Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
POCKETFULOFSUN SparkPoints: (16,354)
Fitness Minutes: (11,827)
Posts: 409
10/18/14 7:15 A

LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
5/21/14 2:39 P

That's fantastic Russell, but how is that relevant to the link that I posted at the beginning of the thread?

GIVEMEFRIES SparkPoints: (8,868)
Fitness Minutes: (2,999)
Posts: 572
5/21/14 2:26 P

Thanks for the link! I know the reason I overeat is because I don't have any hobbies besides playing video games and watching anime. I tend to fill my boredom with food.

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
5/21/14 2:10 P

Fat is just stored energy. If we cut calories, then we use fat for energy. Low carb, which I follow, is just a manipulation of that. By cutting carbs, we burn fat for energy, which is why I am not hungry. Even if I do not eat, my body has food. It is the fat that I accumulated over my lifetime.

I am just prolonging the state of fat-burning, instead of only being in ketosis at night, while fasting. Low carb isn't required for this to occur, but if one is consuming more carbs than they need, why would they ever need to use their stored fat. Hence the idea of caloric restriction.

The difference is that while a high carb dieter is constantly feeling cravings, and is struggling to stay at 1500 or 1800 calories, and more likely to cheat, I can eat at such levels, without any hunger/cravings. I eat only because it is time to eat.

So both diets can work if you stick to 1500/1800 calories, but one is more likely for you to overeat on.. the one that has the dieter feeling hunger/cravings. Low carb has it's own problems ( people quit because it is strict ), so you still have to stay on either diet, but it is much more likely that a person overeats on a diet they are constantly thinking about food on.

Both diets need to be tailored to the individual. Low carb dieters change over time, so something they find strict becomes less so over time, while a 1500 calorie dieter, stays at 1500 calories.

The goal there is to make it a 1500 calorie diet that is filling, so it is more about what the person eats to reach their caloric limit, than it is the limit.. not because calories don't matter, but because they DO, and if they are hungry, they will overeat.

Most people can't even imagine a life without cravings. They would never forget dinner. They would say. I get hungry around 7 p.m. They think about food all day long. THIS is the problem. Remove the hunger, and no one overeats. I found that with low carb, but I am sure that a dietitian could devise a higher carb menu that did the same.

Judging by the 70 % overweight in America though, they have either failed to do so, or no one likes the food on the plan. So they eat foods that cause cravings, and then amazingly overeat.

The solution is a plan where you experience no hunger/cravings, and the food is delicious. Common thought today, is that such a diet doesn't exist, so people diet on tasteless low fat food, and they don't stick to it for long. Not saying it doesn't work, according to the law of thermodynamics.. it fails on the Law of Larry's Lunch. So if low fat food is bad, that leaves low fat food, and if the kind recommended by doctors tastes horrible, people start looking for tastier low fat food. Of course, this is done with sugar, and salt, and these cause cravings, but that is okay.. the food is cheap.. just buy and eat more.

We need to stop and realize that life isn't a lab experiment. If a diet works on a blackboard, but not in practice.. IT DOES NOT WORK. It COULD work, but DOESN'T.

My guess is that somewhere in between strict low carb, and high carb/low fat, there is a happy medium. I don't expect a majority to eat a ketogenic diet like I do, nor should they, but if we got over our fear of fat, we might be able to not only increase taste by having fat move back to 40 %, but also cut carbs to 40 %, and at the same time, focus more on healthy carbs.

Look at kids today. They hate veggies. We steam them because fat is bad. So they taste like crud. So the result is kids do not eat veggies for carbs.. they consume Coke, and Pop Tarts ( which taste awwwwwesome! ). If you put 3 cups of veggies in a stir-fry with some chicken, and some fat, it would taste better, and you wouldn't hear anything about the veggies.Teaching them that veggies have healthy nutrients they need, seems to not be working, nor does telling them Coke and Pop Tarts are bad.

How about we try making the vegetables taste better?? Maybe then, they would eat veggies, instead of Pop Tarts. You don't need to make vegetables more delicious than Pop Tarts, just close enough that it becomes a choice. then their brain can take over. If the vegetables are edible, then the gap in taste is close enough that they may decide in favor of nutrition. We are asking them to be healthier, with the benefit that it tastes horrible. They aren't going to do that. They may go for healthy though, if the healthy food is okay tasting. They DO still have brains, and want to be healthy.

Then, when they stopped eating Coke and Pop Tarts, without all the sugar, you would find that they had less cravings, and didn't overeat as much.

As far as emotional eating, there is some thought that sugar consumption triggers mood swings, especially depression, and if you are depressed with cravings, and there is a tub of ice cream...... well.... you know!

As always, we have staked out the far ends of the issue.. low carb.. high carb, and no one is exploring the middle. Some low carbers do very well at 120-150, but even other low carbers don't consider them to be on low carb. When we think of low carb, we think of 20-50 grams, which I admittedly do, but because I am diabetic. I think most healthy people would thrive if we moved to 120-180 grams a day, with less hunger, and tastier food, and would stop overeating.

