Guest guest Posted January 22, 2001 Report Share Posted January 22, 2001 > if this was a problem. if you lost 70 pounds I dont really know why you want to > change? > > Deus<<<<<<<<<<<< I was trying to change because I've reached a stall with low carb I'm only losing abut 1 pounds a month now. I thught by doing my exercise different and the change in diet might shake up my metabolism a bit. I still need to lsoe about 25 more pounds. I thought carbs were needed to build more muscle is this not correct? I've been doing weight training/cardio for 5-6X a week since March 7,2000. This is actually the first time in my life I've ever really had an exercise program other than walking. Should I continue my low carb plan. I'm very happy with it. thanks, Becky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 Becky S [Rebscot@...] wrote: > > if this was a problem. if you lost 70 pounds I dont really know why > you want to > > change? > > > > Deus<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > I was trying to change because I've reached a stall with low carb I'm > only losing abut 1 pounds a month now. I thught by doing my exercise > different and the change in diet might shake up my metabolism a bit. > I still need to lsoe about 25 more pounds. > I thought carbs were needed to build more muscle is this not correct? not really, protein is needed. the body can survive and thrive without carbs. > I've been doing weight training/cardio for 5-6X a week since March > 7,2000. This is actually the first time in my life I've ever really > had an exercise program other than walking. > Should I continue my low carb plan. I'm very happy with it. low carb imho is better for loosing long term weight. I lost 8k on BFL only to put it all back on when I stoped training. the prime reason I think is that BFL is high carb which is bad if you are insuling resistant. which most overwheight people are. no matter what proram you do you will loose weight if your calories are lower then your expenditure. however... your body adjusts to compensate for any reduction in calories by lowering metabolic rate through a hormone called T3. this is why you stall on any plan, BFL included. the last thing your body needs is a shake up, it probably needs a break. since you have been exercising often then you will find you are probably overtrained. your cortisol levels are probably up and your T3 is down. the correct remedy is to eat slightly more to boost your t3 levels which will kick start fat loss again after a week or two and also take a break of a week or two from workouts and chill out get cortisol levels down. if you dont have enough energy on a lowcarb diet you can carb load once or twice a week to refill glycogen, you will find after a carb load you put on a couple of pounds (water/glycogen) which quickly go again. if you have enough energy for the weight training on lowcarb then you dont need the carb load days, I dont know how much carbs you eat but youll find its probably ample to meet your bodies requirements. its much better to have the muscles that can use fatty acids doing so rather then relying on blood sugar for energy. high carb will suppress fat burning enzymes and increase sugar burning enzymes which sets you up for a big fat rebound should you stop training for any reason. low fat makes the matter worse as the body then treats fat as a scarce resource that needs to be preserved. I am experiementing with lowcarb diets now with cyclic carb loads, on a diet of unlimited seafood, meat, nuts and camembert I am loosing half a pound a week of fat with no aerobics and only 3 days of weight training. very wierd feeling to eat lots of fat and watching it slowly come off. I have spent my whole life avoiding fat in my diet and now I think that was wrong. my dad who would eat the fats I refused to eat at the dinner table when I was young never got fat once in his whole life unlike me who has constantly struggled with my weight. Deus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 < protein is needed. the body can survive and thrive without carbs. > Huh!? Protein for muscles, yeah, but " thrive " without carbs!? > low carb imho is better for loosing long term weight. I thought it was the other way around! I thought Atkins-style diets were good for SHORT-term weight loss but when you go back to balanced eating you gain some weight back in water retention? Aren't carbs what give you *energy*? < no matter what proram you do you will loose weight if your calories are lower then your expenditure. however... your body adjusts to compensate for any reduction in calories by lowering metabolic rate through a hormone called T3. this is why you stall on any plan, BFL included. > If you keep measuring your body-fat percentage and recalculating your basal metabolic rate, and adjust your caloric intake accordingly, your body won't still " stall, " will it? < high carb will suppress fat burning enzymes and increase sugar burning enzymes which sets you up for a big fat rebound should you stop training for any reason. low fat makes the matter worse as the body then treats fat as a scarce resource that needs to be preserved.