Re: Guilt, satiety, calorie restriction...

[Guest guest]

>the evolution of the human species benefited from having adult females who

>were not reproductive [grandmothers] but able to share/help child rearing

>with younger females which in turn facilitated agriculture and social

>advances... same with older males

>

>Dedy

Hear, hear!! (Said as a perimenopausal woman trying to " digest " this whole

experience :-)

-

[Guest guest]

> I just want to note that it IS possible to gain muscle mass (and

> definitely strength) while being calorically restricted as

exemplified

> by someone like Mel Siff.

I suppose it must depend on how you define " calorie restricted, " but

generally speaking growth is proportinal to caloric excess.

You simply cannot have growth without a net excess of calories,

unless you define your calorie requirement to include what is needed

for growth, which is rather circular logic.

The only exception to this is if you have fat stores that need to be

reduced, in which case you could stimulate the release of those

stores to be used for muscle growth, or to make up for calories

needed for energy while materials in the diet are used for growth.

But this is obviously at best a temporary option and not open to

everyone.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Sure grains have nutritive value but their insulinogenic effect may

be

> far important than whatever benefit they procur. All the talk on

> insulin would seem to validate this.

It is also quite clear that 1) There's nothing wrong with insulin,

but insulin resistance and 2)the insulinogenicity is not determined

simply by the presence of grains in the diet, but rather by a great

many factors including amount, consumption schedule, what they are

eaten with, etc.

> BTW, I really can't go along with your 'we have taste for sweetness

> because it's healthy'. That seems like a purely ad hoc supposition.

No, it is well-reasoned reasoning based on accepted theories of

evolution. There must be a reason that humans universally have taste

buds that are stimulated by consumption of sweet things. If these

taste buds were of no use to survival and reproduction, we wouldn't

have them.

> Face it: we evolved to like sugary tastes because they were usually

> non -toxic and provided energy for immediate survival. Evolution

does not care whether the animal in question is healthy past its time

of reproduction.

This is perfectly true, but it's hardly relevant. Both types of

diabetes occur well before reproductive age is over.

The only inherent negative in grains is the subset of proteins that

appears to possibly have inherent net negative health effects on

individuals who are susceptible, which is probably determined in part

by genes.

The insulinogenic effect is NOT a reason to avoid all grains in the

diet, nor is it a reason to avoid all potatoes in the diet, nor is it

a reason to avoid all fruits in the diet. And the notion that

insulin is somehow evil and insulin production should be avoided at

all costs has no basis whatsoever.

So whether the insulinogenic effect of grains or potatoes or berries

nullifies their nutritional value is completely dependent on whether

you use those foods in a way which produces a negative insulinogenic

effect or a positive one, or a neutral one.

And again, if you want to completely deprive yourself of a set of

foods that you are biologically wired to desire, the psychological

effect of that is your own responsibility.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> I get about between 1500-2200 cals a day (varies widly) depending on

> the day. I only weigh about 135lbs so 3000 cals would probably lead

to

> certain obesity.

No, it would lead to muscle growth.

I weighed less than you only several months ago and ate twice as many

calories and have lost weight. I assure you that you are without

question calorie deficient.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Unless your warm-up consists of intensive sprinting I don't see how

> that's possible.

>

> Actually, I've found most the average layman to overestimate the

> impact of exercise. They'll toil away for an hour on a treadmill and

> burn 400 calories and then eat a 600 calorie whooper.

,

Then take this up with the people who program the digital workout

summary on the eliptical machines. They periodically calculate your

calories burned per hour, and the digital display indicates this

numerous times during the warmup.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> > I get about between 1500-2200 cals a day (varies widly) depending

on

> > the day. I only weigh about 135lbs so 3000 cals would probably

lead

> to

> > certain obesity.

>

> No, it would lead to muscle growth.

>

> I weighed less than you only several months ago and ate twice as

many

> calories and have lost weight. I assure you that you are without

> question calorie deficient.

My apologies-- I meant I have lost a slight amount of fat, not

weight. I have gained weight in muscle.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>Heidi,

>In the CR world, there isn't any such definition. 30% restriction

>would be considered fairly extreme (for humans--other animals have

>been tested on more than 30%), and there's hardly anyone who would go

>past 20%. the majority of people do " mild CR " , which is around

>10%. within the next few years i'm planning to get to around 15-

>20%. i don't think i'd ever go beyond that unless i had extremely

>convincing and thorough evidence of its safety.

Interesting! I had no idea there was even a " CR " world.

