodies want.
There is no scientific evidence stating about sucrose being the cause of obesity. If you actually look at the index why is it that fruit has a high satiation if the carbohydrate in there is sucrose?
There are a LOT of substances there beside sucrose (which is typically a quite small amount of the whole fruit) and those nutrients are likely what produce the satiety. In any case, (from Livestrong.com):
"...Your cells can either use the sucrose you eat immediately, or store it as fat. Typically, the faster you absorb the monosaccharides from sucrose into the bloodstream, the more likely they are to be stored as fat, note Drs. Garrett and Grisham. As such, sucrose that you obtain from eating whole fruit is less likely to be stored as fat than sucrose you get from less fiber-rich sources, like sweetened foods and beverages. Regardless, overconsuming sucrose from any source -- including fruit -- can lead to excess weight gain..."
We are speaking of volume of absorption over time here. One can of "orange" soda has 44 grams of fructose/glucose and it is very bio-available because there is no fiber. A whole orange has about 9 grams of total sugars and those sugars are encased in fiber where they are released slowly into the body. And because our teeth/mouth were not designed to completely pulverize the fruit, it is likely that a fair bit of the sugar will be unabsorbed and pass out of the body with the fiber. Plus, there are other substances in many fruit (such as an apple) that guard against the precipitous raising of blood sugar and make it less likely the sugars will be stored as fat.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/323696-fruit-and-sucrose/#ixzz2UvLwgHqI
there is no evidence that talks about sucrose content and satiety.0 -
Spaghetti squash. Just cut in half spray with olive oil pam. Sprinkle a little salt an pepper. Place cut side down and roast in a 375 degree oven for about 45 minutes. Until lightly brown and soft. Turn over and scrape out flesf with a fork. It kinda looks like pasta. Then i put some spaghetti sauce on it. Yummy!!!0
-
i dont understand the point of this postSpaghetti squash. Just cut in half spray with olive oil pam. Sprinkle a little salt an pepper. Place cut side down and roast in a 375 degree oven for about 45 minutes. Until lightly brown and soft. Turn over and scrape out flesf with a fork. It kinda looks like pasta. Then i put some spaghetti sauce on it. Yummy!!!0 -
.
.
.
To believe something is healthy is a little different. Thats like saying I believe 2+2=5 which is not right
.
.
.
<Off topic> I feel I have to make a comment on this statement. As I have learned in my universal law theory call back in grad school, 2+2 = 5 can be true, depending on the Universal Law being expressed.
I am assuming the reason you believe 2+2=5 is false is because you are quoting the Universal Law of Mathematics with respect to addition of integers.
Let me give an example how different Universal Laws are applied.
Question: What is the shortest distance between two points? Most people would state a straight line, which is correct, depending on which Law is applied. Now, let me apply a Universal Law. With the Universal Law of Gravitation Pull, again, what is the shortest distance between two points? If you had answered a straight line, this would be incorrect, as gravitation pull will direct objects downward. Therefore, an arc would be the shortest distance.
Again, off topic... ^_^0 -
Thanks for posting this!0
-
You forgot to mention why the satiety on processed food is so low. Obesity researchers call sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup, the "anti-satiety" element in processed food. It is included in virtually all processed food, and especially restaurant food: it supplies only calories. The reason why a diet that eliminates processed foods and sweets works is that it eliminates the non-satiety foodstuffs while retaining the nourishing foods our bodies crave (even if our minds don't). Being successful includes training our minds to want what our bodies want.
There is no scientific evidence stating about sucrose being the cause of obesity. If you actually look at the index why is it that fruit has a high satiation if the carbohydrate in there is sucrose?
There are a LOT of substances there beside sucrose (which is typically a quite small amount of the whole fruit) and those nutrients are likely what produce the satiety. In any case, (from Livestrong.com):
"...Your cells can either use the sucrose you eat immediately, or store it as fat. Typically, the faster you absorb the monosaccharides from sucrose into the bloodstream, the more likely they are to be stored as fat, note Drs. Garrett and Grisham. As such, sucrose that you obtain from eating whole fruit is less likely to be stored as fat than sucrose you get from less fiber-rich sources, like sweetened foods and beverages. Regardless, overconsuming sucrose from any source -- including fruit -- can lead to excess weight gain..."
We are speaking of volume of absorption over time here. One can of "orange" soda has 44 grams of fructose/glucose and it is very bio-available because there is no fiber. A whole orange has about 9 grams of total sugars and those sugars are encased in fiber where they are released slowly into the body. And because our teeth/mouth were not designed to completely pulverize the fruit, it is likely that a fair bit of the sugar will be unabsorbed and pass out of the body with the fiber. Plus, there are other substances in many fruit (such as an apple) that guard against the precipitous raising of blood sugar and make it less likely the sugars will be stored as fat.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/323696-fruit-and-sucrose/#ixzz2UvLwgHqI
there is no evidence that talks about sucrose content and satiety.
Like all addictive substances, sugar consumption tends to lose its satiating effect and, for many, many people, increasing amounts are sought. Here is a study that speaks to the issue of sugar addiction: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories0 -
You forgot to mention why the satiety on processed food is so low. Obesity researchers call sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup, the "anti-satiety" element in processed food. It is included in virtually all processed food, and especially restaurant food: it supplies only calories. The reason why a diet that eliminates processed foods and sweets works is that it eliminates the non-satiety foodstuffs while retaining the nourishing foods our bodies crave (even if our minds don't). Being successful includes training our minds to want what our bodies want.
There is no scientific evidence stating about sucrose being the cause of obesity. If you actually look at the index why is it that fruit has a high satiation if the carbohydrate in there is sucrose?
