Yeah, we've come a long way, all the way to Atkins. At least the pyramid was based on science rather than a scam artists' non-scientific fantasy. The main problem in Americans' diets is too much fat. That's where most of the excess calories come from. That's what the pyramid addresses. And I don't think we've really come that far from then. Sure, complex carbohydrates are better than simple. Saturated fat is bad, but unsaturated is good. But those things weren't unknown at the time the pyramid was developed. They just wanted to keep it as simple as possible and get at the main problem in Americans' diet. I think it's fair to say they could have distinguished those things, and it would be better if they came up with a message that included them.
But the point I was making still holds: you should get the majority of your calories from carbs, you shouldn't cut them out.
Well, nuts are good for you in the sense they have the good fat, but they also have a ton of calories. But come on, that's just absurd Kickaha.
Hey, I just passed it on. You want to dispute it, run your own study, or at least provide a counter-example.
You really can't understand how eating *less* calories led to weight loss? Wow. Nuts are filling. Crackers aren't. It's just that simple.
Quote:
I have to confess, my wife is a registered dietitian. To her, all this wacky stuff is like people's belief in astrology that we've been making fun of in the other thread. There's just a world of difference between science-based nutrition and the popular beliefs about it.
Right. Like cutting cholesterol out of my diet made my blood cholesterol shoot *UP*, while eating eggs made it drop like a rock.
The dietician and doctor were both baffled. Sorry, but I don't put much faith in dietitians, they're prone to the latest fad in a white coat just like anyone else, and most doctors are quacks, or at best, idiots addicted to seeing how many drugs they can pump into you, in my experience.
About 30% of your energy intake should come from fat in some form, only about 20% from proteins. That leaves 50% of energy from carbohydrates. The problem with refines carbs is that they pack alot more calories per unit volume than your body is expecting and an deal with. Carbs and proteins are supposed to digest slowly, and many carbs don't any more due to the refinement process that takes way most of the grain that has to be eaten through by your digestive system to get energy.
But your body hormonally sends signals to your brain when it detects fat in your system, and that tells you you're full more than any physical condition of actully being full. Starchy and sugary stuff doesn't trigger this hormonal reaction. You can eat 5 bowls of Cheerios and not feel as full as when you eat a Big Mac and french fries (fried in fat, mind you) because your body won't tell you it's done. I exaggerate of course, but fats make you feel more full than other foods in about the same quantity.
Hey, I just passed it on. You want to dispute it, run your own study, or at least provide a counter-example.
You really can't understand how eating *less* calories led to weight loss? Wow. Nuts are filling. Crackers aren't. It's just that simple.
But nuts have *more* calories than crackers.
People have studied satiety, and it works in the opposite way that the Atkins apologists suggest. Fatty foods are LESS filling calorie for calorie, because fat has more calories per gram than protein or carbohydrates. In other words, you have to eat more "carbs" to get the same number of calories as fat, so you're more full when you're done.
[edit]Here's an article I found on satiety that seems to be science-based. It seems to be consistent with what I said above, but adds fiber (complex carbohydrates) and water as filling food sources, and says simple carbs (sugar) aren't filling:
Quote:
The key to weight control, according to Rolls, is to eat foods with a low energy density - meaning relatively few calories per ounce - so that you leave the table feeling full and satisfied without breaking the calorie bank.
Notable among these foods are fruits and vegetables and dishes that contain them (such as stews, pasta dishes, or smoothies), as well as soups. What these have in common are a high water content and usually lots of fiber. In contrast, foods with a high energy density - that is, lots of calories per ounce - typically have a low water content, and often are high in fat, which is the densest source of calories.
Makes sense to me.
Quote:
Right. Like cutting cholesterol out of my diet made my blood cholesterol shoot *UP*, while eating eggs made it drop like a rock.
The dietician and doctor were both baffled. Sorry, but I don't put much faith in dietitians, they're prone to the latest fad in a white coat just like anyone else, and most doctors are quacks, or at best, idiots addicted to seeing how many drugs they can pump into you, in my experience.
