Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Meat industry sponsored study backs high-protein diet

By enterfornone in Science
Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 07:46:28 PM EST
Tags: Food (all tags)
Food

According to this article in Herald Sun, a study funded by meat marketing group Meat and Livestock Australia shows that "high-protein diets favoured by the Hollywood celebrity set" are more effective than high-carb diets.

However the study is quite clearly flawed, as this article will show.


This NineMSN article gives an example of the two diets studied. These examples show the obvious flaws in the study.

Both of the diets in the study are portion controlled diets - diets that work by limiting the amount of food you eat. Both of these diets are likely to work if you are able to stick to them, however most people are unable to limit the amount of food they eat for an extended period. As such, high-protein and high-carb diets were developed which allow you to eat unlimited amounts of certain foods while avoiding or limiting others.

The "high-protien" diet studied in no way resembles high-protein diets advocated by the likes of Dr Robert Atkins. The Atkins diet allows unlimited amounts of protein and fat, while limiting carbs to less than 20 grams.

The "high-carb" diet studied in no way resembles high-carb diets advocated by the likes of Dr John McDougall. The McDougall diet allows unlimited vegetables and whole grain cereals, while limiting fat, protein and simple carbs like sugar and processed grains.

The main difference between the two diets in the study is that the meat and yogurt in the "high-protein" diet are replaced with rice, pasta and biscuits in the "high-carb" diet - all foods which are avoided on the McDougall diet. It also needs to be noted that the fat levels on both diets are identical, while high-protein diets usually contain far greater levels of fat than standard diets and high-carb diets contain much less. It would appear that the researchers have deliberately compared a healthy "high-protein" diet to an unhealthy "high-carb" diet.

Additionally the 12 week period is far too short a period to assess the effectiveness of any weight loss plan.

The fact that the people in the high-protein group lost 3kg more weight on average is easily explained. Carbohydrates are stored in the body along with water. Reducing the amount of carbs in your diet will quickly reduce the amount of water your body needs to retain, hence the rapid weight loss experienced in the early stages of a high-protein diet.

But while they may cause some short term weight loss, high-protein diets can lead to a number of problems including kidney disease and osteoporosis. Additionally, as high-protein diets are typically high in cholesterol and saturated fat from meat and dairy products they greatly increase the risk of developing heart disease.

The meat industry would love to convince you that diets high in their product are healthy. But the truth is that high-protein diets pose considerable dangers and their long term effectiveness still has not been shown.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o this article in Herald Sun
o Meat and Livestock Australia
o NineMSN article
o Dr Robert Atkins
o Atkins diet
o Dr John McDougall
o McDougall diet
o problems
o Also by enterfornone


Display: Sort:
Meat industry sponsored study backs high-protein diet | 189 comments (134 topical, 55 editorial, 0 hidden)
But these pale in comparison with... (4.18 / 11) (#1)
by by on on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 02:29:03 AM EST

the "What's In The Fridge" Diet(TM). I haven't died of it yet.

Don't forget (none / 0) (#177)
by Verminator on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 08:56:47 PM EST

The "What's on the menu?" diet for those of us who don't have a stocked refidgerator.
If the whole country is gonna play 'Behind The Iron Curtain,' there better be some fine fucking state s
[ Parent ]
On Other News (2.50 / 2) (#6)
by tmenezes on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 06:01:08 AM EST

Liqueur industrials reveal study that shows the health benifits of drinking every day.

I believe the cited benefits (none / 0) (#78)
by Subtillus on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 01:21:02 PM EST

included an overall feeling of elation and contentedment; Difficult mornings and frequent urination, also public nudity.

[ Parent ]
My exclusive dieting advice, revealed here!!!!!!! (3.20 / 5) (#9)
by starsky on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 07:56:38 AM EST

Consume less calories than you use.

Yes Virginia, oversimplification is a fallacy (nt) (2.80 / 5) (#12)
by Josh A on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 08:17:52 AM EST


---
Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


[ Parent ]
That's no oversimplification (4.20 / 5) (#16)
by DominantParadigm on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 08:39:25 AM EST

That's a fact, jack. No matter how you try to twist his words.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
It IS an oversimplification (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Rogerborg on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:58:55 AM EST

Because diet should be a noun, not a verb.

Feel free to prove me wrong by eating less than you use every day for the rest of your (truncated) life.

The dissembling may now commence.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

My ass (none / 0) (#42)
by starsky on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:01:01 AM EST

Whilst dieting, consume less calories than use. When you have dieted, do wtf you want. Apologies for using the standard and well known meaning of dieting as 'attempting to lose weight'.

[ Parent ]
OK, but my point remains (none / 0) (#43)
by Rogerborg on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:04:25 AM EST

In that thinking of diet as a verb is a self fulfilling prophecy.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

What phrase would you prefer? (4.00 / 1) (#44)
by DominantParadigm on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:09:13 AM EST

"Lowering the body fat index" isn't quite as zippy as the word dieting, and also doesn't have exactly the same meaning. Why do you seek to change the English language? Are us mere proletariat incapable of picking and choosing symbols?

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Bullshit. (none / 0) (#48)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:16:30 AM EST

Do that and watch yourself die of malnutrition as you lose muscle mass, strength, endurance and mental acuity.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
You don't seem to understand (none / 0) (#50)
by DominantParadigm on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:34:01 AM EST

You use up energy, you consume energy. The energy is stored in something that has mass. I don't know how that energy is stored, but obviously at least fat and muscle have it ready to be tapped when needed.

Noone said "You should use up your muscle(or cartilage, or bone, or whatever the fuck you imagine they said) mass," which appears to be how you misread it.



Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
I think (none / 0) (#61)
by starsky on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 11:48:21 AM EST

someone used up all of their brain mass on their diet.

[ Parent ]
You don't seem to understand (none / 0) (#82)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 01:42:43 PM EST

That biology is a bit more complex than a one variable equation.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
You don't seem to understand (1.00 / 1) (#128)
by starsky on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 07:02:48 AM EST

that being a pedant and trying to prove how clever you are isn't impressing anyone, nerdboy.

[ Parent ]
He has a point. (none / 0) (#133)
by sllort on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 10:43:39 AM EST

Try living on rice and before you die of scurvy, write us all a post about how eating less calories than you expend is the key to nutrition.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
aaaaaaaaaargghhh (none / 0) (#155)
by starsky on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 07:18:49 AM EST

It isn't the key to nutrition, but it *is* the key to losing weight. No-one is saying you should eat less than you use for the rest of your life. Further more, you dicks are taking some ludicrous exageration of 'less calories' as 'eating nothing but rice' when I could quite as easily (and did) meant 'a balanced diet'.

For fucks sake.

[ Parent ]

Balanced Diet (none / 0) (#171)
by sllort on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 04:24:46 PM EST

But which balanced diet? That was the topic of the article.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]
Actually, (4.00 / 2) (#79)
by Subtillus on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 01:27:52 PM EST

By limiting one's caloric expenditures, not to the point of starvation, obviously, over the course of one's life, one benifits in a number of ways.

