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
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 06:19:46, Concordia wrote:
Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth degree of precision. But that certainly does not rule out _any_ value they may have in providing a basis about what and how much to eat. Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage has more calories than a pound of salmon. Would that not be clear without calorie tables? There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit in France (does it really?). If so, what do you attribute the difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here have to watch what they eat. When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of. No snacks. None. The concept of the "office stash" is totally unknown - you just don't eat during the day, except at a formal mealtime. The young, who do go to McDonald's, are beginning to get fat. And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a lot for lunch, etc. What's funny is now that I am thin, people occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other women. People see what they want to see. Partly conscious, partly because they are genuinely not hungry for a heavy meal in the evening if they've had a lot for lunch. Or for a pudding if they've had a large main course. That is what us fatties don't have, naturally - a natural appetite regulator. We eat because the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. And of course many French women *do* watch their weight, but are discreet about it - and successful! But they have as many health magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any other.... -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"Concordia" wrote in message
... One can go and get a test done. A university affiliated hospital would be a good place to start. Your premise was that it is rather hard to know what the metabolism is. I provided an example of how one could find out. I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way. This might indeed be interresting to do, for educative purpose. I wish we had done that in science class, might have been fun. However, I doubt it would have any practical use for a dieting purpose. Not really. A test would aid in ruling out hypothyroidism (not common) A blood sample would not *aid* ruling out hypothyroidism, it would diagnose it or not I mean, when there is a direct exam and when it is so cheap it's almost free (like, I paid less than $1 for mine), why not use it? and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight. That's because of the general misunderstanding people have on this issue. And this includes doctors. Metabolism doesn't matter than much, as long as you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some. This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through metabolic tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet. What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and obesity. But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal, either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal. Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or not. Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place. If you keep a constant weight and keep the exact same level of exercise. And if you're not a woman, periods tend to mess things up. Besides, your intakes have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice number, but not many useful things to do with it... There would be a somewhat of a distribution of results assuming one stayed at a similar weight and activity level. Do you dispute this? I do have some doubts about women, but no, for men, that would be right. But activity level would still vary, and this can make a lot of difference. And hopefully, weight will be going down too Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth degree of precision. I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe? Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of fruits. Likewise, on a bad year, you will have large drops in sugar content. Same for grapes, being on the good side of the hill is a variation high enough that one side will give great wine and the other a crappy barely drinkable beverage. The same applies with a lot of other food. Animals will have varying fat contents, depending on how they were fed (industrial food, grazing...) or kept (savage, semi-freedom, battery). That's a lot of variation you won't find in your calorie table. And I doubt you would have to go to the nth degree of precision to find it. Remember that 5% extra on a 2000 calories diet will give out 36000 calories by the end of the year - that's at least 9 extra pounds... Sure, variations will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of error... Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage has more calories than a pound of salmon. Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked? Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of sausage... A perfect match is not necessary short-term. It is a long-term attempt at a match or deficit that matters. You obviously understand this concept, and have alluded to it below when suggesting "regulated" people self-correct overeating by subsequently eating less to make up for it (which I somewhat disagree with). Studies have proven that there is a meal to meal compensation, except, again, in obeses. It's also something I experienced personnally. You're also building a system that is a lot more complex than the original biological one. The brain *will* adjust its calorie table. When you feed "light" food to a rat, the brain will adjust the quantities in no more than a couple of days and keep the diet iso-caloric. On the other hand, your calorie table will remain the same even on hot dry years. You're still lacking several levels of flexibility. There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit in France (does it really?). Obesity is rising in France. If we define obesity as BMI30, the 2003 numbers are 11.3% (9.6% in 1997). The overweight or obese population is at 41.6% (36.7% in 1997). Massive obesity (40) is now at 0.6%. I