WEIGHT - Fat Loss 4 Idiots (Weight Loss & Diet Center)

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

Oh, be sure to bring money.

Eating, you know, isn't rocket science. People have been eating for
thousands of years without getting fat. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors
didn't go out with shopping lists. They pretty much ate what was
available, whether the stars were aligned or not, but of course they
didn't eat junk food made from refined grains, corn syrup, and soy oil,
that over feeds and undernourishes so many today.


Refined grains aren't much better; they are pretty much all glucose with
a minimal amount of fibre.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

In article ,
Walter Bushell wrote:

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

Oh, be sure to bring money.

Eating, you know, isn't rocket science. People have been eating for
thousands of years without getting fat. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors
didn't go out with shopping lists. They pretty much ate what was
available, whether the stars were aligned or not, but of course they
didn't eat junk food made from refined grains, corn syrup, and soy oil,
that over feeds and undernourishes so many today.


Refined grains aren't much better; they are pretty much all glucose with
a minimal amount of fibre.

And the germ, which is a source for vitamins and minerals. At least they
are free from fructose.

Otherwise, glucose (1) triggers insulin, which is important in fat
transport, (2) causes glycation of proteins, impeding the metabolism,
(3) raises Very Low Density Lipids (triglycerides) which causes
atherosclerosis. So you can see that avoiding sugar spikes is a good
thing.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

In article ,
Walter Bushell wrote:

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

Oh, be sure to bring money.

Eating, you know, isn't rocket science. People have been eating for
thousands of years without getting fat. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors
didn't go out with shopping lists. They pretty much ate what was
available, whether the stars were aligned or not, but of course they
didn't eat junk food made from refined grains, corn syrup, and soy oil,
that over feeds and undernourishes so many today.


Refined grains aren't much better; they are pretty much all glucose with
a minimal amount of fibre.

And the germ, which is a source for vitamins and minerals. At least they
are free from fructose.

Otherwise, glucose (1) triggers insulin, which is important in fat
transport, (2) causes glycation of proteins, impeding the metabolism,
(3) raises Very Low Density Lipids (triglycerides) which causes
atherosclerosis. So you can see that avoiding sugar spikes is a good
thing.

I've read the nutrition panels for whole grains, and I am not impressed.
Perhaps the germ and husks are useful. Otherwise, it all starch which is
immediately transformed into glucose.

Albeit, it may be necessary to eat grains for economic reasons. (

See _The Low Starch Diabetes Solution_ (blurbs below)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570767/

http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/rob...ch-diabetes-so
lution/_/R-400000000000000178795

Thesis: Aside from sodas, fruit juice, ice cream and a few other foods
sugar is not the culprit, starch is, because we (Typical SAD eaters) eat
much more starch than sugar (except for above). If sugar is in starchy
food then it's bad. The Author does not talk about sweet and sour
sources that hide the sweetness of sugar, but he does talk about cold
and how it blocks the taste of sugar. Also the malt in beer, I do
believe he mentions as a bad thing for diabetics and pre diabetics.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

In article ,
Walter Bushell wrote:

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

In article ,
Walter Bushell wrote:

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

Oh, be sure to bring money.

Eating, you know, isn't rocket science. People have been eating for
thousands of years without getting fat. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors
didn't go out with shopping lists. They pretty much ate what was
available, whether the stars were aligned or not, but of course they
didn't eat junk food made from refined grains, corn syrup, and soy oil,
that over feeds and undernourishes so many today.


Refined grains aren't much better; they are pretty much all glucose with
a minimal amount of fibre.

And the germ, which is a source for vitamins and minerals. At least they
are free from fructose.

Otherwise, glucose (1) triggers insulin, which is important in fat
transport, (2) causes glycation of proteins, impeding the metabolism,
(3) raises Very Low Density Lipids (triglycerides) which causes
atherosclerosis. So you can see that avoiding sugar spikes is a good
thing.

I've read the nutrition panels for whole grains, and I am not impressed.
Perhaps the germ and husks are useful. Otherwise, it all starch which is
immediately transformed into glucose.

