Trying to Eat Better - Getting Fatter

chops018

So I altered my diet up the last while. Still not fantastic, but, it's a lot better than it was because believe me, it used to be awful.

I'm about 65kg, I was about 60kg, I usually float between 60 and 70kg.

Anyway, I go to the gym around 4 times a week, try get a bit of cardio in aswell. I'm by no means "ripped", but never thought myself as fat and always had a bit of shape. But lately, since I changed my diet really, my belly seems to be getting bigger.

I used to eat sugary cereals for breakfast, lunch was sambo's with chocolate and crisps and diet coke, dinner was potatoes, fried foods, supper was cup of tea with a full pack of american style cookies, maybe more crisps and chocolate throughout the day. Weekends were worse - loads of alcohol and takeaways. Always stayed in decent shape because I was in the gym loads.

A few weeks ago I changed it up. Breakfast is now something fibre rich, be it all bran or wholemeal bread with orange juice/water or fruit, lunch is still some sambo's but with fruit and water now, dinner is now just veg and some meat, might have a bar of chocolate for supper but not all the time. Plus I don't drink as much, and no takeaways at weekends either anymore.

Now, I know the new diet isn't really good tbh, and there should be a lot more variances etc. But still, it's a lot better than diet one (at least to me), and it looks like it would be a lot less calories and fat too. But I seem to have gained a lot of belly fat in the last few weeks. Is it something along the lines that my body was so used to all this bad food?

Does this make sense? Am I getting older and metabolism is finally catching up.

Slydice

It's calories. You need up around 2000 a day give or take (depending on your size).

You take in more calories than you need, then you gain fat (body stores excess energy for later).
You take in less calories than you need, then you lose fat (body uses energy previously stored).


It's good that you are trying to eat healthier. Eating better is good for your health. For example, less sugar means you might have a better chance of getting diabetes.


Still though, the fat is down to calories. Most products you buy in a pack tell you how much. Look for the "Kcal". For example 200Kcal is 200 calories. Just like with junk food, you can eat more calories than you you use with healthy food.

TeamJesus

You might be reacting to something new in your diet.

If you eating more wheat / dairy your digestive system might not like it. Especially if the extra padding is around your middle. Are you bloated or having digestive problems?

The above poster is right it may be calories... but you definitely shouldn't count calories, concentrate on nutrients! Eat more VEGETABLES.

indigo twist

You might hate the idea of actually counting calories, and it's not sustainable for many as a long-term plan - but I'd really advise doing it for just a week. Use a phone app like "myfitnesspal", and be really strict (for just one week) about recording everything. You'll be surprised about where the calories creep in!

Breakfast - do you have your Allbran/wholemeal bread dry? You need to include calories for any milk, spreads, etc you have with them. Fruit juice isn't a great choice - very high in sugar. In general if trying to lose weight, it would be better to aim to choose vegetables over fruit. Or if you want fruit, choose berries. Have you tried porridge/eggs for breakfast? You can poach/scramble 2-3 eggs in the microwave in around two minutes, it's very convenient, very filling, and a lot healthier than cereal or bread. Throw in some spinach and whatever else you fancy too.

For lunch - instead of sandwiches, would you try cooking a double-portion of dinner in the evenings, and having one of the portions for lunch the next day? Try cooking chicken or beef (or any meat) in a passata sauce with loads of veg - this is low in calories, very filling, and it freezes and reheats well. If you're cooking in the evening anyways, it's just as easy to cook for two meals as for one.

I think the first step though is to actually record your current calories for the next week (don't just estimate based on your last week, as chances are you won't remember every little thing!) That way you can see where your starting point is, and where you need to cut back.

Bruno26

Your diet is mainly based on carbohydrates apart from dinner. You may be carbohydrate intolerant to a certain extent. A breakfast of bran, bread and juice is very high carb / high sugar. Swap this for example to eggs, omelette, bacon, Greek yogurt with berries. This breakfast won't spike your insulin like the latter which causes people to hold onto fat or gain it. Use myfitness app but instead of focusing on calories focus on the amount of carbohydrates. Try get it below 150 grams daily. Basically just eat real unprocessed food. Eliminating wheat could make a big difference for you.

