Why Diets Should be History (article)

S t a c i said:

Something I found in the international edition of USA Today this morning:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-02-forum1_x.htm

It's not rocket science, but I found this bit interesting (no source for
study provided):

"But in truth, people who skip breakfast are 450% more likely to be
overweight or obese. They are training their bodies to store fat, the way
you are if you skip meals regularly."

The "450%" should be a clue that the number was pulled out of
someone's ass and the statement is [censored]. Not eating breakfast
doesn't cause fat-storage any more than the oft-touted advice to
not eat anything in the evening does.

--
jamie ([email hidden])

"There's a seeker born every minute."

S t a c i wrote:
| Something I found in the international edition of USA Today this
| morning:
|
| http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-02-forum1_x.htm
|
| It's not rocket science, but I found this bit interesting (no source
| for study provided):
|
| "But in truth, people who skip breakfast are 450% more likely to be
| overweight or obese. They are training their bodies to store fat, the
| way you are if you skip meals regularly."
|
| S t a c i

Bull, pure and simple -- IMO. It's somebody's voodoo self-justification for
eating too much too often. Nobody ever got fat by not eating. The quote
had no scientific data to back it up, and it is stated the article was
written as an "opinion." The guy who wrote the article is a moron and is
perpetuating an old myth -- because it's what he's always been told. His
advocating eating constantly all day long is the same anti-thinking as the
ADA that has contributed to thousands of diabetics getting fatter and fatter
and their blood sugar levels getting more and more out of control. The key
to weight loss as we all know, is eating less and eating less starches and
sugars. The resulting ketosis provides us witn a steady source of fuel 24/7
and makes specific meals irrelevant. Many of never eat breakfast. I never
have, and think it makes no sense at all to add another meal and more
calories to my day in order to lose weight.

--
Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

"J David Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sorry, marengo, I answered the right post, but used the OP's name. I
called you Staci, I should have used marengo.

Thanks for clearing that up, David. Just because I posted the article
doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it or any of the subsequent posts!
S t a c i

J David Anderson said:

You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat up
to six small meals per day.

That's suggested mainly because most people dieting on low-fat
high-carb need to eat that frequently to limit carb
rebound hunger from the blood sugar going up and down. It's not
necessary on LC.

Quoted message said:

Skipping breakfast isn't "not eating" it is messing with the metabolism.

If you put your body into a "famine or feast" routine, it will respond
by trying to take advantage of the feast and store energy (as fat) for
the next famine. As the time period between feast and famine is too
small to allow the use of the stored fat, the fat builds up.

Like it or not, believe it or not, that is the way it works.

Not eating a few more hours a day doesn't trigger a famine response
in anybody's metabolism. There's a huge difference between fasting
and having 2 meals daily instead of 3.

--
jamie ([email hidden])

"There's a seeker born every minute."

J David Anderson wrote:
| On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 01:02:11 -0400, "marengo" <[email hidden]>
| wrote:
|
|| S t a c i wrote:
||| Something I found in the international edition of USA Today this
||| morning:
|||
||| http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-02-forum1_x.htm
|||
||| It's not rocket science, but I found this bit interesting (no source
||| for study provided):
|||
||| "But in truth, people who skip breakfast are 450% more likely to be
||| overweight or obese. They are training their bodies to store fat,
||| the way you are if you skip meals regularly."
|||
||| S t a c i
||
||
|| Bull, pure and simple -- IMO.
|
| You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
| Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat
| up to six small meals per day.
|
These same "qualified professionals" that are telling people to eat six
small meals a day are still telling people that eating cholesterol and fat
raises your cholesterol levels, makes you obese and gives you heart attacks
and strokes. It's outddated, incorrect thinking based on a tradition of
incorrect science. Otherwise we'd all be on a low-fat diet with plenty or
grains, fruits and baked potatoes like they recommend!

