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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Well, I'd like to know, lol. That said, are lowfat diets always bad? They aren't bad for everyone. What's bad for everyone - The idea that one type of diet is better than all of the others therefore folks should not try various types to see what works for them. Low fat diets are bad for a few people. Same as other types of plan, about the same failure rate too. But there is a general objection to low fat plans: Once the medical folks started stressing low fat as the one and only right answer, an epidemic of obsesity occured. It's easy to blame this on low fat, but realistically the problem is really view one type of plan as the only right answer. Why are they suboptimal? Low protein plans lead to more lean loss compared to medium and high protein plans. To the extent that low fat plans are low protein, the objection applies. Are low fat plans actually low protein when folks follow the directions in the books? No. It's more a problem of what goes wrong when folks don't follow the directions. That problem, too, is shared by other plans. But there's a wide belief that just plain cutting total fat intake works, so plenty of low fat folks don't get the book and there isn't all that much pressure to do so. Just plain cutting fat is perceived as safe for everyone. With any plan it needs to be done carefully. Thanks for the info, Doug. The more I learn and the better I eat the more I'm sure a strict lowfat plan isn't really for me. The balance thing seems to be working so far. -- PL (320/306/170) (First mini-goal: 299) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/17/2004 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Low protein plans lead to more lean loss compared to medium and high protein plans. To the extent that low fat plans are low protein, the objection applies. So you think that an optimal plan has moderate protein? Recipes with moderate protein tend to come bundled with fat, so I'd guess that you're in the 25-30% calories from fat if you're trying to keep protein levels up (in the what, 20-25% range?) Which leaves maybe 45 to 55% of your calories coming from carbs? Is *this* what you call a low-fat plan? If so, it gets my stamp of approval. I'm just against ones that are wildly unbalanced. 75% carb, 15% fat and 10% protein, for example, is a great way to get fat an insulin resistant, even if you weren't before. I'm serious: once we get past the terminology to the actual macronutrient ratios that work for fat loss I keep finding that we're all doing pretty much the same thing, plus or minus 10%. Dally |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:05:40 -0400, "PL"
wrote: Dally wrote: I do understand. And you keep acting like it worked. Losing it and keeping it off are two completely different things. We're teaching people how to lose FAT and keep it off. You can lose WEIGHT temporarily through any number of methods, including low-fatting it. Wouldn't you like to know more about how to partition your weight loss preferentially towards fat? Wouldn't you like to know more about how we are finding ways of managing our food intake so we're not hungry or deprived and can eat socially and just get used to doing this for the rest of our lives? Well, I'd like to know, lol. That said, are lowfat diets always bad? Why are they suboptimal? I think it's important to understand what we mean by "lowfat". Dally, I think, eats around 30% of her calories from fat, as do I. That is lower in fat than the average American diet, and considerably lower than the very low-carb diets like Atkins and South Beach. It's generally recognized now that some level of fat -- particularly of the good fat found in fish, nuts, olive oils, etc. -- is important to a healthy diet. These are important for mental function, skin and hair health, and are generally thought to be important for helping avoid various diseases. Dietary fat also helps with satiety -- avoiding hunger -- while dieting. Very low fat diets can compromise one's health and are also harder to stick to. Compounding the "bad rap" that very low fat diets have gotten is the one-time plethora of lowfat food products that added lots of sugar and weird additives to compensate for the lack of fat. Of course, now the pendulum has swung the other way and there are lots of lowcarb foods that have lots of fat and weird additives to compensate for the lack of carbs :-). Anyway, I'd recommend keeping fats at at least 25% of your calories, making this up of mostly good fats. Chris 262/141/ (145-150) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Dally" wrote in message ... Ignoramus8546 wrote: Insulin resistance is understood as a combination os several problems. For example, muscle may be slow tp take glucose, beta cells may be slow to produce insulin, the liver can be slow in stopping producing additional glucose. It is called a "triumvirate". Right, and eating too much and exercising too little is what brings it on. It is highly correlated with eating a high carb diet, in fact. I brought it on myself with my high-grain vegan diet. And sometimes IR and for that matter T2 diabetes is the luck of