Feelin Frisky Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 Hopefully I'm not preaching to the choir here, but bear in mind that protein ingestion causes insulin to spike as well, therefore halting lipolysis. Does this mean one should not eat protein? No way! However, it demonstrates yet another way that our bodies are extremely adept at keeping bodyfat on us. As such, it's important to create a caloric deficit, even if it's pretty small (say 500 calories per day from maintenance intake), in the attempt to lose fat. Some, including myself, have made the error of believing that by eliminating a certain food group is the cure-all. While lowering carbohydrate intake can be especially beneficial to insulin resistant individuals, it's probably not going to be feasible in the long term as part of a lifestyle. There's simply too many tasty carbs out there, not to mention the benefits of being carb depleted diminish greatly in the long term. One approach you may wish to try would be to back load your carbohydrates. One way to do this would be to eat P+F (protein plus fat) meals and P+C meal post-exercise. Another approach is to cycle carbs based on your daily activity. On rest days, you might try eating only P+F meals. On days that you lift heavy or do some other form of intense exercise, P+C meals would be chosen, while minimizing fat intake. What I do personally is combine the two. I generally eat carbohydrates post training, and immediately before. On days that I do not lift heavy, I generally eat P+F meals only, with a much lower carb intake. Basically, what I'm advocating is trying to experiment with ways to incorporate carbs in such a way that minimizes fat gain, but allows you to reap the benefits as well. If you've already tried all of this, I apologize for my unsolicited advice. Nah, it's cool. One will have to make more precise choices the closer to being actually fit or trim. That's when reintroducing carbs you've been austere about gets dangerous for habitual food addicts, obesity relapsers, compulsive pleasure-food consumers. The pitfall is to just accept that manufactured sugar and starchy stuff is not part of the life-style any more. Over time, it gets easier. One just has to watch his or her company because other people are often triggers.
dreamingoftigers Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 It seems to me that there was a "sugar set point" that I got attuned to in childhood. For instance my diet is mainly set on sweets. When I have taken all of the sweets out, vegetables like carrots actually taste sweet. If I have a drink of juice after a couple of weeks of a mainly vegetables and meats and some fruit, it almost overwhelms me, or I find it gross. However, that dopamine surge does happen and I feel drawn to it again. Sugar is just like anything else addictive: you think of it and it has this "feel good" idea behind it that the real substance never really matches. Plus it comes with long-term consequences. Terrible, toxic stuff. 1
tman666 Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 One just has to watch his or her company because other people are often triggers. Truer words never spoken. I see this all of the time with husbands and wives or boyfriends/girlfriends who are not on the same page.
Author FitChick Posted April 6, 2012 Author Posted April 6, 2012 I think we inherit tendencies to preferring sweet or salt. My dad preferred sweet and mother salt and I take after dad. As a child, we only had sweets on birthdays or during the summer when my mother would occasionally bake an apple or peach pie. So it's not like I was trained to crave sweets. I think it's innate. I saw my endocrinologist recently and he said I am borderline hypoglycemic which explains my sugar cravings. He said to snack on protein and fiber so I started having an apple with an ounce of cheese or spoonful of almond butter spread on the slices. Very filling.
Eddie Edirol Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 Did you see the segment on CBS 60 Minutes on Sunday. It was an assertion by doctors that sugar is a toxin and it is at the root of many illnesses we can avoid. I also posted this link on another thread which is a presentation pitch for a CD series on how to think about eating but it covers some awesome information that explains to me why I could never sustain a weight loss campaign. Sugar and starch turn off a switch called HSL and causes insulin to keep it off. That is the "fat burning switch" whereas insulin is the "fat creation switch". Every time we diet and cut out the carbs, the HSL switch becomes dominant and we can get healthy and look good. But just one slip into pleasure eating can flip the switches again and create an addiction-like compulsion to eat the same pleasure foods over and over. That is my exact pattern. I now understand that it's not just acting out on what I like, it's a serious chemical change that becomes almost impossible to resist. Keeping that in mind makes it much easier now to think before I have that chocolate Easter Egg. My switches will flip and I will want to have the same thing every day until I hate myself and start the who diet again. Unleash Your Thin - Video Landing Thank you for this. This is why I need to do research, I didnt know about this switch. Knowing this will actually help me avoud sugar altogether, if not just for long enough to see results. One step closer to a 6 pack!
