Forum Search
Keywords
Which Diet?
In Forum
By Member
Exact Match
1 to 20 of 100
What a Paleo Diet Really Looked Like
And of course... one of many responses: http://robbwolf.com/2013/04/04...
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
Thermodynamics? Not really...
Been a while since I've been here... glad to see the level of discourse has improved by several orders of magnitude!
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
[quote=Spacey47] If some Muppet thinks eating rubbish food but at a low calorie is going to be good for them long term that's their look out and not my job to educate them [/quote] Diablo360x meet Spacey47, Spacey47 meet Diablo360x.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
[quote=Spacey47][quote=mikefar... like Mark Sisson explains in his book The Primal Blueprint... as the 80/20 rule. You're eating a Primal diet.[/quote] Yeah I know I have read it , posted on his site etc As a way to eat its fine, but his whole fat burning spiel is nonsense I eat loads of carbs and enjoy them[/quote] I'm glad you mentioned this. I just want to make this one point and then I'm outta here. You've read The Primal Blueprint. You know that 1. Animal fat is healthy 2. Animal protein is healthy 3. Vegetable oils are unhealthy 4. Processed grains are not healthy 5. Prefer heavy weights over chronic-cardio 6. Reduce stress and improve sleep to improve your health/metabolism You take your wealth of knowledge for granted when you simply say calories are king. When you say calories are king what people here is that they need to stop supersizing 3x a week. They don't hear that they should stop eating McDonalds everyday. When you say calories are king what people here is that they should cut out as much fat as possible because we all know fat has 9kcals/gram which is more than carbs or protein. They don't hear that fat is healthy and satiating and should be a part of ones diet. When you say calories are king people hear they should drink diet soda at each meal instead of regular soda. They don't hear that they should strive for more water and less artificial garbage. When you say everything in moderation each person hears what they want to hear. Why would anyone eat a moderate amount of margarine when butter is completely healthy? Do you get my point? I agree that a low-carb diet isn't a long-term solution for weight loss for most. However a low-carb diet isn't harmful and it can have certain therapeutic effects on the body. For example research is now showing that ketogenic diet has beneficial improvements with both epilepsy and Alzheimer's. And those are just the beneficial effects that we know of. Why bash people for doing something that is working for them? You have a wealth of knowledge that you deny people because you take this knowledge for granted. People don't know what it means to eat healthy, you do. I apologize for egging you on but I don't think you realize what people believe a healthy diet consists of. Kashi breakfast cereal with lowfat milk is not a health promoting breakfast; Chicken McNuggets, frys, and a diet coke is not a healthy lunch; and pasta in a low fat sauce is not a healthy dinner. If the above is your typical diet then simply reducing calories will not yield long-term success. Preach whole natural foods, then preach low-calorie. As you said, fix your diet first if you want to lose more weight.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
Just like Mark Sisson explains in his book The Primal Blueprint... as the 80/20 rule. You're eating a Primal diet.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
Spacey47, I was taking a look at your food log (Thanks for not hiding it btw) and do you realize that your diet is basically a paleo/primal diet?
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
[quote=ClassicRocker] Aw Jeez Space... you didn't need to say that. I'm an old broad and have been around for a long time. Humility and acceptance of others way of life and thinking is a bonus in life. We can't all be right and none of us walk on water.[/quote] It's hard for those who can't, or won't, see the forest for the trees.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
Spacey47, You're kind of getting it! I don't follow Anthony Colpo but he is anti-vegetable oil which is one of my big 'things'. http://anthonycolpo.com/austra... And at the end of the above article he says this: "For those of you who rely on so-called health ‘authorities’ for accurate and impartial diet information based on valid science, it’s time to acknowledge this information may be nowhere near as impartial as you’ve been led to believe, and may have far more to do with vested financial arrangements than good science." That is pretty much what I've been trying to say with my comments.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
[quote=Diablo360x] No my friend, bro-science is eating frequently to boost metabolism, no eating after 8pm, no fasting because it causes starvation mode, no simple sugars because they go directly into fat stores, etc,. A calorie deficit in able to lose fat is NOT broscience. It is scientific FACT.[/quote] I agree with all of this. Why is it that you or Spacey47 can't grasp what I'm saying?
