Also I have decided to answer the OPs question as short as possible for the benefit of mankind:


Q: Does diet soda make you a fatty?

A long: Not by itself, but those who drink it often lead a lifestyle of bad diet choices and, therefore, are more likely to consume the types and quantities of foods that make you a fatty.

A short: Probably.

So I did some light shopping last night on my way home from class to get started on adjusting my diet.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1366295958

Woke up about 30 minutes earlier this morning and cooked myself 2 scrambled eggs and 2 pieces of bacon. Drank a large glass of milk and made myself a small steak and steamed veggies for lunch.

I'll check back in once I have been eating like this for a week and see if I notice any differences in how I feel. I have noticed so far that I still feel very full from this morning and I have a good amount of sustained energy even though I got less sleep last night.

Wanna know how i know u're gay?

Yes I do. But before you draw conclusions keep in mind that a female shares my dwelling.

jasonandgeoffriau >>

I do fully understand what Lustig says. You however, do not comprehend what I'm saying.
I'm not talking about hunger, I'm talking about weight and health.
Health is my field (MD) I do know whats what in the body, as far as most of us can say.
The baseline is still, no need for fancy tricks as long as you can count and have discipline. Fancy tricks and selected food makes it easier. That a small snickers is about 250 kcal and is gone in two bites, that makes it harder.

How fast you eat, fructose, and the temperature of the food matters for hunger. NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE.

But yeah, its not nice to be hungry.

And I don't think that either me or chili has said anything that contradicts Lustig?

Edit: QUESTIONING ASSHOLE! (y8s); Wood would not get you full either, you'd still be hungry for more, wouldn't you? ;)

I'll stay out of this thread now :)

CICO is SCIENCE if you're living in 1964. The rest of us are interested in the research that's happened since then.

You posted a link to a Twinkie diet as evidence that CICO is the best way to lose weight.

If you'd like to qualify those statements with your opinions about how certain foods and diets are healthier than others, and how certain foods and diets make losing weight in a healthy way easier, safer, and more efficient, then feel free to join us at the grown-up table.

Or maybe it's just that we know more about how the metabolism and digestion works now than we did in 1964.

Just try reading some of the research that's been done over the last 40 years or so. You'll be amazed.

If you think we're talking about tricks, you're not paying attention.

We're talking about metabolic pathways. We're talking about nutrition. We're talking about inflammation. We're talking about toxins, and gut flora, and gene expression.

For the chicken, consider looking at the Perdue or Tyson individually wrapped boneless skinless breasts (non-flavored). They are probably not perfect and I haven't compared costs recently, but they seem like the convenience factor might be a good fit for you.

They are in the same general cooler area as the other meats at Publix (where shopping is a pleasure).

I'll take a look but I imagine it is much more expensive. I need a better way to package them but I just used what I had at the time.

Wegmans has hand cut chicken tenders already packed in a dinner + lunch size that come in around 4-6 dollars. Or they have untrimmed breast in individual vac pack sheets (12 pockets on a sheet) with 1 large or two small breasts per pocket and those end up being around 12-16. They also have the same sheets with marinade, and those are trimmed. Price isnt terrible, but its a lot more than buying an 8 pound package of 80% lean fresh ground hamburger for 15 bucks.

I'm leaving to go to Panera to have a 500 calorie coffee drink the gorge on 3000calories of cinnamon rolls.

LOL at "THE SCIENCE OF NOT BEING FAT". If you see yourself gaining weight, cut back. Exercise everyday. Try not to sit around doing nothing, researching cutting edge food-science articles.

PRO-TIP: Just don't be a fat-ass.



EDIT: I had a friend calculate that, at one point, I was eating almost 8000 calories a day. Soak the bread in olive oil, make an Italian sub with roast-beef and pastrami added and 10 slices of bacon added, then put a philly cheese steak on top, which was soaking in the bacon grease as it cooked.

All while still straddling the line between clinically underweight, and the low end of healthy weight. All my vitals are perfect, except my blood pressure, a little low, even when I'm nervous about giving blood. Doc says I need to quit smoking.... I went from 3 packs a day, down to less than 1. I'm now 100% clean and sober, I drink maybe 5 times a year.

So..... why aren't I dead? Because active.

Chicken breasts.. 1 buck per pound. I eat 4-5 of those fuckers a day. If i was to get them 4-6 bucks per dinner man i'd be spending 25 bucks a day on just chicken alone.

This is why my 2 weekish grocery bill was over $150. Food be expensive in mass, I really need an EBT card.

Yeah..... that is why I buy chicken breasts in large amounts and then freeze smaller packages for later.

Now I'm definitely not bothering with your stupid posts in this thread.