Feelin Frisky Posted April 6, 2012 Posted April 6, 2012 (edited) I think we inherit tendencies to preferring sweet or salt. My dad preferred sweet and mother salt and I take after dad. As a child, we only had sweets on birthdays or during the summer when my mother would occasionally bake an apple or peach pie. So it's not like I was trained to crave sweets. I think it's innate. I saw my endocrinologist recently and he said I am borderline hypoglycemic which explains my sugar cravings. He said to snack on protein and fiber so I started having an apple with an ounce of cheese or spoonful of almond butter spread on the slices. Very filling. My history of obesity is way more tilted to salt. But salt is just a flavoring used by starch peddlers. And starch turns into sugar (which spikes the isulin, turns off the fat burner and turns on the triglceride machine of human flab). It's sugar in sheep's clothing (I found pretzels more manly than cup cakes but it was just a sugar illusion).. Edited April 6, 2012 by Feelin Frisky
lordWilhelm Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 One of the problems with low-fat food these days is that if you look closely at the ingredients they actually have added high-fructose corn syrup to make it palatable. Sometimes you don't see HFCS, but instead it has evaporated cane juice. Both are the equivalent to eating table sugar/sucrose. The amounts may not necessarily be a problem, but they can act as a trigger for other things (for me Pepsi). I'm changing my diet so that I have no added sugar in anything I eat.
Exit Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 Just to play devil's advocate (I can't resist, after all the conflicting theories I've seen in my years) there are people who follow "fruitarian" diets along the lines of Douglas Graham's 80/10/10 diet (referring to the fact that the diet should be 80% carbs!). A lot of people living this lifestyle appear to be stick thin despite ingesting huge amounts of fructose (one Fruitarian website is called 30 Bananas a Day and that is no exaggeration of how much they eat). Like the 60 minutes piece, and Dr. Lustig mentions, at least the natural fruit sugars come along with fiber and other nutrients, but still, a lot of sugar is a lot of sugar, yet some people can eat this way and remain thin. I don't know what to believe anymore. As someone mentioned, they say protein causes a large insulin release as well, I remember how confused I was the first time I heard that after being fairly convinced that low carb = low insulin.
lordWilhelm Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 I do agree it's hard to say anything definite with so much conflicting advice and evidence. I don't know what to say about people losing weight on the 80/10/10. So with bananas it would depend a lot on when they're eating them -- if they're green then it would be more starch than sugar. In any case assuming about 12g of sugar per a just-about-ripe banana and half of that fructose, that would be 180g of fructose from those 30 banans a day. Even if you look at it from a caloric perspective, a medium banana is about 100 calories, so we're talking 3000 calories a day. That's a lot on both fructose and calorie counts. I don't know, that diet sounds pretty dumb to me -- I would throw up if I ate 30 bananas a day. I guess we need some statistics -- how many people really do get thin on this meal plan out of how many attempt it. I looked up Dr. Graham and he's got quite the marketing campaign going on there. I tend to get a bit warry whenever I see so much commercialization.
dreamingoftigers Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 So this thread came up at a good time. Over the last year with all of the crazy stresses and a major shift in lifestyle, I have put on so much weight that I am the highest weight I have EVER been. After my appointments this week, some of those chapters will be done and I will be less stressed. So I am going to go into sugar withdrawal at that point. Last time I tried I ended up shaking and having wicked, wicked headaches. According to Eat to Live, the more overweight you are, the harder the withdrawal period is. So I can't put it off anymore. It sucks, but I'm glad it is only approx up to ten days and not weeks long.
tman666 Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 Just to play devil's advocate (I can't resist, after all the conflicting theories I've seen in my years) there are people who follow "fruitarian" diets along the lines of Douglas Graham's 80/10/10 diet (referring to the fact that the diet should be 80% carbs!). A lot of people living this lifestyle appear to be stick thin despite ingesting huge amounts of fructose (one Fruitarian website is called 30 Bananas a Day and that is no exaggeration of how much they eat). Like the 60 minutes piece, and Dr. Lustig mentions, at least the natural fruit sugars come along with fiber and other nutrients, but still, a lot of sugar is a lot of sugar, yet some people can eat this way and remain thin. I don't know what to believe anymore. As someone mentioned, they say protein causes a large insulin release as well, I remember how confused I was the first time I heard that after being fairly convinced that low carb = low insulin. The reason this might work (not that I would ever advocate such a macronutrient breakdown) for some people is that the laws of thermodynamics still apply to the human body. Let's say a banana has around 100 calories, comprised of 25 grams of carbs, and 1 gram of protein. That means you can eat 20 bananas in a day and still be around 2,000 calories. Now I don't know about you, but I would imagine 20 bananas is going to be damned filling. When you consider how easy it is to wolf down a 1,200 calorie burger from Wendy's (repeat 3-4 times per day), it's plausible that people who go on a fruitarian diet are losing weight because they're switching their diets to relatively low-calorically dense foods (fruits, veggies). Look up "The Twinkie Diet" experiment. The subject (a college professor) lost substantial weight eating a diet of Twinkie snack-cakes for a month. How? He created a caloric deficit from what he had been eating. Regardless of the nutrient content, a caloric deficit will result in weight loss. Now, if proper nutrition was as simple as x + y = z, then everyone would be ripped and fit. The human body is infinitely more complicated. That said, diets such as these highlight the need to reduce calories from maintenance levels if the desired effect is weight loss, regardless of the macronutrient split.
