Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / July 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Good Calories versus Bad?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Auntie Em - 15 Jul 2004 04:18 GMT
I am curious about something.  Most of the folks here abouts stress the
importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
reducing calories.

What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and exercising,
of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
How does the "quality" of the food you eat affect the diet?

Let me give you an example.  Let's say I like something that is
nutritionally atrocious.  Armor Treet for example, which I just made a
sandwich of.  Now accordinag to the label, this stuff is only 130 calories
per serving (which there are two servings per container.  Since I used about
1/6th of a container that means that the calories in what I ate was about 40
calories).  This is good because there are lots of other things I could eat
that would be A LOT higher in calories.

However, according to the label, it is also 17% fat.  Not so good.  It also
has a bus load of sodium and cholesteral at 370 mg and 25 mg respecively
(per serving).

So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or less
calories of bad stuff?  I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
can't eat as much of it - or if I do, I don't lose weight.  Whereas, if I
eat bad stuff I eat less calories, but the nutrition level suffers.

I am confused.

Em
Dally - 15 Jul 2004 04:58 GMT
> I am curious about something.  Most of the folks here abouts stress the
> importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
> How does the "quality" of the food you eat affect the diet?

Good question, and I found the answer somewhat surprising and non-intuitive.

It turns out that it's not a closed system.  Your body doesn't just burn
2000 calories no matter what you eat, it might burn MORE calories if you
eat stuff that revs up your metabolism and it might burn FEWER calories
if you eat stuff that makes you sluggish.

One of the surprising things I discovered was that eating more of my
calories from fat actually worked better for me.  I can't say I measured
my metabolism at any particular point, but I can tell you that the
essential fatty acids I got from seed and nut oils and fish oils has
made a world of difference in my skin elasticity.  Dry scaly patches on
my elbows (that I had for years!) are totally gone.  What happened was
that my body grabbed those oils and used them to repair cells - work
that just wouldn't have happened if those particular calories hadn't
come in.

Because my body is able to use the calories for specific metabolic
functions, those functions get done (burning calories) and those
calories don't get sent to storage as fat as easily.

> Let me give you an example.  Let's say I like something that is
> nutritionally atrocious.  Armor Treet for example, which I just made a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> calories).  This is good because there are lots of other things I could eat
> that would be A LOT higher in calories.

I don't know what Armor Treet is, but it sounds dreadful.  Was it some
sort of sludge-based protein source?  17% fat sounds low-fat, but it's
high if it's all from saturated fats!  It's possible you got some
protein out of this, but probably a huge dose of sodium, too.

Plus, you put it into a sandwich which means two slices of bread.  How
can you have left THAT off of the analysis?  Bread is rarely worth the
calories.  Unless it was sprouted whole wheat bread sliced mighty thin
with maybe some walnuts mixed in, it probably doesn't have much fiber or
phytonutrients to recommend it.

> However, according to the label, it is also 17% fat.  Not so good.  It also
> has a bus load of sodium and cholesteral at 370 mg and 25 mg respecively
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I am confused.

Eat good things in moderate calories.  No one is saying you can eat more
than you burn as long as it's healthy food.  But you can probably
increase your burn if you eat healthy food.  So, to pull an example out
of my hat,

Eat 1200 calories of crap, burn 1600 calories.
Eat 1400 calories of good fuel, burn 1800 calories.

I guess I'm trying to say you can eat more calories of good fuel than of
bad fuel and still lose weight as long as you're still eating
catabolically.  Does that make any sense?

The whole trick, Em, is to find foods that allow you to feel sated,
energetic and that work with your lifestyle... within your calorie
budget.  I think most of us have found that crappy foods just don't fit
in the calorie budget without making us feel crappy.  :-)

By the way, how about having an apple sliced up and dipped in some
natural peanut-butter for a snack?  Or mix some yogurt with some
skimmed-milk cottage cheese.  Or have one slice of whole meal bread with
peanutbutter on it.  Or have some pickled whitefish along with some
celery sticks.  Or some ryvata crackers with a really delicious cheese
sliced thinly on it.

What is Armor Treet, anyway?  (I'm sorry, but it sounds like a cat food.)

Dally
A Ross - 15 Jul 2004 12:23 GMT
> One of the surprising things I discovered was that
> eating more of my
> calories from fat actually worked better for me.

