Here's what a real nutritionist eats page 8

[Unicorn]

However, the nutritionist is conveniently leaving off her snacks and dessert. She bundles that into the last paragraph, after she has given all the CW followers an inferiority complex about fiber one, petite leftover servings, and ground turkey stir fry. Then she throws in the 'I snack on fruit or cookies through the day'. Well, how much?? Are we talking 1/2 apple at 4 pm, or multiple fruits and a visit to the snack machine.

Then she mentions dessert: low fat yogurt, or ice cream. Hmm. Methinks this diet is not as 'light' as it originally appears.

Just the mention of fiber one cereal brings back memories of the bloated, GI cramping mornings I used to have. And the way the skim milk looked blue on top of the cereal. Ahhh, fun times.

[Sabine]

I agree with Unicorn. I would have to say: denial!

But mostly, I just feel sad for her. Where is the love in this meal plan? For herself, or food? Fruit is added because for 'extra fiber and vitamins', not because it is delicious or makes her full.

I had Shakshuka for breakfast this morning. I didn't eat it because it gave me vitamin C, and fiber, and healthy fats(although it did). I ate it because the flavors make my mouth sing, and my tummy happy. I'm full for hours after I savor the golden yolk of the egg mixing with the zing of the tomatoes and peppers. And I love popping the circles of bratwurst (Why yes, I add bratwurst to my Shakshuka! Doesn't everyone?) into my mouth and getting that explosion of fat and luscious pork.

I love that Shakshuka, and it loves me back. I ate at 7:00am, and not again until noon. Though I won't say I never snack on cookies, if I eat them, it is because I LOVE COOKIES, and not because I'm dragging and needed a sugar rush.

(Disclaimer: this is when I am eating primally. I am far from perfect and when I'm stressed, I fall into my bad old ways. But even then, I'm usually shovelling cookies into my face from emotional need, not sugar needs. This poor lady seems like she must always be dragging, both because she is not eating enough, and because she's not giving her body enough good fat and protein. 'Cause I agree, two slices of pork tenderloin is NOT enough. Hmmm, unless you slice it length-wise. Now THAT would be a nice slice! )

[sbhikes]

Except the moment I add carbs, on the same or less calories I am an energizer bunny. I had the best energy performance on meat and vegetables, and I was eating 1300 cals (60 g carb on off days, 120 g carbs on training days), while on high fat I was grinding on 1600 cals. Same exercise load. And my muscle gains where practically non-existent when I was eating on excess calories (1800-2200 range) as well.

It's not as simple as: 'lift a cow, then eat a cow'

That's because the moment you add carbs you are actually giving yourself some energy. Celery isn't energy. You also say your energy and performance were best on meat and vegetables. So eat meat and vegetables and for crying out loud.

[Leida]

The problem was after 40 days I had black depression spell because of no fruit & dairy. Physically, perfect. Not so good mentally. I am trying it now with starch, quark/GY and fruit and a full doze of 5HTP, hoping to saturate for 5HTP and then let go off fruit. If I can.

[Loneketo]

Yup and that is why you have scads of fat women running around hungry, slowly ruining their metabolisms. It amazes me that people eat sugary snacks, justify it by calling it a "grain" and then FREAK OUT if you eat a large portion of meat.

Reminds me, found a study where slightly overweight people had less mortality rate... Talk about bullocks.

[Leida]

That's also stated in the Why Women Need Fat book, showing that the slightly overweight women are the healthiest/longest living group in the end. They connect it with the better resistance to the infection. Something that the folk saying expressed as 'The fat one shrunk, the thin one died.'

Evolutionary, it is advantageous to be plump and have a modicum of muscular mass, so that's why with unrestricted amount of food an average female trend towards Rubens rather than Barbie.

[Loneketo]

That's also stated in the Why Women Need Fat book, showing that the slightly overweight women are the healthiest/longest living group in the end. They connect it with the better resistance to the infection. Something that the folk saying expressed as 'The fat one shrunk, the thin one died.'

Evolutionary, it is advantageous to be plump and have a modicum of muscular mass, so that's why with unrestricted amount of food an average female trend towards Rubens rather than Barbie.

I believe it's an outrageous attempt to make people believe being overweight is OK, similar to CW saying you need to eat grains to be healthy. Far as I'm concerned, lean and muscular was and will always be the preference because it shows discipline and many other attractive traits for men. As for women, enough muscle to give them shape but not significant definition is the preference.

Notice I say preference. This doesn't mean everyone favors it, but most prefer someone who takes the liberty to maintain themselves. Promoting the opposite, which is an overweight individual, means your promoting the overweight, who are overweight not by genetics but laziness and from an evolutionary perspective, should not chosen as a mate because they are not "strong", smart, attractive, they were just lucky enough to live in a period where anyone can be fat. There is no excuse for not taking care of the only body you have.

Forgive my little rant, felt it had to be said.

[Sabine]

who are overweight not by genetics but laziness

Forgive my little rant, felt it had to be said.

Your rant is definitely forgiven, but I couldn't excuse the laziness part.

It is not necessarily laziness. I had spent many years doing the low-fat, low-cal thing, going to aerobics classes, doing everything 'right'. Only to still be fat. I just didn't have the right information: that for me, jacking my insulin levels around with all those carbs was NEVER going to let me lose weight. Now that I know better, I am doing better, and effort versus laziness has nothing to do with it.

And that completely disregards the emotional side of eating. Whole 'nother topic, but also, separate from laziness. It is not lazy to comfort yourself in the only way you know/have been trained to. Sometimes it is the only thing that keep you alive. And survival is never lazy.

Thus ends my own little rant.

[Loneketo]

Your rant is definitely forgiven, but I couldn't excuse the laziness part.

It is not necessarily laziness. I had spent many years doing the low-fat, low-cal thing, going to aerobics classes, doing everything 'right'. Only to still be fat. I just didn't have the right information: that for me, jacking my insulin levels around with all those carbs was NEVER going to let me lose weight. Now that I know better, I am doing better, and effort versus laziness has nothing to do with it.

And that completely disregards the emotional side of eating. Whole 'nother topic, but also, separate from laziness. It is not lazy to comfort yourself in the only way you know/have been trained to. Sometimes it is the only thing that keep you alive. And survival is never lazy

Thus ends my own little rant.

Your right, too many people are misinformed(like many of us at one time), but I think the clue should have gotten out that something 's up with the CW advice. But since you are literally brainwashed otherwise it's hard to take notice.

[Sabine]

You're right, we are brainwashed. Enough so, that we think something is wrong with US, instead of the advice we're given. Glad I finally wised up. It does make me wonder, though, what other things am I taking on faith, that I should question.