BNA losers club - 2015

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:39 pm

Nobody wrote:Were they at the top of your Google search? Hardly what I'd call authoritative, despite one site's name. :P

Here's a better one.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dark-ch ... -function/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I get inconclusive from that.
I only eat 85% or 90% dark chocolate, so all good for me. :mrgreen:
Nobody wrote:http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/10638/2
64% of energy from fat.
24g per 100g of saturated fat. I think my current daily intake is < 4g/day.
24g per 100g of sugar.
I mostly eat 85%, which is 12.5g sugars per 100g or 90%, which is 7.5g sugars per 100g, much lower than the 24g/100g quoted. The 90% is 85% of calories from fat, which is great for me trying to increase my fat intake.
<removed by request>

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:58 pm

skull wrote:
casual_cyclist wrote:I weighed in today for the start of my 12 week challenge. 92 kg and 100 cm waist. 92 kg is fine for my height but 100 cm is really bad. It should be under 95 cm for my height.
How tall are you and how did you calculate that.
187 cm. I calculated from http://livelighter.com.au/tools-and-res ... -your-risk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I want to be healthy, so I ignore BMI. Waist is of concern though at 100cm which puts me 'at risk':
A waist measurement higher than 94cm increases your risk of developing coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers.

Healthy eating and physical activity can help you lower your waist measurement and your risk.
skull wrote:I am 183 cm, 99.6 kg and a waist of just under 38 inches so lets just say 96cm
Yeah, I would be wanting to get my weight down and my waist down if I were you. Keep riding and I'm sure you will get there! :D
<removed by request>

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby warthog1 » Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:06 pm

Nobody wrote:Were they at the top of your Google search? Hardly what I'd call authoritative, despite one site's name. :P
Oh well I didn't really have anything of value to add :oops: :) It was a 5 second google search and they were up the top, I was more interested in S stirring.
I'm not reading the second one of yours 'cause I like chocolate too. I'm a mid 40's married man with 2 teenage kids, I need some simple pleasures in life :( :lol:
I do only eat dark choc though, 85% cocoa from aldi tonight at work. Need something to get me through the night shift.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:13 pm

warthog1 wrote:I do only eat dark choc though, 85% cocoa from aldi tonight at work. Need something to get me through the night shift.
I reckon that's great! I wouldn't feel guilty about it at all.... as long as you don't eat the whole block :wink: :lol:
<removed by request>

User avatar
skull
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby skull » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:45 pm

Thanks for the link casual cyclist. You're a legend.

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:48 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:
skull wrote:How tall are you and how did you calculate that.
187 cm. I calculated from http://livelighter.com.au/tools-and-res ... -your-risk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I want to be healthy, so I ignore BMI. Waist is of concern though at 100cm which puts me 'at risk'
http://www.health-calc.com/body-composi ... ight-ratio" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found the waist to height calculator above handy. If you play with the numbers, it appears that the ideal is 0.445 within an OK range of 0.4 to 0.49.

TheWall
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:51 pm

BNA losers club - 2015

Postby TheWall » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:04 pm

Good way to spend a Sunday evening [emoji1]
Image

June 14 116.8kg...

2015:
5/1 104kg

5/2 99.7kg

2/298.9kg...

Blood pressure very good and a resting pulse rate of 60. Feeling good.

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:33 pm

Nobody wrote:
casual_cyclist wrote:
skull wrote:How tall are you and how did you calculate that.
187 cm. I calculated from http://livelighter.com.au/tools-and-res ... -your-risk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I want to be healthy, so I ignore BMI. Waist is of concern though at 100cm which puts me 'at risk'
http://www.health-calc.com/body-composi ... ight-ratio" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found the waist to height calculator above handy. If you play with the numbers, it appears that the ideal is 0.445 within an OK range of 0.4 to 0.49.
Thanks Nobody, that's a great link. I think waist to height is a much more important measure of health that BMI.
<removed by request>

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby warthog1 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:20 pm

casual_cyclist wrote: Thanks Nobody, that's a great link. I think waist to height is a much more important measure of health that BMI.
I'm no expert and it probably is a better measure than BMI. It still doesn't account for variations in stature, bone structure and muscle bulk IMO. There are significant variations of each. Wider pelvic girdle generally equals larger waist, wider shoulders adds bulk etc.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:35 pm

warthog1 wrote:
casual_cyclist wrote: Thanks Nobody, that's a great link. I think waist to height is a much more important measure of health that BMI.
I'm no expert and it probably is a better measure than BMI. It still doesn't account for variations in stature, bone structure and muscle bulk IMO. There are significant variations of each. Wider pelvic girdle generally equals larger waist, wider shoulders adds bulk etc.
True. Neither is accurate but I guess that waist is a better, simple, 'at home' rough guide than BMI. The test would be to find an adult male with a waist greater than 94 cm who isn't fat. Although we should remember it's only a guide.