Ditto that--that's the problem I had with WW point
system--even the good fats are too high in points for
most. People don't want to "waste" their points so
they'll skip the high-point fats and eat of ton of low
point foods, but never feel sated because they're
skipping the fats. Well, that's how it worked for me,
anyway. Others may be a whole lot smarter than I.

> What is Armor Treet, anyway?  (I'm sorry, but it sounds
> like a cat food.)

It's a version of SPAM in a can.

Amy

168/115
Heywood Mogroot - 15 Jul 2004 20:57 GMT
> > One of the surprising things I discovered was that
> > eating more of my
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> skipping the fats. Well, that's how it worked for me,
> anyway. Others may be a whole lot smarter than I.

I agree with this. In ww a 1oz serving of almonds is 4pts, even though
it only has 200kcal.

Most people are on a 25pt diet, so have to skip a healthy, satiating
200kcal snack since it has too many points. WW's system is
fundamentally suspect here.
Jane Lumley - 16 Jul 2004 09:37 GMT
IMHO, if you go on the Chokito Diet - 5 chocolate bars a day, and
nothing else for 1500 cals - you won't stay on it for long because soon
your body will start screaming for Vitamin B1 and zinc and protein.  If
you did the chokitos and a really good supplement and lots of water
you'd still crave protein.  If you did the chokitos, but did four and a
protein shake and a supplement you might get by, but why would anyone
want to live that way?  

OTOH, a lot of busheney is talked about 'balance'.  
Signature

Jane Lumley

Patricia Heil - 15 Jul 2004 13:34 GMT
You answered your own question.  Taking vitamins is a waste of money because
clinical studies show that anti-oxidants from pills don't work as well as
anti-oxidants from food. Also fiber from supplements doesn't work as well as
fiber from food.  And you have to exercise.  Food alone is not going to
improve your health.

> I am curious about something.  Most of the folks here abouts stress the
> importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Em
Crafting Mom - 15 Jul 2004 14:12 GMT
>What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and exercising,
>of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
>How does the "quality" of the food you eat affect the diet?

Speaking for myself, personally, the quality of the food serves the
purpose of 2 popular phrases, "More bang for the buck" and "killing two
birds with one stone".

For an extreme example:
If I set a goal of say, 1800 calories per day, and eat only donuts that
day totalling 1800 calories, sure, my body has the calories, but like in
the classic Wendy's commercial... "Where's the beef?".

I'm not saying one ONLY has to eat pure food that they just picked from
their garden, but giving your body the nutrients it wants really does
take away the cravings and the desire to overeat.

>So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or less
>calories of bad stuff?  I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
>can't eat as much of it - or if I do, I don't lose weight.  

Actually, you do lose weight if you portion it out accordingly.  I'd
rather have one small plate of something calorie-dense that has "good
stuff" in it than 3 plates of something I didn't really want anyway.

For me, I learned to put less importance on "how much", and just enjoy
the fact that I actually could still eat what I want and lose weight.
If I have to downsize something higher calorie that is good, I take a
cue from my beautiful, thin mother-in-law, take small fork/spoonfuls at
a time and savour each bite. ;-)  Something calorie-dense does weigh
heavy on the stomach and make me feel full, even though size-wise it's
small.  (I have tried this with a tablespoon - 120 calories - of flax
seed oil... it *Fills* me)

As a former binge-eater, I had to train myself to eat slowly.  That way,
I get to spend the same amount of *time* as everyone else eating, and
yet don't have to keep refilling my plate in order to do so.

I hope that this makes sense... this has been my week for being
misunderstood (not that I am complaining, I was long overdue hehe) so
I'll timidly hit "send" LOL

Crafting Mom
Signature

The post you read contains just my opinion.  Please interpret
accordingly

byakee - 15 Jul 2004 18:37 GMT
One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:

> Something calorie-dense does weigh
> heavy on the stomach and make me feel full, even though size-wise it's
> small.  (I have tried this with a tablespoon - 120 calories - of flax
> seed oil... it *Fills* me)

<snip>

Given the healthy properties of flax oil, I can see why one
would want to do this, but not sure how one *could* do this.
I just can't imagine putting a spoonful of oil in my mouth.
How does it taste?