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
Diablo360x, Why'd you have to bring your bro-science links into this? Your prior link was much more intelligent.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
[quote=Diablo360x] http://examine.com/faq/what-sh... "Independent of the macro composition of your diet, a net negative energy balance (consuming less calories than your body needs) is alone responsible for weight loss" [/quote] Diablo360x, Thank you for finally posting something related to the initial intent of the thread! I think Spacey47 was having a hard time finding more ways to say nothing. This brings me back to my main point that I initially posted with my reference to the NYT article entitled The Fat Trap. The vast majority of diets fail. Not because counting calories didn't led to initial weight loss but because metabolic changes occurred in the dieter that lead the dieter to have an altered/deranged metabolism. Or to quote the conclusion of reference #13 from the examine.com web site: [quote]Without active ongoing dietary advice, adherence to dietary intervention is poor.[/quote] Counting calories doesn't teach healthy eating. Furthermore, as you show with the examine.com listing of studies, there are plenty of studies that show that, as Spacey47 said, "Anyone can find some bs study to support some pathetic theory". Most of these studies are not long term and only two of the studies meet Spacey47's high standard of a metabolic ward. Those studies are interesting. The first has the following conclusion: [quote]"In a small group of obese patients with type 2 diabetes, a low-carbohydrate diet followed for 2 weeks resulted in [b]spontaneous reduction in energy intake [/b]to a level appropriate to their height; weight loss that was completely accounted for by reduced caloric intake; much improved 24-hour blood glucose profiles, insulin sensitivity, and hemoglobin A1c; and decreased plasma triglyceride and cholesterol levels."[/quote] The second, an over feeding trail, states the following: [quote]"Resting energy expenditure, total energy expenditure, and body protein did not increase during overfeeding with the low protein diet. In contrast, [b]resting energy expenditure [/b]and body protein (lean body mass) [b]increased significantly [/b]with the normal and high protein diets."[/quote] So the composition of the content of their diet changed their resting energy expenditure rate. There is no mention in the abstract if they measured satiety levels of the participants. Were the high protein dieters 'stuffing' themselves while the low protein dieters still hungry on an isocaloric diet? Any post study follow up of the dieters? Which leads to the second point that I made earlier in my initial comment that the many of these studies are flawed with bias and ulterior motives. The underbelly of much of this research riddled with problems. [url=http://www.theatlantic.co... Damned Lies, and Medical Science[/url] As CJT1217 said "What's more important is finding something that works for one's self."
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
Yes, you win. All of those double-blind metabolic ward controlled trials you posted really crushed my will to go on. Spacey47, you've got nothing but hot air. Now have a nice piece of humble pie. It's low calorie, I promise!
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
[quote=Spacey47]Lead by example that's what I do. I yoyo"d weight for 20+ years because at times I simply ate more calories than I burnt A year ago I thought enough is enough, 42lbs later 6 months ago after counting calories I am at and have sustained this loss,. Waist from 37+ to 30 inches, 10% BF fitter and leaner than I have been in nearly 30 years [/quote][img]http://www.troll....
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
You kill me Spacey47! You put up a post claiming to only discuss science and then when presented with some research all you can do is belittle and berate? You're hilarious bud! I'm the only one who has linked to any research yet I'm the troll?
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
Spacey47, you are in violation of rule 6. Please remove your post.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
Ouch, your science is hurting me!
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
[quote=Spacey47] answer my questions and then I will answer yours [/quote] I have much less time (and desire) these days for commenting on this board (I'm sure to the delight of many!). Spacey47, I'm not sure what what question you want me to answer as your punctuation is a bit erratic. I'm guessing you want me to answer how I know that people here ignore you? Well considering that the [url=http://www.fatsecret.com/... Graph here on fat secret[/url] shows the Atkins diet, that advocates against calorie counting, above all others as being the most successful 'based on FatSecret member weigh ins' I can't imagine everyone here pays homage to your superior intellect and charming personality. In addition, all the PMs I've received that validates the data. Many people here simply use the tools and merely lurk on the forms. I'm very happy for kingkeld's impressive weight-loss and I follow his journal from time-to-time but there are others here on FS that have equally impressive weight-loss success on other types of diets such as bflegg, PeeFat. I'm sure there are many others. It is funny that you name this thread "Rational & Scientific" but I see very little science being referenced. I see some bro-science articles & blog posts but that's about it. If you want science then how about a discussion of the[url=http://nutrition.stanf... A to Z weight loss study[/url]? [quote]Over 300 free-living pre-menopausal, overweight women were randomly assigned to follow either the Atkins (extremely low carbohydrate), Zone (low-carbohydrate, high protein), Ornish (very low fat), or USDA/Food LEARN (high carbohydrate/moderate-low fat) diet for 1 year. At the completion of the study, the women assigned to follow the Atkins diet lost more weight (~10 pounds average weight lost in 1 year) and also experienced metabolic effects that were comparable with or more beneficial than the other participants.[/quote] How about [url=http://childrenshospital.... study [/url]showing that energy expenditure differences between 3 isocaloric diets. Low-fat, low–glycemic index, and low-carb. How about [url=http://ajcn.nutrition.org... study[/url] showing the satiety improvements with a ketogenic diet? How about [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g... study [/url]showing the satiety index of certain foods, with the humble potato being on top. Spacey47, really the great irony of your rabid advocacy of calorie counting is that you, yourself, on the first page of this very long post, give someone advice that is antithetical to calorie counting. You say, and I quote: [quote]You can't out train a bad diet fix the food first if you want to lose more weight[/quote] You could have told her that she was being a glutton and eating too many calories but your primary advice was to fix her diet before anything else. Elsewhere in this thread you mention how you try to eat healthy most of the time. You don't even see the fact that you know deep down that it isn't primarily about calories.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
[quote=Spacey47] People like you just love to COMPLICATE things make it seem like its OUT OF PEOPLES CONTROL, well It doesn't have to be. On basic level its actually QUITE SIMPLE and some people would rather a straightforward approach than read pages of your self absorbed diatribe[/quote] And what do you tell people that have tried and failed with your advice?
