Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How do Europeans stay thin?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by noodletoy View Post
    maybe all the yelling to get your point across burned more calories, lol.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    Haha, that was a good one

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      It is stored within minutes of being digested, about 10-15 minutes
      ChocoTaco369, you should stop spreading bollockery with such conviction. Fats are the macro that takes THE LONGEST to be digested. The macro that is digested the fastest is carbs, then come proteins, then fats. It may take MANY hours to digest fats. That is why eating very fatty foods will not satiate you right away, you can eat a whole 100g of chocolate and still eat a full meal 30mn later, unlike say a full plate of cooked potatoes. So a way to avoid overeating is to eat a little fat (for the taste and fat-soluble vitamins) together with plenty of proteins and / or carbs. The latter will satiate you sooner than the fat. I can give an example: if I eat 200g of sheep yogurt (full fat) and a few fruits with it, I feel full for hours ...

      Comment


      • #63
        Well, at least I was able to have a meat and veggies meal last night. These trips are a good reminder of how eating a SAD diet makes one feel worse, especially on top of jetlag!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
          I have his "two books." I read the long one. It is a very interesting historical account - on that he does a fantastic job. His conclusion is, well, completely incoherent, though.
          On that I can agree, but it just depends where his "conclusions" really start and what they mean. People, by default, tend to exaggerate. I would say it's mostly true that carbs drive insulin drives fat storage, it's just that going too low on carbs is not optimal. Also, carbs are not the only ones to drive insulin. Finally- insulin also has an optimal level, and that's not zero.

          Insulin has absolutely nothing to do with obesity. It is true that when insulin is high you burn less fat, but when insulin is high you are not in a fasted state - you just ate - so you won't be burning fat, anyway. Dietary fat does not require insulin to be stored as fat. It is stored within minutes of being digested, about 10-15 minutes, and it was all done without insulin. Dietary fat is responsible for virtually every molecule of fat on your body because dietary fat is stored upon digestion, and if you don't keep a calorie deficit, you'll never burn it off regardless of how high or low your insulin is.
          Again- do you realize you sound very much like CW dietitians/doctors?

          First- insulin itself is not a "bad" hormone- it's exactly the opposite. But it's the chronic, elevated levels that do the damage. It's highly anabolic, so chronically elevated levels have to put the anabolic pressure somewhere on (in...) the body.
          Second- I don't really care when and how fast fatty acids can be stored (also mind you of your demagogic statement "minutes from being digested"- it's just that fats digest very slowly), if it's harder to overeat them, when your average insulin is lower and so your appetite is smaller. Missing the big picture here.
          Third- "if you don't keep calorie deficit"- I understand Grok kept his calorie tracker tool with him all the time, right? Looks like you read Taubes, but didn't get the best of it, I'm sorry...

          What I'm pointing at is: HOW is, in your opinion, the appetite regulated? Why one person wants to overeat? No willpower? He/she's stupid? Do you really believe in CICO?

          Question aside- if low fat is that great for weight loss, why did it fail so miserably on the "population" level? Please don't give me another CW answer like "because people really don't follow LF and still have too much fat". Been there, done that. Less than 30 grams of fat for like 2-3 months. Weight only went up.

          A great way to increase insulin resistance and lower your metabolism is to avoid carbohydrate. Diets very low in carbohydrate mimic starvation on a cellular level. Insulin spikes are extremely healthy, promote insulin sensitivity, keep good hormones high and stress hormones low and tell your body everything is okay and you're not in the midst of famine. Keep insulin low all the time and your body starts to shut off for fear of famine. Find me a low carber who can get their body temps out of the 97's. I'm sitting with an open window in my underwear without a sock. It's 57 degrees out.
          Again- it looks like the CW is sneaking just round the corner here...
          "Starvation" for me is when there's NO FOOD available, so, in this case, let's say there are no calories. On a low carb diet, you can have lots of calories. Where is the starvation?

          Talking about the cellular level- it's exactly carbohydrate shortage that's happening and this is what cells react to, not to starvation. By the "laws of nature", it just happens that real starvation is also, obviously, short in carbs, so- initially- the same metabolic pathways are activated. But as the "starvation" goes on, huge differences in metabolism will show up, comparing to low-carb- such as muscle protein net breakdown etc. Never happens on low-carb.
          Another PROOF of the fact that lack of carbohydrates is perfectly healthy and these, as you call them, "starvation" mechanisms are natural and healthy is... sleep. An average high-carber would have ketone bodies found in urine after overnight fast. Boom- starvation?

          Summing up: insulin spikes happen anyway, even on a reasonable low-carb (such as PB). But there's no way you can convince me Grok was high-carb all the time. Many times, he had probably no food available, this is why human body is so great about dealing with both low/no carb food, and no food whatsoever.

