AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (7) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

*****Weigh Ins For 4/17/16*****
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> Kitchen TableMessage format
 
Von WC Ohio
Posted 4/17/2016 11:39 (#5247745 - in reply to #5247573)
Subject: RE: *****Weigh Ins For 4/17/16*****



Well since Debra & Jane have mentioned my voice :-)  I'll reiterate several posts I've made that contain more detailed information from articles that I have read. I'm not trying to convince anyone this is the only way to accomplish the weight loss but it has worked very simply and easily for me and many others I've talked to as well. I've tried and failed using other ways, this simply works for me so I truly believe that you cannot outrun your fork.

Now that I have reached an equilibrium weight it's been very simple to maintain.

Yes weight loss is one of the bigger goals about eating low carbs.However, it is also about hopefully becoming healthier overall and reducing some of the risk factors that lead to other diseases down the road (possibly exacerbated by eating a heavy carb diet)  that will eventually get you tagged as higher risk for insurance coverage at some point in time.

You need not agree with the content of the articles and of course they are not meant as suggestions nor as medical advice but are simply being presented as more information for others to make their own decisions.  Be sure to read the articles and also to read the replies from other participants responding by clicking on the "view with responses" after each article.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3405842

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3405795

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3405626

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3405508

My original post when I started in the group with one of Mr Denninger's articles attached.

http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=565947&posts=1#M4662146

Another post with 2 more of his articles.

http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=603127&posts=1#M5014916

Finally another couple Denninger articles I saved before they rolled off from public view with copy and paste.  Rather harsh words but he's trying to drive the point home.


Fork You (Part 3, Tying It Together)
 

So if you've read the other two parts found here and here you know that they boil down to one thing when it comes to metabolic processing, in my opinion:

Thou shalt not completely fill thy glycogen reserves.

Everything follows from this, as I see it.

I want to note that I didn't make this up:  I observed it as a matter of historical fact looking at evolutionary timeframes.

Therefore, I want to take this last component as an expand on that, as well as taking all of the folks in the so-called "medical" and "dietary" establishments out behind the philosophical woodshed and boffing them within an inch of their lives.  After all, their recommendations have only killed millions of Americans over the last decade and many more worldwide.

In short, I am going to put a challenge before them -- and you.

We will start with that which we know to be true:

  • Homo Sapiens evolved over a very long period of time but our species, and all of the structures in our body, were more-or-less fixed about 100,000 years ago.

  • The first evidence of processing grains, that is, crushing wheat seeds to make flour, has a history of approximately 8,000 years; the first evidence of this practice was approximately 6,000 BC.  Until the industrial revolution, however, which is only about 100 years ago, the fact that milled grain had a short shelf life made long-distance transportation and long storage impossible.  Note that at the outside this means that processed grains have only been available to us for less than 10% of our evolutionary life, and modern grains for a tiny fraction of 1%.

Now look at a chart of glycemic index and load.  You will note that with the exception of processed grains, starches and sugars virtually all of the food sources listed on it have a low to moderate glycemic index and more importantly, a low glycemic load.

There are two further characteristics which are mutually exclusive among non-processed foods.  They are either (1) high in fat and/or protein, and thus energy-dense but very low to absent in carbohydrate (meats, fish, nuts, etc), or (2) they are very low in caloric density, high in carbohydrate as a percentage of energy content but very low in glycemic load due to their caloric density.

In category #2 we have virtually all vegetables (excepting a few starchy ones) and fruits.  Fruits are on the higher end of caloric density and glycemic load as natural foods go but they are all seasonal and have short (days) shelf lives absent industrial intervention.  So while apples, for example, have a moderate glycemic response you can only obtain them in nature during the time they're on a tree, and when removed from said tree they go bad rapidly (are attacked by pests, rot, etc.)

