The Smarter Science of Slim

SanteMulberry

When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.

I think this is spot on.

Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.

The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.

While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?

It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)

but what is the tradeoff?

always obsessing whether every ingredient in every food you eat is on the list of "ok" ingredients? or perhaps just exercising a little bit of self-control (this is a learned skill that anybody can learn) and not worrying about what foods you can and cannot eat?

for me, the latter is the obvious choice.

by definition, any diet that restricts your ability to eat certain foods is "restrictive", whether you want to eat those foods or not. i don't eat much seafood. in fact, i never eat seafood except for the occasional can of tuna. i don't miss seafood, but you could fairly say that my diet is restrictive in that regard.

So then, what is your beef with people who choose not to eat sugar and grain? I wouldn't think of chiding you for not wanting to eat seafood. My husband is allergic to casein (the protein in cow's milk). For the sake of his health, he has learned to eliminate it from his diet. It is the same for many people whose consumption of simple carbs sets off a metabolic chain-reaction. I didn't choose to be like this. But since I am a grownup, I must deal with it in the most effective way possible. It has worked and is continuing to work. End of story.

SanteMulberry

I don't know about the idea that grains have nothing essential to your health. Whole wheat, for example, certainly isn't void of nutrition. We benefit from the fiber, vitamins, and minerals. If one doesn't have a food sensitivity that negates the benefit, I don't understand why it shouldn't be part of a healthy diet.

I didn't say that they have nothing to offer---just that, for some people, they are not a particularly good idea. For me, eating wheat just isn't worth the metabolic hassle. I'm much healthier without it. And EVERYONE would be healthier without the empty calories that table sugar represents. I got rid of sugary foods three years ago. I got rid of wheat a year ago. And I got rid of gluten altogether a few months ago. At each stage, I felt better.

Iron_Feline

When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.

I think this is spot on.

Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.

The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.

While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?

It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)

but what is the tradeoff?

always obsessing whether every ingredient in every food you eat is on the list of "ok" ingredients? or perhaps just exercising a little bit of self-control (this is a learned skill that anybody can learn) and not worrying about what foods you can and cannot eat?

for me, the latter is the obvious choice.

by definition, any diet that restricts your ability to eat certain foods is "restrictive", whether you want to eat those foods or not. i don't eat much seafood. in fact, i never eat seafood except for the occasional can of tuna. i don't miss seafood, but you could fairly say that my diet is restrictive in that regard.

So then, what is your beef with people who choose not to eat sugar and grain? I wouldn't think of chiding you for not wanting to eat seafood. My husband is allergic to casein (the protein in cow's milk). For the sake of his health, he has learned to eliminate it from his diet. It is the same for many people whose consumption of simple carbs sets off a metabolic chain-reaction. I didn't choose to be like this. But since I am a grownup, I must deal with it in the most effective way possible. It has worked and is continuing to work. End of story.

The problem is that it is restrictive - and to say it isn't is a lie. Unless you have a medical reason there is no need to cut out an entire food group. Yes you can if you want to - but that makes your diet restrictive, and so shouldn't be suggested as a way to lose weight.

The majority of people will lose weight and keep it off with a non restrictive diet where you learn to eat all food in moderation. Telling people to cut out food groups to lose weight because you have chosen to do it is giving bad advice.

Iron_Feline

I don't know about the idea that grains have nothing essential to your health. Whole wheat, for example, certainly isn't void of nutrition. We benefit from the fiber, vitamins, and minerals. If one doesn't have a food sensitivity that negates the benefit, I don't understand why it shouldn't be part of a healthy diet.

I didn't say that they have nothing to offer---just that, for some people, they are not a particularly good idea. For me, eating wheat just isn't worth the metabolic hassle. I'm much healthier without it. And EVERYONE would be healthier without the empty calories that table sugar represents. I got rid of sugary foods three years ago. I got rid of wheat a year ago. And I got rid of gluten altogether a few months ago. At each stage, I felt better.

I doubt that claim. My food would be restricted and blander for the lack of sugar - and since I have no issues with it at all there is no need to cut it out of my diet. That goes for the majority of people.

Quit demonising foods because YOU have an issue with them.

SanteMulberry

Thanks emck3 good point about the book vs podcasts. I really like the podcasts because JB does talk about things a lot more casually and explains a lot. It's never about 100% and JB says that as well. But if you can eat well MOST of the time, the rest of it works itself out.

