| Author | Post |
|---|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 12:48 am |
|
suenos wrote: And...what's the point? Well, based on my admittedly limited formal education on the subject, my opinion is that the saying "numbers don't lie" is a lie when it comes to statistics and taking any study at face value.
Reminds me of the book Innumeracy by mathematician John Allen Paulos. I think he devotes a whole chapter to the misuse and misrepresentation of statistical studies.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 12:55 am |
|
The studies were not statistical. It was more like an experiment and the results speak for themselves. Publishing the results of a study just because they contain numbers does not make it statistical.
Other studies back it up.
If anyone can post a study that show that fat people don't have smaller brains and lower IQs or can show a study to refute all the other studies post it.
|
suenos
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 02:44 am |
|
Umm, you sorta missed my point. Why would I quote you a study to disprove a study when the whole point of what I wrote is about being cautious and objective regarding all studies?
Somewhere upthread you stated; ?óÔé¼?ôIt is a scientific fact that the obese have smaller brains and that is what this thread is about.?óÔé¼?Ø I was addressing the point that ?óÔé¼?ôxyz study concludes?óÔé¼?Ø does not equal ?óÔé¼?ôscientific fact?óÔé¼?Ø. You then stated that, since the first study you noted does not any cite statistics, my comment regarding the malleability of statistics does not apply - cause it was ?óÔé¼?ôan experiment?óÔé¼?Ø.
Dude?óÔé¼?ª..ALL studies are experiments?óÔé¼?ªand ALL studies involve statistics?óÔé¼?ª..that is the entire nature of a study. You have an idea that something may be true (I have a theory that obese people have a measurable difference in amount of brain tissue than non-obese people) you set up an experiment that can test that theory (I will measure the brain tissue of 94 people, divided between obese and non-obese people and record the results), you then look at the results and make a conclusion (a statistically significant number of the obese group have less brain tissue than the non obese group). This conclusion, although it supports (not proves, but supports) your theory, is still not a fact. Because that where things like duplicating the results multiple times independently, peer review, looking at factors like how isolated, long term, large the sample size was, which variables were present and no controlled, yada, yada, yada.
If you said, "hey, there's this theory that obesity causes loss of brain tissue and here's a couple of recent studies that support that theory....but there's a couple of problems, like a really small sample size, and the advanced age of the subjects, and the fact that several of the obese subjects have a physical conditon related to obesity, so there's a lot of unknown variables, but there seem to be enough correlation between obesity and possible loss of brain tissue that it's worth considering as a motivating factor"....well, that would be reasonable. But saying 'hey, it's a scientific fact that being fat equals being stupid and this study..ummm experiment...says so"...well, that's just b.s.
So I?óÔé¼Ôäóm gonna say it again. In tiny words: studies do not equal ?óÔé¼?ôscientific fact?óÔé¼?Ø and you are falsely equating ?óÔé¼?ôstudy result?óÔé¼?Ø with ?óÔé¼?ôfact?óÔé¼?Ø. And, seriously, just FYI, study results do not, and should not ever "speak for themselves".
It does not matter if we see a study and like or dislike the conclusion. I don?óÔé¼Ôäót care if the study concludes ?óÔé¼?ôfat people have smaller brains?óÔé¼?Ø (I don?óÔé¼Ôäót like) or ?óÔé¼?ôchicks who eat mangos every day are devastating beautiful?óÔé¼?Ø (dig that)?óÔé¼?ª?óÔé¼?ª IMO every single study should be approached in the same way -with a logical, skeptical, questioning behind the curtain, and objectively critical eye rather than an attitude of ?óÔé¼?ôwell, this study says xyz, so xyz must be A SCIENTIFIC FACT?óÔé¼?Ø
?óÔé¼?ªcause that kind of thinking has literally killed people. No hyperbole. There are, unfortunately, multiple instances where people have taken certain medication, altered their diets to include/exclude certain food groups, taken a large dose of certain vitamins based on studies which were either misleading, faulty or not carried through to see if long term results were different than short term results.
Now, before you start banging your head to a bloody pulp on the keyboard and yelling ?óÔé¼?ôOMG, some lazy gluttonous Fat Acceptance FATTLING stalker is insulting me on the internet again?óÔé¼?Ø?óÔé¼?ª.keep in mind: I am neither overweight nor a believer in FA, I run 8-10 miles a day, have been lifting (at weights a lot of guys couldn?óÔé¼Ôäót handle) for several years, am a former personal trainer, eat a 90% raw foods diet, have been on this forum for almost six years - where I recorded practically every step of both my +75lb weight loss and ever changing maintaining routine?óÔé¼?ªthat?óÔé¼Ôäós who, with all due respect to you as a fellow human being and forum member, is calling complete b.s. to yet another one of your assertions as to what is ?óÔé¼?ôa scientific fact?óÔé¼?Ø regarding obesity.
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 04:10 am |
|
Wow!
You two (JSABD and PuffsPlus) are almost being nice to each other! 
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 04:29 am |
|
It seems that we all agree that statistics have some value, but on their own they can't be relied on to present solid facts.
And even if a study proved beyond any doubt that 80% of people reacted in a certain way, it still means that 20% didn't. So if a diet works for the majority of people (even 99%), we might just be in the 1% class.
JSABD:
I do agree that many fat people are responsible for their weight, but if your point is correct, then that wouldn't be quite so true.
If a fat person has a diminished self-control, and a diminished ability to say No to junk food, not because of not caring, but because physically, that's the way he or she is, how can it be his/her fault?