--
Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

S t a c i wrote:
| "J David Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
|
|| Sorry, marengo, I answered the right post, but used the OP's name. I
|| called you Staci, I should have used marengo.
||
||
|
| Thanks for clearing that up, David. Just because I posted the article
| doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it or any of the subsequent
| posts! S t a c i

I assumed that Stai; I was disagreeing with the author of the article, not
with you. :-)
--
Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

marengo said:

J David Anderson wrote:
| On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 01:02:11 -0400, "marengo" <[email hidden]>
| wrote:
|
|| S t a c i wrote:
||| Something I found in the international edition of USA Today this
||| morning:
|||
|||
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-02-forum1_x.htm
|||
||| It's not rocket science, but I found this bit interesting (no source
||| for study provided):
|||
||| "But in truth, people who skip breakfast are 450% more likely to be
||| overweight or obese. They are training their bodies to store fat,
||| the way you are if you skip meals regularly."
|||
||| S t a c i
||
||
|| Bull, pure and simple -- IMO.
|
| You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
| Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat
| up to six small meals per day.
|
These same "qualified professionals" that are telling people to eat six
small meals a day are still telling people that eating cholesterol and
fat
raises your cholesterol levels, makes you obese and gives you heart
attacks
and strokes. It's outddated, incorrect thinking based on a tradition of
incorrect science. Otherwise we'd all be on a low-fat diet with plenty
or
grains, fruits and baked potatoes like they recommend!

Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I still
like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it very hard not
to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when exercising (and where a
"meal" can be a raw cucumber).

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

jamie said:

J David Anderson said:

You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat up
to six small meals per day.

That's suggested mainly because most people dieting on low-fat
high-carb need to eat that frequently to limit carb
rebound hunger from the blood sugar going up and down. It's not
necessary on LC.

Quoted message said:

Skipping breakfast isn't "not eating" it is messing with the metabolism.

If you put your body into a "famine or feast" routine, it will respond
by trying to take advantage of the feast and store energy (as fat) for
the next famine. As the time period between feast and famine is too
small to allow the use of the stored fat, the fat builds up.

Like it or not, believe it or not, that is the way it works.

Not eating a few more hours a day doesn't trigger a famine response
in anybody's metabolism. There's a huge difference between fasting
and having 2 meals daily instead of 3.

Not eating between your evening meal and your lunch could well be 16
hours or more, sufficient BTW, to qualify as a "fast" for many medical
procedures. During that time you are (in most cases) working, putting a
demand on your body for energy. That is sufficient to cause the body to
drop the metabolic rate in order to maximise the benefit of what food it
has available. It is not a theory, it is a commonplace fact.

The thing is that this works in practice, it is often evident when
people who have been in the habit of not eating breakfast begin to do
so. I have seen it consistently over more than two decades, usually with
very surprised women who had believed that the more meals they skipped,
the better chance they had of controlling weight.

Regards

David

J. David Anderson said:

jamie said:

J David Anderson said:

You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat
up
to six small meals per day.

That's suggested mainly because most people dieting on low-fat
high-carb need to eat that frequently to limit carb
rebound hunger from the blood sugar going up and down. It's not
necessary on LC.

Quoted message said:

Skipping breakfast isn't "not eating" it is messing with the
metabolism.

If you put your body into a "famine or feast" routine, it will respond
by trying to take advantage of the feast and store energy (as fat) for
the next famine. As the time period between feast and famine is too
small to allow the use of the stored fat, the fat builds up.

Like it or not, believe it or not, that is the way it works.

Not eating a few more hours a day doesn't trigger a famine response
in anybody's metabolism. There's a huge difference between fasting
and having 2 meals daily instead of 3.

Not eating between your evening meal and your lunch could well be 16
hours or more, sufficient BTW, to qualify as a "fast" for many medical
procedures. During that time you are (in most cases) working, putting a
demand on your body for energy. That is sufficient to cause the body to
drop the metabolic rate in order to maximise the benefit of what food it
has available. It is not a theory, it is a commonplace fact.

The thing is that this works in practice, it is often evident when
people who have been in the habit of not eating breakfast begin to do
so. I have seen it consistently over more than two decades, usually with
very surprised women who had believed that the more meals they skipped,
the better chance they had of controlling weight.

Regards

David

Moreover, I almost always overeat if I go too long between meals. I don't
know why, but it's always been true.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

[email hidden] (jamie) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

J David Anderson said:

You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat up
to six small meals per day.

That's suggested mainly because most people dieting on low-fat
high-carb need to eat that frequently to limit carb
rebound hunger from the blood sugar going up and down. It's not
necessary on LC.

Nice troll. It's recommened to eat frequent small portions as it
provides are more consistent source of energy so maintains the
metabolism better. Also nutrients such as protein need to be eaten
steadily rather than all at once as the body has no means to store
them. There's no need to turn every single discussion into a way to
preach LC.