J.J. in WA -- just curious...
Ignoramus23926 - 15 Jul 2004 18:42 GMT
> One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I just can't imagine putting a spoonful of oil in my mouth.
> How does it taste?

tastes like a spoonful of oil!

I drink cod liver oil from time to time, from the bottle.

i
byakee - 15 Jul 2004 18:51 GMT
One dark day on Usenet, Ignoramus23926 <ignoramus23926@NOSPAM.23926.invalid> said:
> > One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> tastes like a spoonful of oil!

I'd have thought there was a difference between various oils.

> I drink cod liver oil from time to time, from the bottle.

Why? Again, just curious...

Signature

J.J. in WA * 275/231/225 (mini)
(COLD to HOT for e-mail)

Ignoramus23926 - 15 Jul 2004 18:58 GMT
> One dark day on Usenet, Ignoramus23926 <ignoramus23926@NOSPAM.23926.invalid> said:
>> > One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Why? Again, just curious...

I usually do it when I really want to drink cod liver oil. I suppose
that my body tells me that it needs something. I do not drink much,
maybe 2 tablespoons, usually about once a week, with no regular
pattern.

i
Chris Braun - 16 Jul 2004 02:48 GMT
>> One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>i

I once bought some sort of fish oil supplement in liquid form and took
one teaspoon of it.  I could taste it the rest of the day -- and it
tasted terrible.  I cannot imagine ever again willing consuming any
sort of oil by the spoonful.

Chris
262/144/ (145-150)
Ignoramus23926 - 16 Jul 2004 03:50 GMT
>>> One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> tasted terrible.  I cannot imagine ever again willing consuming any
> sort of oil by the spoonful.

That's the reaction of most people, but some love it. We had a nanny
who bought a few bottles of that stuff and sent to her grandson in
Russia. Supposedly, her grandson (14 yo) loved cod liver oil. It does
taste odd, but, when I crave it, I crave it not for taste, but for
something else. I liked it since I was a kid. It was a widely used
vitamin supplement at the time, and all moms were complaining that
their kids did not like it. I was the opposite.

i
Beverly - 16 Jul 2004 12:30 GMT
> >> One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> Chris
> 262/144/ (145-150)

I'm with you on this, Chris.  I've never liked the taste or feel of oil in
my mouth and will continue to get the good fats in flax seed, fish, etc.

Beverly
177/147/140
Jane Lumley - 16 Jul 2004 19:19 GMT
>I once bought some sort of fish oil supplement in liquid form and took
>one teaspoon of it.  I could taste it the rest of the day -- and it
>tasted terrible.  I cannot imagine ever again willing consuming any
>sort of oil by the spoonful.

Single-estate extra virgin olive oil is wonderful in a spoon.  

Signature

Jane Lumley

Chris Braun - 17 Jul 2004 00:36 GMT
>>I once bought some sort of fish oil supplement in liquid form and took
>>one teaspoon of it.  I could taste it the rest of the day -- and it
>>tasted terrible.  I cannot imagine ever again willing consuming any
>>sort of oil by the spoonful.
>
>Single-estate extra virgin olive oil is wonderful in a spoon.  

No thanks :-).  

Chris
Crafting Mom - 17 Jul 2004 00:45 GMT
>>Single-estate extra virgin olive oil is wonderful in a spoon.  
>
>No thanks :-).  

That and freshly pressed flax-seed oil.

People generally don't mind oil's texture... they just don't know it.

If it's frosting made with butter and powdered sugar, then it's yummy
and has a "creamy texture"... I could think of many other examples of
people who have willingly swilled down oil, only it's not "marketed" as
oil... it's marketed as a yummy dessert ;-)

I'm not someone who goes around regularly having oil from a spoon.  I
very much prefer EVOO in a dressing on my salad, Even then its not far
off.  There's more oil than vinegar usually, and the taste and texture
are still very pleasant as I chew the lettuce leaf which was the "spoon"
LOL

Crafting Mom,
who thinks fish oil is vile, but fresh plant oils like flax and olive
are heavenly.
Crafting Mom - 15 Jul 2004 18:48 GMT
>One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>I just can't imagine putting a spoonful of oil in my mouth.
>How does it taste?