It's so well known that fat, not cholesterol in your diet makes your blood cholesterol go up, that it's hard to believe they wouldn't know that. I know lots of dietitians, and I've been to ADA conferences with my wife, and every single one of them is a conservative, science-based fad-basher. They usually catch a lot of heat because they don't go along with the low-carb crowd. BTW, in your first post, you said "nutritionist" not dietitian. Nutritionist is a word like "therapist" - it doesn't necessarily mean anything. "Registered dietitian" is the term to look for to get someone who's science-trained. A nutritionist could be anybody.
But at least if you're going to go on your own, do it on the basis of science not intuition. I'll bet you there's absolutely no evidence anywhere you can find that eating more cholesterol makes your blood cholesterol decrease.
Except for *the proof of my own experience*. Jeez. Talk about offering up faith to a higher power despite evidence to the contrary...
*For my body*: I was eating about as low-fat a diet as you can get... except for one food item: cheese. Not a lot, but some. The dietitian (yes, it was a registered dietitian, I used the term nutritionist like most will use the term 'nurse' to refer to everything from a Candy Striper to a PA, I was vague) honestly said that was the only thing she could recommend.
Fat and cholesterol in diet down -> blood cholesterol up.
I ate eggs every day for a month -> blood cholesterol dropped 50 pts.
You explain it.
I have a pretty constant diet, and eliminating cheese was the only change made in the first part.
To me, it made pretty perfect sense that my body was monitoring what I was taking in and saying "Ah, you're low in these things... I'll make some more." Perhaps my body's sensors are more keyed into my diet than my bloodstream, and are flaky due to that. Who knows. All I know is that a low-fat low-cholesterol diet led me to high cholesterol in my blood, while eating more cholesterol (but keeping the fat relatively low), made it plummet.
And the dietitian and doctor *BOTH* stuttered and exclaimed that that was impossible. Looking right at the blood test results, they said it wasn't possible. Hell, the doctor started grilling me on what other prescriptions I was on (none), what other changes to my diet I'd made (none), and then would *NOT* believe me. He came *that* close to accusing me of lying to his face. Idjit.
People have studied satiety, and it works in the opposite way that the Atkins apologists suggest. Fatty foods are LESS filling calorie for calorie, because fat has more calories per gram than protein or carbohydrates. In other words, you have to eat more "carbs" to get the same number of calories as fat, so you're more full when you're done.
I swear you're being dense on purpose now.
People react differently to satiety. Every person's body is slightly different.
Waving studies about and saying "But *look*!" is no more relevant when it comes to the individual than it is to wave a USA Today in their face and try and tell them what their day was like.
Studies are *averages* for a population, at best. That's what they strive to be. They're not the end all and be all. Cripes.
*I* get satiated off of fats rather slowly. My advisor was eating *a package of rye wafers a day* and not feeling full, but a small handful of cashews kept him happy. And you're going to state unequivocally that it was *impossible* for him to be ingesting fewer calories? Riiiiiiiight.
People react differently to satiety. Every person's body is slightly different.
Waving studies about and saying "But *look*!" is no more relevant when it comes to the individual than it is to wave a USA Today in their face and try and tell them what their day was like.
You asked me to provide some counter-evidence, I did, and now I'm being purposefully dense for having done so. I love it!
1. The low-carbers state it as a general principle. They say fat fills people up faster than carbs. Quite a number of people in this thread have stated that. I haven't seen anyone, until you just now, say "for some people." They state their ideas as general principles of human physiology. It's their whole schtick.
2. That general principle goes against basic science. Fat has more calories by volume than carbs and proteins. Complex carbohydrates have fiber, bulk. You eat it, and your stomach gets full, fuller than if you ate the same number of calories in fat. Saying "people are all different" doesn't change that. Smoking causes lung cancer. "But everyone's different!"
3. If you're going to start saying science is irrelevant, then yes, you've won the debate. Your advisor did it, so I can't argue with it. Of course you're right, one can't argue with personal anecdotes. Anti-science and personal anecdote have always been the mainstay of the diet fads, as with all the pseudo-sciences.
i just want to jump in and state that the high protien diet I was on was before "Atkins" ever touched a keyboard . . . and I would say that it in no way replaces any carbs with fats or protiens . . it just stressed proteins
. I made sure to eat alot of protein at every meal
and believe me, when I layed off of beer and Dorritos and had a smoothy in the morning with soy protien I noticed the difference . . . and, I felt better too
Note that I still stay away from needless fats (though I just scarfed pork-Salami sandwich with mayo! and a whole milk latte
no, make that two whole milk Lattes ! love that Melita Cappuccino maker!!!!!)