> Man, this gets confusing and frustrating. You're saying opposite things to what I've tended to hear, even from Bill himself. An article at http://www.fitness1000.com/furnace.html, titled " Adjusting Your Body's Fat-Burning Furnace, " says the following: " What about the composition of the diet? Most researchers agree that a diet high in complex carbohydrates and low in fat (all types) is the best bet. remarks, 'It's quite possible to manipulate metabolic rate. Newer evidence shows a diet high in complex carbohydrates has a " thermogenic " quality which helps to burn more calories. BMR goes down when you undereat.' Stern states, 'Changing from a low- to a high-fat diet raises set point for many people. The evidence is cleanest in laboratory animals....Unless you make permanent changes in exercise and/or eating, once you stop what you are doing to lose the weight, you typically regain the weight.' " The Journal of the American Dietetic Association reported obesity is maintained primarily by a diet that is high in fat and added sugar and relatively low in fiber. Many times I tell my clients if they change the type of food they eat, they may not have to reduce the amount of food they eat. It seems prudent to state that a diet high in complex carbohydrates, i.e., fresh fruits, vegetables and fiber, and low in fat is the best bet so far. " Burning calories is far more effective than skimping on them to maintain weight. Thus enters the role of exercise. And strength training, or resistance training, seems to be a key player. " Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 In a message dated 1/23/01 Deus writes: high carb will suppress fat burning enzymes and increase sugar burning enzymes which sets you up for a big fat rebound should you stop training for any reason Intersting but why is this? Can you explain simply because most of the technical stuff goes right opver my head? Thanks, . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 thanks for sharing your experience!! I started low carbing in Dec 99...I was really fat. I lose weight rapidly at first but then it slowed to hardly anything of course I realize that when I started weight training I started building muscles therefore lost slower. I just think Atkins is not going well for me now. I have to find an eating plan I can live with and not just diet. This is a life changing experience for me I never want to go back to being a couch potato Becky > Andy thanks for sharing this ) All I know is that I followed a low carb diet for about 3 months and lost 6 lbs....and lots of strength. So far with BFL I have lost 15 lbs and have gained strength and endurance in the last 22 days ) I truly believe your body needs a balance of carbs and protein. I don't get into the nitty gritty, I have too much to lose, perhaps when I get closer to my long term goal weight I'll look at it more closely. Right now my body is loving what I'm doing to it, so I'm sticking with the 6 portioned protein/carb meals a day with the right kind of veggies sprinkled in ) and ohhh yes....the water ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 I'd recommend you give the BFL plan a try for the next 12 and tell us how you like it. You may not only lose the weight you want you might alter your shape in a way you'd like. Kit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 Andy Doerksen [neo-reality@...] wrote: > > < protein is needed. the body can survive and thrive without carbs. > > > Huh!? Protein for muscles, yeah, but " thrive " without carbs!? absolutely. once your body makes the metabolic switch away from sugar as its primary fuel source. > > low carb imho is better for loosing long term weight. > > I thought it was the other way around! I thought Atkins-style diets > were good for SHORT-term weight loss but when you go back to balanced > eating you gain some weight back in water retention? Aren't carbs > what give you *energy*? theres the problem what you consider balanced eating, isnt really, in an evolutionary context. sure carbs give you energy but fats have twice as many calories per unit weight. the body is setup to burn all 3 macro nutrients to meet its requirements. much of the body including the heart prefers to burn fatty acids. > < no matter what proram you do you will loose weight if your calories > are lower then your expenditure. however... your body adjusts to > compensate for any reduction in calories by lowering metabolic rate > through a hormone called T3. this is why you stall on any plan, BFL > included. > > > If you keep measuring your body-fat percentage and recalculating your > basal metabolic rate, and adjust your caloric intake accordingly, your > body won't still " stall, " will it? and just how far down do you think you can chase your metabolic rate? what happens after you stop dieting? your body is finely tuned for a low calory diet. go back to a normal calory high carb diet and the insulin and the depressed fat burning enzymes will guarantee you rapid fat rebound. been there done that. > < high carb will suppress fat burning enzymes and increase sugar > burning enzymes which sets you up for a big fat rebound should you > stop training for any reason. low fat makes the matter worse as the > body then treats fat as a scarce resource that needs to be preserved.