The case for states (1):
US researchers looked at 2,700 men and women in Dallas Texas aged 18-65, measuring their body weight, their height, their waist circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio; and then gave them a battery of medical tests, including MRI scans of their abdomen and scans of their coronary arteries to see if they had atherosclerosis, the disease of the arteries that causes heart attacks.

They found that even a small increase in the waist-to-hip ratio increased the risk of heart disease even if the person's BMI was normal. They published their findings in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
And we need to remember that this is adjusted for ethnicity and also that this is a general guide (2):
As a general guide, increased obesity-related health risks are associated with a WC greater or equal to 94 cm in men and 80 cm in women. If a man has a WC greater than 102 cm, he is at a substantially increased risk, as are females with a WC greater than 88 cm. A WC greater than 120 cm for men and 110 cm for women puts these individuals at extremely high danger for obesity-related health issues.

Naturally, different ethnicities have different body builds and proportions. Therefore people of different ethnicities have different WC cut-off points.
The case against (as you point out) is that pelvic widening continues throughout a person's lifetime (3):
"Our findings suggest that pelvic growth may contribute to people becoming wider and having a larger waist size as they get older, whether or not they also have an increase in body fat," Dahners said.

The pelvic width of the oldest patients in the study was, on average, nearly an inch larger than the youngest patients. This one-inch increase in pelvic diameter, by itself, could lead to an approximately three-inch increase in waist size from age 20 to age 79.
Personally, I would rather use a measure that rewards me for losing abdominal fat rather than a measure that penalises me to gaining lean muscle.

It's interesting when you combine BMI and waist circumference in older adults. An increase in waist circumference is still associated with an increased risk (4).
After controlling for BMI, mortality risk increased 13% for every standard deviation increase in WC. The patterns of associations were consistent by sex, age, and disease status.
(1) http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/s ... 006671.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(2) http://www.myvmc.com/investigations/ass ... umference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(3) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 110453.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398895" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
<removed by request>

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby warthog1 » Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:46 pm

Comprehensive post, thanks CC.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:35 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:I think waist to height is a much more important measure of health that BMI.
I agree. Among other failings of BMI, it also favors the short.
Wikipedia wrote:Scalability

BMI is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of the height. So, if all body dimensions double, and mass scales naturally with the cube of the height, then BMI doubles instead of remaining the same. This results in taller people having a reported BMI that is uncharacteristically high, compared to their actual body fat levels. In comparison, the Ponderal index is based on the natural scaling of mass with the third power of the height. However, many taller people are not just "scaled up" short people but tend to have narrower frames in proportion to their height. Nick Korevaar (a mathematics lecturer from the University of Utah) suggests that instead of squaring the body height (as the BMI does) or cubing the body height (as the Ponderal index does), it would be more appropriate to use an exponent of between 2.3 and 2.7[10] (as originally noted by Quetelet). (For a theoretical basis for such values see MacKay.[11])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Ashwell shape chart article below shows why the ranges were set for WHtR.
http://www.ashwell.uk.com/images/2011%2 ... Charts.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can see it correlates to BMI in my case. Before I started my diet changes I had a WHtR of 0.52 which is in the "Consider Action" area of the chart. I was also in the overweight area of a BMI chart with 27.4. Now my WHtR is 0.445 which is in the middle of the OK band for the WHtR chart, with my BMI of 21.6 being approximately in the middle of the normal band on the BMI chart. Since I'm fairly short at 173cm, I expect the numbers should correlate.

But then WHtR and BMI probably shouldn't be used in isolation to assess health. Total cholesterol and blood pressure need to be taken into account for a clearer picture.

warthog1
Posts: 14305
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby warthog1 » Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:01 am

Nobody wrote: Among other failings of BMI, it also favors the short.
Goes to show I'm better off reading than contributing to this thread, I thought it was the opposite. :oops: :roll:
Dogs are the best people :wink:

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:15 pm

yes BMI is absolute BS and shouldn't be used by anyone but scientists looking at populations.
it's bad public health policy for authorities to bandy it about as a guide for individuals.
It also varies between races. Chinese, Polynesians, and Caucasians have different healthy BMI ranges.