the genetic draw. My 66 year old father in law was recently diagnosed with T2 during a routine physical - no symptoms or predisposition whatsoever. He was a little overweight in his 40's but lost weight, he's very active, and he eats very healthily: lots of veggies, fish and lean meats with very little junk food. Definitely not someone you'd guess would be T2. I am defining this term according to the government definition. http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/f...ramid/main.htm (talking in the context of the recommended low fat diet) They never reference "low fat" anywhere in that page. They recommend people limit their calories from fat to 30%, which is about what I suggest people do INSTEAD of low-fatting. People doing "low-fat" do NOT aim to get to the 30% level. Have you ever done low-fat? 10-20% level is normal. I try to eat more like 30% but I end up around 25% partly because I don't have much urge to eat fat after years of low-fatting. Well, ig never let facts get in the way of what he *knows* is right. Anyway, did you notice that you had to work your way up slowly regarding the fat thing? One thing that people need to watch out for regarding fats is gallstones - especially women. When I had my gall bladder out many moons ago the doctor said the typical patient has the 4 F's: fat, female, fair, and forty. (three out of four worked for me) However, the type of fat really *does* make a difference. I could never tolerate high amounts of saturated fat, but fat from vegetables and seeds seems to be just fine. A recent study did bear that out in that women who get most of their fat from vegetable sources tend to have fewer incidences of gallstone disease. It is improper to say in one sentence that a low fat diet is wrong and advise to get 25% of calories from fat. Life is just awful that way. I hope you manage to get over the shock. Why do you want to insult me? What is it that it will accomplish for you? "Low" is a word referring to relative levels. You don't get to assume everyone means the same thing by it. I'm telling you what I mean by it. You're still upset that I don't mean the same thing you mean and making up bogus definitions by fiat. I don't know what else to do with this besides laugh at you and let it go. I wouldn't take it personally Dally, anyone who disagrees with him is *insulting* to him. Jenn |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Braun wrote:
Anyway, I'd recommend keeping fats at at least 25% of your calories, making this up of mostly good fats. Chris 262/141/ (145-150) Thanks Chris. I'm trying to stay around 33%/33%/33%, give or take a few percentage points here and there. It seems to be working. I haven't felt hungry or deprived. -- PL (320/306/170) (First mini-goal: 299) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/17/2004 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Braun wrote:
Anyway, I'd recommend keeping fats at at least 25% of your calories, making this up of mostly good fats. Chris 262/141/ (145-150) Thanks Chris. I'm trying to stay around 33%/33%/33%, give or take a few percentage points here and there. It seems to be working. I haven't felt hungry or deprived. -- PL (320/306/170) (First mini-goal: 299) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/17/2004 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Braun" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:05:40 -0400, "PL" wrote: I think it's important to understand what we mean by "lowfat". Dally, I think, eats around 30% of her calories from fat, as do I. That is lower in fat than the average American diet, and considerably lower than the very low-carb diets like Atkins and South Beach. Just a minor correction though, South Beach isn't really low carb. Even in the first phase, the most restrictive, you can have skim or 1% milk or yogurt, and beans like garbanzos and black beans. In the second phase, fruit and whole grains are added in. So it's only low carb if you want it to be. Jenn |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:46:21 -0500, "JMA"
wrote: "Chris Braun" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:05:40 -0400, "PL" wrote: I think it's important to understand what we mean by "lowfat". Dally, I think, eats around 30% of her calories from fat, as do I. That is lower in fat than the average American diet, and considerably lower than the very low-carb diets like Atkins and South Beach. Just a minor correction though, South Beach isn't really low carb. Even in the first phase, the most restrictive, you can have skim or 1% milk or yogurt, and beans like garbanzos and black beans. In the second phase, fruit and whole grains are added in. So it's only low carb if you want it to be. Thanks -- I hadn't realized you could eat whole grains on South Beach. The one person I know well who is on it doesn't seem to eat any grain products. I think it would be hard to really get a lot of carbs just from fruits and veggies. (I guess that "low carb", just like "low fat", is a relative term. But I'd consider anything under 100g or so a day of carbs as fairly low carb.) Chris 262/141/ (145-150) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Patricia Heil" wrote in message ...
