 |
 | 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 / General Topics / March 2005Volumetrics! Can you dig it?
OK, I am back on my diet. And this time I am serious! My last successful diet was basically vegan. But my urges got the better of me after about a year. But I did lose 75 lbs or so. But now I am fat again. Getting married sure didn't help! This time I am going to modify my original diet to include meat and more fats than the vegan diet. The Volumetrics idea seems about right. Here is a recent US News and World Report story on this diet/lifestyle plan: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050307/health/7weight.htm So, whattaya think? > OK, I am back on my diet. And this time I am serious! My last > successful diet was basically vegan. But my urges got the better of me [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So, whattaya think? Why not, if it makes you eat less. I do not think that it will woprk magically without you making a conscious effort to eat less.  Signature223/173.2/180 >> OK, I am back on my diet. And this time I am serious! My last >> successful diet was basically vegan. But my urges got the better of me [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> So, whattaya think? Sounds reasonable... though maybe just a little over-simplified? Saity has been a 'hot' diet topic for a while. How do we reach saity? That's the big question which involves the incredibly complicated workings of the human mind. Many people have suggested that the sheer volume of food eaten is a factor, and maybe it is the most important one - but I don't think it's the only one. I think there's also a chemical/hormonal factor, which seems to the the focus of research now.. for example, we really may have some 'hardwiring' left over from our ancestors that causes to seek 'high density' foods (fats, nuts) and quickly digested sources of energy (sweets). So... even if we were to eat nothing but a 'low density' diet (foods full of water and fiber) to give us a feeling of 'fullness', I think we'd still have a 'mental craving' for something sweet or fat... > OK, I am back on my diet. And this time I am serious! My last > successful diet was basically vegan. But my urges got the better of me [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So, whattaya think? The book is well done. And the idea seems spot on. IMHO Volumetrics is an idea that doesn't work. I have had my best results from focusing on eating foods with a maximum calorie density. Within 2 weeks I found that remarkably tiny portions seemed entirely satisfactory. Thus, I believe the body adjusts to the caloric density of the food. I would expect that if you eat calorically sparse food for a month, you may find yourself ravenous for huge volumes of food. I also try to keep my calorie density reasonably consistent. I suspect that alternating between foods of highly different caloric densities might confuse the body. Maybe/maybe not. > OK, I am back on my diet. And this time I am serious! My last > successful diet was basically vegan. But my urges got the better of me [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So, whattaya think? Maximum caloric density? Could you provide an example please? I'm in reading and learning mode. Thanks. > IMHO Volumetrics is an idea that doesn't work. I have had my best results > from focusing on eating foods with a maximum calorie density. Within 2 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > > So, whattaya think? > Maximum caloric density? Could you provide an example please? I'm in > reading and learning mode. Thanks. Walnuts and butter and bacon would be some examples of high calorie density foods. i >> IMHO Volumetrics is an idea that doesn't work. I have had my best results >> from focusing on eating foods with a maximum calorie density. Within 2 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> > >> > So, whattaya think? Signature223/173.2/180 >>Maximum caloric density? Could you provide an example please? I'm in >>reading and learning mode. Thanks. > > Walnuts and butter and bacon would be some examples of high calorie > density foods. I can easily eat far more walnuts and bacon than my calorie budget will allow. If someone gets full on these foods before going over their limit then good for them. If you are used to eating celery all day every day and then switch to cheese, bacon, and bowls of pecans, you will likely eat excessive calories for several days. By two to four weeks into eating such a diet, the desire for portion sizes will change to be very small portion sizes that will seem to be entirely satisfying. Feeling satiated makes portion control practical. Portion control can limit calories. Limited calories leads to weightloss.... (This is from experience in the context of low carb.) > >>Maximum caloric density? Could you provide an example please? I'm in > >>reading and learning mode. Thanks. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > allow. If someone gets full on these foods before going over their limit > then good for them. > If you are used to eating celery all day every day and then switch to > cheese, bacon, and bowls of pecans, you will likely eat excessive calories [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > practical. Portion control can limit calories. Limited calories leads to > weightloss.... (This is from experience in the context of low carb.) That's your experience from low carb and you've done very well with it. However, not everyone has the same experience. Neither low carb, low fat, nor low calorie is the holy grail of diets. Find what works for you and stick to it. Signaturethe vbchick email goes to vbchick >>>Maximum caloric density? Could you provide an example please? I'm in >>>reading and learning mode. Thanks. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can easily eat far more walnuts and bacon than my calorie budget will > allow. Would it be correct to say that you also eat quite a bit of carbs in addition to that walnuts and bacon? > If someone gets full on these foods before going over their limit > then good for them. It's been my experience that I can eat such high calorie density foods as much as I want, and I would neither gain nor lose, as long as I do not eat too many carbs. It is a marvel to me, I used to think that I was not able to simply go by my appetite (which was true). Turned out that I could not go by my appetite, when I was eating too many carbs, whereas without them, my appetite is completely self regulating. By the way, I suspect that you are saying that you could easily overeat bacon (for example), without having actually tried to do it. Try, one day, to eat only fatty foods like that and see if you reach a point where food becomes unappealing and even nauseating, at about the right moment as far as calorie intake is concerned. Signature223/173.2/180 > Would it be correct to say that you also eat quite a bit of carbs in > addition to that walnuts and bacon? No, i am diabetic and low carb. > It's been my experience that I can eat such high calorie density foods > as much as I want, and I would neither gain nor lose, as long as I do > not eat too many carbs. It is a marvel to me, I used to think that I > was not able to simply go by my appetite (which was true). Turned out > that I could not go by my appetite, when I was eating too many carbs, > whereas without them, my appetite is completely self regulating. It's quite easy to eat 1000 calories of bacon or walnuts in one sitting. That's roughly a third of my daily calories. That doesn't leave much. > By the way, I suspect that you are saying that you could easily > overeat bacon (for example), without having actually tried to do it. If i eat 7 pieces of bacon for breakfast, which is easy, i consider that over eating, and i don't really have to try very hard. > Try, one day, to eat only fatty foods like that and see if you reach a > point where food becomes unappealing and even nauseating, at about the > right moment as far as calorie intake is concerned. Doesn't work like that for me. >> Would it be correct to say that you also eat quite a bit of carbs in >> addition to that walnuts and bacon? > > No, i am diabetic and low carb. Oh, I see. >> It's been my experience that I can eat such high calorie density foods >> as much as I want, and I would neither gain nor lose, as long as I do [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sitting. That's roughly a third of my daily calories. That doesn't > leave much. Perhaps it does not work for you the same way it does for me. I can also eat that much, if not more, in one sitting. My breakfast could easily be even more food (173 lbs 33 year old 5'11" man). Easily over 1,000 calories. The thing is though, if I eat that much, my lunch is usually modest and I may well skip dinner, or eat nothing at all in the evening, because I do not feel like eating. >> By the way, I suspect that you are saying that you could easily >> overeat bacon (for example), without having actually tried to do it. > > If i eat 7 pieces of bacon for breakfast, which is easy, i consider that > over eating, and i don't really have to try very hard. I see. I suppose that you imply that it does not affect your appetite for lunch and dinner. >> Try, one day, to eat only fatty foods like that and see if you reach a >> point where food becomes unappealing and even nauseating, at about the >> right moment as far as calorie intake is concerned. > > Doesn't work like that for me. Sorry to hear that. Signature223/173.2/180 > Perhaps it does not work for you the same way it does for me. I can > also eat that much, if not more, in one sitting. My breakfast could > easily be even more food (173 lbs 33 year old 5'11" man). Easily over > 1,000 calories. The thing is though, if I eat that