If a child is obese, I know you agree that it's likely the parents and others who are to blame, not the child. As that child gets older, and starts to make his/her own decisions, the brain has already atrophied, killing the self-control switch. That person is unable to resist junk food, because that's how his/her body is. Even if that person wanted to overcome the bad health situation, he/she can't because the capacity isn't there.
Using your analogy of birds and wings, you can't blame a human for not being able to fly, you can't blame a bird for not being able to talk, these are simply things that cannot be done. So you can't blame someone whose self-control mechanism has been destroyed for having no self-control.
You wouldn't expect someone who lost his/her legs to walk, so you wouldn't expect somebody who lost some of his/her brain to use that part of the brain.
I know that for some adults, it might have been their fault for allowing themselves to become obese in the first place, but once they are there, they have no way of getting back, if as you assert, their self-control mechanism has been smashed to smithereens.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 08:40 am |
|
suenos wrote: Dude?óÔé¼?ª..ALL studies are experiments?óÔé¼?ªand ALL studies involve statistics?óÔé¼?ª..that is the entire nature of a study.
Yes to the second point, not necessarily to the first.
Some studies are not documenting the results of new experiments but are "meta studies" that statistically examine at a high level the results of a bunch of other studies. The big study that found that saturated fat wasn't conclusively linked to heart disease was one such study.
I agree that one study by itself doesn't mean a whole lot, especially if the sample size is small. But I would argue that when several studies start pointing to the same conclusion, it's likely that there is some truth in there.
For example, the evidence linking obesity to Type II diabetes is pretty darn conclusive. It's one of the best established relationships in medical studies. Likewise, the causality of obesity, specifically abdominal obesity, causing insulin resistance and leading to diabetes is pretty well established too. Right now research studies are trying to figure out the mechanism by which this happens. Looks like the abdominal fat cells are sending out hormonal signals, the evil little buggers! 
Last edited on 17 Jul 2011 08:57 am by PuffsPlus
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 09:11 am |
|
PuffsPlus wrote:JSABD wrote: Drop your defense and and tell me any and all valid reason for why you cannot adhere to those eating guidelines? [..] Just focus on that question.
You also believe that all fat people should lose weight by adhering to your one-size-fits-all dietary approach. You have claimed that fat people adhere to "rigid thinking", yet you prescribe one single dietary plan for weight loss.
As for asking you "sincere questions": why would I? [..] You are an armchair diet coach who can't get his diet book published. In short, you're not any type of professional authority on the science of losing weight.
Well PuffsPlus, you voiced some reservations about macro-nutrient ratios and JSABD's reply explained that the eating plan he advocates is not rigid but rather is a looser guideline (if you think about it, that guideline is so wide it almost accommodate low-fat vegan and Atkins at both extremes)
The way you don't want to answer his question paints you as an intellectual snob. (maybe I should have not answered your question about kitchen appliances in the other topic because you lack a relevant qualification)
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 10:06 am |
|
Nir wrote: Well PuffsPlus, you voiced some reservations about macro-nutrient ratios and JSABD's reply explained that the eating plan he advocates is not rigid but rather is a looser guideline (if you think about it, that guideline is so wide it almost accommodate low-fat vegan and Atkins at both extremes)
Yet elsewhere on here, JSABD/Chris Brady has derided the Atkins plan and moderate-carb plans like South Beach. Moreover, when has he been "loose" on anything? Has Chris Brady now changed his mind and adopted a looser approach on dietary guidelines? More evidence is needed, IMHO. 
The way you don't want to answer his question paints you as an intellectual snob.
Not really, because that question is a trap. He's demonstrated that on here already. JSABD/Chris Brady doesn't believe there are valid reasons for not "eating responsibly" as he sees it. The only "correct" answer is "No".
As for intellectual snobbery, I dispute that assertion also. It's really a matter of credibility, not snobbery.
For advice on how to fix my car, I would go to a trained mechanic or at least a devoted amateur who has made a serious hobby of fixing cars and has been demonstrably successful doing so. JSABD/Chris Brady has claimed to have had success "curing gluttons", but we only have his word on it. If his claim has any supporting hard evidence, then he should try to publish his data. After all, one doesn't have to be professionally trained to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but it is harder. You have to show you have used established empirical methods and have done a rigorous statistical analysis of your data.
(That's one reason I'm so impressed with Denise Minger's takedown of the China Study. She's an amateur statistican and data analyst, but a very good one from what I can tell. I have some background in science and statistics, but note that I am also not a professional researcher or statistican. So you can take my endorsement of her with a grain of salt also, if you wish.  )
Another reason I do not consider Chris Brady/JSABD an informed or credible authority on weight loss is that I have not observed his alleged successes first hand in real life. If I had seen for myself that he got a bunch of fat people to get thin, I would be more likely to view his opinions and advice as worth listening to. Once again, though, Chris Brady/JSABD's only evidence of success is his word on the Internet. We also have his repeated demonstrated lack of knowledge of how scientific research and statistical analysis really works, which further casts doubt on the usefulness of his dietary advice.
JSABD/Chris Brady has even tried to publish his approach as a diet book. Like most diet books, his book appears to be based on his anecdotal accounts of "successfully reforming intractable gluttons". But he has not yet been successful at publishing even his anecdotal accounts of how to lose weight and keep it off. This argues that other entities (i.e., agents and publishers) also have doubts about the validity and credibility of his claims and advice.