I came up with the 30% number from a magazine article

about CR animals.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>>the evolution of the human species benefited from having adult females who

>>were not reproductive [grandmothers] but able to share/help child rearing

>>with younger females which in turn facilitated agriculture and social

>>advances... same with older males

>>

>>Dedy

>

>Hear, hear!! (Said as a perimenopausal woman trying to " digest " this whole

>experience :-)

>

>-

Heh heh. I THIRD that! There is a lot of support for that notion

in the science mags now -- that humans ARE supposed to live

long past fertility because so much of who we ARE is about

social life and child rearing.

For what it is worth, they are also getting around to the

notion that being " social " -- i.e. getting along with

people, being *nice* is also a survival trait, it isn't

always the strongest and most brutal that get all

the mates and wealth. They found that even in

salmon, the females would often choose the

" nice " not so aggressive males (who incidentally

don't bite and play so rough, but who stay on

the sidelines and can't compete with the aggressive

ones).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>> Face it: we evolved to like sugary tastes because they were usually

>> non -toxic and provided energy for immediate survival. Evolution

>does not care whether the animal in question is healthy past its time

>of reproduction.

Actually there is good evidence that wild sweet things,

like berries, are really rather good for a person. And they

have minimal insulogenic effects. Berries are " made "

for eating ... the birds eat them and distribute their seeds.

The fruit part is regarded as a kind of " animal lure " .

Grains are something we really have not had as a " natural "

food much, they are very recent, and they aren't particulary

designed for eating by any animal. They protect

themselves with hard coatings and probably chemically.

That is why they take so much processing even if you

don't react to them (soaking, fermenting, etc.). The diabetic

effect of wheat (for T1) has been shown in

some good experiments, and it doesn't have to do with insulin

at all, it has to do with auto-immunity.

Personally I don't think you could get T2 diabetes at all

from a diet high in natural fruit, meat, and vegies,

even if the vegies were sweet potatoes and you had

access to a ton of fruit (like the Hawaiians had). I won't

reiterate the whole previous thread, but it probably has

to do with gluten, corn syrup, messed up appestats,

etc. etc.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

> >> Face it: we evolved to like sugary tastes because they were

usually

> >> non -toxic and provided energy for immediate survival. Evolution

> >does not care whether the animal in question is healthy past its

time

> >of reproduction. >

>

> Actually there is good evidence that wild sweet things,

> like berries, are really rather good for a person. And they

> have minimal insulogenic effects. Berries are " made "

> for eating ... the birds eat them and distribute their seeds.

> The fruit part is regarded as a kind of " animal lure " .>

it's my understanding that modern agricultural practices have bred

fruits to become sweeter and sweeter. wild fruits would naturally

have much lower sugar levels. so, our taste buds are probably

designed/evolved to be able to sense even minute amounts of sugar in

foods and if we are designed to enjoy these sweet foods (for energy

or nutrients or even just sheer pleasure) then it should come as no

surprise that when we taste a modern-day cake or milkshake our

tastebuds think they've hit the mother lode and want more, more, more!

vera

[Guest guest]

>Heh heh. I THIRD that! There is a lot of support for that notion

>in the science mags now -- that humans ARE supposed to live

>long past fertility because so much of who we ARE is about

>social life and child rearing.

and someone has to be the " wise elder " to provide the benefit of their

longer life experience... not sure that the passage years necessarily

confers wisdom, but hopefully it often provides perspective that's valuable

to the younger ones.

>.. They found that even in

>salmon, the females would often choose the

> " nice " not so aggressive males (who incidentally

>don't bite and play so rough, but who stay on

>the sidelines and can't compete with the aggressive

>ones).

oh how cute! i kinda like the quiet types, myself :-)

-karen

[Guest guest]

I agree. My brother's the same way. and I so are most of the guys I know. No

amount of food (and/or alcohol!), regardless of quality can add an ounce of mass

to them. I knew some guys who lifted and played baseball who were trying to gain

weight, and they were always hungry and ate sooo much all day long. nothing

worked, so they set their alarm clocks and woke up at like 4 am and ate a full

meal and then went back to sleep. Still didnt gain any weight... I think healthy

young guys of our age just have an instinctual need for food and a metabolism

that can compensate for anything. The important thing is that many of these same

guys have a really good appestat as far as fullness is concerned... they will

eat and eat, and then in one bite, they know it's enough. Often also cannot

physically overeat sweets as long as they are consistently well-fed.