> > > Man, this gets confusing and frustrating. You're saying opposite > things to what I've tended to hear, even from Bill himself. > An article at http://www.fitness1000.com/furnace.html, titled > " Adjusting Your Body's Fat-Burning Furnace, " says the following: > > " What about the composition of the diet? Most researchers agree that > a diet high in complex carbohydrates and low in fat (all types) is the > best bet. remarks, 'It's quite possible to manipulate metabolic > rate. Newer evidence shows a diet high in complex carbohydrates has a > " thermogenic " quality which helps to burn more calories. BMR goes down > when you undereat.' Stern states, 'Changing from a low- to a high-fat > diet raises set point for many people. The evidence is cleanest in > laboratory animals....Unless you make permanent changes in exercise > and/or eating, once you stop what you are doing to lose the weight, > you typically regain the weight.' you would have to look closely at the study he is talking to about to see what he based his conclusion on, if you switch from high carb low fat to high carb high fat you can guarantee rapid fat gain. low fat diets work best because they are the easiest to reduce calories on. fats have double the calories of any other macro nutrient, hence you can remove a huge whack of calories by avoiding fats. but you also lower your bodies ability to burn fat. in fact its extremely hard to meet your caloric requirements if you studiously avoid all fats. your body burns much more fat when there is fat in your diet without too many carbs. if there are too many carbs insulin will save the fat for a rainy day. > " The Journal of the American Dietetic Association reported obesity is > maintained primarily by a diet that is high in fat and added sugar and > relatively low in fiber. Many times I tell my clients if they change > the type of food they eat, they may not have to reduce the amount of > food they eat. It seems prudent to state that a diet high in complex > carbohydrates, i.e., fresh fruits, vegetables and fiber, and low in > fat is the best bet so far. dont disagree with this at all. note carefully it says high in fat and sugar! the sugar raises insulin levels and puts the body into fat storage mode, the dietary fat rapidly becomes subcutaenous fat. note that all carbs end up in your blood as sugar. growth hormone is what puts the body into fat burning mode and rising insulin levels stop growth hormone from being squirted out, not only that but high bodyfat levels suppress growth hormone. also note that it says high in fresh fruit, vegetables and fiber. that doesnt advocate a diet high in processed carbs. again I have no problem with that as most fruit and vegetables (ie unprocessed vegetable) are not high in carbs. oddballs like potatoes which are inedible for most of their lifecycle and need long cooking for consumption. ie processing, are the exception. if you stick to vegetables that can be eaten unprocessed and fruits as snacks you will have problems reaching the " conventional " 60% carb dietary recommendations. > " Burning calories is far more effective than skimping on them to > maintain weight. Thus enters the role of exercise. And strength > training, or resistance training, seems to be a key player. " again dont disagree with this either. you have to do your own research, I have, keep in mind the big sources of carbs in the west are wheat, next time you walk through your supermarket note what percentage of isles are filled with wheat based products. wheat is an essential ingredient for the economy not for your metabolism. Deus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 Schwartz [cre8ive@...] wrote: > Andy thanks for sharing this ) All I know is that I followed a low carb diet for about 3 months and lost 6 lbs....and lots of strength. probably because your body is a highly efficient sugar burner. if you dont work out on a lowcarb diet and boost protein levels your body will meet its glucose requirements from muscle aminos. Deus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 Okay Kit I'm doing the eating plan too. I hope it works and to be honest I don't care if I weigh 165 as long as my body gets lean and mean Becky > > I'd recommend you give the BFL plan a try for the next 12 and tell us how > you like it. You may not only lose the weight you want you might alter your > shape in a way you'd like. Kit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Okay, nothing personal against Deus here, but could others please assess what he's saying? It just sounds so opposite to the rest of my research, even research based on what other BFLers have said. Thanks, Andy > > < protein is needed. the body can survive and thrive without carbs. > > > > > Huh!? Protein for muscles, yeah, but " thrive " without carbs!? > > absolutely. once your body makes the metabolic switch away from sugar as its > primary fuel source. > > > > low carb imho is better for loosing long term weight. > > > > I