(maybe I should have not answered your question about kitchen appliances in the other topic because you lack a relevant qualification)
Ah, but I never claimed to be an authority on kitchen tools in that thread. I was merely asking for other people to submit anecdotal experiences of useful kitchen implements, not making any unsupported assertions or generalizations on kitchen tool usage. Moreover, I would argue that the use of simple kitchen implements is easier, much less complex, and much easier to understand than human metabolism and physiology.
If I were instead pontificating on the complex design and engineering of kitchen implements and 1) I claimed authority and knowledge of kitchen implement usage and engineering but 2) lacked an engineering background and 3) demonstrated that I had a fundamental misunderstanding of engineering concepts as applied to machinery, then you would have a point. You would be rightly skeptical of what I had to say about kitchen tools!
Last edited on 17 Jul 2011 03:40 pm by PuffsPlus
|
suenos
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 02:41 pm |
|
PuffsPlus wrote: suenos wrote: Dude?óÔé¼?ª..ALL studies are experiments?óÔé¼?ªand ALL studies involve statistics?óÔé¼?ª..that is the entire nature of a study.
Yes to the second point, not necessarily to the first.
Some studies are not documenting the results of new experiments but are "meta studies" that statistically examine at a high level the results of a bunch of other studies. The big study that found that saturated fat wasn't conclusively linked to heart disease was one such study.
I know exactly what you mean and agree - another good meta analysis is one that was done on HGC studies - but, keeping in mind the individual I was responding to, I was deliberately trying to keep the focus as narrow as possible.
And, for what it's worth, in your position I wouldn't have responded to the "why can't you eat responsibly" (paraphrasing here) question either - and not out of any intellectual snobbery. IMO some questions are legitimate inquires for info and/or clarity and others are, as you said, just posed as a "trap" and the question itself is intellectally dishonest.
The question assumes that definition of ?óÔé¼?ôeating responsibly?óÔé¼?Ø equals?óÔé¼?ôeating according to this specific set of guidelines?óÔé¼?Ø?óÔé¼?ª. and is then framed in such a way that the only possible answers ("can't" or "won't") accept that basic assumption.
I don't know how you read it, but in my mind it translated as "following this particular guideline is good/not following this particular guideline is bad, so are you not following the good guideline because you can't or won't?" I could be wrong, but I think this is pretty close to a textbook example of a false dichotomy.
Last edited on 17 Jul 2011 03:45 pm by suenos
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 04:30 pm |
|
Low carb is a formula for failure and bad health. Atkins was obese when he died and his counterpart Agatston is on statin drugs and the man is pudgy. Barry Sears is a fat boy too.
Low carb is the most popular diet but since the carb phobia started back in the 70's people have gotten fatter and fatter. I am not saying Atkins is the cause but he did sell over 50 million books and his half baked scheme has not worked.
Pritikin, and Dean Ornish and everyone else who promote normal dieting are all lean. Look at the guy form Blaine's Low Carb Kitchen. He's still a fat boy.
Fat contains 9 calories per gram but protein and carbs contain 4.
Low carb is dangerous and unproven but it appeals to people because you can eat all the fat you want in the first phase. Google low carb dangers.
The guidelines are flexible but they don't include a low carb scheme. Here is one reason. A cubic inch of cheese contains 100 calories whereas 2 oranges contain 90. Food volume quells hunger. It also takes longer to eat 2 oranges. I have observed not only what fat people eat but how they eat and they eat fast. They shovel it in. It takes time for the brain to tell you that you are sated. The guidelines require food that takes a long time to eat. Fat people tend to eat "easy" food.
Quelling hunger is key. The other part is "retraining the palate" That take time.
The other part is knocking out the fattitude. Eating in a responsible manner again and again and again goes a long way to knocking out the fattitude.
Here is a reality nobody want to accept. If we could turn back the clock to 1970 we would not have an obesity crisis. With all due respect Puffs, we have central heating, AC, high carbs, HFCS, and fast food. We were a very different culture then.
Today a samll drink is 20 oz. In the 70's it was 8 oz. We can point fingers at the food industry but they are merely giving the customers what they demand.
The goal today is to eat mindfully and I hate to say it but doing that require a little effort.
If you read the report you will see that one of the parts of fat people's brains that become atrophied is the frontal lobe. That controls impulse and is responsible for planning. It is what separates us from chimpanzees.
|
suenos
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 05:35 pm |
|
JSABD wrote: Quelling hunger is key. The other part is "retraining the palate" That take time.
I think is might be the only thing I've ever seen from you that I 100% agree with!
The problem I had with every single diet and attempted maintenance plan in the past was the constant, unrelenting sense of hunger. The last time I actively dieted I did Atkins - I'd tried everything else and this appealed to me because (yep, I admit it) it held the promise that I could still eat a lot of the foods that I liked (meat, eggs, cheese), and not be hungry and not have to count calories.
And for the first time ever I was losing weight without the accompanying food obsession. After the induction phase, which was pretty brutal but taught me that I could actually exist without flour and sugar, my typical diet was something like breakfast of a two egg spinach omelet, lunch of grilled or steamed veggies like zucchini, mushrooms, eggplant and a piece of fish, dinner about 4oz of meat and at least two veggies, usually turnip or collard greens and steamed broccoli or cabbage and sometimes about a 1/4 cup of beans...oh, and two snacks a day, one between lunch and dinner of a small salad with an ounce of hard cheese dressed with olive oil and vinegar, and the other my late night treat of frozen plain yogurt with blueberries and an ounce of chopped almonds. Then I started lifting and added a whey protein shake and apple to my post work-out routine.
The combination of meal frequency and protein/fat/fibre at every meal completely quelled the hunger, and since I worked out my entire week's meal plan every Sunday to hit the carb ratios, I didn't have to spend every day/meal counting calories, which helped eliminate the food obsession I'd had with every other diet plan.
The inclusion of lots of fresh green veggies and fruits in my daily diet gave me the energy I needed to do, and progress from my daily work outs - which started with 30-60 mins. a day of riding the stationary bike or walking as fast as I could on the treadmill.
And "retraining the palate"...well, I'd never been much of a fruit and veggie girl and didn't know what a nut tasted like if it wasn't covered in chocolate. Suddenly I was learning to cook and enjoy a wide array of fresh produce (asparagus was delicious - what a shock! and a parfait of yogurt/blueberries/chopped almonds? better than ice cream! Fish? Only if it was deep fryed and accompanied by fries. Had no idea how yummy grilled salmon was.
Since life isn't (thank heavens!) black or white, all or nothing, I knew that I could take the lessons learned by the very low carb diet and apply them, using a slow (but fun)trial and error to introduce other healthy & satisfying foods to alter my diet as time progressed to see exactly what did/did not work for ME in terms of appetite suppression, weight control, and energy level over the long haul.
Would I have learned any of this if I had gone in (like I had in the past) with a closed mind and rigidly fixed idea of "this is how you MUST do it to lose weight healthily and keep it off"? I don't think so.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 05:58 pm |
|
Wow Suenos you weren't kidding! That sounds exactly like me now -I freeze a combination of greek yogurt, chocolate protein powder, cocoa, instant coffee and some Da Vinci syrup- sounds gross but tastes awesome. Haagen WHO?
JS : If you're going to use examples you left out Jorge Cruise, Fred Hahn, Robb Wolf, Mark Sisson, and Art Devany.
Anyways, posts like how this one started out seem like they're attempting to motivate the person to start losing weight. That's all well and good but anyone joining a diet forum would know the co-morbidities that come from being overweight.That's why we're here.
Last edited on 17 Jul 2011 06:30 pm by Tankgirl
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 06:41 pm |
|
JSABD wrote: The guidelines are flexible but they don't include a low carb scheme
Oh really? let's examine:
Guidelines: .5 grams of protein per pound of body weight. A lot of raw food. No processed food. Eat at your BMR and no less. Eat 6 or 7 times a day whether you want to or not.
hypothetical example (female,40,5'5",255lb) BMI 42.4 RMR 1828
target calories 1828
protein 255/2 = 127.5 grams (510 calories = 27.9% of calories)
remaining calories 1318 (72.1% of calories)
very low fat scheme:
10% fat
62.1% carb
27.9% protein
moderate fat scheme:
30% fat
42.1% carb
27.9% protein
42.1% carb = 770 calories = that can still be a massive amount of vegetables and beans (and some fruit) whilst still leaving a "moderate" amount of calories for fats.
(In fact those percentages also look a bit like "the zone")
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 06:55 pm |
|
PuffsPlus wrote:
As for intellectual snobbery, I dispute that assertion also. It's really a matter of credibility, not snobbery.
Credibility, of course, an issue that works both ways.
In an earlier post you mentioned meeting him on various websites, including Fat Acceptance hangouts, begging the question of whether you feel at home on those websites, whether it perhaps means you are a Fat Acceptance activist who is only visiting this forum as you follow your favourite poster on the interweb.
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 07:09 pm |
|
So, what's the verdict?
Does being overweight / obese have a detrimental effect on the brain? Does it lower a person's IQ?
There have been arguments for and against on this thread. I honestly don't know. I'm not an expert on psychology (or psychiatry, or neurology).
There are many intelligent obese people. But could their full potential be higher? Could it be that they'd be even more intelligent if they lost weight? There are some skinny people who struggle mentally. Could it be that they'd get even worse if they put weight on? That doesn't sound right to me, but I don't know.
Or has size of the body got no relation to intelligence?
Or what about the third option: could it be that there's a tiny (almost negligible) influence that obesity has on the brain, and it's so small that nobody would really notice any difference in the person's intelligence, except scientists/doctors who examine the brain in the smallest detail?
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 07:11 pm |
|
Nir wrote: Credibility, of course, an issue that works both ways.
In an earlier post you mentioned meeting him on various websites, including Fat Acceptance hangouts, begging the question of whether you feel at home on those websites, whether it perhaps means you are a Fat Acceptance activist who is only visiting this forum as you follow your favourite poster on the interweb.
I did indeed dabble in "fat acceptance". I hung out on a forum in 2003-2004 that was there to support big folks but that also didn't discourage dieting for health. That's where I first "met" Chris Brady/JSABD.
I am still pro fat-acceptance in that I don't think people should be judged, put down, or discriminated against for being fat.
Do I feel at home on fat-acceptance websites? No, not really. I actually donated money to Big Fat Blog and used to be a regular commenter there until Paul McAleer, the webmaster, started glorifying Sandy Szwarc's obesity denialism.
See http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/fake_experts/sandy_szwarc/
Like JSABD/Chris Brady, I was banned from the late lamented NAAFA message boards. What got me banned was strongly criticizing lawyer and author Paul Campos, another one of the NAAFA heroes.
And fat acceptance web sites typically ban all "diet talk", except to bash diets and dieting. As I am engaging in "diet talk" here, that argues I would not be "at home" on FA boards.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 07:12 pm |
|
ItsOnlyMe wrote: Does being overweight / obese have a detrimental effect on the brain? Does it lower a person's IQ?