& gt;Maybe I must be way below my set point (I'm not

extremely lean or & gt;anything about 13% bf) then because anything good pretty

much makes me & gt;hungry. Liver included, coconuts, anything. & gt; & gt;- & gt;It

could also be your age. Like I said, my brother ate LOTS of food at & gt;that age

and remained skinny. He was always starving. I've heard & gt;that from moms of

many young men. I don't know why thatshould be the case, or where the food GOES,

but it seemsto be endemic. Maybe the Dinka young men drink tonsof milk ... & gt;--

Heidi

[Guest guest]

Again, caloric surplus is NOT necessary for weightlifting--Siff has

touched on this topic.

-

> > I just want to note that it IS possible to gain muscle mass (and

> > definitely strength) while being calorically restricted as

> exemplified

> > by someone like Mel Siff.

>

> I suppose it must depend on how you define " calorie restricted, " but

> generally speaking growth is proportinal to caloric excess.

>

> You simply cannot have growth without a net excess of calories,

> unless you define your calorie requirement to include what is needed

> for growth, which is rather circular logic.

>

> The only exception to this is if you have fat stores that need to be

> reduced, in which case you could stimulate the release of those

> stores to be used for muscle growth, or to make up for calories

> needed for energy while materials in the diet are used for growth.

>

> But this is obviously at best a temporary option and not open to

> everyone.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

I'm curious what your thoughts are on Rosedale? Where does he go wrong

in explaining Insulin? (No attack...I'd like to see you analyze it the

way you analyzed the iron article).

-

> > Sure grains have nutritive value but their insulinogenic effect may

> be

> > far important than whatever benefit they procur. All the talk on

> > insulin would seem to validate this.

>

> It is also quite clear that 1) There's nothing wrong with insulin,

> but insulin resistance and 2)the insulinogenicity is not determined

> simply by the presence of grains in the diet, but rather by a great

> many factors including amount, consumption schedule, what they are

> eaten with, etc.

>

>

> > BTW, I really can't go along with your 'we have taste for sweetness

> > because it's healthy'. That seems like a purely ad hoc supposition.

>

> No, it is well-reasoned reasoning based on accepted theories of

> evolution. There must be a reason that humans universally have taste

> buds that are stimulated by consumption of sweet things. If these

> taste buds were of no use to survival and reproduction, we wouldn't

> have them.

>

>

> > Face it: we evolved to like sugary tastes because they were usually

> > non -toxic and provided energy for immediate survival. Evolution

> does not care whether the animal in question is healthy past its time

> of reproduction.

>

> This is perfectly true, but it's hardly relevant. Both types of

> diabetes occur well before reproductive age is over.

>

> The only inherent negative in grains is the subset of proteins that

> appears to possibly have inherent net negative health effects on

> individuals who are susceptible, which is probably determined in part

> by genes.

>

> The insulinogenic effect is NOT a reason to avoid all grains in the

> diet, nor is it a reason to avoid all potatoes in the diet, nor is it

> a reason to avoid all fruits in the diet. And the notion that

> insulin is somehow evil and insulin production should be avoided at

> all costs has no basis whatsoever.

>

> So whether the insulinogenic effect of grains or potatoes or berries

> nullifies their nutritional value is completely dependent on whether

> you use those foods in a way which produces a negative insulinogenic

> effect or a positive one, or a neutral one.

>

> And again, if you want to completely deprive yourself of a set of

> foods that you are biologically wired to desire, the psychological

> effect of that is your own responsibility.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

My metabolism isn't as thrify as yours then. Or are you implying that

I was really eating too FEW calories in order to loss fat?

-

> > I get about between 1500-2200 cals a day (varies widly) depending on

> > the day. I only weigh about 135lbs so 3000 cals would probably lead

> to

> > certain obesity.

>

> No, it would lead to muscle growth.

>

> I weighed less than you only several months ago and ate twice as many

> calories and have lost weight. I assure you that you are without

> question calorie deficient.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

-I believe you're wrong. Counting calories, at your age and quality of

foods that you eat, is ridiculous. You should go by your hunger signals and

nothing else. Try eating whenever you are hungry, quality and variety, until you

are SATISFIED. Do this for a while and youll notice you won't feel that

ravenous, losing control kind of hunger. There are more sources of

misinformation on this topic in the media than I can even begin to deal with.

Obesity is not caused by merely " eating too many calories " . Rather, by putting

oneself into a prolonged famine mode due to restriction/unavailibility of the

necessary nutrients or quantity of food. Our biology forces us to make up for

starvation with an increased appetite. this severely skewed appestat, for many

obese people leads to nothing more than repetitive dieting and binging on junk.