haven't checked the American numbers for a while, I don't know how you compared right now. There are indeed less and less of these people, since it's becoming hard not to be under the influence of a bunch of dietetical advices. You can still find them among kids, some teenagers and still quite a lot of adults. I still do know quite a lot of them though. My father mostly doesn't watch what he eats, and maintains his weight despite completely chaotic levels of physical activities. Don't you find it strange that the more dietetical advice we receive, the more obese we become? As you pointed, most Americans are very conscious about what they eat. Yet, most Americans also happen to be fat. If you go back forty years ago, few Americans cared, yet less of them were fat. If so, what do you attribute the difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here have to watch what they eat. That's actually very scary when you're a Frenchman visiting the USA, especially big cities. Actually seeing fitness shops selling diets products (most of them being illegal here) like they are candies is completely surreal to us. I mean, if I wanted to find such a shop in Paris, I would have to seek in the yellow pages to get the addresses of the handful of them we have. In NYC, it was impossible not to go past one daily. I do think that's one of the key difference. We do watch what we eat - a little. A lot less than you do anyway. Most people *like* eating. Most people have enough respect for cultural eating that eating powdered food is highly depressive to them. But we have been paying more attention to what we eat in the past years. We even have our diet reality show now. But we are now catching up on you quickly... There are of course other factors too. We walk much more than the average American does (except New Yorkers). Many flats also have no elevator, I live at the 6th floor, no elevator, and that's a minimum daily amount of exercise I have no way of doing without. Most famillies don't eat in front of the TV. We don't eat in our cars either. The dinner is still a social meeting for the familly. We don't eat all the time in the streets "as Americans do" (sorry, that's exactly how people would describe it). We drink soda, a little or mostly light - noone would think about drinking a gallon of coke a day. We buy food in small containers, not per the gallon. You can have two people eat from a single entree at a French restaurant - something most French people do when they visit the USA. The supersize deal in French McDonalds is roughly equivalent to the medium menu in US McDonalds, likewise the small French fries we have just doesn't exist in that size in the USA. The first McDonald in France already had salads on the menu, and they were healthier than the new "healthy" salads they are now selling. So, there are cultural differences, and they do play a role (especially since some of these keep us focussed on what we are eating and our feelings - like actually liking the food or not watching TV). But I think the overall attitude towards diet is a good part of the equation. I initially eliminated a significant amount of carbs by following Atkins induction, then gradually reintroduced complex carbs in the form of vegetables and the occasional fruits as I went along. I also began lifting weights regularly and swimming laps -- and find these to be rewarding and enjoyable activities. Today, I do not follow Atkins, but still generally watch starches and processed foods in general. The primary basis of my diet is lots of fresh vegetables and meats (fowl, seafood, red meat), with some fruits and nuts as snacks. I occasionally have a glass of red wine or a martini with or after dinner. So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic ****). This is still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate. There are probably other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food of course)? Are you positive you will be able to maintain for life? Sure, it is up to me. Last year, I hurt an ankle and was still able to keep from gaining weight. I'm not too concerned about physical traumas. Most people regain weight from psychological traumas, like a divorce or something that is experienced as emotionaly strongly. The problem is that most diets do not try to prepare you against that. I used to binge eat at least a couple of times a week and could wolf down an entire large pizza (and much more) in one sitting easily. I also overate in general on a fairly consistent basis. At the time, I rationalized it somewhat and wasn't completely honest with myself about what I was doing or the calories consumed. Well, at least, that's something not included in your diet plan : admitting you were over-eating, and even bingeing. When faced with that word, many people go into denial and claim they only have a small problem with food. Do you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial? Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why* you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that weight? What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet). Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of their own introspection, not of the diet itself. Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of people are able to make that introspection on their own. Even worse, a lot of energy is devoted to methods that completely obliterate the need to do any kind of introspection : diet pills, surgery, "miracle" diets... Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these "well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to give a conscious thought to what they eat. Well, decent dietetic models are rather recent. If you go back in time, all kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy into the caloric explanation! If you do a history of obesity, a lot of things have been blamed for it, not only mere calories : fat, carbs, proteins, water, salt, red meat... Yet, throughout history, a majority of humanity was able to maintain a stable weight. And we haven't been starving much in recent history, nor have we always been exercising ourselves. If you limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity. How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic advice of the time? This is not what I am seeing in the states. What are you observing in France? How many of these folks do you see percentage wise and how do they eat? Well, looking around me, I would say roughly 30-50% of the people are still eating normally. My father and mother are. My girlfriend is a recovered overweight lady who is now listening to her instincts and doing well along that way. Of course, the more you tell everyone that they should watch what they eat, the more they will just do that. And this is exactly what we are doing. I mean, I can't live a single day without being submitted to some form of diet information. This is like getting it brainwashed in. How can you explain we *still* have any obese person left with all the information we receive? I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Well, at least, losing weight has been effortless for me. Even better, it has been more pleasant than eating as an obese, because at least I appreciate what I eat (I used to just throw food down my throat). Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a lot for lunch, etc. I do often pass on dessert and second helping, because I just plainly do not feel hungry anymore. This is sometimes annoying, since I have thrown to the garbage bin tons of delicious stuff I had bought for dessert (until I figured out how to manage my hunger throughout the various parts of the meal or if I really badly want a dessert, I just start the meal with it). But it's not a conscious effort. I have tried to force myself to eat past the hunger a few time, and it just doesn't taste good without it. But I will make a conscious decision not to take a second helping in order to keep some hunger for the dessert, that one is true. The difference is that the final decision comes from my hunger, it's where the limit is set, not from some artificial conception of where I should stop eating or what I should eat. The difference is that there is no frustration that way, I don't give up something I would have wanted, I give up something I did have to hunger for. What's funny is now that I am thin, people occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other women. People see what they want to see. Same here. But that *is* exactly my point. Most people have their mind poluted by information and values from diets. They have their views so distorted that they won't even see reality when it's in front of their eyes. To them, someone who is slim is someone who doesn't eat "bad food". In deep, very few people actually believe in the caloric equation. I can tell them I can eat 100g of chocolate for lunch *and* that I will still lose weight because my caloric balance is in deficit, they will not believe me. Or, worse, they will believe it's some kind of miracle diet that involves eating chocolate in its process. The low fat diet. Won't work unless calories and portions are controlled. No diet will. This is common sense. Totally agreed. But then, why does the doctor asks you to cut fats? I mean, if it's only calories, why the hell should I *also* cut the fats? Why can't I cut a bit of fats and a bit of carbs? Or carbs or fats in various proportion according to my fancy of the day? The problem is that deep down, the doctor doesn't believe in the caloric theory himself. He believes you have to cut fats, and also, almost as an afterthought, cut the calories. But if you don't cut the fats, terrible things will happen. They pay lip service to the caloric balance, but they do believe in the fat is evil dogma with all their might. If someone really thinks they can sit around and eat excessive portions of a bunch of low fat junk food, they are a victim of their own stupidity. Then, I'm sorry to tell you, but a good deal of the American population *is* stupid. I mean, check how much low fat junk food people buy a year... The truth is out there and has been out there for quite some time. But even doctors do not believe in the caloric equations. They believe you should cut some bad foods/nutriments and, also, cut the calories. The FDA pyramid. The pyramid recommends way too many starches and is also an oversimplistic model -- I've always thought that. See? You too... If the goal is to achieve a caloric deficit, why not do it on the FDA pyramid? But you also believe that carbs are bad. Don't you think you can lose weight on eating a large amount of carbs? Do you believe you can't control your appetite if you eat carbs? What I'm seeing here in the states is that this LC "lifestyle" is going much the way of the low fat craze. There's a bunch of processed foods on the market now and people are overeating them. Folks are always looking for the quick fix, and marketers depend on it. That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches, entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards food only mirror our attitude towards society in general. But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a price to be paid for pleasure. Do you know the amount of people who are convinced that a single chunk of chocolate can destroy a careful diet? Or how many people actually demand of their dietetian that he puts them on the most strict diet and make them suffer? People are duped because they play mind games with themselves and choose to believe what they want to believe. Yes. The problem is that a huge majority of the people are in that situation. When, as a government, you spend a enormous budget communicating about obesity, seeing that kind of result should call for some brainstorming. And I don't mean creating some new ads. I mean, rethinking the whole strategy. Yet, the only reaction to the fact that it is obviously not working is to spend yet more funds to do the exact same campains, only louder. That is PRECISELY why I am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this. I still don't think people are responsible. They're not the direct conscious *cause* of their obesity. That's what being responsible means, being guilty of something. I don't think they are guilty of being obese. Nor are they guilty of failing when they try to solve their obesity using the consensual methods. Sure, they *can* help themselves, and the only available tool for that is introspection. Except it's incredibly difficult to access in the current hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with. As I've stated before, if someone chooses to stay fat, that's fine. Few people do that. Some people just give up trying. Given the statistical net results of diets, I can't blame them. If one has to chose between 5% of chances of losing some weight and 95% of chances of becoming fatter, being cautious and chosing to be as healthy as possible at one's current weight is not a bad choice. Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. That is a good point about the trans fats. However, I don't think it was part of some great conspiracy or marketing ploy, but rather due to the information currently available at the time. I don't blame conspiracies when I can blame common idiocy. The problem is that, when you are a doctor, you are sworn not to broadcast false informations. Yet, they put everyone on margarine without proper proof that margarine was safe *and* without real proof that butter was unsafe. And it's not an isolated event. Concerning obesity, it's done all the time. Just check the past history of obesity surgery an drugs. How many of these have been released and pulled from the market a few years after because of serious problems with them? Yet, they keep doing it. We still don't know the long term consequences of bypass surgery, but this doesn't prevent a bunch of people (including some with only moderate obesity) from having their body mutilated. I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating. It's a significant factor that gets little coverage in the press or books or even in doctors' office. It also gets little research. A lot more energy is devoted in finding the *genetic* roots of over-eating. What's the likehood that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of the American population? Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances. Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding a way around it. So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it doesn't make my life miserable. How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances? Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any particular meal), as long as I'm hungry. This is of course a little more involved. I get psychological support, I'm supervised by a nutritionnist, I have frquent blood samples, there was a lot of actual work involved in feeling my hunger and satiety and breaking up various food taboos... Initial circumstances, six months ago, were 1m82 for 132kg, with a recently diagnosed diabete and bad lipids. I had a past experience of binge-eating and bulimia, though I took care of this one on my own. Currently, I'm at 108kg. Diabete is in good control (A1c at 5.8%, FG at 1g) and lipids are within the norm. I also stopped my diabete medication a few months ago. Life's tough. We all have our problems. Usually, we can only solve our own problems. We can get help on our way though. Nowadays, most obeses trying to solve their problems have to go *against* the flow (society judgement, dietetic advice, doctors' advice...). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Concordia" wrote in message
... One can go and get a test done. A university affiliated hospital would be a good place to start. Your premise was that it is rather hard to know what the metabolism is. I provided an example of how one could find out. I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way. This might indeed be interresting to do, for educative purpose. I wish we had done that in science class, might have been fun. However, I doubt it would have any practical use for a dieting purpose. Not really. A test would aid in ruling out hypothyroidism (not common) A blood sample would not *aid* ruling out hypothyroidism, it would diagnose it or not I mean, when there is a direct exam and when it is so cheap it's almost free (like, I paid less than $1 for mine), why not use it? and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight. That's because of the general misunderstanding people have on this issue. And this includes doctors. Metabolism doesn't matter than much, as long as you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some. This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through metabolic tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet. What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and obesity. But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal, either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal. Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or not. Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place. If you keep a constant weight and keep the exact same level of exercise. And if you're not a woman, periods tend to mess things up. Besides, your intakes have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice number, but not many useful things to do with it... There would be a somewhat of a distribution of results assuming one stayed at a similar weight and activity level. Do you dispute this? I do have some doubts about women, but no, for men, that would be right. But activity level would still vary, and this can make a lot of difference. And hopefully, weight will be going down too Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth degree of precision. I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe? Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of fruits. Likewise, on a bad year, you will have large drops in sugar content. Same for grapes, being on the good side of the hill is a variation high enough that one side will give great wine and the other a crappy barely drinkable beverage. The same applies with a lot of other food. Animals will have varying fat contents, depending on how they were fed (industrial food, grazing...) or kept (savage, semi-freedom, battery). That's a lot of variation you won't find in your calorie table. And I doubt you would have to go to the nth degree of precision to find it. Remember that 5% extra on a 2000 calories diet will give out 36000 calories by the end of the year - that's at least 9 extra pounds... Sure, variations will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of error... Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage has more calories than a pound of salmon. Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked? Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of sausage... A perfect match is not necessary short-term. It is a long-term attempt at a match or deficit that matters. You obviously understand this concept, and have alluded to it below when suggesting "regulated" people self-correct overeating by subsequently eating less to make up for it (which I somewhat disagree with). Studies have proven that there is a meal to meal compensation, except, again, in obeses. It's also something I experienced personnally. You're also building a system that is a lot more complex than the original biological one. The brain *will* adjust its calorie table. When you feed "light" food to a rat, the brain will adjust the quantities in no more than a couple of days and keep the diet iso-caloric. On the other hand, your calorie table will remain the same even on hot dry years. You're still lacking several levels of flexibility. There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit in France (does it really?). Obesity is rising in France. If we define obesity as BMI30, the 2003 numbers are 11.3% (9.6% in 1997). The overweight or obese population is at 41.6% (36.7% in 1997). Massive obesity (40) is now at 0.6%. I haven't checked the American numbers for a while, I don't know how you compared right now. There are indeed less and less of these people, since it's becoming hard not to be under the influence of a bunch of dietetical advices. You can still find them among kids, some teenagers and still quite a lot of adults. I still do know quite a lot of them though. My father mostly doesn't watch what he eats, and maintains his weight despite completely chaotic levels of physical activities. Don't you find it strange that the more dietetical advice we receive, the more obese we become? As you pointed, most Americans are very conscious about what they eat. Yet, most Americans also happen to be fat. If you go back forty years ago, few Americans cared, yet less of them were fat. If so, what do you attribute the difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here have to watch what they eat. That's actually very scary when you're a Frenchman visiting the USA, especially big cities. Actually seeing fitness shops selling diets products (most of them being illegal here) like they are candies is completely surreal to us. I mean, if I wanted to find such a shop in Paris, I would have to seek in the yellow pages to get the addresses of the handful of them we have. In NYC, it was impossible not to go past one daily. I do think that's one of the key difference. We do watch what we eat - a little. A lot less than you do anyway. Most people *like* eating. Most people have enough respect for cultural eating that eating powdered food is highly depressive to them. But we have been paying more attention to what we eat in the past years. We even have our diet reality show now. But we are now catching up on you quickly... There are of course other factors too. We walk much more than the average American does (except New Yorkers). Many flats also have no elevator, I live at the 6th floor, no elevator, and that's a minimum daily amount of exercise I have no way of doing without. Most famillies don't eat in front of the TV. We don't eat in our cars either. The dinner is still a social meeting for the familly. We don't eat all the time in the streets "as Americans do" (sorry, that's exactly how people would describe it). We drink soda, a little or mostly light - noone would think about drinking a gallon of coke a day. We buy food in small containers, not per the gallon. You can have two people eat from a single entree at a French restaurant - something most French people do when they visit the USA. The supersize deal in French McDonalds is roughly equivalent to the medium menu in US McDonalds, likewise the small French fries we have just doesn't exist in that size in the USA. The first McDonald in France already had salads on the menu, and they were healthier than the new "healthy" salads they are now selling. So, there are cultural differences, and they do play a role (especially since some of these keep us focussed on what we are eating and our feelings - like actually liking the food or not watching TV). But I think the overall attitude towards diet is a good part of the equation. I initially eliminated a significant amount of carbs by following Atkins induction, then gradually reintroduced complex carbs in the form of vegetables and the occasional fruits as I went along. I also began lifting weights regularly and swimming laps -- and find these to be rewarding and enjoyable activities. Today, I do not follow Atkins, but still generally watch starches and processed foods in general. The primary basis of my diet is lots of fresh vegetables and meats (fowl, seafood, red meat), with some fruits and nuts as snacks. I occasionally have a glass of red wine or a martini with or after dinner. So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic ****). This is still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate. There are probably other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food of course)? Are you positive you will be able to maintain for life? Sure, it is up to me. Last year, I hurt an ankle and was still able to keep from gaining weight. I'm not too concerned about physical traumas. Most people regain weight from psychological traumas, like a divorce or something that is experienced as emotionaly strongly. The problem is that most diets do not try to prepare you against that. I used to binge eat at least a couple of times a week and could wolf down an entire large pizza (and much more) in one sitting easily. I also overate in general on a fairly consistent basis. At the time, I rationalized it somewhat and wasn't completely honest with myself about what I was doing or the calories consumed. Well, at least, that's something not included in your diet plan : admitting you were over-eating, and even bingeing. When faced with that word, many people go into denial and claim they only have a small problem with food. Do you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial? Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why* you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that weight? What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet). Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of their own introspection, not of the diet itself. Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of people are able to make that introspection on their own. Even worse, a lot of energy is devoted to methods that completely obliterate the need to do any kind of introspection : diet pills, surgery, "miracle" diets... Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these "well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to give a conscious thought to what they eat. Well, decent dietetic models are rather recent. If you go back in time, all kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy into the caloric explanation! If you do a history of obesity, a lot of things have been blamed for it, not only mere calories : fat, carbs, proteins, water, salt, red meat... Yet, throughout history, a majority of humanity was able to maintain a stable weight. And we haven't been starving much in recent history, nor have we always been exercising ourselves. If you limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity. How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic advice of the time? This is not what I am seeing in the states. What are you observing in France? How many of these folks do you see percentage wise and how do they eat? Well, looking around me, I would say roughly 30-50% of the people are still eating normally. My father and mother are. My girlfriend is a recovered overweight lady who is now listening to her instincts and doing well along that way. Of course, the more you tell everyone that they should watch what they eat, the more they will just do that. And this is exactly what we are doing. I mean, I can't live a single day without being submitted to some form of diet information. This is like getting it brainwashed in. How can you explain we *still* have any obese person left with all the information we receive? I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Well, at least, losing weight has been effortless for me. Even better, it has been more pleasant than eating as an obese, because at least I appreciate what I eat (I used to just throw food down my throat). Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a lot for lunch, etc. I do often pass on dessert and second helping, because I just plainly do not feel hungry anymore. This is sometimes annoying, since I have thrown to the garbage bin tons of delicious stuff I had bought for dessert (until I figured out how to manage my hunger throughout the various parts of the meal or if I really badly want a dessert, I just start the meal with it). But it's not a conscious effort. I have tried to force myself to eat past the hunger a few time, and it just doesn't taste good without it. But I will make a conscious decision not to take a second helping in order to keep some hunger for the dessert, that one is true. The difference is that the final decision comes from my hunger, it's where the limit is set, not from some artificial conception of where I should stop eating or what I should eat. The difference is that there is no frustration that way, I don't give up something I would have wanted, I give up something I did have to hunger for. What's funny is now that I am thin, people occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other women. People see what they want to see. Same here. But that *is* exactly my point. Most people have their mind poluted by information and values from diets. They have their views so distorted that they won't even see reality when it's in front of their eyes. To them, someone who is slim is someone who doesn't eat "bad food". In deep, very few people actually believe in the caloric equation. I can tell them I can eat 100g of chocolate for lunch *and* that I will still lose weight because my caloric balance is in deficit, they will not believe me. Or, worse, they will believe it's some kind of miracle diet that involves eating chocolate in its process. The low fat diet. Won't work unless calories and portions are controlled. No diet will. This is common sense. Totally agreed. But then, why does the doctor asks you to cut fats? I mean, if it's only calories, why the hell should I *also* cut the fats? Why can't I cut a bit of fats and a bit of carbs? Or carbs or fats in various proportion according to my fancy of the day? The problem is that deep down, the doctor doesn't believe in the caloric theory himself. He believes you have to cut fats, and also, almost as an afterthought, cut the calories. But if you don't cut the fats, terrible things will happen. They pay lip service to the caloric balance, but they do believe in the fat is evil dogma with all their might. If someone really thinks they can sit around and eat excessive portions of a bunch of low fat junk food, they are a victim of their own stupidity. Then, I'm sorry to tell you, but a good deal of the American population *is* stupid. I mean, check how much low fat junk food people buy a year... The truth is out there and has been out there for quite some time. But even doctors do not believe in the caloric equations. They believe you should cut some bad foods/nutriments and, also, cut the calories. The FDA pyramid. The pyramid recommends way too many starches and is also an oversimplistic model -- I've always thought that. See? You too... If the goal is to achieve a caloric deficit, why not do it on the FDA pyramid? But you also believe that carbs are bad. Don't you think you can lose weight on eating a large amount of carbs? Do you believe you can't control your appetite if you eat carbs? What I'm seeing here in the states is that this LC "lifestyle" is going