Now let's look at energy requirements.  Your base metabolic requirement as a sedentary human is probably somewhere around 1,800 calories a day, or 75 calories/hour.  Since when sleeping you consume less we'll call it 100 calories/hour during your time awake, which is a nice round number.  Remember that your blood only has 16 calories (about a teaspoon) of glucose in it at any given time, so there is always a metabolic process going on that either stores or retrieves energy from various places in your body; 16 calories of energy would only keep you going for about 10 minutes sitting in a chair!

Now you are going to eat.  Glycemic load tells you how fast the energy in a given carbohydrate load you take in is liberated adjusted for portion size by mass, while Glycemic index is a relative rating compared against white bread.  Glycemic load is the more important of the two because it adjusts for carbohydrate content per unit of mass where Glycemic index does not.  There are a few extreme cases where this matters; watermelon is very heavy in sugars (high GI) but since it has low mass it is moderate in GL (you don't take in much in terms of mass-per-serving.)

If you are going to increase your glycogen stores you thus must digest (not eat) more than 100 calories per hour, assuming you are not active at the time.  (Note that the paradox is that during heavy exercise your digestion partially shuts down to shunt energy to your legs and cardio-pulmonary system, which is why trying to stuff your face during or just before a race can be a very bad idea and lead to a big brown problem!)

In short you must put more energy into your body through the digestive process than it consumes in a given unit of time, or you cannot fill your glycogen reserves.  If your glycogen reserves are empty and you require energy you will burn fat.  If your glycogen reserves are full and you take in additional energy, you will add fat.  Essentially your glycogen reserves serve as a buffering mechanism.

So now the question: Can you fill your glycogen reserves assuming you eat broccoli, brussels sprouts or other similar vegetative foods?

Not realistically.  Note that you would have to consume roughly 3 cups of broccoli in an hour in order to outrun your base metabolic demand, and this assumes that the broccoli is fully digested and the energy released in that one hour.  But it isn't; it takes quite a bit longer than that.  The same is true for the brussels sprouts and even carrots that are seen as being relatively high-glycemic -- they carry 8g/cup of carbohydrate, but to start to fill your glycogen you would have to eat three cups within one hour and all of it must make it into your bloodstream.  Doubtful.

Equally important is the fact that to obtain 1,800 calories from these foods you'd have to consume approximately 34 cups of carrots.  That's more than two gallons of carrots.  For brussels sprouts, if you're wondering, it's almost three gallons (by volume.)

So what's quite clear is that it's essentially impossible to give yourself metabolic syndrome by eating vegetables and fruits as they appear in nature, with the proviso that you have to treat fruits as you would if there were no airplanes and over-the-road trucks.  That is, you have to treat them as seasonal varieties.

But what's also clear is that if you actually tried to subsist this way you'd starve to death unless you were eating almost-literally all the time.  Two to three gallons of vegetables, which is what you'd have to gobble up eating them for your base energy requirement, would leave you doing very little other than eating -- well, that and crapping out all the excess fiber.

Ok, so let's be reasonable here.  Let's assume we limit our consumption of this part of our diet to that which we reasonably can consume in a given day and actually have time to do other things.  We'll assume, therefore, that we eat four to five servings a day of foods in this category.

We have now consumed approximately 20-40g of carbohydrate but all of it was digested over the space of two to four hours post-ingestion, and thus the net impact on our glycogen reserves and our insulin level is basically zero.  We have also consumed 200-300 calories out of our budget.

We need, assuming we're not active, about 1,500 more calories.

Where do we get them?

The only two other choices that are not industrial are proteins and (natural) fats.  But these sources have no, or effectively no, carbohydrate content and thus do not load our glycogen at all.  They also don't spike insulin.

So you fill out your daily caloric requirement with those two.

Note that irrespective of exactly how you divide things up you'll never overload your glycogen storage system nor will you produce huge insulin spikes because none of what is naturally occurring that you can eat (not choose to eat!) is capable of producing those spikes or loading.

And, I might add, you're eating low-carb.

Where does it go wrong and why are so many people fat?

It goes wrong as soon as you start eating anything that we manufactured throughout our short time as "the smartest animal around" for convenience without taking into account the fact that our bodies were not designed to process that sort of food in that way.