thought it was the other way around! I thought Atkins-style diets > > were good for SHORT-term weight loss but when you go back to balanced > > eating you gain some weight back in water retention? Aren't carbs > > what give you *energy*? > > theres the problem what you consider balanced eating, isnt really, in > an evolutionary context. > > sure carbs give you energy but fats have twice as many calories per unit > weight. the body is setup to burn all 3 macro nutrients to meet > its requirements. much of the body including the heart prefers to burn > fatty acids. > > > < no matter what proram you do you will loose weight if your calories > > are lower then your expenditure. however... your body adjusts to > > compensate for any reduction in calories by lowering metabolic rate > > through a hormone called T3. this is why you stall on any plan, BFL > > included. > > > > > If you keep measuring your body-fat percentage and recalculating your > > basal metabolic rate, and adjust your caloric intake accordingly, your > > body won't still " stall, " will it? > > and just how far down do you think you can chase your metabolic rate? > what happens after you stop dieting? your body is finely tuned for a low > calory diet. go back to a normal calory high carb diet and the insulin and > the depressed fat burning enzymes will guarantee you rapid fat rebound. > been there done that. > > > > < high carb will suppress fat burning enzymes and increase sugar > > burning enzymes which sets you up for a big fat rebound should you > > stop training for any reason. low fat makes the matter worse as the > > body then treats fat as a scarce resource that needs to be preserved.> > > > > Man, this gets confusing and frustrating. You're saying opposite > > things to what I've tended to hear, even from Bill himself. > > An article at http://www.fitness1000.com/furnace.html, titled > > " Adjusting Your Body's Fat-Burning Furnace, " says the following: > > > > " What about the composition of the diet? Most researchers agree that > > a diet high in complex carbohydrates and low in fat (all types) is the > > best bet. remarks, 'It's quite possible to manipulate metabolic > > rate. Newer evidence shows a diet high in complex carbohydrates has a > > " thermogenic " quality which helps to burn more calories. BMR goes down > > when you undereat.' Stern states, 'Changing from a low- to a high-fat > > diet raises set point for many people. The evidence is cleanest in > > laboratory animals....Unless you make permanent changes in exercise > > and/or eating, once you stop what you are doing to lose the weight, > > you typically regain the weight.' > > you would have to look closely at the study he is talking to about > to see what he based his conclusion on, if you switch from high carb > low fat to high carb high fat you can guarantee rapid fat gain. > > low fat diets work best because they are the easiest to reduce calories on. > fats have double the calories of any other macro nutrient, hence you can > remove a huge whack of calories by avoiding fats. but you also lower > your bodies ability to burn fat. in fact its extremely hard to meet > your caloric requirements if you studiously avoid all fats. > > your body burns much more fat when there is fat in your diet without too many carbs. > if there are too many carbs insulin will save the fat for a rainy day. > > > > " The Journal of the American Dietetic Association reported obesity is > > maintained primarily by a diet that is high in fat and added sugar and > > relatively low in fiber. Many times I tell my clients if they change > > the type of food they eat, they may not have to reduce the amount of > > food they eat. It seems prudent to state that a diet high in complex > > carbohydrates, i.e., fresh fruits, vegetables and fiber, and low in > > fat is the best bet so far. > > dont disagree with this at all. note carefully it says high in fat and sugar! > the sugar raises insulin levels and puts the body into fat storage mode, > the dietary fat rapidly becomes subcutaenous fat. note that all carbs > end up in your blood as sugar. growth hormone is what puts the body into > fat burning mode and rising insulin levels stop growth hormone from being > squirted out, not only that but high bodyfat levels suppress growth hormone. > > also note that it says high in fresh fruit, vegetables and fiber. that > doesnt advocate a diet high in processed carbs. again I have no problem with > that as most fruit and vegetables (ie unprocessed vegetable) are not high in carbs. > oddballs like potatoes which are inedible for most of their lifecycle > and need long cooking for consumption. ie processing, are the exception. > if you stick to vegetables that can be eaten unprocessed and fruits as snacks > you will have problems reaching the " conventional " 60% carb dietary recommendations. > > > > " Burning calories is far more effective than skimping on them to > > maintain weight. Thus enters the role of exercise. And strength > > training, or resistance training, seems to be a key player. " > > again dont disagree with this either. > > you have to do your own research, I