If one doesn't eat until satiation every time one is hungry, but merely eats enough to draw sustenance and energy for the day, enough to keep you going, fit and healthy there is a reduction in overall metabolism. So what? A reduction in metabolism leads to a reduction in net oxidative metabolism. A reduction in oxidative metabolism leads to a reduction in oxidized intermediates in metabolism, notably, semi-quinone intermediates in the e.t.c.

This is one of the major players in oxidative damage to cells, their genetic material, their membranes, you name it.

Translation: Eat less = age less. eat more = die faster.

Also, the fact that eating a lot makes you fat and ugly figures in somewhere but I couldn't find the link.

[ Parent ]

Oversimplification. (none / 0) (#90)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 02:42:36 PM EST

The reduced calorie studies that showed rats got longer lifespans also showed that the same rats had slower metabolisms, slower performance and were less active than normal rats.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
And even earlier... (none / 0) (#145)
by cdyer on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 09:27:24 PM EST

A similar study done by St. Athanasius on the Egyptian ascetic monk St. Antony showed Antony living to the ripe old age of 104 years. Side effects of the diet included fistfights with demons.

Cheers,
Cliff



[ Parent ]
Girls Need Hot Beef (4.81 / 11) (#10)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 08:03:17 AM EST

MetaFilter and Memepool were both carrying a link to this bizarre site yesterday: it is some sort of a preteen "lifestyle" site designed to encourage beef consumption in young girls.

My favourite part is the poll which asks which foods one enjoys best with friends: "Steak, Tacos, Burgers or Subs?"

Sugar and spice indeed. No discussion of a meaty diet would be complete without considering the quiet wisdom to be found at http://www.cool-2b-real.com.


The opinions expressed in the comments above are not those of the author; they have been rented for the occasion of this writing from a neutral third party.<
Little girl, do you want some of my hot beef? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by enterfornone on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 08:16:08 AM EST

That site is disturbing on so many levels.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
That deserves an MLP of it's own. (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by twistedfirestarter on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:01:06 AM EST

Although "Girls need hot beef" did unfairly raise my hopes...

[ Parent ]
haha (none / 0) (#28)
by Work on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:30:28 AM EST

I left a message on the board.

Hot beef is my hero. I love hot beef in my mouth. I need a hot beef injection, ya mean!

[ Parent ]

The Games!!! (none / 0) (#37)
by davedean on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:54:57 AM EST

Burger Boggle ??

Grillin' And Chillin' ???

"Zip Racing Game" ??

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesnt belong, can you tell me which thing .. .lalallala

Except, you can learn how to add "zip" to your body by clicking the link near the game. Haha, "Check out some hot teen zip" .. etc etc.

-Dave
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

the poll (none / 0) (#45)
by Work on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:11:58 AM EST

'steak'. haha..what 10 year old girl loves to have steak with her friends?

Whut up! Letz have a STEAK & Barbie partay.

[ Parent ]

Would have preferred this as MLP or OpEd (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Rogerborg on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 08:21:16 AM EST

Because if you insist that a high protein, low carb diet must necessarily be high in saturated fats, then I call propaganda on you.  Heard of chicken and fish?  It's not all about the beef.

Yes, I know that in McAmerica this is often how it's viewed, but articles that just say (or imply) "Beef bad" or "Beef good" hardly help to banish that unhelpfully polarized debate.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

Some figures (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by enterfornone on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 08:32:30 AM EST

About 50% of the fat in lean beef is saturated, compared to 40% in chicken and 30 in fish. The difference isn't that great.

The sorts of foods eaten in high-carb diets generally contain very little fat, saturated or otherwise. Even if your high-protein diet is based on tofu and beans, you will still be getting more fat than a diet based on carbs.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

However... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by leviramsey on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:10:12 AM EST

There is no conclusive evidence linking cholesterol intake to blood cholesterol levels. Every study I have seen indicates that cholesterol is essentially indigestible (hence why one has to take a colossal shit after eating something like a Wendys Classic Triple with Cheese).

Further, I have seen a few studies which indicate that sugar (not necessarily carbohydrates in general) is more responsible for blood cholesterol, as one of the body's responses to large swings in blood sugar is to produce cholesterol.

Ultimately, the worst thing that one can eat is sugar, especially of the refined variety. This, imho, is the fundamental problem with the bulk of diets that espouse reducing fat/cholesterol intake above all else: more often than not, the fat gets replaced with sugar (especially if one goes the processed "low-fat" food route). The ideal diet is one that is both low in fat and sugars, but if you're going to choose one to load up on, it seems that fat is the one to keep.



[ Parent ]
bulk of diets? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by enterfornone on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:26:31 AM EST

Most research suggests that saturated fat is more to blame for high cholesterol levels than anything else. I've never heard of anything suggesting sugar is to blame.

That said, most people know that sugar is bad for a number of other reasons. Most low fat diets (see the McDougall link above, the other main ones are by Nathan Pritikin and Dean Ornish) advocate diets high in complex carbohydrates (ie unprocessed starches) and low in refined sugar. McDougall even tells you to limit fruit.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

The problem is that (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by leviramsey on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:43:15 AM EST

By making a mantra of "reduce fat intake", people only look at the fat content. Because most people find fat to be good-tasting, food processors routinely put obscene amounts of sugar as a substitute to fat into the low-fat variants of foods. Because these people only look at the fat on the label (and the marketing trumpets how little fat there is), a lot of people treat the low-fat foods as a license to pig out, resulting in outlandishly increased levels of sugar intake, which is worse than the fat they were taking in.

The low-carb/high-protein diets are, compared to that, the lesser of the two evils (ultimately, reducing both fat and sugar is the best course), and are furthermore easier for most people to follow (far less of a lifestyle disruption).

There is some (largely) anecdotal evidence that adherents of certain low-carb diets (IIRC, the Heller diet) tend to have substantial reductions in blood cholesterol after starting the diet.



[ Parent ]
True... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by enterfornone on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:51:22 AM EST

but by the same token many people hear "low carb, high protein" and think they can eat as much steak as they like as long as they stop eating bread.

A lot of diets that claim to be high protein are really just traditional low cal portion control diets with slightly higher levels of protein. They are completely different to real high protein diets like Atkins.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

Oh yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by leviramsey on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 11:19:36 AM EST

I think the Atkins diet is a sham and is dangerous. My mother and step-father both tried it and nothing happened. They switched to the Heller diet (which allows a "Reward Meal" of one-third carbs (potatoes, etc.), one-third vegetables, and one-third protein) and had immediate results.



[ Parent ]
Atkins is not a sham (5.00 / 3) (#86)
by jjayson on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 02:09:18 PM EST

I've been on it for about 3 months now. I started off at 185 pounds after being sick and losing muscle and putting on some fat. I used to be in fairly good shape. I figured that I could lose 20 pounds of fat at most (before I am down to about 4% body fat). Almost everything else I had tried was ineffective. So far I have dropped 10 pounds of fat (my weight has only dropped 6 pounds, though). This isn't from water loss, since I was excercising heavily before I started Atkins.

