 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / May 2007Being thin does not automatically mean you are not fat
That is according to Dr Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular imaging at Imperial College, London. (The Straits Times, May 12, 2007) Since 1994, Dr Bell and his team have scanned nearly 800 people with MRI machines to create "fat maps" showing where people store their fat. They discovered through their data that people who are slim through dieting alone instead of exercising, have major deposits of internal fats. Most of us think that only overweight people and people with fat tummies are at risk. So thin people are lulled into falsely assuming that they are healthy. Even people with normal BMI scores can have surprising levels of fat deposits inside their bodies. > Most of us think that only overweight people and people with fat > tummies are at risk. So thin people are lulled into falsely assuming > that they are healthy. Even people with normal BMI scores can have > surprising levels of fat deposits inside their bodies. Likewise, even people with high BMI scores can have surprisingly low levels of fat deposits. It's why BMI is junk science. Height, weight, next. No attempt to understand composition. And it's ALL about composition. > > Most of us think that only overweight people and people with fat > > tummies are at risk. So thin people are lulled into falsely assuming [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > next. No attempt to understand composition. And it's ALL about > composition. Like body builders. > > Most of us think that only overweight people and people with fat > > tummies are at risk. So thin people are lulled into falsely assuming [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > next. No attempt to understand composition. And it's ALL about > composition. I read this from Wikipedia : BMI has become controversial because many people, including physicians, have come to rely on its apparent numerical "authority" for medical diagnosis - but that has never been the BMI's purpose. It is meant to be used as a simple means of classifying sedentary (physically inactive) individuals with an average body composition. Bone mass, body muscles, fitness level, gender and ethnicity , even water weight affect each individual's BMI score. In the case of the very active and bodybuliders, BMI will no longer be an accurate measure of one's body fat. "Even people with normal BMI scores can have surprising levels of fat deposits inside their bodies. " yeah, you're completely right. I had a chance to get to know about it becouse I had overweight problem. I have been on diet and I was exercising for 2 years. I've lost almost 40 kg. It's big succes for me but I feel a little bit unconvinient. In some places of my body I still have fat deposites.. and If I have to be honest it makes me furious. Its also worth to say that now I have "ideal" propotion between my height and weight. Probably I will have to do exercises for couple of months, and maybe then I would be completely satisfied. On May 12, 7:29 pm, jog...@gmail.com wrote: > "Even people with normal BMI scores can have > surprising levels of fat deposits inside their bodies. " yeah, you're [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > weight. Probably I will have to do exercises for couple of months, and > maybe then I would be completely satisfied. That's why when I lost 14 kg under Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein, I didn't take it for granted even though I have an Asian bmi of 19. I went for a blood test and a health screening. :: That is according to Dr Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular imaging :: at Imperial College, London. (The Straits Times, May 12, 2007) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: that they are healthy. Even people with normal BMI scores can have :: surprising levels of fat deposits inside their bodies. Just because these "thin" people may have more bodyfat than would appear from external observation, nothing about this says anything about their health. Being skinny fat probably has some advantages over carrying around an extra 100 lbs of fat. Just having fat on your body doesn't say jack about your state of health. Why do you insist on equating fat = bad health? > :: That is according to Dr Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular imaging > :: at Imperial College, London. (The Straits Times, May 12, 2007) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Why do you insist on equating fat = bad health? Why are you so defensive about this subject? Are you still as fat as you were three years ago? ::: XiaoZhen wrote: ::::: That is according to Dr Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: :: Why are you so defensive about this subject? Because it's bullshit. :: Are you still as fat as you were three years ago? Absolutely not. Still holding tight. > ::: XiaoZhen wrote: > ::::: That is according to Dr Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Because it's bullshit. Relatively, yes. But... Someone with lower bodyfat has a higher probability of being healthier. Extremes are bad. Relatively. > :: Are you still as fat as you were three years ago? > > Absolutely not. Still holding tight. ::: jcderkoeing wrote: :::::: XiaoZhen wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] :: But... Someone with lower bodyfat has a higher probability of being :: healthier. I do agree with this especially when we are talking in terms of really big folks. I'm certainly not trying to say there aren't good reasons to lose weight if you're extremely