"PL" wrote in message What's bad about low-fat? You eat lots of lovely fruit and tangy plain yogurt instead of ice cream. Ice cream doesn't belong in *any* eating plan IMV (too calorie dense to enjoy without blowing the day's calorie limit), but I fail to see the benefits of low-fat yogurt vs. normal yogurt, or similarly 0% milk (aka water) vs. 1% milk. Declaring war on fat is simply missing the point, I'm afraid, at least for me. I never would have been able to lose 50lbs if I had to keep to a jihad against fats. There's just such a nice accompaniment to what I'm eating, be it the carbs in bread (butter), milk fats in cheese and milk, or the animal fats in meats. Like I said, if I lose weight eating fats but cutting down quantities and carbs, feel fuller and certainly don't ever feel denied, I see no reason to cut the fats out. Not using butter on your bread isn't such a hardship when it's really good bread. Using butter on bread isn't such a big deal if you eat less bread. You use mustard and ketchup in your sandwiches but not mayonnaise. Or you use a nice minimal but tasty coating of mayonnaise to enjoy the taste of what you're making. You leave the cheese out of your chili but you add peppers -- yumm! Oh no! Cheese! run away! You make oven fries with Pam and Mrs. Dash seasonings instead of deep frying. You can still have wine and beer and so on (7 calories a gram instead of 9 for fat but it's still empty calories so watch it). I have a ton of low-fat recipes that taste great. You're not losing flavor unless you are using the wrong recipe book. So what's the problem? Fats fill me up and taste good, much better than carbs. Meeting the Required Calories for the day is my first priority, then I worry about the macronutrient balance. IMV it's terribly naive to think that dietary fat turns into body fat. If anything, dietary fat seems to help body fat loss, since the body homoregulation functions aren't being distressed as severely. Growing up I was brainwashed by the diet == denial marketing crap. Now I know better. Heywood 232/183/182 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Patricia Heil" wrote in message ...
"PL" wrote in message What's bad about low-fat? You eat lots of lovely fruit and tangy plain yogurt instead of ice cream. Ice cream doesn't belong in *any* eating plan IMV (too calorie dense to enjoy without blowing the day's calorie limit), but I fail to see the benefits of low-fat yogurt vs. normal yogurt, or similarly 0% milk (aka water) vs. 1% milk. Declaring war on fat is simply missing the point, I'm afraid, at least for me. I never would have been able to lose 50lbs if I had to keep to a jihad against fats. There's just such a nice accompaniment to what I'm eating, be it the carbs in bread (butter), milk fats in cheese and milk, or the animal fats in meats. Like I said, if I lose weight eating fats but cutting down quantities and carbs, feel fuller and certainly don't ever feel denied, I see no reason to cut the fats out. Not using butter on your bread isn't such a hardship when it's really good bread. Using butter on bread isn't such a big deal if you eat less bread. You use mustard and ketchup in your sandwiches but not mayonnaise. Or you use a nice minimal but tasty coating of mayonnaise to enjoy the taste of what you're making. You leave the cheese out of your chili but you add peppers -- yumm! Oh no! Cheese! run away! You make oven fries with Pam and Mrs. Dash seasonings instead of deep frying. You can still have wine and beer and so on (7 calories a gram instead of 9 for fat but it's still empty calories so watch it). I have a ton of low-fat recipes that taste great. You're not losing flavor unless you are using the wrong recipe book. So what's the problem? Fats fill me up and taste good, much better than carbs. Meeting the Required Calories for the day is my first priority, then I worry about the macronutrient balance. IMV it's terribly naive to think that dietary fat turns into body fat. If anything, dietary fat seems to help body fat loss, since the body homoregulation functions aren't being distressed as severely. Growing up I was brainwashed by the diet == denial marketing crap. Now I know better. Heywood 232/183/182 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Food & Exercise -- Friday through Sunday | Chris Braun | General Discussion | 6 | June 8th, 2004 12:51 AM |
Goals for August | Dally | General Discussion | 4 | May 5th, 2004 08:00 AM |
Friday... again. | Susan Jones-Anderson | General Discussion | 16 | October 13th, 2003 03:56 PM |
Lady Veteran spends Friday night alone with bottle | Breaking New | General Discussion | 2 | October 7th, 2003 12:43 AM |