Guess what?

The more we've made this "possible" the fatter we get as a world because our bodies are not designed to be able to properly process the alleged "food" we are taking in.

Those who wish to argue that eating things such as potatoes, pasta and any form of grain (cereals, breads, crackers, cookies, etc) or any form of oil created from plant materials by gross concentration over what you'd get from simply eating the plant have the burden of proof that said nutritional profile and how it is digested is similar to that of any of the foods that we ate in reasonably-comparable amounts prior to said industrial process.

They can't meet that burden because none of those foods in fact are digested in such a similar fashion.

Further, if you claim to eat "vegetarian" or "vegan" then by definition you are eating a diet that is obtaining roughly three quarters or more of its caloric intake from engineered foods that do not exist in nature in the form you are consuming them, unless you are eating the aforementioned three gallons a day of broccoli or similar -- you're not, and you know it.

To those who disagree: I challenge you to show me your list of foods you believe meet the above metric in the comment section below.  Do not attempt to include rice; historically speaking if you eat that as a staple, which is a starchy food (and many people have including the Japanese and Chinese) you can do so provided you eat almost-no animal product of any sort nor any refined grain.  As soon as those two foods were added to both population groups metabolic disease exploded upward and is now becoming an epidemic in China where it was formerly almost-entirely absent.  Never mind that working in a rice paddy is very difficult manual labor!

All of the "engineered foods" that are carbohydrate based are, by virtue of their processing, digested at grossly accelerated rates compared against the raw material.  They thus release their energy much faster and most are far more-dense too.  A pound of pasta takes up a lot less volume than a pound of broccoli, and yet it releases its energy much more quickly in your gut.

It's not that hard folks.  It is, in fact, math, and those who claim that we should eat grains and starches rather than meats are in fact proposing that we eat engineered things that do not and cannot exist in nature and which our body was never designed to process in the form they're being consumed.

 



Either Make The Lifestyle Change Or Risk Morbidity And DEATH

It's time to cut the crap folks.

I have posted many articles that delineate how this happened....

(pic did not paste it was a picture was of him before and after.)

 ... which, I remind you, began back in 2011 right about this time of the year (a couple of weeks from now, to be exact) and required roughly eight months to be completed in terms of weight loss -- a change that has been maintained without counting calories, without hunger and without falling over dead as many have claimed I would.

But every time I post another article on various news in the health arena that pertains to "what goes in the pie hole" I get various responses and inquiries that all are more-or-less the same -- and the pattern is disturbing.

  • "I like potatoes; they grow in the ground and are natural, so why not eat them once in a while if I want to?"
  • "Can you post your actual meal plans for a given week?"
  • "But I like {bread|rice|pasta}
  • "You should use/drink 2% (or skim) milk instead of whole"
  • "How about low-fat {cheese|salad dressing|anything-else}"
  • "You need to make that {grass-fed|organic|fellate-the-greenies} (insert food)"

And on and on and on.

Folks, in the last article I gave you a "short list" of things not to eat.  I also told you how I target my macro-nutrient balance -- that is, between the three possible food sources (fats, carbs and protein.)  No, I won't reprint it -- go read that article again, this time for content.

The bottom line in all of the above questions is that every one of them belies the reason that the person asking them will and probably have, up until now, failed: They are not interested in a lifestyle change as the answer to the question was in fact in the article itself; they're looking for a recipe -- a quick fix -- that will allow them to keep their current lifestyle and choice of foods rather than change it.

What must be understood is that said current lifestyle is killing you.

It's killing you slowly, but it's killing you nonetheless.  You were probably taught that lifestyle over time; first by your parents, then by your school (public or otherwise) and of course by all the advertising and peer experiences you have had.

You also have first-hand knowledge literally all around you of the results.