It tastes kind of nutty and grassy at the same time.  It's extremely
difficult to get in a very fresh state.  When I am lucky enough to get a
fresh bottle, I store it in the freezer.  I don't do it very frequently
because I have very rigid narrow standards as to how I like my flax oil.
Small bottle, *recently pressed*, stored in the freezer.

I can certainly understand the squeamishness...

It's difficult to wrap one's mind around the idea of putting a spoonful
of oil in their mouth, but it's really not that far off the mark from
when people used to dip their spoons and lick the beaters off a big vat
of butter and sugar frosting.  People eat vats of oil sometimes without
even realizing it ;-), they're just not used to the idea of eating it
alone.  I don't care for flax oil in a salad dressing or anything like
that, just at a near freezing temperature and it slides right down.

Hope this explains it a bit for you :)
Lee Rodgers - 15 Jul 2004 19:17 GMT
>One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>J.J. in WA -- just curious...
I sip my flaxseed-borage oil off a tablespoon with a coffee chaser.  I
think others would find it easier to mix some into their salad
dressing or drizzle over a dish topped with something to hide the
flavor.   Or mix it into yogurt or added to a protein shake.

I also take a couple of fish oil capsules with EPA-DHA  as a direct
source of Omega3.  However, I don't like cod liver oil as a source of
omega3 because of the high levels of vitamin D.  Opinions vary on this
point as do bodies.  So, YMMV.
Lee Rodgers
Lowcarb Retreat http://www.lowcarb.org
CHAT http://www.lowcarb.org/parachat.html
Low-Carb Connoisseur http://www.low-carb.com
byakee - 16 Jul 2004 00:06 GMT
One dark day on Usenet, agent42@charter.net said:

> I also take a couple of fish oil capsules with EPA-DHA  as a direct
> source of Omega3.  However, I don't like cod liver oil as a source of
> omega3 because of the high levels of vitamin D.  Opinions vary on this
> point as do bodies.  So, YMMV.

I also take fish oil capsules, but find myself burping a fishy taste
for an hour or two afterward; bleah!

Signature

J.J. in WA * 275/231/225 (mini)
(COLD to HOT for e-mail)

Lee Rodgers - 16 Jul 2004 01:25 GMT
>One dark day on Usenet, agent42@charter.net said:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>I also take fish oil capsules, but find myself burping a fishy taste
>for an hour or two afterward; bleah!

Fish burps are NASTY! <LOL>  An idea is to eat something with the fish
oil caps that helps to mediate the fishy burp.  Maybe a bite of dill
pickle, some dill relish or even a bite of onion.  See, then when you
get the "fishies" supposedly they aren't as bad.  I just grin and bear
it. :)    But if I eat a good Mexican salsa I'll have a lowcarb
Michelob beer for a more pleasant "after" experience. ;)

Lee Rodgers
Lowcarb Retreat http://www.lowcarb.org
CHAT http://www.lowcarb.org/parachat.html
Low-Carb Connoisseur http://www.low-carb.com
Ignoramus23926 - 16 Jul 2004 01:43 GMT
>>One dark day on Usenet, agent42@charter.net said:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> it. :)    But if I eat a good Mexican salsa I'll have a lowcarb
> Michelob beer for a more pleasant "after" experience. ;)

I hear that eating garlic makes fish scent unnoticeable...

i
Cynthia Perry - 17 Jul 2004 18:52 GMT
>One dark day on Usenet, Crafting Mom <craftingmom@fakeaddress.com> said:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>J.J. in WA -- just curious...

If you don't like oil... do what I do, grind your flax seeds. Then I
dole out a tablespoon, or whatever I need. I put it on cereal, in
oatmeal for hubby, sometimes in yogurt, in protein shakes, in
pancakes, etc.

Has nice nutty taste, and adds fiber. Actually, I really LIKE the
taste of my flax seed meal! It contributes to better tasting stuff,
even stuff like the fairly tasteless Krusteaz Low Carb Pancake mix.

Cynthia
byakee - 20 Jul 2004 21:04 GMT
One dark day on Usenet, graycyn@netzero.net said:

<snip>
> If you don't like oil... do what I do, grind your flax seeds. Then
> I dole out a tablespoon, or whatever I need. I put it on cereal,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> taste of my flax seed meal! It contributes to better tasting stuff,
> even stuff like the fairly tasteless Krusteaz Low Carb Pancake mix.