          Side note again: My BT reading is perfectly normal (here in Europe it's 36,6-8 deg Celcius as a "norm", I'm always around 36,7), no matter how many carbs I eat, and there were days when I ate really low.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
            Carbs from natural foods like fruits and tubers are great, refined fats are terrible. I still don't think this forum has overall embraced the former half of that sentence, and there isn't enough emphasis on the later. There is so much fear of gluten - which IMO is bad but severely overblown - and not nearly enough care taken to avoid rancid oils. People will have no problem eating their soy oil-seared beef and deep fried wings as long as they don't eat the basket of bread.
            Mark's post yesterday on the hidden dangers of restaurant food seems pertinent. He identified seed oils as the thing it's hardest to avoid when eating out. They are in literally everything prepared, unhealthy or otherwise! If science does eventually manage to point the finger of blame at seed oils, it's going to be incredibly hard to change the industry.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by poing View Post
              If science does eventually manage to point the finger of blame at seed oils, it's going to be incredibly hard to change the industry.
              I think we are already there: science does point the finger at rancid PUFA oils, and the industry is not changing. It is economic 101. We are heading for Soylent Green (as in the book, not the movie where transforming ppl into foods would not be exactly cheap).

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
                ChocoTaco369, you should stop spreading bollockery with such conviction. Fats are the macro that takes THE LONGEST to be digested. The macro that is digested the fastest is carbs, then come proteins, then fats. It may take MANY hours to digest fats. That is why eating very fatty foods will not satiate you right away, you can eat a whole 100g of chocolate and still eat a full meal 30mn later, unlike say a full plate of cooked potatoes. So a way to avoid overeating is to eat a little fat (for the taste and fat-soluble vitamins) together with plenty of proteins and / or carbs. The latter will satiate you sooner than the fat. I can give an example: if I eat 200g of sheep yogurt (full fat) and a few fruits with it, I feel full for hours ...
                I hate to nitpick here, but he never said fats were the fastest to digest, but the fastest to be stored after digesting..

                Just jumped out at me.
                Dark chocolate and coffee, running through my veins...

                Fitocracy Workout Tracker:
                https://www.fitocracy.com/profile/Shadowknight137/?feed
                MFP Food Diary:
                http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/diary/Shadowknight137
                (Date is New Zealand Time UTC+ 12hours)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Shadowknight137 View Post
                  I hate to nitpick here, but he never said fats were the fastest to digest, but the fastest to be stored after digesting..

                  Just jumped out at me.
                  I just reread and that is right.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
                    I think we are already there: science does point the finger at rancid PUFA oils, and the industry is not changing. It is economic 101. We are heading for Soylent Green (as in the book, not the movie where transforming ppl into foods would not be exactly cheap).
                    I wish we were there, but the science is still controversial - even if much of it is very bad science. It's going to take some very bright people in very high places to dig into the details in the absence of commercial conflicts and vested interested in their own historical position - which on its own seems unlikely in this day and age. It seems like we're still a long way from the day that dieticians stop telling heart patients to avoid red meat and butter!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by mikekola View Post
                      Question aside- if low fat is that great for weight loss, why did it fail so miserably on the "population" level? Please don't give me another CW answer like "because people really don't follow LF and still have too much fat". Been there, done that. Less than 30 grams of fat for like 2-3 months. Weight only went up.
                      How were you eating low fat? Was your protein intake high or low? Was your less than 30 grams of fat mostly from saturated sources or unsaturated? Did your carbohydrates come from grains and wheat, or did it come from fruit and potatoes? Did you eat nutrient dense foods? Did you overeat?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by max219 View Post
                        How were you eating low fat? Was your protein intake high or low? Was your less than 30 grams of fat mostly from saturated sources or unsaturated? Did your carbohydrates come from grains and wheat, or did it come from fruit and potatoes? Did you eat nutrient dense foods? Did you overeat?
                        Overall, I tried the "mediterrenian diet" approach, only low-fat version. Very popular here in Europe (at least in Poland) as a mainstream diet advice.

                        - Protein intake- was more than 1g/kg (so more than 2g/lb). Lean meats, fish, low-fat diary sources
                        - Fat- mostly unsaturated I guess, with focus on olive oil
                        - Carbs coming mostly from wheat, with whole grains preferred, fruit, vegetables. No sugar or sweet stuff of any kind
                        - What is "to overeat"? If you mean "more calories in than out" then obviously: yes, because I kept on gaining weight. Slow but steady gain. And yes- binge eating did take place as well. That (almost) doesn't happen on low(er) carb with no wheat/grains. It DOES happen if I overdo bananas and other high-carb fruit (pineapple, peaches etc.) Wheat elimination helped a lot but still- too many carbs from fruit sources mean uncontrolled eating + GERD and "hunger" every couple of hours for me.
                        This is why I'm soooo skeptical about Peat worshipers sounding just like CW here.