"Hey guys! I figured out how to make cigarettes healthy! Just work out occasionally, that will completely reverse the detrimental effects of inhaling hot tobacco smoke into your lungs!"

When I had an active job I regularly consumed 5000 calories a day and stayed at a slim weight as well. Unfortunately, Now I have a job where I sit in front of a computer for 9-12 hours right before I leave and sit in a classroom for another 3 hours. I also commute sitting in a car for 2 hours a day. Just working out, even daily for 45 minutes, does not do it for my body so I have to get creative.

I mean no offense to you and I don't know your history, but most MDs that I've spoken with or read information from don't give me the level of nutritional understanding I desire nor full confidence in their word. I do not know the medical education system in Sweden, but the schools here don't have enough focus on complete metabolic and nutritional comprehension.

One book in particular called Deep Nutrition, which everyone here should read, is written by a biochemistry undergrad (which I am) who became an MD (which I will be pursuing) and she was woefully underwhelmed by what she learned about nutrition in medical school. I found myself sharing a lot of the same ideas as her. The reductionist explanations we are hearing are their dogma and I guess 'work' to a degree, but that doesn't mean they're comprehensive. It is the nature of the beast to not have enough class time to focus on the subject.

Real, in depth personal research and investigation can be better than what one MD knows especially those who don't have the time to be a self made expert on the subject of nutrition. And it takes a lot of time investment to be a true expert on this stuff.

If you want to be adventurous and frugal, start buying whole chickens. They're cheap all things considered, you'll learn some anatomy + knife skills, and you'll have legs, breasts, wings, organs, and the ability to make stock from the bones. Homemade stock can be a great nutritional powerhouse and recipe ingredient, but quality bird is again important considering the other stuff you'll extract from bottom shelf product.

You'll be cutting them up in under 5 minutes if you do it a few times!

NO.

For this and many other overuse of antibiotics reasons:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/us...anted=all&_r=0

FWIW Trader Joe's has individually wrapped chicken too.

You wouldn't put shitty gas in your car, why put shitty chicken in your body?

OK maybe you put shitty gas in your car. But it's a car, not you.


Aside note to the CICO crew: Humans are not bomb calorimeters.

Bingo. So true in medicine and nutrition. How many "simple" explanations have been refined over the decades, to become much more nuanced?

Calories In, Calories Out isn't a law or anything. Physics 1 doesn't work because the human body isn't: 1. in a vacuum, or 2. a closed system.

It's an inexact science at best. You guys might want to sit down for this next one... everybody is a little different and their nutrition requirements may not match 100% with yours.

This is a proclick:
That said, if you eat right (count calories, no guessing), go outside and roll around 30 minutes a day, and get quality sleep, you'll be on the right track.

The science of obesity: what do we really know about what makes us fat? An essay by Gary Taubes | BMJ

Who is that in response to? I said something very similar.

We don't have Trader Joe's around here, but we do have Whole Foods. I suppose I can see if they have antibiotic-free chicken, but I am not so sure I am willing to let perfect be the enemy of good in this case - especially if it means making another trip for grocery shopping.

I do need to check the pricing of packaging and freezing my own chicken, though. If the Perdue is a little more than the Publix, I'm okay paying a small convenience fee. If it's double, maybe not.

Link to Perfect Portions nutritional info

Aah, can't stay out.

So I took some time to go through some of the references that Lustig has in his fructose review. Apparently fructose in itself can cause hepatic steatosis, even when the results are corrected for energy intake. The evidence for this is really weak, but it is there.

I will now change my standing to "you can be relatively healthy and manage your weight regardless of diet"

Im not really arguing with you guys, there is a lot to know about nutrition, but it is also a field infested with bad science and snake oil. And as petrolmed (good name) tells me, our basic dogma is not the full truth, but my opinion is that is does not need to be, it works.
Of course, the twinkie diet wouldn't be something to recommend, but you do not need to overcomplicate stuff either.

Again, what I turned against was the confusion between weight, health and hunger.

please proceed debating and battling hunger.

Actually I've been doing that, got a slow cooker and been tossing them in there. They seem to come out pretty moist but seem to lack flavor a bit. Got any recipes or hints?

@Sentic:

If one tends to eat a caloric surplus, you have to ask, "maybe changing what you eat will make it easier to eat less to get a caloric deficit". And there is lots of evidence showing that reducing sugars and starch, reduces hunger, making it much easier to achieve a caloric deficit.

There are 2 ways to use the word "metabolism" or "metabolize":
- to "metabolize" sugar/fat/tylenol/bourbon et al, meaning how the body breaks it down
- metabolism as in Basal Metabolic Rate.