I did try this last week -- it tasted great on (of all things), a
turkey sandwich. Then I got the worst case of diarrhea I've had in
years. I seriously doubt it was the flax, but I want to wait until
after our summer vacation (leaving Friday) before I try it again...

Signature

J.J. in WA * 275/230/225 (mini)
(COLD to HOT for e-mail)

Heywood Mogroot - 15 Jul 2004 21:03 GMT
> >What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and exercising,
> >of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> purpose of 2 popular phrases, "More bang for the buck" and "killing two
> birds with one stone".

I (think) I could never successfully diet on a low-fat high-carb plan.
Medium-carb and medium-fat is working great for me now, so why deny
myself good tasting stuff in moderation just so I can eat more of
stuff I hate?

1800 kcal/day is still a lot of food if you cut out empty snacks and
sugar water. 3 x 300 kcal snacks and one full 900 kcal supper.
Hopefully most people don't get too hungry on that, especially if they
avoid the high-glycemic carbs that are burned quickly.

I guess the secret is to eat 'slow' foods like almonds, in moderation
of course since they pack a lot of calories. 1oz (200kcal) of almonds
can tide me over for 3-4 hrs now, while my body is burning ~500kcal at
peak resting metabolism.
Crafting Mom - 16 Jul 2004 03:09 GMT
>> >What I am wondering is this...If you are reducing calories (and exercising,
>> >of course), and let's say that you keep your calories below a certain level.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>myself good tasting stuff in moderation just so I can eat more of
>stuff I hate?

Amen to that!
Ignoramus23926 - 15 Jul 2004 14:21 GMT
Auntie, you do not want to know what SPAM is made of:) I assure you
that people who actually work in plants making that stuff do not eat
it.

Aside from this, some people can lose the weight without any exercise,
while eating sugar, junk food, little vegetables, and little meat. My
wife did just that, lost 20 lbs in 2 years, by simlpy eating less. She
is now great looking, although not in a state of good physical
fitness.

I know that I cannot replicate her feat, and besides, I want to be
fit, so, I do not eat some "bad" foods.

There are two issues about diet composition, one, managing hunger, and
two (somewhat related) getting nutrients for good health. You can
basically eat in a way that would leave you very hungry, or eat in a
way that would leave you less hungry. Just what makes you less hungry
is individual.

So, two identical twins on two different diets would feel differently
and have different degrees of success, even if both eat the same
amount of calories.

Unfortunately, there is no single diet that's best for everyone, but
the choices are all well known and you can pick one you like better.

Pretty much all diets that work, emphasize variety of foods, not
eating junk food and sugar, limiting "processed food" (made to make
you hungrier to sell you more), some sort of limit on the total amount
of calories, fat or carbs, and exercise.

They work if you follow them. Depending on the person, some work
better than others. I find that I do best on a calorie controlled diet
that is modestly low in carbs, high in vegetables, and I eat no junk
food and sugar. I feel great and have not been sick in over a year.

i
susanjoneslewis - 15 Jul 2004 15:06 GMT
> I am curious about something.  Most of the folks here abouts stress the
> importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
> reducing calories.

For me it's a matter of more bang for my caloric buck. If I'm limiting
myself to 2000 calories per day I want to make sure that I maximize the
nutrition for them. Everything has to count for me and for my WOE to
work.

For me, and I am just an example.. I am sticking to my WOE for the
health of it. The weightloss is just a nice perk. I'll start at the top
of my head and list the benefits I feel are from changing my eating
habits. I had a malady of health complaints prior to my changes.