have, keep in mind the big sources > of carbs in the west are wheat, next time you walk through your supermarket note > what percentage of isles are filled with wheat based products. wheat is > an essential ingredient for the economy not for your metabolism. > > Deus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Deus, I think you may have misunderstood me on a few points...... > > Huh!? Protein for muscles, yeah, but " thrive " without carbs!? > < absolutely. once your body makes the metabolic switch away from sugar as its primary fuel source. > Well are you just saying all carbs, or are you differentiating between complex and simple? >> I thought Atkins-style diets were good for SHORT-term weight loss >> but when you go back to balanced eating you gain some weight back >> in water retention? Aren't carbs what give you *energy*? > < theres the problem what you consider balanced eating, isnt really, in an evolutionary context. > OK, you seem to be contradicting basically every nutrition source I've checked out. I also don't believe in evolution. :-) (Which is not something I'd choose to debate about in this forum, by the way - but if either belief or disbelief in it affects one's diet, well....) >> If you keep measuring your body-fat percentage and recalculating >> your basal metabolic rate, and adjust your caloric intake >> accordingly, your body won't still " stall, " will it? > < and just how far down do you think you can chase your metabolic rate? > Uh, I didn't think I'd be chasing it " down, " but rather UP. If I'm lowering my bodyfat percentage and gaining muscle weight, then my BMR will rise. Therefore I'd *increase* my caloric intake in response to my changing BMR. < what happens after you stop dieting? > I'm not " dieting. " :-) > you would have to look closely at the study he is talking to about > to see what he based his conclusion on, if you switch from high carb > low fat to high carb high fat you can guarantee rapid fat gain. Well why ever would I switch to a " high fat " diet?? I certainly don't plan on doing that! :-) The nutrition tips I'm getting from BFL and a few other sources are prompting me to change my lifestyle *permanently*, though of course I treat myself once in a while, which is perfectly alright to do. < low fat diets work best because they are the easiest to reduce calories on. fats have double the calories of any other macro nutrient, hence you can remove a huge whack of calories by avoiding fats. > But I'm NOT removing a huge whack of calories! In fact, by watching my BMR and eating 6 small meals a day, I'm actually eating *more* on a given day than I used to! Before, I was doing the starvation thing, and so of course my body would fight back by guarding its fat store. So I'm actually eating *more* total calories than I used to, though they are calories made up of GOOD and LEAN foods, not fatty foods. Can't see what's wrong with that! < . . . but you also lower your bodies ability to burn fat. in fact its extremely hard to meet your caloric requirements if you studiously avoid all fats. > No, not really. I'm getting plenty to eat, believe me. :-) And I'm not avoiding " all fats. " I figure that if I make it a goal to eliminate fat from my diet - knowing that in practical terms I can't *really* reach that goal - then I'll probably end up at just the amount of fat I should have in my diet. >> " The Journal of the American Dietetic Association reported obesity >> is maintained primarily by a diet that is high in fat and added >> sugar and relatively low in fiber. Many times I tell my clients if >> they change the type of food they eat, they may not have to reduce >> the amount of food they eat. It seems prudent to state that a diet >> high in complex carbohydrates, i.e., fresh fruits, vegetables and >> fiber, and low in fat is the best bet so far. > > dont disagree with this at all. note carefully it says high in fat > and sugar! Well this is why I think I didn't properly communicate to you what I was actually driving at. :-) < also note that it says high in fresh fruit, vegetables and fiber. that doesnt advocate a diet high in processed carbs. again I have no problem with that as most fruit and vegetables (ie unprocessed vegetable) are not high in carbs. oddballs like potatoes which are inedible for most of their lifecycle and need long cooking for consumption. ie processing, are the exception. > You mean a *good* exception, right? Cuz Bill praises potatoes in the BFL book. < you have to do your own research, I have, keep in mind the big sources of carbs in the west are wheat, next time you walk through your supermarket note what percentage of isles are filled with wheat based products. wheat is an essential ingredient for the economy not for your metabolism. > Perhaps, but *whole* wheat is a complex carb, is it not? And Bill advocates something like pasta, which most of us here eat, without even mentioning that one can, and probably should, eat *whole wheat* pasta. Now to turn the tables, Deus, if *I* have misunderstood anything *you* have said, by all means clue me in. :-) Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Andy Doerksen [neo-reality@...] wrote: > Deus, I think you may have misunderstood me on a few points...... > > > > > Huh!? Protein for muscles, yeah, but " thrive " without carbs!? > > > < absolutely. once your body makes the metabolic switch away from > sugar as its primary fuel source. > > > Well are you just saying all carbs, or are you differentiating between > complex and simple? all carbs, they all end up in your blood as glucose. what I am saying is your body has two evolutionary modes, one based on plentiful fruit and vegetable consumption, and one based on the ability to survive harsh winters and long extremely harsh glacial periods of next to zero carbs. the body can exist on low carb, and will switch to ketosis when there is zero carb. on ketosis and after your body will burn fats for very large percentage of its fuel requirements. this occurs because of a downregulation of sugar burning enzymes from lowcarb consumption and up regulation of fat burning enzymes from high fat consumption. > >> I thought Atkins-style diets were good for SHORT-term weight loss > >> but when you go back to balanced eating you gain some weight back > >> in water retention? Aren't carbs what give you *energy*? > > > < theres the problem what you consider balanced eating, isnt really, > in an evolutionary context. > > > OK, you seem to be contradicting basically every nutrition source I've > checked out. > >> If you keep measuring your body-fat percentage and recalculating > >> your basal metabolic rate, and adjust your caloric intake > >> accordingly, your body won't still " stall, " will it? > > > < and just how far down do you think you can chase your metabolic > rate? > > > Uh, I didn't think I'd be chasing it " down, " but rather UP. If I'm > lowering my bodyfat percentage and gaining muscle weight, then my BMR > will rise. Therefore I'd *increase* my caloric intake in response to > my changing BMR. BMR will rise about 30-40 calories per pound of muscle. it will however easily drop 100s of calories on calory restriction. > < what happens after you stop dieting? > > > I'm not " dieting. " :-) ok. my definition of dieting is if you are loosing fat you are in calory restiction and hence you are dieting. there are exceptions to this definition which are not important on a BFL type diet. are you dieting on my definition? > > you would have to look closely at the study he is talking to about > > to see what he based his conclusion on, if you switch from high carb > > low fat to high carb high fat you can guarantee rapid fat gain. > > Well why ever would I switch to a " high fat " diet?? I certainly don't > plan on doing that! :-) The nutrition tips I'm getting from BFL and a > few other sources are prompting me to change my lifestyle > *permanently*, though of course I treat myself once in a while, which > is perfectly alright to do. yes I had this idea too. unfortunately BFL style eating requires constant pre-planning, and working out 3 times a week with 3 cardio sessions is not always possible. after my first 2 BFL rounds for reasons beyond my control I had a 9 month break from training. and regained 8k of fat I lost. wasnt exactly thrilled, since then I am looking into diets that will not rebound fat gain if I stop training which every now and then is inevitable. > < low fat diets work best because they are the easiest to reduce > calories on. fats have double the calories of any other macro > nutrient, hence you can remove a huge whack of calories by avoiding > fats. > > > But I'm NOT removing a huge whack of calories! In fact, by watching > my BMR and eating 6 small meals a day, I'm actually eating *more* on a > given day than I used to! Before, I was doing the starvation thing, > and so of course my body would fight back by guarding its fat store. > So I'm actually eating *more* total calories than I used to, though > they are calories made up of GOOD and LEAN foods, not fatty foods. > Can't see what's wrong with that! now we are talking cross purpose, I was giving you my opinion of why low fat diets are popular, that by removing fat you remove a large chunk of calories and make it hard to overeat. what is wrong with low fat diets is that the body seems to treat fat as a scarce resource and will do its best to rebuild fat sources once calory restriction ends. dont be confused by eating more with eating more calories. on my first two rounds of BFL I was stunned by how much more I was eating when eating lean compared to what I used to eat normally. but the reality is that the calories on a low fat diet are generally lower then you think. what is know is that fatloss is a function of calory deficit over time. if you are loosing fat you are generally using more calories then you consume. ie you are on a diet in the sense of the word diet as calory restriction relative to requirement. secondly lowfat diets supress testosterone production which means it is harder to build muscle. this may not be much of an issue if you are 20 with very high T levels but for someone like me at 38 it probably is an issue. thirdly LEAN does not equate with GOOD. not all fats are equal, some fats are not good for you others