Look at the average person in your local WalMart -- or grocery store -- next time you go.  Look at the average person in your local restaurant or bar.  Look at the average person at your workplace. The fact of the matter is that Gallup says that nearly 30% of American adults are obese.  That's not "a bit overweight", it's outrageously fat.  Incidentally, the left picture above does not represent "obese"; it's "modestly overweight", a category that 35.6%, or more than one in three adults falls into today.

Folks, I can't tell you how many people over the last few years have asked me if I'm sick because I'm not fat any more.  I'm not rail-thin -- there's still a little bit of fat on me, even though I'm within the formally-healthy body mass area.  I'm hardly anorexic-looking by any degree.  Since when is "plump" healthy?  Only if you're a steer or other animal about to be slaughtered, and that's only because fat tastes good; point being nobody gives a damn if it would eventually lead to said cow having a heart attack because she'll be steak on the grill long before then.

What's worse is that 11.4% of Americans have diabetes, mostly Type II -- and that's only among those who know they're diabetic as they've been formally diagnosed.  As my earlier article pointed out a huge percentage of the population has already taken critical metabolic damage yet is not exhibiting diabetes symptoms; it takes decades for that damage to be clinically recognized but it is still happening and is still impacting your life.

There is an entire social "movement" that says that if you say or think someone is "fat" or connect being fat with being unhealthy you're "shaming" them and that's a "micro-aggresssion."  Horsecrap; it's a statement of fact and that the target is offended you pointed out that they're committing suicide isn't "aggression", it's truth.

If that last article didn't shake you up, pointing out that you will be committing said suicide for decades before the doctor finds the clinical problem (by which point you're cooked) then nothing will.  You can have utterly normal clinical tests (provided nobody directly tests your insulin levels under glucose challenge, and no doctor will without specific reason and proddingand yet you are accumulating damage that will eventually cause severe morbidity or death.

That damage is cumulative and to some degree is also likely permanent.  The susceptibility to said damage is to a large degree genetically controlled but almost everyone will succumb if they keep insulting their body for long enough.  Said damage is very likely to be present and material if you are even modestly overweight and it is almost-certainly present if you are medically obese, irrespective of your age.

The sooner you stop accumulating that damage the better the odds that your body's systems will be able to repair themselves.

There is no way to stop accumulating the damage other than changing your lifestyle in the form of what you consume as food.  You cannot stop it with pills nor exercise; exercise is good for other reasons, primarily cardio endurance and general physical fitness but it has only a minor impact on said metabolic damage.

The reason for this is math -- a pound of body mass is somewhere between 3,000-3,500 calories.  A mile of running is about 100 calories if you're fit and trim, 120 or so if you're not.  What this means is that you need to run more than a marathon worth of distance to offset one pound of excess body mass.

The math is simple: You cannot outrun your fork.

Now let's talk about some of the "questions" and "comments":

If you look at the list of things not to eat in my linked article you will nowhere see the qualifier "not grass fed" before anything, say much less "beef."  Why not?  Because there's no metabolic reason to do that; beyond doubling the price most of those labels are fraud anyway.  Beef is finished on grain specifically because it causes fat marbling and it is the fat that makes it taste good.  Can you buy non-finished beef?  Sure.  Do you want it?  Why would you intentionally damage the nutrient balance when the entire point of eating said beef is to get a high fat, moderate protein, low-carb mix of macro nutrients?

Now if you simply don't care that said beef costs twice as much, and you're not going to upset your protein/fat balance in total by choosing it, go ahead.  But from my point of view it's wrong-headed on two levels -- one, it dramatically raises the cost of your food without any documented material improvement, and two, it is directly opposite to the macro balance that I want in my food!  Likewise those asking about trimming the fat off their pork chops or eating their chicken breasts with the skin removed are doing the same thing.

The same is true for "lowfat" cheese.  Why in the hell would I want cheese made with reduced-fat milk?  The point of eating the cheese is the macro nutrient balance that tilts heavily toward fat as an energy source.  Full-fat, all-the-goodness cheddar cheese has nearly zero carbohydrate and more fat than protein (about a 4:3 ratio by mass and 3:1 by caloric content.)  In other words in terms of high fat, moderate protein and low carb -- that is, macro nutrient balance -- it's almost exactly what you want to eat; it requires no compensation at a macro level anywhere else in your food intake.

