Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

Bob in CT wrote:
...
Personally, I got
fat due to injury (shoulder and ankle) and by eating the same amount I
did when I was riding my bike. Then insulin resistance developed and
carbs caused me to become depressed, leading to a viscious cycle.

Vicious. Are you willing to explain the connection between your depression and
carbohydrates for us? I'm quite curious to hear about it.

I
have tremendous discipline, a tremendous amount of self respect and am
very mature.

I'm sure you're a very interesting fellow.

Ignoramus20355 wrote:

No, I did not. I simply made weight loss a priority. But I always had a
more or less same amount of discipline.

Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you did
not before. You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise
the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had
said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by
exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control?

Every day, you are aware that the ball is in your court and use it is a day
you've exercised control.

--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.

Ignoramus20355 wrote:
In article .net, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Ignoramus20355 wrote:



Okay, consider me then. I was fat. According to you, it means that I
was immature, lacked self respect and self discipline.

But then I lost weight! I assue you that I did not become more mature,
self disciplined and I always had a lot of self respect.

If you lost the weight and kept it off through your own
change of habits, rather than through surgery or some
other externally-imposed method, then you undoubtedly
DID gain self discipline, self respect and emotional
maturity.


No, I did not. I simply made weight loss a priority.

You twit: it took an increase in self respect and
maturity in order to do that, and an increase in self
discipline in order to stay with it.

But I always had a
more or less same amount of discipline.

Evidently not.


And even so, good chances are that inb a few years I will regain
weight again. Why?Because I am an overeater with a broken sense of
fullness.

Ipse dixit.

On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355
wrote:

In article , usual suspect wrote:
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too
much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because
you consume
way too many calories.

That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness.

Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the
common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
fat = terrible.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Ignoramus20355 wrote:

In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote:

Ignoramus20355 wrote:


In article . net, Jonathan Ball wrote:


Ignoramus20355 wrote:


In article .net, Jonathan Ball wrote:



Ignoramus20355 wrote:




Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume
way too many calories.


That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

That question has been long answered:

lack of discipline
lack of self respect
immaturity


Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim
people?

Of course.



If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity, such people
would not exist. But, I see loads of such people.

Bad logic, pal; very much akin to the "all dogs are
poodles" variety. Lack of discipline, lack of self
respect and immaturity don't necessarily lead to
grotesque obesity, but examine a grotesquely obese
person and you will always find lack of discipline,
lack of self respect and immaturity in appreciable
concentration. The three emotional pathologies might
lead to lots of bad outcomes; grotesque obesity is just
one of the many.


Then how come those obese people sometimes lose weight.

If they lose it by a change in "lifestyle" and keep it
off, it's because they acquired the necessary self
discipline, self respect and emotional maturity.


we start to repeat ourselvees.


I was not "grotesquely obese", but I was obese, and then I lost
weight, and I assure you that no changes in my self respect or my self
discipline level occurred.

I bet there *were* such changes, if you lost the weight
and have kept it off.


I bet you have no special information about me, Ignoramus20355,
whereas I do.


http://igor.chudov.com/weightloss/

What did change is that I decided that it was irrational to be fat and
unhealthy.

In other words, you began taking responsibility for
yourself, rather than seeing yourself as some kind of
"victim". That IS a change in self respect and a
result of growing into an emotionally more mature
person. How can you fail to see this?


No, I am a victim of my appetite,

You still have a long way to travel. People who see
themselves as "victims" in that sense are still
emotionally immature. You've made some progress, but
still have a lot of ground to cover.

but what can I do?

Learn that you are not a victim. That will require
further emotional growth.

I can only deal
with the cards that I have been dealt.

Right. I am much shorter than I would have liked:
about 5'6". I don't consider myself a "victim" of
anything (well, maybe of my mom's
cocaine/alcohol/nicotine habits in 1952; just kidding.)
I don't let it bother me. It's an annoyance, but I
have enough self confidence and actual ability that no
one who knows me either needles me about it or thinks
of me as having a "little guy" complex. By contrast,
my younger brother, who in fact is a couple of inches
*taller* than I, has a decided "little guy" complex.
He's also an emotional cripple, for plenty of reasons.



So I made some changes. I have not eaten a single piece of
junk food or candy in almost a year, for example. Why?Because I
_lack_self discipline.