The Voice of Reason wrote:
|| [email hidden] (jamie) wrote in message
|| news:<[email hidden]>...
||| J David Anderson <[email hidden]> wrote:
||||
|||| You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
|||| Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to
|||| eat up
|||| to six small meals per day.
|||
||| That's suggested mainly because most people dieting on low-fat
||| high-carb need to eat that frequently to limit carb
||| rebound hunger from the blood sugar going up and down. It's not
||| necessary on LC.
||
|| Nice troll. It's recommened to eat frequent small portions as it
|| provides are more consistent source of energy so maintains the
|| metabolism better. Also nutrients such as protein need to be eaten
|| steadily rather than all at once as the body has no means to store
|| them. There's no need to turn every single discussion into a way to
|| preach LC.

How is that a troll? Also, she made a very good point about the differences
between LF eating and LC eating. This is a LC newgroup, you know, so that's
what people tend to discuss here. If you don't like that, you can go preach
your stuff elsewhere.

Bob in CT wrote:
|| On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 09:14:58 -0400, marengo <[email hidden]>
|| wrote:
||
||| J David Anderson wrote:
|||| On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 01:02:11 -0400, "marengo" <[email hidden]>
|||| wrote:
||||
||||| S t a c i wrote:
|||||| Something I found in the international edition of USA Today this
|||||| morning:
||||||
||||||
||| http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-02-forum1_x.htm
||||||
|||||| It's not rocket science, but I found this bit interesting (no
|||||| source for study provided):
||||||
|||||| "But in truth, people who skip breakfast are 450% more likely to
|||||| be overweight or obese. They are training their bodies to store
|||||| fat, the way you are if you skip meals regularly."
||||||
|||||| S t a c i
|||||
|||||
||||| Bull, pure and simple -- IMO.
||||
|||| You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
|||| Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to
|||| eat up to six small meals per day.
||||
||| These same "qualified professionals" that are telling people to eat
||| six small meals a day are still telling people that eating
||| cholesterol and fat
||| raises your cholesterol levels, makes you obese and gives you heart
||| attacks
||| and strokes. It's outddated, incorrect thinking based on a
||| tradition of incorrect science. Otherwise we'd all be on a low-fat
||| diet with plenty or
||| grains, fruits and baked potatoes like they recommend!
|||
||
|| Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I
|| still like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it
|| very hard not to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when
|| exercising (and where a "meal" can be a raw cucumber).

I think there is a difference between telling people what the should do and
people doing what they LIKE to do. You feel better when you eat frequenty
smaller meals. Others don't, and there is not reason to believe, that I
know of, that on a LC WOE that is necessary -unless one simply feels better
doing that.

||
|| --
|| Bob in CT
|| Remove ".x" to reply

[cut]

Quoted message said:

||
|| Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I
|| still like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it
|| very hard not to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when
|| exercising (and where a "meal" can be a raw cucumber).

I think there is a difference between telling people what the should do
and
people doing what they LIKE to do. You feel better when you eat
frequenty
smaller meals. Others don't, and there is not reason to believe, that I
know of, that on a LC WOE that is necessary -unless one simply feels
better
doing that.

Heck, I don't care what anyone does, as long as it doesn't affect me. I
personally feel that eating more meals is better, but if someone can get
by without eating breakfast (for instance), then so be it. However, if
the theory is that the people who gravitate toward low carb are those who
have insulin problems, then I still would advise them to eat multiple
small meals. I've gotten dizzy (my sign for high blood sugar) just from
eating a large meal of primarily meat, so that's why I've continued to eat
small meals. Also, large meals to me cause my stomach to "stretch" and so
then I don't feel full after eating a subsequent small meal.
Additionally, I always overeat when I go for a long time without eating.
Finally, I simply have to eat regularly, as my blood sugar will drop too
low after a while. For those who don't have any of these problems, then
they can eat whatever they want (although I'm convinced that they don't
have blood sugar problems to begin with and can eat whatever they want).