I work out only a few times a week (lifting, yoga, dance) plus walking

constantly, and my 5'8 " ~150 pound body demands probably between 2500 and 3000

calories a day (but i dont count). When people guess my weight they guess 120

or 130. I guess I am pretty muscular. I know that I am young and that as I get

older, less active, whatever, my appetite will change. This weight is my body's

comfortable set point and as long as I follow true hunger and satiety signals

(and nothing is really wrong with my health), there is no fear of " certain

obesity " . I get about between 1500-2200 cals a day (varies widly) depending

onthe day. I only weigh about 135lbs so 3000 cals would probably lead tocertain

obesity. -

_______________________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!

[Guest guest]

> It could also be your age. Like I said, my brother ate LOTS of food at

> that age and remained skinny. He was always starving. I've heard

> that from moms of many young men. I don't know why that

> should be the case, or where the food GOES, but it seems

> to be endemic. Maybe the Dinka young men drink tons

> of milk ...

Perhaps your hypothalmus is confusing you and telling you your hungry when

your really thirsty. I have found this to be the case when a person has an

addiction like nicotene. Perhaps there are other ways the brain gets

confused like this (leaky gut and gluten come to mind again). How much are

you drinking and of what?

Joanne

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/2/03 7:28:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Again, caloric surplus is NOT necessary for weightlifting--Siff has

> touched on this topic.

Do you have an article on this subject by him, preferably on the internet, or

in print if unavailable? Given the subjectivity in defining caloric excess

I'm very skeptical.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/2/03 7:32:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> My metabolism isn't as thrify as yours then. Or are you implying that

> I was really eating too FEW calories in order to loss fat?

Were you obese at some point? 135 pounds doesn't sound obese to me, and you

claimed you were about 125 pounds when you were squatting 250, which I take

was about a year ago... so when was it you lost the weight you need?

Metabolism is NOT in any way an intensive property, but changes with age,

eating habits, lifestyle habits, etc. Yes, eating more calories could help you

lose fat, because you aren't eating enough to gain much muscle mass from weight

lifting, probably. Until I read Siff's article if you've got one and he

convinces me otherwise, I'm going to go on the conventional wisdom on this one

(sometimes the conventional wisdom is conventional for a good reason), and the

present anecdote that I've gained lots of muscle mass in relatively little time

eating twice as many calories as you, while you found it unreasonable to gain

much muscle mass in that time, eating less calories.

But it comes down to the fact that you're always hungry, which is a clear

indication you're either not eating enough or not eating enough fat, especially

given your age and sex.

When you say liver and onions make you hungry, how do you prepare them? If

you cook them in oil or fat, what kind do you use and how much?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/2/03 7:33:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> I'm curious what your thoughts are on Rosedale? Where does he go wrong

> in explaining Insulin? (No attack...I'd like to see you analyze it the

> way you analyzed the iron article).

He doesn't go wrong anywhere. Reread the article and you'll see he is

primarily concerned with fasting insulin levels, and makes the point that if he

drank loads of sugar-water his insulin would not go up higher than, I think he

says 9. The point being that if you are insulin resistant, insulin acts in a

much different way than if you are not.

So if he's right that insulin regulates lifespan, that's no reason not to

secrete it! (unless you want to die right now). It is a reason to eat in a way

that maximizes insulin sensitivity. Rosedale has a plan for this, but as time

goes on, and more ideas come out, and more studies come out, we see there are

probably several options for this.

Chris

[Guest guest]

HI ,

Interesting; I guess I'm not convinced either way right now. I did get

pretty chubby eating a lot of food in the past, but that food was

mostly junk. We'll see what happens now.