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
The rational and scientific weight loss discussion thread
From the NYT Article "[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2... Fat Trap[/url]" [quote]Anyone who has ever dieted knows that lost pounds often return, and most of us assume the reason is a lack of discipline or a failure of willpower. But Proietto suspected that there was more to it, and he decided to take a closer look at the biological state of the body after weight loss. Beginning in 2009, he and his team recruited 50 obese men and women. The men weighed an average of 233 pounds; the women weighed about 200 pounds. Although some people dropped out of the study, most of the patients stuck with the extreme low-calorie diet, which consisted of special shakes called Optifast and two cups of low-starch vegetables, totaling just 500 to 550 calories a day for eight weeks. Ten weeks in, the dieters lost an average of 30 pounds. At that point, the 34 patients who remained stopped dieting and began working to maintain the new lower weight. Nutritionists counseled them in person and by phone, promoting regular exercise and urging them to eat more vegetables and less fat. But despite the effort, they slowly began to put on weight. After a year, the patients already had regained an average of 11 of the pounds they struggled so hard to lose. They also reported feeling far more hungry and preoccupied with food than before they lost the weight. While researchers have known for decades that the body undergoes various [b]metabolic and hormonal changes[/b] while it’s losing weight, the Australian team detected something new. A full year after significant weight loss, these men and women remained in what could be described as [b]a biologically altered state[/b]. Their still-plump bodies were acting as if they were starving and were working overtime to regain the pounds they lost. For instance, a gastric hormone called ghrelin, often dubbed the “hunger hormone,” was [b]about 20 percent higher than at the start of the study[/b]. Another hormone associated with suppressing hunger, peptide YY, was also abnormally low. [b]Levels of leptin, a hormone that suppresses hunger and increases metabolism, also remained lower than expected.[/b] A cocktail of other hormones associated with hunger and [b]metabolism all remained significantly changed compared to pre-dieting levels.[/b] It was almost as if weight loss had put their bodies into a unique metabolic state, a sort of post-dieting syndrome that set them apart from people who hadn’t tried to lose weight in the first place. “What we see here is a coordinated defense mechanism with multiple components all directed toward making us put on weight,” Proietto says. “This, I think, explains the high failure rate in obesity treatment.” While the findings from Proietto and colleagues, published this fall in The New England Journal of Medicine, are not conclusive — the study was small and the findings need to be replicated — the research has nonetheless caused a stir in the weight-loss community, [b]adding to a growing body of evidence that challenges conventional thinking about obesity, weight loss and willpower[/b]. For years, the advice to the overweight and obese has been that we simply need to [b]eat less and exercise more[/b]. While there is truth to this guidance, it fails to take into account that the human body continues to fight against weight loss long after dieting has stopped. This translates into a sobering reality: once we become fat, most of us, despite our best efforts, will probably stay fat. [/quote] On a macro scale calorie counting is a failure. [url=http://www.fatsecret.com/... commented about the failure of calorie counting on a national level before.[/url] Spacy47, nothing you've posted is convincing, your small mind is stuck, incapable of being wrong... you have no idea how many people here ignore you. Yes, over eating leads to weight gain... but what leads to over eating? To find the right answers you need to ask the right questions. If "Problem X" leads to over eating and over eating leads to weight gain what happens when we don't fix "Problem X" but we force our bodies to not over eat? Just as described in the Fat Trap article you lose weight for a while and then eventually put it back on because the problem was never fixed. Also, browbeating people over the head with 'scientific studies' is a pretty inane thing to do since the vast majority of research is horribly tainted with bias and ulterior motives. [url=http://www.huffingtonpost... Being Human Messes Up Medical Research[/url] [quote]And, as Ben Goldacre eloquently describes in his TEDTalk, that happens all the time. Half of all clinical trials don't get published, he says -- and ones with "positive findings" (the ones that show something does something) are twice as likely to get published. So when I'm using evidence to make my medical decisions, well, I'm missing a whole bunch of it.