Gummy Panda

Bruno26 wrote: »

Your diet is mainly based on carbohydrates apart from dinner. You may be carbohydrate intolerant to a certain extent. A breakfast of bran, bread and juice is very high carb / high sugar. Swap this for example to eggs, omelette, bacon, Greek yogurt with berries. This breakfast won't spike your insulin like the latter which causes people to hold onto fat or gain it. Use myfitness app but instead of focusing on calories focus on the amount of carbohydrates. Try get it below 150 grams daily. Basically just eat real unprocessed food. Eliminating wheat could make a big difference for you.

Carb intolerant? He makes carbs sit at the back of the bus

Bruno26

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Carb intolerant? He makes carbs sit at the back of the bus

It's not so much the amount of calories that matter but where the calories come from that really matters, i.e. from carb, protein, fat.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

It's not so much the amount of calories that matter but where the calories come from that really matters, i.e. from carb, protein, fat.

His previous diet was carb packed as well. Crisps/potatoes/cookies/alcohol/takeaways. It looks to me like the new diet is better than the previous one, even in terms of your philosophy.

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

His previous diet was carb packed as well. Crisps/potatoes/cookies/alcohol/takeaways. It looks to me like the new diet is better than the previous one, even in terms of your philosophy.

Yes it looks better. However the effects of those foods on insulin levels in a carb intolerant person are similar to the worse looking diet which may explain the belly fat the op referred to.

ShadowHearth

Some stuff that is/sounds healthy can be very high on calories. Do a calorie check up on your food as you might be going over your daily needs.

You said, that you drink juice now? That is loaded with calories and sugars.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes it looks better. However the effects of those foods on insulin levels in a carb intolerant person are similar to the worse looking diet which may explain the belly fat the op referred to.

It still doesnt explain weight gain with what is overall a better diet. For the benefit of the op, could you explain or link to something scientific/non youtube on carb intolerance?


OP I would definitely be checking the quantities of what you are eating, plus any sneaky extras you dont think about like sauces, that extra slice of bread, or a small treat. Also, what fruit are you eating, and in what quantity?

chops018

Thanks guys.

I will download that app and start counting calories!

My plan is to start eating more of this stuff:

eggs, tuna, steak, chicken breasts, salmon, oat meal, ricecakes, beans, cottage cheese, chocolate milk, asparagus, apple, brocolli, carrot, turnip, sunflower seeds.

Maybe a dark chocolate bar if I'm looking for something sweet, and some wholemeal bread in the mornings sometimes. Also I'm thinking of switching to coconut oil for frying.

Honestly don't know how the belly fat is increasing.....

generic2012

If you're intolerant to something like wheat or dairy you would not be gaining weight as it would be ejecting out of you at rapid pace. Also, science shows that calories dictate weight gain/loss. If you believe people who say it's not calories, that means you believe stuff that is unprovable and doesn't need or have a shred of evidence. If this is the case, do it right, just say that a unicorn is performing adipose tissue transplants on you in your sleep, it's just as likely to be true as calories not counting, but it's more original.

Oryx

chops018 wrote: »

Thanks guys.

I will download that app and start counting calories!

My plan is to start eating more of this stuff:

eggs, tuna, steak, chicken breasts, salmon oat meal, ricecakes, beans, cottage cheese, chocolate milk, asparagus, apple, brocolli, carrot, turnip, sunflower seeds.

Maybe a dark chocolate bar if I'm looking for something sweet, and some wholemeal bread in the mornings sometimes. Also I'm thinking of switching to coconut oil for frying.

Honestly don't know how the belly fat is increasing.....

Tinned beans are usually full of sugar. Chocolate milk is high in calories. Just be cautious with stuff like that, know how much energy youre consuming.

Nuts and dried fruit are also a good go snack, again watch quantity.
Also put on your list:
Tomatoes
Courgette
Walnuts
Almonds
Onion
Banana
Spices and seasonings

Just for a bit of variety when youre cooking!

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

It still doesnt explain weight gain with what is overall a better diet. For the benefit of the op, could you explain or link to something scientific/non youtube on carb intolerance?


y?

It does.

When carbs eaten blood glucose levels rise. Insulin is secreted by the pancreas in response to glucose entering the bloodstream from the gut. The body must be protected against sustained high blood glucose levels so the insulin causes the glucose which is not immediately used for energy to be stored by the liver and muscles as glycogen. Once the glycogen reserves are filled the excess glucose is stored as fat. If carbs cannot be immediately removed by the body it gets converted by the liver and sent to our fat tissues for storage. The result of this cycle is you get fat.

Bruno26

chops018 wrote: »

Thanks guys.