a.) My hair which was always "good hair" has become healthier, shinier,
and I think it grows faster (may or may not be fact, but *I* feel it
does.)(head)
b.) I have become more alert and focused in my thinking.(brain)
c.) I have less allergies than I used to and I believe it is because I
may have had a few food allergies I was unaware of. (nose and skin)
d.) I have rosacea and it is completely disappeared in less than 1 year
of stopping the crappy food intake. (nose and skin)
e.) My dentist is a happy man now days since I stopped drinking sodas
and sugar. I have had good reports the last 2 visits. (teeth and dental
health)
f.) My shoulders would always droop when I was packing around those 90
extra lbs and now my posture is MUCH better(shoulders and spine and of
course my ta ta's look MUCH better when I'm standing up straight lol)
g.) I suffered for years from some unknown/undiagnosed/misdiagnosed
"boils" or cysts which I fought constantly with every antibiotic and
over the counter med out there. I believe they were caused by several
things, mostly the sugar intake with a dash of inactivity aggravating
them once they were there. I haven't had an outbreak in over 6
months.(skin, groin, under breasts, under arms etc)
h.) I was diagnosed with acid reflux about 4 months prior to my starting
my WOE and since day 1 and that is no exaggeration - day 1- I have not
had a case of reflux or acid indigestion.(stomach and digestive tract)
i.) My blood pressure has dropped back to a normal person range instead
of a stroke victim.(heart)
j.) My back doesn't hurt constantly any longer due to exercise and
proper nutrition.(spine)
k.) Sex... woo :) I don't think I have to expound on this subject much.
Let's just leave it to say that my sex life has VASTLY improved since
the rest of my body is working far more properly than it was before. My
drive is greater, my confidence is much higher and my stamina is far
greater.
l.) I used to battle periods of constipation - I have become regular.
m.) I used to be one of those folks who "creaked" when they got up from
the chair after sitting for an extended period.. Now, I can get up
normally without feeling like every joint in my body is screaming. My
hips were the worst. I believe this has been reduced/eliminated by
better eating and exercise.
n.) My menstral cycle is slow but surely coming to grips with my new
eating habits and exercise habits - It was worse there for awhile but
last month was not as bad as before, so that issue is a work in progress
still.
o.) My thighs and legs are getting much better looking. I also suffered
a fall the Christmas prior to my start date and injured my knee. I feel
that my better nutrition has been the main factor of knee recovery. I
assisted my healing with better eating. It's my belief that your body
will heal itself regardless of what you eat, but you can speed/assist it
with better nutrition.
p.) My feet don't hurt. I don't know if it's because of the pre diabetes
being under control or because of the 90 lb loss. Or because of better
circulation etc. Don't know and don't care. All I know is that my feet
don't hurt.. and that is a Godsend to me.
q.) The whole process encouraged me and gave me the drive to stop
smoking. Which I have a 1 year quit anniversary coming up Sept 8th for
that. The benefits of that are too long to list, for myself AND my
family.
r.) I'm not hungry anymore. The cravings have ceased. Almost completely.
s.) I was diagnosed in March of last year as having Dysthymia and every
site/bit of information I read encouraged the nutritional change route
as a way of helping control/treat it. I didn't want to take
antidepressants or go to therapy. So I made the decision to "control" it
myself with my diet and lifestyle. For me it has worked.

So there you have it, top to bottom and I am sure I am missing something
somewhere in all that. But the end result is I feel better when my body
has a diet of better nutrition rather than empty calories. I don't know
if that answers your question of bad vs. good calories but it's enough
for me. Like I said before, the weightloss is simply a wonderful side
effect of getting healthy. If I never lost another lb I'd be "ok" with
it as long as I felt better and I knew my body was in better health.

Susan (recovering top poster, trying hard to reform)
280/190/140
Ignoramus23926 - 15 Jul 2004 15:18 GMT
> f.) My shoulders would always droop when I was packing around those 90
> extra lbs and now my posture is MUCH better(shoulders and spine and of

same here.

Weight loss, plus pullups/pushups, had a dramatic effect on my
posture.

> h.) I was diagnosed with acid reflux about 4 months prior to my starting
> my WOE and since day 1 and that is no exaggeration - day 1- I have not
> had a case of reflux or acid indigestion.(stomach and digestive tract)

SAME HERE! I could not be happier about that.

> i.) My blood pressure has dropped back to a normal person range instead
> of a stroke victim.(heart)

Same here.

> j.) My back doesn't hurt constantly any longer due to exercise and
> proper nutrition.(spine)

Same here.

> k.) Sex... woo :) I don't think I have to expound on this subject much.
> Let's just leave it to say that my sex life has VASTLY improved since
> the rest of my body is working far more properly than it was before. My
> drive is greater, my confidence is much higher and my stamina is far
> greater.

Same here, except that my sex drive is lower, but all other aspects of
sex are much much better.

