I need a new food product to become addicted to.

[einride]

Erik, what's with the crusade?

lol i keep on talkin as long as others keep talkin

i'll continue tomorrow!!!

 

[Hell Mike]

they will argue against my observation as well.

not when you call us out on it (and we hate the generalization of 'europeans')

 

[Krilons Resa]

kinda like "americans."

 

[einride]

sometimes generalizations are useful and valid and sometimes they arent

i have no problem identifying as a "european" in some ways, there are some very positive connotations to the word and i believe there are some values traits and ideas that are generally pan-european

but that is neither here nor there

 

[dorian gray]

kinda like "americans."

 

[Reign in Acai]

I just came back from the grocer, went to the condiment aisle, almost purchased some Frank's. I'm holding off until Ken actually gives us his top 3. [/Profanity]

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Franks is quality, dont be a faggo

 

[Krilons Resa]

lol @ franks. refer to the hot sauce thread nikkuh.

i still have a lot more to taste.

 

[Krilons Resa]

it also HIGHLY depends on the food. i have certain hot sauces for certain foods.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

You can't just sum up dietetics and insulin production in a single post on a metal forum.

For some reason I just laughed for five minutes at this

 

[einride]

ok gonna answer this

These divergent results suggest that any type of diet, when taught for the purpose of weight loss with enthusiasm and persistence, can be effective. When nonnutritional influences are minimized, as they were in our study, the specific macronutrient content is of minor importance, as was suggested many years ago.39

anything can be done with "enthusiasm and persistence". you can convince 900 people to commit suicide and murder their children in the jungles of guyana. but it has been proven, time and time again, in the real world AND in clinical studies, that when you leave people to themselves with either a low-carb diet or a low-fat diet, one will work out better. this particular study did not show that, and i don't know why exactly because i honestly don't feel like reading through it all. i don't even know what their definition of "low carb" is -- what many people fail to grasp is that if you eat low carb, you're gonna have to eat high fat, because otherwise you won't be getting enough energy to live. some people try to eat low carb low fat, and that is bound to fail completely.

when you eat fewer carbs, the body's extant systems for regulating hunger and blood glucose actually work. you eat until you're not hungry anymore, and that's it. food becomes a non-issue. therefore, these folks don't need "enthusiasm and persistence" to lose weight; those things become needed when you want to force someone to do something unnatural. and of course, if someone on a low-fat diet eats less enough and exercises more enough, they're going to lose weight. it's just that it's not easy, most people can't do it, and those that can, often revert back at some point because they end up feeling constantly hungry -- low blood sugar.

i'm not really advocating a "diet" as such. i don't really care what people do with their lives and i think it's a bit too dogmatic to suggest that everyone should do X or Y. i'm just laying down some facts, and people can do whatever they want with them, if they care. what i'm saying about what happens when the body processes carbohydrates, and about how the process for storing fat is controlled by insulin levels; these are scientific truths.

these are the basic pieces:

* every carbohydrate metabolizes to glucose and goes directly into the blood stream
* when blood glucose levels go too high, the body releases insulin
* too high levels of insulin instruct the body to store dietary fat as body fat
* today's western diet consists to a great part of processed, extremely easily digestible carbohydrates and fat

and you put them together; this puzzle is so easy to solve. it fits together like nothing.

i did not know the first thing about nutrition a couple of years ago, and i was pretty flabbergasted to find, to name one thing in particular, that every carbohydrate metabolizes to glucose. i just didn't know! why don't they teach this in schools? i think it is important to know how our bodies work, if even on a basic level like this, because i am convinced that the epidemic of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity that the entire western world is suffering from today is not natural, that it is a recent development, and that on a personal level, we can pretty easily do something about it.

again, the heart of all this is corporate interests, unfortunately. cheap corn, cheap hfcs, cheap wheat, cheap sugar. cheap meat fed by corn. artificial margarines and shortenings made of awful, cheap fats instead of proper butter. we want cheap food, and this is what we get. we feed ourselves on the cheap, but end up fat and dying. cool. i've decided to not play along anymore!



sorry for all the tangents

 

[lurch70]

no you're not

 

[Reign in Acai]

Going to have a breakfast burrito in an hour.

