Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
Not that it really relates to anything. One of the reasons why I prefer a restricted carb diet is because I have no portion control what so ever. I don't get "full". I eat until the food is gone or I get uncomfortable. There has to be some willpower somewhere in the mix and the only thing that works for "me" is cutting out the high calorie\non-filling items...which means grains\starches.
This is just me and I may be alone in the world but I can\have eaten a loaf of bread at dinner...that's not good. Oatmeal keeps me full for 20 minutes. You ain't never seen a man eat mashed potato's until I come over. A head of broccoli...a little freakish but in comparison, why not?! Know what you're willing or not willing to do
I dont know if yu have them in the US but for a quick protein fix on the go we have these things called Grabbits, they are grilled chicken on a stick. They are not cooked in added fat, but they do have preservatives but are relatively clean.
As for fast food joints it has to be Subway for me and a turkey roll that wins hands down in my book. If Im at home and want something quick If I have a relatively low fat soup, not of the packet variety I usualy bung in some tinned kidneys beans whilst cooking. Or as a snackette thats flavour packed and low on cals Microwaived mushrooms, just bung them in the miccy for a few minutes submersed in water remove season and splash with balsamic vinegar. Huge huge flavour quite satiating and hardly any calories.
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
Not that it really relates to anything. One of the reasons why I prefer a restricted carb diet is because I have no portion control what so ever. I don't get "full". I eat until the food is gone or I get uncomfortable. There has to be some willpower somewhere in the mix and the only thing that works for "me" is cutting out the high calorie\non-filling items...which means grains\starches.
This is just me and I may be alone in the world but I can\have eaten a loaf of bread at dinner...that's not good. Oatmeal keeps me full for 20 minutes. You ain't never seen a man eat mashed potato's until I come over. A head of broccoli...a little freakish but in comparison, why not?! Know what you're willing or not willing to do
I agree its much easier when Im in control of the kitchen as if its done for me the warning bells go off as I know not when to stop!! At least if I prepare it I can have the scales or measuring cups to hand
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
Not that it really relates to anything. One of the reasons why I prefer a restricted carb diet is because I have no portion control what so ever. I don't get "full". I eat until the food is gone or I get uncomfortable. There has to be some willpower somewhere in the mix and the only thing that works for "me" is cutting out the high calorie\non-filling items...which means grains\starches.
This is just me and I may be alone in the world but I can\have eaten a loaf of bread at dinner...that's not good. Oatmeal keeps me full for 20 minutes. You ain't never seen a man eat mashed potato's until I come over. A head of broccoli...a little freakish but in comparison, why not?! Know what you're willing or not willing to do
I have the SAME problem as LD and gobbla. I'm either barely satiated... or stuffed. It's hard for me to gauge hunger and fullness with the years of "extreme dieting". Well, hunger isn't hard, but that place where I say "enough"... I don't know where it is most of the time
I'll tell you, this lifestyle is really a double-edged sword; on one hand, you do so many things that are right and "good for you"; OTOH, at least personally, I tend to obsess about food much more and body perception is waaaaaaay off now.
Whatever is on my plate, I eat it. I am definitely into volume, so veggies end up being my filler. I have the same issues with oatmeal... sometimes I can eat it without wanting more, other times I have to eat two smaller servings to head off a binge. I can't be in the same room as peanut butter these days... it's a little weird that the good stuff is the trigger for feeding frenzies now, huh?
Sometimes the best you can do is grab the "best" thing handy and run with it. Apples are my miracle food. Get a killer craving...eat a big ass apple. Not one of the little dainty cutesy fart ones but one of the ones that looks like it picks on the organics. After a tall glass of water and an apple, I'm normally good. If I still have the craving and it's too much to handle then I'll cave, but 90% of the time it'll hold off the worst of things.
So, I can get full. Uncomfortably so. Who would have known?
It started with the teaser. Veggies and olives. My daughter's bread and butter. Guac and chips. Repeat. During this cycle, there was a Sierra Nevada and a martini (very dry).
Asparagus soup
Green Salad with cranberries and walnuts
Turkey
Taters
Sweet Taters
Green Beans and shrooms
Cranberry Sauce
Red Wine
Dressing
Gravy
More salad (this was an attempt at putting on the breaks AND making salad lady feel better about her salad (which was good, but who wants salad with all that other stuff?))
More Taters
More Sweet Taters
More Gravy
More Turkey
More Cranberry Sauce
Coffee
Pumpkin Pie
Apple Pie (this was when I was full (I didn't finish my pie))
One of the reasons why I prefer a restricted carb diet is because I have no portion control what so ever.
This is a big reason why I like to base my lunches and dinners around a huge dose of veggies as opposed to starchier grain foods. I can stir-fry a couple of chicken breasts with a boatload of vegetables and eat the whole pan for a modest amount of calories. Not to mention the nutritive punch of the veggies versus a plate full of rice.