Now let's look at lowfat cheese.  It has a macro balance of 3:10, roughly, by mass which means it's 27:40 by caloric content or approximately 9:13.  That's high-protein or exactly backward.  You're out of your damn mind to eat that unless you're trying to eat high protein.  Beyond the health risks of doing so (unproven for most people; the known exception is those with kidney disease) there's an economic aspect to this: Fat has 9 calories per gram, protein 4.  Why do you want to eat twice as much by weight for the same caloric content when most food is sold by weight, especially when low fat, high protein sources tend to be more expensive per-pound to start with!

Next, why do you want to drink milk (liquid) at all, unless perhaps you're a growing child or adolescent -- and even then, why beyond moderation, say the equivalent of one 8oz cup a day?  Let's look at 2%, which someone touted in a response to my last missive.

It contains a balance by mass of 12/5/8 (carb, fat, protein) which by caloric content means it's 48/45/32 or 38% carbs, 36% fat, 26% protein.  If your macro balance looks like this for your entire intake for the day you're going to be eating 162g of carbs.  That is not "low carb" but if it's what you're doing and it's not working you can start correcting the problem with ceasing to lie to yourself.

How much better is whole milk?  Not a lot.  It's 13/8/8 by mass -- yes, it has more carb content than 2%!  By caloric content it is thus 52/72/32 by calories.  That's 33% carbs, 46% fat and 21% protein.  That winds up being 148g of carbs/day if your diet mirrors that composition.

Neither is consistent with a low-carb lifestyle.

Now could you choose to have one glass of milk during the day (or equivalentand little other carbs?  Sure.  But will you?  Probably not, if your balance looks like this without your eyebrows going up.

How about a potato?  One medium potato (not the monster russets you find in the store or at the steakhouse), baked, minus any sort of topping or salt, has a whopping 63g of carbs and 7g of protein, zero fat.  One of those is two whole days of my typical carb consumption.  Why would you eat that at all?  Oh, it has vitamin C in it?  Well brussels sprouts wins there by a country mile (a serving has all of your vitamin C requirementand only four grams of carbs ex-insoluble fiber.  They're also voluminous (that is, they'll fill you up physically) and yet have a near-zero insulin response.  Don't like those?  How about broccoli?  100% of Vitamin C, 43% of Vitamin A requirements and while "high carb" by percentages in terms of absolutes it's 4g and a mere 20 calories for the lot.  Oh, it's got a decent amount of folate in it too.

Now I'll grant you that if you have a sack of potatoes and nothing else the choice is obvious.  Anyone see The Martian?  Yes, under starvation conditions (or nearly so, aka "peasant" conditions) it works.  So does rice.  Our bodies can process this stuff because it beats "nothing" as an alternative choice.

You don't need "meal plans" folks. I'll just tell you how today looks thus far and I've not planned it.

14/12/0 - 2 eggs
18/14/0 - 2 slices cheddar cheese (whole fat; actually shredded, but about that in quantity)
12/12/0 - 2 slices thick (double-normal) bacon

270/152/0 - Caloric balance (fat/protein/carb) or 64%/36%/0

Now in reality it's a bit higher on the fat side because I reserve the fat from the bacon frying and use that to cook the omelet.  So I am likely right around 70/30/0 "as eaten."  The espressos don't count for anything (and I drink plenty of them) because there's no caloric content in them.

Now I've had breakfast.  For lunch I will probably eat either some brussels sprouts or broccoli; I microwave either with some of the (reserved) bacon fat and seasoned salt.  Both are delicious, and the reserved fat I cook them in means that I have depressed my protein percentage a bit.

For dinner tonight I'll have chuck roast, either tossed in the crock pot with seasoning or on the grill.  Let's assume grilled as that's "neat" and easy.  Let's further assume I'm going to eat like a pig and stuff about 1,200 calories down the pie hole (somewhat less than a pound worth) to fill my caloric requirement.