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Bob in CT wrote:
| [cut]
||||
|||| Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I
|||| still like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it
|||| very hard not to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when
|||| exercising (and where a "meal" can be a raw cucumber).
||
|| I think there is a difference between telling people what the should
|| do and
|| people doing what they LIKE to do. You feel better when you eat
|| frequenty
|| smaller meals. Others don't, and there is not reason to believe,
|| that I know of, that on a LC WOE that is necessary -unless one
|| simply feels better
|| doing that.
||
|
| Heck, I don't care what anyone does, as long as it doesn't affect me.
| I personally feel that eating more meals is better, but if someone
| can get by without eating breakfast (for instance), then so be it.
| However, if the theory is that the people who gravitate toward low
| carb are those who have insulin problems, then I still would advise
| them to eat multiple small meals. I've gotten dizzy (my sign for
| high blood sugar) just from eating a large meal of primarily meat, so
| that's why I've continued to eat small meals. Also, large meals to
| me cause my stomach to "stretch" and so then I don't feel full after
| eating a subsequent small meal. Additionally, I always overeat when I
| go for a long time without eating. Finally, I simply have to eat
| regularly, as my blood sugar will drop too low after a while. For
| those who don't have any of these problems, then they can eat
| whatever they want (although I'm convinced that they don't have blood
| sugar problems to begin with and can eat whatever they want).

Just goes to show you that although alike, we're all different. I'm T2
diabetic, and my blood glucose stays within normal ranges on low-carb eating
alone, regardless of how frequently/infrequently I eat. I guess anyone who
overeats in any one meal is setting himself up for insulin problems
regardless of what they're eating, but the whole point of low-carb is that I
feel satisfied with less food.

Personally I think there is probably no absolute here; it more likely what
we we're used to. We're such creatures of habit, and it's amazing what our
bodies can adapt to.

--
Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

marengo said:

Bob in CT wrote:
| [cut]
||||
|||| Except that neither of these jive with what I'm experiencing. I
|||| still like to eat about 6 meals a day and eat low carb. I find it
|||| very hard not to eat at least 4 meals a day, especially when
|||| exercising (and where a "meal" can be a raw cucumber).
||
|| I think there is a difference between telling people what the should
|| do and
|| people doing what they LIKE to do. You feel better when you eat
|| frequenty
|| smaller meals. Others don't, and there is not reason to believe,
|| that I know of, that on a LC WOE that is necessary -unless one
|| simply feels better
|| doing that.
||
|
| Heck, I don't care what anyone does, as long as it doesn't affect me.
| I personally feel that eating more meals is better, but if someone
| can get by without eating breakfast (for instance), then so be it.
| However, if the theory is that the people who gravitate toward low
| carb are those who have insulin problems, then I still would advise
| them to eat multiple small meals. I've gotten dizzy (my sign for
| high blood sugar) just from eating a large meal of primarily meat, so
| that's why I've continued to eat small meals. Also, large meals to
| me cause my stomach to "stretch" and so then I don't feel full after
| eating a subsequent small meal. Additionally, I always overeat when I
| go for a long time without eating. Finally, I simply have to eat
| regularly, as my blood sugar will drop too low after a while. For
| those who don't have any of these problems, then they can eat
| whatever they want (although I'm convinced that they don't have blood
| sugar problems to begin with and can eat whatever they want).

Just goes to show you that although alike, we're all different. I'm T2
diabetic, and my blood glucose stays within normal ranges on low-carb
eating
alone, regardless of how frequently/infrequently I eat. I guess anyone
who
overeats in any one meal is setting himself up for insulin problems
regardless of what they're eating, but the whole point of low-carb is
that I
feel satisfied with less food.

Personally I think there is probably no absolute here; it more likely
what
we we're used to. We're such creatures of habit, and it's amazing what
our
bodies can adapt to.

You have a good point.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Dr. Bernstein recommends a 3.5 hour gap between meals and snacks, so your
blood sugars don't overlap. Three meals, but snacks between are okay, as
long as the 3.5 hour gap is observed.

What does "overlap" mean in this sense? And does it apply at all
to non-diabetics? Is it really meaningful for LC diabetes management,
or is it just carried over from the standard "diabetics should eat
frequently" on the carby low-fat ADA diet?

Personally, if I eat more frequently than two meals and a snack per
day, I feel sluggish and hungry all day. But I digest slowly --
after a good-sized but not stuffed weekend brunch, I usually feel
like I just ate for 4 to 6 hours, and not hungry for for a few more
hours than that, maybe not for the rest of the day.

On the other hand, if I eat breakfast -- and I usually don't because
I'm not hungry in the morning -- it's a pretty small meal, because
a larger one would nauseate me that early, and then I end up feeling
ravenously hungry all day.

--
jamie ([email hidden])

"There's a seeker born every minute."