I also agree with finding what is right for you. Personally, I need some carbs with my breakfast and 5/7 days have 30g quinoa or oats in the morning. Works for me. But the basics of SSoS are fantastic, and eating veggies, protein and fat is working really well and I feel great.

Yes--I find that I need carbs at breakfast as well. I often eat sweet potato at breakfast. I eat a bit of steel cut oats twice a week as well (on the days when I have my biggest calorie burn at the pool).

SanteMulberry

I don't know about the idea that grains have nothing essential to your health. Whole wheat, for example, certainly isn't void of nutrition. We benefit from the fiber, vitamins, and minerals. If one doesn't have a food sensitivity that negates the benefit, I don't understand why it shouldn't be part of a healthy diet.

I didn't say that they have nothing to offer---just that, for some people, they are not a particularly good idea. For me, eating wheat just isn't worth the metabolic hassle. I'm much healthier without it. And EVERYONE would be healthier without the empty calories that table sugar represents. I got rid of sugary foods three years ago. I got rid of wheat a year ago. And I got rid of gluten altogether a few months ago. At each stage, I felt better.

I doubt that claim. My food would be restricted and blander for the lack of sugar - and since I have no issues with it at all there is no need to cut it out of my diet. That goes for the majority of people.

Quit demonising foods because YOU have an issue with them.

Tell me one nutrient that sugar offers other than carbohydrate? It is a nutritional zero because it TAKES nutrients (ex. B vitamins) from the body to metabolize it and adds nothing but calories back. The medical establishment has been down on sugar consumption for a very long time---are they "demonizing" it?

jonnythan

Tell me one nutrient that sugar offers other than carbohydrate? It is a nutritional zero because it TAKES nutrients (ex. B vitamins) from the body to metabolize it and adds nothing but calories back. The medical establishment has been down on sugar consumption for a very long time---are they "demonizing" it?

The fact that it doesn't have extra nutrients doesn't mean that removing it from the diet makes you healthier.

SanteMulberry

When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.

I think this is spot on.

Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.

The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.

While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?

It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)

but what is the tradeoff?

always obsessing whether every ingredient in every food you eat is on the list of "ok" ingredients? or perhaps just exercising a little bit of self-control (this is a learned skill that anybody can learn) and not worrying about what foods you can and cannot eat?

for me, the latter is the obvious choice.

by definition, any diet that restricts your ability to eat certain foods is "restrictive", whether you want to eat those foods or not. i don't eat much seafood. in fact, i never eat seafood except for the occasional can of tuna. i don't miss seafood, but you could fairly say that my diet is restrictive in that regard.

So then, what is your beef with people who choose not to eat sugar and grain? I wouldn't think of chiding you for not wanting to eat seafood. My husband is allergic to casein (the protein in cow's milk). For the sake of his health, he has learned to eliminate it from his diet. It is the same for many people whose consumption of simple carbs sets off a metabolic chain-reaction. I didn't choose to be like this. But since I am a grownup, I must deal with it in the most effective way possible. It has worked and is continuing to work. End of story.

The problem is that it is restrictive - and to say it isn't is a lie. Unless you have a medical reason there is no need to cut out an entire food group. Yes you can if you want to - but that makes your diet restrictive, and so shouldn't be suggested as a way to lose weight.

The majority of people will lose weight and keep it off with a non restrictive diet where you learn to eat all food in moderation. Telling people to cut out food groups to lose weight because you have chosen to do it is giving bad advice.

Of course it is restrictive---it restricts what isn't good for me (and for many other people). I DO have a medical reason for cutting it out. Before I cut out sugar, I was on the maximum dose of TWO blood pressure meds. After I cut out sugar, my blood pressure came down over the course of a few weeks--enough so that I was able to taper off of both medications. I now enjoy a very healthy 115/75 ---WITHOUT MEDICATION. I was "pre-diabetic" and my fasting blood sugar and triglycerides are now in the normal range. It is NOT bad advice to tell people what has worked for me and others.

SanteMulberry

Tell me one nutrient that sugar offers other than carbohydrate? It is a nutritional zero because it TAKES nutrients (ex. B vitamins) from the body to metabolize it and adds nothing but calories back. The medical establishment has been down on sugar consumption for a very long time---are they "demonizing" it?

The fact that it doesn't have extra nutrients doesn't mean that removing it from the diet makes you healthier.

