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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
jamie wrote:
J David Anderson wrote: You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat up to six small meals per day. That's suggested mainly because most people dieting on low-fat high-carb need to eat that frequently to limit carb rebound hunger from the blood sugar going up and down. It's not necessary on LC. Skipping breakfast isn't "not eating" it is messing with the metabolism. If you put your body into a "famine or feast" routine, it will respond by trying to take advantage of the feast and store energy (as fat) for the next famine. As the time period between feast and famine is too small to allow the use of the stored fat, the fat builds up. Like it or not, believe it or not, that is the way it works. Not eating a few more hours a day doesn't trigger a famine response in anybody's metabolism. There's a huge difference between fasting and having 2 meals daily instead of 3. Not eating between your evening meal and your lunch could well be 16 hours or more, sufficient BTW, to qualify as a "fast" for many medical procedures. During that time you are (in most cases) working, putting a demand on your body for energy. That is sufficient to cause the body to drop the metabolic rate in order to maximise the benefit of what food it has available. It is not a theory, it is a commonplace fact. The thing is that this works in practice, it is often evident when people who have been in the habit of not eating breakfast begin to do so. I have seen it consistently over more than two decades, usually with very surprised women who had believed that the more meals they skipped, the better chance they had of controlling weight. Regards David |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 23:43:04 +1000, J. David Anderson
wrote: jamie wrote: J David Anderson wrote: You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat up to six small meals per day. That's suggested mainly because most people dieting on low-fat high-carb need to eat that frequently to limit carb rebound hunger from the blood sugar going up and down. It's not necessary on LC. Skipping breakfast isn't "not eating" it is messing with the metabolism. If you put your body into a "famine or feast" routine, it will respond by trying to take advantage of the feast and store energy (as fat) for the next famine. As the time period between feast and famine is too small to allow the use of the stored fat, the fat builds up. Like it or not, believe it or not, that is the way it works. Not eating a few more hours a day doesn't trigger a famine response in anybody's metabolism. There's a huge difference between fasting and having 2 meals daily instead of 3. Not eating between your evening meal and your lunch could well be 16 hours or more, sufficient BTW, to qualify as a "fast" for many medical procedures. During that time you are (in most cases) working, putting a demand on your body for energy. That is sufficient to cause the body to drop the metabolic rate in order to maximise the benefit of what food it has available. It is not a theory, it is a commonplace fact. The thing is that this works in practice, it is often evident when people who have been in the habit of not eating breakfast begin to do so. I have seen it consistently over more than two decades, usually with very surprised women who had believed that the more meals they skipped, the better chance they had of controlling weight. Regards David Moreover, I almost always overeat if I go too long between meals. I don't know why, but it's always been true. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
Bob in CT wrote:
|| On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:14:58 -0400, marengo || wrote: || ||| J David Anderson wrote: |||| On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 01:02:11 -0400, "marengo" |||| wrote: |||| ||||| S t a c i wrote: |||||| Something I found in the international edition of USA Today this |||||| morning: |||||| |||||| ||| http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...2-forum1_x.htm |||||| |||||| It's not rocket science, but I found this bit interesting (no |||||| source for study provided): |||||| |||||| "But in truth, people who skip breakfast are 450% more likely to |||||| be overweight or obese. They are training their bodies to store |||||| fat, the way you are if you skip meals regularly." |||||| |||||| S t a c i ||||| ||||| ||||| Bull, pure and simple -- IMO. |||| |||| You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals |||| Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to |||| eat up to six small meals per day. |||| ||| These same "qualified professionals" that are telling people to eat ||| six small meals a day are still telling people that eating ||| cholesterol and fat ||| raises your cholesterol levels, makes you obese and gives you heart ||| attacks ||| and strokes. It's outddated, incorrect thinking based on a ||| tradition of incorrect science. Otherwise we'd all be on a low-fat ||| diet with plenty or ||| grains, fruits and baked potatoes like they recommend! ||| || || Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I || still like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it || very hard not to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when || exercising (and where a "meal" can be a raw cucumber). I think there is a difference between telling people what the should do and people doing what they LIKE to do. You feel better when you eat frequenty smaller meals. Others don't, and there is not reason to believe, that I know of, that on a LC WOE that is necessary -unless one simply feels better doing that. || || -- || Bob in CT || Remove ".x" to reply |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
[cut]
|| || Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I || still like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it || very hard not to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when || exercising (and where a "meal" can be a raw cucumber). I think there is a difference between telling people what the should do and people doing what they LIKE to do. You feel better when you eat frequenty smaller meals. Others don't, and there is not reason to believe, that I know of, that on a LC WOE that is necessary -unless one simply feels better doing that. Heck, I don't care what anyone does, as long as it doesn't affect me. I personally feel that eating more meals is better, but if someone can get by without eating breakfast (for instance), then so be it. However, if the theory is that the people who gravitate toward low carb are those who have insulin problems, then I still would advise them to eat multiple small meals. I've gotten dizzy (my sign for high blood sugar) just from eating a large meal of primarily meat, so that's why I've continued to eat small meals. Also, large meals to me cause my stomach to "stretch" and so then I don't feel full after eating a subsequent small meal. Additionally, I always overeat when I go for a long time without eating. Finally, I simply have to eat regularly, as my blood sugar will drop too low after a while. For those who don't have any of these problems, then they can eat whatever they want (although I'm convinced that they don't have blood sugar problems to begin with and can eat whatever they want). -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
Bob in CT wrote:
