Friday 20 August

Dally wrote in message ...
PL wrote:
Dieting (as I use the term) is NOT about deprivation, it's about
learning to eat. When you *get* it you'll discover that all the diet
books converge and are really aiming you in the same direction: eat to
fuel your body with good food.

yup. What else need be said, really?

Eating is a multi-role (habitual, social, emotional, pleasurable)
activity, but the bottom line is that the more you craft your daily
food intake to meet your daily needs the better off you are.

The body needs & wants some level of fats, carbs, and protein. Usually
we over-do the carbs.

Dally wrote in message ...
PL wrote:
Dieting (as I use the term) is NOT about deprivation, it's about
learning to eat. When you *get* it you'll discover that all the diet
books converge and are really aiming you in the same direction: eat to
fuel your body with good food.

yup. What else need be said, really?

Eating is a multi-role (habitual, social, emotional, pleasurable)
activity, but the bottom line is that the more you craft your daily
food intake to meet your daily needs the better off you are.

The body needs & wants some level of fats, carbs, and protein. Usually
we over-do the carbs.

Dally wrote in message ...
PL wrote:
Dieting (as I use the term) is NOT about deprivation, it's about
learning to eat. When you *get* it you'll discover that all the diet
books converge and are really aiming you in the same direction: eat to
fuel your body with good food.

yup. What else need be said, really?

Eating is a multi-role (habitual, social, emotional, pleasurable)
activity, but the bottom line is that the more you craft your daily
food intake to meet your daily needs the better off you are.

The body needs & wants some level of fats, carbs, and protein. Usually
we over-do the carbs.

Dally wrote in message ...
Ignoramus8546 wrote:

A low fat diet is defined as a diet that supplies less than 30% of
calories from fat.

Says you. I consider low-fat to be anything substantially less than
33%, where in practice "substantially less" means within the range of
about plus or minus 10%, because plus or minus 10% is what I see my
macronutrients be off by when I'm living real life. I'm defining my
terms based on functional requirements, you're defining your terms based
on fiat. I win.

With that I'd say low-fat is 16% +/- 10%, or a little over one oz. of
fat on a 1800 kcal/day diet. Sounds about right...

Dally wrote in message ...
Ignoramus8546 wrote:

A low fat diet is defined as a diet that supplies less than 30% of
calories from fat.

Says you. I consider low-fat to be anything substantially less than
33%, where in practice "substantially less" means within the range of
about plus or minus 10%, because plus or minus 10% is what I see my
macronutrients be off by when I'm living real life. I'm defining my
terms based on functional requirements, you're defining your terms based
on fiat. I win.

With that I'd say low-fat is 16% +/- 10%, or a little over one oz. of
fat on a 1800 kcal/day diet. Sounds about right...

Dally wrote:
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?

I think optimal is very different from person to person, and I also
think that most people have an entire range that is optimal. I
think low protein is often problematic, medium protein is usually
best, and high protein is rarely harmfull. Generally: yes with
caveats.

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?

"The T-Factor Diet" was a popular moderate low fat plan that remained
in print from the early 1980s through about 2000. It defined low fat
as 60 or less for women and 80 or less for men. For me with a typical
total calorie level of 1800, the arithmatic on that comes out
(80*9)/1800 = 40%. So according to one popular moderate low fat plan
to be moderately low fat I should target 40%. Interesting.

I did T-Factor for a while but I was always hungry. Knowing what I
now know about my binge trigger foods, I could probably know keep my
daily fat intake down to the 80 recommended in that old book and not
be hungry.

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've been on Atkins for five years at this point. In Maintenance my
CCLM is 100 grams of carb per day. The arithmatic on that is:

(100*4)/1800 = 22%.

My protein tends to run a bit over 100 and so a bit over 22%. Because
it's well over what the book Protein Power says is my daily minimum,
I call my protein percentage moderate. It's low in comparison to your
center of 33%.

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%.

Partial agreement, partial disagreement. What most do is experiment
around your 33/33/33 center until they find a point that works for them,
and the points ends up plus or minus 10%, 23% or 43% more often than
in between. But the difference between 23% and 43% is large. I also
suspect that lots of folks on maintenance do fine closer to the 33/33/33
middle.

Dally wrote:
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?

I think optimal is very different from person to person, and I also
think that most people have an entire range that is optimal. I
think low protein is often problematic, medium protein is usually
best, and high protein is rarely harmfull. Generally: yes with
caveats.

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?

"The T-Factor Diet" was a popular moderate low fat plan that remained
in print from the early 1980s through about 2000. It defined low fat
as 60 or less for women and 80 or less for men. For me with a typical
total calorie level of 1800, the arithmatic on that comes out
(80*9)/1800 = 40%. So according to one popular moderate low fat plan
to be moderately low fat I should target 40%. Interesting.

I did T-Factor for a while but I was always hungry. Knowing what I
now know about my binge trigger foods, I could probably know keep my
daily fat intake down to the 80 recommended in that old book and not
be hungry.

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've been on Atkins for five years at this point. In Maintenance my
CCLM is 100 grams of carb per day. The arithmatic on that is:

(100*4)/1800 = 22%.

My protein tends to run a bit over 100 and so a bit over 22%. Because
it's well over what the book Protein Power says is my daily minimum,
I call my protein percentage moderate. It's low in comparison to your
center of 33%.

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%.

Partial agreement, partial disagreement. What most do is experiment
around your 33/33/33 center until they find a point that works for them,
and the points ends up plus or minus 10%, 23% or 43% more often than
in between. But the difference between 23% and 43% is large. I also
suspect that lots of folks on maintenance do fine closer to the 33/33/33
middle.

"Chris Braun" wrote in message
...
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)

Then I'd imagine most of the time SBD phase 1 can be considered low carb
unless you really like your veggies and yogurt (I do).

Jenn

"Chris Braun" wrote in message
...
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)

Then I'd imagine most of the time SBD phase 1 can be considered low carb
unless you really like your veggies and yogurt (I do).

Jenn

"Ignoramus8546" wrote in message
...
In article , Patricia Heil wrote:
I'm low-fat high fiber because of cholesterol problems and because I
have
fewer cravings. I haven't heard a thing from the FDA about how "carb"
is
defined so I ignore it.

Patricia, if you permit me to ask, has your diet lowered your
cholesterol? What is your cholesterol now? In the spirit of
disclosure, mine is 175, HDL 56, LDL 103, trigs 82. I do not mean to
compare whose cholesterol is better, that would be silly, I am curious
to know if your diet is taking your cholesterol where it should be.

That would indeed be silly. My cholesterol is better than your cholesterol,
lol!

Jen