For me, it has worked. Portoin size is not an issue. I eat a lot, and calorie counting diets have been difficult for me to keep when I am in the gym 4-5 days a week. The think with the Atkins diet that many people fail to do is strictly control what goes in them. It doesn't require as much calorie discipline, but there are many things you cannot eat. Some people still have a bread roll or two at dinner thinking they it will not mean anything, but it does.

I am going to try to write a larger top-level comment today on Atkins.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]

It sounds credible to me ... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by Simon Kinahan on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 03:04:51 PM EST

Generally speaking, we're better adapted to process fat and protein than carbs. One aspect of that is that you feel more satisfied after a high-fat meal than a high-carb one, even if the high-carb one contained more energy. That makes is easier to stick to a high-fat (or high-protein to use the politically correct jargon) diet than a high-carb one.

Anyway, different things work for different people, and I think it probably depends on what was wrong with your diet and/or metabolism when you started dieting.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]

I did Atkins and saw results (none / 0) (#161)
by tzanger on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 09:51:58 AM EST

I was on it for about a month and a half. I lost 15 lbs very quickly but then plateau'd... not because the diet didn't work, but because I got sick and frickin' tired of eating nothing but meat. A lot of veggies are off bounds with Atkins, believe it or not.

It works, but it's hard on the kidneys and the first (immediate) drop is almost all water loss so it's not true weight loss. I bought some Ketostix (piss on them and they turn purple if you are in ketosis, a necessity for real weight loss with Atkins) -- I could eat nothing for 24h and still not turn the stick purple. My wife could eat practically anything and turn the stick purple. :-(

I thought a diet allowing me to use butter and meat and meat and meat would be great but it gets old _real_ fast. You can only have eggs so many different ways without adding something verboten to them. You can only enjoy saussage so many times. Steak... Chicken... new-age whey-free bread and shit like that -- no thanks. And you get sick of trying to find sucralose-based drinks when practically everything is aspartame. (I get aspartame headaches anyway).

I love eating. I love the taste of real mashed potatoes swimming in butter, a good steak or chicken quarter, veggies, a bun and a beer or wine. I love milk. I am a kool-aid addict (although I put in less than 125mL sugar in a 2L jug). I want my ice cream on occassion. Atkins was not for me. I think I'll go to the gym instead.



[ Parent ]
Nothing magic about Atkins... (none / 0) (#168)
by darkskyes on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 01:06:03 PM EST

although I'm on it. The key tenets are:
Most sugars are bad for you in quantity due to the increased levels of insulin your body releases to deal with them.
Insulin in combination with excess sugars has a positive feedback mechanism which makes you crave more sugar.
Fats become bad because they cannot be disposed of or utilized because sugar uptake is faster, and insulin (supposedly) hinders fat excretion (iirc).

Anyway, the secrets that are less advertised are:
you don't eat as much if you strictly adhere to the Adkins plan because a) there isn't as much to eat (MANY things are verboten) and b)How much lard can one person really eat? (If it isn't wrapped neatly in a wad of sugar and starch.)
High protein diets promote HGH release.
Combining excercise, HGH, and extra protein promotes increased metabolic rates.
The Adkins plan requires (oh no!) Exercise!
If you cheat on the Adkins plan in the first 2-3 wks, you are at a high risk for failure, since these first two weeks are as much about retraining your habits, appetite, and metabolism, as they are about "ketosis."

The dangers of a high protein diet are minimal if you don't gorge yourself and get plenty of fluids. As always, persons with medical problems should consult an M.D. before embarking on any diet or excercise program.

-"Your disadvantage is that you will always, always be outnumbered, and ...your enemy will learn more about you, how to fight you, and those changes will be put into effect instantly." -Mazer Rackham
[ Parent ]

Oh yeah... (none / 0) (#169)
by darkskyes on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 01:09:50 PM EST

I'm in my fourth week, and have no idea about weight loss, as I haven't weighed. However, I do know that puffiness due to water retention has dissappeared, and I've gone from a tight 38 waist to a tight 36 waist.

I'm a believer, I admit. I'm a believer because NOTHING else has ever worked for me.

-"Your disadvantage is that you will always, always be outnumbered, and ...your enemy will learn more about you, how to fight you, and those changes will be put into effect instantly." -Mazer Rackham
[ Parent ]

sugar->insulin->cholesterol (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by speek on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:53:38 AM EST

Links: http://www.centralhome.com/ballroomcountry/cholesterol_free.htm http://www.theberesford.com/longevity/weightloss/index.php http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/paveg/links/bloodsugar.htm

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Highly provocative (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by Control Group on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 12:53:46 PM EST

Can you provide a source on the non-causal relationship between cholesterol intake and blood cholesterol levels? I deal with a couple nutcases at work, and I'd love to be able to pull out hard numbers on this.

(I'm off Googling right now, but I've found that even Google isn't as accurate as the human search engine)

***
"Oh, nothing. It just looks like a simple Kung-Fu Swedish Rastafarian Helldemon."
[ Parent ]

Yes, right on the money (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by Subtillus on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 01:36:03 PM EST

Sugar bad.

North americans consume on average 112 pounds of sugar a year. That's not a good thing. Ditch the sweets and white bread, keep some fat, some meat, lots of vegetables and whole grains. That's a diet that works.

[ Parent ]

I weigh 120 pounds... (none / 0) (#189)
by loucura on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 01:51:11 AM EST

I'm 5'11".

You'll take my sugar away when you pry it out of my cold dead (and probably diabetic by then) hands.

[ Parent ]

So, (none / 0) (#165)
by roystgnr on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 10:32:26 AM EST

There is no conclusive evidence linking cholesterol intake to blood cholesterol levels.

So, one of those Egg Council creeps got to you too, eh?

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the figures (none / 0) (#22)
by Rogerborg on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:10:53 AM EST

Care to come up with some for how much fat (not how much of the fat) there typically is in various cuts of beef, chicken and fish?

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0) (#24)
by enterfornone on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:18:00 AM EST

100g beef - 5g fat, 2.5g saturated

100g chicken - 5g fat, 2g saturated

100g fish - 1.5g fat, .5g saturated

(source, Allan Borushek's Pocket Calorie and Fat Counter 2001)

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

Ahem (none / 0) (#29)
by Rogerborg on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:38:53 AM EST

What cuts of beef?  What parts of chicken, and skin on or skin off?  What kind of fish?

Hey, you turned this into a factual debate. ;-P

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Blah (none / 0) (#33)
by enterfornone on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:46:48 AM EST

Lean beef, "average dark/white mean" chicken with the skin off, average "white fish" eg bream, whiting.

It's not particularly interesting anyway when you compare based on weight - it would be better to compare the percentage of fat/calories. But that would require me to do maths and it's too late over here.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

get yourself grass-fed beef (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by speek on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:58:15 AM EST

It's as lean as chicken, and the fat has a high ratio of omega-3 saturated fats (the kind you find in fish), which makes it pretty darn heart healthy.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Yes indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by cdyer on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 09:37:29 PM EST

Pasture-fed beef is damn tasty, too, though it will never be rated prime or even choice, because those ratings require the cows to be grain-fed (what with the USDA being in the pockets of the mega-farms who don't have the right set-up for pasture-fed cows). Also, it's nicer to the cows, so it gets the peta people off your back. Cheers, Cliff

[ Parent ]
"grain-fed" (none / 0) (#153)
by enterfornone on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 03:14:17 AM EST

is a nice way of saying "factory farmed".