Albeit, it may be necessary to eat grains for economic reasons. (

See _The Low Starch Diabetes Solution_ (blurbs below)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570767/

http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/rob...ch-diabetes-so
lution/_/R-400000000000000178795

Thesis: Aside from sodas, fruit juice, ice cream and a few other foods
sugar is not the culprit, starch is, because we (Typical SAD eaters) eat
much more starch than sugar (except for above). If sugar is in starchy
food then it's bad. The Author does not talk about sweet and sour
sources that hide the sweetness of sugar, but he does talk about cold
and how it blocks the taste of sugar. Also the malt in beer, I do
believe he mentions as a bad thing for diabetics and pre diabetics.

I have to think that the "good" doctor is pandering to diabetics and
over-weight people. "Dr. Thompson has changed the way we think about
treating diabetes--and kept his own under control for ten years--with
his focus on starch, not sugar, as the number-one cause behind this
chronic condition." The preceding statement looks as if it is saying
that if one gives up potatoes, you can eat ice cream.

Anything beyond a very small amount of carbohydrates, including sugar,
is bad for us. Additionally, fructose (hugh fructose corn syrup and
table sugar) puts a strain on our livers. "The livers of the rats on the
high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with
fat and cirrhotic.( Forristal, Linda (Fall 2001). "The Murky World of
High-Fructose Corn Syrup". Weston A. Price Foundation.) Fructose tastes
sweeter than glucose, but doesn't give the feeling of satiety that
glucose does, which encourages greater consumption of sugary, starchy
foods --- obesity.

I'm not well enough read, yet, to know where the lower level of carb
consumption is (perhaps no carbs), but the less you eat, the greater
your chances of extending your life.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines

Wildbilly wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
Wildbilly wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:

I've read the nutrition panels for whole grains, and I am not impressed.
Perhaps the germ and husks are useful. Otherwise, it all starch which is
immediately transformed into glucose.

Thus the wonder of modern refined grain - We could buy germ and bran for
ourselves and let the other folks buy the endosperm flour. We'd be
getting only the good parts. Thing is I don't know of anyone who makes
that as a hot cereal for breakfast or for any other purpose. The only
grain germ I ever see in stores is wheat germ and being wheat intolerant
I'm biased against that particular type.

I've looked at oat bran at stores. Maybe I should try making a high
fiber hot breakfast cereal of 3 parts whole steel cut oats and 1 part
oat bran and see how I like it. It would be lower in net carbs than all
steel cut oats and higher in fiber. Might be okay.

Albeit, it may be necessary to eat grains for economic reasons. (

Right. Farming grain allowed nomads to settle down and start making
buildings. It was the starting point for the foundation of
civilization. But year after year the percentage of humanity that's
near starvation continues to drop. There remains the dream that as the
percentage drops at some point the total poulation that is hungry will
drop. And then go to zero. And then the percentage so poor they must
eat livestock fodder starts dropping. And then goes to zero. It's a
nice dream that no one in the world will need to eat grain for economic
reasons.

See _The Low Starch Diabetes Solution_ (blurbs below)

Thesis: Aside from sodas, fruit juice, ice cream and a few other foods
sugar is not the culprit, starch is, because we (Typical SAD eaters) eat
much more starch than sugar (except for above). If sugar is in starchy
food then it's bad. ...

I have to think that the "good" doctor is pandering to diabetics and
over-weight people. "Dr. Thompson has changed the way we think about
treating diabetes--and kept his own under control for ten years--with
his focus on starch, not sugar, as the number-one cause behind this
chronic condition."

There are complaints that American consumption of sugar has risen across
the decades. It's true, but think of what the numbers would be for the
consumption of starch. Those numbers would be far worse.

The preceding statement looks as if it is saying
that if one gives up potatoes, you can eat ice cream.

No, it says that there are specific high sugar foods that should be
dropped from the diet. His list even includes fruit juices. It looks
to me like he does not approve of any food sweeter than a fig or
banana. That's not as extreme as my preference for avoiding foods
sweeter than pears or peaches, but it's a good start.