[/quote] [url=http://www.theatlantic.co... Damned Lies, and Medical Science[/url] [quote]But beyond the headlines, Ioannidis was shocked at the range and reach of the reversals he was seeing in everyday medical research. “Randomized controlled trials,” which compare how one group responds to a treatment against how an identical group fares without the treatment, had long been considered nearly unshakable evidence, but they, too, ended up being wrong some of the time. “I realized even our gold-standard research had a lot of problems,” he says. Baffled, he started looking for the specific ways in which studies were going wrong. And before long he discovered that the range of errors being committed was astonishing: from what questions researchers posed, to how they set up the studies, to which patients they recruited for the studies, to which measurements they took, to how they analyzed the data, to how they presented their results, to how particular studies came to be published in medical journals.[/quote] [url=http://garytaubes.com/201... Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat[/url] [quote]Back in 2007 when I first published Good Calories, Bad Calories I also wrote a cover story in the New York Times Magazine on the problems with observational epidemiology. The article was called “Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?” and I made the argument that even the better epidemiologists in the world consider this stuff closer to a pseudoscience than a real science. I used as a case study the researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, led by Walter Willett, who runs the Nurses’ Health Study. In doing so, I wanted to point out one of the main reasons why nutritionists and public health authorities have gone off the rails in their advice about what constitutes a healthy diet. The article itself pointed out that [b]every time in the past that these researchers had claimed that an association observed in their observational trials was a causal relationship, and that causal relationship had then been tested in experiment, the experiment had failed to confirm the causal interpretation — i.e., the folks from Harvard got it wrong. Not most times, but every time. No exception. Their batting average circa 2007, at least, was .000.[/b][/quote] Putting "science" on a pedestal over peoples individual trial and errors is pointless and psychologically destructive to people with deranged metabolisms. On a public educational level nutritional "Science" is a fraud. -Saturated fat is not bad -Cholesterol is not bad -Eggs are not bad -Red meat is not bad It is these 'pearls of wisdom' that cause people to turn away from these natural and wholesome foods their bodies need to be healthy and instead consume low-fat, low-sugar, low-cholesterol, processed garbage that damages their bodies. Then when they finally give up trying to eat "healthy" they really go in and eat all the garbage that does even more damage, fried food, cheap refined food, etc. Live in your calorie counting bubble all you want but know that there are plenty of us here that have moved on from that failed paradigm.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
Vegan Diet
The only advice I'd hand out for helping to maintain a vegan diet is this: http://rawfoodsos.com/for-vega... [quote]1.Eat real food—no fake meats, processed soy products, vegan junk food, etc. 2.Avoid high omega-6 vegetable oils and take a vegan DHA supplement. 3.Supplement with vitamin K2. 4.Supplement with a vegan form of vitamin D3. 5.Enhance your beta carotene absorption and conversion. 6.Properly prepare any grains, legumes, or nuts you eat. 7.Maximize iron absorption using vitamin-C-rich foods. 8.Keep your thyroid in good shape. 9.Take vitamin B12. 10.Try going gluten-free. 11.Eat some fermented foods. 12.Supplement with taurine. 13.Consider adding oysters or other non-sentient bivalves to your diet. [/quote] Follow the link above for the specifics.
by mikefarinha (submitted a year ago)
1   2   3   4   5   Next

Latest Posts

Buddies Needed for Low Carb Weight Loss
Oh, Valerie- it sounds like you've found the magic formula and you 're having fun with it. Good for you, girl!
by MsEvansInCA on 28 Dec 14 05:42 PM
2014 Fatsecret Lessons learned
Thanks Bill!!! - this website and all members have been a wealth of information! !!!!!
by pwrestlephoto on 28 Dec 14 04:21 PM
weigh-in glitch
Thank you so much! That worked. wonderful...
by kimberly rae on 27 Dec 14 10:53 PM
need a buddy
I need a Buddy too. I am 169 now trying to get down to 125. Feel free to add me. Cassy
by FranMom on 27 Dec 14 08:39 PM
weigh-in glitch
I just wonder if administration could fix the glitch that isn't recording my weigh-ins on my challenges. Is anyone else having this issue?
by kimberly rae on 27 Dec 14 06:04 PM
Where is everyone from?
I live in Ontario Canada, I lost some weight last year with some support from fatsecret, but I stopped before hitting my goal. I am now back for more; I hope I can stick to it like I did last Spring! ...
by hrobert on 27 Dec 14 12:20 PM

Member Tip

average member ranking
by member LWBB
Measure and track. Measure and track. Yeah, I know you aren't supposed to have to do that with Atkins, but if you don't you will never get anywhere. And if you're like me, your overall app ...
06 Nov 14 for diet Atkins