Weight Loss help

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2WheelsGood
1. Define "junkfood."
2. You will literally die without fat in your food.
3. So, calories from fruits and vegetables simply don't count? Hmmm.
4. Why ride slow?

Otherwise it sounds perfect. Get some business cards, charge 50 bucks for this, and you can call yourself a "nutritionist."

1. 'Junkfood' includes stuff high in saturated fat (hamburgers, chips, donuts, fried takeaway rubbish.

2. Of course you will, but there is more than enough fat in a balanced diet already. Frying food in the stuff is not a good idea.

3. Nobody could get fat on a diet of fruit and vegetables, unless you were eating about 100 avocados per day. Mind you, you would look worse on a diet of McDonalds or whatever strange stuff they sell in California (deep fried tofu perhaps)

4. Plenty of evidence elsewhere on the forum (and elsewhere) to show that slow, aerobic exercise will help get rid of body fat.

Try this simple technique: Go to a fast food shop, and look at the people buying the product. Then go to a fresh fruit/vegetable market and do the same. QED.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Blimp
or whatever strange stuff they sell in California (deep fried tofu perhaps)

My favourite is deep fried Mars bar. Yummy !!!

P.S. Why is white flour killing me?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Harrow
My favourite is deep fried Mars bar. Yummy !!!

Remember the 1980's? Deep fried camembert with cranberry sauce

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by kiwiboy
carbohydrates are ok the problem with most however is they are actually full of sugar, the classic is the 97% fat free stuff, loaded with sugar, sugar converts to ........FAT amazing.

Sugar is a form of carbohydrate. A simple scientific fact. Carbohydrates are not "full of sugar", sugar is a carbohydrate. Sugar (or any other carbohydrate) is not usually converted to fat, it's just that the body uses glycogen before it uses fat as a fuel. (Simple aerobic or anaerobic combustion of carbohydrates - year 8 biology coversd this). Hence, if you eat too much food, there is ample carbohydrate available for day to day activites so your body stores the fat.

Fruit is also loaded with water and nutrients. I've never seen a fat (long term) vegetarian.

29 years of white flour and still alive! I must be lucky.

Balance and moderation are the key, not pseudo-scientific mumbojumbo. It's a simple energy balance, just most people don't care or understand where they are putting energy into their body.

I have to agree with the look at what people are eating theory - I have lunch with the same people every day, and the fat ones are the ones who have a full meal with chips and gravy plus a dessert for lunch, while I'm there eating my pasta (despite usually having ridden 50km before work) and diet coke.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
Where is the 'new' pyramid, I have checked a few sources but couldn't find one? The pyramid always told you to avoid some carbohydrates (refined sugars) and to use lots of complex carbohydrates (breads, rice, potatoes, etc.).

2LAP, here's a link to a great article on the "new" food pyramid:

New Food Pyramid

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by kiwiboy
So you can go from 80-90% carbs which most people eat unaware to a more balanced diet of protein and fats.

Are most people in the us eating 80-90% of carbs in their diet, that realy is a low fat low carbohydrate diet!

Normaly, its recomend 50-60% carbohydrate leaving plenty of room for protein and fat. In the UK I have done dietary analysis on a number of athletes and children, all have managed to come close to this. Although the foods eaten to get to the target compositions have left a little to be desired!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by wamara
2LAP, here's a link to a great article on the "new" food pyramid:

New Food Pyramid

An interesting article and pyramid, which is far from accepted or proven yet. I think its useful as it helps to divide up 'good and bad' sources or fat and carbohydrate more clearly. The two pyramids are not too different; there is just more diferentiation in the new pyramid. The new pyramid also supports the balanced diet, as carbs, protein and fat remain are all included. I think that when eating this kind of diet you would still consumb close to <30% fat, ~15% protein and the rest from carbohydrate; similar to the old recomendations. What is different are the sources of these macronutrients (i.e. avoid refined sugar, butter, red meat, etc.).

The balanced diet is the way to go, food choices made within the diet help to make it a better or worse diet. Faddy diets (be it high carb, fat or protein) are often unfounded and carry their own health risks.