tman666 Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 So this thread came up at a good time. Over the last year with all of the crazy stresses and a major shift in lifestyle, I have put on so much weight that I am the highest weight I have EVER been. After my appointments this week, some of those chapters will be done and I will be less stressed. So I am going to go into sugar withdrawal at that point. Last time I tried I ended up shaking and having wicked, wicked headaches. According to Eat to Live, the more overweight you are, the harder the withdrawal period is. So I can't put it off anymore. It sucks, but I'm glad it is only approx up to ten days and not weeks long. Good luck to you!
dreamingoftigers Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 I was doing alright last year until all of this stuff blew up with my h and then later my kid. It's frustrating to faceplant and then have to try again. I can't wait until '0 sugar' is second nature.
lordWilhelm Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) Tman, he actually said 30 bananas not 20 a day. So that would be 3000 calories and clearly if they're not getting fat on that, it's because as you pointed out they're low-density calories and very filling. Probably not everything is getting digested. I guess this is a case where 3000 calories is not 3000 calories. Either that, or they lose track of how many bananas they eat and stop at 20 but think they've had 30. Or they're eating tiny bananas with 65 calories each Edited April 9, 2012 by lordWilhelm
tman666 Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 Tman, he actually said 30 bananas not 20 a day. So that would be 3000 calories and clearly if they're not getting fat on that, it's because as you pointed out they're low-density calories and very filling. Probably not everything is getting digested. I guess this is a case where 3000 calories is not 3000 calories. Uhhh... A calorie is a standard measurement unit of energy. There is not such thing as a low density calorie or a high density calorie. Here's a good article that gives a good overview: A Calorie Isn’t a Calorie(?) My point was that the reason this could work to lose body mass is that fruit tends to have less calories for their mass (i.e. less calorically dense) than the crap that many people eat on a daily basis (fast food, frozen dinners, pre-packaged food, etc.). Combine that with the fact that a starchy fruit such as a banana tends to be pretty filling, and you create a situation where, for SOME people, a diet such as this could make it easier for them to create a caloric deficit, which is needed to lose weight.
EasyHeart Posted April 9, 2012 Posted April 9, 2012 If you're young, you can eat pretty much anything and still look good. The problem is that looking good isn't the same as being healthy. And once you get on the dark side of 30, looking good gets harder and harder. Robert Lustig is the guy to look up if you're interested in the problems with fructose. My doctor says to keep fructose consumption under 25 g./day, which (with some practice) I find pretty easy to do. There are charts all over the internet that will give you fructose contents, but 25g. is about 3 servings of fruit, which is plenty for most people. (And it's about 3 sips from a can of pop). I've actually gotten to the point where I don't like sweets all that much. I tried eating a banana the other day, but gave up after two bites because it was too sweet!!! Gary Taubes is the guy to read when it comes to insulin response. This is the article that started it all What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? - New York Times, but he's written a few books to follow it up. I find the political stuff to be really interesting. I've found the paleo diet is the healthiest for me. Some of those people are really weird, though. I draw the line at running in a loin cloth. At least in the winter. . . .
lordWilhelm Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 OK, bad choice of words. I know what a calorie is. I meant low-density in the sense of calories per mass.
Mme. Chaucer Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Moderation and willpower is very important. I strongly believe that most fat people are fat because they lack them. From reading your threads, I think you lack moderation and willpower yourself. Maybe not where food is concerned, but who are you to judge people whose lack of willpower results in body fat more harshly than if it results in chronic self pity and isolation? Just because I love cheesecake, doesn't mean I have to have it every week. Yay for you.
Author FitChick Posted April 10, 2012 Author Posted April 10, 2012 Probably the most natural way for someone to eat is a diet their ancestors ate for hundreds of years. If yours were Northern European, you'd eat meat and dairy products. If yours were from the Arctic, you would eat plenty of animal fat and fish. If yours were from the South Seas, you'd eat fish, coconuts and tropical fruit. Makes sense to me. It's been proven by some native American tribes who were obese, diabetic, and had heart disease from eating fast food then switched to eating like their ancestors did -- wild game and birds, vegetables -- and their health problems vanished.
dreamingoftigers Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Yeah both my husband and I have strong Native heritage. I have a native body type and we both are predisposed to sugar and alcohol problems. I chose to not drink (my father was/is a raging alcoholic). But the sugar is pretty out of control.