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:34 pm

CKinnard wrote:yes BMI is absolute BS and shouldn't be used by anyone but scientists looking at populations.
it's bad public health policy for authorities to bandy it about as a guide for individuals.
It also varies between races. Chinese, Polynesians, and Caucasians have different healthy BMI ranges.
If you correlate BMI with waist measurements, particularly waist to hip ratio or waist to height ratio, I think you can start getting some good measures. For example, an adult male with a BMI of 25-27 and waist of < 95 cm should be in pretty good shape. Well, I hope so, because that is where I am aiming. :mrgreen:
<removed by request>

User avatar
singlespeedscott
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Elimbah, Queensland

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby singlespeedscott » Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:00 am

31/12/14 - 79kg & 22.5% body fat;

08/01/15 - 78kg & 22.2% body fat;

17/01/15 - 78.3kg & 22.3% body fat;

23/01/15 - 78kg & 22.2%fat;

01/02/15 - 78kg & 22.2% fat;

08/02/15 - 77.5kg, 22.0% fat.

15/02/13 - 75.8kg & 21.4% fat

26/02/15 - 77.2kg & 21.9% fat

05/03/15 - 76.8kg & 21.8%
Image

PatNZ
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:52 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby PatNZ » Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:29 pm

PatNZ wrote:
PatNZ wrote:Currently 103 KGs aim to hit 90 kgs by the years end.
Weighed myself today. 98kgs. So it looks like some progress I think. Still a long way to go to 90.
97kgs. 6kgs lost so far since the 11th of this year.

7kgs to go to hit my 90kg target for the year.

Maybe I'll even reach 89kgs?
Image

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:53 pm

Just found out DurianRider and gf Freelee are getting their ass's sued for defamation re their comments about a popular online Aussie personal trainer (Kayla Itsines) who promotes weight loss in accord with Australian Dietary Guidelines.

It's about time they were held to account. I'm particularly gobsmacked that so many people buy into their advice that 'everyone' should aim to eat 3000 Calories a day of mostly organic fruit, and starch for dinner. I suppose some people think if this pair can eat that much and have low bodyfat, then everyone can.....and screw what the science says.

I am often amazed at how many young people believe they have had unsatisfactory advice from mainstream health professionals (doctors, specialists, dietitians, physios, etc). I suppose the idealistic are always looking for quick, magical, idealistic solutions. But I think a lot of health pros could communicate integrated medical advice more often more effectively.

On another note, I've not touched alcohol or junk food for over 2 weeks, and have lost all unhealthy cravings. My weight is still around the same, but my waist is down 2cm. Most days now I'm doing raw salads, a bit of fruit, legumes, and 100g of meat 1-3 times a week.

zill
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:34 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby zill » Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:23 am

CKinnard wrote: On another note, I've not touched alcohol or junk food for over 2 weeks, and have lost all unhealthy cravings. My weight is still around the same, but my waist is down 2cm. Most days now I'm doing raw salads, a bit of fruit, legumes, and 100g of meat 1-3 times a week.
One would have thought someone with your experience and knowledge would have cut out unhealthy stuff years if not decades ago! Why hasn't that been the case?

I've just started reading the book "The sweet poison quit plan" by David Gillespie and aiming to not be addicted to processed sugary food which is the only weakness left in my diet.

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 08, 2015 2:45 pm

zill wrote:
CKinnard wrote: On another note, I've not touched alcohol or junk food for over 2 weeks, and have lost all unhealthy cravings. My weight is still around the same, but my waist is down 2cm. Most days now I'm doing raw salads, a bit of fruit, legumes, and 100g of meat 1-3 times a week.
One would have thought someone with your experience and knowledge would have cut out unhealthy stuff years if not decades ago! Why hasn't that been the case?

I've just started reading the book "The sweet poison quit plan" by David Gillespie and aiming to not be addicted to processed sugary food which is the only weakness left in my diet.
Zill, to cut a long story short, I lived cleaner than anyone until late 20s...then work stress and a virus led to chronic fatigue syndrome...which I still struggle with. Sometimes when I'm feeling ok, I think it's cool to have a few beers or wines and some richer traditional cuisine, but the reality is I am better off without it altogether.

Anyway, the last few weeks has reinforced that I do better when eating mainly raw salads, legumes, steamed vege, fruit...and 100-200 g animal flesh a week...and not touching alcohol! As it is, my weight over the last 6 mths has never resulted in a BMI >25. My target weight will give me BMI 22.

Re David Gillespie, he deviates from conventional science in his extremist anti-sugar views. I'd suggest you counter balance your reading with that of mainstream science. He also selectively reads and quotes the literature to support his biases. I don't know of any professional sporting body that follows his advice.