Shabby,
Have a look on food products the amount of carbohydrates then look at the % that comes from sugar it will scare you.
The new food pyramid has placed this as a problem as well.
Not all Carbohydrates are equal, white flour no, no etc.

Sugar is a poor energy source a good book to read is called white death interesting stuff.

Another good read is nutrition related diseases the british Journal of medicine has interesting stuff on it.
That will scare you as well.
No dought that many diseases are related to the current diets of most people cancer is on the increase hmmmm wonder why maybe diet?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by kiwiboy
Another good read is nutrition related diseases the british Journal of medicine has interesting stuff on it.
That will scare you as well.
No dought that many diseases are related to the current diets of most people cancer is on the increase hmmmm wonder why maybe diet?

The truth is though, that if you eat a good diet and avoid exercise you will avoid many nutrition related diseases. In the end we all know what the healthy choices are; wholemeal not white bread, fruit not chocolate, grilled chicken not McDonalds, olive oil not lard, etc. It does appear that people look for short cuts to health and weight loss; when perhaps just a healthy, active and normal lifestyle is easiest.

What about those guys sueing McDonalds for making them fat; I'm sure that even they knew that McDonalds is bad for you and contains way too many calories in each meal!!!

Having started cycling only recently(April) I have been looking to increase my knowledge about training and nutrition. The first thing that hit me was that the limiting factor on the bike was ME :-) I have read in books and possibly even in this forum that to get better performance I did'nt need to buy a full carbon bike, All I needed to do at first was shed some weight off of myself :-) When I started in april I was about 177lbs (my height is 5'11). Now in July my weight is 168lbs.

All I did to achieve this is, cut Soft Drink consumption, cut chips and lookalikes and reduced a little the portions I was eating. Coupled with an average of 150-250km of cycling per week did the trick.

However I did pay attention when my body was telling me to "Eat God damnit" :-) so sometimes I am forced to have a second supper after long intensive rides. In a sense I am still trying to understand the signs my body is telling me about it nutritional needs.

My conclusion is that the "watch your food intake versus your energy expenditure" makes perfect sense.

I plan to try and bring the weight slowly down to 160-165lbs range or until I feel it is enough.

One question I have though, Is it possible that when you start to train and loose a little weight, that if your weight goes from 175-170 you may have lost more fat then 5lbs because of a little muscle gain? I'm just curious. I have noticed that although my weight has stopped declining, I can still notice visible signs of fat reduction on my body? Can this be explained by an increase in muscle mass ?

thanks

alp!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by redstorm Is it possible that when you start to train and loose a little weight, that if your weight goes from 175-170 you may have lost more fat then 5lbs because of a little muscle gain?

Absolutely. And that's why the scale is a very poor indicator of body fat content. Scales are good for measuring dehydration, but that's about it. 😉

A rebuttal.

Atkins was originally designed as a dietary control for type II diabetes. The goal was to restore the normal role for insulin. Chronic high levels of insulin are a killer. The resulting weight loss was a welcome side effect. It turns out that a large proportion of people do not do well on a high carbohydrate diet. 60% of Americans are overweight or obese. One in three three-year-olds are predicted to develop type II diabetes in their lifetime. Americans eat more sugars and refined carbohydrate now than in any time in history. Obesity and vascular disease track the growth in carbohydrate consumption.

The Atkins program is divided into four stages. In the forth and final stage a person’s carbohydrate consumption is roughly equivalent to that of a person living 200 years ago. The reason Atkins seems so extreme is that the level of carbohydrate consumption we consider normal is in truth pathological. I encourage anyone to read Atkins books and then decide.

If you walk the aisles of a typical grocery store you’ll find that the high profit processed food are typically based around cheap agricultural commodities like soy, wheat, or corn. Sweeteners are also dirt-cheap. Agribusiness is getting rich while the rest of us are getting fatter. The destruction of the health of the population is an externality that isn’t considered in the corporate bottom line. Unhealthy Americans are unhealthy because it’s public policy, de facto or otherwise, to be unhealthy.

“So, what has this to do with cycling?” you may ask?