No, you *gained* the self discipline to enable you to
refrain from the stuff.


I always had some self discipline, I just did not apply it to my weight
rationally.

Operative word, "some". You acquired more.


Besides, it is very easy for me to avoid something altogether, rather
than deal with fuzzy concepts like "eating just a little bit of
candy".

It still requires self discipline, and you lacked it in
your previous attempts.



bull****, I have no more discipline than before, and no more self
respect.

You're wrong. This goes to show that you still have a
considerable distance to travel on the road to
emotional maturity, but you're on your way; don't look
back.


I love it when some SSFA poster who does not know me, is giving me
insights about my spiritual condition.

You reveal things about yourself that support the insights.



I just changed the way I eat. I had enough discipline to get
good grades in college, finish my MBA degree at a prestigious
university etc, and yet I was fat.

There's self discipline, and then there's TOTAL self
discipline. Few if any people are so totally self
disciplined that they never make any mistakes.


And I am not one of them!

I don't know anyone who is.



I think that your theory is not based on quantifiable evidence.

Very little of psycho-social observation is. That
doesn't make it wrong.


No, but it does not make it believable.

No, I didn't suggest that a *lack* of quantifiable
evidence "made" anything believable. It may be, and
is, believable despite the lack of such evidence.

I am very skeptical of
"psycho-social observations"not supported by evidence.

That's nice.



I don't know how long you've had a grip on your weight,
but I would imagine that over time, you'll get there.


Is there some evidence for that? I would really like to know if I would
ever have normal appetite.

I have been maintaining my weight with great success for 8 months,
meaning that it was relativey stable. (with a slight downward trend
this year as I am working on losing 10 more pounds in 2004). I have my
complete weight history on my weight loss page.

And yet, as I said, not overeating is always a struggle. Almost every
day I want to overeat. Not by much, I am sure that I would be
satisfied if I ate 20% more food. But, 20% more food would cause me to
gain almost a pound per week.

I lost 50 lbs, from 223 to 173.

If somehow, you know from somewhere that people's appetites notmalize
after a few years in maintenance, I would like you to post your
sources.

I don't know it. It's a hunch.



okay, so you don't know...

Ignoramus20355 wrote:
In article , usual suspect wrote:

Ignoramus20355 wrote:

Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because you consume
way too many calories.

That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness.


Why is it that numerous morally weak, ignorant and undisciplined
people are slim them?

Are you blind, illiterate, or both? I explained it to
you already: lack of discipline, lack of self respect,
lack of knowledge and moral weakness MAY, but do not
always, lead one to become obese; but if you look into
the life of an obese person, you will always find them.

Put another way, all obese people lack self discipline,
self respect, knowledge and moral fiber, but not all
people who lack those become obese; sometimes the bad
outcome is something else.

Why is it that they do not want to eat after they
ate enough?

Beats me. Their moral failures show up in something
other than obesity, that's all.


and I am
sure that I overeat becaus some metabolic function or another is not
working right in my body.

I'm sure that's a very convenient excuse for you (like so many others); talk
about trivial and uninteresting, not to mention so common.


Well, I am slim and fit, how can my appetite problem be an "excuse"
for anything?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}"; main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."

Bob in CT wrote:

On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355
wrote:

In article , usual suspect wrote:

Ignoramus20355 wrote:

Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank
too much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because
you consume
way too many calories.


That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.


Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness.


Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight.

At some point, it does.

And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as
the common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that
low fat = terrible.

Ignoramus20355 wrote:

In article , Crafting Mom wrote:

Ignoramus20355 wrote:


No, I did not. I simply made weight loss a priority. But I always had a
more or less same amount of discipline.

Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you did
not before.


of course.

That required emotional and intellectual growth on your
part. In other words, more maturity.



You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise
the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had
said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by
exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control?


Nothing wrong with it, but the veggy freaks and fat taunters allege
that I did not have that discipline.

I am not a veggie freak - lifelong omnivore - and I am
not a "fat taunter". What I refuse to do is accept any
bull**** excuses about fat: "victimology",
one-in-two-billion metabolic dysfunction, etc.

I did have it.

Perhaps in some areas of your life, but not in this
one. I doubt you LOST self discipline in those other
areas as you learned to acquire/apply it in diet.