(jamie) said:

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Dr. Bernstein recommends a 3.5 hour gap between meals and snacks, so your
blood sugars don't overlap. Three meals, but snacks between are okay, as
long as the 3.5 hour gap is observed.

What does "overlap" mean in this sense? And does it apply at all
to non-diabetics? Is it really meaningful for LC diabetes management,
or is it just carried over from the standard "diabetics should eat
frequently" on the carby low-fat ADA diet?

What I understand is that it takes your stomach 3.5 hours to empty
completely (more or less). So the theory is that if you wait to eat again
until those 3.5 hours are up, your insulin levels should be back where they
belong, and you don't get a double-whammy where two meals overlap. I hope
I explained that okay.

I generally have a 6-carb breakfast, a 12-carb lunch, a 12-carb dinner, and
on some days (usually the stressful ones, I'll have an evening snack, too.

Quoted message said:

Personally, if I eat more frequently than two meals and a snack per
day, I feel sluggish and hungry all day. But I digest slowly --
after a good-sized but not stuffed weekend brunch, I usually feel
like I just ate for 4 to 6 hours, and not hungry for for a few more
hours than that, maybe not for the rest of the day.

Sounds like a workable plan for you.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, if I eat breakfast -- and I usually don't because
I'm not hungry in the morning -- it's a pretty small meal, because
a larger one would nauseate me that early, and then I end up feeling
ravenously hungry all day.

For breakfast, I usually have a chocolate omelette, a couple scrambled
eggs, or an avocado (Dr. B says 1/2 an avocado for breakfast - I say nuts
to that!). <G>

The times when I get ravenously hungry are when I haven't eaten enough
earlier in the day, and I go nuts in the afternoon/evening.

Carol
--
227/211/150 (Thursdays)
Fasting BG: 108
Bernstein Diabetes Solution 5/25/2004
Diabetes Dx 5/15/2001
http://photos.yahoo.com/carol_arie

Damsel in dis Dress said:

(jamie) said:

Damsel in dis Dress said:

Dr. Bernstein recommends a 3.5 hour gap between meals and snacks, so your
blood sugars don't overlap. Three meals, but snacks between are okay, as
long as the 3.5 hour gap is observed.

What does "overlap" mean in this sense? And does it apply at all
to non-diabetics? Is it really meaningful for LC diabetes management,
or is it just carried over from the standard "diabetics should eat
frequently" on the carby low-fat ADA diet?

What I understand is that it takes your stomach 3.5 hours to empty
completely (more or less). So the theory is that if you wait to eat again
until those 3.5 hours are up, your insulin levels should be back where they
belong, and you don't get a double-whammy where two meals overlap. I hope
I explained that okay.

I get what you're saying, but -- I don't know the details on
Bernstein's diet, and if you're eating LC and therefore not eating
foods that spike insulin, I'm not clear on how it applies to LCing
diabetics.

3.5 hours might be average, but it sure doesn't work for me. I know
that if I eat dinner at 7pm and nothing later, I still have some food
in my stomach at 7am. I know this because I sometimes gag myself
brushing my back teeth in the morning, and barf up food solids, as
well as my coffee. As I said previously, if I have a large but not
stuffed lunch I feel like I *just* ate for 4 to 6 hours, and may not be
hungry until late evening or the next day.

I believe it's called Delayed Gastric Emptying, and I don't know
why I have it (never remember to ask the doctor), because according
to any time I've tried to websearch it, it's usually only found in
certain diseases I don't have and most commonly in...
(*surprise*) diabetics.
So maybe the average time to empty the stomach can't be
blanket-applied to diabetics as a whole group.

--
jamie ([email hidden])

"There's a seeker born every minute."

The Voice of Reason said:

[email hidden] (jamie) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

J David Anderson said:

You opinion doesn't have much support among qualified professionals
Staci. The way most often suggested for ideal meal planning is to eat up
to six small meals per day.

That's suggested mainly because most people dieting on low-fat
high-carb need to eat that frequently to limit carb
rebound hunger from the blood sugar going up and down. It's not
necessary on LC.

Nice troll. It's recommened to eat frequent small portions as it
provides are more consistent source of energy so maintains the
metabolism better. Also nutrients such as protein need to be eaten
steadily rather than all at once as the body has no means to store
them. There's no need to turn every single discussion into a way to
preach LC.

That's horseshit, and if it were true, the human race would died out
millenia ago.

--
jamie ([email hidden])

"There's a seeker born every minute."