Exit Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 My point was that the reason this could work to lose body mass is that fruit tends to have less calories for their mass (i.e. less calorically dense) than the crap that many people eat on a daily basis (fast food, frozen dinners, pre-packaged food, etc.). Combine that with the fact that a starchy fruit such as a banana tends to be pretty filling, and you create a situation where, for SOME people, a diet such as this could make it easier for them to create a caloric deficit, which is needed to lose weight. The funny thing is that when you really familiarize yourself with that this "fruitarian" crowd believes in (at least the 30 Bananas a Day website crowd), they are totally against calorie restriction. They talk about how standard calorie restriction diets have caused eating disorders in many people and they encourage losing weight through eating huge amounts of fruit. Even for people at a lighter body weight they swear by eating 3000-4000 calories a day. They eat things like bananas and dates which are actually some of the "worst" fruits in terms of glycemic index, these are the sweetest fruits out there. They even incorporate part of what was mentioned in that 60 Minutes piece about sugar, that the human body is evolved to prefer the taste of sugar, because it is a signal that the food is safe to eat and natural to us. They kinda get into the vegetarian/vegan argument when they point out that if you put a rabbit and a banana in front of a child, they instinctively know to eat the banana and not the rabbit, not vice versa. Anyways, like I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate, these are not my own arguments. I'm just pointing out what I have always found so frustrating about "dieting". Depending on who you listen to, fructose is being overconsumed in our society and is to blame for obesity, or fructose is the natural energy source that we have evolved to burn for fuel and we should eat nothing but.
callum12 Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Even i was addicted to sugar during my childhood. But got out of it somehow though.
tman666 Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) Depending on who you listen to, fructose is being overconsumed in our society and is to blame for obesity, or fructose is the natural energy source that we have evolved to burn for fuel and we should eat nothing but. I recall that research (in rodents, not humans, mind you) has shown that high levels of ingested fructose lead to greater levels of stored adipose tissue. As a simple sugar, the fruitarians are correct in saying that our bodies are evolved to very efficiently process fructose. We're also highly evolved to process just about every other nutrient that we ingest. Without multiple ways to break down, store, and use the various types of energy available to us, we would have died out long ago. That said, it's this same highly efficient metabolic process that gets people into trouble. Because fructose is broken down into glucose very quickly in the body, the accompanying insulin spike is very large. Over time, the body can become resistant to these large spikes of insulin, decreasing the efficiency of the metabolic pathway that shuttles glucose from the blood stream into our cells and fat stores. This can lead to a host of problems such as diabetes and obesity. Because of this, I cannot see any way that a simple carbohydrate based diet, such as a fruitarian diet, could possibly lead to any long term health benefits. In addition, the low amount of protein and fat in such a diet is troublesome. My conclusion is that such a diet could work for weight loss on a short term basis (due to the reasons previously discussed), but that long term adherence would lead to some potentially dangerous complications. I think it goes without saying that there are much better ways to structure one's diet and still accomplish the goal of losing weight. Edited April 10, 2012 by tman666
zengirl Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 The human body is meant for much more labor than we currently have and designed to subsist in times of famine or lessened food supply (the female body even more so than the male body due to baby-carrying and such) so what it's "meant to do" and the diet that works best to maintain a healthy weight in a modern environment may not be one in the same. Personally, I find it tedious when people say fruit (regular, fresh fruit, not dried or additionally sugared and so forth) is "bad" for you. There's no way any kind of fruit is "bad" for you. Most fresh fruits are very GOOD for you and provide essential nutrients and hydration to the body and even the 'worst' fruit is a good, healthy thing to eat. Vegetables are better for you, generally, but that doesn't make fruit "bad" in any way. As to how you could eat so many calories in bananas and still stay thin, I have no doubt it's true. For one, they're high in fiber, which is excellent for weight loss. For another, the mere hydration of so many bananas would help most people lose weight. There are just so many factors involved in losing weight. If you stuck to fruits, veggies, and lean proteins and only monitored the "amount" of the proteins with no care to how many fruits or veggies you ate, I seriously doubt you could gain weight and most people would lose weight on such a diet. That does not mean grains and carbs are going away because they're cheap and we cannot feed the world with fresh fruit and lean proteins at the moment anyway. Complex carbs are also yummy, so I doubt people are going to give them up unless the health benefits are SO immense as to be worth it.
lordWilhelm Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 I've been looking more closely at some of the labels of what I've been eating. Because I was mostly concerned with keeping a caloric balance, I tended to eat and drink things that are low in calories. I've now realized that some of these drinks use crystalline fructose, which is 98% fructose. Or to avoid using HFCS, some of the flavoured yogurts for example are now using evaporated cane juice, which is still essentially sucrose. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not planning to do anything radical to my diet. I'm not going to cut out all carbs (for instance pasta or bread), but just avoid anything that has added sugars -- for instance, instead of buying flavoured yogurt, I'm going to get plain yogurt and mix in my own raspberries. Also, I'm going to watch out for salt intake.
Recommended Posts