Strangely, almost all beef in Australia is pasture fed. The grain fed stuff mainly gets exported to Japan.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

Chicken? Fish? Nah. Tofu. [nt] (4.00 / 1) (#123)
by Estanislao Martínez on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 01:11:44 AM EST


--em
[ Parent ]

Textured Vegetable Protein (none / 0) (#166)
by Kintanon on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 10:40:36 AM EST

Goes great in pasta sauce.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

USians should be banned from being vegetarian. (3.00 / 2) (#174)
by Estanislao Martínez on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 05:36:26 PM EST

Hell, Europeans in general too. Being vegetarian is no excuse for eating crappy health food store rabbit food, dammit. Or for attempting to recreate every single damn European dish with tofu and rant like a madman that your dreadful "tofurkey" is every bit as good as the real thing (no godfuckingdammit it's not).

Tofu is delicious within the context of the cuisines where it plays a central role. TVP and tofurkey are crap. Either eat meat or learn to cook food that fits your ingredients.

--em
[ Parent ]

Eh? (none / 0) (#175)
by Kintanon on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 05:57:16 PM EST

I LIKE TVP. I just dump a big handful into pasta sauce and mix it in. I also eat damn near everything else, from corndogs to cheeseburgers to chicken to turkey. I eat some terribly unhealthy foods. But I genuinely LIKE TVP in my pasta sauce.
Oh, and I've got under 4% body fat, so nyah!

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 0) (#184)
by epepke on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 10:35:27 PM EST

There are plenty of dishes that don't have any meat and still taste good. Tofu is fine in its place, but it isn't a "meat substitute," and it has a hell of a lot of glutamaic acid in it, which is not all that peachy-keen for people who are sensitive to it. Cuban black beans and rice taste really good, and they can be made without any meat. Ratatouille, if I could spell it, tastes great, too. And if you accept milk products or eggs, you don't even have to work hard to make vegetarian food nutritious.

Nice chunks of tempeh, marinated in wine and soy with ginger and garlic, stir-fried with bok choy and leeks, are delicious. But they aren't a meat substitute, either. Falafel is just a hair short of ambrosia, if done right. Damn, I wish that Lebanese family were still running the local falafel place, or missing that, the Cafe Crimini in Leicester Square is pretty damn good. But it isn't meat.

There's one thing that really annoys me about vegetarians: if you go eat with them, and they cook something like eggplant parmigiana they just have to get in your face and ask, "Didja miss the meat? DIDJA MISS THE MEAT? HUH? HUH? DIDJA?" And they jump up and down until they get an answer. This is annoying. Maybe it's a lack of B-12 or something, but they all seem to do it.

Or, if you have the audacity to suggest that it's a good idea to eat a variety of foods, they start jumping up and down and wave their prematurely aged arms and say, "Hah! Food combining! That was discredited in 1908! You pathetic bastard!" And there's a lot more jumping up and down.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
I think everyone on a goony diet does that... (none / 0) (#188)
by loucura on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 01:47:36 AM EST

My friends who are on the Atkins diet sure do that a lot with their 'low-carb' substitutes for cheesecake and the like. "Did you notice it didn't have sugar?! Didja?" "Sugar's evil!" Bah...

[ Parent ]
I disagree with this. (4.00 / 5) (#17)
by gordonjcp on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 08:40:37 AM EST

Which is why it gets +1FP. Seriously, eat whatever you feel like until you don't feel hungry. Then get off your fat arse and get some exercise. That's kept me at a fairly stable 90kg (195lb or so).

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


Are you like, ten feet tall ? (1.33 / 6) (#25)
by davedean on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:23:17 AM EST

Cause seriously, no-one should be over 80 kilograms.

Youch!! 90?!?!

Wow.

-Dave
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

What kind of crack you smokin'? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:29:22 AM EST

I'm a person of average height and a slight build, and I weigh 80 kg. Are you telling me that anyone heavier than me is somehow out of proportion?

I think you must be confusing kilograms with some other measure.


The opinions expressed in the comments above are not those of the author; they have been rented for the occasion of this writing from a neutral third party.<
[ Parent ]
Obviously not as much of it as you, (none / 0) (#51)
by davedean on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:58:13 AM EST

the perenially skinny 80kg guy. You're either hallucinating or getting better drugs than Michael Jackson (much the same thing I guess).

-Dave
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

Let's stay metric for a moment. (none / 0) (#54)
by MKalus on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 11:19:14 AM EST

I am 187cm and as of today weight 87kg.

Most of this is muscle and most of THAT is in the legs, the end result of that is that I am not really looking all that buff but can easily leg press 250kg without too much of an issue.

Bodyweight is a completly wrong measurement: BODYCOMPOSITION is what people should look out for.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

Another datum (none / 0) (#139)
by phliar on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 06:11:27 PM EST

I'm 5'11" (180 cm) and weigh 155 lbs (70 kg). I used to be a racing (road) cyclist, and I have the typical cyclist body type. Most people would say that I'm on the thin side but not unhealthily so. I think that 80 kg (175 lbs.) is perfectly reasonable for a tall adult male. And 90 kg (200 lbs.) is certainly heavy but still not necessarily obese.

Faster, faster, until the thrill of...
[ Parent ]

Overweight, obese (none / 0) (#144)
by Rhodes on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 09:01:39 PM EST

Overweight, obese both have medically defined meanings, based on the Body Mass Index (BMI). A person 5'10" who weighs 200 lbs has a score of 28. Any score above 25 is overweight, above 30 is obese. That means someone who is 5'10" and weighs 209 lbs or more is obese. Insurance companies found that height and weight were important in determining risk.

Over the past three years, I've switched from being obese to overweight- and the only way I could meet the optimal weight would be to literally chop a leg off.

Weight lifting three times a week, yoga twice a week, Aikido 2-4 times a week, and dancing on the weekend burns a lot of calories.

I predict that I'm shortening my life by having so much muscle- and would like to see a study done to confirm this assumption that body composition (fat percentage) has a higher morbidity correlation than the BMI.

[ Parent ]

BMI and weight training (none / 0) (#176)
by NickW on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 06:20:08 PM EST

The BMI at which you are considered overweight or underweight change when you're weight training.

I'm not a nutritionist, doctor or anything. This is just a fact I picked up somewhere.

--
Cult - A sociotype of an auto-toxic meme-complex, composed of membots and/or memeoids.
Memetic Lexicon
[ Parent ]

6 feet tall. (none / 0) (#34)
by gordonjcp on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:49:45 AM EST

But, otoh, I can lift a 170kg car engine without undue strain.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Ahh (none / 0) (#41)
by davedean on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:59:47 AM EST

You're buff then ? I prefer the scrawny "raised on microwave pasta" look myself. ;)

I suspect I'm just bitter cause I'm pudging out in my middle age. Well, my mid-twenties. I look a heck of a lot better at 76kg than 90kg, I can assure you.