There are a LOT of substances there beside sucrose (which is typically a quite small amount of the whole fruit) and those nutrients are likely what produce the satiety. In any case, (from Livestrong.com):
"...Your cells can either use the sucrose you eat immediately, or store it as fat. Typically, the faster you absorb the monosaccharides from sucrose into the bloodstream, the more likely they are to be stored as fat, note Drs. Garrett and Grisham. As such, sucrose that you obtain from eating whole fruit is less likely to be stored as fat than sucrose you get from less fiber-rich sources, like sweetened foods and beverages. Regardless, overconsuming sucrose from any source -- including fruit -- can lead to excess weight gain..."
We are speaking of volume of absorption over time here. One can of "orange" soda has 44 grams of fructose/glucose and it is very bio-available because there is no fiber. A whole orange has about 9 grams of total sugars and those sugars are encased in fiber where they are released slowly into the body. And because our teeth/mouth were not designed to completely pulverize the fruit, it is likely that a fair bit of the sugar will be unabsorbed and pass out of the body with the fiber. Plus, there are other substances in many fruit (such as an apple) that guard against the precipitous raising of blood sugar and make it less likely the sugars will be stored as fat.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/323696-fruit-and-sucrose/#ixzz2UvLwgHqI
there is no evidence that talks about sucrose content and satiety.
Like all addictive substances, sugar consumption tends to lose its satiating effect and, for many, many people, increasing amounts are sought. Here is a study that speaks to the issue of sugar addiction: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories
no. addiction =/= anti-satiation.
even if addiction was true
Even people who do drugs dont keep going. they eventually stop after they get their high.
with that reasoning we should keep eating fruit past satiation regardless of other substances
http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/12/11/sugar-is-an-addictive-drug-ehs/
http://news.psu.edu/story/141336/2006/01/16/research/probing-question-sugar-addictive0 -
Then why even go online on the forums? This is for educational purposes.
Trying to explain why the diet works so people will understand the effectiveness rather than using the argument of reverting back to the stone age.You seem to be on a mission.
The original basis is wrong
Who the f cares? If it works for folks, and people want to try it. Let em.
ranting against it is not equal to educating people.
Op is nothing close to ranting. He has laid out a thoughtful, fact based theory for respectful discussion, and with one notable exception, that's what he has gotten. (Note: I am only up to page two in posts, so it could, and probably will, get ugly later. lol).0 -
"...Even people who do drugs don't keep going. they eventually stop after they get their high..."
No--do you know any addicts? Most cocaine addicts will say that if they had a pile of cocaine in front of them, no matter how large, that when they got up (if they got up) it would be all gone. That is the way addiction works--it takes more and more of a substance to create the same affects (in the case of sugary foods--satiation).
"...with that reasoning we should keep eating fruit past satiation regardless of other substances..."
Fruit is not a "sugary food". I know a number of people who will polish off an entire package of Oreos in one sitting but I never knew anyone who ate the equivalent amount of sugars in fruit. That's how you know you are dealing with food addiction--examining the food diary of the individual. What invariably shows up in the diaries of food addicts is a lot of sugary foods and ice cream, high sodium/fat foods (like pizza) and LOTS of soda pop. One of the first things I counsel is substituting water or other non-caloric beverages for the soda, and then substituting fruits and vegetables for the high calorie foods like ice cream. Food addicts will typically go weeks at a time without eating any vegetables or fresh fruits. That must change to break the addiction.0 -
"...Even people who do drugs don't keep going. they eventually stop after they get their high..."
No--do you know any addicts? Most cocaine addicts will say that if they had a pile of cocaine in front of them, no matter how large, that when they got up (if they got up) it would be all gone. That is the way addiction works--it takes more and more of a substance to create the same affects (in the case of sugary foods--satiation).
"...with that reasoning we should keep eating fruit past satiation regardless of other substances..."
Fruit is not a "sugary food". I know a number of people who will polish off an entire package of Oreos in one sitting but I never knew anyone who ate the equivalent amount of sugars in fruit. That's how you know you are dealing with food addiction--examining the food diary of the individual. What invariably shows up in the diaries of food addicts is a lot of sugary foods and ice cream, high sodium/fat foods (like pizza) and LOTS of soda pop. One of the first things I counsel is substituting water or other non-caloric beverages for the soda, and then substituting fruits and vegetables for the high calorie foods like ice cream. Food addicts will typically go weeks at a time without eating any vegetables or fresh fruits. That must change to break the addiction.
yes I do know addicts. People die from overdose due to taking in too much of the stimulant.
I have had patients in the hospital who were ex convicts who were open and honest about everything that they have taken in with me. They were well aware of the laws we have to follow in order to keep their confidentiality. Even as students.
Fruit is not a sugary food? So you should be able to want more fruit because it has less sugar? You are bringing up sucrose into this conversation when there is little to no indication on the effect of satiation in the human body. there are plenty of products out there that are gluten free and sugar free that have little to no satiation on the body.
lentils vs cheese.
mars candy bars vs jelly beans(which is straight sugar)0 -
I just watched this video of this girl that I've been following for awhile. She's having great success with her body but I noticed something today. Her face is starting to look horrible. Her eyes have these black circles under them and she's walking around all lifeless and crap. I was like whoa. She really looked like she was weighed down with chains. Sure she has a nice body but at what cost? She was showing what all she eats too, it was in my opinion, way too much fat for one day and too unhealthy.
I watched the video today on The China Study, which can be found at the link below. It shows that high levels of protein and fat are linked to heart disease. If ever I've seen a diet that is high in protein and fat it's this one. So, is this diet really ideal, no. Not according this study that was done by medical doctors and I think that is pretty credible in my book. Please feel free to watch it for yourself. What do you have to lose? An hour of time for a video or 20-30 years of your life, you decide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOEeTJY5zCM 0
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