Please help me critique my eating plan?

On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:56:42 -0400, Aaron Baugher
wrote:

"Bob in CT" writes:

Well, that sucks. What do you use for things like hamburgers and
hot dogs? I can eat them without a "bun" (i.e., low carb wraps), but
that limits the appeal of them.

A fork and plate. Yeah, it does limit the appeal (although it's not
the flavor of the bun that I miss, so it must be a subconscious
connection between the bun and the serotonin and other "relaxation"
chemicals it prompts the production of), but sometimes you do what you
have to do. I seem to be in the same boat where wheat is concerned,
so until someone comes out with a corn-based wrap or some alternative
that I can test with my BG meter, I'll be avoiding all that stuff.

Some people wrap sandwiches in lettuce, but I've never had much luck
with that. The lettuce doesn't soak up any meat juices, so they end
up dripping while I eat or running down my arm. Not much "appeal" in
that either.




Yesterday, for breakfast, I had a cheeseburger on a plate, cut into four
sections, along with tomatoes and onions also cut into four sections. I
have to say that it's just not the same as being able to pick the darn
thing up. That doesn't mean I'll suddenly start eating buns again, but
it's just a fact -- eating a hamburger (or hot dog) off a plate is just
missing something.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:56:42 -0400, Aaron Baugher
:: wrote:
::
::: "Bob in CT" writes:
:::
:::: Well, that sucks. What do you use for things like hamburgers and
:::: hot dogs? I can eat them without a "bun" (i.e., low carb wraps),
:::: but that limits the appeal of them.
:::
::: A fork and plate. Yeah, it does limit the appeal (although it's not
::: the flavor of the bun that I miss, so it must be a subconscious
::: connection between the bun and the serotonin and other "relaxation"
::: chemicals it prompts the production of), but sometimes you do what
::: you have to do. I seem to be in the same boat where wheat is
::: concerned, so until someone comes out with a corn-based wrap or
::: some alternative that I can test with my BG meter, I'll be avoiding
::: all that stuff.
:::
::: Some people wrap sandwiches in lettuce, but I've never had much luck
::: with that. The lettuce doesn't soak up any meat juices, so they end
::: up dripping while I eat or running down my arm. Not much "appeal"
::: in that either.
:::
:::
:::
::
:: Yesterday, for breakfast, I had a cheeseburger on a plate, cut into
:: four sections, along with tomatoes and onions also cut into four
:: sections. I have to say that it's just not the same as being able
:: to pick the darn thing up. That doesn't mean I'll suddenly start
:: eating buns again, but it's just a fact -- eating a hamburger (or
:: hot dog) off a plate is just missing something.
::

No, it's not the same experience, but I have learned to enjoy it none the
less. I heap dill pickles, tomatos, cheese, and mayo on my piece of meat
and enjoy it. I also enjoy Hardee's Low Carb Thickburgers on occasion, too,
which might have bacon on it.

On May 24, 12:16 pm, "Roger Zoul" wrote:

No, it's not the same experience, but I have learned to enjoy it none the
less. I heap dill pickles, tomatos, cheese, and mayo on my piece of meat
and enjoy it. I also enjoy Hardee's Low Carb Thickburgers on occasion, too,
which might have bacon on it.

I'm OK with eating it off a plate most of the time.

But when I was driving a truck, I *had* to eat while driving some
days, or not eat at all. Low-carb tortillas were a lifesaver for me
then.

I ate a *lot* of those suckers when I was driving.

On May 22, 10:51 am, "Bob in CT" wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:16:09 -0400, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
If you eat 60 grams of fat in a day, and your body burns 50 grams in
the same period, how do you think you're going to lose any body fat,
regardless of how you have manipulated your intakes of the other
nutrients? Your body will just store that extra 10 grams. Fifty days
later, that adds up to 500 grams: already more than a pound.

Let's say that all you ate is 60 grams of fat a day. Result? You lose
weight.

