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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |