Posted on 03/16/2003 1:57:19 PM PST by Pharmboy
And thanks for the cookbook tip. I'm about to embark on another Atkins diet (after St. Pat's naturally.)
I dropped 15lbs last time, and have largely kept it off though I cheat constantly.
Time to knock some more off.
Try http://www.bodyforlife.com for the whole package. Proper food and exercise. A guy I work with went on this and lost 32 pounds in 3 months! He now looks like he is in shape.
As the Japanese eat more Western food, they are getting fatter. Asia Times (don't have a link, sorry) just had an article on obesity among children in Asia. You're right - they're not getting obese on rice, seaweed, fish, and pickles.
Agreed as well that the Middle Easterners, with their beans / pita bread / chickpeas / olive oil diets aren't terribly fat either. There are some things to consider:
First, it's not just "carbohydrates bad, meat good." Carbohydrates have widely varying glycemic indexes (i.e. how fast your body produces insulin in response.) The more refined a food, generally the higher the GI. Beans (like chickpeas, red beans, white beans) are generally way lower GI than a Ding Dong.
Also, a lot of people in the Middle East work far harder physically than people here. It's a combination of factors; a lot of sweet, starchy, fatty junk food combined with sedentary lifestyles. Someone earlier made the comment that one of the major reasons Atkins may work is because people ideally aren't eating junk food on it.
Personally, I haven't done Atkins because I need the daily carbohydrates. I'm just very careful to eat lower-glycemic carbs at one meal only, and really avoid the sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
And you responded, Not to be mean, but this statement is utter nonsense.
And then you agreed with me by saying, "You can consume many more calories than the body utilizes as your body can only absorb so many calories at one time”.
I had not explained all aspects of the fact that consuming more calories than burned results in weight gain. The key word there for you to consider is the word burned, expended, spent, or exhausted. The burning of the calories is used to create energy. The calories that a person consumes that the body does not need for energy the body converts to fat.
Are not a steak and a salad a low carb/low sugar diet?
And you're a guy, yes?
Untrue. Different foods have different effects on hormone levels, which strongly affect metabolic rates, fat deposition, etc. For a carbohydrate-senstive person, 1000 calories of carbs is a LOT more fat-promoting than 1000 calories of protein or even fat.
I realize this sounds totally counterintuitive -- it just SEEMS like eating fat should make you fat, and eating more calories should make you fat -- but when you dig into the science (or, learn the hard way as I did) you'll discover that it just isn't true.
Since a vegan or even just a vegetarian-emphasis diet is necessarily high in carbs, carb sensitive people have little choice but to live on a heavily animal diet - as many of their ancestors did for countless centuries.
Actually, muscles can also burn fat directly. It takes a few weeks of consistent low carb/hi fat before the metabolic switch fully takes place, but when the fat burning enzymes do switch on, it feels great. Much less post workout soreness.
No, actually, I'm FROM Alaska. We live in Minnesota now, for the last 11 years. I left Alaska for the last time in 1988. Lived there for 30 years, all together.
Price made it to Valdez, but I don't know if he studied any of the people there. The Native populations around there are mostly Aleut. ("Alley-oot.") I discovered Price about 2 years ago. For what it might be worth, in 1995, I was killing myself with a sugar/starch-heavy diet that had been my norm for all my life. Since that time, I have literally reversed every single symptom and problem by doing NOTHING but changing my diet. Changing back to a natural, nutrient-dense diet and removing sugars, starches, and refined foods from my diet saved my life.
Me too!
As a kid, studying human origins -- not just for school but as a hobby -- I was perplexed that ~90% of my peers wouldn't have made it a few centuries ago, and couldn't find an evolutionary explanation. Why did I and a few others have straight teeth, 20/20 vision, etc, and the rest mostly didn't? How could the gene pool deteriorate that quickly after the relaxation of selection? It didn't make sense. THEN... at age 12.. I stumbled upon Nutrition & Physical Degeneration in a healthfood store. I never forgot what I saw (1 picture is worth 1000 words). There was the answer to the mystery: our modern physicial degeneration was nutritional, and reversible.
Of course, nobody else wanted to hear it. Dentists, in particular, are taught in dental school that malocclusion is 'genetic', and the idea of preventing that (or any other structural defect) by "primitive" prenatal nutrition was alien to them. In fact, people in general just gave me a blank look if I tried to talk about it, so I mostly stopped, and for many years I carried this knowledge around with me, alone -- through school, college, gradschool (Ph.D. in chemistry), and out into the working world. But at least I ate well, even if nobody else around me did.
Then one fine day, at age 37, I idly threw the name "Weston Price" into a search engine and found the Weston A Price foundation, which happened to have a local chapter. After my first meeting, I told them all, "I waited 25 years to have these conversations!"
A raw-milk toast to both of you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.