The real difference is working out . . . . awith weights AND cardio-vascular as well!
and drinking ALOT OF COFFEE makes you so jittery that you loose weight from having your msucles working while you sit
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
They're always rethinking it.
Yeah, we've come a long way, all the way to Atkins. At least the pyramid was based on science rather than a scam artists' non-scientific fantasy. The main problem in Americans' diets is too much fat. That's where most of the excess calories come from. That's what the pyramid addresses. And I don't think we've really come that far from then. Sure, complex carbohydrates are better than simple. Saturated fat is bad, but unsaturated is good. But those things weren't unknown at the time the pyramid was developed. They just wanted to keep it as simple as possible and get at the main problem in Americans' diet. I think it's fair to say they could have distinguished those things, and it would be better if they came up with a message that included them.
But the point I was making still holds: you should get the majority of your calories from carbs, you shouldn't cut them out.
Well, nuts are good for you in the sense they have the good fat, but they also have a ton of calories. But come on, that's just absurd Kickaha.
Hey, I just passed it on. You want to dispute it, run your own study, or at least provide a counter-example.
You really can't understand how eating *less* calories led to weight loss? Wow. Nuts are filling. Crackers aren't. It's just that simple.
I have to confess, my wife is a registered dietitian. To her, all this wacky stuff is like people's belief in astrology that we've been making fun of in the other thread. There's just a world of difference between science-based nutrition and the popular beliefs about it.
Right. Like cutting cholesterol out of my diet made my blood cholesterol shoot *UP*, while eating eggs made it drop like a rock.
The dietician and doctor were both baffled. Sorry, but I don't put much faith in dietitians, they're prone to the latest fad in a white coat just like anyone else, and most doctors are quacks, or at best, idiots addicted to seeing how many drugs they can pump into you, in my experience.
But your body hormonally sends signals to your brain when it detects fat in your system, and that tells you you're full more than any physical condition of actully being full. Starchy and sugary stuff doesn't trigger this hormonal reaction. You can eat 5 bowls of Cheerios and not feel as full as when you eat a Big Mac and french fries (fried in fat, mind you) because your body won't tell you it's done. I exaggerate of course, but fats make you feel more full than other foods in about the same quantity.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Hey, I just passed it on. You want to dispute it, run your own study, or at least provide a counter-example.
You really can't understand how eating *less* calories led to weight loss? Wow. Nuts are filling. Crackers aren't. It's just that simple.
But nuts have *more* calories than crackers.
People have studied satiety, and it works in the opposite way that the Atkins apologists suggest. Fatty foods are LESS filling calorie for calorie, because fat has more calories per gram than protein or carbohydrates. In other words, you have to eat more "carbs" to get the same number of calories as fat, so you're more full when you're done.
[edit]Here's an article I found on satiety that seems to be science-based. It seems to be consistent with what I said above, but adds fiber (complex carbohydrates) and water as filling food sources, and says simple carbs (sugar) aren't filling:
The key to weight control, according to Rolls, is to eat foods with a low energy density - meaning relatively few calories per ounce - so that you leave the table feeling full and satisfied without breaking the calorie bank.
Notable among these foods are fruits and vegetables and dishes that contain them (such as stews, pasta dishes, or smoothies), as well as soups. What these have in common are a high water content and usually lots of fiber. In contrast, foods with a high energy density - that is, lots of calories per ounce - typically have a low water content, and often are high in fat, which is the densest source of calories.
Makes sense to me.
Right. Like cutting cholesterol out of my diet made my blood cholesterol shoot *UP*, while eating eggs made it drop like a rock.
The dietician and doctor were both baffled. Sorry, but I don't put much faith in dietitians, they're prone to the latest fad in a white coat just like anyone else, and most doctors are quacks, or at best, idiots addicted to seeing how many drugs they can pump into you, in my experience.
It's so well known that fat, not cholesterol in your diet makes your blood cholesterol go up, that it's hard to believe they wouldn't know that. I know lots of dietitians, and I've been to ADA conferences with my wife, and every single one of them is a conservative, science-based fad-basher. They usually catch a lot of heat because they don't go along with the low-carb crowd. BTW, in your first post, you said "nutritionist" not dietitian. Nutritionist is a word like "therapist" - it doesn't necessarily mean anything. "Registered dietitian" is the term to look for to get someone who's science-trained. A nutritionist could be anybody.