Anything beyond a very small amount of carbohydrates, including sugar,
is bad for us. Additionally, fructose (hugh fructose corn syrup and
table sugar) puts a strain on our livers. "The livers of the rats on the
high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with
fat and cirrhotic.( Forristal, Linda (Fall 2001). "The Murky World of
High-Fructose Corn Syrup". Weston A. Price Foundation.) Fructose tastes
sweeter than glucose, but doesn't give the feeling of satiety that
glucose does, which encourages greater consumption of sugary, starchy
foods --- obesity.

I continue to wonder if the problem with fructose is gram for gram, or
if it's the fact that HFCS is cheaper so more grams of it get used than
sucrose. It's also interesting that in many nations cane sugar is the
cheaper sugar, but those tend to be the poorer nations still early in
the obesity explosion.

I'm not well enough read, yet, to know where the lower level of carb
consumption is (perhaps no carbs), but the less you eat, the greater
your chances of extending your life.

Keep reading and you'll find that there are limits to lower being
better. Being still over 100 you're still in the range that lower is
better. By the time you get to around 50 grams per day going lower is
not any better. Higher drop out rates and all sorts of other issues.

To get to no carbs at all it takes an extremist approach that requires
great care to get enough vitamins. The traditional cutlrues that eat
like that consider seal eyeballs a delicacy for example. I'll pass. ;^)
I'll have half of my plate be low carb veggies, thanks.

Doug, here is an article I found quite fascinating, might interest you:
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...1968-1,00.html

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

In article ,
Walter Bushell wrote:

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

In article ,
Walter Bushell wrote:

In article
,
Wildbilly wrote:

Oh, be sure to bring money.

Eating, you know, isn't rocket science. People have been eating for
thousands of years without getting fat. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors
didn't go out with shopping lists. They pretty much ate what was
available, whether the stars were aligned or not, but of course they
didn't eat junk food made from refined grains, corn syrup, and soy
oil,
that over feeds and undernourishes so many today.


Refined grains aren't much better; they are pretty much all glucose
with
a minimal amount of fibre.

And the germ, which is a source for vitamins and minerals. At least they
are free from fructose.

Otherwise, glucose (1) triggers insulin, which is important in fat
transport, (2) causes glycation of proteins, impeding the metabolism,
(3) raises Very Low Density Lipids (triglycerides) which causes
atherosclerosis. So you can see that avoiding sugar spikes is a good
thing.

I've read the nutrition panels for whole grains, and I am not impressed.
Perhaps the germ and husks are useful. Otherwise, it all starch which is
immediately transformed into glucose.

Albeit, it may be necessary to eat grains for economic reasons. (

See _The Low Starch Diabetes Solution_ (blurbs below)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1570767/

http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/rob...ch-diabetes-so
lution/_/R-400000000000000178795

Thesis: Aside from sodas, fruit juice, ice cream and a few other foods
sugar is not the culprit, starch is, because we (Typical SAD eaters) eat
much more starch than sugar (except for above). If sugar is in starchy
food then it's bad. The Author does not talk about sweet and sour
sources that hide the sweetness of sugar, but he does talk about cold
and how it blocks the taste of sugar. Also the malt in beer, I do
believe he mentions as a bad thing for diabetics and pre diabetics.

I have to think that the "good" doctor is pandering to diabetics and
over-weight people. "Dr. Thompson has changed the way we think about
treating diabetes--and kept his own under control for ten years--with
his focus on starch, not sugar, as the number-one cause behind this
chronic condition." The preceding statement looks as if it is saying
that if one gives up potatoes, you can eat ice cream.

Actually, he states ice cream as a special case to avoid, but yes, it's
even worse than sodas.


Anything beyond a very small amount of carbohydrates, including sugar,
is bad for us. Additionally, fructose (hugh fructose corn syrup and
table sugar) puts a strain on our livers. "The livers of the rats on the
high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with
fat and cirrhotic.( Forristal, Linda (Fall 2001). "The Murky World of
High-Fructose Corn Syrup". Weston A. Price Foundation.) Fructose tastes
sweeter than glucose, but doesn't give the feeling of satiety that
glucose does, which encourages greater consumption of sugary, starchy
foods --- obesity.