You will lose /weight/, but in order for you to lose /fat/, your body
will have to eliminate at least 60 grams of fat, by burning, or any
other means.

What goes in, either stays in, or comes out. Conservation of matter.

Perhaps you can increase your body's reliance on fat by cutting out
carbs. However, you can easily offset that by ingesting more fat.

So, what you're saying is that you exercise so much that you can eat
carbs, but if you have just a tiny amount of fat, you swell up like a

I wouldn't say any such thing, because you don't in fact have to
exercise to eat some carbs. Your brain can take up a fair bit of
glucose, for instance. On the order of a few hundred calories a day,
supposedly.

balloon? This makes no sense.

I didn't say anything about a large gain in mass from ingesting a
small mass.

If you keep the calories the same, your
theory is that the fat you eat prevents fat loss. That is simply not
true. Try this. Keep the calories the same and eat nothing but fat. See
what happens.

Yet here you make a claim which violates the principle of conservation
of
mass in chemical processes.

If you eat only fat, and enough of it, you will say as fat as you are
or get even fatter (even if you lose overall mass).

The only way it can be otherwise is if the fat is eliminated from the
body other than by burning.

Your body cannot burn arbitrary amounts of fat. Why? Because you would
fry yourself in the process. Burning releases heat, and heat must be
eliminated otherwise temperature rises. If your core temperature rises
by just a few degrees and stays there, you will die.

Fat can break down into ketones. Ketones are toxic. If you don't
believe me, go down to your local paint store and drink acetone. you
don't want to eliminate arbitrary amounts of fat by way of building up
a large ketone concentration and ****ing it out. That pathway is
limited. Eat enough fat and you will overwhelm its capacity.

Perhaps you are counting on malabsorption. That's as good as not
eating the stuff in the first place. If you want to eat something that
you intend to **** out, fibre is a better choice.

What else is there? Oh yes, oozing out fat through the skin and out of
the ears.

Every molecule of everything that comes into your body must somehow be
accounted for. If it goes in, but doesn't come out, then it's stored
somewhere in there, in some form. If it comes out, we can identify
where it came out. It doesn't just disappear.

I guarantee you don't gain weight.

Any conclusions on an all-fat diet are not general enough to be
applicable in a sane diet. Such a diet is basically starvation; you're
killing the body by not giving it nutrients.

Suppose your prediction comes true, but how could it be so? Maybe if
you starve the body enough, the digestive tract will stop functioning,
and any further fat intake will no longer be absorbed. That situation
would not, in any useful way, prove the claim that one can eat
arbitrary amounts of fat without gaining. It certainly won't apply to
someone actually eating normally.

It's only useful to see what happens to the excessive fat intake in
someone who isn't (otherwise) killing himself.

On May 22, 11:33 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
Kaz Kylheku wrote:

:: On May 22, 6:01 am, Annie wrote:
::: Can you see anything wrong with the above? Anything to explain WHY
::: I am not losing much weight and my body fat is going up?
::
:: You're eating a whole lot of the stuff that you're trying to get rid
:: of from your body.

Nonsense. Eating fat doesn't make you fat unless you eat too many calories.

Fat refers to composition, not necessary body mass. Elsewhere I have
seen you denounce the BMI, so you know this.

It's possible to suffer an unfavorable change in body composition,
while losing overall mass.

:: The most sure-fire way for me to put on fat is to start eating it.

Bull****. Why are you hanging out in here if believe this BS?

I don't have to accept anyone's ideology to participate in any Usenet
newsgroup.

I can't help but note that this a.s.d.low-carb, not a.s.d.high-fat.

:: I was frequently light-headed, and always hungry, yet
:: gained body fat! My waist shot up from 26 inches to more than 28,
:: making my abdominals almost invisible.

Of course you gained weight since you were eating without restriction.

But I hadn't gained weight.