You see, what many of us here are saying, is that you don't have to do any of that shit, or count calories, nor have to be crabby and hungry on a tasteless unsatisfying shitty low-fat low-cal diet, if you just cut the sugar and starches. Your appetite will shrink and your body will enter a caloric deficit and burn its fat stores. Doubly easy if you go very low-carb. And you easily go into your vaunted calories in < calories out.

How many years was it between the shit-ton of research showed rampant vitD deficiency, before MD's began routinely recommending vitD blood tests? I reckon it was over 10 years.

How many years was it after the discovery that H. Pylori caused ulcers, before MD's started prescribing tests for it?

mind blower:

a tree does not consume soil in any significant amount and they are not made of 99% water. so. where does the wood / leaves come from?

(I know the answer, but do you?)

I get the practicality that Sentic is promoting. It's not like you can do much more than promote CICO as a doc when someone comes and sees you for 20-30 mins about something else. As long as we can agree that there are limitations to doing so in other situations of in depth health discussion!

Take a sizable pot/pan, throw in oil, a little salt + pepper, onion and garlic on high heat. Then add the carcass, neck, wing tips, bones, whatever in and let them caramelize to brown on the surface. Color is flavor! You don't need them to cook, just get that sexy brown. Once that's done, fill with water to cover the bones and maybe a little more. Scrape any of the brown thats stuck on the bottom of the pot from before. Toss in carrots, celery, onion, and some savory herbs like rosemary, thyme, and bayleaf or whatever. Let it boil then reduce to simmer and let it go for like 4 hours.

After that, you've got a classic style stock that you can drain off from the rest. No real meat to eat from this unless you wanna pick it off of the bones or save the veggie solids. Then you can use the liquid as a soup base, risotto or rice hydrator, sauce base, meat braising liquid, etc.

CO2 carbon fixation right?

So ULTIMATELY, you do all your complicated diet rules and such to arrive at... eating under your BMR? Holy hell, thank you. I shall retire from this argument on that.

As long as you stop posting drivel, great.

Really, all anyone needed to do was a simple reductio ad absurdum to your silly CICO.

You were quick to distance yourself from my comment about donuts, yet you happily linked to the "Twinkie diet" as evidence that CICO is all anyone needs.

Can't have it both ways. Either CICO is really all you need and therefore the Twinkie diet or donut diet is just as healthy as any other diet so long as you maintain a calorie deficit, or CICO isn't really all you need because nutrition is important and different macronutrients are metabolized different ways and so it really does make a difference what kinds of things you eat, in which case you need to shut up about CICO.

So which is it?

Is CICO the only important guideline when constructing a healthy diet? Are you will to follow that argument to its absurd conclusion?

What's easier:

- measure or calculate BMR based on some oversimplified chart, count calories, weighing portions, maintaining a log, keep eating starch and sugar, and be hungry and miserable and lose muscle mass along with fat, or

- simply cut out starch and sugar, eat 3x/day until satisfied, and watch the fat melt off, without losing much muscle mass and without being hungry and shakey?

This is literally the anti-science argument that article you posted was refuting.

I can answer this for you real simply that everyone seems to overlook, everybody is different certain foods react different to certain people, certain chemicals react different to certain people, some people have to take insulin before meals some do not. There is no one direct source for peoples fattiness besides not eating healthily for your specific body and exercising for your specific body

One week after the dietary change and I have lost 4 pounds and I am almost never really hungry anymore. I eat less and stay full. I also have not been working out in that week because finals are approaching next week and all of the last projects were due this week.

Awesome, congrats. I remember when I finally made the change, and feeling like I'd discovered some unfair secret to health. It's been a life-changer for me.

How have your energy levels been? I was so up and down from carbs (I would "crash" if I didn't eat every 3-4 hours -- sweaty, exhausted, depressed -- and then after eating my heart would race, I'd feel flush, my hands would tremble) that the change was immediately better for me, but I know a lot of people suffer through a few days of "carb flu" as their insulin levels reset.

The first 3 days I felt really heavy after meals like when you overeat but I adjusted. My energy levels have been pretty steady throughout the day. I am not nearly as tired and I no longer need an afternoon cup of coffee.

I had ups and downs before when I was eating more carbs and sugars but not nearly like what you went through. I am happy so far and I will be interested to see what happens after finals next week when I go back to a regular workout routine.

Despite not working out.

This is what I've been saying to Chilicharger.

What you eat can make you eat less thus putting you into caloric deficit, and thus there's the CI<CO he keeps insisting on.

Congrats, keep it up. On workout days, the meal before the workout should be larger and more carby than usual.

Great vid. Notice though that it mentions that you can be a bit of a fatty despite exercise, but an active fatty is a healthier fatty than a couch potato fatty.