I'm not well enough read, yet, to know where the lower level of carb
consumption is (perhaps no carbs), but the less you eat, the greater
your chances of extending your life.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Wildbilly wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
Wildbilly wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:

I've read the nutrition panels for whole grains, and I am not impressed.
Perhaps the germ and husks are useful. Otherwise, it all starch which is
immediately transformed into glucose.

Thus the wonder of modern refined grain - We could buy germ and bran for
ourselves and let the other folks buy the endosperm flour. We'd be
getting only the good parts. Thing is I don't know of anyone who makes
that as a hot cereal for breakfast or for any other purpose. The only
grain germ I ever see in stores is wheat germ and being wheat intolerant
I'm biased against that particular type.

I've looked at oat bran at stores. Maybe I should try making a high
fiber hot breakfast cereal of 3 parts whole steel cut oats and 1 part
oat bran and see how I like it. It would be lower in net carbs than all
steel cut oats and higher in fiber. Might be okay.

Albeit, it may be necessary to eat grains for economic reasons. (

Right. Farming grain allowed nomads to settle down and start making
buildings. It was the starting point for the foundation of
civilization. But year after year the percentage of humanity that's
near starvation continues to drop. There remains the dream that as the
percentage drops at some point the total poulation that is hungry will
drop. And then go to zero. And then the percentage so poor they must
eat livestock fodder starts dropping. And then goes to zero. It's a
nice dream that no one in the world will need to eat grain for economic
reasons.

See _The Low Starch Diabetes Solution_ (blurbs below)

Thesis: Aside from sodas, fruit juice, ice cream and a few other foods
sugar is not the culprit, starch is, because we (Typical SAD eaters) eat
much more starch than sugar (except for above). If sugar is in starchy
food then it's bad. ...

I have to think that the "good" doctor is pandering to diabetics and
over-weight people. "Dr. Thompson has changed the way we think about
treating diabetes--and kept his own under control for ten years--with
his focus on starch, not sugar, as the number-one cause behind this
chronic condition."

There are complaints that American consumption of sugar has risen across
the decades. It's true, but think of what the numbers would be for the
consumption of starch. Those numbers would be far worse.

The preceding statement looks as if it is saying
that if one gives up potatoes, you can eat ice cream.

No, it says that there are specific high sugar foods that should be
dropped from the diet. His list even includes fruit juices. It looks
to me like he does not approve of any food sweeter than a fig or
banana. That's not as extreme as my preference for avoiding foods
sweeter than pears or peaches, but it's a good start.

Look at the quote from the doctor above, "with his focus on starch, not
sugar, as the number-one cause behind this chronic condition." Nothing
about limiting sugar, just starch.

Anything beyond a very small amount of carbohydrates, including sugar,
is bad for us. Additionally, fructose (hugh fructose corn syrup and
table sugar) puts a strain on our livers. "The livers of the rats on the
high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with
fat and cirrhotic.( Forristal, Linda (Fall 2001). "The Murky World of
High-Fructose Corn Syrup". Weston A. Price Foundation.) Fructose tastes
sweeter than glucose, but doesn't give the feeling of satiety that
glucose does, which encourages greater consumption of sugary, starchy
foods --- obesity.

I continue to wonder if the problem with fructose is gram for gram, or
if it's the fact that HFCS is cheaper so more grams of it get used than
sucrose. It's also interesting that in many nations cane sugar is the
cheaper sugar, but those tend to be the poorer nations still early in
the obesity explosion.

Doug, we are in a capitalist country that subsidizes domestic sugar
production. Sucrose is 50% glucose, and 50% fructose. HFCS are 45%
glucose, and 55% fructose. Fructose is sweeter tasting than glucose, and
doesn't trigger the feeling of satiety that glucose does. You just keep
on eating, and eating, and eating. See "Sugar: The Bitter Truth",
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717
There are babies who are obese at 6 months. It's not because they are
gluttons, and don't get enough exercise.