much the way of the low fat craze. There's a bunch of processed foods on the market now and people are overeating them. Folks are always looking for the quick fix, and marketers depend on it. That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches, entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards food only mirror our attitude towards society in general. But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a price to be paid for pleasure. Do you know the amount of people who are convinced that a single chunk of chocolate can destroy a careful diet? Or how many people actually demand of their dietetian that he puts them on the most strict diet and make them suffer? People are duped because they play mind games with themselves and choose to believe what they want to believe. Yes. The problem is that a huge majority of the people are in that situation. When, as a government, you spend a enormous budget communicating about obesity, seeing that kind of result should call for some brainstorming. And I don't mean creating some new ads. I mean, rethinking the whole strategy. Yet, the only reaction to the fact that it is obviously not working is to spend yet more funds to do the exact same campains, only louder. That is PRECISELY why I am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this. I still don't think people are responsible. They're not the direct conscious *cause* of their obesity. That's what being responsible means, being guilty of something. I don't think they are guilty of being obese. Nor are they guilty of failing when they try to solve their obesity using the consensual methods. Sure, they *can* help themselves, and the only available tool for that is introspection. Except it's incredibly difficult to access in the current hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with. As I've stated before, if someone chooses to stay fat, that's fine. Few people do that. Some people just give up trying. Given the statistical net results of diets, I can't blame them. If one has to chose between 5% of chances of losing some weight and 95% of chances of becoming fatter, being cautious and chosing to be as healthy as possible at one's current weight is not a bad choice. Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. That is a good point about the trans fats. However, I don't think it was part of some great conspiracy or marketing ploy, but rather due to the information currently available at the time. I don't blame conspiracies when I can blame common idiocy. The problem is that, when you are a doctor, you are sworn not to broadcast false informations. Yet, they put everyone on margarine without proper proof that margarine was safe *and* without real proof that butter was unsafe. And it's not an isolated event. Concerning obesity, it's done all the time. Just check the past history of obesity surgery an drugs. How many of these have been released and pulled from the market a few years after because of serious problems with them? Yet, they keep doing it. We still don't know the long term consequences of bypass surgery, but this doesn't prevent a bunch of people (including some with only moderate obesity) from having their body mutilated. I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating. It's a significant factor that gets little coverage in the press or books or even in doctors' office. It also gets little research. A lot more energy is devoted in finding the *genetic* roots of over-eating. What's the likehood that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of the American population? Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances. Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding a way around it. So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it doesn't make my life miserable. How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances? Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any particular meal), as long as I'm hungry. This is of course a little more involved. I get psychological support, I'm supervised by a nutritionnist, I have frquent blood samples, there was a lot of actual work involved in feeling my hunger and satiety and breaking up various food taboos... Initial circumstances, six months ago, were 1m82 for 132kg, with a recently diagnosed diabete and bad lipids. I had a past experience of binge-eating and bulimia, though I took care of this one on my own. Currently, I'm at 108kg. Diabete is in good control (A1c at 5.8%, FG at 1g) and lipids are within the norm. I also stopped my diabete medication a few months ago. Life's tough. We all have our problems. Usually, we can only solve our own problems. We can get help on our way though. Nowadays, most obeses trying to solve their problems have to go *against* the flow (society judgement, dietetic advice, doctors' advice...). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
... When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of. As a side note, off these three meals, the breakfast tends to be pretty small. For most French people it's a cup of coffee and some bread and butter. End of meal. The idea of eating proteins for breakfast sounds disgusting to most people, even though some force themselves to do it under the presure of dietitians. It's actuall funny if you check the French diet boards. Plenty of people are posting tricks about how to manage to eat that much food in the morning without feeling nauseous or how to manage to get children to eat such a large breakfast. All because the dietitians/magazines told them to. So much for the idea that you *have* to eat a whole meal for breakfast to stay slim. On the three meals a day deal, there are different successful patterns in the world. Asia seems to do very well on much more than that. Japanese eat two extra meals (10am and 4pm) and seem to do fine on that diet. Other Asiatic countries practice snacking and do fine on them. No snacks. None. The 4pm snack is an almost official meal for kids, but many (not all) adults drop it. Besides, nutritionists now make a distinction between a snack and a "collation" (small meal). A collation is just a snack that you eat while being hungry and while