-Dave
--
Dave Dean
Google loves me again! New Formula!
[ Parent ]

I'd hardly say buff. (none / 0) (#46)
by gordonjcp on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:12:26 AM EST

I look a bit skinny and have a bit of a beer-belly. Don't know where all the weight is hiding.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Muscle density (none / 0) (#164)
by Kintanon on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 10:30:18 AM EST

You've got a lot of muscle on you. A pound of muscle is smaller than a pound of fat, because it's more dense. So you look smaller than people who are lighter than you. Because they have fat, you have muscle. The same reason that middle school kids my weight look twice my size. I weigh 130lbs (Just finished putting on 6 lbs of muscle) and bench 180, 4 reps. My body fat is under 4%. I don't know ANYONE  within 10 lbs of my body weight that is stronger than I am. I know plenty of people in the 150lb range that are about equivelant to my strength (they also work out) so for my weight I'm pretty hefty.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

'kin 'ell... (none / 0) (#178)
by gordonjcp on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 06:05:58 AM EST

I take it your weights are in pounds... That's still a lot to bench. I should go to a gym some time and see what I can do. I'd probably be crap at it though, because I suspect my muscles are pretty "uneven" - they come from lifting horse food and car and tractor parts about, rather than any structured exercise. But hey, they do the job.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Yah, lbs. (none / 0) (#182)
by Kintanon on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 06:20:12 PM EST

You'd probably able to squat a ton of weight if you put your muscle on from lifting stuff like that. My squats topped out at 400lbs a few years ago. Don't know what they are at now.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

I've got pretty thick bones, too (none / 0) (#183)
by gordonjcp on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 07:26:43 PM EST

Which probably accounts for a fair bit of weight. My ankles, for example, aren't "fleshy" but are thicker than a lot of people's knees. About a year ago I had to get a tooth out, a molar on my lower jaw. Apparently it was fairly bound up in my jawbone. It took three one-hour sessions, about a week apart, to get *most* of the tooth out. There's still a bit left that would require surgery to remove. In the second session, my dentist and I discovered my lower jaw can support the full weight of a 6'6", 15 stone dentist...

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Define "lift"... (none / 0) (#53)
by ti dave on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 11:18:44 AM EST

'cause if you can wrap your arms around a 374 pound engine block
and lift it, then you're one bad motherf*cker.

I routinely break 650 pound drums at work, but that's a totally different use of leverage.

Watch for Ice!
[ Parent ]

It's not something I do often... (none / 0) (#58)
by gordonjcp on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 11:32:01 AM EST

... but get hold of exhaust manifold, get hold of inlet manifold, and lift, basically. These old british four and six pot cast iron blocks are a total hassle to move.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Hmm... (none / 0) (#59)
by ti dave on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 11:42:56 AM EST

I see a hernia in your future.

You're not bent over too much, eh?

Watch for Ice!
[ Parent ]

Hear, hear (4.66 / 3) (#32)
by AtADeadRun on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:44:59 AM EST

I eat about six thousand calories a day, every day. Then again, I run in excess of sixty miles a week. I was happy about gaining the two kilos I put on over the last month, to just over 70kg. You'll never, ever catch me on one of those high-protein diets; it's largely water loss in the early stages, then consumption of muscle mass along with fat later. Want to lose weight? Get your butt in gear, and stop looking for a quick fix.

-------
Pain heals. Glory is forever. Keep running.

We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
[ Parent ]
Sports and Eating (none / 0) (#52)
by MKalus on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 11:14:18 AM EST

Well,

considering that right now I am experimenting with the Paleo diet I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.

In fact at least in Triathlon circles a lot of people are experimenting with it right now, and I am definetly not sitting on my ass the whole time, my average training calls for around 15 - 20 hours a week, that is weights, swimming, biking and running (I go by time but I guess I run around 50km/week).

Gordo Bryn made some rather interresting experiments and some of his writings can be found here: http://www.byrn.org/n101.htm

So far I like what I have seen coming out of the Paleo diet and I will experiment with it.

The reality is: There is no "one size fits all" kind of deal, you have to experiment yourself and see what works for you.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

Let me know how that works out... (none / 0) (#100)
by AtADeadRun on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 04:37:08 PM EST

as I do a lot of advising to other folks in my unit about fitness and nutrition.

-------
Pain heals. Glory is forever. Keep running.

We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
[ Parent ]
Hear, hear! (none / 0) (#180)
by Matadon on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 11:59:43 AM EST

I don't run anywhere near as much as you (I'm lucky to find time to do twenty miles a week, and that's when I'm not in school); but I also don't have the same caloric needs.

I do, however, have a healthy diet -- I eat some meat, quite a bit in the way of veggies and fresh fruit, and a pretty happy amount of fiber-rich grains.  I also get a reasonable amount of exercise; I bike the five miles to class instead of driving (saves me $40 on parking, too!), and try to spend about an hour a day working out -- lifitng weights, running, martial arts practice, walking if I'm having one of those "off" days.

And...y'know what?

I've lost weight.  I work out pretty hard (e.g., if I go out for a run, I run as hard and fast as I can, for as long as I can), and I've gotten some damn impressive results.  My jeans don't fit anymore (too loose).  I don't look like a champion weightlifter, but I've gained a fairly impressive musculature, and I'm not embarassed to take my shirt off at the beach, even if my pale white skin reflects enough light to send a signal into interstellar space.

--
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out." — Richard Dawkins.
[ Parent ]

And that, of course... (none / 0) (#181)
by AtADeadRun on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 06:12:20 PM EST

is the right way to do it: a healthy, balanced diet, and plenty of physical activity.

See, folks? Geeks are not necessarily doomed to die early of heart attacks. You, too, can get in shape (the pale thing never really goes away, though).



-------
Pain heals. Glory is forever. Keep running.

We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
[ Parent ]
Dumb question. (3.50 / 2) (#47)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:13:43 AM EST

So, can you keep up with Florence Griffiths Joiner in a race?

What's that? You aren't the same as her? Different body type, different training, different environment?

Well, if people have different physical abilities, why do you assume that they all have identical dietary needs and requirements?


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
It would be suitable for most people. (none / 0) (#49)
by gordonjcp on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 10:20:49 AM EST

Can my Volvo 340 keep up with a F1 racing car? No, but on the other hand it's far more likely that you'd be able to drive it.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
No, it wouldn't. (none / 0) (#83)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 01:44:43 PM EST

Any more than one pair of pants would be "suitable for most people".


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
OK, give me an example... (none / 0) (#85)
by gordonjcp on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 01:51:28 PM EST

... of why it wouldn't be suitable for most people. The principle is simple - eat enough, then burn it off. Don't eat more than you need, don't burn off more than you eat.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
Okay. (none / 0) (#88)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 02:37:44 PM EST

The paralyzed. Children. People who are sick. Anyone who doesn't fit your "standard model" of how people should work.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
I said *most*, not all. (none / 0) (#95)
by gordonjcp on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 03:28:31 PM EST

*Most* people aren't paralysed. *Most* people aren't sick. I can't see any reason why you include children - after all, that's the way I was brought up.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
This guy will use (5.00 / 1) (#156)
by starsky on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 07:24:56 AM EST

nay means to win his lame-ass argument on his terms. Give it up. This 'paralysed' people argument is the worst yet.