I'm not well enough read, yet, to know where the lower level of carb
consumption is (perhaps no carbs), but the less you eat, the greater
your chances of extending your life.

Keep reading and you'll find that there are limits to lower being
better. Being still over 100 you're still in the range that lower is
better. By the time you get to around 50 grams per day going lower is
not any better. Higher drop out rates and all sorts of other issues.

What do these arguments have to do with nutrition, Doug? What happens at
below 50 g/day?

To get to no carbs at all it takes an extremist approach that requires
great care to get enough vitamins. The traditional cutlrues that eat
like that consider seal eyeballs a delicacy for example. I'll pass. ;^)
I'll have half of my plate be low carb veggies, thanks.

As mentioned in Taube's book, "Good Calorie, Bad Calories"
http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson2.htm
Supplemental vitamins not needed.
At least you won't get "The Western Disease" (a.k.a. Metabolic Syndrome)
from an Inuit diet.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/...ting_activists
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/19/headlines

FOB (removethis) wrote:

Doug, here is an article I found quite fascinating, might interest you:
http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...1968-1,00.html

It's an article on epigenetics that discusses third generation effects
from over eatings. If you want yet another motivator to get eating
under control epigenetics says that it can shorten the lifespans of your
grandchildren.

Across modern history increasing lifespan (median, mean and mximum) has
been a mostly constant upward trend. The current obesity epidemic has
the potential to impact two more generations.

Epigenetics is a very interesting but very new field. The basic theory
of genetics was that genes coded proteins and proteins act as enzymes.
An extention of that theory came when it was discovered that only a
small fraction of DNA is mapped to proteins. What is the rest for?
Over time it was discovered that RNA slices act as controllers for all
sorts of chemical reactions. Epigenetics is a further advance dealing
with how the enzymes and the controller RNA are controlled.

The interesting thing about epigenetics is it's a temporary memory
system built onto the DNA. Some of it gets lost with each generation.
Give it enough generations and any one bit is eventually gone and
replaced by new modifiers.

Incidentally this further explains the concept of why hybrid vigor works
on a cultural level. When colonists move to a new region they do not
yet have problem reactions to local issues, so they improvise. This is
not a low carb or nutritional topic though.

Wildbilly wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Wildbilly wrote:

I'm not well enough read, yet, to know where the lower level of carb
consumption is (perhaps no carbs), but the less you eat, the greater
your chances of extending your life.

Keep reading and you'll find that there are limits to lower being
better. Being still over 100 you're still in the range that lower is
better. By the time you get to around 50 grams per day going lower is
not any better. Higher drop out rates and all sorts of other issues.

What do these arguments have to do with nutrition, Doug? What happens at
below 50 g/day?

Study after study has been done about the 20 gram per day level. Some
of the studies are to show that low carbing is better, some to show it's
worse than other plans. The studies show both sides of that coin. Good
loss, bad mood (Susan likes to write about cortisol). Thyriod T3 drops
after two weeks of very low calorie dieting but that also happens with
low carb dieting under specific conditions. Basically as the levels get
low enough to be called extreme problems start coming up that need
control that's more careful and detailed than almost any dieter is
willing to do or knows to do.

To get to no carbs at all it takes an extremist approach that requires
great care to get enough vitamins. The traditional cutlrues that eat
like that consider seal eyeballs a delicacy for example. I'll pass. ;^)
I'll have half of my plate be low carb veggies, thanks.

Get to the extreme of eating zero grams of carb and the control needs to
include eating raw seal meat and seal eyeballs. Who would know that if
they weren't raised among the Inuit?

As mentioned in Taube's book, "Good Calorie, Bad Calories"
http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson2.htm
Supplemental vitamins not needed.
At least you won't get "The Western Disease" (a.k.a. Metabolic Syndrome)
from an Inuit diet.

But you don't get Metabloic Syndrome from eating lots of veggies to put
you in the 50-100 gram per day range either.