That's 84/96/0, or on caloric balance 756/384/0 -- 66%/34%/0.

Somewhere along here I'll probably have an "adult beverage", which is basically all carbs (no fat and little protein), which gets my ratios right about where they should be, and I'll likely eat some piece of fruit or vegetable on the side, perhaps an orange or a couple of sliced-in-half poblano peppers roasted under the broiler for a few minutes with melted cheese on them.

Today, when you read this, I'm out running a 15k race, and a particularly nasty one in that it's over two bridges (really three as the approach to the second one is in fact a bridge) -- and this sort of eating pattern is what I usually do and have done in the days leading up to a race; there's no "carb loading" or other crap in front of what is a fairly significant exertion event.  I have no need to do so.  If I'm so-inclined maybe I'll post my finish time in the comments.....

Here's the thing: I'm not doing the math on this as I put together what I'm going to eat.  In fact, I just did it in this post today, mid-day Friday, to show up Saturday morning for ****s and grins on today's eating plans, without knowing how it would come out.

You know why it works?

Because I don't have to do math for it to work.

I just have to follow the rules in the previous post on what not to eat, stock my fridge and pantry accordingly, and then follow my stomach -- when I'm hungry, I eat.  When I'm not, I don't.  If I want to consume an adult beverage or two I must deduct the carbs in them from something else I would otherwise eat during the same day and I cannot exceed the targets.  But that's easy and takes nearly zero effort, since I don't eat starchy or carb-laden things, nor do I consume unhealthy oils at all.

By not consuming things that spike insulin levels I don't have to do the math as my body is perfectly capable of regulating its intake -- and mass -- all on its own because I didn't poison myself.

If I had to count everything and figure it all out beforehand it would be a chore and I'd fail.  Instead I can decide I want some baked chicken wings at the pub because I'm hungry, "dry rub" please (to stay away from the commercial HFCS-laced saucesand I won't screw up my macro nutrient levels at all.  Likewise, I can go grab a hunk of cheese out of the fridge and eat it for a snack -- same deal.  Or, for that matter, the remainder of the pork shoulder ribs I grilled up last night and had a few left over.

There's no counting because you don't need to and you're not hungry all the time either because your body's signalling mechanism is not trashed.

It's a lifestyle folks.

Can you do it while playing the vegan or vegetarian game?  I'm sure you can.  But it's a lot harder, and that's a huge problem because as soon as you have to start counting things and keeping track of them the odds of you saying "aw, I'll just have that one potato" go way up, and if you're really adhering to a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle it's extremely difficult to get that 1,800 calories without resorting to starches, grains or vegetable oils.  For those who say they can, I say "do the math ex-post-facto on what you actually ate yesterday" and see if your beliefs jive with the truth.

This much, however, I can tell you -- you can't do it if you're eating starches, grains or vegetable-based oils in any quantity at all.  If I break those rules, and I have, I feel like crap and pay the price, both in how I feel and in my athletic performance.

You may be able to get away with it for now -- and maybe, just maybe, forever.  I had an aunt who chain smoked her entire life and it never got her.  Marg died from natural causes a number of years ago in her 90s as a ripe, sassy old lady, and smoking never debilitated her.  But that she got away with it doesn't mean you will too and the same basic fact applies here when it comes to what goes down your chute.

And here's the truly disturbing fact: If you are overweight, even if only somewhat, or obese today then you know damn well you won't get away with it, because you've already proved you're susceptible and are taking more and more damage daily.

You're exactly equivalent to the smoker that's hacking up a lung every morning but refuses to quit, even though you know damn well it's killing you.

 

Again not trying to persuade anyone just posting these articles as I found them very informative and helpful to me in reaching my goal. I'm sure some may be tired of hearing about this as well it's just that Karl is a much better writer than I am and able to put complex topics into words that others can understand. Best of luck to everyone participating here to reach your long term goals.

Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)