[ Parent ]
Probably (none / 0) (#150)
by Eccles on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 11:20:54 PM EST

So, can you keep up with Florence Griffith Joyner in a race?

Well, yes, but that's because of her untimely death in 1998...

(Suffocation during an epileptic seizure, if you want to know.)

[ Parent ]
Have you tried not excercising? (none / 0) (#136)
by BCoates on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 12:12:34 PM EST

Do you get fatter or stay the same?

You should get at least two data points before announcing that you've got a solution applicable to everyone.

--
Benjamin Coates

[ Parent ]

Yeah - slight problem (none / 0) (#158)
by olethros on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 09:15:43 AM EST

The only problem is that some particular types of food make you feel hungry. One such category is quick-acting high-carb foods, which cause a big spike in insuline, which in turn causes a depletion of insulin levels which causes a false hunger, shortly after you have eaten your sweet snack.

Personally, I do not avoid any food, but I prefer to eat some fruit, meat, veggies, or even some very fat cheese with a small amount of bread (mostly to dip it into the sauce/oil/fried-fat-that-is-left-in-the-pan) - Hm. Bah. Anyway.

If your diet's balance is within reasonable limits, I guess you can follow the simple rull: Eat less-> lose weight, eat more->gain weight.

:P

-- Homepage| Music
I miss my rubber keyboard.
[ Parent ]

The Speek Diet (4.50 / 6) (#57)
by speek on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 11:30:05 AM EST

The Speek diet is based on the idea that most food producers don't give a shit about your health, and will produce their food in whatever manner that yields them the most profits. Since people mostly buy what tastes good, this means that most food producers stuff their food with stuff that tastes great. They will also stuff their food with things that make it last longer, and make it look nicer. They will use the cheapest methods possible to achieve the above.

While this doesn't guarantee the food is unhealthy, it does seem to give pretty good odds for it.

Thus, the Speek Diet is also the Unpackaged Diet. No packaged foods allowed. Eat only fresh produce, whole organic and grass-fed/pasture-raised meats, plain dairy products (milk, eggs, cheese), plain nuts and seeds, and possibly some quasi-processed organic foods (ie organic peanut butter, maple syrup, whole roasted wheat germ, cut oats, etc). Local, observable food sources are given precedence over distant food sources.

Don't give them the chance to ruin your food!

This message brought to you by The Association of Small Farmers and Food Co-ops Who Need Some F&cking Customers!

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

What I do... (4.00 / 2) (#64)
by rayab on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 12:13:31 PM EST

Is work my ass off at the gym atleast 3 times a week. And I dont do the wimpy elliptical runner either (I step for 30 minutes and up the level every time). Then I do weights for about an hour.
I also try to eat "healthy" and while that's a fuzzy definition I stay away from fats, packaged foods, no fast food, nothing deep fried, eat lots of veggies, fruits, and now that I'm in school I eat tons of trail mix instead of pizza.
Also I try to stay active as much as possible. I park the car far from where I need to go. When I get off the train I walk to school instead of taking the bus so that adds another 10 minutes of brisk walking uphill to my day.
I have been working out for 5 months now. While I lost only 5 pounds my body fat % has dropped by 2%, probably more now since I havent measured it in a month. I dropped atleast one jean size, and I'm just *so* close to wearing L instead of XL. The best part of course is looking at the mirror and seeing the progress!

Y popa bila sobaka on yeyo lyubil, ona syela kusok myasa on yeyo ubil, v zemlyu zakopal, i na mogile napisal...
That actually sounds like my habit (none / 0) (#89)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 02:40:11 PM EST

Aerobic exercise followed by lifting, 3x per week.

But unlike the "just eat less" crowd here, I also have to go on a starvation diet (just one meal per day, with vitamins and appetite suppressents for breakfast and lunch) to keep my weight from increasing.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Ouch ... (none / 0) (#102)
by Simon Kinahan on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 05:08:25 PM EST

I'm sure someone's told you this before, but crash dieting and using appetite suppresants is not a good idea. It's bad for your body and metabolism, it can lead to eating disorders (to which testosterone does not make you immune) and weight lost this way will go straight back on if you start eating normally again (which you seem to have noticed). The only healthy way to keep weight off is to eat a sensible number of calories.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
I don't think it's a crash diet (none / 0) (#105)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 06:47:13 PM EST

If you've been on it for 5 years. I started out at 305-310, got down to 215 but now I'm bouncing around 230. The frustrating thing is that I'm dieting as hard now as I ever was, but my body is determined to keep every ounce of fat it has. I can ride a bike 20 miles, 3 times per week, and not lose weight.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Makes sense (none / 0) (#111)
by MKalus on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 07:59:10 PM EST

Your body thinks he's starving and so he is trying to hold onto what he has.

There are studies done that for example make it clear that if your caloric deficit is too high you are not loosing any body fat.

A GOOD and HEALTHY way of loosing it is by eating around 500kCal / day less than you burn, this amounts to roughly one pound a week, fat, not water or anything else.

Also: It should be a lifestyle change, make sure that whatever you eat / do now is something you can keep up later, if something changes, count your calories again.

http://www.fitday.com can help you, but be careful with their caloric expenditure, they tend to be a bit on the high side.

M.
-- Michael
[ Parent ]

The problem is that shorting my body 500 kCal (none / 0) (#142)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 07:43:56 PM EST

only makes me sleepy - I don't lose weight unless I couple heavy exercise with a serious calorie deficit.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Weight? Screw weight... (none / 0) (#162)
by Kintanon on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 09:59:31 AM EST

Right now what you are doing is building up muscle, and then having your body devour it to reduce upkeep costs. That's why you lose weight but not fat. It takes more effort to upkeep muscle (muscle burns more calories per pound than fat) so your body destroys it during starvation periods to reduce upkeep costs. This will cause you to lose weight for a while, then stop. You need to increase your calorie intake by eatting multiple small meals during the day. Your body will decide it's in a time of plenty and doesn't need to worry about reserving food, your metabolism will speed up and you'll start losing weight again. However you will probably put on 20 pounds in the first couple of months of this because your body won't have adjusted yet and will still be trying to store everything in case the food runs out.
Combine this with a decent aerobic workout and you'll lose weight, and be in better shape, and you won't be lethargic.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

Xenadrin (none / 0) (#103)
by rayab on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 05:16:20 PM EST

I bought some of it off of ebay, my friend recommended it to me. I take two pills in the morning and two before 4pm. I've noticed my appetite reduced by about 25%, which is all I need. And I also dont feel like I'm on speed although I have noticed that I can work even harder doing aerobics.
Personally I wouldnt do a starvation diet, especially not while working out.