Of course, that would be a compromise, and no one wants to " lose ", so we stick to very low carb, and very high carb, and 70 % overweight, since most Americans find neither diet one they can follow for very long, at least not at the caloric levels that would allow them to lose weight, according to the math problems.

MARNIMALMSEY SparkPoints: (1,202)
Fitness Minutes: (15)
Posts: 6
5/21/14 12:58 P

The catch 22, one eats because emotionally stressed (guilty here) but the problem is that all by itself stress produces an excess of Cortisol, which can add to the weight gain process. I find attending gym, walking, or bike riding - basically any physical activity will help diminish the stress and so can taking el tryptophan. I also agree with the first article - which is why when I first started out losing weight, I made my portion and caloric intake smaller. I did not force myself to eat a whopping 1,200 calories, I only ate small (very small) snacks throughout the day. When someone reads a portion size, that really is all one needs and I discovered that by eating my carb and protein together in small quantities caused immense burning of fat. If it says a half a cup, bingo, that's all I consumed. And I was choosey what I ate, worked out and dropped 119 pounds.

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 15,222
5/20/14 10:56 P

That is a good point LEC358. It is very possible

EMSR2D2 Posts: 1,391
5/20/14 5:22 P

I very much agree with the first part of your post. A permanent state of stress/anxiety/emotional overload takes a huge toll on our bodies and makes all of our organs demand more energy and work harder. It's one of the reasons that long-term stress can cause so many illnesses. So I think it's entirely reasonable to extrapolate that our bodies might actually need more food when we're horribly stressed. The whole stress/diet/illness connection debate is really interesting.

LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
5/20/14 5:01 P

I'm not suggesting this is the case but here's a thought experiment: when we're at a heightened emotional state (stressed, angry, sad, etc) it's reasonable to say that our body is using more energy because in those times our respiration rate is up, heart rate is elevated, limbic system is working more, etc, right?

And those systems are requiring energy to function, right?

And if the energy we have in our body is locked up in fat cells rather than the bloodstream? Where will the energy to fuel those heightened functions come from?

5/20/14 4:51 P

for me, I overeat because I'm I'm feeling angry, lonely, tired or stressed.

I'd like to blame the food I eat, but for the most part, I was a healthy eater all along. curbing portion size and the total of what I eat seems to work.

5/20/14 4:49 P

Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 15,222
5/20/14 4:19 P

That may be the case for some. I know why I over eat and that is because of my emotional state.

MARNIMALMSEY SparkPoints: (1,202)
Fitness Minutes: (15)
Posts: 6
5/20/14 3:52 P

I think your nutritional therapist has the correct approach. I think each person eats for different reason whether they be emotional, physical addictions to certain foods, or psychological and I think each persons body reacts differently in each situation. Still, I think in order to lose weight, it's important to have the correct protein to carbohydrate ratio, The Insulin Resistance Diet is great for that reason, I suggest checking it out of you can. I don't agree with counting calories too much for the reason that I can never eat the recommended daily amount and also, I'm not entirely active so don't see where that's necessary.

I wish you the very best on your journey, it sounds like you have an extremely knowledgeable person on your side and are off to a fantastic start!

EMSR2D2 Posts: 1,391
5/20/14 3:47 P

My best friend (who happens to be a nutritional therapist) would agree entirely with not counting calories at all. She takes a totally different approach to eating, basing it entirely around ensuring the correct ratio of carbs, protein and fat and basing a diet (ie what foods you eat, not a weight loss plan) personalised to your personal history and circumstances (medical, family, activity level etc).

I consult her when I want to know about healthy eating, but I use SP for weight loss.

LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
5/20/14 3:30 P

An article in the NYT today caught my eye because it presents a theory that we may overeat because there aren't enough calories in the bloodstream - they're in the fat cells and not helping our bodies function:

"The more calories we lock away in fat tissue, the fewer there are circulating in the bloodstream to satisfy the body’s requirements. If we look at it this way, it’s a distribution problem: We have an abundance of calories, but they’re in the wrong place. As a result, the body needs to increase its intake. We get hungrier because we’re getting fatter."

An interesting theory, I think. If this took hold (which it probably won't) it could turn weight loss and our understanding of the way we lose weight completely on it's head.

"If this hypothesis turns out to be correct, it will have immediate implications for public health. It would mean that the decades-long focus on calorie restriction was destined to fail for most people. Information about calorie content would remain relevant, not as a strategy for weight loss, but rather to help people avoid eating too much highly processed food loaded with rapidly digesting carbohydrates. But obesity treatment would more appropriately focus on diet quality rather than calorie quantity."

The scholarly article is in the JAMA, but the NYT summary is here:

What are your thoughts on thinking about diet/obesity in the way the authors suggest?

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
achy legs (not sure if I spelled that 3/14/2015 6:19:59 PM
Serving Size Suggestion 2/21/2015 8:34:38 AM
Question about carbs 4/21/2015 3:43:22 PM
Help! 2/26/2015 8:28:10 AM
Lose 10 lbs. in 1 mo. 4/12/2015 10:11:46 AM