You are ignoring the obvious fact that many of us simply cannot afford the empty calories that sugar represents. Besides which, are you really going to argue that I was healthier when I was eating sugar and popping blood pressure pills that made me sick and wasted precious muscle mass?

jonnythan

When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.

I think this is spot on.

Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.

The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.

While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?

It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)

but what is the tradeoff?

always obsessing whether every ingredient in every food you eat is on the list of "ok" ingredients? or perhaps just exercising a little bit of self-control (this is a learned skill that anybody can learn) and not worrying about what foods you can and cannot eat?

for me, the latter is the obvious choice.

by definition, any diet that restricts your ability to eat certain foods is "restrictive", whether you want to eat those foods or not. i don't eat much seafood. in fact, i never eat seafood except for the occasional can of tuna. i don't miss seafood, but you could fairly say that my diet is restrictive in that regard.

So then, what is your beef with people who choose not to eat sugar and grain? I wouldn't think of chiding you for not wanting to eat seafood. My husband is allergic to casein (the protein in cow's milk). For the sake of his health, he has learned to eliminate it from his diet. It is the same for many people whose consumption of simple carbs sets off a metabolic chain-reaction. I didn't choose to be like this. But since I am a grownup, I must deal with it in the most effective way possible. It has worked and is continuing to work. End of story.

The problem is that it is restrictive - and to say it isn't is a lie. Unless you have a medical reason there is no need to cut out an entire food group. Yes you can if you want to - but that makes your diet restrictive, and so shouldn't be suggested as a way to lose weight.

The majority of people will lose weight and keep it off with a non restrictive diet where you learn to eat all food in moderation. Telling people to cut out food groups to lose weight because you have chosen to do it is giving bad advice.

Of course it is restrictive---it restricts what isn't good for me (and for many other people). I DO have a medical reason for cutting it out. Before I cut out sugar, I was on the maximum dose of TWO blood pressure meds. After I cut out sugar, my blood pressure came down over the course of a few weeks--enough so that I was able to taper off of both medications. I now enjoy a very healthy 115/75 ---WITHOUT MEDICATION. I was "pre-diabetic" and my fasting blood sugar and triglycerides are now in the normal range. It is NOT bad advice to tell people what has worked for me and others.

And I'm sure the only change you made in your life was throwing away your bag of sugar.

SanteMulberry

When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.

I think this is spot on.

Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.

The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.

While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?

It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)

but what is the tradeoff?

always obsessing whether every ingredient in every food you eat is on the list of "ok" ingredients? or perhaps just exercising a little bit of self-control (this is a learned skill that anybody can learn) and not worrying about what foods you can and cannot eat?

for me, the latter is the obvious choice.

by definition, any diet that restricts your ability to eat certain foods is "restrictive", whether you want to eat those foods or not. i don't eat much seafood. in fact, i never eat seafood except for the occasional can of tuna. i don't miss seafood, but you could fairly say that my diet is restrictive in that regard.

So then, what is your beef with people who choose not to eat sugar and grain? I wouldn't think of chiding you for not wanting to eat seafood. My husband is allergic to casein (the protein in cow's milk). For the sake of his health, he has learned to eliminate it from his diet. It is the same for many people whose consumption of simple carbs sets off a metabolic chain-reaction. I didn't choose to be like this. But since I am a grownup, I must deal with it in the most effective way possible. It has worked and is continuing to work. End of story.

The problem is that it is restrictive - and to say it isn't is a lie. Unless you have a medical reason there is no need to cut out an entire food group. Yes you can if you want to - but that makes your diet restrictive, and so shouldn't be suggested as a way to lose weight.

The majority of people will lose weight and keep it off with a non restrictive diet where you learn to eat all food in moderation. Telling people to cut out food groups to lose weight because you have chosen to do it is giving bad advice.

Of course it is restrictive---it restricts what isn't good for me (and for many other people). I DO have a medical reason for cutting it out. Before I cut out sugar, I was on the maximum dose of TWO blood pressure meds. After I cut out sugar, my blood pressure came down over the course of a few weeks--enough so that I was able to taper off of both medications. I now enjoy a very healthy 115/75 ---WITHOUT MEDICATION. I was "pre-diabetic" and my fasting blood sugar and triglycerides are now in the normal range. It is NOT bad advice to tell people what has worked for me and others.

And I'm sure the only change you made in your life was throwing away your bag of sugar.

Yes--actually that was the only change I made initially. My blood pressure came down BEFORE I lost any significant amount of weight. Thanks for asking.