 

[einride]

no you're not

not really but i thought saying so might alleviate the complainin'

 

[swizzlenuts]

ok gonna answer this



anything can be done with "enthusiasm and persistence". you can convince 900 people to commit suicide and murder their children in the jungles of guyana. but it has been proven, time and time again, in the real world AND in clinical studies, that when you leave people to themselves with either a low-carb diet or a low-fat diet, one will work out better. this particular study did not show that, and i don't know why exactly because i honestly don't feel like reading through it all. i don't even know what their definition of "low carb" is -- what many people fail to grasp is that if you eat low carb, you're gonna have to eat high fat, because otherwise you won't be getting enough energy to live. some people try to eat low carb low fat, and that is bound to fail completely.

In the introduction the issue with those studies you talk about is this: "Small samples, underrepresentation of men, limited generalizability, a lack of blinded ascertainment of the outcome, a lack of data on adherence to assigned diets, and a large loss to follow-up limit the interpretation of many weight-loss trials.27 ".

The point of me citing is that the Clinical trials were not perfect, and this study tried to alleviate this issue. The point of the paper was to show that your diet doesn't matter that much over a long period of time, but mostly it's perseverance and wanting to do it.

The reason why is stated here: ". When nonnutritional influences are minimized, as they were in our study, the specific macronutrient content is of minor importance, as was suggested many years ago.39". Nonnutritional influes are defined as media attention,cultural norms, and scientific novelty.

In the method section, they specifically say what their diets are.

"The nutrient goals for the four diet groups were: 20% fat, 15% protein, and 65% carbohydrates (low-fat, average-protein); 20% fat, 25% protein, and 55% carbohydrates (low-fat, high-protein); 40% fat, 15% protein, and 45% carbohydrates (high-fat, average-protein); and 40% fat, 25% protein, and 35% carbohydrates (high-fat, high-protein)."

Your concerns were directly talked about in the article, hence why I cited it. Also, what I said previously, one GREAT study can trump other studies.

 

[einride]

"The nutrient goals for the four diet groups were: 20% fat, 15% protein, and 65% carbohydrates (low-fat, average-protein); 20% fat, 25% protein, and 55% carbohydrates (low-fat, high-protein); 40% fat, 15% protein, and 45% carbohydrates (high-fat, average-protein); and 40% fat, 25% protein, and 35% carbohydrates (high-fat, high-protein)."

lol okay. all your points are well taken, but this confirms my suspicion. none of the above is low-carb in any sane sense of the word, and it looks like they don't even claim any such thing. they're just talking about fat and protein.

anything above 10% carbs (by weight) or so doesn't qualify as a low-carb diet, at least if we're talking for weight-loss. these are variations so small that they don't even matter, so i'm not surprised that none of these diets were deemed superior to another.

 

[neal]

while im sure there are conflicting studies, i dont see how that study really refutes any of erik's claims about low-carb diets, cause none of the groups is a low carb diet...


ok semi-serious question: if i quit bread and noodles and rice can i still drink beer?!

 

[Krilons Resa]

your glycogen stores become depleted and your body becomes a dry sponge. ever drink on a ketogenic diet? whoa boy, lookout!


neal, depends how serious you are or if you are just cutting out certain things from your diet to minimize your carb intake. if uber-serious, no..only stuff like vodka, whisky, etc.

no need to be crazy about it unless you have serious weight issues and want it done a little faster and/or a bodybuilder and plan on competing. otherwise, like everything, its all about balance. live life and drink your beer.

 

[einride]

ok semi-serious question: if i quit bread and noodles and rice can i still drink beer?!

you "shouldn't" because there is a non-trivial amount of carbs in it (considerably less than in sugary beverages like soda or juice) but fuck that, i drink my beers.

people who are serious about low-carbin' it up usually drink only red wine and hard liquor. those have pretty much 0 carbs.

your glycogen stores become depleted and your body becomes a dry sponge. ever drink on a ketogenic diet? whoa boy, lookout!

getting drunk becomes really cheap

 

[dorian gray]

I have the worst diet ever
[/whocares]