I will download that app and start counting calories!

My plan is to start eating more of this stuff:

eggs, tuna, steak, chicken breasts, salmon, oat meal, ricecakes, beans, cottage cheese, chocolate milk, asparagus, apple, brocolli, carrot, turnip, sunflower seeds.

Maybe a dark chocolate bar if I'm looking for something sweet, and some wholemeal bread in the mornings sometimes. Also I'm thinking of switching to coconut oil for frying.

Honestly don't know how the belly fat is increasing.....

All great choices except chocolate milk and bread and to a lesser extent oats, rice cakes and beans.

It's increasing because your diet is mainly carbohydrate based.

Hanley

Bruno26 wrote: »

It does.

When carbs eaten blood glucose levels rise. Insulin is secreted by the pancreas in response to glucose entering the bloodstream from the gut. The body must be protected against sustained high blood glucose levels so the insulin causes the glucose which is not immediately used for energy to be stored by the liver and muscles as glycogen. Once the glycogen reserves are filled the excess glucose is stored as fat. If carbs cannot be immediately removed by the body it gets converted by the liver and sent to our fat tissues for storage. The result of this cycle is you get fat.

You're getting lost in your broscience.

DNL only really matters when total calorie intake from carbs is in excess of DEE needs.

Which is unusual. For an average person - that's probably going to be > 500g daily of carbs.

[maintenance @ 14kcal/lb for 80kg dude = 2,500kcal - assume 100g/day protein @ 80% net kcals for TEF = 2,200kcal "left over" for DEE]

...so really it's the fat you're eating in tandem with the carbs being stored.

The fat is making you fatter, but the carbs are facilitating it.

...which kinda makes sense.

Why would your body ingest fat, convert it to useable energy [glucose/"carbs"], and then transfer the OTHER energy source you just ate (carbs) into stored bodyfat?

Nice try, but you're losing credibility by the second.

Bruno26

Hanley wrote: »

You're getting lost in your broscience.

DNL only really matters when total calorie intake from carbs is in excess of DEE needs.

Which is unusual. For an average person - that's probably going to be > 500g daily of carbs.

[maintenance @ 14kcal/lb for 80kg dude = 2,500kcal - assume 100g/day protein @ 80% net kcals for TEF = 2,200kcal "left over" for DEE]

...so really it's the fat you're eating in tandem with the carbs being stored.

The fat is making you fatter, but the carbs are facilitating it.

...which kinda makes sense.

Why would your body ingest fat, convert it to useable energy [glucose/"carbs"], and then transfer the OTHER energy source you just ate (carbs) into stored bodyfat?

Nice try, but you're losing credibility by the second.

So much for ignore function eh!

Fat does not make you fat.

Not actually my words. I'm no expert. I just read lots and come up with my own conclusions which have worked great for me.

I'm sure you're excellent at what you do and highly knowledgeable in your area.

The words were a direct quote from Tim Noakes. Is he wrong? Are you more knowledgeable than him? Check out http://essm.uct.ac.za/accademic/prof-timothy-noakes/

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

It does.

When carbs eaten blood glucose levels rise. Insulin is secreted by the pancreas in response to glucose entering the bloodstream from the gut. The body must be protected against sustained high blood glucose levels so the insulin causes the glucose which is not immediately used for energy to be stored by the liver and muscles as glycogen. Once the glycogen reserves are filled the excess glucose is stored as fat. If carbs cannot be immediately removed by the body it gets converted by the liver and sent to our fat tissues for storage. The result of this cycle is you get fat.

Insulin is also secreted in response to protein consumption. I don't know why you think insulin is bad?

If you consume 2000 calories in a day, all from carbs and you burn 2,400 calories, 2,000 will be taken from the carbs digested and the other 400 from fat stores. It doesn't matter if fat is added at some point as the net result is weight loss. I don't see how you don't understand that? It's simple addition and subtraction, not even any division or multiplication. I know you're a golf player so muscle or performance mightn't mean a great deal to you but insulin is essential for either.

Bruno26 wrote: »

So much for ignore function eh!

Fat does not make you fat.

Not actually my words. I'm no expert. I just read lots and come up with my own conclusions which have worked great for me.

I'm sure you're excellent at what you do and highly knowledgeable in your area.