Maybe.
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 07:18 pm |
|
In my opinion:
PuffsPlus is definitely not in the Fat Acceptance camp.
She talks about her nutrient ratios, her goals, etc. She intends to get down to the weight she was before. That is not fat acceptance.
And being nice to fat people is not fat acceptance.
If anyone denies that obesity is unhealthy, that is fat acceptance. If an obese person believes that they don't need to make changes, that is fat acceptance.
I don't think anybody on this thread is doing that.
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 07:47 pm |
|
JSABD wrote:
Guidelines: .5 grams of protein per pound of body weight. A lot of raw food. No processed food. Eat at your BMR and no less. Eat 6 or 7 times a day whether you want to or not.
I'm doing three of those five things:
1. My protein intake is about ?é?¢ gram per pound of bodyweight.
2. I eat a lot of raw food.
3. I don't eat processed food.
But I'm not doing the the next two:
4. Some days I eat at my bmr (or up to 100 cals higher), some days I eat less than my bmr. It's about 50/50.
5. I usually have five small meals, not six or seven.
But if, as you say, it's flexible, then my way of eating is very close to what you recommend. And it is working (even without numbers 4 and 5).Last edited on 17 Jul 2011 07:48 pm by ItsOnlyMe
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 08:08 pm |
|
That study took a group of nearly 100 fat an obese people and the fatter they were the smaller their brains were when compare to normal people.
DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS!
Many other studies show that fat people have lower IQs but none show they have higher IQ.
DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS!
The studies concluded that fat and obese people have smaller brains and lower IQs.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 10:19 pm |
|
One other thought about that:
Later versions of Atkins subtract fiber from total carbohydrates. So even then it's a massive amount of low starch vegetables.
Bottom line unless your on the Stillman diet ( and who is?) It's nearly impossible to overeat on leafy greens and low sugar/ carb vegetables.. and if you try you get a chance to catch up on your reading ! 
Nir, is that why you were playing video games in the loo? (just teasing) Last edited on 17 Jul 2011 10:20 pm by Tankgirl
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2011 06:10 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote: One other thought about that:
Later versions of Atkins subtract fiber from total carbohydrates. So even then it's a massive amount of low starch vegetables.
Bottom line unless your on the Stillman diet ( and who is?) It's nearly impossible to overeat on leafy greens and low sugar/ carb vegetables.. and if you try you get a chance to catch up on your reading !
It is really easy to overeat on fat laden foods like eggs and bacon and cheese. That is why Atkins devotees failed in the 70s and are failing now. Low carb is a formula for failure.
Atkins was 258 pounds when he died. The references to Atkins's medical history are contained in handwritten notations on one page of the ME's document--"MI" for myocardial infarction, "CHF" for congestive heart failure, and "HTN" for hypertension. The document, first reported on by The Wall Street Journal, also lists Atkins weight as 258 pounds.
Atkins was 6 feet tall. His BMI was 35. A BMI of 30 is obese.
Here is why South Beach is bad. http://www.dietwords.com/south_beach_diet.shtml
|
zenobia
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2011 06:21 pm |
|
my aunt lost 80 lbs on it and it has stayed off for years now. plus it helped her to quit drinking alcohol completely. not a drop since she started the diet.
besides, south beach is only really low carb for the first cycle. you reincorporate carbs into your diet for the next 2. and honestly, compared to how many, if not most americans eat, i'm sure this plan helps them get in a lot more veggies and lean meats rather than red meat, potatoes, gobs of butter, etc... or mcd's or whatever... i know when i was on it, i was eating really healthily and it worked for me. i just didn't follow the maintenance aspect of the deal. (i'm kicking myself over it now, too. i know)
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2011 07:22 pm |
|
What you said about overdoing it on calories, total agreement. In fact cheese is one of the most common problems low Carb newbies make ( too many nuts bieng the other one).
It seems low Carb is splitting into two camps. It's sad but standard low Carb seems to be sliding into HAES, Jimmy Moore being an example of this.
The other camp is the cave men, paleos and primals.
Bottom line, everyone on Atkins has a honeymoon period where it's the image of lots of fat. It doesn't last forever and you have to change it up-front either by switching to a stricter version like paleo, primal or in some cases "Atkins '72" or counting calories. On a personal note, tracking calories nearly eliminated pork shoulder, sausage, ground beef, mayonaise and ranch. Just wasn't worth the calories. Cheese is still around, just much smaller amounts
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2011 07:37 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote: It seems low Carb is splitting into two camps. It's sad but standard low Carb seems to be sliding into HAES, Jimmy Moore being an example of this.
I thought Jimmy Moore was still slender. I think he's getting a book published too.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Jul 2011 09:14 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote: What you said about overdoing it on calories, total agreement. In fact cheese is one of the most common problems low Carb newbies make ( too many nuts bieng the other one).
It seems low Carb is splitting into two camps. It's sad but standard low Carb seems to be sliding into HAES, Jimmy Moore being an example of this.
The other camp is the cave men, paleos and primals.
Bottom line, everyone on Atkins has a honeymoon period where it's the image of lots of fat. It doesn't last forever and you have to change it up-front either by switching to a stricter version like paleo, primal or in some cases "Atkins '72" or counting calories. On a personal note, tracking calories nearly eliminated pork shoulder, sausage, ground beef, mayonaise and ranch. Just wasn't worth the calories. Cheese is still around, just much smaller amounts
During induction that lose weight fast and feel good but then they hit the wall because they deplete their glycogen stores. They they crave carbs and they think they have carb cravings. The go back to the induction phase and end up in ketosis sooner. The body rebels again. They lose muscle and water. The brain can't function on ketones so the carb cravings return. They become slightly psychotic and even more carb phobic.