But, somehow,

....due to immaturity...

I did not apply it. Also, some people can stay slim
without any
discipline, they somehow simply do not want anymore food after they
ate enough.


Every day, you are aware that the ball is in your court and use it is a day
you've exercised control.


That's right. I was just hoping that somehow, I could find some way
to not be hungry after I ate enough to maintain weight.

There are no silver bullets.

usual suspect wrote:

Ipse dixit. Any dietary intake (other than water) in a normal person
will result in serum glucose increase followed by a rise in insulin.
That's nature. Too bad Dr Atkins never really grasped it.

You're both wrong.

Protein and carbs raise insulin and blood sugar. For Type 1 diabetics
who inject, one has to take into account both protein and carb amounts
to determine the necessary amount of insulin. Protein causes much
smaller spikes that carb, but it has an effect.

Fat has almost no effect itself. Fat slows the absorption of carbs and
protein, resulting in a slower rise, but the same amount of rise occurs.
But pre fat has little effect on either blood sugar or insulin
production, it's just not relevant itself.


Ipse dixit and an overly-simplistic explanation. First, you should
distinguish between simple and complex carbohydrates. Second, you need
to note that each of those causes a different surge in serum glucose
levels and hence a different reaction in insulin response.

For diabetics, complex carbohydrate doesn't help much, it's the same
amount of sugar, unless you're talking fiber which isn't processed by
humans at all.

My husband is not diabetic nor insulin resistant. He can eat several
oversized pieces of chocolate cake and his blood sugar does not rise...
though of course insulin levels do. But since he is not insulin
resistant, he doesn't need insane levels of insulin to handle the sugar.
His bg doesn't ever go over 100 no matter whether he eates well or
eats crap.

A small plate of pasta causes my blood glucose to rise to nearly 400. A
candy bar does the same. A couple slices of whole wheat bread, made
from freshly ground grain at home and a healthy as it can be, does the
same. There's a difference in how long it takes for my blood glucose to
go to insane levels, but it does regardless of whether the carbs are
"complex" or not. By the time it hits my blood stream, it's glucose no
matter how complex it starts out. Since I'm extremely insulin
resistant, any large dose of carbs causes insane levels of insulin to be
secreted - which don't work effectively due to the IR - and therefore my
blood sugar goes crazy. There are no "good" carbs for *me* except fiber.


Third, you're
ignoring the fact that the body evolved to secrete insulin in response
to food -- period. Etc.

You're ignoring the fact that the majority of our evolution occured
pre-agriculture, when the defacto diet for the human race was a low-carb
diet. Agriculture has not existed long in evolutionary terms - we did
not evolve to eat hundreds and hundreds of grams of carb daily all year
round.

Approximately 25% of the populaiton is estimated to be insulin
resistant. Throughout evolution, this was a good thing... these were
the people who stored fat in summer when carbs were more available and
therefore most likely to survive winter. But given that the grocery
store is now available 365 days per year, the same ability to store fat
effectively is no longer a positive survival trait. Evolution has not
yet caught up with agriculture.


Juices usually contain vitamins and minerals (apple juice excluded).
They can be part of a healthy diet in moderation.

On low-carb, I eat about three times as much vegetables as I did all
produce (including fruits and juices) before, so I doubt I'm getting
less vitamins and minerals by skipping juice.

Unless you consider destroying the pancreas, ruining my cholesterol
levels, damaging my kidneys, increasing my risk of heart disease,
potential blindness, increased infections, risk of amputation and an
early death to be part of your definition of "healthy" - juice cannot be
part of a healthy diet for *me*, unless your idea of "moderation" is
measured in micrograms.

Juices raise blood sugar much more than fruits, and you lose the benefit
of fiber. Juice can be a reasonable food choice for those whom are not
insulin-resistant, sure beats choices like junk food, but even for those
without insulin resistance, it's not as good a food choice as whole fruit.


Eat fruit.

One should eat fruit. It's high in fiber and contains (egads!) carbs
which help the body function properly.

There's plenty of fiber in vegetables and in low-carb fruits (such as
some berries and melons). No one has to risk amputation, impotence or
blindness to get fiber.

There is *nothing* provided by non-fiber carbs to the body that cannot
be provided with protein and/or fat.