overweight. I can state many good reasons for it. A skinny fat person has far less to worry about than a really fat fat person, IMO. :: Extremes are bad. :: :: Relatively. Agreed. ::::: Are you still as fat as you were three years ago? ::: ::: Absolutely not. Still holding tight. > :: That is according to Dr Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular imaging > :: at Imperial College, London. (The Straits Times, May 12, 2007) [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Why do you insist on equating fat = bad health? In one of your post in "Downfall of Low Carb", you replied, >:: The US body fat percentage and body mass index says anyone with a BMI >:: of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight. Anyone with a BMI over 30 is >:: obese. For Singapore Asians, a BMI of 21 to 26.9 is overweight. A >:: BMI of over 27 is obese. >As soon as you start yapping about BMI, you lose credibility. BMI is a >mostly nonsense metric for health. Bodyfat % would be way more meaningful, >but it's harder to get. >But as soon as we start reducing people and matters about their health to >simple-to-get-numbers, we start spewing BS. You wrote that Bodyfat% is more meaningful, yet in this post you wrote >Just because these "thin" people may have more bodyfat than would appear > from external observation, nothing about this says anything about their > health. Which is which, I am puzzled. :: On May 12, 9:09 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: XiaoZhen wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] :: :: Which is which, I am puzzled. Why are you puzzled? A skinny fat person still won't have the same kinds of BF % as a really fat person would. Yes, a bf analysis for a skinny fat person might tell them to lift some weights or something. But, what does this say about health? You obviously didn't bother to respond to my point about how you seem to equate fat to bad health. Explain how a skinny fat person's health is going to be impacted by their slightly higher than normal bf %? > That is according to Dr Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular imaging > at Imperial College, London. (The Straits Times, May 12, 2007) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that they are healthy. Even people with normal BMI scores can have > surprising levels of fat deposits inside their bodies. This Straits Times report makes sense to me. A thin person can have a lot of unhealthy fats residing in the body, especially around the vital organs. It is probably worse if you are physically fat. The Singapore Heart Foundation advises "What we eat can contribute significantly to our risk of developing potentially life-threatening, diet-related illnesses such as heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes. Conversely, following a healthy and balanced diet can help us to protect ourselves against these diseases and improve our chances of living a longer and healthier life. Key elements of healthy eating include: Having a well-balanced diet Limiting fat intake; Taking less cholesterol; Monitoring salt intake; Consuming enough dietary fibre; Avoiding excessive alcohol consumption. " The message I get here is don't go extremes, limit the unhealthy food and eat a well balanced diet. A well balance diet would mean differently to people suffering from diabetes and one from hypertension and one eating Low Carb, like me. Our bodies need body fat for the healthy functioning of the body. Look at the components of body fat :essential fat and storage fat. Essential fat is that amount necessary for maintenance of life and reproductive functions. Storage fat consists of fat accumulation in adipose tissue, part of which protects internal organs in the chest and abdomen. In both cases, women have slightly more than men. The question is how much body fat is good and when it starts to be dangerous. > > That is according to Dr Jimmy Bell, a professor of molecular imaging > > at Imperial College, London. (The Straits Times, May 12, 2007) [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > A well balance diet would mean differently to people suffering from > diabetes and one from hypertension and one eating Low Carb, like me. And for the last 25 years, a "well balanced diet" as recommended by all the so called health experts, especially folks like the American Heart Association meant avoiding fat and loading up on those great carb laden fat free foods. And where has that gotten us? A lot fatter. And finally along comes research that shows folks on LC can not only lose weight, but wind up with improved cholesterol at the same time, while eating fat. And what does the AHA and similar experts say? Do they even acknowledge that something here needs to be seriously looked at? No, they just refuse to even acknowledge it. And I don't see how you could think you're on a well balanced diet, when you say you're doing LowCarb, LowFat, High Fiber, Low Calorie Oh, wait, I remember, because you never defined actual daily limits on any of those and sort of make it up as you go. > Our bodies need body fat for the healthy functioning of the body. > Look at the components of body fat :essential fat and storage fat. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The question is how much body fat is good and when it starts to be > dangerous. On May 16, 6:57 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > And I don't see how you could think you're on a well balanced diet, > when you say you're doing LowCarb, LowFat, High Fiber, Low Calorie > Oh, wait, I remember, because you never defined actual daily limits on > any of those and sort of make it up as you go. Trader4: Maybe you missed out on my reply on May 9. Or remembered wrongly. Here it is : >>>>If you claimed to have read some of my blog and How to Start where you >>>>found my sample menu, you would have read recommendations for >>>>proportions for protein, vegetables and carbohydrates for each >>>>individual. www.lclfhfhphowtostart.blogspot.com On May 16, 6:57 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > And for the last 25 years, a "well balanced diet" as recommended by > all the so called health experts, especially folks like the American [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they even acknowledge that something here needs to be seriously looked > at? No, they just refuse to even acknowledge it. I agree with you on the health experts' recommendation of "well balanced diets" and their "food pyrimad". Looks like after a x number of years, they change again their recommendations after discovering the pitfalls of their trial. Then they modify their food pyramid and the cycle repeats. I don't care what they won't say about Low Carb. I try in my own little ways. I too went Low Carb, (to people on Atkins : Not Low Carb, perhaps High Carb? Funny though, when I go on for days without any carbs except that on vegetables, just because I take an occassional low fat yoghurt and dark cholocates) and improved on not only my cholesterol, my triglycerides level and blood pressure as well. Similarly, some governments are not banning trans fats, I do not buy food with trans fats for my family, myself, for people around me. I explain and urge them and good for them if they listen. > On May 16, 6:57 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > recommendations after discovering the pitfalls of their trial. Then > they modify their food pyramid and the cycle repeats. Yet aren't you the one that cited a heart association recommendation of a well balanced diet as being key to health? So, I guess you are saying they are credible as a source that we need a well balanced diet, yet they are incapable of telling us what that well balanced diet should be. > I don't care what they won't say about Low Carb. I try in my own > little ways. > > I too went Low Carb, (to people on Atkins : Not Low Carb, perhaps High > Carb? Yes, we'll never know till you tell us what you mean by LC will we? Funny though, when I go on for days without any carbs except > that on vegetables, just because I take an occassional low fat yoghurt > and dark cholocates) and improved on not only my cholesterol, my > triglycerides level and blood pressure as well. Why would that be funny? On May 16, 6:57 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > And I don't see how you could think you're on a well balanced diet, > when you say you're doing LowCarb, LowFat, High Fiber, Low Calorie My blog is Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein. But thank you for remembering three quarters of it. :) > On May 16, 6:57 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My blog is Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein. But thank you > for remembering three quarters of it. :) It's also appears low calorie, because you say to avoid eating too many calories and the sample menu is low calorie. But you didn't address the main point of how you reconcile this with being a well balanced diet. Most of the alleged health experts in favor of "well balanced diets" would tell you a high protein, low carb, low fat diet will be harmful to your health. On May 16, 7:57 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > > On May 16, 6:57 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > balanced diets" would tell you a high protein, low carb, low fat diet > will be harmful to your health. Yes, they would, wouldn't they? Even people who don't read my blog have told me that. Even you told me that. >Yet aren't you the one that cited a heart association recommendation >of a well balanced diet as being key to health? So, I guess you are >saying they are credible as a source that we need a well balanced >diet, yet they are incapable of telling us what that well balanced >diet should be. The well balanced diet the heart association recommends is to follow a food pyramid that is very similar to the US food pyramid. You and I agree that this is not very well balanced, that's why we are not following this pyramid. We could debate all day and night and perhaps tomorrow, about what constitutes a well balanced diet. But I am not interested. I'll follow my Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein and you, Atkins. Goodnight! And Now, if I will to tell you everything about my blog here, or a chapter, I might as well post a full chapter here. Which I won't and shouldn't. > I'll > follow my Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein and you, > Atkins. Goodnight! You're assuming most of us follows Atkins. I don't. I don't think most posters here do. I've read Atkins repeatedly, of course. And Eades. And Bernstein. Never looked into that whole Sugar-Busters or the South Beach thang. I looked at the Zone a bit, but it's not really low-carb; as a diabetic I couldn't do it without becoming very ill. But I don't "do" any of those diets. I do what works best to control my bg, which is my own homemade diet arrived at by testing my bg regularly. A lot of people here are not frankly diabetic, though I suspect a lot for whom low-carb works really well are pre-diabetic. Still, even those who don't test their bg seem to do mostly homemade low-carb diets more than any of the specific versions. On the other hand, you've really never clarified here how