Cheers,

-

> -I believe you're wrong. Counting calories, at your age and

quality of foods that you eat, is ridiculous. You should go by your

hunger signals and nothing else. Try eating whenever you are hungry,

quality and variety, until you are SATISFIED. Do this for a while and

youll notice you won't feel that ravenous, losing control kind of

hunger. There are more sources of misinformation on this topic in the

media than I can even begin to deal with. Obesity is not caused by

merely " eating too many calories " . Rather, by putting oneself into a

prolonged famine mode due to restriction/unavailibility of the

necessary nutrients or quantity of food. Our biology forces us to

make up for starvation with an increased appetite. this severely

skewed appestat, for many obese people leads to nothing more than

repetitive dieting and binging on junk. I work out only a few times a

week (lifting, yoga, dance) plus walking constantly, and my 5'8 " ~150

pound body demands probably between 2500 and 3000 calories a day (but

i dont count). When people guess my weight they guess 120 or 130. I

guess I am pretty muscular. I know that I am young and that as I get

older, less active, whatever, my appetite will change. This weight is

my body's comfortable set point and as long as I follow true hunger

and satiety signals (and nothing is really wrong with my health),

there is no fear of " certain obesity " . I get about between

1500-2200 cals a day (varies widly) depending onthe day. I only weigh

about 135lbs so 3000 cals would probably lead tocertain obesity. -

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

> The most personalized portal on the Web!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting, but I don't think that's the case. I usually drink water

or green tea with stevia drops or homemade lemonade (with stevia) or

the occasional carbonated aspartame beverage. I drink just enough not

to have to go the bathroom on a consistent basis

-

----

> Perhaps your hypothalmus is confusing you and telling you your

hungry when

> your really thirsty. I have found this to be the case when a person

has an

> addiction like nicotene. Perhaps there are other ways the brain gets

> confused like this (leaky gut and gluten come to mind again). How

much are

> you drinking and of what?

>

> Joanne

[Guest guest]

Here's one: http://www.dolfzine.com/page129.htm

Now, this isn't the most scientific article out there, but I should

point out that Mel Siff is probabaly THE foremost authority when it

comes to weightlifting.

-

> In a message dated 10/2/03 7:28:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > Again, caloric surplus is NOT necessary for weightlifting--Siff has

> > touched on this topic.

>

> Do you have an article on this subject by him, preferably on the

internet, or

> in print if unavailable? Given the subjectivity in defining caloric

excess

> I'm very skeptical.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

I cook my liver in coconut oil, a hefty amount. And I know what you're

saying about eating more calories and not getting fat... but that

wasn't entirely the cas for me. I got up around 160lbs and was

somewhat chubby (though fairly muscular) which I didn't like. Then

again, I was eating junk (mainly chocolate milk and PB sandwhiches on

white bread) which could account for that.

-

> In a message dated 10/2/03 7:32:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > My metabolism isn't as thrify as yours then. Or are you implying that

> > I was really eating too FEW calories in order to loss fat?

>

> Were you obese at some point? 135 pounds doesn't sound obese to me,

and you

> claimed you were about 125 pounds when you were squatting 250, which

I take

> was about a year ago... so when was it you lost the weight you need?

>

> Metabolism is NOT in any way an intensive property, but changes with

age,

> eating habits, lifestyle habits, etc. Yes, eating more calories

could help you

> lose fat, because you aren't eating enough to gain much muscle mass

from weight

> lifting, probably. Until I read Siff's article if you've got one

and he

> convinces me otherwise, I'm going to go on the conventional wisdom

on this one

> (sometimes the conventional wisdom is conventional for a good

reason), and the

> present anecdote that I've gained lots of muscle mass in relatively

little time

> eating twice as many calories as you, while you found it

unreasonable to gain

> much muscle mass in that time, eating less calories.

>

> But it comes down to the fact that you're always hungry, which is a

clear

> indication you're either not eating enough or not eating enough fat,

especially

> given your age and sex.

>

> When you say liver and onions make you hungry, how do you prepare

them? If

> you cook them in oil or fat, what kind do you use and how much?

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

I confess that in my ignorance I merely assumed that the key was to

limit total insulin produced. I believe this is the line Mercola

takes? Damnit then...fruits and healthy breads are back in until

contrary evidence!

Cheers,

-

> In a message dated 10/2/03 7:33:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > I'm curious what your thoughts are on Rosedale? Where does he go wrong

> > in explaining Insulin? (No attack...I'd like to see you analyze

it the

> > way you analyzed the iron article).

>

> He doesn't go wrong anywhere. Reread the article and you'll see he is

> primarily concerned with fasting insulin levels, and makes the point

that if he

> drank loads of sugar-water his insulin would not go up higher than,

I think he

> says 9. The point being that if you are insulin resistant, insulin

acts in a

> much different way than if you are not.

>

> So if he's right that insulin regulates lifespan, that's no reason

not to

> secrete it! (unless you want to die right now). It is a reason to

eat in a way

> that maximizes insulin sensitivity. Rosedale has a plan for this,

but as time

> goes on, and more ideas come out, and more studies come out, we see

there are

> probably several options for this.

>

> Chris