| [cut] |||| |||| Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I |||| still like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it |||| very hard not to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when |||| exercising (and where a "meal" can be a raw cucumber). || || I think there is a difference between telling people what the should || do and || people doing what they LIKE to do. You feel better when you eat || frequenty || smaller meals. Others don't, and there is not reason to believe, || that I know of, that on a LC WOE that is necessary -unless one || simply feels better || doing that. || | | Heck, I don't care what anyone does, as long as it doesn't affect me. | I personally feel that eating more meals is better, but if someone | can get by without eating breakfast (for instance), then so be it. | However, if the theory is that the people who gravitate toward low | carb are those who have insulin problems, then I still would advise | them to eat multiple small meals. I've gotten dizzy (my sign for | high blood sugar) just from eating a large meal of primarily meat, so | that's why I've continued to eat small meals. Also, large meals to | me cause my stomach to "stretch" and so then I don't feel full after | eating a subsequent small meal. Additionally, I always overeat when I | go for a long time without eating. Finally, I simply have to eat | regularly, as my blood sugar will drop too low after a while. For | those who don't have any of these problems, then they can eat | whatever they want (although I'm convinced that they don't have blood | sugar problems to begin with and can eat whatever they want). Just goes to show you that although alike, we're all different. I'm T2 diabetic, and my blood glucose stays within normal ranges on low-carb eating alone, regardless of how frequently/infrequently I eat. I guess anyone who overeats in any one meal is setting himself up for insulin problems regardless of what they're eating, but the whole point of low-carb is that I feel satisfied with less food. Personally I think there is probably no absolute here; it more likely what we we're used to. We're such creatures of habit, and it's amazing what our bodies can adapt to. -- Peter 270/215/180 Before/Current Pix: http://users.thelink.net/marengo/wei...htlosspix.html |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 14:41:23 -0400, marengo wrote:
Bob in CT wrote: | [cut] |||| |||| Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I |||| still like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it |||| very hard not to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when |||| exercising (and where a "meal" can be a raw cucumber). || || I think there is a difference between telling people what the should || do and || people doing what they LIKE to do. You feel better when you eat || frequenty || smaller meals. Others don't, and there is not reason to believe, || that I know of, that on a LC WOE that is necessary -unless one || simply feels better || doing that. || | | Heck, I don't care what anyone does, as long as it doesn't affect me. | I personally feel that eating more meals is better, but if someone | can get by without eating breakfast (for instance), then so be it. | However, if the theory is that the people who gravitate toward low | carb are those who have insulin problems, then I still would advise | them to eat multiple small meals. I've gotten dizzy (my sign for | high blood sugar) just from eating a large meal of primarily meat, so | that's why I've continued to eat small meals. Also, large meals to | me cause my stomach to "stretch" and so then I don't feel full after | eating a subsequent small meal. Additionally, I always overeat when I | go for a long time without eating. Finally, I simply have to eat | regularly, as my blood sugar will drop too low after a while. For | those who don't have any of these problems, then they can eat | whatever they want (although I'm convinced that they don't have blood | sugar problems to begin with and can eat whatever they want). Just goes to show you that although alike, we're all different. I'm T2 diabetic, and my blood glucose stays within normal ranges on low-carb eating alone, regardless of how frequently/infrequently I eat. I guess anyone who overeats in any one meal is setting himself up for insulin problems regardless of what they're eating, but the whole point of low-carb is that I feel satisfied with less food. Personally I think there is probably no absolute here; it more likely what we we're used to. We're such creatures of habit, and it's amazing what our bodies can adapt to. You have a good point. -- Bob in CT Remove ".x" to reply |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
Dr. Bernstein recommends a 3.5 hour gap between meals and snacks, so your blood sugars don't overlap. Three meals, but snacks between are okay, as long as the 3.5 hour gap is observed. What does "overlap" mean in this sense? And does it apply at all to non-diabetics? Is it really meaningful for LC diabetes management, or is it just carried over from the standard "diabetics should eat frequently" on the carby low-fat ADA diet? Personally, if I eat more frequently than two meals and a snack per day, I feel sluggish and hungry all day. But I digest slowly -- after a good-sized but not stuffed weekend brunch, I usually feel like I just ate for 4 to 6 hours, and not hungry for for a few more hours than that, maybe not for the rest of the day. On the other hand, if I eat breakfast -- and I usually don't because I'm not hungry in the morning -- it's a pretty small meal, because a larger one would nauseate me that early, and then I end up feeling ravenously hungry all day. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why Diets Should be History (article)
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
Dr. Bernstein recommends a 3.5 hour gap between meals and snacks, so your blood sugars don't overlap. Three meals, but snacks between are okay, as long as the 3.5 hour gap is observed. What does "overlap" mean in this sense? And does it apply at all to non-diabetics? Is it really meaningful for LC diabetes management, or is it just carried over from the standard "diabetics should eat frequently" on the carby low-fat ADA diet? Personally, if I eat more frequently than two meals and a snack per day, I feel sluggish and hungry all day. But I digest slowly -- after a good-sized but not stuffed weekend brunch, I usually feel like I just ate for 4 to 6 hours, and not hungry for for a few more hours than that, maybe not for the rest of the day. On the other hand, if I eat breakfast -- and I usually don't because I'm not hungry in the morning -- it's a pretty small meal, because a larger one would nauseate me that early, and then I end up feeling ravenously hungry all day. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I Got this enema bag, I actualy lost 5 lb in one week | Mary | General Discussion | 10 | May 28th, 2004 10:28 PM |
'Put fat children on Atkins diet' | Diarmid Logan | General Discussion | 136 | April 8th, 2004 07:44 PM |
Long-some information I have found | Ray | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | December 4th, 2003 01:35 PM |
The Business of Low Carb (recent articles) | EmmaPeel | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | November 16th, 2003 01:30 AM |
Harvard study/CNN article | bob | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 4 | October 15th, 2003 03:37 PM |