Lustig (anti sugar crusader UCSF nutritionist) says the same thing.

Before or after? My understanding is that post-workout meals (ie, within 3-4 hours) can be more carby to replenish depleted glycogen stores. Pre-workout meals don't really need to change...if anything, working out after an intermittent fast (ie, when you first wake up, before breakfast) can encourage more fat burning.

I noticed that carbs in the meal before a workout lets me workout harder.

I will guess that the rule you wrote, is better for losing fat, my "rule" is for gaining more muscle.

Diet seems to be working well for me. I started thursday and then took a break over the race weekend because I couldn't organize the food logistically. I'm not sure what this carb flu or whatever was all hyped up about. Havent had a chance to work out because of so much school. I did ride my bike to work yesterday and didn't bonk or crash, heck I actually managed to make it up walk of shame hill without walking, though at half the speed some roadie douche that recorded the same segment on strava.

Carbs will definitely allow you to workout harder because they offer fast burning fuel but to actually build the muscle the post workout meal is still the most important. You need to load up on protein roughly 45 minutes after a muscle building workout because your body is at the peak of protein absorption at this point. It uses all of the protein to rebuild your muscles. This is something I actually know about because at one time I actually had big muscles :(

Good point on post workout meal.
I usually have a protein shake at least.

This diet works too well. I eat as much as I can fit every time I'm hungry and sit on my ass all day yet I'm still loosing weight. Kind of terrified to start working out on this diet.

Feels good, don't it?

Start lifting weights.

But you should count calories!!!!!

I need to. I don't have time though. And I think I'm going to be doing body weight only stuff for a few years until I'm in a better financial place and can afford a gym membership. I really need to check what my health insurance covers for this.

That sounds like work. Right now I eat like a king, and just ignore the stares of the delicious grains that are still in my apartment from my glucose burning roommate.

I think interval style sprints are the single most important exercise.
Or you could do body-weight lifts, with the goal of achieving the interval-style heart rate sawtooth.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1367366356

That is all.

You can do a lot without weights or a gym.

Pushup variations (all the way from standard to inclined to handstand)
A $25 door frame bar give you tons of pullup/chinup variations
2 chairs work just fine for dips (or you can do bench dips on the edge of the bathtub)
Grab something heavy and do zercher squats
Lift that heavy thing over your head too

The only really difficult thing without weights is big leg strength. That's not really my goal -- I want athletic, muscular legs, not tree trunk weightlifter legs, so I'm training more for explosive strength (jump squats, burpees, etc.) than just raw strength.

^ +1

I got in incredible shape for rugby by doing solely body weight resistance exercises. You need to optimize the use of your actual being first and then you can include low to medium weight dumbbells if you really need to add strength from there. Like racing to the limits of a slow car before going big power that you cannot wield. Plus, you work all of the accessory muscles that get neglected from the deliberate motions of standard weight training.

Regarding big leg strength, you can still achieve a lot of it if you find a steep hill and get on them toes for sprints. You get pretty far with that and big weight lifter legs serve no purpose or function other than looking obnoxious and moving a steel bar up and down to earn bro grabs.

it doesn't matter what calories your body cannot digest or what it shits out. Those count as calories burned or rather they count ss calories not eaten. so if your diet is based on cisco this will still work.

Dann

Sure, but it's much easier to have fewer calories in, by cutting out sugar and starch, and consuming a higher % of calories as fat. You will be less hungry.

In other words you want bitch legs. :party:

As long as this bitch can run faster, run longer, and jump higher than you...sure.

Tree trunk leg weightlifter here. Still faster than all my skinny friends. lol.

No, seriously, my friend is a retard. He's 6'3", 185 and his best mile is mid-high 8's. I'm 5'11", 220 and run mid-high 7's, currently. He preaches to me that the best way to get a faster 1-mile time is to just run 1-mile at time. No strength training, no sprints, no mixing it up.

He has a fucking hissy fit every time we go running. He doesn't get how training my legs to carry twice my body weight makes it easier for them to carry my pudgy ass farther and faster. Still tells me that I'm wasting my time in the gym, lol.

Theres a large distance between speed running and endurance running. Technically hes right, to train for 1 mile runs you gotta train for 1 mile runs. Endurance on the other hand train entirely differently.

Just take a look at the difference in runners. Never seen a giant endurance runner have you? Usually they are skinny as hell... on the other hand the speed runners have quite large legs.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1367391557

I donno. I haven't actively lifted legs in years. I like being able to wear pants. If I do legs for a couple months, loose fitting pants start to become skin tight on my thighs and I end up wearing like size 38 and taking up massive slack with a belt.