On May 22, 3:07 pm, wrote:
On May 22, 12:16 pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

The low-fat aspect of the diet is not negotiable. Nearly every gram of
fat that you take in is a gram that your body doesn't have to burn
from its own stores, thereby setting you back! The only exception are
essential fats: the few grams of omega-3 and omega-6 fats that your
body needs daily.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Let's see whether /you/ do:

Generally, you can't store fat efficiently without the presence of a
lot of carb.

Oops.

You are confusing storage of ingested fat with the insulin-driven
synthesis of fat from glucose that takes place in adipocytes.

On May 23, 1:17 am, "Nicholson" wrote:
"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message

The low-fat aspect of the diet is not negotiable. Nearly every gram of
fat that you take in is a gram that your body doesn't have to burn
from its own stores, thereby setting you back! The only exception are
essential fats: the few grams of omega-3 and omega-6 fats that your
body needs daily.

Kaz, lowfat/ high carbs worked for you.

Exactly as described in every mainstream book on sports nutrition I've
read. Like a rigged demo.

I started in a size 22/24 and am down
to 16's with some 14;s fitting.

A standard woman's size 14 corresponds to 36-28-38 measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size

Whatever 14's you're fitting now have been severely inflated by vanity
sizing.

Cheryl
258/200/179
I know funny goal weight, but I make new goals as I achieve old ones.
179 is my next one.

For that goal to make sense, you must be exceptionally tall, or else
muscled well beyond what a typical woman's endocrinology allows.

I'm 178 in this photo:

http://ieinnovative.netfirms.com/Pho.../WM/W56278.JPG

I'm a man, I lift weights 5 days a week, and I'm 6'1", medium framed.

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
:: On May 22, 11:33 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
::: Kaz Kylheku wrote:
:::
::::: On May 22, 6:01 am, Annie wrote:
:::::: Can you see anything wrong with the above? Anything to explain
:::::: WHY I am not losing much weight and my body fat is going up?
:::::
::::: You're eating a whole lot of the stuff that you're trying to get
::::: rid of from your body.
:::
::: Nonsense. Eating fat doesn't make you fat unless you eat too many
::: calories.
::
:: Fat refers to composition, not necessary body mass. Elsewhere I have
:: seen you denounce the BMI, so you know this.
::
:: It's possible to suffer an unfavorable change in body composition,
:: while losing overall mass.

A lot of things are possible, but it doesn't mean that eating fat makes you
fat if you don't over eat.

::
::::: The most sure-fire way for me to put on fat is to start eating it.
:::
::: Bull****. Why are you hanging out in here if believe this BS?
::
:: I don't have to accept anyone's ideology to participate in any Usenet
:: newsgroup.
::
:: I can't help but note that this a.s.d.low-carb, not a.s.d.high-fat.
::

Why are you here? Trolling?


::::: I was frequently light-headed, and always hungry, yet
::::: gained body fat! My waist shot up from 26 inches to more than 28,
::::: making my abdominals almost invisible.
:::
::: Of course you gained weight since you were eating without
::: restriction.
::
:: But I hadn't gained weight.

Surely you did. Your weight shot up 2 inches. And you obviously did not do
low carb correctly if you were always hungry.

On May 25, 3:14 pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On May 23, 1:17 am, "Nicholson" wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message

The low-fat aspect of the diet is not negotiable. Nearly every gram of
fat that you take in is a gram that your body doesn't have to burn
from its own stores, thereby setting you back! The only exception are
essential fats: the few grams of omega-3 and omega-6 fats that your
body needs daily.

Kaz, lowfat/ high carbs worked for you.

Exactly as described in every mainstream book on sports nutrition I've
read. Like a rigged demo.

I started in a size 22/24 and am down
to 16's with some 14;s fitting.

A standard woman's size 14 corresponds to 36-28-38 measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_standard_clothing_size

Whatever 14's you're fitting now have been severely inflated by vanity
sizing.

Cheryl
258/200/179
I know funny goal weight, but I make new goals as I achieve old ones.
179 is my next one.

For that goal to make sense, you must be exceptionally tall, or else
muscled well beyond what a typical woman's endocrinology allows.