The web and bike shops are full of stories of people who are at a level of fitness that is atypical. They burn tremendous amounts of energy, eat lots of carbs, and appear fit and trim. This is fine for the minority of dedicated cyclists, but this minority is miniscule compared to the average Joe whose a little soggy around the middle and gets out of breath after a flight of stairs. Average Joe is a victim of corporate and government PR that has convinced him that fats are bad and carbs are good. He’s the target for the sugar salespersons.

One of cycling’s problems in the U.S. is that it is seen by many to be a hobby or an elite sport. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area where bike lines abound. The Bay Area is exceptional. When I travel one of the things I notice is the lack of bike lanes everywhere else. On the other hand, if bike lanes exist, they usually link neighborhoods with public schools. Cycling in the U.S. comes nowhere close to the popularity it enjoys in Europe.

Another problem with cycling is one I’ve seen right here in this forum. Those already in the sport intimidate beginning cyclists. Most of the advice to the novices seems to be geared toward winning the big race or not looking like a dork. I’ve seen people extol the virtues of some high carb concoction to some other person without bothering to ask what are this person’s fitness goals, level of fitness, dietary concerns, etc. There seems to be a one size fits all approach to cycling. For the good of the sport, we need to think in more broad terms. America needs more cyclists.

Personally, I haven’t been consistent with cycling over the years. I was more fit when I rode a lot. When I stopped riding, the pounds started to accumulate. When I started riding again, I couldn’t seem to lose the weight. I turned to Atkins only after investigating it for about six months. I refused to go on a diet only to fail. Been there, done that. Before losing 30 pounds, I had so much fat around my middle that I couldn’t breath properly when I was down on the drops. Now I’ve eased off on the more restrictive parts of the diet. I still have a way to go toward my ultimate fitness goal. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be an Atkins program for my level of cycling. I ride about 100 miles per week and try to keep my cadence up around 90 rpm. I need a boost on some of the longer rides but I’m suspicious of $4 bags of sugar goo. Speaking as a former carb addict, I’m off the insulin roller coaster and don’t care to get back on it. Maybe my insistence on avoiding sugar will keep me out of the competition. So be it. I’m 47 for crying out loud. Eating a pile of sugar at 27 is not the same as eating it when you’re 47. By the time you’re 37 it will catch up with you.

Redstorm,

Weighing yourself can be a little maddening. Weighing every day can drive one crazy. Is it fat, muscle, or just a little water? Weighing, in my not so humble opinion, works best as a long term thing. Use it to track trends or detect major distruptions.

I was impressed with your diet tweeks. Regulating the excess carb is a powerful weight control tool.

Hi DurangoKid,

I agree that taking your weight too seriously is not good. But I like to do it once a week at least to see whats going on :-) As for fat and Muscle, I was just wondering if my exitement was making me think I was slimmer than I really am or if their is a possibility that more fat was lost then the weight change showed because of some muscle gain.

Right now I am more concerned about not being too skinny, my Girlfriend has made it clear she does'nt want to date Skeletor :-)

As for the Diet, nothing really impressive, I think I might have been eating little bit too much food for the energy I was using. Cutting down on 2-3 500ml PEPSIs per day surely must have helped :-) Caffeine withdrawl sux tho :-)

see ya

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by DurangoKid
Redstorm,

Weighing yourself can be a little maddening. Weighing every day can drive one crazy. Is it fat, muscle, or just a little water? Weighing, in my not so humble opinion, works best as a long term thing. Use it to track trends or detect major distruptions.

I was impressed with your diet tweeks. Regulating the excess carb is a powerful weight control tool.

2lap,
Even many wholemeal breads are full of so much sugar and who knows what else.

I say buyer beware.

If one was to break down ones weekly food intake and worked out how much sugar fibre etc I am sure even the most health choices would look bad, allot of the low fat meals you can buy are bad news.

Look I try to eat a good meals but its hard when ones life is flat out walk down the supermarkets there is so much [censored] its unbeleivable.

Another good read if you are so inclined "to much medicine by Ray Moynihan this was a ABC television series in Australia and eurpoe. We are sold such lies nutrition is probably the biggest.