If they keep doing it they will get gall bladder disease. Atkins is a nightmare diet.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 01:37 pm |
|
here's the link finally- It's a whole series so worth reading through :
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/
For clarity's sake: What are carb cravings? I thought you said once cravings were an excuse.
And I know we've gone around this issue before but what's the harm in replacing grains with vegetables and losing the sugar? Some people just don't tolerate grains well,they aggravate my allergies. Ditching grains makes allergy season livable.
And before we go into that same old thermodynamics issue, the calorie limit is 1700 a day.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 02:12 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote: here's the link finally- It's a whole series so worth reading through :
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/
For clarity's sake: What are carb cravings? I thought you said once cravings were an excuse.
And I know we've gone around this issue before but what's the harm in replacing grains with vegetables and losing the sugar? Some people just don't tolerate grains well,they aggravate my allergies. Ditching grains makes allergy season livable.
And before we go into that same old thermodynamics issue, the calorie limit is 1700 a day.
A lot of the stuff I here about things like grains, milk, eggs and HFCS are IMO food politics. Humans did well on grains since before Biblical times but I do wonder if some of the bio engineered foods are not creating some health problems. Mostly though I think foods, even processed foods are unfairly scapegoated.
If American moved to Japan or China and ate those diets and didn't have access to American food they would have the same obesity rate as the Japanese of Chinese. Since we are not living there the simple and easy solution is to identify and avoid the foods that are making us fat and sickly. Why aren't people doing it? You know my thoughts. what are your thoughts?
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 02:30 pm |
|
JS I wish I knew. I can't answer for other people. My only guess is that they have no idea how good the alternative is. I understand what you're talking about when it comes to junk food.
This isn't a theory, just a suspicion. Have you notice how many people can't cook for themselves? It's unreal!I know you've said people can live on lean cuisine and lose weight but that's still really high in sodium and not much fiber. At the same theres all these cooking shows- no wonder you call it food porn since they'd normally do no more for themselves than make a sandwich. I'm not blaming any of this or using it as an excuse, but it just makes me wonder.
I'm a bit confused here can you explain? First you said that processed foods are unfairly scapegoated, then you want to identify and avoid the foods that are making us fat and sickly.What foods do you think are the cause?Last edited on 19 Jul 2011 02:31 pm by Tankgirl
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 07:11 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote: JS I wish I knew. I can't answer for other people. My only guess is that they have no idea how good the alternative is. I understand what you're talking about when it comes to junk food.
This isn't a theory, just a suspicion. Have you notice how many people can't cook for themselves? It's unreal!I know you've said people can live on lean cuisine and lose weight but that's still really high in sodium and not much fiber. At the same theres all these cooking shows- no wonder you call it food porn since they'd normally do no more for themselves than make a sandwich. I'm not blaming any of this or using it as an excuse, but it just makes me wonder.
I'm a bit confused here can you explain? First you said that processed foods are unfairly scapegoated, then you want to identify and avoid the foods that are making us fat and sickly.What foods do you think are the cause?
I know the reasons but when anyone says them they are called haters and worse.
Can't cook? Anyone can prepare healthy meals. They may not be a tasty as Rachel Ray's meals but fat people can cook. It goes back to won't. Why "slave" over a hot stove when you can call the pizza delivery guy and get wings, a gallon of pop and a double cheese pizza delivered to you?
Junk foods have the greatest potential for making us fat because they are "easy" foods. Can you eat a junk food diet and not be fat? Yes. I did when I was younger. My diet has improved and I am about the same weight as I was in my 20's. It is more difficult to get fat on wholesome food.
The cooking shows are indeed porn for fat people and what do people do who view porn? They never end up with the gorgeous porn actress. They end up with Rosie Palm and her 5 sisters and in the case of the people who watch Emeril LaGasse they get all revved up watching his show and then they grab a bag of chips and some dip and go hog wild.
|
suenos
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 07:43 pm |
|
JSABD wrote:
The cooking shows are indeed porn for fat people and what do people do who view porn? They never end up with the gorgeous porn actress. They end up with Rosie Palm and her 5 sisters and in the case of the people who watch Emeril LaGasse they get all revved up watching his show and then they grab a bag of chips and some dip and go hog wild.
Totally can't agree with that one. I pretty much learned how to cook through a combination of some really good cookbooks, foodie mags and yep, watching a ton of cooking shows. I'd rather watch the Food Network than just about anything. For me the challenge and fun is to watch Paula Dean (who never found a dish she couldn't incorporate a pound of butter into) and then figure out how to duplicate it with healthier ingredients. Some people, fat or thin or inbetween, just dislike cooking and that wouldn't work for them. But, I not only like cooking, I like preparing food and sharing food with others, I totally get excited about setting a nice dinner table several nights a week - not to mention holidays and birthdays and so on. I don't find eating healthy to be at all incompatible with getting (and giving) pleasure through food.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 08:24 pm |
|
suenos wrote: JSABD wrote:
The cooking shows are indeed porn for fat people and what do people do who view porn? They never end up with the gorgeous porn actress. They end up with Rosie Palm and her 5 sisters and in the case of the people who watch Emeril LaGasse they get all revved up watching his show and then they grab a bag of chips and some dip and go hog wild.