I'm 178 in this photo:

http://ieinnovative.netfirms.com/Pho.../WM/W56278.JPG

I'm a man, I lift weights 5 days a week, and I'm 6'1", medium framed.


When you can lift an amount equal to all the BS you posted in this
thread, let us know. Half of it is so convoluted that it defies any
rational explanation. From what I've seen, you seem to be saying
that if you eat any more than a minimal amount of fat, you can't
possibly lose weight.

If you eat 60 grams of fat in a day, and your body burns 50 grams in
the same period, how do you think you're going to lose any body fat,
regardless of how you have manipulated your intakes of the other
nutrients? Your body will just store that extra 10 grams. Fifty days
later, that adds up to 500 grams: already more than a pound.


Hmmm, let's see. 60g of fat is 480 calories. So you could eat quite
a bit of protein, some small amount of carbs, and even more FAT and
still be at say 1500 calories a day. So, why wouldn't a typical
adult lose weight? In other words, your arbitrary choice, apparently
pulled from thin air, of burning 50g of fat makes no sense at all.

And if a diet high in fat means you can't lose weight, then how do
you explain the many studies that showed people on Atkins lost MORE
weight on a relatively high fat diet than people on other diet plans,
including low fat? Or how do you explain the Ketwick diet? How do
you explain that it works for Roger, Bob, jackie, and me?

And then we have the crap about comparing ketones to drinking
acetone? Millions of people have done LC diets, like Atkins, and the
emergency room isn't full of patients. So, stop the nonsense. And
as Roger and others have asked, if you prefer a Low Fat diet, why are
you posting nonsense scare tactic crap in a LC support newsgroup?

From what I can see, Annie is on the right LC path, with the possible
exception of the wraps, which could have more carbs than she thinks,
or as others pointed out, she may have a problem with wheat.

On May 25, 2:47 pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On May 22, 10:51 am, "Bob in CT" wrote:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:16:09 -0400, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
If you eat 60 grams of fat in a day, and your body burns 50 grams in
the same period, how do you think you're going to lose any body fat,
regardless of how you have manipulated your intakes of the other
nutrients? Your body will just store that extra 10 grams. Fifty days
later, that adds up to 500 grams: already more than a pound.

Let's say that all you ate is 60 grams of fat a day. Result? You lose
weight.

You will lose /weight/, but in order for you to lose /fat/, your body
will have to eliminate at least 60 grams of fat, by burning, or any
other means.

If ALL you ate was 60 g of fat per day, which is 540 kilocalories, you
would CERTAINLY burn all that fat up... as well as additional fat as
no one burns so few calories/day.

What goes in, either stays in, or comes out. Conservation of matter.

Yes, it comes out... as CO2 and H20 if fully metabolized, as ketones
if not.

I wouldn't say any such thing, because you don't in fact have to
exercise to eat some carbs. Your brain can take up a fair bit of
glucose, for instance. On the order of a few hundred calories a day,
supposedly.

The brain can also burn ketones.

And your body can produce glucose from protein if you eat an excess
also. You need enough to support yourself, particularly if
exercising, but an excess can screw up your biochemistry same as not
low carbing at all.

A smaller amount of glucose can be gotten from fat... fat usually is
burnt by different biochemical pathways than glucose, for the most
part.

In the presence of a lot of glucagon and low insulin, it is in fact
burnt up very inefficiently... meaning incompletely combusted and
therefore you don't extract all the calories from it.

Fat is only stored if you eat a high carb diet so as to move your
biochemistry into fat-storing mode or if you eat wildly more calories
than you need of fat.

If you keep the calories the same, your
theory is that the fat you eat prevents fat loss. That is simply not
true. Try this. Keep the calories the same and eat nothing but fat. See
what happens.

Yet here you make a claim which violates the principle of conservation
of
mass in chemical processes.

Ah... no. It's been supported by numerous studies.