But hay if you have a Good diet by whos standards.

Good luck all I can say.

P.s I commonly look after people who are vegs with high cholesterol go figure????

Men who have been elite runners with major MI's scarey

Health is a business, beware!!!!!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
What about those guys sueing McDonalds for making them fat; I'm sure that even they knew that McDonalds is bad for you and contains way too many calories in each meal!!!

This is going to be a very interesting case. The lawyer is the same guy who got the smoking companies. It might sound like a foolish case at first, but the argument is that McDonald's has been promoting their food as healthy for years, and now people have heart disease for eating a product that the manufacturer told them was healthy. I think Ronald will stop laughing soon.:p

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Harrow
This is going to be a very interesting case. The lawyer is the same guy who got the smoking companies. It might sound like a foolish case at first, but the argument is that McDonald's has been promoting their food as healthy for years, and now people have heart disease for eating a product that the manufacturer told them was healthy. I think Ronald will stop laughing soon.:p

That suit, if it's the one I'm thinking of, was dismissed. It was brought on behalf of two obese teens. In effect the judge rulled that no one put a gun to their head.

There's a principle in law called an atractive nuisance. It consists of something that appears to be desirable but contains a hazard that one might reasonably not be expeced to understand or be aware of. E.g., to a youngster an old refrigerator might be a pretend rocket ship. One couldn't expect a minor to understand that there is no escape after the door closes and latches.

Now, consider McDonalds and their relentless PR campaign directed at minor children. Their restaurants, food, and characters are used to sell products to children who by law aren't recognized to be able to act in their own best interests. They are lured in with promises of fun and sweet-salty-fatty foods. As regular customers they become habituated to junk food. One might claim that it's up to the parents to intervene and regulate the consumption of junk foods. Explain this to a screaming 4-year-old and the distraught parents who just want to get a bite to eat and continue on their way. McDonalds has the economic clout to position their restaurants in high traffic areas and drive out other locally owned restaurants. They can saturate the media with messages.
Herein lies the rub. To apply the standard of attractive nuisance to McDonalds would be to open a floodgate of suits against all mannor of businesses that advertise to children. I have no problem with that. The sugar salesmen of the world should be drawn and quartered. It could prove to be a major economic hit against the agribusinesses that produce the feedstocks right down to the vendors that sell it and everyone in between. This is not likely to happen in a country where representative government means a government that represents the corporations. Some Scandinavian countries have sidestepped this issue to some degree by outlawing advertising to children. In years to come it will be interesting to see whose children are healthier. By recent estimates 1/3 of all three year old Americans will be type II diabetics in their lifetimes. McDonalds disclaimers ring hollow when one considers they have pitted the best minds in advertising against children. They know what they're doing. They want customers to be loyal to McDonalds from cradle to grave. With liberty and sugar for all.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by DurangoKid One might claim that it's up to the parents to intervene and regulate the consumption of junk foods. Explain this to a screaming 4-year-old and the distraught parents who just want to get a bite to eat and continue on their way.

Please tell me you aren't serious. So because these "distraught" parents don't want to hear their kids scream, it's McDonalds' fault that they eat there? If you can't keep your kids out of McDonalds, you should not be having children. Wow, sheer brilliance.

So tell me, since the list of things we're no longer responsible for has grown too long to print, maybe you could tell me what we ARE still responsible for. Anything? Anything at all?

I'll promise you this: no amount of screaming will get me to take my kid to McDonalds. I'll let him/her go there when they're 18.

The reason people's diets suck is because they don't want to be responsible for their actions. Simple as that. It's people like you who want to blame someone else (McDonalds, the "sugar salesman," etc.) that makes this possible. People like you are McDonalds' best friend. As soon as people stop blaming someone else and take responsibility for themselves and their children, McDonalds will go out of business with no help at all.

Yep, you just keep blaming McDonalds. I am curious, though. If their advertising is so brilliant as you say, and if we're really so helpless on our own, why don't I eat there? Hmmm. It must be my tinfoil hat. 🙄