Iron_Feline

I don't know about the idea that grains have nothing essential to your health. Whole wheat, for example, certainly isn't void of nutrition. We benefit from the fiber, vitamins, and minerals. If one doesn't have a food sensitivity that negates the benefit, I don't understand why it shouldn't be part of a healthy diet.

I didn't say that they have nothing to offer---just that, for some people, they are not a particularly good idea. For me, eating wheat just isn't worth the metabolic hassle. I'm much healthier without it. And EVERYONE would be healthier without the empty calories that table sugar represents. I got rid of sugary foods three years ago. I got rid of wheat a year ago. And I got rid of gluten altogether a few months ago. At each stage, I felt better.

I doubt that claim. My food would be restricted and blander for the lack of sugar - and since I have no issues with it at all there is no need to cut it out of my diet. That goes for the majority of people.

Quit demonising foods because YOU have an issue with them.

Tell me one nutrient that sugar offers other than carbohydrate? It is a nutritional zero because it TAKES nutrients (ex. B vitamins) from the body to metabolize it and adds nothing but calories back. The medical establishment has been down on sugar consumption for a very long time---are they "demonizing" it?

Yes they are, first it was fat and now they are demonising sugar. There is nothing wrong with it in moderation. And there is nothing wrong with carbs, sometimes you need a quick energy release.

I doubted the claim that everyone would be healthier btw.

geebusuk

For some time we have been given the concept of calories in vs calories out using the model of a scale if we want to lose weight... Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working.

Sorry... but how did you link the fact that it's accepted that exercising more and eating less calories with people being over weight?
Do you actually believe that the majority of people that are over weight are ones that are trying to get their calories out lower than than calories in by exercising more and eating less?

Massive and erroneous jump of logic there, to my mind.

I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.

I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.

SanteMulberry

I don't know about the idea that grains have nothing essential to your health. Whole wheat, for example, certainly isn't void of nutrition. We benefit from the fiber, vitamins, and minerals. If one doesn't have a food sensitivity that negates the benefit, I don't understand why it shouldn't be part of a healthy diet.

I didn't say that they have nothing to offer---just that, for some people, they are not a particularly good idea. For me, eating wheat just isn't worth the metabolic hassle. I'm much healthier without it. And EVERYONE would be healthier without the empty calories that table sugar represents. I got rid of sugary foods three years ago. I got rid of wheat a year ago. And I got rid of gluten altogether a few months ago. At each stage, I felt better.

I doubt that claim. My food would be restricted and blander for the lack of sugar - and since I have no issues with it at all there is no need to cut it out of my diet. That goes for the majority of people.

Quit demonising foods because YOU have an issue with them.

Tell me one nutrient that sugar offers other than carbohydrate? It is a nutritional zero because it TAKES nutrients (ex. B vitamins) from the body to metabolize it and adds nothing but calories back. The medical establishment has been down on sugar consumption for a very long time---are they "demonizing" it?

Yes they are, first it was fat and now they are demonising sugar. There is nothing wrong with it in moderation. And there is nothing wrong with carbs, sometimes you need a quick energy release.

I doubted the claim that everyone would be healthier btw.

Well, then, let's say the vast majority of people would be better off without sugar. Children would be much better off with real, nourishing food rather than the crap that is hawked on Saturday morning cartoons. Seniors would be much better served by eating real, nourishing food than the empty calories that makes up much of their diet. And everyone in between, from the chubby adolescent who is hooked on candy and soda pop to the housewife who eats half the cookies she bakes, would be way better off. Give me a good reason why anyone other than marathon runners benefit from eating sugar (and even that could be questioned).

SanteMulberry

For some time we have been given the concept of calories in vs calories out using the model of a scale if we want to lose weight... Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working.

Sorry... but how did you link the fact that it's accepted that exercising more and eating less calories with people being over weight?
Do you actually believe that the majority of people that are over weight are ones that are trying to get their calories out lower than than calories in by exercising more and eating less?

Massive and erroneous jump of logic there, to my mind.

I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.

I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.