Is there any differentiation in this discussion between "fast" and "slow" carbs?? I'm definitely not a low-carb person, but I am a low "fast carb" person except after workouts or during very long distance runs when I bring sports drink with me. I'm also a lifelong yo-yo'er (since age 12), and my body composition is much leaner now than in the past when I simply went with calorie reduction (no worries about type of food) or with the 1990's low fat/every-carb-is-a-winner approach... even when I was running a lot and my weight was far lower than now. I still can't point to diet alone as making me leaner, because for the past almost-5 years I have been using a combination of diet ("slow" carbs/protein/good fats) plus weight training plus long-distance running, and I never had a period of weights plus running with some other diet approach.
Many studies were done on "fast" vs "slow-carb" (which is probably related to the GI, so I'm gonna say high GI for fast and low GI for slow) and there weren't any changes in body composition between diets differing in the GI. The only thing that changes, to my knowledge, was that the cholesterol was lowered a bit, probably because low-GI food have more fiber and that they usually tend to be "healthier" food.
Studies usually compare isocaloric diets though, so if you count cals and eat the same amount of either carbs, you'll be fine. But if you don't count and eat according to how hungry you are, high-GI carbs might be worse since you'll end up hungry faster. It's also a lot easier to overeat the average high-GI food (sugary food, desserts, etc) than low GI food.
Many studies were done on "fast" vs "slow-carb" (which is probably related to the GI, so I'm gonna say high GI for fast and low GI for slow) and there weren't any changes in body composition between diets differing in the GI. The only thing that changes, to my knowledge, was that the cholesterol was lowered a bit, probably because low-GI food have more fiber and that they usually tend to be "healthier" food.
Studies usually compare isocaloric diets though, so if you count cals and eat the same amount of either carbs, you'll be fine. But if you don't count and eat according to how hungry you are, high-GI carbs might be worse since you'll end up hungry faster. It's also a lot easier to overeat the average high-GI food (sugary food, desserts, etc) than low GI food.
A couple things..
1) You're correct that low vs high-GI diets haven't been observed to have any impact on body comp. This is the biggest point, and kudos to you for having done your reading on this. And as for blood lipid changes, keep in mind that when designing the research, it's usually an all high moderate to high-GI regime versus an all low-GI regime, which doesn't represent reality. Reality is always a mix of both, equating to moderate. So as I tend to reiterate ad infinitum, GI is a useless index for the most part.
2) As far as not counting or tracking what you eat (ad libitium style) you're also correct that the higher calorie density of "sugary foods, desserts, etc" will indeed have a greater tendency to cause passive overconsumption than more calorie sparse/nutrient-dense whole foods. BUT.. Those sugary desserts you mentioned are rarely high-GI, due to a predominant use of sucrose for sweetening and/or the addition of a range of different fats & oils. Which leads me to point #1 that GI is not only a useless index, it's a misleading one, since even smart folks tend to automatically equate high-GI with low nutrient density junk.
I understand all the GI/GL stuff, but tend to look at carbs as processed, unprocessed, whole grain, grain, fruit, veggie, starchy, fibrous, etc. Obviously not scientific, but it's hard to argue that processed is better for you than unprocessed, grain better than whole grain, starchy carbs better than fruits and veggies, etc.
If you think of it from a general health perspective, it's easier, and I believe that weight loss can follow, with good eating habits (for many people). Lot's of suppositions, there, eh?
There are exceptions to the rule(s), but the less processed the foods, the more satiating the foods are, the more nutritious they are, and the slower they are digested. All of this can lead to better body composition and better health.
I try not to analyze foods down to the base components. I blur my "mind's eye" to look at them. No food is perfect, and if you focus too much on the particulars you can end up choosing foods that are worse for you than the one you'd rather eat.
I agree with you there LD in that processed has got to be better than unprocessed especialy as you have more control over what its processed with.
But if you were to compare two items in isolation one processed one unprocessed nutritionaly and its impact on body composition I really dont see that there would be that magnificent a difference. (we aint talking unprocessed chicken breast v a KFC after all)
At the end of the day it goes back to the same old thing and thats cumulative effect it takes months, years and decades to add the weight on so changing it to a healthier option is gonna be beneficial. Reduction in calorie input is gonna have a far greater impact than the specifics of insulin sensitivy, GI index etc.
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
1) You're correct that low vs high-GI diets haven't been observed to have any impact on body comp. This is the biggest point, and kudos to you for having done your reading on this. And as for blood lipid changes, keep in mind that when designing the research, it's usually an all high moderate to high-GI regime versus an all low-GI regime, which doesn't represent reality. Reality is always a mix of both, equating to moderate. So as I tend to reiterate ad infinitum, GI is a useless index for the most part.