But at least if you're going to go on your own, do it on the basis of science not intuition. I'll bet you there's absolutely no evidence anywhere you can find that eating more cholesterol makes your blood cholesterol decrease.
*For my body*: I was eating about as low-fat a diet as you can get... except for one food item: cheese. Not a lot, but some. The dietitian (yes, it was a registered dietitian, I used the term nutritionist like most will use the term 'nurse' to refer to everything from a Candy Striper to a PA, I was vague) honestly said that was the only thing she could recommend.
Fat and cholesterol in diet down -> blood cholesterol up.
I ate eggs every day for a month -> blood cholesterol dropped 50 pts.
You explain it.
I have a pretty constant diet, and eliminating cheese was the only change made in the first part.
To me, it made pretty perfect sense that my body was monitoring what I was taking in and saying "Ah, you're low in these things... I'll make some more." Perhaps my body's sensors are more keyed into my diet than my bloodstream, and are flaky due to that. Who knows. All I know is that a low-fat low-cholesterol diet led me to high cholesterol in my blood, while eating more cholesterol (but keeping the fat relatively low), made it plummet.
And the dietitian and doctor *BOTH* stuttered and exclaimed that that was impossible. Looking right at the blood test results, they said it wasn't possible. Hell, the doctor started grilling me on what other prescriptions I was on (none), what other changes to my diet I'd made (none), and then would *NOT* believe me. He came *that* close to accusing me of lying to his face. Idjit.
Originally posted by BRussell
But nuts have *more* calories than crackers.
People have studied satiety, and it works in the opposite way that the Atkins apologists suggest. Fatty foods are LESS filling calorie for calorie, because fat has more calories per gram than protein or carbohydrates. In other words, you have to eat more "carbs" to get the same number of calories as fat, so you're more full when you're done.
I swear you're being dense on purpose now.
People react differently to satiety. Every person's body is slightly different.
Waving studies about and saying "But *look*!" is no more relevant when it comes to the individual than it is to wave a USA Today in their face and try and tell them what their day was like.
Studies are *averages* for a population, at best. That's what they strive to be. They're not the end all and be all. Cripes.
*I* get satiated off of fats rather slowly. My advisor was eating *a package of rye wafers a day* and not feeling full, but a small handful of cashews kept him happy. And you're going to state unequivocally that it was *impossible* for him to be ingesting fewer calories? Riiiiiiiight.
I swear you're being dense on purpose now.
People react differently to satiety. Every person's body is slightly different.
Waving studies about and saying "But *look*!" is no more relevant when it comes to the individual than it is to wave a USA Today in their face and try and tell them what their day was like.
You asked me to provide some counter-evidence, I did, and now I'm being purposefully dense for having done so. I love it!
1. The low-carbers state it as a general principle. They say fat fills people up faster than carbs. Quite a number of people in this thread have stated that. I haven't seen anyone, until you just now, say "for some people." They state their ideas as general principles of human physiology. It's their whole schtick.
2. That general principle goes against basic science. Fat has more calories by volume than carbs and proteins. Complex carbohydrates have fiber, bulk. You eat it, and your stomach gets full, fuller than if you ate the same number of calories in fat. Saying "people are all different" doesn't change that. Smoking causes lung cancer. "But everyone's different!"
3. If you're going to start saying science is irrelevant, then yes, you've won the debate. Your advisor did it, so I can't argue with it. Of course you're right, one can't argue with personal anecdotes. Anti-science and personal anecdote have always been the mainstay of the diet fads, as with all the pseudo-sciences.
. I made sure to eat alot of protein at every meal
and believe me, when I layed off of beer and Dorritos and had a smoothy in the morning with soy protien I noticed the difference . . . and, I felt better too
Note that I still stay away from needless fats (though I just scarfed pork-Salami sandwich with mayo!
no, make that two whole milk Lattes
The real difference is working out . . . . awith weights AND cardio-vascular as well!
and drinking ALOT OF COFFEE makes you so jittery that you loose weight from having your msucles working while you sit