are essential building blocks of life. some fats like Essential Fatty Acids, which the body can not make must come from your diet. dramatically reducing overall fat consumption also reduces essential fats from your diet which in a modern diet are already out of proportion. EFAs are important in many body functions including regulating the production of prostagladins and eacosanoids. following this long term diet (in the sense of eating style) would have dubious health effects. I found a study on medline which guestimates our evolutionary fat intake at around 30%, and it is know that the " healthiest " diet in the world the cretan diet has about 40% fat. the region of france with the lowest heart disease rate is the goosefat producing regions of france with the highest fat consumption. quite simply not all fats are created equal. BFL is supposed to have around 20% fat yet that figure requires you dont avoid fats at all. it is the quality of the fats which makes the world of difference to your health. > < . . . but you also lower your bodies ability to burn fat. in fact > its extremely hard to meet your caloric requirements if you studiously > avoid all fats. > > > No, not really. I'm getting plenty to eat, believe me. :-) And I'm > not avoiding " all fats. " I figure that if I make it a goal to > eliminate fat from my diet - knowing that in practical terms I can't > *really* reach that goal - then I'll probably end up at just the > amount of fat I should have in my diet. wrong. if you remove all visible fat on BFL type diet you end up around 10-15% fat which is generally too low. I noticed this after my BFL rounds and other have since noticed that it is too easy it is to over reduce. > < also note that it says high in fresh fruit, vegetables and fiber. > that doesnt advocate a diet high in processed carbs. again I have no > problem with that as most fruit and vegetables (ie unprocessed > vegetable) are not high in carbs. oddballs like potatoes which are > inedible for most of their lifecycle and need long cooking for > consumption. ie processing, are the exception. > > > You mean a *good* exception, right? Cuz Bill praises potatoes in the > BFL book. no there is little good to be said about potatoes, wheat, rice and grains in general. these are not part of our evolutionary diet. and the misc phyto chemicals that come with these, we have a generally low evolutionary adaptation rate to. note carbs in themselves are not a problem, we have a long evolutionary history of carb consumption, but you cant easily divorce the carb from the rest of chemistry of a potato. > < you have to do your own research, I have, keep in mind the big > sources of carbs in the west are wheat, next time you walk through > your supermarket note what percentage of isles are filled with wheat > based products. wheat is an essential ingredient for the economy not > for your metabolism. > > > Perhaps, but *whole* wheat is a complex carb, is it not? And Bill > advocates something like pasta, which most of us here eat, without > even mentioning that one can, and probably should, eat *whole wheat* > pasta. the difference to your body between whole wheat pasta and normal pasta is pretty small compared to the diference between no pasta and pasta. > Now to turn the tables, Deus, if *I* have misunderstood anything *you* > have said, by all means clue me in. :-) dont confuse my point of view form Bill point of view. I did my BFL rounds and had a big fat rebound. I have seen statistics that show 95% of people who loose fat on any program will regain that fat within 5 years. where I am comming from now is trying to find an eating style that is a (a) healthy ( will not promote a big fat rebound should I stop training, which in ones lifetime is an inevitable occurance. and © is sustainable without complex preparation in most situations. nothing is clear cut, navigating a path of balance through the bodies complex double edged metabolic and hormonal systems is a precarious exercise. dont be overly concerned by the proclamations of our institutional establishments, these change over time as our understanding changes. and our understanding of optimal dietary requirement is nowhere near complete. what I am doing is following and experimenting with cuting edge opinions and research which may not agree with more traditional thought. Deus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 I never got any pictures!!! ( What are you all talking about???? NO FAIR! Sara --On Friday, June 22, 2001, 10:55 AM -0700 Judi Grossman <judig2@...> wrote: > - Great picture of the girls!! Thanks for > sharing. > > Judi-Mom to Sam & , 4, Identical Twins > > --- and Marc deBloois <debloois4@...> > wrote: > >> I included a pic because they are just so darn >> cute!! > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2001 Report Share Posted June 22, 2001 Sorry guys! I spoke too soon! Found the picture on the group site... CUTE INDEED! I saw that one before... but love it everytime! Sara --On Friday, June 22, 2001, 11:17 PM -0400 Sara Greenberg <List@...