Further, your notion of chemical processes are akin to what occurs in
a bomb calorimeter, not in a human body. In biochemistry, there are
enzymes and hormones involved that specifically exist to change the
reaction energy of reactions.

If you eat only fat, and enough of it, you will say as fat as you are
or get even fatter (even if you lose overall mass).

Studies have shown that eating a diet consisting of primarily fat
actually causes more loss than fasting. .

The only way it can be otherwise is if the fat is eliminated from the
body other than by burning.

No, because the pathways don't completly combust it.

Your body cannot burn arbitrary amounts of fat. Why? Because you would
fry yourself in the process. Burning releases heat, and heat must be
eliminated otherwise temperature rises. If your core temperature rises
by just a few degrees and stays there, you will die.

No one eats fat like that. Have you ever tried to eat say 1000
kilocalories/day of JUST fat? No protein or carb at all?

I mean, you'd have to be glugging down olive oil and munching on
sticks of butter. This is not exactly an appetizing notion.

Fat doesn't tend to be overeaten except in the presence of lots of
carb. which, of course, I KNOW isn't what you're talking about since
you're posting to a low-carb newsgroup.

Further, fat is much more satiating than carb. People eat much fewer
calories on a high fat diet than a high carb one.


Fat can break down into ketones. Ketones are toxic. If you don't
believe me, go down to your local paint store and drink acetone. you
don't want to eliminate arbitrary amounts of fat by way of building up
a large ketone concentration and ****ing it out. That pathway is
limited. Eat enough fat and you will overwhelm its capacity.

Acetone is a ketone. It's not the only one.

Further, ketones are normally present in EVERYONE'S bloodstream,
whether you're low carbing or not. And of course you discard them as
you discard all waste products.

This argument is silly. It's equivalent to the argument that you
should stop eating ANYTHING because it produces ****, which is toxic.
I mean, come on!

Perhaps you are counting on malabsorption. That's as good as not
eating the stuff in the first place. If you want to eat something that
you intend to **** out, fibre is a better choice.

Fiber is in a different category; generally the calories are
unavailable - true for all insoluble fiber and most insoluble fiber.

Every molecule of everything that comes into your body must somehow be
accounted for. If it goes in, but doesn't come out, then it's stored
somewhere in there, in some form. If it comes out, we can identify
where it came out. It doesn't just disappear.

It comes out as C02, H20 and ketones. No problem.

Any conclusions on an all-fat diet are not general enough to be
applicable in a sane diet. Such a diet is basically starvation; you're
killing the body by not giving it nutrients.

Conclusions based on fad diets are MOSTLY what studies show, since
it's easiest to do a study with one variable at a time. Though I
agree they aren't real world.

But they do give indications of what one should do in the real world.
Limit carb enough to keep the glucagon high and insulin low, and get
most of it from non-starchy vegetables and low-sugar fruit. Get
adequate protein for your needs. Then fill in the rest of the calories
from fat.

For me, the calories from carb and protein amount to around 600, so I
eat an extremely high-fat diet, nearly 60% fat. I have maintained a
55 lb weight loss I had 3 years ago since by eating high fat.

But much more importantly, for me, is that I maintain my blood
glucose. And that would be *impossible* on a lower fat diet. If I
lower fat, I have to raise either carb or protein, either of which
will raise my blood glucose to dangerous levels.

Suppose your prediction comes true, but how could it be so? Maybe if
you starve the body enough, the digestive tract will stop functioning,
and any further fat intake will no longer be absorbed. That situation
would not, in any useful way, prove the claim that one can eat
arbitrary amounts of fat without gaining. It certainly won't apply to
someone actually eating normally.

Your suggesiton makes NO sense. To lower my fat intake without
raising my blood glucose, I'd have to eat below 1000 calories a day...
starvation levels. Fat is the very thing that PREVENTS me eating at
starvation levels.

It's only useful to see what happens to the excessive fat intake in
someone who isn't (otherwise) killing himself.

It's burnt up. Not all that damned complicated.