A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Bad Diets Are Bad?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old August 28th, 2011, 03:33 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 28/08/2011 12:02 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 10:47:34 +1000,
wrote:

On 28/08/2011 4:20 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:19:14 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
I have eaten low carb for a couple of decades and am
extremely fit, healthy and enjoy a good food whenever I please.

Then why all the bull****??? You're admitting that it works, that
it's healthy, that you eat low carb yourself, and that it allows you
to eat "good food". And yet you want to whine about people who are
essentially making those same points. What the hell is wrong with you?

Answer: You're just a stupid ****ing troll.


You aren't very bright - are you?


I'm smart enough to know a stupid ****ing troll when I see one.

QED.

--
Dogman


How to see ****ing trolls? Do you peek through bedroom windows? That's
naughty. Shrek will get you!

  #82  
Old August 28th, 2011, 04:24 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:33:21 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

[...]
I'm smart enough to know a stupid ****ing troll when I see one.

QED.

--
Dogman


How to see ****ing trolls? Do you peek through bedroom windows? That's
naughty. Shrek will get you!


I see them when you write your stupid ****ing troll **** here.

I.e., stupid ****ing troll graffiti.

Troll.

--
Dogman
  #83  
Old August 28th, 2011, 11:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 29/08/2011 1:24 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:33:21 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
I'm smart enough to know a stupid ****ing troll when I see one.

QED.

--
Dogman


How to see ****ing trolls? Do you peek through bedroom windows? That's
naughty. Shrek will get you!


I see them when you write your stupid ****ing troll **** here.

I.e., stupid ****ing troll graffiti.

Troll.




Why are you signing your name as "Troll"?

Are you moving up in the world?


Have you ever considered that if your ISP put a filter on to remove all
obscene language, that you would effectively be speechless?

  #84  
Old August 29th, 2011, 01:25 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:43:09 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

On 29/08/2011 1:24 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:33:21 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
I'm smart enough to know a stupid ****ing troll when I see one.

QED.

--
Dogman

How to see ****ing trolls? Do you peek through bedroom windows? That's
naughty. Shrek will get you!


I see them when you write your stupid ****ing troll **** here.

I.e., stupid ****ing troll graffiti.

Troll.




Why are you signing your name as "Troll"?


Do you not know the difference between a signature and a salutation?

Apparently not.

Are you moving up in the world?


I think that was George Jefferson.

Have you ever considered that if your ISP put a filter on to remove all
obscene language, that you would effectively be speechless?


Have you ever considered that even by doubling your IQ you'd still be
a freakin' moron?

--
Dogman
  #85  
Old August 29th, 2011, 01:48 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Who_me?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On 29/08/2011 10:25 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:43:09 +1000,
wrote:

On 29/08/2011 1:24 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:33:21 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
I'm smart enough to know a stupid ****ing troll when I see one.

QED.

--
Dogman

How to see ****ing trolls? Do you peek through bedroom windows? That's
naughty. Shrek will get you!

I see them when you write your stupid ****ing troll **** here.

I.e., stupid ****ing troll graffiti.

Troll.




Why are you signing your name as "Troll"?


Do you not know the difference between a signature and a salutation?

Apparently not.

Are you moving up in the world?


I think that was George Jefferson.

Have you ever considered that if your ISP put a filter on to remove all
obscene language, that you would effectively be speechless?


Have you ever considered that even by doubling your IQ you'd still be
a freakin' moron?


No, I don't think that doubling my IQ would be possible, I already test
at genius level. I could try dropping my IQ by ninety percent and see
whether that would help you relate to me. What do you think?



  #86  
Old August 29th, 2011, 10:56 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:48:09 +1000, Who_me?
wrote:

[...]
Have you ever considered that even by doubling your IQ you'd still be
a freakin' moron?


No, I don't think that doubling my IQ would be possible,


It's easy. Even you can do it.

Multiply by 2.

And 2 x 25 = 50.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQBasics.aspx

Nota bene: IQ 50-69 = moron.

Moron.

--
Dogman
  #87  
Old August 31st, 2011, 09:11 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

" wrote:

Once again, let's go right to the source.

http://www.dukandiet.com/The-Dukan-Diet/4-Phases


Thanks for posting that. I looked through it and as expected it
resembles a lower fat version of Atkins. Folks who remember
the Scarsdale diet of the 1970s and 1980s tend to not focus
on lowering fat in favor of protein, but that's something shared
by Dukan and South Beach.

They clearly don't know what the Atkins book says to do when
they compare the two plans. The table comparing the two
looks like this:

No counting of carbs yes vs no - Correct Atkins does insist on
a carb count even in maintenance.

Low fat, high protein yes vs no - A bit pointless given the Scarsdale
history but lower fat is more popular in the press.

Relies on natural foods yes vs no - Incorrect. These guys never
even read the Atkins book as it stresses natural foods throughout.

Eat as much as you like yes vs no - Incorrect. Atkins stated that
without any cravings people will naturally reduce their portions.
It's
not true for everyone so Atkins was wrong, but it's true for a lot
more
people than the ones who think it going in.

Personalized Interactive Plan yes vs no - Incorrect. The Atkins
Nutritional Approach is custom tuned based on your own body's
reactions to the foods you eat so everyone ends up on their own
menu plan when they follow the directions.

That said, it's not necessary to know the exact contents of the
Atkins books to build a fairly nice workable spin off program.
  #88  
Old September 2nd, 2011, 05:05 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Harold Groot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:11:57 -0700 (PDT), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

They clearly don't know what the Atkins book says to do when
they compare the two plans. The table comparing the two
looks like this:


(snip)

Eat as much as you like yes vs no - Incorrect. Atkins stated that
without any cravings people will naturally reduce their portions.
It's not true for everyone so Atkins was wrong, but it's true
for a lot more people than the ones who think it going in.



It may be worth noting that Atkins changed the wording in his plan a
bit over the years. In the beginning the words were much closer to
"Eat all you want". While it did mention that desire ought to
decrease, it still pretty much said "all you WANT", and that's what a
lot of people recall. And WANT isn't always about hunger.

In later versions he said it more like this: "If you are hungry, then
go ahead and continue to eat. Once you are no longer hungry, stop
eating." This made a significant difference for some, because there
are a lot of people who eat for reasons other than hunger. They may
simply enjoy eating - good food is a sensory delight. Food may be a
comforter (just like Mom used to make) or a stress-reducer (while I'm
paying attention to the food, I'm NOT paying attention to what my boss
said earlier today when he chewed me out). And so on. Dr. Atkins
tried to make it clear in later editions that THE LACK OF ACTUAL
HUNGER was the proper signal for when you should stop eating.


  #89  
Old September 2nd, 2011, 03:33 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

Harold Groot wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Eat as much as you like yes vs no - Incorrect. Atkins stated that
without any cravings people will naturally reduce their portions.
It's not true for everyone so Atkins was wrong, but it's true
for a lot more people than the ones who think it going in.


It may be worth noting that Atkins changed the wording in his plan a
bit over the years. In the beginning the words were much closer to
"Eat all you want". While it did mention that desire ought to
decrease, it still pretty much said "all you WANT", and that's what a
lot of people recall. And WANT isn't always about hunger.


The low carb plans I've read are about the physical drivers of hunger.
They don't address the psychological drivers of hunger. To me it has
seemed there's an implication that once the physical drivers are taken
away the psychological ones will also go away. I understand that's a
lot to read into a failure to cover a topic - If these books covered
every topic keeping them up would count as resistance training. Almost
no one has the patience to read a thousand pages or more.

As it is there are diet books about the physical drivers and there are
diet books about the psychological drivers. There is a dearth of
material that merges the two schools of thought. At very least if
there's a physical driver for hunger no amount of "fix your head" work
is ever going to help, and if there is a psychological driver for hunger
no amount of "turn off all of the cravings" is ever going to help. Some
amount of team work should be done on the two topics.