The words were a direct quote from Tim Noakes. Is he wrong? Are you more knowledgeable than him? Check out http://essm.uct.ac.za/accademic/prof-timothy-noakes/

Fat/carbs/protein does not make you fat. Ingesting more energy than you expend makes you fat.

If Tim Noakes says that calories don't matter, then yes, he's wrong. Just because he subscribes to your idea of 'knowledgeable', doesn't mean he can make stuff true. If this was the case, if Stephen Hawkins said unicorns exist then either we would have to believe that unicorns exist or else that since he is 'knowledgeable' it would make unicorns come into existence.

Smart people don't have monopolies on the truth, we can prove them wrong using facts and evidence.

Gummy Panda

Bruno26 wrote: »

So much for ignore function eh!

Fat does not make you fat.

Not actually my words. I'm no expert. I just read lots and come up with my own conclusions which have worked great for me.

I'm sure you're excellent at what you do and highly knowledgeable in your area.

The words were a direct quote from Tim Noakes. Is he wrong? Are you more knowledgeable than him? Check out http://essm.uct.ac.za/accademic/prof-timothy-noakes/

Fat does get stored as fat. Its how it works: Net Change in Fat Stores = Fat Stored – Fat Burned

Carbs blunt the oxidisation of fat. And for the record, carbs isn't only the only macro that raises insulin.

ford2600

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ie/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html?m=1

RGDATA!

Bruno26 wrote: »

The words were a direct quote from Tim Noakes. Is he wrong? Are you more knowledgeable than him? Check out http://essm.uct.ac.za/accademic/prof-timothy-noakes/

In linking to Noakes' CV and the awards he's received it's worth noting that for the vast majority of his career he wasn't advocating the diet he is now. So if you're saying he's right now, then are you saying he's been wrong for most of the career you're linking to?

Bruno26

RGDATA! wrote: »

In linking to Noakes' CV and the awards he's received it's worth noting that for the vast majority of his career he wasn't advocating the diet he is now. So if you're saying he's right now, then are you saying he's been wrong for most of the career you're linking to?

He was wrong on carbs. He's fully admitted this.

Bruno26

I know which side most posters on here would be on!

http://www.biznews.com/health/2014/07/28/tim-noakes-makes-real-meal-critics-say-diet-dangerous/

ixus

Is it fat around your belly or is your stomach bloated/expanding?

How many weeks has diet really changed? Three? Was it all at once? How much alcohol at weekends?

What age bracket are you? A lot of lads (assuming you're a bloke here) get away with drinking heaps of pints from the age of 18-21 if they're tipping along in the gym or playing sport. It catches up eventually though.

What do you do in the gym? Same routine, same reps, same weights all the time? If so, your body won't be stimulated enough to cause change.

What's in the sambo? Is it prepacked or freshly made? What meat and veg are you eating? Quality of the meat matters.

Rapeseed oil for frying. I eat coconut oil raw to add fat.

metamorphosis

Bruno26 wrote: »

It does.

When carbs eaten blood glucose levels rise. Insulin is secreted by the pancreas in response to glucose entering the bloodstream from the gut. The body must be protected against sustained high blood glucose levels so the insulin causes the glucose which is not immediately used for energy to be stored by the liver and muscles as glycogen. Once the glycogen reserves are filled the excess glucose is stored as fat. If carbs cannot be immediately removed by the body it gets converted by the liver and sent to our fat tissues for storage. The result of this cycle is you get fat.

You are not answering the question she proposes though and are ignoring the factors at play.

If we break it down:

Diet A: Carb havy, high percentage of imitation foods
Diet B: Still carb heavy but small improvements on Diet A

So, we look at factors at play.

Weight is the variable, diet is the constant.

Weight achieved on diet A is xxkg. Improvements are made. Higher weight is achieved on new diet that has a small improvement factored in.

Now if we remember that both diets have a high percentage of carbs, your arguement here is that he is/may be carb intolerant

Why are all other factors and questions been ignored? So he switches the diet, puts weight on and boom - carb intolerance? What about the variables and contants beforehand.

BTW - I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just in this particular instance, I found the reply to be rather lazy as while you gave your version of an answer to the OP, you didn't give your answer to Oryx. You addressed half of hat was asked.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

I know which side most posters on here would be on!

http://www.biznews.com/health/2014/07/28/tim-noakes-makes-real-meal-critics-say-diet-dangerous/

Did you even bother with Ford2600's link? What you're doing is only reinforcing your view. If your view was correct you could look for contradictory evidence and not find any because there is none, therefore your view can be called true. But all you do is seek confirmatory 'evidence' which just skews your dillusions more. Just read the thing. and post back what parts are specifically wrong. If you can't do that it has to be taken as a sign of admission that you don't have a clue what you're on about.