your diet is low-carb AND low-fat. I posted some numbers here a while back showing the difficulty of doing it... 50g carb and 100g protein per day is only 600 calories, so on a 1400 calories diet, my diet is 57% of it's calories from fat. That's not low-fat by anyone's definition. If I reduce the fat, I have to increase either the carb or protein, but doing that will increase my bg. Given that nearly all protein foods contain fat also, I don't see how one CAN do low-carb *and* low-fat without fasting. I suspect what you're doing is not low-carb, nor low-fat, nor high- protein. I suspect it is moderate-carb, moderate-fat and moderate- protein with caloric restriction. Which is fine, of course, any diet that works for you is fine. I just don't see how it could be as you describe it. On May 17, 12:02 am, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > > I'll > > follow my Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein and you, > > Atkins. Goodnight! > > You're assuming most of us follows Atkins. I don't. I don't think > most posters here do. Actually, I was telling trader4, as I remembered him telling me he follows atkins. I too remember that you have your own brand of Low Carb, I am keeping your website on my favourite list to read. > I've read Atkins repeatedly, of course. And Eades. And Bernstein. > Never looked into that whole Sugar-Busters or the South Beach thang. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > that works for you is fine. I just don't see how it could be as you > describe it. Ok, easily, briefly, no rice, noodles, biscuits, sweets/candies, no sugared drinks with ocassional low fat yoghurt, 75% dark chocolates and my own low caloried high fibre oats/wheat/ wheat germ cookie, in my diet. Most vegetables avoiding starchy ones like potatoes. Meat with visible fat trimmed, chicken with skin on. Nuts and seeds. Low fat milk and cheeses, Minimal oil used sesame , olive, peanut oil. Methods of cooking roasting, stir fry, stewing, steaming or boiling. Roughly, two thirds fibre and one third low fat protein on my plate. No weighing, no counting calories, carbs, fat and protein. Now that I am 49 to 50 kg, I put fruits back to my diet. These are not even comprehensive I covered these in 6 chapters of my blog. And when I started on this diet, it was a breeze, as I ate my favouriate foods as much as I like, except for some sugar cravings. No fasting, I eat as much as I like through the day and don't go hungry. But when I eat Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein, I am unable to consume a lot of food at a go. These are again covered in three chapters in my blog. The recipes in my blog show 30% of what I eat. will slowly update more. With much difficulty, and hopefully I am close : 40 - 50% fibre, 30 - 40% protein, 10% fat, 10% carb. The type of food and method of cooking is indeed low caloried. Not only that, I am suggesting people eat as natural as they can and avoid processed food as much as possible. In my blog, I recommend people try out different levels while on Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein, because I understand different people react differently to different foods. My husband lost weight at an alarming rate, when on the same diet as me ONLY for most dinners. So I had to include more complex carbohydrates : brown rice, multi grain bread.. for him. Mmm, my blog is definitely NOT for diabetics or pre diabetics. These people need professional advice. And I am thinking of changing the title to my blog. Anyone, any suggestions? An appeal was made in the post Low Fall of Low Carb, with brief details of my blog. www.lowcarblowfathighfibrehighprotein.blogspot.com :: Ok, easily, briefly, no rice, noodles, biscuits, sweets/candies, no :: sugared drinks with ocassional low fat yoghurt, 75% dark chocolates [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: :: With much difficulty, and hopefully I am close : 40 - 50% fibre, 30 - What do you mean 40-50% fiber? :: 40% protein, 10% fat, 10% carb. See...this sounds like chicken breast between two slices of wood! The type of food and method of :: cooking is indeed low caloried. Not only that, I am suggesting :: people eat as natural as they can and avoid processed food as much as [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: :: www.lowcarblowfathighfibrehighprotein.blogspot.com www.howIlostmyweight.blogspot.com Best to not call it anything, but it sounds mostly like you eat lean protein & veggies. Seems like it would taste very poor. Also. do you get enough EFAs in your diet? I wonder if your diet is really safe, with all that wood and all, very little fat too. Too much wood will stop you up. > See...this sounds like chicken breast between two slices of wood! Like I told you before, look at my recipes before sounding off. > www.howIlostmyweight.blogspot.com > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > safe, with all that wood and all, very little fat too. Too much wood will > stop you up. Thanks for your suggestion. As I have wrote you a couple of times before, I did a blood test and health check and I am in good health. Statistics were shown to you in one of the older posts and also in my blog. www.lclfhfhphowigetthere.blogspot.com :: On May 17, 6:14 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: ::: See...this sounds like chicken breast between two slices of wood! :: :: Like I told you before, look at my recipes before sounding off. Honestly, based on what you write, I see no reason to believe or trust any think you say your damn blog. ::: www.howIlostmyweight.blogspot.com ::: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: Statistics were shown to you in one of the older posts and also in my :: blog. Right....just keep it up....your blood test and "health check" can be fine until they aren't. Then what? > See...this sounds like chicken breast between two slices of wood! Let me try this again. Your idea of protein and fibre is totally unappetising. Think of my dinner tonight. Mushroom soup, Roasted Chicken, Salad of brocoli and cauliflower. ( maybe a coleslaw). Additional ingredients: butter, onion, chicken broth, low fat milk, pepper and salt, light and dark soya sauce, honey, sesame oil. My lunch was wonton (pork and prawn dumpling) soup with green leafy vegetables. Recipes in www:lclfhfhprecipes.blogspot.com :: On May 17, 6:14 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: ::: See...this sounds like chicken breast between two slices of wood! :: :: Let me try this again. :: Your idea of protein and fibre is totally unappetising. Let me try this again....What do you mean 40-50% fiber? :: Think of my dinner tonight. Mushroom soup, Roasted Chicken, Salad of :: brocoli and cauliflower. ( maybe a coleslaw). :: Additional ingredients: butter, onion, chicken broth, low fat milk, :: pepper and salt, light and dark soya sauce, honey, sesame oil. :: My lunch was wonton (pork and prawn dumpling) soup with green leafy :: vegetables. Doesn't sound like it would provide 40-50% fiber and it's probably so low fat as to be unhealthy. Are you a recovering heart attack patient? Why else do you think you need a diet that 10% fat? > Ok, easily, briefly, no rice, noodles, biscuits, sweets/candies, no > sugared drinks with ocassional low fat yoghurt, 75% dark chocolates [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > am 49 to 50 kg, I put fruits back to my diet. These are not even > comprehensive I covered these in 6 chapters of my blog. OK, see this doesn't seem low-carb to me. Maybe moderate-carb. I can't personally eat any amount of oats or low-fat dairy as they're too carby, and the only fruits I can eat are very small portions of berries and melon. > And when I started on this diet, it was a breeze, as I ate my > favouriate foods as much as I like, except for some sugar cravings. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in three chapters in my blog. The recipes in my blog show 30% of > what I eat. will slowly update more. Yeah, again, I don't think this is low-carb. And without seeing numbers, I don't know that it's low-fat either. What percentage of the diet is fat? High protein? How much are we talking? I eat 100g/day, which I consider *adequate* protein, not particularly high protein. > With much difficulty, and hopefully I am close : 40 - 50% fibre, 30 - > 40% protein, 10% fat, 10% carb. The type of food and method of > cooking is indeed low caloried. Not only that, I am suggesting people > eat as natural as they can and avoid processed food as much as > possible. OK, well, fiber doesn't really count in the calorie thing so you mostly don't actually use calories from fiber. So if you exclude the non-usable calories from fiber, the 40-50% protein, 10% fat and 10% carb doesn't make sense to me since it doesn't add up to 100%. How much actual protein, carb and fat in grams is there on average and how many calories on average? I think fat is *important* on a diet as it's more satiating, calorie- for-calorie, than carbs and protein. Fiber fills up your belly, but it doesn't effect your bg much, so you can be "hungry" even when your belly is full. Or if you DO want to count fiber, you've got a high carb diet. Cause fiber is a carb - which takes you to 50-60% carb. > In my blog, I recommend people try out different levels while on Low > Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein, because I understand [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > me ONLY for most dinners. So I had to include more complex > carbohydrates : brown rice, multi grain bread.. for him. Yeah, my husband isn't interested in low-carbing. That's why I cook both ways simultaneously myself. I do attempt to use whole grains and fresh fruit for his carbier ways as much as possible. And he doesn't like nearly as wide a variety of vegetables as I do, so he eats a lot more fruit. Also, he's lazy... he doesn't really cook. He finds it easier to grab something than to even use the microwave or fix a sandwich. So keeping a bowl of fresh fruit on the table means he's more likely to snack on that than anything else. IMO, it's finding the best diet for the individual. Which isn't necessarily a low-carb diet for everyone, but I agree minimizing sugar and processed grains like white flour and white rice is the best bet for nearly anyone. That *isn't* the case for my husband though. He uses sugar in his coffee. When we buy soda, he gets the non-diet sugary stuff. And he buys occasional junk food made with sugar and processed crappy grain products. I think *everyone's* diet should consist mostly of fruits and vegetables (by bulk or volume, not by calories). For me, breakfast is the "worst" meal by that standard since I eat a hot cereal (flax meal, protein powder, lecithin and water heated with cinnamon and cream added), some full-fat dairy (cottage cheese, cream cheese or yogurt), and a very small portion of berries or melon. Lunch is typically a huge salad... maybe topped with egg salad, or with sunflower seeds and ranch dressing, or maybe with guacamole, or some lunch meat and shredded cheese. The calories are primarily from fat, but most of the food by weight is vegetables. Dinner is typically 4-8 oz meat (depending on what I have already eaten that day) and 8-16 oz cooked veggies of