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 08, 2015 3:08 pm

CKinnard wrote:Just found out DurianRider and gf Freelee are getting their ass's sued for defamation re their comments about a popular online Aussie personal trainer (Kayla Itsines) who promotes weight loss in accord with Australian Dietary Guidelines.
I saw one or two of his videos on it. It appears the claim DR is making is in regard to calorie restriction down to 1600 kCal per day, claiming it will mess with people's metabolism long term. Probably a difficult thing to prove either way.
CKinnard wrote:It's about time they were held to account. I'm particularly gobsmacked that so many people buy into their advice that 'everyone' should aim to eat 3000 Calories a day of mostly organic fruit, and starch for dinner. I suppose some people think if this pair can eat that much and have low bodyfat, then everyone can.....and screw what the science says.
That's is the danger, it doesn't appear to work for everyone as a few youtubers have shown.
Eg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShmoS0AnPNA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Generally, the limited evidence appears to suggest a whole food starch based diet should work for more people than a raw WFPBD due to the reduction in fruit. It appears to come down to the individual. Can't see the point in over consuming calories by blending. Or calorie restriction if it means going hungry.
CKinnard wrote:I am often amazed at how many young people believe they have had unsatisfactory advice from mainstream health professionals (doctors, specialists, dietitians, physios, etc). I suppose the idealistic are always looking for quick, magical, idealistic solutions. But I think a lot of health pros could communicate integrated medical advice more often more effectively.
Maybe the young people haven't got satisfactory advice from mainstream medical doctors. My understanding is there isn't a lot of nutritional training in the total training to be a medical doctor.
CKinnard wrote:On another note, I've not touched alcohol or junk food for over 2 weeks, and have lost all unhealthy cravings. My weight is still around the same, but my waist is down 2cm. Most days now I'm doing raw salads, a bit of fruit, legumes, and 100g of meat 1-3 times a week.
Good for you CK. :)

My WHtR is 0.442 as of yesterday. Might be lower by the end of the year as it still appears to be going down slowly. Still refining my diet bit by bit. Less highly processed grains, less sugar, less salt etc.

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:25 pm

Nobody, 1600 Cals/day sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially if Kayla is including 1-2 hours of exercise a day. And I gather >90% of her clients are women. Her brand is called "bikini body guide".

For weight loss, dietitians typically start women on 1200 Cals a day and men on 1500 Cals...though the overriding tailored priority is to create a 500-1000 Cal deficit per day. From what I've seen, Kayla's program generally complies with that. In fact, there's nothing revelatory about her package. It's probably one of the most bland I've seen. I presume her success is down to doing free public fitness boot camps around Adelaide, and getting a lot of exposure via the media....and she's been managed quite well by her boyfriend, family, minders, etc.

DR&F use the fact that most people don't keep weight off after a diet as proof the diet is starvation and damages the metabolism.
This is just simplistic bunk. The reason most people put the weight back on is because they go back to eating an unbalanced diet of excess.
The fact is habituating oneself to eating a cleaner diet often requires better stress management and positive lifestyle changes right across the board.

Re the 3000Cals, I've done a lit search on this topic, and tried to find out where DR&F got this idea from. They are not educated enough to have dreamed it up themselves. It appears Dr John McDougall is the culprit. He's popularized sayings like "The fat you eat is the fat you wear". And he teaches that people are very very inefficient at converting excess carbohydrate into fat stores, but rather carbs are burned off. And this is where I take issue with him. He has cited literature to back this claim, but he has been selective in doing so. What he is saying is that the de novo lipogenesis pathway (converts carbs into fat for storage) is very restricted. Now this is just not true. There are lots of studies that disagree with him. But he has never mentioned these studies in his writings or seminars. Why? because it would go against his whole 40 year old dietary philosophy - being that one should eat plant based and whole unprocessed carbs to satisfaction.

Anyway, health 'gurus' that followed McDougall like Doug Graham, have also just automatically picked up on and promoted the restricted DNL message...and I presume this is where DR&F heard it.

Now the truth is, a small % of people can overfeed and not put on any weight or less weight than predicted by Cals in/out, particularly when younger. The mechanisms for doing so are still being clarified. I've summarized the findings re this in a blog but won't bore you with it.
But the facts are that the majority of people who overfeed do indeed put on weight, and it isn't due to damaged metabolism. I told DR this many times in email correspondence and via his utube channel but he's too locked in to what works for him and a few others.

As for my progress Nobody, yes as Zill says, I should know better. What's also happened over the last 2 weeks is I've changed my lifestyle somewhat - cycling less, resting more, hanging with more refined people rather than a bunch of adrenalin driven cycling nuts, drinking tea sometimes rather than coffee all the time ;) Sometimes, a more genteel approach to life helps to get blood sugar back into equilibrium.