The notion that a low-carb diet is unhealthy is just ridiculous. I eat
about the same amount of meat as before and much more vegetables, in
place of starches and sweets. About the only "unhealthy" bit of my diet
is I could probably improve things by decreasing my dairy intake a bit,
I tend to go a bit overboard with yogurt and cheese and such. But
there's nothing inherently unhealthy about limiting carbohydrate.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in
this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when
dealing with nutrition.. :-)

Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in
health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie, most people, on
the other had, are very intimidated by reading these types of
journals, (ie. Put to sleep after about 5 mins of reading. Can you
really blame them?? :-) I will try to break it down a little for
anyone else that did not choose to read the journal study pearl
referenced:

Basically, it goes like this. Researches noticed that obesity was a
rarity in the typical Chinese individual in rural areas. Furthermore,
even though they did notice that the typical Chinese in these rural
areas did in fact have a more active lifestyle, they didn't feel that
this contributed to the overall picture. Even though the author of
this study, like many early onset studies, was quick to point out that
more investigation needs to be done to know for sure, lets just assume
for this case he is correct and that he was just trying to cover his
butt!! :-)

I am very appreciative that you sent this journal, pearl, because it
really does help me to further show the rest of the people reading
this posting something that it seems that you already know very well,
which is that the "Power of balancing diets" is very effective!

It should be noted, though, that I really wish this author would have
been a little more specific on the food ratios involved, but lets just
make some quick assessments to the approx. diet ratios he provided and
assume an approx. 30/55/15 ratio. This means that 30% of the
individuals diet is coming from protein sources, 55% is coming from
carbohydrate sources, and about 15% from fat. No to bad balancing...
Also, the majority of all of their carbs and proteins are coming from
rich vegetables (ie. Very Low GI carb sources)... Even better!!! :-)

OK. Now, where is the "magic" here? Well, as my father used to say,
there is dozens of ways to skin a cat. In this case, they are doing
it in two ways.

Why is the rural chinese carb sources so good? (ie. low GI)
===========================================
Well, this journal does a wonderful job in explaining this.
Basically, for the rural Chinese, all their diet revolves around
non-refined carbohydrates, which they also use as their primary
protein source, and it all comes from rich plants. (ie. Think about
"dark" vegetables, such as spinach, broccoli, etc... great stuff!!)
As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is where the "basic thermo
laws" cannot be really be applied, because it would only disregard how
complex the human body is anyway. Don't believe it?? Well consider
this…

Lets just say that I ate 2000 kcal of broccoli at one time, which I
might add is about 3 1/2 pounds, but hey, lets say I am really
hungry!! :-) Would my digestive system uptake 2000 kcal?? Nope...
Why?? Well, its because your body only has a limited "window" so to
speak when it can extract energy from food, which is no more than 3
hours to 4 hours for most people. After this time, the food has past
on lower in the intestines and is no longer assessable for extracting
nutrients. For broccoli, it takes the body a long time to extract
energy from it, so it would not be able to get even 1/8th of the
glucose out of that broccoli that I ate.. Have no fear, though, as
the bacteria in your colon will have a party when they see the extra
carbs coming their way, and unfortunately, it will come at your
personal expense in the way of excess gas release!! Opps, sorry..…

Also, it should be noted that this 3 hour to 4 hour digestion "window"
is the whole reason why nutritionists want you to eat 5 to 6 meals a
day. Basically they are trying to get you to eat every 3 hours so
that that body has consistent levels of energy... Also, for most
people, the typical standing energy requirement is only about 300
calories over a 3 hour period. This varies per person, though, due to
what is known a a persons Lean Body Mass indicator, which is the
amount of fat you are carrying minus your total weight. This is the
main reason why nutritionists when to do a BF% test on you when you
come in.