much, my lunch is > usually modest and I may well skip dinner, or eat nothing at all in > the evening, because I do not feel like eating. I don't know how that common it is. I guess it's not very common or more people wouldn't be overweight. From a evolutionary perspective it makes more sense to eat when food is available so it may not be that common. >>If i eat 7 pieces of bacon for breakfast, which is easy, i consider that >>over eating, and i don't really have to try very hard. > > I see. I suppose that you imply that it does not affect your appetite > for lunch and dinner. There is little preloading effect that i can tell. >>>Try, one day, to eat only fatty foods like that and see if you reach a >>>point where food becomes unappealing and even nauseating, at about the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sorry to hear that. It's no big deal really. The only issue i have is with the contention that there are these magical mechanisms in the body to keep people from being overweight. There aren't. The drives are primarily to eat and for good reason. >> Perhaps it does not work for you the same way it does for me. I can >> also eat that much, if not more, in one sitting. My breakfast could [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't know how that common it is. Seems to be common for low carbers. > I guess it's not very common or more people wouldn't be > overweight. From a evolutionary perspective it makes more sense to > eat when food is available so it may not be that common. Well, yes, but from the evolutionary perspective we did not evolve to have plentiful supplies of Oreos, Doritos and Pringles. >>>>Try, one day, to eat only fatty foods like that and see if you reach a >>>>point where food becomes unappealing and even nauseating, at about the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > being overweight. There aren't. The drives are primarily to eat and for > good reason. I used to think so, as well. And then I switchedto a low carb diet. At least for me, low carb keeps me not hungry and I do not gain weight. Maybe one day I will discover that, somehow, it is unlealthy for me, but so far, it is nice not to be hungry all the time. Signature223/173.2/180 > Seems to be common for low carbers. Most of the low carbers i have met aren't very strict. If you can be strict at anything then you will likely succeed. That probably describes less than 10% of the population. >> Well, yes, but from the evolutionary perspective we did not evolve to > have plentiful supplies of Oreos, Doritos and Pringles. But we sure seem to like them :-) Not that i've had any of them for many years now. > I used to think so, as well. And then I switchedto a low carb diet. At > least for me, low carb keeps me not hungry and I do not gain > weight. Maybe one day I will discover that, somehow, it is unlealthy > for me, but so far, it is nice not to be hungry all the time. The problem is people don't eat because they are hungry. They eat when their appetite has been stimulated and our appetites are always being stimulated in today's environment. >> Seems to be common for low carbers. > > Most of the low carbers i have met aren't very strict. If you can be > strict at anything then you will likely succeed. That probably describes > less than 10% of the population. A wise thought. >> I used to think so, as well. And then I switchedto a low carb diet. At >> least for me, low carb keeps me not hungry and I do not gain [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > their appetite has been stimulated and our appetites are always being > stimulated in today's environment. It is hard to say where hunger ends and where recreational eating starts. All I can say is that I no longer limit my eating, except that I do not eat after 6 pm. Signature223/173.2/180 > It is hard to say where hunger ends and where recreational eating > starts. All I can say is that I no longer limit my eating, except > that I do not eat after 6 pm. That's excellent. Good work. On a population basis it doesn't seem to be something one could rely on because we see it so seldom. > >>Maximum caloric density? Could you provide an example please? I'm in > >>reading and learning mode. Thanks. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > allow. If someone gets full on these foods before going over their limit > then good for them. I think bacon and nuts are huge trigger foods for most people. Bacon also has things like LOTS of salt and preservatives that should be avoided for the most part. Martha > I think bacon and nuts are huge trigger foods for most people. Bacon > also has things like LOTS of salt and preservatives that should be > avoided for the most part. I am not sure how triggery they are. It's just a handful of nuts has a zillion calories and handful is trivial to consume. Same for bacon. And bacon is bad, but it tastes really good. > > >>Maximum caloric density? Could you provide an example please? I'm > in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Martha Too late i just had two bacon wrapped dates stuffed with Bleu cheese for lunch and they were oh so filling. > > I think bacon and nuts are huge trigger foods for most people. Bacon > > also has things like LOTS of salt and preservatives that should be > > avoided for the most part. > > Too late i just had two bacon wrapped dates stuffed with Bleu cheese > for lunch and they were oh so filling. This sounds interesting. Do you cook the bacon before wrapping? Or wrap everything and then cook? Or just eat it cold? -- Matthew 185/177/160 To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit. > > > I think bacon and nuts are huge trigger foods for most people. Bacon > > > also has things like LOTS of salt and preservatives that should be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 185/177/160 > To reply by e-mail, heat things up a bit. Use big California Medjool dates. Split partway and remove pit. Stuff with nuts, mushroom, water chestnut or cheese. Use 1/2 slice of bacon. Wrap and insert toothpick. Bake at 350 for 40 miutes and cool for 5 minutes. You can also place them on a paper towel to get off excess fat. I use sugar free bacon. the brands with 33% less salt are usually sugar free. This is the best happetizer-snack i ever had! >I think bacon and nuts are huge trigger foods for most people. Bacon? Seriously? I've never liked it much at all -- doesn't seem to have much taste other than grease and salt. If I eat it, it's one slice, and used more like a condiment -- a tiny bite to add some saltiness to otherwise bland eggs or something. I probably eat no more than 3-4 slices a year (pre-diet or now). Nuts, on the other hand... :-) Chris 262/130s/130s started dieting July 2002, maintaining since June 2004 >>I think bacon and nuts are huge trigger foods for most people. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >saltiness to otherwise bland eggs or something. I probably eat no >more than 3-4 slices a year (pre-diet or now). Bacon, including gammon steaks, is something I fit into my WOE from time to time. It doesn't seem to do any damage, although I don't weigh myself often enough to know if there's a temporary blip caused by sodium. I buy lovely lean-only bacon rashers, which I cook under the grill (this may be what you call broiling, I'm not sure). They don't leave a drop of fat and are fairly low in calories. I eat them between 2 small slices of wholemeal bread for a low calorie version of what we call a "bacon buttie". Delicious! janice > Bacon, including gammon steaks, is something I fit into my WOE from > time to time. It doesn't seem to do any damage, although I don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > between 2 small slices of wholemeal bread for a low calorie version of > what we call a "bacon buttie". Delicious! I may be wrong but I don't think the nice, lean bacon rashers you're talking about are as readily available in the US as they are in the UK. The streaky variety seems the most prevalent in supermarkets. >>>I think bacon and nuts are huge trigger foods for most people. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > janice Danepak Lean and Low is very tasty but I don't much approve of the way Danes rear their pigs! Rachael 176/121/119-124 >> Bacon, including gammon steaks, is something I fit into my WOE from >> time to time. It doesn't seem to do any damage, although I don't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> between 2 small slices of wholemeal bread for a low calorie version of >> what we call a "bacon buttie". Delicious! >Danepak Lean and Low is very tasty but I don't much approve of the way Danes >rear their pigs! I get Sainsbury's Be Good To Yourself bacon medallions. I don't usually like Sainsbury's own brand stuff but these are very good. I must check where they are reared - I usually buy only free range eggs and kindly produced meat (and veg - LOL) but I must confess I haven't looked into this particular item. janice > >I think bacon and nuts are huge trigger foods for most people. > > Bacon? Seriously? I've never liked it much at all Your citizenship in the Confederacy is hereby revoked :) So gather 'round, gather 'round chillun' Get down, well just get down chillun' Get loud, well you can be loud and be proud Well you can be proud, hear now Be proud you're a rebel 'Cause the South's gonna do it again and again ---Charlie Daniels > IMHO Volumetrics is an idea that doesn't work. I have had my best results > from focusing on eating foods with a maximum calorie density. Within 2 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > alternating between foods of highly different caloric densities might > confuse the body. Maybe/maybe not. For me food needs to look and taste good and then the quantity isn't as important. Example: one scrambled egg