I agree, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. The fiber problem was noted in a study I read which would explain the difference in lipid profiles which would mean that GI is useless while fiber count is what's important. But well, we all know that quasi-experimental studies done on food intake all have huge problems and if they want to have a big statistical power because they can't afford to give food to a huge sample, they have to have diets that can lead to important measurable modifications.
My blog post was to draw attention to Adam's article which I felt was well written and highlighted an approach to a disease that is largely being ignored in favor of medication prescription.
As far as recommending exercise - well the ADA already do recommend exercise, in addition to their dietary recommendations.
However the USDA, ADA and AHA still recommend high carb and low fat. And have for years.
--
AC
I just finished Adam's article. It really got me steamed, too.
Although the focus of the article was type 2 Diabetes, I know several type one Diabetics. I'm guessing I know several type 2's, as well...
My mother was type 1 since she was 18. She was diligent about her diet and insulin, but I can't help but think how much better her health would have been had she followed a better diet. She followed the ADA recommendations, unfortunately. In her last 10 years, she had floaters, poor eyesight, misc leg infections, numb hands and feet, diabetic GI issues, and several fewer toes than she was born with. Ultimately, she died of lung cancer, but she chose to NOT have chemo due to her already poor health.
I really knew nothing about alternative diabetic diets until the last 3-4 months of her life, so I didn't have much of a chance to discuss things with her.
I remember the constant balancing act that she performed between her insulin shots, activity levels, and carb intake. Getting shakey when her blood sugar got too low and eating a piece of candy to get something fast acting down. I'm sure it contributed to a lot of stress, both mental and physical.
I have a friend at work who's a type 1, as well. He doesn't eat right, or at the right times, or the right amounts. His whole day, is spent correcting his previous overcorrections. We'll be in meetings, and I'll be able to tell that he didn't eat at the right time. He's waiting for lunch, but now the meeting's running long. Nice work...
Back to the article...
It seems so ridiculous that at the ADA keeps on that tack! Is there some political motivation behind it or do they really just believe what they propose?
The quote from the guy who said (I'm paraphasing), "Diabetics deserve the right to eat what they want to, just like everyone else." This was said to justify the high carb, high medication lifestyle that the ADA recommends. Ludicrous.
Fat people deserve that right, too, don't they? Of course, they stay fat. Smokers deserve the right to smoke. They get diseases. The difference is that, in general, fat people and smokers are given the right info to get thin or quit smoking, and they're told the ramifications of not doing so. Diabetics aren't. They aren't given the info and the choices. They're told they can "have it all" with the medications.
The ADA seems to look at the various issues involving type 2 diabetes in isolation. Not enough insulin and/or insulin resistant? Medicine. Too fat? Diet down and exercise. It's like the fact that that dieting down and exercising can eliminate the need for medicine hasn't occurred to them.
It's like they think these people mysteriously became diabetic and got fat. Something tells me that they got fat, fatter, sedentary, fatter, then diabetes. Sure, if it's desperate, go ahead and treat the symptom with some medication, but the plan needs to be to fix the problem, not mask it. Again, get thin and fit enough and you'll likely be fine again, but, in the meantime, high carbs and meds don't seem to be the best approach. Sounds more like a recipe for a holding pattern.
I have the SAME problem as LD and gobbla. I'm either barely satiated... or stuffed. It's hard for me to gauge hunger and fullness with the years of "extreme dieting". Well, hunger isn't hard, but that place where I say "enough"... I don't know where it is most of the time
I'll tell you, this lifestyle is really a double-edged sword; on one hand, you do so many things that are right and "good for you"; OTOH, at least personally, I tend to obsess about food much more and body perception is waaaaaaay off now.
Whatever is on my plate, I eat it. I am definitely into volume, so veggies end up being my filler. I have the same issues with oatmeal... sometimes I can eat it without wanting more, other times I have to eat two smaller servings to head off a binge. I can't be in the same room as peanut butter these days... it's a little weird that the good stuff is the trigger for feeding frenzies now, huh?
Tina
Always took large servings, almost always had seconds. But suddenly the fourth year into my low carbing I realized that a medium serving, and perhaps an honorary couple bites of what ever was my favorite was filling me up. What a pleasant surprise. So keep at it, and it will probably happen to you.
While doing a low-carb diet my energy levels seem much more constant. I think this has to do with keeping blood sugar more constant. I wont say that I havre more energy, but its more constant. Workouts are better because of this IMO, im actually making some strength gains while being well below maintenence calories and 30-40g of fiberous carbs per day.
I have no problem at all with carbs, I just dont think that many peoples diet of ever changing blood sugar levels and constant insulin spiking is very healthy.
...Only 2 more months to go I estimate until ill be back at regular calorie intake...
for thematic elements, some sensuality, brief language and incidental smoking
Linear Mode