paying attention to what you eat. Collations = good, snacking = bad, according to them. And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! It's true that while visiting the USA, I felt positively slim. And I was in relatively slim cities (NYC, SF). Also, I had to struggle to find clothes at my size in France, but in the USA I could even find stuff that fitted me at Gap! :-o Most fashionable brands here stop at XL, and your XL is more like a XXL or XXXL here. We eat because the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. That's what psychologists have called externalism. Slim people react from inner stimuli (they're hungry, they stop being hungry) while obese people tend to react from external stimuli (time to eat, there is food in front of me, people are eating, a serving = size of my appetite). But they have as many health magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any other.... This is a recent phenomenon. I read a statistical study on it actually. In just a few years, the number of articles concerning diets have multiplied tenfold. Worse, they are becoming common in the press targetted towards teenagers, while it was virtually unknown there a few years ago. There are now even a few dieting articles in the men magazines, and this one is totally new. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
... When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of. As a side note, off these three meals, the breakfast tends to be pretty small. For most French people it's a cup of coffee and some bread and butter. End of meal. The idea of eating proteins for breakfast sounds disgusting to most people, even though some force themselves to do it under the presure of dietitians. It's actuall funny if you check the French diet boards. Plenty of people are posting tricks about how to manage to eat that much food in the morning without feeling nauseous or how to manage to get children to eat such a large breakfast. All because the dietitians/magazines told them to. So much for the idea that you *have* to eat a whole meal for breakfast to stay slim. On the three meals a day deal, there are different successful patterns in the world. Asia seems to do very well on much more than that. Japanese eat two extra meals (10am and 4pm) and seem to do fine on that diet. Other Asiatic countries practice snacking and do fine on them. No snacks. None. The 4pm snack is an almost official meal for kids, but many (not all) adults drop it. Besides, nutritionists now make a distinction between a snack and a "collation" (small meal). A collation is just a snack that you eat while being hungry and while paying attention to what you eat. Collations = good, snacking = bad, according to them. And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! It's true that while visiting the USA, I felt positively slim. And I was in relatively slim cities (NYC, SF). Also, I had to struggle to find clothes at my size in France, but in the USA I could even find stuff that fitted me at Gap! :-o Most fashionable brands here stop at XL, and your XL is more like a XXL or XXXL here. We eat because the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. That's what psychologists have called externalism. Slim people react from inner stimuli (they're hungry, they stop being hungry) while obese people tend to react from external stimuli (time to eat, there is food in front of me, people are eating, a serving = size of my appetite). But they have as many health magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any other.... This is a recent phenomenon. I read a statistical study on it actually. In just a few years, the number of articles concerning diets have multiplied tenfold. Worse, they are becoming common in the press targetted towards teenagers, while it was virtually unknown there a few years ago. There are now even a few dieting articles in the men magazines, and this one is totally new. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 16:36:48, Lictor
wrote: The first McDonald in France already had salads on the menu, and they were healthier than the new "healthy" salads they are now selling. It didn't, you know, nor did it have breakfast foods. We used to go there in 1974 or thenabouts and buy a Big Mac and a milkshake, and that was a *lot* of food. No fries, we never bothered. -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
... It didn't, you know, nor did it have breakfast foods. We used to go there in 1974 or thenabouts and buy a Big Mac and a milkshake, and that was a *lot* of food. No fries, we never bothered. Really? I would have sworn they had salads from the start... Though I was only two years old back then Anyway, they were introduced pretty early on, in my memories, I have always seen salads there... It was actually pretty funny the first time I went there... My father told me we were going to try out "American food" lol And yes, a shake and a Big Mac *is* a lot of food! That would be around the same number of calories as a Big Mac + Small Fries or BM + Small Salad I guess, that's about what many people eat at McDonald (except hyper-active youths, but I suspect some of them do burn that much calories). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to
eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no shortcuts." I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to
eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no shortcuts." I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"bencon" wrote in message
om... I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | Annabel Smyth | General Discussion | 25 | August 13th, 2004 10:24 AM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | Cheri | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | August 9th, 2004 06:50 PM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | ClabberHead 4.01 | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | August 9th, 2004 03:17 AM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | LucaBG | General Discussion | 0 | August 8th, 2004 08:16 AM |
Saturday Night Live Atkins Mention | Pook! | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | October 22nd, 2003 08:56 AM |