                        Michal

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by FrenchFry View Post
                          ChocoTaco369, you should stop spreading bollockery with such conviction. Fats are the macro that takes THE LONGEST to be digested. The macro that is digested the fastest is carbs, then come proteins, then fats. It may take MANY hours to digest fats. That is why eating very fatty foods will not satiate you right away, you can eat a whole 100g of chocolate and still eat a full meal 30mn later, unlike say a full plate of cooked potatoes. So a way to avoid overeating is to eat a little fat (for the taste and fat-soluble vitamins) together with plenty of proteins and / or carbs. The latter will satiate you sooner than the fat. I can give an example: if I eat 200g of sheep yogurt (full fat) and a few fruits with it, I feel full for hours ...
                          First of all, I never said that fats are digested the fastest, so you're arguing a strawman. I said they are STORED within minutes of digestion. Fat is almost always what you're storing as fat, and it happens very, very quickly. People around here seem to think that fat just aimlessly floats around your bloodstream and you won't store it as long as insulin is low. That is false.

                          Second, you're wrong. Fats do not take the longest to break down. Many carbohydrates bound in fiber are going to take the longest to break down. Proteins take quite a while in general as well. Nearly everything involving dietary fat for the body is simple and efficient, which is why it is stored with 97-98% efficiency and has little thermic effect - it presents no metabolic challenge. Carbs and protein are considerably more difficult for the body to utilize than fats. Well-cooked starch, for example, is digested extremely quickly, but it has a high burn rate when being converted into fuel.

                          Chocolate is NOT more satiating than potatoes. Please. You do realize that 100g of chocolate has many times more calories than an equal weight of potatoes, right? Potatoes are mostly water. You would need to eat what, a pound and a half of potatoes to equal 100g of chocolate calorically? That's about 700g of potatoes vs 100g of chocolate. You seriously think the chocolate is more satisfying? A small child could eat 100g of chocolate and want more. Most grown women can't eat 700g of potatoes in a sitting.

                          Yogurt? Really? Protein, brah. Do you really believe this stuff?
                          Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 10-16-2013, 06:14 AM.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            First of all, I never said that fats are digested the fastest, so you're arguing a strawman. I said they are STORED within minutes of digestion. Fat is almost always what you're storing as fat, and it happens very, very quickly. People around here seem to think that fat just aimlessly floats around your bloodstream and you won't store it as long as insulin is low. That is false.

                            Second, you're wrong. Fats do not take the longest to break down. Many carbohydrates bound in fiber are going to take the longest to break down. Proteins take quite a while in general as well. Nearly everything involving dietary fat for the body is simple and efficient, which is why it is stored with 97-98% efficiency and has little thermic effect - it presents no metabolic challenge. Carbs and protein are considerably more difficult for the body to utilize than fats. Well-cooked starch, for example, is digested extremely quickly, but it has a high burn rate when being converted into fuel.

                            Chocolate is NOT more satiating than potatoes. Please. You do realize that 100g of chocolate has many times more calories than an equal weight of potatoes, right? Potatoes are mostly water. You would need to eat what, a pound and a half of potatoes to equal 100g of chocolate calorically? That's about 700g of potatoes vs 100g of chocolate. You seriously think the chocolate is more satisfying? A small child could eat 100g of chocolate and want more. Most grown women can't eat 700g of potatoes in a sitting.

                            Yogurt? Really? Protein, brah. Do you really believe this stuff?
                            As much as I read your comment on timing upside-down (thanks Shadowknight for telling me). you read my stuff totally backward. It is not worth discussing with you in these conditions.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Dafuq is the argument about?
                              Chocolate is satisfying in its own way, Potatoes are satisfying in their own way.... You eat them for different purposes...

                              On a lighter note, a relative of mine has brought me back some goodies from the US.... I am shocked at how many times I see Corn Syrup listed twice in two different forms. On top of that, everything ends with "natural and artificial flavourings " ...

                              Give me British Dairy Milk... Anyday of the week...:P although, that's gone downhill too. ....

                              As a Sugar addict... I'm not surprised people get addicted to US chocolate so easily. A US bar costs the equivalent as 43p.... I've not seen prices like that for about 10 years!

                              Yeah, I know the chocolate is far from primal, but semi a interesting nethertheless.

                              Have any of you US guys tried Fast Food, Soda or Chocolate from another country? When you do, you realise how far people will go to turn food into a crack-like substance.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                my b/f buys mexican coke, still made with cane sugar. we did a side-by-side with the regular american hfcs stuff and WOW did that taste foul.
                                As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

                                Ernest Hemingway

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X