some sort. The larger portions are mostly if I have been naughty and too busy for breakfast and lunch earlier. The meats we eat commonly are pork, ham, sausage, chicken, beef, hamburger, turkey. The dairy we use is an assortment of full-fat cheddar, mozzarella, colby, swiss, ricotta, cream cheese, cottage cheese and yogurt. Hubby drinks whole milk; I use heavy cream in my coffee and for cooking. The fats we use commonly are olive oil, sunflower oil, butter, lard, bacon grease, lecithin, mayonnaise and avocados. No trans fats at all really. The grains I cook for him are hard wheat berries, soft wheat berries, barley, brown rice, steel-cut oats, etc. Sometimes home processed (I make whole wheat pasta, for instance), but lots remain whole. The only "grain" I eat is flax meal. We eat a lot of eggs, though not so much as when we had chickens and couldn't keep up with them... it was insane then. We were getting 3-4 dozen/week - too few to sell, but way too many to eat. > Mmm, my blog is definitely NOT for diabetics or pre diabetics. These > people need professional advice. IMO, eating low-carb is the best advice for diabetics and pre- diabetics. A lot of the foods you discuss would spike me. > And I am thinking of changing the title to my blog. Anyone, any > suggestions? An appeal was made in the post Low Fall of Low Carb, > with brief details of my blog. > > www.lowcarblowfathighfibrehighprotein.blogspot.com I dunno... give me some average numbers and I'll make a suggestion. On a daily basis, how many grams each of carb, protein and fat do you eat? How many calories? I think... that a lot of people think that just cutting out sugar is "low-carb". A few who have a bit more sense realize that cutting out starch is necessary too. Cutting out most sugar and processed grains would likely result in a moderate-carb diet, not necessarily a low- carb one. I also think that whatever diet anyone is on, emphasizing whole foods and lots of produce is the healthiest way to go. On May 17, 10:43 pm, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > I also think that whatever diet anyone is on, emphasizing whole foods > and lots of produce is the healthiest way to go. What you have written is close to my idea of well balanced diet, eating from all groups of food, keeping simple carbs and fats low. > On May 17, 10:43 pm, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What you have written is close to my idea of well balanced diet, > eating from all groups of food, keeping simple carbs and fats low. I also wrote that my diet is 57% fat by calories. That is not a low-fat diet by any definition I've ever heard. On May 18, 10:09 pm, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > > On May 17, 10:43 pm, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That is not a low-fat diet by any definition I've ever heard. Jackie, my agreement is only for the emphasizing whole foods and fresh produce, other than that our diet differs greatly. >By volume, I eat probably 75%+ vegetables. Wow, I think by what you say, I do not take as much vegetables as you do. >How do you know your diet is low-carb, low-fat or high-protein then? I thought long and hard on the title of my blog. Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein is the best way to describe my diet. 10% carb, 10% fat, 40-50% fibre, 30-40% protein sounds about right. But I have people mistakening it for Atkins, which it is definitely not. > >How do you know your diet is low-carb, low-fat or high-protein then? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But I have people mistakening it for Atkins, which it is definitely > not. That it's not Atkins isn't the issue. That it isn't low-carb, low-fat and/or high-protein is the issue. These words mean something specific to people, and while you may have thought long and hard about it, using different definitions than everyone else isn't useful. Most nutritionists use percentage of calories to define these things. If I tell you my web site is green and red, because I have thought long-and-hard about what green means to me, but you look at it and see that it's blue and grey... well, you're just going to think I'm an idjit. If I keep insisting it's green and red because those are MY personal names for those colors even though everyone else calls them by other names, you're going to think I am PURPOSELY trying to be misleading. No one can even tell what your site is about without reading gobs of your blog and doing the math themselves. I can't say I have any interest in even looking when I don't know what it is actually about. I would have to read the whole thing and do all the math to even get an understanding of what you're proposing because you've rendered the words you sue to describe it completely meaningless. That is just flat-out too much work to do just to hold a conversation with you, given that your definitions seem to be different than everyone else's. If you want to define what it means to you so I can "translate" what *you* mean by low-carb, low-fat, high-protein and high-fiber, you need to run some real numbers... based on percentage of calories... before I could even begin to know what you mean. On May 19, 4:11 am, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > > >How do you know your diet is low-carb, low-fat or high-protein then? > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > to run some real numbers... based on percentage of calories... before > I could even begin to know what you mean. Yeah, I got to think harder and longer for a name that reflects more of my blog. The issue here is whether how low is the carb, the fat and how high is