Bruno26

metamorphosis wrote: »

You are not answering the question she proposes though and are ignoring the factors at play.

If we break it down:

Diet A: Carb havy, high percentage of imitation foods
Diet B: Still carb heavy but small improvements on Diet A

So, we look at factors at play.

Weight is the variable, diet is the constant.

Weight achieved on diet A is xxkg. Improvements are made. Higher weight is achieved on new diet that has a small improvement factored in.

Now if we remember that both diets have a high percentage of carbs, your arguement here is that he is/may be carb intolerant

Why are all other factors and questions been ignored? So he switches the diet, puts weight on and boom - carb intolerance? What about the variables and contants beforehand.

BTW - I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just in this particular instance, I found the reply to be rather lazy as while you gave your version of an answer to the OP, you didn't give your answer to Oryx. You addressed half of hat was asked.

The second diet appears better but the reality is it is pretty much as bad apart from dinner. For example we don't know how many bowls of cereals, glasses of juice or slices of bread they are eating. Perhaps this amount has increased as they are eating less of the seemingly worse foods. The foods eaten in both diets have similar effects.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

The second diet appears better but the reality is it is pretty much as bad apart from dinner. For example we don't know how many bowls of cereals, glasses of juice or slices of bread they are eating. Perhaps this amount has increased as they are eating less of the seemingly worse foods. The foods eaten in both diets have similar effects.

Which is kinda the advice that is being given? Check calories and portions?

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

Did you even bother with Ford2600's link? What you're doing is only reinforcing your view. If your view was correct you could look for contradictory evidence and not find any because there is none, therefore your view can be called true. But all you do is seek confirmatory 'evidence' which just skews your dillusions more. Just read the thing. and post back what parts are specifically wrong. If you can't do that it has to be taken as a sign of admission that you don't have a clue what you're on about.

Read it before. I believe Taubes. I'd read it again but I was busy doing weights for golf (have you seen woods/mcilroy) (casual golfer now I've finished with competitive ball games) and reading about unicorns.

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

Which is kinda the advice that is being given? Check calories and portions?

Majority say check calories. I say count grams of carbohydrate initially (under 150 g daily) and eat as much real food as satisfies your appetite.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Read it before. I believe Taubes. I'd read it again but I was busy doing weights for golf (have you seen woods/mcilroy) (casual golfer now I've finished with competitive ball games) and reading about unicorns 😄

But that article shows his flawed logic and outright lies. How can you 'believe' him? You're attracted to a charismatic persona, so you attach yourself to their theories. You should separate the two. We are not trying to get you to dislike these men, we're talking about their theories.

Just say why you think the theory is correct and the other is wrong, nothing about the men.

Sarcasm and bad jokes are still just avoiding confronting the issue, a sign of cluelessness on the issue.

There are many things I am clueless about but because I am sane I don't preach to other people about them.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

There are many things I am clueless about but because I am sane I don't preach to other people about them.

Indeed there are. Are we you implying I am insane?

Saying you are a golf player or talking about unicorns have zero to do with topic. Stop trying to create an argument with sly digs.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Indeed there are. Are we you implying I am insane?

Saying you are a golf player or talking about unicorns have zero to do with topic. Stop trying to create an argument with sly digs.

Talking about unicorns was to highlight that fact that once you make proposing claims without evidence acceptable, you are allowing claims about unicorns, and other things that don't happen in reality, the be part of argument. I just think that stuff that is not proven to exist should be left out of the debate.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Majority say check calories. I say count grams of carbohydrate initially (under 150 g daily) and eat as much real food as satisfies your appetite.

Again, it's not about who thinks what or how many thinks what. It's what is true that matters.

Saying that counting carbohydrates (a noakesesque turn-around for you!) and then eating as much as want will prevent you from gaining weight is not based in evidence at all. And the fact that you won't even debate your views just makes anything you say redundant.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

Talking about unicorns was to highlight that fact that once you make proposing claims without evidence acceptable, you are allowing claims about unicorns, and other things that don't happen in reality, the be part of argument. I just think that stuff that is not proven to exist should be left out of the debate.



Again, it's not about who thinks what or how many thinks what. It's what is true that matters.