So, then am I trying to say that when given 2000 kcal at one time your
body cannot take it all in? Nope. It just depends on the type of
food that it is getting…. For instance, lets just say that instead of
getting my 2000 kcal from broccoli, I instead choose to get it from a
high quality candy, which we are going to say is straight
dextrose/glucose. (ie. Lets think pixie sticks/smarties here). In
the case of the candy, your body would in fact VERY quickly absorb
that 2000 kcal. (ie. In about 20 mins assuming an empty stomach)
Unfortunately, though, because your system has no use for 2000 kcal at
one time, so much hits the blood stream so fast, when your pancreas
responds with in huge insulin spike to allow the new found energy to
be used, and then you fat cells would just have a party gobbling it
up!!! :-)
===========================================

Is there anyway I can slow absorption of high GI foods?
===========================================
Its funny you say ask that.. Yes it is very possible... :-)

Have you ever wondered why in the old days people would eat cookies
and milk? Well, even if they did not realize it at the time, what
they were actually doing was using the milk, which will turn to a
medium GI (ie. 32/100 in fact) solid in the stomach, and slow down
the absorption of the cookie. No, you certainly are not going to turn
the cookie into a broccoli type low GI source, but at least you will
not get a dramatic blodd sugar spike as you would without the milk.
Milk is really good at helping for slowing carb and protein uptake.
This is why body builders will blend their protein shakes with milk if
they want a slower protein digestion. Other good sources for slowing
nutriet absorbtions are any types of fats.... (NOTE: Obviously
unsaturated are best for you, but we will leave this discussion for
another day!! :-)
===========================================

OK. Then what can I learn from this study?
===========================================
Lets say we take that Chinese rural culture and "westernize" them a
little bit shall we?? (ie. Way to go McDonalds!! :-) Instead of all
of the wonderful rich vegetables they are eating now, how about if we
replace a little bit of that with some good old fashion "bleached
white breads", instant rice, baked potatoes, candy, ice cream, etc.
(ie. All High GI carbe). By picking all high GI sources, you allow
the body to dramatically increase that amount of calories it can
uptake at one time. Unfortunately, though, all you are going to do is
save this extra energy as fat!! NOOOOO.... :-)
===========================================

Finally. I like these diet ratios in this study. I want to give them
a try. Is there any downsides??
===========================================
Even though a 30/55/15 diet is actually pretty good, especially
considering the amounts of rich vegetables, the only real issue you
will have deals with the reduced proteins. By reducing your proteins
to such low levels, you will establish a much leaner muscular profile
and find it considerably more difficult to build additional muscle
mass at any real quanity when you are doing any high weight strength
exercising.

Hence, this would also seem pretty consistent, as the typical rural
Chinese is lean and slender. In fact, I think that most Chinese were
slender until our western concepts got a hold of them!! ;-) As long as
you are OK with the reduced ability for muscle tone / definition,
this, then give this diet ratio's a shot and see if you like them!!
Just the shear amount of vegetables alone is making me hungry!! :-)
===========================================

(NOTE: Basal metabolic rate and metabolic rate are for the most part
interchangeable. When a person is referring to Basal rate, they are
trying to say the "Resting Metabolic Rate", or another way of putting
your "average" rate throughout the day.)

Don't know if you were looking for this information, but if so, did
this help any Pearl? Got additional questions in reference to this??

Jim Carver

"pearl" wrote in message ...
One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that
can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity?

No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise
your metabolic rate".

...

Energy Balance: Interpretation of Data from Rural China
T. Colin Campbell, PhD
Division of Nutritional Sciences
Cornell University
..
Data pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body weight
control obtained in a comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and
disease mortality in 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of
rural China (Chen et al. 1990) were used for the analysis. After
adjusting the food intake data to represent a reference male
adult involved in the least physical activity and representing the
same body weight, total calorie intake (40.6 kcal/kg BW) was
about 30% higher in China when compared with an average
adult American male (30.6% kcal/kg BW), yet the body mass
index for the Chinese male was about 25% lower (20.5 vs.
25.8 kg BW/m2). Diets in rural China were low in fat (14.5%
of energy), relatively low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in
fiber (33 g/day), representing a diet unusually rich in plant
based foods (e.g., including about 90% of the total protein).

It is believed that the excess energy intake among the Chinese
is mostly attributed to their greater physical activity, although
some unknown but significant and probably difficult to measure
amount could be due to increased energy expenditure
associated with non-post prandial basal metabolism. ......'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

...

J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In
this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and
food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians
and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the
vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores
(60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied
a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian
diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat
was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was
higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower.
The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the
vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the
omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a
higher caloric intake is of considerable interest.
PMID: 3760524