Perhaps not in terms of excess body fat, but the metabolizing of sugar does other things to the body besides just adding body fat. Google "advanced glycation end-products" sometime. Sugar consumption leads to frequent and excessive high blood glucose, which, in turn, causes the body to have to deal with it in the best way it can. It also contributes to high uric acid levels which cause a cascade of metabolic problems. The level of what was considered "normal" uric acid now, would have been considered elevated back in the 1920s (before our national sugar habit was well-established). We went from a per capita yearly sugar consumption of less than a pound in 1900 to an estimated 150 pounds today. Sugar consumption accelerated a lot in the 1980s with the advent of including it in most processed foods. Today, only 40% of sugar consumed is from sugary foods--the rest is "hidden" in processed food. The rise in sugar consumption tracks perfectly with the epidemic of obesity and Type II diabetes.

mmapags

For some time we have been given the concept of calories in vs calories out using the model of a scale if we want to lose weight... Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working.

Sorry... but how did you link the fact that it's accepted that exercising more and eating less calories with people being over weight?
Do you actually believe that the majority of people that are over weight are ones that are trying to get their calories out lower than than calories in by exercising more and eating less?

Massive and erroneous jump of logic there, to my mind.

I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.

I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.

Oooh, oooh I know!! It's either because some people are unique and special snowflakes or it's magic!! :drinker:

SanteMulberry

For some time we have been given the concept of calories in vs calories out using the model of a scale if we want to lose weight... Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working.

Sorry... but how did you link the fact that it's accepted that exercising more and eating less calories with people being over weight?
Do you actually believe that the majority of people that are over weight are ones that are trying to get their calories out lower than than calories in by exercising more and eating less?

Massive and erroneous jump of logic there, to my mind.

I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.

I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.

Oooh, oooh I know!! It's either because some people are unique and special snowflakes or it's magic!! :drinker:

Resorting to sarcasm and mockery doesn't particularly argue well against reasoned arguments. Besides, what you see today as "actually fairly fit" won't necessarily always be the case. You are what you eat.

mmapags

For some time we have been given the concept of calories in vs calories out using the model of a scale if we want to lose weight... Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working.

Sorry... but how did you link the fact that it's accepted that exercising more and eating less calories with people being over weight?
Do you actually believe that the majority of people that are over weight are ones that are trying to get their calories out lower than than calories in by exercising more and eating less?

Massive and erroneous jump of logic there, to my mind.

I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.

I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.

Oooh, oooh I know!! It's either because some people are unique and special snowflakes or it's magic!! :drinker:

Resorting to sarcasm and mockery doesn't particularly argue well against reasoned arguments. Besides, what you see today as "actually fairly fit" won't necessarily always be the case. You are what you eat.

You mean that's not it?? On noes!! it must be demon suuuugggaarrrrrrrr!!!

mmapags

For some time we have been given the concept of calories in vs calories out using the model of a scale if we want to lose weight... Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working.

Sorry... but how did you link the fact that it's accepted that exercising more and eating less calories with people being over weight?
Do you actually believe that the majority of people that are over weight are ones that are trying to get their calories out lower than than calories in by exercising more and eating less?

Massive and erroneous jump of logic there, to my mind.

I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.

I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.

Oooh, oooh I know!! It's either because some people are unique and special snowflakes or it's magic!! :drinker:

Resorting to sarcasm and mockery doesn't particularly argue well against reasoned arguments. Besides, what you see today as "actually fairly fit" won't necessarily always be the case. You are what you eat.

You mean that's not it?? On noes!! it must be demon suuuugggaarrrrrrrr!!!

Or wait.... maybe it's grains......or dairy........or not eating clean enough? Maybe too much salt? Or not enough water? Or poptarts?? I don't know!! I'm so confused! I may never eat again!! :sad:

dmndangel

I do enjoy listening to Jonathan and Carrie for the most part, but I can't completely bring myself to jump on this bandwagon. I don't think I'm carb-sensitive or addicted like many people claim to be. I see nothing wrong with having a slice of whole wheat bread with my eggs in the morning, or a quarter cup of rice or a potato with dinner. And damn it Jonathan, I will eat a banana if I want to!! lol. Seriously though, I think my biggest issue with the low-carb manifesto is the anti-fruit campaign. I don't think I eat an excessive amount of fruit but I do put it in my veggie smoothies and will sometimes have it as a snack.

Jonathan has made me more conscious of trying to eat more vegetables though which is definitely a good thing. Finding out I like a wider variety of them than I thought! I might try cutting out the processed carbs in my life (bread, rice, pasta) for a month or so this summer to see how I feel but I'm not expecting much change honestly. I don't really overdo it with these foods now (at least in my mind I dont). The only thing that has ever made a significant change to my digestive health and well-being was seriously cutting down on processed foods and drinking more water.

Good podcast overall though, would recommend listening to it especially if you're into the paleo or low carb lifestyle.