Saying that counting carbohydrates (a noakesesque turn-around for you!) and then eating as much as want will prevent you from gaining weight is not based in evidence at all. And the fact that you won't even debate your views just makes anything you say redundant.

You see everything I say is true. How do I know this? I know because this is what I've been doing for 12-24 months (science backed or not). If I was in this forum 4 years ago and read similar stuff to what I write, I would think the poster was insane! I would think fat is bad, carbs are good, the best breakfast was cereal etc.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

You see everything I say is true. How do I know this? I know because this is what I've been doing for 12-24 months (science backed or not). If I was in this forum 4 years ago and read similar stuff to what I write, I would think the poster was insane! I would think fat is bad, carbs are good, the best breakfast was cereal etc.

You're not eating excess calories. Simple as. You're high fat diet satiates you, so you don't eat over calories. Nothing magic, just maths.

You're claiming that you and anyone can eat excess calories and not gain weight. Then in the next sentence you say you don't count calories. So how can you say you eat excess calories if you don't even know how much you're eating?

What do you say to the argument that you are actually full from the high fat diet before you can eat excess calories and by this token you don't gain weight? And that the same is true for diets high in high satiating carbs too?

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

You're not eating excess calories. Simple as. You're high fat diet satiates you, so you don't eat over calories. Nothing magic, just maths.

You're claiming that you and anyone can eat excess calories and not gain weight. Then in the next sentence you say you don't count calories. So how can you say you eat excess calories if you don't even know how much you're eating?

What do you say to the argument that you are actually full from the high fat diet before you can eat excess calories and by this token you don't gain weight? And that the same is true for diets high in high satiating carbs too?

I am. Days I eat in or around 4000-4500 (I know from using myfitnessapp) . Weights 2/3 times a week. Carbs aren't satiating.

ixus

I'm sure your bickering is of great use to the OP.

generic2012

ixus wrote: »

I'm sure your bickering is of great use to the OP.

Getting truthful information out there and getting rid of bull, fairy tale nutrition would help everyone.

So you don't think that dissuading someone who promotes a high fat diet 4,000 - 4,500 calorie high fat diet, which is very very dangerous is a good idea? It is common and medical knowledge that nearly doubling your daily calorie requirements and getting as much as possible of them from fat is lethal in the long run. High fat diets on and below maintenance I could handle but would like to debate.

If it wasn't so cruel that this dangerous disinformation arising from zealotry and the maniacal fervour by which this indoctrination is spouted is allowed on a Health & Fitness forum.

It absolutely sickens me that people who come to this forum for advice can often leave it being worse off than when they came.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

Getting truthful information out there and getting rid of bull, fairy tale nutrition would help everyone.

So you don't think that dissuading someone who promotes a high fat diet 4,000 - 4,500 calorie high fat diet, which is very very dangerous is a good idea? It is common and medical knowledge that nearly doubling your daily calorie requirements and getting as much as possible of them from fat is lethal in the long run. High fat diets on and below maintenance I could handle but would like to debate.

If it wasn't so cruel that this dangerous disinformation arising from zealotry and the maniacal fervour by which this indoctrination is spouted is allowed on a Health & Fitness forum.

It absolutely sickens me that people who come to this forum for advice can often leave it being worse off than when they came.

Jeez you spout some rubbish. I'm not promoting that at all.

I'm promoting they eat real food, while lowering intake of carbohydrate as their diet is carb heavy.

Talk about the op not me!

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Jeez you spout some rubbish. I'm not promoting that at all.

I'm promoting they eat real food, while lowering intake of carbohydrate as their diet is carb heavy.

Talk about the op not me!

And that if they reduce carbs below some arbitrary amount that they will lose weight no matter how much they eat?

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

And that if they reduce carbs below some arbitrary amount that they will lose weight no matter how much they eat?

For the op: Everything will take care of itself. The appetite will be self regulating controlled by the appestat. You will only eat when hungry and stop when full. You will no longer crave certain foods and you will never have to count calories or portion sizes. You will never have to be "on a diet" again. You will eat and enjoy food the way it's meant to be without punishing yourself and viewing foods as a number.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

For the op: Everything will take care of itself. The appetite will be self regulating controlled by the appestat. You will only eat when hungry and stop when full. You will no longer crave certain foods and you will never have to count calories or portion sizes. You will never have to be "on a diet" again. You will eat and enjoy food the way it's meant to be without punishing yourself and viewing foods as a number.