in a small amount of butter? Yawn. 1 hard boiled egg diced with 1 tsp. homemade mayo, a litle diced red onion, a few capers, garlic salt, pepper and a bit of Dijon mustard? Same calories aprox. and much tastier. SignatureDiva ****** There is no substitute for the right food > OK, I am back on my diet. And this time I am serious! My last > successful diet was basically vegan. But my urges got the better of me [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So, whattaya think? I read about the plan in a magazine article and thought it was interesting but nothing new. I think it's great if you are the kind of person who likes to eat a lot of food and needs volume to feel full. It's just a more structured form of low-fat dieting - substituting lower fat/calorie choices for higher ones. It will be harder to follow if you really like meat, eggs, and cheese but easier if you're more into veggies and fruit. Signaturethe vbchick email goes to vbchick > I read about the plan in a magazine article and thought it was interesting > but nothing new. It is very new because it based on research showing people eat the same volume of food regardless of caloric density. It is also based on research showing that water content embedded in food is satisfying. These are researched ideas and are new. It's not just low fat. The low fat comes in simply to reduce the number of calories. That research was very short term. -too short for the body to adjust, which it will given a few weeks. > > I read about the plan in a magazine article and thought it was interesting > > but nothing new. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > These are researched ideas and are new. It's not just low fat. The low > fat comes in simply to reduce the number of calories. > That research was very short term. -too short for the body to adjust, which > it will given a few weeks. What is there to adjust? Water embedded in food is treated as food so is satisfying because it must be digested like food. There's nothing to adjust to. >> I read about the plan in a magazine article and thought it was >> interesting but nothing new. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > researched ideas and are new. It's not just low fat. The low fat comes in > simply to reduce the number of calories. In 25+ years of dieting I've heard all about "eating a cup of grapes will fill you up faster/better/longer than the same caloric value/weight of raisins" etc. What appears to be new about this plan is the formula of calculating caloric density. Like any other diet it will work for some and not for others. Signaturethe vbchick email goes to vbchick >> I read about the plan in a magazine article and thought it was interesting >> but nothing new. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >These are researched ideas and are new. It's not just low fat. The low >fat comes in simply to reduce the number of calories. I dunno... I remember lots of other theories based on volume, eating 'bulky' food, filling your stomach with water, and 'chew more' (the idea being that it was the amount of chewing that determined when you reached saity). They might not have had the research to back them, but the theories have been around for a while in various forms. > OK, I am back on my diet. And this time I am serious! My last > successful diet was basically vegan. But my urges got the better of me [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So, whattaya think? I've always sorta believed in a similar principle, somehow a large bowl of fruit swimming in non-fat yogurt seemed a lot more appealing (to me) than a tiny amount of high-fat, dense food like egg mayo, which is one of the reasons why low-fat has always worked better for me than low-carb. The prniciple does work, but not all the time. Sometimes I can get satisfied from low-cal soup'n'salad but others I can be hungry all the time & another bowl of salad or pot of non-fat yogurt won't make any difference, only something 'denser' will do. There's also a difference between hunger, cravings & the 'need to munch'. If you're satisfied but you 'must' have a dessert, then a low-cal, low-fat one will do. If you need to munch on something you can have crudites in a low-fat dip. But if you're really hungry, carrot sticks just won't fill you up. It also depends on your preferences, I suspect the volumetrics could well work for you given your vegan background. Well, I have been on the diet for one week, and I have lost a couple of pounds or three. Feels great! Went off the diet today though, at least a bit. It's OK, though.... > OK, I am back on my diet. And this time I am serious! My last > successful diet was basically vegan. But my urges got the better of me [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So, whattaya think? |
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
|
©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.