Y popa bila sobaka on yeyo lyubil, ona syela kusok myasa on yeyo ubil, v zemlyu zakopal, i na mogile napisal...
[ Parent ]
Xenadrine? Is that an ephedrine pill? (none / 0) (#163)
by tzanger on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 10:05:09 AM EST

I was going to start taking ephedrine type pills until I read how they stress the heart. I come from a family with heart disease (it's a male-linked genetic trait) -- after reading about it some more I decided to stay away from the stuff. I need to get some decent aerobic excercise to keep my heart strong and try not to tax it if I plan on seeing my great grandchildren.



[ Parent ]
It is... (none / 0) (#167)
by rayab on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 11:38:08 AM EST

but, there are other herbal remedies out there that do not contain ephedrine. But supposedley they work just as good.

Y popa bila sobaka on yeyo lyubil, ona syela kusok myasa on yeyo ubil, v zemlyu zakopal, i na mogile napisal...
[ Parent ]
Jesus Christ, you're an idiot (none / 0) (#122)
by DominantParadigm on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 01:01:48 AM EST

You do know that even if you're on appetite suppresants, you're supposed to eat full meals at regular intervals, right?

Repeat after me : I will only use my appettite suppresants to resists the urge to eat junk food

PS I'd love for you to give a citation so I can understand why you think "Delta weight=calorie intake - calories burned" is incorrect.

PPS starving yourself constantly is a really fantastic way to kill your muscles. So your amusing comment about the above formula being incorrect is even more amusing in light of your insistance on starving yourself and doing aerobic exercise, which is a surefire way to absolutely devestate your muscles.



Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Hey, dickless (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 07:27:41 PM EST

Come back when you have your degree in nutrition, okay?

A body can have more than one reaction to a reduction in calorie intake. For example, it can reduce its metabolic rate to reduce the calories burned.

Do you really think I managed to lose 85 pounds without actually talking to doctors and other people who know more than you?

Who do you think recommended the herbalife?


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Just out of interest.. (none / 0) (#126)
by ajduk on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 05:20:01 AM EST

What sort of foods do you eat?

The biochemical hypothesis behind low-carbohydrate dieting is basically this; over consumption of high-carbohydrate, high-glycemic index foods over a period of years will lead to insulin resistance throughout your body, and hence progressively higher body insulin levels.

In return, these high insulin levels pretty much prevent your body from burning fat, but set up a continuous demand for more carbohydrates, which will be taken from the muscles if you don't eat.  Under this situation, losing fat can be very, very hard.

[ Parent ]

I eat healthy (none / 0) (#140)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 07:25:23 PM EST

mix of protein, vegetables, salads. The occasional pizza.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
thyroid problem? (none / 0) (#149)
by drm on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 10:12:46 PM EST

Have you been tested for thyroid problems? An underactive thyroid will make it extrememly difficult to lose weight - you shouldn't have to starve yourself to lose weight if you're getting 45 minutes of aerobic exercise 3x weekly.

Or perhaps your heart rate isn't getting up high enough during your aerobic exercise?

[ Parent ]

Thyroid is normal (none / 0) (#151)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 11:56:59 PM EST

No really obvious metabolic abnormalities.

And, I should say that "starve" is an emotional term rather than biological one. I spend my time not-thinking about food the same way an alcoholic spends his time not-thinking about booze.

If I actually eat till I'm not hungry, I gain 2-3 pounds a week.


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
Eat more often. (none / 0) (#160)
by Kintanon on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 09:38:40 AM EST

Instead of eatting one meal a day, and I assume it's a fairly large meal. Get up in the morning and eat something small, like a granola bar, or an apple. about 2 hours later eat another granola bar or an apple. For lunch have a sandwhich, some turkey and lettuce, something like that, and an apple or granola bar, and drink water. About 2 hours later have another apple or granola bar. Repeat having a small snack every 2 hours until you go to bed. Keeps your metabolism running all day. You won't be as hungry and you will burn more calories. Just make sure you pick a relative low calorie snack that is kind of filling and that you like.
I'm trying to GAIN weight because up until last week I was under 125lbs and under 4% body fat. Now I'm up to 130lbs because I replaced my snacks with SlimFast meal replacement bars. 220 calories + 10grams of protein apiece. Mmm... I eat almost 3500 calories a day now after counting in my lunch and dinner.
But as long as your snacks are low calorie low fat, you'll be fine. I don't know anyone that this hasn't worked for, and I've helped twenty or thirty people set up diets that let them remain comfortable while still eatting better and losing weight.

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

In the USA you can't talk about food in a vacuum (4.75 / 8) (#65)
by IHCOYC on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 12:16:38 PM EST

Any attempt to discuss or research food and diet in the USA is going to be pulled various ways by a number of people:

--- Various food producers, who have obvious financial stakes in selling more meat, or grain, or whatever;

--- The fast food and packaged food industries, who are looking for a way to generate health claims that are used in advertising.

--- The activists, heirs to the old Puritan reforming impulse, who need joyless diets and the drudgery of exercise to feel good about themselves and superior to their neighbours.

It seems the TV broadcast network news contains a nightly medical story, anymore. Almost all of them have several features in common. They seek to cultivate "awareness" of a "hidden" health problem that people who felt fine never suspected they had. They announce the availability of something you can buy that will cure it. They plug the old mantra of diet and exercise.

It's all marketing. Gotta move that Gatorade. Gotta move those patented drugs. Gotta figure out some way to persuade people to pay $150 for a pair of sneakers.

Good mental health requires that you tune all of this crap out.

A person who burns with an inner fire is already damned

News at eleven. (2.40 / 5) (#76)
by mr strange on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 01:09:12 PM EST

Meat industry sponsored study backs high-protein diet...

News at eleven.

intrigued by your idea that fascism is feminine - livus

In other news (4.33 / 6) (#91)
by Under OS X is Linux on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 02:56:35 PM EST

Subway has 7 sandwiches with 6 grams of fat or less.

Also, Jared Foggle lost 245 lbs on a Subway diet and is a babe.

Subway:  Eat fresh.

Exactly (none / 0) (#120)
by enterfornone on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 12:54:36 AM EST

YOu think he would have done that with a beef sub, no bread no salad.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
as a former employee of subway i'm entitled to say (none / 0) (#143)
by Prophet themusicgod1 on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 07:54:49 PM EST

that is, of course, if you don't have cheese, or any barely meat content[more than the so many grams per sandwidch supposed limit...] or any sauces except for the special-fat-free ones, but really do you *want* to know what's in those? after finding out that those fat-free ones existed i stopped eating the fat-free ones. they are incredibly unhealthy. actually, believe it or not, subway is more or less unhealthy. they ARE however Healthy compared to macdonalds, perhaps...
"I suspect the best way to deal with procrastination is to put off the procrastination itself until later. I've been meaning to try this, but haven't gotten around to it yet."swr
[ Parent ]
Subway diet. (none / 0) (#185)
by vectro on Sun Feb 09, 2003 at 02:25:47 PM EST

The key to his weight loss, I think, is that his total calorie consumption was under 1000 calories a day. I don't care what you eat, if you eat that little, you will lose weight.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]
so what? (3.80 / 5) (#97)
by gray on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 03:45:54 PM EST

So you are indeed telling us that a study I never even heard of is wrong? What's the point? Why should I even care? I am interested in hard facts, surprising ideas and news in the sense of novelty. But this is not it.
-1

Oh dear no! (1.40 / 5) (#101)
by Hide The Hamster on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 04:57:03 PM EST

Say it isn't so!