For the op: Follow what's true, not what you wish was true.

HazelBee

Bruno26 wrote: »

For the op: Everything will take care of itself. The appetite will be self regulating controlled by the appestat. You will only eat when hungry and stop when full. You will no longer crave certain foods and you will never have to count calories or portion sizes. You will never have to be "on a diet" again. You will eat and enjoy food the way it's meant to be without punishing yourself and viewing foods as a number.

Agreed. Clean eating real food without the 'processed' carbs absolutely works. No need to spend your life counting calories.

Bruno26

Calorie counting began around the 1920s. Before this people ate as I've described above. Very few people were overweight before this. They ate real food and there was no fear of fat unlike the last 50 years. The popularity of calorie counting has coincided with the increase in processed carbohydrate based foods. Calorie counting along with processed food suits industry. It's worth billions yearly. Does it suit people? There has never been as many overweight people in the world as there is now. Ask yourself is calorie counting and a carbohydrate based diet working?

Brian?

ixus wrote: »

I'm sure your bickering is of great use to the OP.

I 100% agree with this.

To sum up:

Eat less calories than you use(huge amount of scientific evidence behind this, not to mention basic thermodynamics.)

Or

Eat less that 150g of carbs a day and eat whatever you want.(Bruno does this and it works for him. Tim something or other invented this diet.)


I'd be interested to see which works better for you OP.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Calorie counting began around the 1920s. Before this people ate as I've described above. Very few people were overweight before this. They ate real food and there was no fear of fat unlike the last 50 years. The popularity of calorie counting has coincided with the increase in processed carbohydrate based foods. Calorie counting along with processed food suits industry. It's worth billions yearly. Does it suit people? There has never been as many overweight people in the world as there is now. Ask yourself is calorie counting and a carbohydrate based diet working?

That is very interdasting indeed. Also:

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

I 100% agree with this.

To sum up:

Eat less calories than you use(huge amount of scientific evidence behind this, not to mention basic thermodynamics.)

Or

Eat less that 150g of carbs a day and eat whatever you want.(Bruno does this and it works for him. Tim something or other invented this diet.)


I'd be interested to see which works better for you OP.

Nobody invented this diet. It's how people have eaten for thousands of years. It's just seen a resurgence in recent years.

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

Calorie counting began around the 1920s. Before this people ate as I've described above. Very few people were overweight before this. They ate real food and there was no fear of fat unlike the last 50 years. The popularity of calorie counting has coincided with the increase in processed carbohydrate based foods. Calorie counting along with processed food suits industry. It's worth billions yearly. Does it suit people? There has never been as many overweight people in the world as there is now. Ask yourself is calorie counting and a carbohydrate based diet working?

Not to be unkind, but this is nonsense. You've built a towering straw man so big it can be seen from space.

Carbohydrate based foods did not only become popular after the 20s. They were always popular. In fact most poor people could not afford much protein, they subsisted on carbs; rice in Asia, wheat in most of Europe, corn in S America, corn and wheat in N America.

I have no doubt the high % of processed carbs people eat in the "west" has a lot to do with obseity. But to blame calorie counting is nonsense of the highest order. Obseity has increased because people can afford more calories.

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

Nobody invented this diet. It's how people have eaten for thousands of years. It's just seen a resurgence in recent years.

No, it's not how people have eaten for thousands of years. It's how some people ate and in fact some people still eat.

For thousands of years people have eaten whatever they can to stay alive.

ShadowHearth

Brian? wrote: »

I 100% agree with this.

To sum up:

Eat less calories than you use(huge amount of scientific evidence behind this, not to mention basic thermodynamics.)

Or

Eat less that 150g of carbs a day and eat whatever you want.(Bruno does this and it works for him. Tim something or other invented this diet.)


I'd be interested to see which works better for you OP.

The simple rule of eat less calories then you use really works. Throw in some sort of excersise on top of it and you are golden.
It is really mind blowing how big of an industry "weight loss" is and the most normal and simplest way to actually loss weigh is just eat less and eat normal food.
I found myself that cutting out on bread, pasta and potato helps a lot. When you dont eat those, you can really load on yummy veg!
There are a lot of pitfalls though, some stuff is healthy and good for you, but people over load on it. Or Sometimes you think it should be healthy, but it can be really loaded with bad stuff. Something like dried fruit and nut mixes can be really BAD!