> wrote: > > I never got any pictures!!! ( What are you all talking about???? NO > FAIR! > > Sara > > --On Friday, June 22, 2001, 10:55 AM -0700 Judi Grossman > <judig2@...> wrote: > >> - Great picture of the girls!! Thanks for >> sharing. >> >> Judi-Mom to Sam & , 4, Identical Twins >> >> --- and Marc deBloois <debloois4@...> >> wrote: >> >>> I included a pic because they are just so darn >>> cute!! >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2002 Report Share Posted February 5, 2002 Hi! I'm new to the list. My name is and I'm 35 years old. I was born with Scoliosis and had my first back surgery at age 5 because a " stray bone " was cutting through my spinal cord. They removed the bone and found out after surgery that I was leaking spinal fluid. After a second surgery, things seemed fine. In first grade I was fitted for a full back brace and wore it until 6th grade when I had " the surgery. " Because of my previous surgery there was a lot of scar tissue in my lower back so they did not install the Herrington rod, but only fused my spine so I wouldn't get worse. Before surgery I had an 82 degree curve, and afterward I had a 78 degree curve. I wore a body cast for 9 months and a corset for 3 months and that was the last of any type of treatment. Most people have significant correction after surgery because of the rod. I had no such luck and am still quite twisted. However, most people " can't tell " I have Scoliosis. I don't have consistent pain in my back, but every 1-3 years my back " goes out " and I am bedridden for about a week for no apparent reason. Muscle relaxers and heavy duty Motrin are the only things that seem to promote healing when this happens. Although I have 8 children, I've only given birth to 4 of them. I've never had any major trouble during my pregnancies and have fairly easy births. My last baby was born within 20 minutes of my first real contraction. I've never had my back go out during a pregnancy. What I do have trouble with is major varicose veins in my right leg during pregnancy. After the baby is born they completely disappear, but during the pregnancy, they are quite severe. I am wondering if anyone else has had this happen. Also, after my last baby, I had several numb spots in my left leg that have not completely disappeared (at 11 months postpartum). The doctor decided this was probably some type of nerve damage that would probably heal on it's own, but I've never had it happen before. Anyone else? The doctor that performed my surgery was Dr. Erwin in Houston, Texas. I have not been able to locate him since then. Does anyone know if he is still practicing medicine somewhere? In His Service, Mc mcmom@... Joyful Wife of my beloved Thankful Mother of , Christa, , , , Caleb, Abigail, Virginia Grace and our Little One in Heaven VISIT OUR WEBSITE www.patriarchspath.org VISIT OUR DISCUSSION BOARD http://www.patriarchspath.org/wwwthreads/wwwthreads.php?Cat= Isa 40:4-5 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. Isa 42:16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2002 Report Share Posted February 5, 2002 Dear The numb spots in your leg sounds like nerve irritation. I have the same symptoms. The fact that your " back gives out " with you having to stay in bed, is cause for concern. I would definitely see a neurosurgeon and have a checkup with a scoliosis MD. (It's not always necessary for " big surgeries " , they can release nerves with minimal invasive surgery, on an outpatient basis, if necessary.) The varicose veins during pregnancy is normal. It is the pregnancy hormones that causes the veins to be more supple and therefore more susceptible to " bulging " . Take care, Sanette ----- Original Message ----- From: " Mrs. Mc " <mcmom@...> >>.......Also, after my last baby, I had several numb spots in my left leg that have not completely disappeared (at 11 months postpartum). The doctor decided this was probably some type of nerve damage ........ -- _______________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Win a ski trip! http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 The issue with my daughter isn't so much someone to stay with her as she needs help with toileting etc and there really isn't anyone around who can help with that. All of our family is in IL and we are in OK. I understand about 2 sets of ears though and I also know that sometimes he won't say things that are bothering him unless I am with him but he knows how important it is right now to be forth coming with everything. Life is too short for what if's, jump in with both feet and go for it.See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2007 Report Share Posted October 8, 2007 The issue with my daughter isn't so much someone to stay with her as she needs help with toileting etc and there really isn't anyone around who can help with that. All of our family is in IL and we are in OK. I understand about 2 sets of ears though and I also know that sometimes he won't say things that are bothering him unless I am with him but he knows how important it is right now to be forth coming with everything. Life is too short for what if's, jump in with both feet and go for it.See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.