the fibre and protein. But in my experience, whenever low carb is mentioned, people tend to think Atkins. But I think that because you use numbers (calories, %tage of fats, carbs, fibre, protein), you find it hard to comprehend how I can discuss health and weight issues. Because I don't count, It makes it equally difficult to tell you an estimate. Reading just "How to Start" tells you the proportion of vegetables, meat and carb to go on. It is possible to lose weight and improve health without numbers, I have done it. Many people have done it. My blog "The Asian Way - Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein" simply tells readers how I lost 14 kg over one year, and improved my health, after 20 years of trying different diets. :: On May 19, 4:11 am, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: ::: XiaoZhen wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] :: simply tells readers how I lost 14 kg over one year, and improved my :: health, after 20 years of trying different diets. This is a good name for your blog: 'how I lost 14 kg over one year, and improved my health, after 20 years of trying different diets.' > It is possible to lose weight and improve health without numbers, I > have done it. Many people have done it. > My blog "The Asian Way - Low Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein" > simply tells readers how I lost 14 kg over one year, and improved my > health, after 20 years of trying different diets. Of course you can lsoe weight without counting numbers. But it's a lot harder to *talk* about it without having numbers to know what one is talking about. On May 16, 10:23 pm, XiaoZhen <xiaozhenb...@gmail. > > On the other hand, you've really never clarified here how your diet is > > low-carb AND low-fat. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Carb, Low Fat, High Fibre, High Protein, because I understand > different people react differently to different foods. I want to make sure I understand this. Are the above percentages based on food calories, weight or volume? On May 17, 11:14 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > On May 16, 10:23 pm, XiaoZhen <xiaozhenb...@gmail. > > Ok, easily, briefly, no rice, noodles, biscuits, sweets/candies, no > > sugared drinks with ocassional low fat yoghurt, 75% dark chocolates [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I want to make sure I understand this. Are the above percentages > based on food calories, weight or volume?- Hide quoted text - >::On May 17, 10:43 pm, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: >::How much actual protein, carb and fat in grams is there on average and >::how many calories on average? Proportions, which mean volume, I don't count calories or weight or carbs or protein or fats. :: On May 17, 11:14 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] :: Proportions, which mean volume, I don't count calories or weight or :: carbs or protein or fats. So again, how do you come up with 40-50% fiber? I think you're totally full of it. > Proportions, which mean volume, I don't count calories or weight or > carbs or protein or fats. How do you know your diet is low-carb, low-fat or high-protein then? On May 18, 9:09 am, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > > Proportions, which mean volume, I don't count calories or weight or > > carbs or protein or fats. > > How do you know your diet is low-carb, low-fat or high-protein then? I'm beginning to think Roger must be pretty close to the truth when he said XiaoZhen's diet consists of eating wood. Because this just doesn't add up. How do you get to 40-50% fiber by volume eating any real food? Take lentils, which are one of the foods highest in carb, for example. A cup of lentils, which weighs 200g, has 16g of fiber, which is just 8% of the total content by weight. Now I don't know what percentage it is by volume, because the references I use all track it by calories and weight. Lentils may very well be a lot higher in fiber by volume. However, how high could it be? So, I don't know how you could get to a diet that is 40-50% fiber with real foods. And when you consider that other foods that have no or little fiber, eg chicken, fish, yogurt have to be added to the total daily intake, this means whatever you're eating to bring the daily total up to 40-50% would have to be a basicly pure fiber food. Which is, what? On May 18, 11:39 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > I'm beginning to think Roger must be pretty close to the truth when he > said XiaoZhen's diet consists of eating wood. Because this just > doesn't add up. How do you get to 40-50% fiber by volume eating any > real food? You could get to 50% fiber if you ate a lot of psyllium husks. Just not sure why anyone would want to! > I'm beginning to think Roger must be pretty close to the truth when > he said XiaoZhen's diet consists of eating wood. Because this just > doesn't add up. How do you get to 40-50% fiber by volume eating any > real food? Makes no sense to me either, especially in the context of eating lots of fresh, whole foods. I don't think my local fresh fruit and vegetable market has a single item for sale that approaches that level of fiber content -- especially without including a lot of non-fiber carbs. Even whole-grain products that tout their fiber content don't come close. Take Triscuts, for example: made from whole wheat, 19 carbs, 3 fiber, equals 15.8% fiber. You could get 40% fiber by including things like flax seed and psyllium husks, but that doesn't really fit the talk about lots of vegetables and fresh, real foods. I'm almost convinced the whole fiber craze was a scam anyway, or at least an unnecessary side-effect of the popularity of high-carb, low-fat diets. Maybe you need fiber to stay regular when you're eating a lot of dense grain and protein without any fat to lighten things up; but I've never been constipated on low-carb, even when I've eaten nothing but meat, eggs, and cheese for weeks. (I realize fiber may be valuable for other things, but constipation seems to be by far the main reason people worry about it and take supplements for it.)  SignatureAaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz On May 17, 10:14 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > I want to make sure I understand this. Are the above percentages > based on food calories, weight or volume? *My* numbers were based on calories. By volume, I eat probably 75%+ vegetables. On May 16, 7:57 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > > On May 16, 6:57 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > balanced diets" would tell you a high protein, low carb, low fat diet > will be harmful to your health. They would, wouldn't they? Some people who didn't read my blog told me that too. So did you. >Yet aren't you the one that cited a heart association recommendation >of a well balanced diet as being key to health? So, I guess you are >saying they are credible as a source that we need a well balanced >iet, yet they are incapable of telling us what that well balanced >diet should be. The well balanced diet that the heart association recommends is very similar to that of the US food Pyramid. You and I disagree on that it is not very well balanced, so I'll follow my Low Carb, Low fat, High Fibre, High Protein and you, Atkins. We could debate all day and night , and even tomorrow, on what constitutes a well balanced diet. Well, I am not interested. Goodnight! Now, if I were to tell you my version of well balanced diet and why, I might as well post a chapter or two of my blog here. Which I won't and shouldn't. :: They would, wouldn't they? Some people who didn't read my blog told :: me that too. So did you. hahaha.. You and your blog. You're obviously quite proud of it. :: Now, if I were to tell you my version of well balanced diet and why, :: I might as well post a chapter or two of my blog here. Which I won't :: and shouldn't. That's a good point. But, in terms of word count, you might as well have done so. :) > On May 16, 7:57 pm, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > constitutes a well balanced diet. Well, I am not interested. > Goodnight! Look, you're the one that's running around claiming how important a "well balanced diet" is. Then to back that up you cited a heart health association that has a diet that you admit is similar to the US food pyramid, and significantly different from your diet, whatever it is. So, unless there is some agreement on what "well balanced means", your posting about the connection between a well balanced diet and good health would seem to me to be meaningless. > Now, if I were to tell you my version of well balanced diet and why, I > might as well post a chapter or two of my blog here. Which I won't > and shouldn't.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > So, unless there is some agreement on what "well balanced > means", your posting about the connection between a well balanced diet > and good health would seem to me to be meaningless. I am saying there can never be an agreement, not just between you and me. > So, unless there is some agreement on what "well balanced > means", your posting about the connection between a well balanced diet > and good health would seem to me to be meaningless. I am saying there can never be an agreement, not just between you and me. On May 17, 12:06 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > So, unless there is some agreement on what "well balanced > means", your posting about the connection between a well balanced diet > and good health would seem to me to be meaningless. I am saying there can never be an agreement, and not just between you and me. > On May 17, 12:06 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am saying there can never be an agreement, and not just between you > and me. I don't think she wanted agreement, but your definition. Your posts are often not very specific so I don't really know what you mean by well-balanced either. On May 17, 9:44 am, jackiepa...@gmail.com wrote: > > On May 17, 12:06 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are often not very specific so I don't really know what you mean by > well-balanced either. My main point was that it's useless to throw around terms like "well balanced diet", when everyone acknowledges that there is widespread disagreement on what well balanced is. Without a definition, it's meaningless. People impute all kinds of health benefits to this "well balanced diet", yet no one knows what it is. BTW, I'm a he. On May 17, 12:06 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > So, unless there is some agreement on what "well balanced > means", your posting about the connection between a well balanced diet > and good health would seem to me to be meaningless. I am saying there can never be an agreement, and not just between you and me. On May 17, 12:06 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > So, unless there is some agreement on what "well balanced > means", your posting about the connection between a well balanced diet > and good health would seem to me to be meaningless. I am saying there can never be an agreement, and not just between you and me. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.