{=0


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

-1, high-protein diets great, if NOT meat. (2.40 / 5) (#115)
by la princesa on Mon Feb 03, 2003 at 09:35:05 PM EST

eating loads and loads of vegetable proteins is excellent for increasing endurance and stamina and general wellbeing.  note that it doesn't mean going meatless, nor tossing one's carbs by the roadside.  it just means vegetable-based protein as the majority of one's protein.  most americans anyhow already have a high-protein diet, but it's meat, which lends lethargy to the body because of the higher fat amounts.  if one must have animal flesh for the high protein, it should be lean beef and fish.  fowl and swine aren't bad, but don't offer sufficient protein punch for what one is eating, if one is going to be eating meat-based protein.  as an added note to dieters, it is quite difficult to gain weight eating this way.  

___
<qpt> Disprove people? <qpt> What happens when you disprove them? Do they disappear in a flash of logic?
some experience with this (none / 0) (#125)
by jjayson on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 03:39:32 AM EST

I was a vegetarian for about 8 years. During that time, I didn't gain as much muscle from weight lifting as others, so I started a protein supplement (in shake form) called Designer Protein, made of whey. It worked great. About 2-3 years ago I started eating meat again, but I cannot eat red meats or pork, or I get sick. I eat mostly fish, turkey, and white chicken when I eat meat. I also started the Atkins diet about 3 months ago. So far things are great. In the last three months I have dropped about 10 pounds of fat and my body fat leve is back down around 8%. I have a little bit longer to go, but Atkins without all the red meat is doing a good job.

_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

[ Parent ]
Free Advertising (3.00 / 3) (#134)
by numark on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:15 AM EST

All this article is doing is trying to make Atkins and McDougall diets look good. It talks about how great they are and help you lose weight, without talking about the adverse health effects that can come from those diets. If you really want to advertise a diet which is as dangerous as the Atkins diet, at least do it in a more veiled method and don't come out and basically say that they're preferential to anything else.

um.. (none / 0) (#152)
by enterfornone on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 03:10:31 AM EST

The article says the Atkins diet is bad, and links to a site that explains why.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Oh no! (1.00 / 4) (#137)
by Hide The Hamster on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 04:37:28 PM EST

Say it isn't so!

{=0


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

I interpret your ASCII art (none / 0) (#147)
by br14n on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 09:39:01 PM EST

as a reenactment of the attack of the pegleg pirate caterpillar who liked to nod his head. Maybe he was listening to music?

[ Parent ]
Other interesting bits (1.00 / 1) (#138)
by bigbtommy on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 05:31:11 PM EST

I recently linked to that. Also, this link is pretty funny too. I haven't had a chance to explore it fully, but intend to soon...
-- bbCity.co.uk - When I see kids, I speed up
shiver (none / 0) (#148)
by Schnapp23 on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 09:46:51 PM EST

that space piggy thing is pretty creepy.

[ Parent ]
Bah. Quite simply: BAH! (4.50 / 4) (#154)
by arcade on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 06:00:20 AM EST

I'm getting tired of people trying to flame various kind of diets. My weight used to be 110kg, but is currently at 75. My diet? A high-protein one combined with training. For me that was the perfect combination. Haven't lost much muscle, can now work out for hours without problems, and generally spend at least one hour a day on my bike (to and from the university)

The thing is, this works for some of us. I couldn't care less if it doesn't work for you mr article writer. However, it worked for me. And one can flame on about losing muscles, getting high coholesterol (which is a lie on your part, btw), kidney disease and so forth. Let me guarantee you one thing. It would be far more unhealthy for me to weigh in with my 110kg's.

And before you start saying "but you could've used another diet" -- let me assure you. Lots of us has TRIED lots of different diet. Guess what. They don't WORK for everyone. They quite simply DO NOT WORK for all kinds of people

Blagh. rant over.



--
arcade
Amen. (4.00 / 1) (#159)
by porkchop_d_clown on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 09:32:04 AM EST

I get so tired of people who assume that I somehow lived 38 years with out ever hearing "eat less and exercise more".


--
"Your article (and I use that term losely) is just a ad-hominem filled rant from a right-wing extremist loony." - Psycho Les


[ Parent ]
I think you're missing the Author's point (3.50 / 2) (#170)
by Elendale on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 02:55:46 PM EST

The stated purpose was to discredit the claims of the meat industry's study on such a diet. Note that the claim the author makes is that the meat industry compared a healthy high-protein diet to an unhealthy high-carb diet.
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
On the other hand... (4.00 / 3) (#157)
by Silent Chris on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 09:09:29 AM EST

A study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed Vegan mothers may have children with brain abnormalities.  

The end result: eat sensibly.  It's silly to deny yourself meats, just as it would be silly to eat an all meat diet.  Or, in this case, an all vegetable diet.  Balance.

What a joke (3.20 / 5) (#172)
by linuxrob on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 04:28:47 PM EST

did you even read the article?

!!!two!!! mothers had children with brain defects.
This is in no way representative of the total vegan mother population.

And another thing, vegans CAN get b-12. You can get it by eating algae derived b-12 or by eating raw foods (or even flax oil).

You only need one microgram of B-12 a day, and even that's cumulative (you eat meat for awhile and you should be fine for a number of years).

This is not a study! It does not have a control and study group.

Lastly, balance is NOT everything. If I have a little unprotected sex, or a little heroin, I am endangering myself. Balance is not a magical equation that applies to everything.

Just my 2 cents.

[ Parent ]

Hence the word "may" (2.00 / 2) (#179)
by Silent Chris on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:49:48 AM EST

I also disagree with the size of the group studied, but it's interesting to note that it studied and found at all.

[ Parent ]
Weak Article (none / 0) (#173)
by MicroBerto on Wed Feb 05, 2003 at 04:46:32 PM EST

This article is short and weak. For every statement, I could simply ask "why?", and it is rarely backed up.

However, that's fine by me, I'm on a weight-gaining phase using Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST), and it is going WONDERFULLY. I'm inclined to write an article about HST, because the workout is backed by tons of science that you guys would love (and that's not in this article), while it truly works for getting bigger. It'd just be a tough article to write. Check out the site though.

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip

Quack diets? (none / 0) (#186)
by strigiform2003 on Tue Mar 04, 2003 at 10:42:41 AM EST

Christopher Wanjek went into the flaws of the Atkins diet in great detail in his book Bad Medicine (Wiley). Basically, Atkins had a mishmash of truth and falsehood - the diet works but only briefly before ketosis sets in - that can lead to a coma.

With the quanity of meat that I have eatten --- (none / 0) (#187)
by lukme on Tue Mar 25, 2003 at 12:55:06 AM EST

I can only say, that with the quanity of meat that I have eatten over my short life, after reading your rebuttal, I have come to the conclusion that I should have died at least 5 years ago (of eatting too much meat).


-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
Meat industry sponsored study backs high-protein diet | 189 comments (134 topical, 55 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!