> p.) My feet don't hurt. I don't know if it's because of the pre diabetes
> being under control or because of the 90 lb loss. Or because of better
> circulation etc. Don't know and don't care. All I know is that my feet
> don't hurt.. and that is a Godsend to me.

Same here, and I now walk a lot!

i
Brad Sheppard - 15 Jul 2004 15:38 GMT
Yes, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie - except: 1) eating high
fiber foods decreases your appetite. 2) eating "empty" calories -
sodas, for example, is poor nutrition. 3) for many people, eating high
refined carb/sugar foods leads to a blood sugar spike leading a blood
sugar crash leading to hunger. 4) if you eat foods that taste too good
(candy, potatoe chips, etc) you will tend to eat more.

> I am curious about something.  Most of the folks here abouts stress the
> importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Em
determined - 15 Jul 2004 20:49 GMT
> I am curious about something.  Most of the folks here abouts stress the
> importance of eating GOOD FOOD, and reducing calories, rather than just
> reducing calories.

Everyone has given good feedback, here are my 2 cents...  I look at my body
now as a machine.  The past couple of years I've learned what makes my
machine runs better.  Everyone is different, but I get much more out of my
"machine" when I eat small meals throughout the day, eat more proteins and
healthy fats along with low-glycemic carbs, and drink plenty of water, and
avoid caffein after lunchtime.  I know that if I stray very far from this, I
basically get "less miles per gallon" so to speak.  I am sluggish and tired
and don't think as clearly, and tend to get more headaches.

det
DrumLib - 16 Jul 2004 02:08 GMT
> So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or less
> calories of bad stuff?  I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
> can't eat as much of it - or if I do, I don't lose weight.  Whereas, if I
> eat bad stuff I eat less calories, but the nutrition level suffers.

Think health first, and you might be pleasantly surprised when you
step on the scale.

Almost all processed food is calorically dense and full of salt, trans
fats and other nasty stuff. One of the simplest and most effective
ways to improve your health/weight is to reduce the amount of
processed food in your diet. Make sure you have lots of good food
available, so it is just as convenient as processed food. It's easy if
you do what the bodybuilders do. In the time it takes to cook a single
meal, you can cook a weeks worth of food. For example:

* Bake a BUNCH of chicken breasts, so you can grab one at any time.
* Steam up a BIG batch of vegetables, so you can quickly warm a
serving in the microwave.
* Hard boil a BUNCH of eggs.

Fast, convenient and infinitely healthier than processed food.

However, with that said, many people have genetic/biochemical defects
that cause an appetite/fat-burning imbalance that makes it difficult,
or even impossible, to avoid obesity without aggressive intervention
to enhance fat burning and reduce appetite.

Appetite Reduction:
http://www.drumlib.com/dp/000023.htm
http://www.drumlib.com/dp/000026.htm

Enhancing Fat Burning:
http://www.drumlib.com/dp/000006.htm
http://www.drumlib.com/dp/000018.htm

Live Long and Prosper!
DrumLib

DrumLib's Health Research Review
http://www.drumlib.com
Vitamin Price Comparison
(including price based on standardized dose)
http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm
Disclaimer
http://www.drumlib.com/terms.htm
Brad Sheppard - 16 Jul 2004 15:35 GMT
Yes, processed foods = salt + trans fats.  How bad are trans fats?
Terrible - just eating four grams can double your risk "The Nurses'
Health Study found that replacing only 30 calories (7 grams) of
carbohydrates every day with 30 calories (4 grams) of trans fats
nearly doubled the risk for heart disease."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html  WHere do you
find trans fats? "Most of the trans fats in the American diet are
found in commercially prepared baked goods, margarines, snack foods,
and processed foods. Commercially prepared fried foods, like French
fries and onion rings, also contain a good deal of trans fat."

> > So I am wondering if it is better to eat more calories of good stuff or less
> > calories of bad stuff?  I mean, if I eat more calories of good stuff, I
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> Disclaimer
> http://www.drumlib.com/terms.htm
Ignoramus22273 - 16 Jul 2004 15:39 GMT
> Yes, processed foods = salt + trans fats.

I would say, salt plus sugar plus starch plus transfat plus MSG,
otherwise I agree. Finding a healthy processed food is so difficult
that I, more or less, gave up.

i
 
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



©2012 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.