As usual with all diet plans one size does not fit all and no plan is
for everyone no matter what the author of that plan says. Some dieters
will do fine by finding food that does not cause hunger. Some dieters
will do fine by working through mental issues. I figure for a lot of
people who have seen partial success in both attempts that some way of
doing both would work. A book on the topic would tend to suffer from
lack of focus. Then again Eat Right for Your Body Type had four focuses
and it was popular.

In later versions he said it more like this: "If you are hungry, then
go ahead and continue to eat. Once you are no longer hungry, stop
eating." This made a significant difference for some, because there
are a lot of people who eat for reasons other than hunger. They may
simply enjoy eating - good food is a sensory delight. Food may be a
comforter (just like Mom used to make) or a stress-reducer (while I'm
paying attention to the food, I'm NOT paying attention to what my boss
said earlier today when he chewed me out). And so on. Dr. Atkins
tried to make it clear in later editions that THE LACK OF ACTUAL
HUNGER was the proper signal for when you should stop eating.


When it comes to hunger until the last 10-20 pounds I think "an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure" is the better strategy. Most low
carbers have no cravings and so they can live without hunger. Early on
many of us eat what it takes to turn off the cravings. With low carbing
we have found foods that do not make us hungry. So to me we have the
ability to use our food to prevent hunger from happening in the first
place.

View our low carb food as a hunger prevention system and that does not
point to eating only when hungry. It points to eating before hunger
starts. This in turn points to gradually decreasing our portion sizes
as we lose. It would be a gradual but constant tuning. Was there loss
without hunger? Decrease the portion sizes. Was there hunger?
Increase the portion sizes. End up eating the smallest portion sizes
that allow you to never get hungry in the first place. For many
this metohd should work well until the last 10-20 pounds. The anecdotal
evidence I have seen suggests hunger is needed for the last 10-20 pounds
but that still gives a lot of time completely without hunger but losing
anyways. This idea is not present in the Atkins plan nor is it present
in any of the other low carb books I've read but it does not violate
the directions of any of them either as far as I can tell.

I think it's fairly obvious once you've broken out of the mold of "only
eat when you are hungry" that treats food as a cure for hunger not as a
preventative for hunger. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure".
  #90  
Old September 7th, 2011, 04:03 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Why Bad Diets Are Bad?

Marengo wrote:
Susan wrote:
Marengo wrote:


Not only that, but many obese people have trouble identifying the
difference between actual hunger and the psychological desire to eat.
(speaking from my own past experience).


Peter, it's those stress hormones that set off what people mistake for
psychological hunger... I don't buy the whole "filling an emotional
void" theory. I think it's a way to blame folks for a medical condition.

I know that when my cortisol is very high, I'm constantly looking to eat
even when I just have... when it drops, I don't. Same psyche, different
endocrine milieu.


Interesting. That would explain a lot actually.


Stress hormones are physiological yet much stress is driven by
psychology. There is far more interaction between the two than any of
the popular plans take into account. When there's a hormonal driver for
hunger no amount of "fix your head" is going to help. When there's a
psychological driver for eating no amount of "when there are no cravings
people will naturally eat less" is going to help. But a book that
really deals with both is going to be too big to become popular I
suspect. So how to condense both together into a book that fits the
size parameters of popular sales ...
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
diets sweet&soft Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 May 13th, 2008 03:26 PM
Index of Popular Diets and Niche Diets cj General Discussion 0 April 13th, 2008 04:13 AM
Very-low-fat diets are superior to low-carbohydrate diets (***sigh!***) Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 7 March 23rd, 2006 12:00 PM
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets John WIlliams Low Carbohydrate Diets 27 October 7th, 2004 10:19 PM
Low Carb Diets Really Low Calorie Diets John WIlliams General Discussion 24 October 7th, 2004 04:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.