Totally can't agree with that one. I pretty much learned how to cook through a combination of some really good cookbooks, foodie mags and yep, watching a ton of cooking shows. I'd rather watch the Food Network than just about anything. For me the challenge and fun is to watch Paula Dean (who never found a dish she couldn't incorporate a pound of butter into) and then figure out how to duplicate it with healthier ingredients. Some people, fat or thin or inbetween, just dislike cooking and that wouldn't work for them. But, I not only like cooking, I like preparing food and sharing food with others, I totally get excited about setting a nice dinner table several nights a week - not to mention holidays and birthdays and so on. I don't find eating healthy to be at all incompatible with getting (and giving) pleasure through food.
I don't have a problem with that. I enjoy Thanksgiving and Easter dinners but when in becomes immoderate and an eat fest and when everyday is a a feast I find it vulgar. Paula Deen is an irresponsible vulgar woman but Rachel Ray is a hottie.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 08:38 pm |
|
suenos wrote: For me the challenge and fun is to watch Paula Dean (who never found a dish she couldn't incorporate a pound of butter into) and then figure out how to duplicate it with healthier ingredients.
Yeah, I've done that with some other full fat recipes too. Not Deen's though.
I said on another thread that Paula Deen is plump but she's not obese or morbidly obese. Maybe she eats her own cooking, but in moderate amounts.
Home cooking, even if you're cookin' with Paula or Emeril, beats eating out any time. At least you know exactly what is in the stuff you eat at home.
Agreed that if more fat people watched the Food Network and started cooking as a result, they'd probably lose weight.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 09:46 pm |
|
| Anyone here watch Alton Brown? he's got some great ideas, and even got me started on sardines when he did an episode on his own weight loss. Last edited on 19 Jul 2011 09:46 pm by Tankgirl
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 09:49 pm |
|
JSABD wrote: I don't have a problem with that. I enjoy Thanksgiving and Easter dinners but when in becomes immoderate and an eat fest and when everyday is a a feast I find it vulgar. Paula Deen is an irresponsible vulgar woman but Rachel Ray is a hottie.
I think that pic of Rachel Ray is vulgar, actually. She's letting her role as chef be sexualized AND she's eating fattening junk food (hot fudge sauce, it looks like).
Before you accuse me of envy, I'm not being envious. I think Rachel Ray is an attractive lady. I just don't like that particular pic of her.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 09:51 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote: Anyone here watch Alton Brown? he's got some great ideas, and even got me started on sardines when he did an episode on his own weight loss.
Sardines are an awesome health food. I just wish I could make myself like them more!
I'm not into fishy fish.
This brand is pretty good, though: http://www.amazon.com/Season-Brisling-Sardines-Olive-3-75-Ounce/dp/B000HDOP60/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8
Mash them up with a fork and stir in some mustard, and it tastes a bit like tuna salad.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011 09:58 pm |
|
I grill them in my air oven (from the equipment thread) until the skin gets crispy - my version of a fish stick.
I'm just the opposite, herring, sardines, mackerel love it, but tilapia or scallops - bleah. I must be part cat!
 Last edited on 20 Jul 2011 01:16 am by Tankgirl
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 01:08 am |
|
PuffsPlus wrote: JSABD wrote: I don't have a problem with that. I enjoy Thanksgiving and Easter dinners but when in becomes immoderate and an eat fest and when everyday is a a feast I find it vulgar. Paula Deen is an irresponsible vulgar woman but Rachel Ray is a hottie.
I think that pic of Rachel Ray is vulgar, actually. She's letting her role as chef be sexualized AND she's eating fattening junk food (hot fudge sauce, it looks like).
Before you accuse me of envy, I'm not being envious. I think Rachel Ray is an attractive lady. I just don't like that particular pic of her.
Wouldn't you want to have a body like that? You can.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 01:15 am |
|
| No thanks. Now Linda Hamilton in t2, or Swank in Million Dollar baby ,definitely!
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 01:48 am |
|
leishusheng wrote: Your assertion that it's not a possibility solely due to the fact that you have an obsession or fear of everything that's fat is incorrect. The random "fact" about what's going to happen to thousands of people (which in no way strengthens the argument against your issues, but once again shows your obsession with the matter)was unnecessarily placed. Not to to mention, your once again overgeneralized "statistics" on the horrors of fat people in the world in no way aides a defense against your obvious dispositions.
Did you know that if you become a shrink you are going to need to acquire and better command on the English language?
The impact of obesity is well documented. It is not a generalization to say that 400,000 Americans die prematurely because of their chosen dietary habits.
Do you know the difference between a generalization and a fact?
?óÔé¼?ó A 2009 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with RTI International (a nonprofit research group), found that the direct and indirect cost of obesity "is as high as $147 billion annually." The study was based on figures collected in 2006.
?óÔé¼?ó The study found that in 2006, obese patients spent an average of $1,429 more for their medical care than did people within a normal weight range. That is a 42 percent higher cost for people who are obese.
?óÔé¼?ó The CDC study found that Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers increased spending due to obesity from 6.5 percent in 1998 to 9.1 percent in 2006. The figure includes prescription drug costs.
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n10/full/oby2008351a.html
?é?á
For everyone who lacks the actual sense and would honestly attempt to use this in a defense, for future reference, ->URBAN DICTIONARY IS NOT A REAL DICTIONARY<- That's like going to someones university and citing wikipedia on a term paper, a big F is in your future. Open a standardized dictionary, if you find the word fattitude in it, I will gladly drop that as a case of your obvious bashing of these people and sheer ignorance.