User avatar
skull
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby skull » Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:49 pm

CKinnard wrote: I presume her success is down to doing free public fitness boot camps around Adelaide, and getting a lot of exposure via the media....and she's been managed quite well by her boyfriend, family, minders, etc.
and mostly because she is hot and sticks a tonne of photos on instagram

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:22 pm

skull wrote:
CKinnard wrote: I presume her success is down to doing free public fitness boot camps around Adelaide, and getting a lot of exposure via the media....and she's been managed quite well by her boyfriend, family, minders, etc.
and mostly because she is hot and sticks a tonne of photos on instagram
yeah she's not too bad, but wears more modest attire than Freelee...probably has a higher IQ.

Now there's a competition! Combined Boot Camp and IQ test, to find the smartest fittest hottie!

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:26 pm

CKinnard wrote:Nobody, 1600 Cals/day sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially if Kayla is including 1-2 hours of exercise a day. And I gather >90% of her clients are women. Her brand is called "bikini body guide".

For weight loss, dietitians typically start women on 1200 Cals a day and men on 1500 Cals...though the overriding tailored priority is to create a 500-1000 Cal deficit per day. From what I've seen, Kayla's program generally complies with that. In fact, there's nothing revelatory about her package. It's probably one of the most bland I've seen. I presume her success is down to doing free public fitness boot camps around Adelaide, and getting a lot of exposure via the media....and she's been managed quite well by her boyfriend, family, minders, etc.

DR&F use the fact that most people don't keep weight off after a diet as proof the diet is starvation and damages the metabolism.
This is just simplistic bunk. The reason most people put the weight back on is because they go back to eating an unbalanced diet of excess.
The fact is habituating oneself to eating a cleaner diet often requires better stress management and positive lifestyle changes right across the board.
I just added up what I'm eating per day (average) to get between 2600 and 2900 Cals per day, with < 10% of calories from fat. :shock: When I started adding up my daily Cals I thought I'd be around 2200 at the most. Now I read the above and wonder how people do it for the months it takes them to lose the weight. I assume they must get used to it. I can see why people often "fall off the wagon".
CKinnard wrote:Re the 3000Cals, I've done a lit search on this topic, and tried to find out where DR&F got this idea from. They are not educated enough to have dreamed it up themselves. It appears Dr John McDougall is the culprit. He's popularized sayings like "The fat you eat is the fat you wear". And he teaches that people are very very inefficient at converting excess carbohydrate into fat stores, but rather carbs are burned off. And this is where I take issue with him. He has cited literature to back this claim, but he has been selective in doing so. What he is saying is that the de novo lipogenesis pathway (converts carbs into fat for storage) is very restricted. Now this is just not true. There are lots of studies that disagree with him. But he has never mentioned these studies in his writings or seminars. Why? because it would go against his whole 40 year old dietary philosophy - being that one should eat plant based and whole unprocessed carbs to satisfaction.

Anyway, health 'gurus' that followed McDougall like Doug Graham, have also just automatically picked up on and promoted the restricted DNL message...and I presume this is where DR&F heard it.
I suppose in the end the mechanisms by which the diet does work can be easily debated. However the reality is it does work for a lot of people. If it's not DNL, then it could be angiogenesis. It could be the 16% greater burn rate digesting plant foods. It could be something else. Who knows, but it obviously works for me.
CKinnard wrote:Now the truth is, a small % of people can overfeed and not put on any weight or less weight than predicted by Cals in/out, particularly when younger. The mechanisms for doing so are still being clarified. I've summarized the findings re this in a blog but won't bore you with it.
But the facts are that the majority of people who overfeed do indeed put on weight, and it isn't due to damaged metabolism. I told DR this many times in email correspondence and via his utube channel but he's too locked in to what works for him and a few others.
I can see where you're coming from, but I am definitely a person who puts on weight when on the average Australian's diet (read poor). When the kids were young I had a BMI at my heaviest of 28.4.
CKinnard wrote:As for my progress Nobody, yes as Zill says, I should know better. What's also happened over the last 2 weeks is I've changed my lifestyle somewhat - cycling less, resting more, hanging with more refined people rather than a bunch of adrenalin driven cycling nuts, drinking tea sometimes rather than coffee all the time ;) Sometimes, a more genteel approach to life helps to get blood sugar back into equilibrium.
Actually, I lost the last ~3Kg by drinking peppermint tea to reduce my iron intake. Plus tea is apparently better for you as coffee is linked to reduced arterial function.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/coffee- ... -function/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users