I'm a psych major. I've been in it for a few years. Are you familiar with the DSM? I'll assume not. The DSM is basically a giant book and in some cases, a giant Database published by The American Psychiatric Association. In it you will find everything that has to do with neurological functions, terms, etc. In this database, which I have, you will not find fattitude, period. It wont even be listed under personality disorders. Why? Fattitude, no matter how you want to use it in your defense is not a word, or term that refers to any real standardized or clinically accepted term for disorder(s). So, whatever link on google you got that from, you might want to also reconsider that in the future.
Do you have your DSM IV-R handy? If so look this one up. 315.31
The DSM is always being updated and I suspect that fattitude will be in it. I took a few courses in psychology too. I probably had more courses than you have. Which one have you taken and while are at it name some of the neuro scientists you most admire.
I really hope you don't put a whole lot of stock in the shrink industry when it comes to obesity. They have not done too well so far. It might be because psychology isn't a scientist.
Next and finally, fat people are fat because of many reasons. They could stem from personal neglect, they could also stem from sickness, or even problems from a wide array of medical and neurological functioning. I'm not even going to spend a story each explaining them all. However, I will once again say, your issues lie in the things
Fat people are fat for one reason and one reason only. THEY EAT TOO MUCH!
I've already stated.
Also, your previous post, for any outside party that may be reading this, is a prime example of why you should not believe everything someone tells you. Even if they attempt to appear to be intellectuals. If you chose to embrace this mans entire post as actuality even with the "big picture" to spice up his post, then his ignorance and or lack of knowledge on all the things he addressed would become your ignorance. Seek the real answers, don't let googled answers seek them for you. That is all for today's lesson, sir.
I think you may want to choose another major. I hear travel and tourism is fun.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 09:03 am |
|
Tankgirl wrote: No thanks. Now Linda Hamilton in t2, or Swank in Million Dollar baby ,definitely!
Oh yeah. Iconic hardbodies. Jamie Lee Curtis in the 80s is another one.
Yet I do think there is a place in the "nice body" spectrum for women like Rachael Ray and Christina Hendricks. You can have a less muscled look yet still have a nice body, IMHO. I do think that Ray's bod looks nice in the photo JSABD posted.
Could I ever have a bod like Ray's? Alas, no. Not without surgery, anyhow. I have stretchmarks and might need some reconstructive lifts when I get down to "slightly overweight" (my personal goal).
Also, I'm not built as an hourglass. Built more like a fireplug. Small boobs, wide waist, big hips.
Last edited on 20 Jul 2011 09:09 am by PuffsPlus
|
angelica
New Member
| Joined: | 19 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 09:49 am |
|
just a sort of advice, fat is not ugly, its how you carry yourself in the outside world, as they say, if you have it, flaunt it, if you dont, better hide it. cheers
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 11:46 am |
|
JSABD, the post of 'leishusheng' you were replying to was a word-for-word copy of one from TheVonSays on the previous page, except for the spam link inserted bang into the middle of it. As it was the exact the same text you already replied to, I'm surprised you did not recognise it  SPAMMER HAS BEEN REMOVED
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 12:06 pm |
|
Puff's it's a few little issues of my own:
I've always had a tomboy side to me and the more weight I lose the more I seem to be reverting back to it. I have a few issues with conventional beauty and if that were the only benefit to losing weight, it would have never worked.It's a protection thing, if I can't be fat and invisible( because it's deadly), I'd prefer to be scary strong for self- protection. Lets face it, who would be more likely to get mugged - someone that looks like the Olsen twins or someone that looks like Grace Jones? This is something I don't think Js , Chris whoever will never understand- that some women have no use for looking "hot".
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 04:16 pm |
|
PuffsPlus wrote: Tankgirl wrote: No thanks. Now Linda Hamilton in t2, or Swank in Million Dollar baby ,definitely!
Oh yeah. Iconic hardbodies. Jamie Lee Curtis in the 80s is another one.
Yet I do think there is a place in the "nice body" spectrum for women like Rachael Ray and Christina Hendricks. You can have a less muscled look yet still have a nice body, IMHO. I do think that Ray's bod looks nice in the photo JSABD posted.
Could I ever have a bod like Ray's? Alas, no. Not without surgery, anyhow. I have stretchmarks and might need some reconstructive lifts when I get down to "slightly overweight" (my personal goal).
Also, I'm not built as an hourglass. Built more like a fireplug. Small boobs, wide waist, big hips.
Now you are talking realistically. There are body shape based on genetics and they all look good to me as long as they are not overweight. I have a few preferences. I like the J-Lo look and a the Audry Hepburn look.
In today's obesity normalized world everyone would be screaming eating disorder. Gorgeous women like Calista Flockhart, Ana Kournikova and Victoria Beckham get accused of have an ED or being dangerously underweight. BUT... Michael Jackson really was dangerously underweight and nobody said anything. This brings me to the jealous fat girl syndrome. The criticisms of these slender women are not out of concern for their health whereas Michael Jackson's weight should have been talked about it but the media slime like Nancy Grace merely lied and destroyed this sensitive and loving gentleman.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 20 Jul 2011 05:29 pm |
|
Maybe that's because both Audrey and Callista have admitted to eating disorders?
Am I a jealous fat girl? Uh not of either one of them. Now if you're driving past me with a kayak or load of camping gear while I'm going to work, then yes.
|
Current time is 09:25 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
